Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 27

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 27, 2020.

Abu Ivanka Al Amriki

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 4#Abu Ivanka Al Amriki

History of North Greece

[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. signed, Rosguill talk 23:58, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We do not have content on this. There is no place to redirect it to within the current target, and Northern Greece lacks any content whatsoever on its history.

Greece simply isn't discussed this way. It is discussed in terms of regions and cities, like Thrace or Athens.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  21:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I really like the article that once stood at this title (my favourite quote: The history of the area is largely a history of hotels and of the North Greece fire department.". Alas, we can't keep this, the thing is even eligible for WP:G5 speedy deletion (though probably we shouldn't be speedying redirects that have been around for as long as this one). – Uanfala (talk) 21:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. "North Greece" isn't really a thing. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How dare you, of course it is. -- Tavix (talk) 14:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that an article split off from Tavix's link might not survive WP:AFD. Narky Blert (talk) 18:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The history of the area is largely a history of hotels and of the North Greece Fire District. -- Tavix (talk) 18:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ambiguous. What is North Greece? Everything north of the Peloponnese? Macedonia and Thrace, at some point or other in history (Classical Greece, Roman Empire, Ottoman Empire, modern times, ...)? or what? Narky Blert (talk) 18:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Everything north of Greece, New York. -- Tavix (talk) 18:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely ambiguous, then, unless the continent is specified. Narky Blert (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There does seem to be a North Greece, consisting of the Greek portions of the regions of Macedonia and Thrace. Note the Ministry of Macedonia and Thrace, linked from the target article and formerly known as the Ministry of Northern Greece. But it's true we don't have any coverage of the history of this North Greece as such. Readers would have to piece together their own article based on the histories of relevant countries and regions. --BDD (talk) 19:57, 28 January 2020 (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.

Griekenland

[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. signed, Rosguill talk 23:58, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greece has no particular affinity for the Netherlands or the Dutch language. WP:FORRED.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  20:44, 27 January 2020 (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.

Wikipedia:FORRED

[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 keep. Editors suggested that this issue can be revisited if the use of the shortcut falls out of vogue. I for one will try to use it less myself, as the arguments for why it's a subpar shortcut are persuasive. signed, Rosguill talk 23:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

While it is mentioned on the target page. More importantly, though, per a discussion on my talkpage with Tavix, I personally find this redirect shortcut unambiguously unhelpful in that it is completely ambiguous to which policy/guideline it might apply. For example, I thought it was an alias for WP:REDLINK or WP:RFD#DELETE criterion #10. So, I thought we should have a discussion about this, should it:

  • be deleted (as ambiguous, confusing, and/or misleading);
  • retargeted (possibly to WP:RFD#DELETE or to WP:REDLINK);
  • disambiguated to multiple Wikipedia essays, guidelines, and similar; or,
  • something else?

