Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 July 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 2[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 2, 2016.

Intertouchdownception[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. -- Tavix (talk) 23:47, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is this redirect good for? I can not see the word being used anywhere in target page, and "what links here" turns up blank so it is not used. Qed237 (talk) 14:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Patar knight: If it is a well established term, then why is there no mention of it in the target article? Qed237 (talk) 23:34, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added to to the lede and the article's "controversy" section with two sources. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Patar knight. Redirects are cheap and this term is used enough to warrant for it to stay. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The term is not listed in the article at all. Is it used by reliable sources as more than just that one site (sbnation)? If so, it should be added to the list up front and bolded. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes it is. "Golden Tate is most recently known for the "Intertouchdownception", and has since been a great receiver." It also was a pretty well-known hashtag on Twitter [2]. Again, redirects are cheap and it seems like something someone could search for, so it seems helpful to our readers. The original nominator's purpose for deleting is that this phrase won't be used in target pages and nothing shows up in the "what links here." Both of these reasons don't make sense, as redirects are not supposed to be used in articles. Ideally it wouldn't show up anywhere in a Wikipedia article. Redirects are meant to redirect users to the correct page they are searching for. Honestly, this should probably be speedily kept. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonzo fan2007: If it is a well established term, then why is there no mention of it in the target article? Qed237 (talk) 23:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Qed237, I never said it was a well established term. I said it was common enough to warrant a redirect. I also said that your rationale for deletion is not consistent with WP:R#DELETE, and my rationale to keep is consistent with WP:R#KEEP, specifically items #3 (aiding a search) and #5 (it is useful). Your deletion reasoning was that there is nothing linked to the redirect within Wikipedia, which I find lacking since most people try not to link to redirects. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 00:35, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is mentioned in the article now. I added it to the lede as well. However, it's debatable if all the alternate names need to be there as they uniquely refer to this event and take up a lot of prime space in the lede. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – If it is a well established term, then why is there no mention of it in the target article? Qed237 (talk) 23:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is now, in the lede and "controversy" sections.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 20:41, 2 July 2016 (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.

Recent history of ...[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 no consensus, refining target of the first to History of Alicante#Modern history. --BDD (talk) 21:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Recent", in these redirects' case, is ambiguous and subjective. Steel1943 (talk) 04:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment regarding the Thailand one: I created the redirect so that there'd be an easy way to get to the latest History of Thailand subarticle without having to remember the specific cut-off year. Yes, it's arbitrary, but no more than the date chosen for the target article is arbitrary. I'd be fine with deletion if nobody is using it; I don't any more. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:23, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep last two, retarget first to History of Alicante#Modern history. "Recent" can be ambiguous and subjective, but not in this case, as the target articles are where the most recent "history of X" articles available. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 20:40, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support proposal by Patar knight. Recent history of X is what I'd type if I were looking for the article or section that deals with the latest period of X's history. I hope recent doesn't sound misleading if applied for example to events since 40 years ago? Uanfala (talk) 11:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per the spirit of MOS:DATED and WP:RELTIME, "Recent" and "current" redirects are generally not a good idea. However, if there is a specifically appropriate target, they are sometimes retained. Weak Keep Recent history of Cambodia, as the target will presumably always cover what its title describes (the title may be changed to the era it currently describes, but due to the current title, the burden is on it). Super Weak Retarget (with a preference for deletion if it isn't retargeted) Recent history of Alicante to History of Alicante#Modern history per the same rationale I gave for Recent history of Cambodia, but weaker because section titles are more fluid. Delete Recent history of Thailand as there isn't a "specifically appropriate target" for it (Furthermore, I take issue with "since 1973": 1973 is recent, but 1972 isn't?).—Godsy(TALKCONT) 20:15, 10 July 2016 (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.

Pokémon Appearances in Super Smash Bros.[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 Pokémon (video game series)#Appearances in other games. --BDD (talk) 21:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the fact that such a complete list as identified by the title of these redirects doesn't appear in this article, creating such a list on Wikipedia would probably fail WP:NOTWIKIA since due to the way the Super Smash Bros. series is set up, these redirects as redirects have an almost unavoidable WP:XY issue since in the series, Pokémon have appeared as playable characters and as items when summoned by in-game use of Poké Balls. Steel1943 (talk) 20:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Snow Keep as a likely search term. It doesn't seem to matter if there's anything about a subject in an article if someone, sometime, somewhere might look for a term, even if the article doesn't contain one iota of information about the subject as can be seen by the closing of the redirects to songs below. The precedent has been set. Live with it. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 21:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Target article lists the playable Pokémon characters in a table and mentions that Pokéballs are items that can summon other Pokémon to the field. Having a complete list of all Pokémon summonable by Pokéballs is not a necessary condition for keeping this redirect. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see a precedent of "(franchise) appearances in (2nd franchise)" for video games (e.g. Final Fantasy characters in Kingdom Hearts). There is a section called Pokémon_(video_game_series)#Appearances_in_other_games but it is not big or notable enough for its own article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 20:24, 2 July 2016 (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.

