Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 September 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 18

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 18, 2018.

Saint Michel Boulevard

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.'
The result of the discussion was Moot' for Saint Michel Boulevard as it is now an article, Delete the others. Thryduulf (talk) 14:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sending readers to non-English content is not helpful. These are the only plain soft redirects that exist in the mainspace. Suggestions for local targets are welcome. Precedent: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 August 21#Mohamed Chabani. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 23:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boulevard Saint Michel is very much a north-south boulevard in Montreal and as such it is mentioned in {{Streets in Montreal}}. Trust me, I live here and have passed on that boulevard. My initial, or first redirect, turned out to be an error which I had to correct right away. The soft redirects simply are invitations for someone to translate the targeted article. No other targets are available. Peter Horn User talk 02:29, 19 September 2018 (UTC) See {{Streets in Montreal}} Peter Horn User talk 02:29, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

fr:Palette Rues de Montréal Peter Horn User talk 02:39, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry have to fix your comment as it breaks the page. Matthew_hk tc 03:18, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tavix: For god's sake, Saint Michel Boulevard IS IN Montreal, NOT IN Paris. This new redirect is pure and unadulterated nonsense and as such I'll eliminate it. Peter Horn User talk 15:10, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like there is also one in Belgium. However, the one in Paris is the only one the English Wikipedia currently has an article on. -- Tavix (talk) 15:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The corresponding article in the French Wiki is fr:Boulevard Saint-Michel (Montréal) Peter Horn User talk 15:29, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Saint Michel Boulevard per Tavix; delete the others as lacking any potential new target at all. Redirects must not be used to funnel readers to non-English Wikipedias as a substitute for English content — the vast majority of users of the English Wikipedia cannot read French at all, so redirecting them there in lieu of an English article helps them not one whit. The foreign language Wikipedias are allowed to be linked to via the {{ill}} template, so that the link parenthetically appears after an internal-to-en redlink and then automatically disappears as soon as the redlink blues in — but editors are not allowed to force readers to the other-language Wikipedia by using redirects or offlinking to fr instead of leaving a redlink for the English article to eventually occupy. And no, the fact that the one in Montreal was the target chosen by the creator of this redirect does not mean that it's the only valid use of the name, either — if somebody wants to tackle an English article about the boul. Saint-Michel in Montreal, then we can reconvert the redirect into a disambiguation page once that article's in place, but as long as the one in Paris is the only article that we have on here, then the one in Montreal doesn't get to claim primary topic rights over an ambiguous form of their shared name. Bearcat (talk) 16:28, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Saint Michel Boulevard and delete the rest per Tavix and Bearcat. These are useful to a small minority of readers, but to the vast majority are actively confusing and unhelpful. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:51, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Post-classical music

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 14:54, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect not mentioned in target article. It's also just wrong, as "post-classical" does not refer to Romantic music in the Beethoven-Wagner-Strauss sense, which is just normal classical music and not "post" anything — rather, the term refers to a contemporary subgenre of classical music that incorporates influences from genres such as jazz or rock or pop or hip hop, and thus is "post-classical" rather than "purist". For example, the reason I caught this is because it was being linked to in Wolastoqiyik Lintuwakonawa, a profoundly contemporary album (complete with sampling!) that's not even remotely Beethovenesque. Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as confusing. Based on the Classical music article, it seems that this can refer to Romantic music, Modernist music, Contemporary classical music, Postmodern music and Post-postmodern instrumentation. However, all of them are not called as such. --Lenticel (talk) 01:30, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The current target is clearly wrong, and there are no obvious alternatives. It would be nice if we could add a sourced mention of this phrase to Contemporary classical music or Postmodern music, which seem like the most closely connected topics, but in the absence of such a mention this is no use to anyone. Joseph Horowitz is described as having coined the phrase "to describe an emerging 21st century musical landscape", but I don't think retargeting to his article is a good option as this is (1) an unsourced claim about a living person, and (2) probably false or at least ambiguous, given that the phrase was in use in 1979, so can't have been coined to describe a 21st-century tendency. @Bearcat: Do you want to add the capitalised version Post-Classical Music to this nomination? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:43, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, probably should. Didn't know about that. I'm more daunted by the process of bundling nominations here than I am at AFD or CFD, though, because that mess of coding at the top of this discussion is terrifying me shitless — if you have more experience adding a second entry to a bundled nomination here than I do, could you help out? Bearcat (talk) 22:49, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Arms & Hearts and Bearcat: I have added the capitalised redirect to this nomination. Doing so is as simple as adding {{subst:rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=Post-Classical Music|target=Romantic music}} - the template handles all the complicated stuff. Thryduulf (talk) 23:20, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay,thanks. I guess even old farts like me are never too old to learn new stuff after all! Bearcat (talk) 23:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Motor Cycling (magazine)

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:14, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This was created in 2008 as an article, the content of which was cut-and-paste moved to the correct title 3 minutes later by the same author (Thruxton) who redirected it. In 2014 Rocknrollmancer tagged it for speedy deletion under criterion R3, but EurekaLott correctly declined this as the redirect was not recently created, noting it would be a good candidate for RfD but it was never brought here. Thryduulf (talk) 17:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Mezőceked (