Let's discuss it. Doug Mehus T·C 20:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, it's very well used. I don't like the shortcut and have never used it, preferring WP:RFOREIGN (or rarely WP:RFFL) because I've always associated it with being "for redlinks" (as opposed to being "anti-redlink"). Also, "red" is a weird place in the word "redirect" to shorten it—it's the full first syllable, plus the first sound of the second syllable (if the word was pronounced RED-er-ect, then it'd be a better shortening). That being said, the overwhelming majority of RfD regulars use it, and there have been several years worth of discussions that would cease to make sense if this shortcut is deleted or retargeted. As an aside, the shortcut is mentioned at the target in the shortcut box. Even if it wasn't, that's not a reason to delete given that it's simply a tool to provide easy access to the given page. -- Tavix (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. I'm not sure how I missed it not being mentioned on the target page despite looking there three times. As to its prior usage, could we not use AWB and bulk replace the prior references in RfD discussions to, say, WP:RFFL, so the discussions continue to make sense? Doug Mehus T·C 20:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, because that would alter other peoples comments. For the same reason I conscientiously don't use FORRED, other editors do use it for a reason and there is no reason to force that change. -- Tavix (talk) 20:40, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
True, but for clarity, for the sake of administrative upkeep, wouldn't that be the sort of non-controversial change we could do? Having said that, I see your rationale in that we can't be certain everyone has used WP:FORRED as being to foreign language redirects. I guess this is the problem with editors adding additional shortcuts that don't follow a specific shortcut naming convention in that they can be interpreted as applying to different policies or essays (one is for redlinks; the other is the opposite, as you said above). Perhaps that's a larger discussion we need to have elsewhere. --Doug Mehus T·C 20:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would be very upset if my preferred shortcut was removed from all my comments, no matter what reason was given. I use the shortcuts I use for specific reasons (some more so than others). -- Tavix (talk) 20:51, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
True, and, for that reason, you've made a solid case for not bulk editing archived comments. That said, I still don't see why we couldn't make changes to the shortcut. One option that might be preferable might be to "delete" this shortcut and creation protect it to administrator-level access right, so as to require a fuller discussion at the village pump or RfD talkpage on what would be the best place to target this shortcut (if it is to be recreated at all). Sure, that would mean for past discussion archives, the shortcut would appear as a redlink, but most of us should reasonably be able to interpret to which policy the editor was referring from the context of their comments in the applicable discussion, no? Alternatively, disambiguation to the two, or three, potential shortcuts to which this shortcut might've been used, with full page protection, to prevent bold changes would also remove the ambiguity. Sure, this would mean an extra click-through for users clicking from current or archived discussions, but it'd sure be a lot more clear, I think. Doug Mehus T·C 23:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Long-standing redirect that is linked on several pages by other editors. Any possible confusion can be resolved by placing a hatnote on the target of WP:FORRED or by creating a disambiguation page at Wikipedia:FORRED (disambiguation) if completely and verifiably necessary. Steel1943 (talk) 00:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I can't tell if this has already been mentioned, but "FORRED" stands for "FOReign REDirect". Steel1943 (talk) 15:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Steel1943, I don't think the Wikipedia:FORRED (disambiguation) would be helpful in this case. I'm not opposed to a hatnote, but you have to agree, the WP:FORRED is confusing to which policy one is referring. I would never have thought it was referring to redirects from foreign languages. Why couldn't we have a soft redirect to the two possible targets, instead of a dab page? Seems reasonable. One extra click isn't problematic for people. Doug Mehus T·C 01:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Although I would've preferred, in turn, either of a soft redirect, to the two most common Wikipedia policies described above in my nomination statement (1st choice); disambiguate to two, or three, most common Wikipedia policies described above for my rationale outlined (2nd choice); or, delete and salt with full creation protection to prevent recreation to ambivalent targets (3rd choice) (oppose keep and to bulk editing prior archived comments for reasons described above.), I am mindful of its historical usage per the above and Narky Blert below. Nevertheless, it was an ill-conceived redirect, per Narky's rationale below (as well as the above), I am now supporting:
Keep but remove mentions of it in guideline and essay pages so as to transition its status to being a deprecated redirect without community support; kept for historical usage. Doug Mehus T·C 01:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The arguments that 'RED' in a shortcut usually means 'redlink' (e.g. in WP:DABRED), and that it is an odd-looking abbreviation for 'redirect', are telling ones.
It's an unusual redirect, in that it's unlikely to be used outside RFD.
I dislike the ideas of changing its meaning (a recipe for confusion) or of deleting it and purging it from edit history. It's been around for ten years, and IMO the best thing is to deprecate it by stealth (which is what I am suggesting). Like it or not, it's set in stone; change or deletion risk breaking things.
As an analogy, in the 2007 the UK government decided to abolish the historic office of Lord Chancellor. It was an anachronism: a Pooh-Bah-like combination of legislative, governmental and judicial offices within one person: Speaker of the House of Lords, cabinet minister, and head of the judiciary (who sometimes sat as a judge). The idea looked very straightforward, and generally a Good Thing for democracy; until it was pointed out that the office of Lord Chancellor was embedded in the best part of a thousand years of statutes, and that it might be tricky to ensure that every single one was amended. The solution was to create a new position called Lord Chancellor, whose holder would be an MP and cabinet minister only, but would have the necessary residual powers if any of those statutes ever came up.
I've often used FORRED. I'll use one of the other shortcuts in future. Narky Blert (talk) 15:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Narky Blert, I've also used "FORRED" as well, but incorrectly because of the ambiguity. I can get behind your suggestion to remove it from the shortcut menu. RFFL and RFOREIGN are the two perfect, community-sanctioned redirects for that essay. In fact, I'm going to update my !vote because of your explanation. Doug Mehus T·C 15:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Should this suggestion, or anything like it, find consensus: I point to Category:Deprecated redirects and {{Error}}, as used in e.g. {{R from real name}}, as possible ways of marking deprecation. Narky Blert (talk) 19:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, Narky Blert you are full of excellent ideas! I'd support that tagging. Tavix, I've been trying hard to avoid pinging you, but can you give Narky's suggestion(s) some consideration, and share any thoughts you might have? Doug Mehus T·C 19:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have made clear above that I do not support changing this redirect in any way. -- Tavix (talk) 20:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's "April Fooling before 1 April" at all. Since consensus can change at any time, it's an entirely appropriate discussion, now or again in the future. Besides which, there is consensus here that WP:FORRED is ambiguous in the potential target(s) to which it could be referring and our own guidelines, as Narky and others have noted, would seem to indicate that redirects with 'RED' in them are for favouring redlinks (which would be counter to the current usage at WP:RFFL, which favours keeping redirects from foreign languages). In fact, five out of the seven editors that have weighed in so far (myself included) agree this redirect is either ambiguous and/or ill-conceived with respect to our guidelines. There is just no consensus to deletion or to retargeting due to the historical usage and archives. Two of those editors (myself and Narky) have actually supporting removing it as an official "shortcut" from WP:RFFL/WP:RFOREIGN such that it can still be used and would remain targeted where it is, but we would not be advocating for continued usage. Given Hog Farm's reply below, I suspect even he could get behind removing the reference to WP:FORRED on the target and keeping it in place as an unofficial, unmentioned redirect. Doug Mehus T·C 19:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmehus: Yes, I would support making this an unofficial redirect. I don't like the redirect, and don't use it, but a lot of editors do. I feel like deletion or retargeting would be unintentionally disruptive, due to the current use, but in no way would I recommend the use of this redirect, as "RED" in shortcuts does refer to redlinks more often than redirects. Hog Farm (talk) 20:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Making FORRED an unofficial redirect is exactly what I have in mind. Narky Blert (talk) 22:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Narky Blert and Hog Farm: Yeah, and while Tavix has noted he prefer(s) that no change be made to this redirect, which may preclude tagging like {{R from real name}}, we could still (a) categorize this as a depreciated redirect and/or (b) remove WP:FORRED as an official shortcut listed on the essay. We could then, in turn, add a "not mentioned" rcat to WP:FORRED, to guide future editors considering re-renominating it for deletion that it's kept for historical usage. I think WP:RFOREIGN and WP:RFFL are absolutely the perfect redirects for this essay. Doug Mehus T·C 22:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmehus: My personal preference would be to take the second step you outlined and then add the "not mentioned" rcat. This would not preclude future usage by editors who use this redirect and would keep references in previous discussions intelligible, but would also guide users to redirects that are constructed in a more consistent manner, like WP:RFOREIGN. Hog Farm (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now - Given it's current heavy usage, I'd say it's best to keep the redirect as it is, although I totally agree with the idea that this redirect is poorly made. If the redirect falls out of common usage, I would have no issues with deletion or retargeting at a later date. Hog Farm (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2020 (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.

