Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 July 12
July 12[edit]
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 12, 2009
Southport Historic District (Connecticut)[edit]
The result of the discussion was keep.--Aervanath (talk) 16:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Please delete this redirect which is unhelpful and confusing. There exists unresolved disagreement about whether "Southport Historic District" should be covered as a standalone article at Southport Historic District (Fairfield, Connecticut) or if it should be covered in a town article, about which there is low-grade edit warring going on, and perhaps some valid discussion at Talk:List of RHPs in CT. But the "Southport Historic District (Connecticut)" redirect is unhelpful either way and should be deleted. It is also the subject of ridiculous low-grade edit warring. I believe it was created at first as part of the edit warring, as a silly attempt to steer readership to the town article, bypassing the separate NRHP HD article. This RFD is not about the NRHP HD at "(Fairfield, Connecticut)", it is about the redirect which no one believes should be an article at "(Connecticut)". Please delete. doncram (talk) 15:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Why is it unhelpful? Whether or not the topic is discussed in one article or another, this redirect is useful when typing links ("Connecticut" is shorter than "Fairfield, Connecticut") and is a reasonable disambiguated term that people might type in. Retarget to which article the topic is being discussed but this redirect is actually useful. --Polaron | Talk 16:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Readers may well search for "Southport Historic District" and they will then find Southport Historic District disambiguation page and then find their way to the CT article or another one. But it is not plausible to me that anyone is likely to type " (Connecticut)" in the search string. And, the redirect is subject to low-grade edit warring switching it back and forth, and it is confusing to have it. It does a disservice to readers to have both an article at "Southport Historic District (Fairfield, Connecticut)" and to have a redirect at "Southport Historic District (Connecticut)" pointing somewhere else. doncram (talk) 10:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Did you read what I wrote? Point to the right place, i.e. whatever article is discussing the historic district. In no way, however, is the redirect useless. --Polaron | Talk 12:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- I think you try to suggest i did not read your statement, because I questioned you and Orlady both, below. Orlady's response really did not respond to what i wrote. What I wrote above did really respond to what you wrote. This is silly. To repeat, because perhaps you did not read what I wrote, the redirect is useless because it does not plausibly help wikipedia readers find an article. And, if the redirect is in place, it pops up as one of the alternatives available as you are searching (try typing "Southport Historic" in the search screen at left here) seeming to suggest there is a separate article at that name, and requiring the searcher to make an unnecessary choice between "Southport Historic District (Fairfield, Connecticut)" vs. "Southport Historic District (Connecticut)". I think it hurts readers to make them make a false choice, and in a small way that undermines the usefulness of wikipedia to them. doncram (talk) 05:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Did you read what I wrote? Point to the right place, i.e. whatever article is discussing the historic district. In no way, however, is the redirect useless. --Polaron | Talk 12:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Readers may well search for "Southport Historic District" and they will then find Southport Historic District disambiguation page and then find their way to the CT article or another one. But it is not plausible to me that anyone is likely to type " (Connecticut)" in the search string. And, the redirect is subject to low-grade edit warring switching it back and forth, and it is confusing to have it. It does a disservice to readers to have both an article at "Southport Historic District (Fairfield, Connecticut)" and to have a redirect at "Southport Historic District (Connecticut)" pointing somewhere else. doncram (talk) 10:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep and Merge - Merge Southport Historic District (Fairfield, Connecticut) into Southport (Fairfield) and edit both redirects to point there. The redirect that Doncram has proposed for deletion is a perfectly reasonable name for a redirect. I think the issue that he actually wanted to discuss here is whether Southport Historic District (Fairfield, Connecticut) should be a completely separate article from Southport (Fairfield) (he apparently thinks that the HD article should not even link to Southport (Fairfield)) or whether the stub about the existence of the HD should be merged into the longer article about Southport. --Orlady (talk) 17:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- No, Orlady, please read what I wrote. To others, as Orlady and Polaron are both aware, there is a discussion section about the separate topic of merging or splitting the NRHP HD vs. the town article at Talk:List of RHPs in CT#Southport Historic District, and it is not relevant here to discuss the merger proposal. doncram (talk) 10:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Whatever. I perceived that this RfD was pointiness on your part, and I responded to that aspect. But I do think that Southport Historic District (Connecticut) is a perfectly reasonable redirect. And, BTW, Southport is not a town, but a section of the town of Fairfield. --Orlady (talk) 13:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- No, Orlady, please read what I wrote. To others, as Orlady and Polaron are both aware, there is a discussion section about the separate topic of merging or splitting the NRHP HD vs. the town article at Talk:List of RHPs in CT#Southport Historic District, and it is not relevant here to discuss the merger proposal. doncram (talk) 10:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- No, my motivation was not pointiness as defined there, as disruption to make a point, like by doing some extreme action to show the bad consequences of pursuing some policy taken to an extreme. I am happy to assert a "point" here, however: that the several dozen disputes about NRHP HDs vs. town articles going on now, do get multiplied in the scale of the edit warring going on, if multiple duplicative redirects also get created. These increase the scale of disagreement. And, I do sincerely believe the "(State)" names duplicating a "(City, State)" article name hurt rather than help wikipedia users. doncram (talk) 05:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)