Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 April 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 27[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 27, 2012

John Márquez[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 both. Several commenters have pointed out the value of the history of this title and the lack of harm associated with keeping it and there are no arguments presented that come close to outweighing those concerns. This is without prejudice to the location of the article, but consensus is clear that the content should be accessible directly or via a redirect from both accented and unaccented spellings. Thryduulf (talk) 16:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion: The person for whom this biographical article is written does not now, nor has he ever, used the diacritic á to spell his name. I can't find a single source that refers to this person as "Márquez", which makes having the redirects from that name to John Marquez misleading.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Wayback Machine disagrees. See, for example, [1]. I note that the page was originally moved from Marquez to Márquez in 2006 and has now been moved back. I don't have a strong opinion about which title is better but the official biography on the City of Richmond website at the time of his service seems like a pretty reliable source. Regardless, keep because of the high potential of inbound links. Rossami (talk) 18:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh good, I was looking for that page (I marked it as a dead link in the article). Still... change "never" to "vast preponderance of", and note that the page you're referrring to no longer exists. I'd also note that, based on what I can see, the article was created at the title with the "á", although I wouldn't mind seeing evidence otherwise. I'm willing to listen to an argument supporting "the high potential of inbound links." here as well.
      — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • FYI: see his: most recent Candidate Statement of Qualification, where he evidently self-identifies as "John E. Marquez".
      — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • My apologies, I misread the log earlier - the article was first created at John E. Márquez.
        The argument for the high potential for inbound links is based on time. We can use the "what links here" function to find current internal links to a title but have no way to identify links buried in history or links from outside the project. The longer a title exists, the more likely that links to it may exist. As a general rule, Wikipedia is okay with deleting redirects from titles that have only existed for a few hours or days. Longer than that, however, and the potential for link rot starts to become significant. Link rot is an evil that we should avoid subjecting our readers to whenever possible.
        This title existed without controversy or confusion for over 5 years. The content of the page even showed Márquez until very recently. The page has been nominated for deletion twice. Deleting the redirect would break all the links in those discussions and create confusion for future editors. It also appears to be counter-indicated because at least some of the sources debated in the AfDs appear to be based on the name with diacritic. For example, [2] Rossami (talk) 22:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, he's a relatively non-notable individual (note that I didn't say that he was completely non-notable), which has been debated at least three times already. That's likely overshadowed any controversy about the form that his name has taken, and I'm a little doubtful of the claim that "This title existed without controversy or confusion for over 5 years."... there was, and is, plenty of controversy about the article's existence, so that claim is already a bit suspect. As for link rot, I'd say that it would be a good thing to break links to incorrect titles, which is supported by policy and procedure.
          — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He spells his name that way, at city council meetings his placard had the accent, on the (English version) ballot he has the accent, his official biography for his seat on the college board has it as well, if it was not present for some candidate statement it is likely that the person filing it does not know how to enter it properly. Also the fact that his official bio as a city councilman a position he held for 23 years is invalid because it is no longer up, is an invalid excuse. Lot's of newsarticles are not available due to paywalls or simply due to archiving it does not make them less valid if they are no longer available online and the wayback machine allows this regardless.LuciferWildCat (talk) 02:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    None of that is apparent from... well, anything else that's easily available. Are we simply to take your word for it?
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have provided links to his official biography for his position as a trustee, they are submitted by the individuals themselves or their staff. A link to his biography as Councilmember and Vice Mayor has also been cited here. The ballot and ballot results are likely available with some digging from the county's website. His name placard is also likely available from the records of the city council itself or the city's local TV station archives. But given the available sources you should accept by word in good faith. Also his company uses the accent and it is likely filed away somewhere as a sole proprietorship, partnership, or corporation or whatever and those are also public records.LuciferWildCat (talk) 03:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Ohms, you seem to be missing the point. This is not an article title, it's a redirect. It doesn't matter if Marquez himself uses the accent mark or not. All that matters is whether anyone else does, right or wrong. Keeping a "wrong" redirect like this is vital, in fact, as users will immediately be sent to the article and see that his name doesn't have the accent mark. So, this redirect helps correct errors. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 18:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is the article title, as it has been for the entire life of the article.  The nominator is forum shopping to prevent it from being restored to the consensus title.  The nominator needs to first make an RM request to move the title away from the consensus title.  Only if that were to develop consensus would it then be in order to discuss the status of the redirect.  Meanwhile, it should be well obvious that there is no case here to delete the redirect, and this obviousness should expose the ploy.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  And restore to editorial control.  However, if an admin is needed to restore the article title, restore as article title.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correction regarding "John E. Márquez"  The article title is John Márquez.  John E. Márquez does not need administrator attention.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave all redirects, all redirecting to status quo 2006-2012 John Márquez Redirects are cheap. The only reason to remove one is to enable a page move, in this case of John Marquez back to John Márquez where Spanish-enabled sourced, his Facebook, and article status quo say this BLP should be. I'm presuming that the undiscussed move by Ohm's law has created a problem which means that the status quo can't be restored? In this case ask an admin to fix the problem created. There is no need for an RM. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert non-consensus move then keep all redirects. Agathoclea (talk) 20:50, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note  The following was posted within the last fifteen hours at Talk:John Márquez

    Speedy close for procedural reasons and the article moved back to John Márquez.