Standard Galactic Grid

[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:00, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification is provided. signed, Rosguill talk 20:10, 27 January 2020 (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.

Tana (Star Wars)

[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. Deryck C. 00:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No longer mentioned at the target, I would suggest deletion unless a justification is provided. signed, Rosguill talk 20:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and thanks for keeping on this. Connor Behan (talk) 22:37, 27 January 2020 (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.

British National (Overseas) - extra information

[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 the first and move the second to Hong Kong and British nationality law. signed, Rosguill talk 23:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating for deletion. Redirect is named as if it points to a specific section within the British National (Overseas) article and is not an alternate name for the subject of the target article. Horserice (talk) 21:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:15, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unlike search term, noting there is an article British National (Overseas). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - looking at the history, it looks like the AfD was closed as merge but no merging took place, but it's possible I'm missing something. It's true it probably does nothing for navigation, but without any real motivation to delete, I'd be inclined to preserve the history in case I'm mistaken, unless someone makes a really compelling case we can be confident that no merging ever took place, and it wouldn't be a licence problem to delete. WilyD 17:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oops, I'm a doofus - keep - material does appear to have been merged, at least here [1], so it's needed for licensing reasons. WilyD 17:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @WilyD: I don't think just keeping this is appropriate in this case. Would be more inclined to support a merge of the redirects if there's really any significant history to be kept, and move to another name as BDD suggested. Horserice (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • In principle, it doesn't really matter where it's located. In practice, moving it is likely to require a lot of song and dance to ensure it remains find-able, and there's actual no reason to delete this - there just also wouldn't be a reason to keep it apart from the obvious legal requirement. So, just leaving it would be both fine and by far the easiest thing to do. I don't really feel justified in arguing the closing admin should have to do pointless busy work. WilyD 05:20, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move the second, without leaving a redirect, to preserve attribution. I suggest Hong Kong and British nationality law, which would be a fine and acceptable redirect in its own right. Delete the first. --BDD (talk) 14:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:28, 27 January 2020 (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.

