Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 7[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 7, 2016.

Q42[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 dabify. Are ships typically referred to by hull number alone? Those might be better suited to a See also. --BDD (talk) 20:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No explanation for this redirect; in Wikidata, Q42 is a Douglas Adams reference Orange Mike | Talk 22:01, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given findings below, keep the disambiguation page created by Tavix. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:Ц[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) 22:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

WP:R#D5 - nonsensical unicode character redirect to a target that has nothing to do with its title. Apparently, this was linked to save space in the automatically-generated edit summary for undiong a revision briefly in 2008, which explains the "please do not delete" stuff on the talk page. However, the text that this used to be piped as has not been linked to anything since 2010, so a redlink would not provide confusing. Only 72 views over past year. Pppery 21:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries are permanent, of course. I'm sure that the deletion's impact would be minimal, but I'm curious as to what harm the redirect's retention is causing. (Visits via page histories obviously are infrequent, but it seems likely that other views are virtually nonexistent.) —David Levy 21:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect might confused editors who happened to arrive it it from some method other than the edit summary link. Pppery 21:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Such as...? —David Levy 04:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Redirects are cheap, this is a historical thing that can't be fixed, even though it was only used for a relatively short time, it could confuse people if they see a redlink. nyuszika7h (talk) 20:36, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
  • (Tangentially related) It haunts me to see my own writing from almost 10 years ago linked from a deletion discussion [1]. Deryck C. 11:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maju Pulu Kita[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 24#Maju Pulu Kita

Guinea-Bissau/People[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) 22:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I think. This is not how we usually do these things, but we don't have Guinea-Bissau people; the correct redirect by the way we usually do things is Bissau-Guinean people (sic) -> Demographics of Guinea-Bissau. Si Trew (talk) 12:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as {{R from subpage}} - This wouldn't be a reasonable title per Wikipedia:Subpages#Disallowed uses, and it wouldn't be searched for in this manner. However, looking at the page history (i.e. Special:Permalink/15966390), this was seemingly a very early title for this content (see Wikipedia:Subpages#History of subpages for further information). — Godsy (TALKCONT) 12:48, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. For the record, this redirect is a {{R with old history}}, not a {{R from subpage}} since subpages are technically unable to be implemented in the "Article" namespace. With that being said, I'm "weak delete" per nom and since this is a very unlikely search term due to the slash (the "delete" rationale by me), but it's an old {{R from move}} created over a decade ago (what degrades my "delete" rationale to "weak delete"). Steel1943 (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's not really helpful. I don't think it's worth retaining. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:31, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @CoffeeWithMarkets, Steel1943, and SimonTrew: WP:R#K4 "You risk breaking incoming or internal links by deleting the redirect. For example, redirects resulting from page moves should not normally be deleted without good reason. Links that have existed for a significant length of time, including CamelCase links and old subpage links, should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them. See also Wikipedia:Link rot § Link rot on non-Wikimedia sites."; Category:Redirects with old history "These redirects are kept to retain edit history, and to avoid breaking links that may have been made externally. This category includes titles in CamelCase, which older versions of Wikipedia used for linking, as well as article subpages, which were originally used for subtopics." That's the guidance we have on pages of this nature. It may or may not be good advice anymore, perhaps a discussion about it in the proper place is due. Until then, the editing guideline (i.e. the first quote I linked) still applies.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 10:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, yes. I think the "retaining history" argument is stupid, because deleted links still have their history retained. As far as external link rot goes, I think that argument is also stupid unless we want never to change any page in any way because it breaks an external link: it is the responsibility of those maintaining their websites to make sure their links are up-to-date, it's not WP's responsibility. (If we took the "might break external links" argument to its logical conclusion then we couldn't remove or change any information from any article, or delete any page, or overwrite a redirect with content, because it might invalidate an external link: a partial solution to that is to encourage those linking externally to use permalinks, and a guide to whether there are any external links it is to check stats to see if it is actually being hit: this had zero in the ninety days before this discussion.) As you imply, that's off-topic for this particular redirect, so I'll strike my !vote, but I agree it deserves wider discussion. Si Trew (talk) 11:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...And that's why I'm "weak delete". Steel1943 (talk) 20:45, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I understand the value of history. However, I think the primary questions are always going to be both "Is it helpful?" and "Does it violate any clear-cut, important guidelines?" All of this 'under the hood' Wikipedia stuff from article talk page discussions to debates about who gets to be an administration to everyone else is for the primary service of those two causes, really: Be helpful. Keep to the standards. You know? I'm getting esoteric here, yes, but I'm really not one to like the argument of, basically, "history exists for X, and, therefore, leave X alone". CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as subpages are not used in article namespace. Pppery 19:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Culturally significant[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 cultural heritage. -- Tavix (talk) 21:47, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Too vague to be a useful search term, especially for a concept as broad as "culture". The phrase makes me think of the National Film Registry criteria; we also have Register of Culturally Significant Properties, but "culturally significant" itself is just an adjectival phrase without much meaning absent some context. Maybe retarget to Cultural heritage, but even that seems tentative. --BDD (talk) 18:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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_October_7&oldid=1088108481"