    There have been two moves of this page prior to this request:
          * 01:31, 12 October 2006‎ Qrc2006 m . . (moved John E. Márquez to John Márquez)
          * 16:51, 27 April 2012‎ Ohms law ‎ m . . (Ohms law moved page John Márquez to John Marquez over redirect: Not a single reference uses the diacritics, in this instance.)

    If Ohms law is correct then the article should probably be moved, but this was a bad faith move given that an editor of Ohms law's experience would know that such a move would be controversial and so should be made only after Requested move.

    As this closure is a procedural one, it does not prevent Ohms law or another editor immediately requesting a move to John Marquez using the WP:RM process.

    -- PBS (talk) 09:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

    Unscintillating (talk) 23:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't care right now what the article's title is or whether he uses "á" or "a". The most important thing is the page history — for approximately half of the time that Wikipedia has existed, typing "John Márquez" would take you to an article about this person, and it's quite likely that other websites link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Márquez. This redirect isn't confusing, doesn't harm anything, doesn't defame anyone, doesn't cause problems for the software, etc. Given the lack of problems associated with keeping and the chance of breaking tons of links (whether from other websites or from page histories here at WP), why ever would we want to get rid of this link? Nyttend (talk) 21:20, 5 May 2012 (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.

2200s (decade)[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 all. Thryduulf (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2012 (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.

Frisco (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 keep. Valid redirect to disambiguation page. Jafeluv (talk) 10:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General question how to deal deletion of obsolete disambiguations after a disambiguation page was moved to the lemma itself. Situation here: Frisco is the name for several places, mainly in the US, and other things. State before: the lemma Frisco was used by one of those places, disambiguation page was on Frisco (disambiguation); now changed so that place also got it's own name with indication of the state, and the disambiguation was moved to Frisco itself. I consider the remaining Frisco (disambiguation) that redirects to Frisco itself as obsolete and speedy-deletable (as Frisco itself is now the appropriate disambiguation page, and no longer Frisco (disambiguation)). Please discuss how to deal in general such a situation whether to delete a Lemma (disambiguation) directing to the Lemma itself and add it to the general criteria wheter to delete or not a redirect. PS: lemma = article title. Pleas see also discussion on my talk page. --ProloSozz (talk) 10:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The policy answer to your question is already spelled out at WP:INTDABLINK. The second policy that applies is WP:R which tells us that being "obsolete" is explicitly not a reason to delete a redirect. Redirects that have existed for any significant time may still have inbound links. We keep them (as long as they're not actively harmful or confusing) to reduce the potential for link rot. You can read more in the recently-closed Marine Mammal Protection Act (disambiguation) debate below. Keep by the way. Rossami (talk) 11:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK ... I have to confess that this is obviously slightly different here compared to the german WP where such a redirect is considered as obsolete and usually speedy-deleted. But that's a question of mentality that seems to be different here; if the main term IS a disambiguation, there would not be a reason for a separate disambiguation page to redirct to the disambiguation, as looking for the term itself leads directly to the disambiguation. Btw: What should be found under WP:INTDABLINK? It redirects to Wikipedia:Disambiguation, and on that page, it is again mentioned as a link for a separate page, but leading back again to that page. PS: there is no link leading to Frisco (disambiguation).--ProloSozz (talk) 14:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep WP:CHEAP,WP:INTDABLINK 70.49.124.225 (talk) 03:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:INTDABLINK, a guideline which mandates redirects such as this. The relevant section is actually two paragraphs down the page at WP:HOWTODAB:

    To link to a disambiguation page (rather than to a page whose topic is a specific meaning), link to the title that includes the text "(disambiguation)", even if that is a redirect—for example, link to the redirect America (disambiguation) rather than the target page at "America". (If the redirect does not yet exist, create it and tag it with {{R to disambiguation page}}.) This helps distinguish accidental links to the disambiguation page from intentional ones. (For use in navboxes, see the {{D'}} template.) There is nothing wrong with linking to a redirect instead of linking directly to the disambiguation page; redirects are cheap and are basically transparent to the reader.

    (all emphasis is per original). Thryduulf (talk) 16:56, 29 April 2012 (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/2012_April_27&oldid=1091632911"