Straight Road

[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. Based on Tavix, Hog Farm and BenKuykendall's analysis, we don't seem to need to keep this for licensing reasons. That plus Steel1943's opposition to moving to Talk space makes me see a weak consensus to delete. signed, Rosguill talk 23:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect could refer to several different things. Using search results will be more effective than having this redirect that probably shouldn't be narrowed to only Middle-earth. Yes, this is a redirect left over from a merge, but the merge target has since been redirected, so the fact that the content is no longer extant should mean that there are no longer any licensing reasons for keeping this. Hog Farm (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:31, 27 January 2020 (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.

Penis (disambiguation)

[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 disambiguate with PENIS redirecting here (I've done it this way to preserve all history where possible). I've tried filling out a disambiguation to remove the WP:TWODABS problem. I feel like I've added a bunch of WP:PTMs but hopefully there's enough there. -- Tavix (talk) 20:06, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is misleading, and not helpful, as the target page is not a disambiguation. Not a very active user (talk) 05:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Glades12: I did read your comment: I don't agree. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That seems fine to me. signed, Rosguill talk 17:06, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind much either way. Well, I do have a preference, but let's end this sausage affair first. feminist (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! Sounds good. Concur with that. Doug Mehus T·C 02:11, 7 February 2020 (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.

Stewards of Gondor

[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. signed, Rosguill talk 23:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects redirected to the page Stewards of Gondor, which was recently redirected to Gondor. However, these stewards are not important enough to warrant mentions at the main Gondor page. Having these redirects not pointing to applicable content is like having a broken index in a book, so I would recommend deletion to clean up the mess. Hog Farm (talk) 14:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:03, 27 January 2020 (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.

Eastern Aviation City

[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. signed, Rosguill talk 23:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest deletion, per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 10#Eastern Economic Corridor Digital Innovation Zone. Paul_012 (talk) 09:35, 27 January 2020 (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.

Plague of 1636

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 3#Plague of 1636

Mainspace archive subpages

[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. I'm leaving the talk pages as requested by several participants in the discussion signed, Rosguill talk 23:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mainspace archive subpages (discussion)
[edit]