/Templates[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 speedy deleted, WP:G7. -- Tavix (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it was my mistake, I created this template in article namespace and moved it to the template namespace. Can anybody delete the original, which is now a redirect.Wishva de Silva (talk) 16:34, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! I've deleted the redirect under the WP:G7 criterion for speedy deletion. If this happens in the future, just add {{db-author}} or {{db-g7}} to the top of the page, and an admin will be around shortly to delete it. Happy editing! -- Tavix (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2016 (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.

Tipster (app)[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 01:03, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The target article is not about the app. Gorobay (talk) 14:52, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are any number of "Tipster" apps, and none of them are noteworthy enough to have an article. — Gorthian (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2016 (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.

Bedridden[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 July 11#Bedridden

Uncreator Prime[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. -- Tavix (talk) 23:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned anywhere in the target article; in fact, not mentioned anywhere in main space. Maybe some Doctor Who fans will know what to do with it. — Gorthian (talk) 04:30, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It's a villain in the Doctor Who audio drama Storm Warning. Breckham101 (talk) 23:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is Uncreator Prime notable the primary villain in the drama? Should he be mentioned in the plot somewhere? If he's a minor character, then no, delete. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC) updated 08:08, 5 July 2016 (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.

Mrs Denis Thatcher[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 Denis Thatcher#Marriages. (non-admin closure).] Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:41, 11 July 2016 (UTC) (Close was challenged - see User talk:Oiyarbepsy/topic/20160711[reply]

She is not known at all by anyone as Mrs Denis Thatcher. If anything, Denis himself is more likely to be known or referred to as Mr Margaret Thatcher. --Neve–selbert 07:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keepat current target of Margaret Thatcher#Early political career---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 11:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC). This can only refer to Margaret Thatcher, and although uncommon now, was in fact used in reliable and official sources back in her day ([3], [4], [5], [6], [7], etc.). ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 13:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    "Her day" was predominately back in the Eighties and not in the Fifties as per your third source. Quite frankly, I believe referring to the former UK PM with Mrs in front of her husband's name is rather sexist and anachronistic. There are merely 548 Google results for "Mrs Denis Thatcher" versus an astonishing and overpowering approx 29,700 results for "Mrs Margaret Thatcher". For what its worth, Denis married twice—so that indeed renders your "this can only refer to Margaret Thatcher" argument as thoroughly debunked.--Neve–selbert 15:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The third source is from a newspaper from one of Margaret Thatcher's failed runs as a candidate in the 50s, which is when her political career began. Today it is sexist and anachronistic, but it was used by reliable sources back then, is still used to an extent by reliable sources (evidenced by 44 hits in Google Books with several from 2015), and is thus a plausible search term. How many people searching "Mrs. Denis Thatcher" do you think are searching for Denis Thatcher's first wife as opposed to one of the most famous politicians in history? How many times do reliable sources use it to refer to the first Mrs. Denis Thatcher vs. the second? WP:PRIMARYTOPIC would clearly apply here, and the current article already describes Denis Thatcher as divorced when the two first met, and if anyone is curious, they can click through where the first marriage has two paragraphs.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:53, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty sure and indeed confident that most people searching for Margaret Thatcher would not under any serious circumstances search for "Mrs Denis Thatcher". I believe, quite frankly on the contrary, that it certainly would be more likely than not that people happening to search for his first wife Margaret Kempson would search for "Mrs Denis Thatcher". Your arguments in favour of keeping the redirect are still considerably weak, this redirect was created for absolutely no reason. We should either delete it or retarget it to Denis Thatcher.--Neve–selbert 10:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, people who know who Margaret Thatcher is won't search for her using "Mrs. Denis Thatcher" unless they're old and/or smartasses. However, people who don't know that she was married to Denis Thatcher and who come across the phrase "Mrs. Denis Thatcher" in some document or text from when the term was widely used or remember it in passing from a more recent source and who then search for it on Wikipedia will be looking for Margaret Thatcher. IMHO, this scenario is likelier than someone who A. knows that Margaret Thatcher's husband had a wife before her B. knows that Margaret Thatcher's husband was called Denis Thatcher and C. decides to search for "Mrs. Denis Thatcher".
