Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 19[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 19, 2022.

Kratha (Mahabharata)[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. Jay (talk) 18:57, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 17:17, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The target list briefly had an empty section heading for "Kratha" added at about the same time the redirect was created, but that understandably got promptly removed. A look in the MW dictionary shows a few entities with the name kratha क्रथ that are mentioned in the Mahabharata, but Wikipedia doesn't seem to have meaningful content about any of them. – Uanfala (talk) 22:01, 20 February 2022 (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.

Template:BMC Racing riders[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. Jay (talk) 18:52, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Intermarché–Wanty–Gobert Matériaux team is not successor of BMC team as per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cycling#History of Intermarche-Wanty-Gobert discussion agreement. Rpo.castro (talk) 12:16, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As per discussion CCC/BMC is now separate to Intermarché. Deleting will clear the mess and avoid confusion Paulpat99 (talk) 21:48, 21 February 2022 (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.

Desirability[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 26#Desirability

Attractive[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 26#Attractive

Wikipedia:EE[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. There aren't a lot of policy-based reasons made for keeping or changing this redirect. So, I have to assess the comments here and I just don't see support for the nomination which leads me to a decision to "Keep". The nomination didn't persuade those who opposed the change from the status quo. Liz Read! Talk! 02:32, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This page should not be redirect to a niche Wikiproject. It should be made a dab page with the four articles presently at the hat note joining WP:WikiProject EastEnders there. NotReallySoroka (talk) 04:05, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why? Are people commonly linking to the wrong place? Is it causing confusion? Ambiguous project shortcuts are common and most often harmless. Thryduulf (talk) 13:02, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The abbreviation of "EE" refers to more than one topic than its current target, and even if it were to remain a redirect, it should be retargeted to elsewhere (like WP:Easter Egg). NotReallySoroka (talk) 17:43, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      That doesn't answer the questions I asked. It also raises another question - why is a WP:Easter Egg a better target than the current one? It's been pointing to its current target since 2007, so you need to demonstrate that any change would have significant benefits that outweigh the disruption that the change would bring, but you've not even attempted to do that. Thryduulf (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I successfully asked for WP:UC to be converted from a redirect to a WikiProject to a dab page here a while ago. My rationale for that page to be dabified was that there are multiple suitable Project pages that can fit the "UC" acronym. The case is very similar to "EE" - there are a few more pages (like WP:Easter Egg) that fits the acronym; why not dabify it?
Also, notice the context: I said "even if it were to remain a redirect, it should be retargeted to [sic] elsewhere (like WP:Easter Egg)." I am not arguing that it should be re-targeted elsewhere, just that the present state of affairs is not the best for navigators. NotReallySoroka (talk) 18:49, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your first paragraph is WP:OTHERSTUFF and so irrelevant. The rest of it still doesn't actually answer my questions. What problems is this actually causing people? Not problems you think might happen, actual ones that you or others are actually having? Are people linking to WP:EE expecting it to target elsewhere? Thryduulf (talk) 19:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment to point out that Thryduulf's line of reasoning is a fallacy. Asking people to prove that other people have ill-defined issues is unreasonable. Why don't Thryduulf instead assume good faith by accepting that NotReallySoroka is the user having a problem? Move on past the gatekeeper phase where changes are held back until you somehow meet arbitrary thresholds for nebulous criteria like "problems" please. CapnZapp (talk) 10:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If NotReallySoroka is the user having issues then they should be very easily able to document what those issues are. If they aren't, then they are presumably aware of issues other people are having and so should be easily able to document what those issues are. They still have not done so. We don't make changes to redirects, especially ones that have been stable for over a decade, without there being some evidence that those changes would be (a) beneficial and (b) outweigh the costs of change. This is not "fallacious" or "arbitrary gatekeeping" it is simply asking those who want to make a change to demonstrate why their proposed change is beneficial to the project, which is the standard in all XfD venues (and most other places on Wikipedia). Thryduulf (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thryduulf, I have to agree with CapnZapp, and think it's important to point out that your "line of questioning" is really...something. I see NotReallySoroka has answered your questions to satisfaction. However, because I assume they were not answered in the way you wanted them answered, you rejected the answer or dismissed it as "irrelevant". Frankly, the WP:UC example is relevant because it is another project space shortcut with several super-minor things it can refer to with no obvious . It shows precedent that it has been done in the past, and was able to be done without your gatekeeping. It's no more "irrelevant" than your WP:OTHERSTUFF example you used on this very page. Come on Thryduulf, you can be better than that. -- Tavix (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't disagree with your characterisation more. We simply do not change redirects without some reason to do so - even you cannot argue with that. That an unrelated redirect was changed is not at all relevant to this discussion and doesn't answer any of the questions I asked about this redirect. I want to know why this redirect is problematic given that there are countless examples of