This is another batch following up on this discussion from November last year. See there for a fuller explanation. In short, these redirects, useful though they might be in saving editors that extra click when moving from an archive subpage back to the article, nevertheless occupy "full" article titles (there being no subpages in the article namespace), and have the potential of getting in the way of readers' searches.
Pinging creators: Nihonjoe, Joshua Jonathan, Northamerica1000, Philip Cross, Richard75, Esprit15d, Brisvegas, Scott Sanchez, Dcljr, Alcea setosa, Mwtoews, Anarchyte, ConradPino, Pic Editor960, Mahagaja, RFBailey, Dominick (excluding those who have not made any edits in the past year). I have not Rfd-tagged any of those redirects. – Uanfala (talk) 01:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Note: I have tagged all from Caravaggio/Archive 1 to Catholic sex abuse cases/Archive 8. Glades12 (talk) 12:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer: In case the closer is not familiar with pages such as this, or just forgets about this ... if these redirects are deleted, these redirects' talk pages should not be deleted. Steel1943 (talk) 13:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: All nominated pages from the top down to Huns/Archive 1 have been tagged. (Can't finish them all right now.) Steel1943 (talk) 14:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as redirects are cheap. It's extremely unlikely (approaching zero, IMNSHO) any of these "full" article locations will ever be used for anything else, either. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question: for Uanfala, as nom, or really anyone, do any of these redirects have history to preserve here? I'm having trouble to figure out why these were originally created in the first place. I'm not sure why we need redirects from apparent archive URLs to the main article. I do note they were created by a currently banned account. This is strange. Doug Mehus T·C 00:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...Huh? Which redirects are you referring to when you state they were created by a banned editor? They weren't all created by the same editor. Steel1943 (talk) 00:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Steel1943 Sorry, was confused with the redirect below this one. Apologies for the confusion. I agree the redirects are unhelpful, but am strongly reluctant to enforce deleting that would orphan the talkpages without a corresponding article page. That'll cause more mess for the database reports. There's got to be some alternative for us to consider here. See my question below. --Doug Mehus T·C 00:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per previous discussion and as implausible, unhelpful, and possibly misleading search terms. Steel1943 (talk) 00:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Steel1943 I see your comment above about preserving the talkpages. I'm hesitant to say delete these redirects but keep the talkpages as then we have talkpages without a main namespace page. I agree the redirects are unhelpful, but can we not move the respective talkpages to an archive subpage of an existing, or related article, and then delete them? Doug Mehus T·C 00:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dmehus: Archived talk pages which are subpages in the talk namespace are immune to WP:G8, provided the parent article still exists, so your concern is moot. The purpose of this nomination is that it is precedence that archived talk page subpages do not technically have a parent in the article namespace. Just look at the archives of Talk:Jesus, and notice that none of its archived talk pages have parent pages ... Jesus/Archive 1 vs. Talk:Jesus/Archive 1, Jesus/Archive 2 vs. Talk:Jesus/Archive 2 ... etc. They can remain existing because Jesus (the article) and Talk:Jesus exist. Steel1943 (talk) 00:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Steel1943 Yeah, I realize that they are exempt from G8, but I don't like what I'm seeing. What a mess! Why did we ever allow backslashes to be used in the Main: namespace, since subpages aren't possible in this namespace? In order words, how did these ever get created? Or you saying that any talkpage subpage technically has no corresponding main namespace article? If that's the case, we should have a community discussion about salt protecting all corresponding Main namespace URLs. Doug Mehus T·C 00:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Subpages were turned off in the article namespace so that articles can have slashes in their titles: WP:TITLESLASH. Subpages are still allowed in the talk namespace. – Uanfala (talk) 01:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all How did these Main: namespace redirects ever get created in the first place? We should think about salt protecting per my comments above (i.e., Jesus/Archive 1, etc.) because these are useless and just create work. Doug Mehus T·C 00:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as plausible, helpful, and hardly misleading. I had created these in my own userspace because they are useful from my experience clicking on the article tab intending to get to the main article. Nothing on WP:RFD#DELETE supports its deletion and WP:RFD#KEEP#5 definitely supports its retention. J947 (c), at 06:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all The uselessness of these redirects was already decided at the previous RfDs. * Pppery * it has begun... 12:37, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I get why they're helpful, as they provide a direct link to the article from a talk page archive. However, I don't think the solution would be to create and maintain redirects for this purpose, as it would be very hard to have redirects in place for all talk page archives (as I see this as an "all or nothing" issue). I think there are better ways to solve this problem. The "best" would probably be having the developers hardcode a link to the main article from a talk subpage (similar to the link to get to the main talkpage from a talkpage archive, or any other subpage for that matter). Recognizing the difficulty of getting developers involved on this, perhaps a workaround would be to include a link to the article in the archive templates (eg: on {{talk archive}}: This is an archive of past discussions for FOObar...), with a parameter to include the name of the article. -- Tavix (talk) 14:29, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As I pointed out in the November discussion (which everyone should read, since it addresses several points/questions being raised here), another possible solution would be to try to implement a mechanism by which redirects could be marked as not to be used in search results (which would, of course, also require the participation of developers). AFAICT, that is the main objection to the existence of these kinds of redirects, so perhaps that problem should actually be addressed rather than used as a justification for deletion of redirects. (And regarding the remark that "it would be very hard to have redirects in place for all talk page archives", I say: this would be trivial to do using a bot.) - dcljr (talk) 20:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Creating similar redirects for all applicable archive pages is definitely not the way to go. I don't know the exact numbers of involved, but they're certainly huge (for example, there are over 66,000 article talk archives using the two most common header templates [2]). That's a lot of new redirects to look after (WP:COSTLY), and the more extensively debated articles will end up with a significantly bloated set of incoming redirects. I don't think the added maintenance costs are in any way balanced out by the minuscule benefits that these redirects provide (yes, the benefits are miniscule: the redirects are helpful only to the tiny set of editors (not readers) who find themselves on an archive subpage, and they only provide an additional way of doing something that these editors could do with almost as little hassle using other means, like hitting their browser's back button, or clicking through via the talk page link.) – Uanfala (talk) 22:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Is there any way to provide a working bluelink in place of a redlink using local CSS or JS? - dcljr (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all these seem to be artifacts.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but keep the talkpages, where the actual archives are located.--Auric talk 16:07, 3 February 2020 (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.

Bullbras

[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. signed, Rosguill talk 23:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Missed former name of deleted Bulldogge Brasileiro (deletion discussion). Cavalryman (talk) 00:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steel1943 Yeah, was thinking the same thing, but the bot correcting the double-redirect precluded that possibility. ;-) --Doug Mehus T·C 00:31, 28 January 2020 (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/2020_January_27&oldid=939799579"