Both of our assertions about what readers are looking for are unfalsifiable. However, given that there are only two Mrs. Denis Thatchers, the one that the overwhelming majority of (if not all) the reliable sources use "Mrs. Denis Thatcher" to refer to (i.e. the PM) is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and should be the target. I would oppose retargeting to Denis Thatcher because that would imply that the primary topic for this term (PM Thatcher) is equally notable as someone whose only claim to fame is literally being someone's wife. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think as a compromise we may have to end up going along with Siuenti's proposal, i.e. retarget. The fact of the matter is: there were technically two Mrs Denis Thatchers. "Notability" simply has nothing to do with it, as Thatcher was never known by a majority nor even close to a majority—by supporters nor opponents alike—as "Mrs Denis Thatcher". That there can be no doubt whatsoever. So, to me, Denis Thatcher#Marriages is an acceptable option.--Neve–selbert 16:01, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retargeting there would be the worst possible outcome, as it blindly redirects a term used to refer to two women, one of them of the utmost prominence, as though one could not determine which one is more important. It would also violate WP:ONEBLUELINKDAB, which states that if a redlinked article or no article is the primary topic, that the disambiguation page should be the primary landing page. At least a landing page at the redirect's current location would allow readers to be given the proper context of the phrase "Mrs. Denis Thatcher" and the proper relative importance of the two people that could apply to.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, I continue to disagree with you, Patar knight. In my opinion? The "worst possible outcome" as you put it would undoubtedly be in my mind the outrageous and offensive status quo we have now. The retarget option seems to be gaining significant traction, and I am pleased that the majority have not been convinced by your considerably dismissive arguments. Again, for the umpteenth time: nobody of prominence has refered to Margaret Thatcher as "Mrs Denis Thatcher", not once and not ever. She was (as I say) totally famous in her own right and considerably more so than her husband. If anything, the status quo is flying in the face of WP:WEIGHT. She was the long-serving Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, for crying out loud. Of course, so were e.g. John Major and Tony Blair. So, for the sake of consistency and good measure, if this redirect were to be kept the way it is? We shall have no choice whatsoever but to create e.g. Mr Norma Major and Mr Cherie Blair redirects to compensate for the blatant inconsistency. The status quo is undeniably unsustainable, and I remain confident that the status quo will be decisively defeated. I look forward to that day, indeed.--Neve–selbert 18:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then I expect that you will be taking John Ramsden (historian) [8], Jeremy Paxman [9], John Blundell (economist) [10], and the Scottish National Portrait Gallery/BBC [11] to AfD then, because they aren't prominent? It is ahistorical to declare that no one has ever referred to PM Thatcher as "Mrs. Denis Thatcher"; until the last half-century, women in the English world were routinely called "Mrs. HUSBAND'S FIRST NAME HUSBAND'S LAST NAME" and in certain formal settings still are. Reliable sources, both contemporary and modern, consequently use the term and almost exclusively in the context of the former PM – as can be seen in the reliable sources I've posted. I am not arguing that PM Thatcher is less than famous than her husband (though having a term that basically refers to her whenever it was used by reliable sources redirect to her husband's page might suggest that), so you can stop attacking that straw man. As I said elsewhere, the reason those proposed redirects for male PMs should and will remain red is that there has never been a custom to refer to men in that fashion, so that name convention is not reproduced in reliable sources. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
However you may look at it, the hard fact remains that were officially two Mrs Denis Thatchers. Two. You cannot deny or dismiss this. To state that the "overwhelming majority" of sources refer to the former UK PM is simply untrue. I am rather underwhelmed to say the least by the piecemeal sources that you have provided. I would certainly take heed from such sources as BBC News, The New York Times, The Daily Telegraph or The Guardian referring to her or mentioning her as Mrs Denis Thatcher—all widely trusted media outlets. In my opinion, to bring WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is redundant, since referring to the former UK leader as Mrs Denis Thatcher is extremely rare. Compare this to Mrs Margaret Thatcher, a redirect that funnily enough does not even exist. As AngusWOOF stated, Google News only shows those four articles. What for "Mrs Margaret Thatcher" then? Ah: 381 results. And yet? That proposed redirect is red. You yourself stated that redirects are cheap. If we are to keep this crude and offensive redirect the way that it currently is, why not create a Mr Mary Wilson and Mr Audrey Callaghan as well, just for the misogynistic/misandrist fun of it, of which you have no serious issue with. Per WP:WEIGHT, the redirect is pointless. Just think: why would someone searching for the most influential British peacetime leader by her husband's name preceded by Mrs? It is surely absurd. I am sorry, but I just cannot be bought into your arguments, no matter how hard you may try.--Neve–selbert 21:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strike your accusations that my attempts to debate the application of guidelines with you in good faith is equivalent to supporting misogyny and that I'm trying to push a POV. I have addresssed every single point in this post above elsewhere in this RfD, some several times, so I will not repeat myself again. Since you clearly haven't bothered to seriously engage with my points or even look at the content of my links, there is no point in further engagement. Strike the personal attacks and we'll call it a day. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Could refer to his first wife. Google News only shows 4 articles, one from the telegraph calls that name "ridiculously labeled" [12] In books, it is used as an example of how not to refer to someone [13] [14] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:09, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Google News isn't that great for news before its founding, unless Denis Thatcher only did appear in one news story between 1950 and 1990.