ambiguous and potentially ambiguous shortcut redirects that cause no problems whatsoever (see every single letter shortcut for example). If you can answer the questions then please go ahead, but unless and until someone does then I cannot in good faith agree with the nomination. I struggle to understand how my question seeking clarification of another editors comment, using an example to explain why I'm asking that, is either relevant here or an example of OTHERSTUFF. Thryduulf (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping to see some introspection, but instead I see you digging in your heels. That's a shame. Oh, and by the way: User:Beyond My Ken/Thoughts is one example (I don't care enough about the subject to spend more time on this). -- Tavix (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Nobody is apparently able to articulate how or why the current target is problematic in any way or that a change would resolve those problems. The current target has been stable since 2007, is well used and a spot-check of 20 of the incomming links show that 19 are correctly targetting the East Enders Wikiproject and the other dates from 2006 and references the failed proposal that used the shortcut before 2007. Thryduulf (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there is WP:WikiProject Estonia, whose country code is "EE" (.ee); thus a likely topic for "WP:EE" -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But no evidence anyone is actually expecting to find that project at this title. Thryduulf (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thryduulf, the “first come” - the initial target - for WP:EE is actually WP:Expert editors. If “shortcuts are [indeed] taken on a first come first served basis with no use automatically having priority over any other”, then the redirect should never be diverted to the EastEnders page years ago.
However, you advocated for the maintenance of the status quo in regard to the redirect above (which is a valid suggestion), instead of proposing that the “first come” be restored as the target of the redirect. Therefore, in my (unqualified) opinion, you contradicted yourself. NotReallySoroka (talk) 01:26, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nope there is no contradiction at all - just because the shortcuts are generally taken on a first come basis doesn't mean that changes never happen or never should happen. However changes should not happen without good reason. Good reasons can exist, many people assuming the redirect goes somewhere other than where it does for example, especially when the old target is historic. For example, retargetting WP:INTC would be uncontroversial (assuming a target relevant to the title) - the target has been inactive since around 2013 (if it was ever active in the first place) and has just three incoming links, all of them typos for WP:ITNC (two of them by me!).
In this case, whether the 2007 retargetting should or should not have happened is irrelevant (but note that changing a shortcut to a failed proposal with only four links that has only been around a year is very, very different to changing a shortcut with a hundred links that has pointed to the same, active target for nearly 15 years). What matters is whether any benefits of changing the redirect target now would outweigh the disruption caused by the change now, and in this case they don't (for the reasons I've explained above), and that applies to changing the target back to Wikipedia:Expert editors as much as any of the other targets mentioned here. Thryduulf (talk) 01:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NotReallySoroka: In this case, I think Thryduulf has made their opposition clear. I do not see any point in trying harder to convince him to change his mind. Remember you do not need every participant to agree in discussions like these. CapnZapp (talk) 07:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • DAB Including Easter Egg, and as IP says, Estonia. This. has been in place since 2007, so probably a hatnote that EastEnders was the primary redirect for so long, to aid with old links and old editsummaries. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 06:56, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. It should stay at the longstanding target if that is what people have used it for. Looking at several of the talk pages where this shortcut is used they all were intended for the current target. Anyone searching this looking for one of the other potential targets will have the same number of clicks to find what they were looking for (due to the hatnote) as if it is made into a DAB. A7V2 (talk) 22:41, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is "East Enders" frequently referred to as EE? Estonia (from its country code) and Electrical Engineering (from common abbreviation) are. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 05:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know nor care, as we are not talking about a redirect in article space, so how "frequently" it is abbreviated this way is not relevant. There are much more common useages for AFD and ANI than how they are used here but that is of no relevance to the targets of WP:AFD or WP:ANI. Examining the usage of this redirect on talk pages, all the ones I checked were indeed intended for the current target. A7V2 (talk) 03:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • It would be of greater utility if people actually used "EE" outside of Wikipedia, instead of being Wikipedia jargon. There are less than 100 uses, so there isn't a high usage of it in that manner. There seems to be only a few messages in half a decade at the WikiProject, so it isn't particularly active. Thus, disambiguation would seem a beter choice instead of a single low activity wikiproject. Unlike WP:AFD or WP:ANI, which are frequently used and of high activity. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 13:23, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. It's been commonly referred to as 'EE' including by the media since 1985. Having read the above arguments I can't see the reason to change it now 5 albert square (talk) 09:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If I want this Wikiproject I always type WP:EE. That has always been the way. EastEnders has been coined EE for short. The others are far more niche, this show is part of British popular culture, a show screened to millions around the world and often referred to in short as EE. Sounds like topic snobbery to me. As for country codes, Thryduulf already explained that...Rain the 1 23:45, 23 February 2022 (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/2022_February_19&oldid=1074159907"