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 14:53, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another deliberate creation (by a different editor to the nomination below) but with only 5 hits this year. "Mezőceked" is the Hungarian name for this settlement in Romania according to the lead of the article (it is very common to give the Hungarian names of Romanian places), so it is only the unmatched parenthesis that is implausible - Mezőceked already exists as a redirect, also created by the author of this redirect but 8 minutes later. Thryduulf (talk) 17:22, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've just added Petele ( to this discussion as that is another redirect from the Hungarian name of a Romanian settlement created by the same editor ([[user:Rokarudi|) where they later created the same redirect without the parenthesis to the same target (in this case it was a few days later). Thryduulf (talk) 22:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unlike the Lydia Hedberg situation below, I can at least see a plausible explanation for how this happened — typo which the creator self-corrected a few minutes later — but if the correctly formatted redirect already exists, this one serves no useful purpose. Bearcat (talk) 18:17, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Lydia Hedberg (

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 14:53, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unlike almost all the redirects I've seen ending in an unmatched opening parenthesis, this one wasn't created from a page move but as a deliberate creation. It doesn't strike me as particularly plausible search term, and 8 hits this year is not indicative of significant use either. Thryduulf (talk) 17:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Tai Po Market railway station

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Tai Po Market station. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It should be "re-targeting" to Tai Po Market station (from Hong Kong Railway Museum#History). The new and old physical structures of the station were both referred as "railway station" under the government owned corporation Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation, but located in different site. The new station was opened many years before the railway line was rebranding to East Rail Line, and way before the takeover by Mass Transit Railway Corporation. Or in other words, despite the new station currently not usually refer as "railway station" due to the two events, in the past it was. The museum was always refer as Old Tai Po Market railway station, thus not confusing if removing the redirect. Matthew_hk tc 15:58, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is no free English newspaper archive database for 1980s, in https://mmis.hkpl.gov.hk (MMIS of Hong Kong Public Libraries) there is article in Chinese , stating the new station as "railway station".
鐵路公司明開始增接駁巴士服務由大埔中心至大埔墟站. Ta Kung Pao (in Chinese (Hong Kong)). 15 May 1988. p. 4.
-- Matthew_hk tc 16:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. At first glance searches for "Tai Po Market railway station" -Wikipedia so that by far the primary topic is the museum/old station, but these are almost (but not entirely) parts of the phrases "Old Tai Po Market railway station" or "Former Tai Po...". Excluding the word "railway" from the search and the results are fairly mixed between the current station and the museum station. Exclude the words "old" and "former" but not "railway" and there are far fewer hits but most of them are for the current station. I've not been able to find any naming conventions for Hong Kong stations, but none of the MTR stations articles are named "railway station" and the few I spot checked didn't have redirects with that title either. All this boils down to my not immediately knowing what I think is best, other than it being essential for hatnotes to link the two articles. I'll alert the relevant Wikiprojects about this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 17:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't search SCMP the single notable English newspaper of HK, but Sha Tin station was known as Sha Tin railway station in Chinese until the obsolete of KCRC as the operator of the East Rail Line (formerly Kowloon-Canton railway) and West Rail Line, which MTR, the operator of the mass transit railway in the city centre, takeover. East Rail Line was a rural-urban railway (and cross-border to Mainland China) which had a schedule of 1 hour and only electrified and upgrade as a mass-transit railway system for the new town (new suburb) which was completed in late 1980s. Matthew_hk tc 17:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why that is relevant? Thryduulf (talk) 17:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the past all railway station were called "foo railway station" in Hong Kong, so it is relevant that Tai Po Market railway station was the name of current Tai Po Market Station as well as the old Tai Po Market railway station, the location where the museum was housed. Also, it would create much bias on searching in English and consider only the web result. The usage of "foo railway station" was obsolete in recent year (replaced by foo station), but for disambiguation purpose, modern Hong Kong terminology still used foo railway station sometimes, if there is bus station from the same place. Matthew_hk tc 17:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What matters for redirects of this sort is what people are looking for if they use this search term. Historical use can play a part in that, but what the term means today is by far the most significant. Thryduulf (talk) 18:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The most significant Tai Po Market railway station in Chinese language, was the new one. Since the native English speaker accounted for less than 5% of population, i am not sure how many people want to find the museum using the term "Tai Po Market railway station". Matthew_hk tc 18:41, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For example, in this entry of HK gov database, "Tai Po Market Railway Station Bus Terminus", refer to the bus terminus next to the new station, not the old one. Matthew_hk tc 18:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
the station in this link (a press release of KMB), refer to the new station, also this press release of HK gov, use "Tai Po Market Railway Station" for the new station. Matthew_hk tc 19:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Tai Po Market station and hatnote for the current target, per nominator:
    1. Reliable sources still sometimes call the East Rail stations as "railway stations" even years after the MTR–KCR merger, per the above discussion
    2. The Google Books, scmp.com, and gov.hk hits for "Tai Po Market railway station" nearly always prefix the name with "old"/"former" or suffix it with "museum" when they mean the defunct station. They don't prefix it with terms like "new" or "current" when they mean the station that's still in use.
    3. The railway museum doesn't even beat the current station on page views [1]
All this suggests the station that's still in use is the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT for bare "Tai Po Market railway station". 59.149.124.29 (talk) 00:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_September_18&oldid=1036306077"