The redirect is ridiculously labeled, that's why it's not mentioned in the target article or (thankfully) the target name. However it was how many reliable sources referred to her in the 1980s and earlier (Opening the bazaar, Mrs. Denis Thatcher, former Conservative candidate, Dulwich has an influential new resident...Mr. and Mrs. Denis Thatcher). Now it crops up frequently in reliables sources usually in the context of how sexist the use of the name in past years was, but it is still written about and is a plausible search term ("Thatcher continued her trawl of constituencies in the south east, invariably described as 'Mrs Denis Thatcher' in the minutes of selection meetings", It is necessary to recall that the most famous political figure in modern times was called 'Mrs. Denis Thatcher'...", "Her itinerary, still marked Mrs. Denis Thatcher MP").
As for Denis Thatcher's first wife, the first mention of Denis Thatcher in the Margaret Thatcher article (which is clearly the primary topic between the two) describes him as already divorced, and readers can click through if they want to know more. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This redirect is overwhelmingly more likely than not to refer to his first wife than the more notable one. Why on earth would one refer to one of the most influential politicians in the 20th century by the name of their spouse? It is truly and absolutely absurd. Has anyone heard of Mr Nancy Reagan or Mr Raisa Gorbacheva? Of course not. Thatcher should not be an exception, that renders as mere undiluted sexism. In response to "How many people searching "Mrs. Denis Thatcher" do you think are searching for Denis Thatcher's first wife as opposed to one of the most famous politicians in history?" I think my answer to that would be undeniably most people, without any doubt or equivocation whatsoever. Thatcher was undeniably famous in her own right, as nobody can dispute. In my opinion, it would be far more legitimate and credible to refer to Denis Thatcher as Mr Margaret Thatcher. Yet, for some odd reason? That redirect is nonexistent.--Neve–selbert 10:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone over how reliable sources use the term and reader intent above. As for usage, for a very long time, it was standard in the English language to refer to wives as "Mrs. <Husband's first and name>" and it was still applied to an extent in Thatcher's time (as my quotations from books above show). Since "Mrs. Denis Thatcher" is a plausible search term for which there are only two targets, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, it should go to the more prominent one. As for Mr. Margaret Thatcher, that link is red because it has never been standard in English to refer to a man that way, while the practice in reverse was formerly widespread for a very long time. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can certainly counter with total confidence and assurance that your stated position that the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Mrs Denis Thatcher would be that of the former UK Prime Minister is largely disingenuous in my view and also somewhat misleading and potentially illusory and dismissive. Again, no sane nor serious person in this day and age would dare refer to the former PM by that odd anachronism. I shall also concur with the points previously made by AngusWOOF. For what its worth, Margaret was undoubtedly and clearly the absolute dominant partner in the relationship, not Denis. However, in light of your arguments of which I respectfully disagree, I would not mind if a retarget of the redirect were to be made. But of course, I would rather we just deleted it—as the redirect is pretty much 99.9% useless; hardly anyone has searched for it since its 2006 creation.--Neve–selbert 16:01, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that my appeal to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is "disingenuous and misleading", I would like you to explicitly say why, instead of handwaving my arguments away. PRIMARYTOPIC says:
  • "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term."
I have made my case above that this is likely Margaret Thatcher and that it seems highly unlikely that someone who knows that Margaret Thatcher's husband had a previous wife would use this search term.
  • A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term.
As far as I can see, the "long-term significance" of the term is that it is widely seen as an anachronistic way to refer to prominent women such as PM Thatcher. Nothing about Denis Thatcher's first spouse was reported until Thatcher was already quite established as a politician, so the current target has always been the one with more long-term significance.
PRIMARYTOPIC also lists three main ways to determine a primary topic, two of which (incoming links, page views) are obviously not useful because the first wife of PM Thatcher's spouse does not even have a Wikipedia article. The third one is "Usage in English reliable sources demonstrated with Google web, news, scholar, or book searches."
If you show me that there are reliable sources that use "Mrs. Denis Thatcher" to refer to the first wife of Denis Thatcher and gives her equal or more coverage than PM Thatcher, I will gladly concede the point that there is no primary topic. Until that happens, I will maintain that this should point towards Margaret Thatcher per that guideline and that for someone as insignificant as Denis Thatcher's first wife, being a click away is sufficient.
The last three external links in my first reply to AngusWOOF are all reliable sources authored by people with Wikipedia articles (John Ramsden (historian), Jeremy Paxman, John Blundell (economist)) and are from 1996, 2008, 2015, and they all use the term "Mrs. Denis Thatcher" in the context of Margaret Thatcher, as do AngusWOOF's links. They go into varying length about the use of the phrase and how dated it is, like most contemporary sources that use the term do. No one here believes that we should directly refer to Margaret Thatcher as "Mrs. Denis Thatcher" and you should stop arguing as though people wanted to do that.
The redirect gets more than 10 hits a month, so it is hardly useless If we applied that standard to all redirects, many useful redirects would be gone for no good reason, and redirects are cheap. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely no agreed nor accepted WP:PRIMARYTOPIC at all, so please stop acting as if there unanimously and undeniably is one. If I were to ask a librarian or historian the accepted definition of a Mrs Denis Thatcher, I would not expect them to come up with an answer in a split-second, would I? The fact of the matter is that there just isn't, there is no accepted definition of what the redirect-in-question espouses. As I see it, it is a complete nonsense way of referring to the subject made up by sexist bigots and ignoramuses before most people in Great Britain knew who on earth this Margaret Hilda Thatcher was and what she had to do with them, without even imagining the possibility of her ever managing to rise up and rule the country as leader. Coincidentally however, his first wife was also named Margaret. For what its worth, I am unsure whether or not this helps or complicates matters. You state that "it seems highly unlikely that someone who knows that Margaret Thatcher's husband had a previous wife would use this search term". I disagree. I know full well that most intelligent human beings would never search for anything similar to Mrs Denis Thatcher if they were to search for the former British leader. There were I repeat, two Mrs Denis Thatchers—an important little something that you were apparently unaware about when you initially dismissed the rationale for the deletion of the redirect. One of course was more overwhelmingly more prominent, but the fact remains that were two Mrs Denis Thatchers. You cannot keep dismissing that. We have an opportunity with Denis Thatcher#Marriages as a suitable compromise. Intransigence is unconstructive, as I am sure you are aware.--Neve–selbert 18:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Any librarian or a historian would agree that the overwhelming majority of reliable sources use "Mrs. Denis Thatcher" to refer to the PM, not Denis Thatcher's first wife, and if asked to apply the guideline would keep the redirect. I've posted above about how this way of naming married women used to be conventional above, but your claim that the term was only used before PM Thatcher was famous is also wrong. In the 2008 book by John Blundell, he writes that when Thatcher was considered an " 'up and coming Cabinet Minister'...'one of our very bright girls in Parliament...'a first-class speaker' " and had earlier been "touted as possibly the first female PM", the organizers of that trip still refered to her as "Mrs. Denis Thatcher MP" and marked her itinerary as such. The Scottish National Portrait Gallery also titles its portrait of Thatcher from 1986 (when she was PM) as "Margaret Hilda Roberts (b.1925), Mrs Denis Thatcher, Prime Minister".
The fourth external link I used in my keep !vote is to a part of a book that about the revelations of Denis Thatcher's previous marriage, so you can accuse me of hyperbole, but not ignorance. To search "Mrs. Denis Thatcher" while looking (knowingly or unknowingly) for the PM, one would just have to have encountered the term, while to use the term while looking for the first wife, the searcher would have to know that Denis Thatcher was the name of Margaret Thatcher's husband and that he had been previously married, in which case they would probably just go to Margaret or Denis Thatcher's articles anyway. But like I said above, we are unable to determine what readers are precisely looking for so we have to refer to the guideline for other ways to judge what a primary topic is, which leaves us with long-term significance and usage in reliable sources, both of which favour PM Thatcher. If you can show me through reliable sources that the long-term significance of this term or the balance of coverage by reliable sources between the two is in roughly equal or even in favour of the first wife, I will gladly concede the point.
This redirect is like having Boer War redirect to the Second Boer War instead of a disambiguation page or retargeting to a related page like Boer Wars does, because the Second Boer War is of vastly greater importance and has the lion's share of the coverage from reliable sources about the Boer Wars. A hatnote to a disambiguation page and a paragraph in the body directs readers to the First Boer War, which has its own article and extensive coverage by reliable sources. "Mrs. Denis Thatcher" is similar except the first one gets almost no coverage in reliable sources and can only claim to be remotely notable because of a brief, failed marriage to someone whose primary claim to notability is being married to someone of the utmost importance. For someone like this, being a click away from the current target of the redirect is sufficient coverage. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@AngusWOOF: The Telegraph also uses the phrase "Mrs. Denis Thatcher" to refer to the former PM in this piece [15], as well as this piece [16], released on the date of her death. The Scottish National Portrait Gallery on a website hosted in collaboration with the BBC names their portrait of the PM [17] "Margaret Hilda Roberts (b.1925), Mrs Denis Thatcher, Prime Minister," this 2008 book by John Blundell uses the phrase to refer her during the time period when she was married but not yet an MP. Given these sources, as well as the others I've posted, would you agree that there is sufficient sourcing to keep a redirect on Wikipedia, and if so, how would you apply PRIMARYTOPIC in this case? Thanks, ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Denis_Thatcher#Marriages or keep, used in reliable sources, overwhelmingly likely that someone using it is searching to the more notable one. Siuenti (talk) 21:06, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Siuenti: Would you prefer to retarget ot keep the redirect? What is your take on how PRIMARYTOPIC would apply in this case? ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:43, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since it's now discussed specifically I support your proposed target. Siuenti (talk) 09:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:43, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Denis Thatcher#Marriages as the best compromise. The purpose of redirects (aside from {{r from misspelling}}s and the like) is not just to "translate" all obscure or potentially-offensive synonyms to their WP:COMMONNAME without further context, but to point the reader somewhere that there's encyclopedic information about the alternative name. Denis' marriage section seems a better option for that than the top of Margaret's article where you would have to read a thousand words before you get a mention of Denis. (Neither option is perfect, as neither explains the process of the term "Mrs Denis Thatcher" falling out of general usage, but if someone were to add a sentence about that, I think it fits better at Denis Thatcher#Marriages than somewhere in Margaret Thatcher.) 210.6.254.106 (talk) 03:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the information about the use of the phrase to the Margaret Thatcher article, as explained below. The marriage is listed in the infobox, which is prominently featured at the top of the article, so keeping the redirect as is is only a bit less convenient for those users than a hatnote, and given that the first wife of Denis Thatcher is almost entirely insignificant, it is likely sufficient. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:42, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Siuenti and 210.6.254.106. Makes the most sense. — Gorthian (talk) 17:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have added a sentence about the dated use of "Mrs. Denis Thatcher" to the Margaret Thatcher page. Based on the Google books hits the lasting significance of the term today is how dated it is to refer to PM Thatcher by this term, it seems to make more sense to have this here, the person actually being referenced by the term, then at the Denis Thatcher page. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:40, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Should a "redirects here" be added in that section? And a hatnote to the Denis Thatcher#Marriages? I think the dated term part is good; it can be backed up by those Google books. I'll agree that she is primary topic, but is there s a way to hatnote to Margaret Kempson even if it's just for that brief paragraph in the Marriages? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 08:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone and retargeted the redirect, added the hatnote you recommended, and updated this nomination. I would support keeping, but now at the current target, which may be the best compromise between the different viewpoints put forth here. We take readers straight to the article on the primary topic for the term, to the section where that term is discussed, and have a hatnote if they actually were trying to find the first marriage. A hatnote seems a bit too much for someone so insiginificant, but since it's not at the top of the article, I can support that if some people are looking for it. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 11:41, 5 July 2016 (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/2016_July_2&oldid=1089067878"