Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 31[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 31, 2018.

Field hockey at the 2019 Pan American Games - Women's tournament[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 delete. Page was created due to the dash/endash difference, so a second discussion really isn't necessary. Primefac (talk) 18:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not needed for now. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There was a prior discussion on the 21st, which resulted in the deletion of this. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:39, 31 May 2018 (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.

Football at the 2019 Pan American Games – Women's tournament[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessary for now. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 21:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - simply not needed. GiantSnowman 10:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merged identical discussions and added the hyphen variants. -- Tavix (talk) 15:53, 3 June 2018 (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:WP:WPUKPOL[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect should be deleted because of a double WP that has already been fixed, but was not moved. qwerty6811 :-) Chat Yell Ping me 17:53, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No incoming links and unused - the 9 hits in the three years preceding the nomination are probably misindentifed bots rather than humans. Thryduulf (talk) 00:30, 5 June 2018 (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.

Launudry sour[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. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible misspelling Natureium (talk) 15:22, 31 May 2018 (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.

Sophia Hutchins[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing deletion. Hutchins is not mentioned in the target article and a close relationship between Hutchins and Jenner is not confirmed as per WP:BLPRS afaics. Count Count (talk) 14:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for now - They may be close, but we've got no official confirmation that I see affirming that they're about to be wed. We can reinstate the redirect depending on what happens. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:50, 31 May 2018 (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.

De Soto County-class tank landing ship[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The page only redirects to a page about Landing Ship, Tanks. Arles2464 (talk) 09:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I think writing an article about the class of ships would be the ideal outcome here. If that is what you are planning, then the redirect can just be overwritten without requiring deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 11:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's mentioned in the article, and it has a navbox to the seven landing ships. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:35, 5 June 2018 (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.

Mh17[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. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The miscapitalization pollutes search box display; we already have MH17 which would be the better alias to show there. — JFG talk 07:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This redirect is incredibly well used with 1,600 hits in the 30 days preceding this nomination - appoximately the same as the capitalised redirect [1]. If this redirect were deleted some but not all of the people using it would reach the article via MH17, others would see search results, be invited to search, invited to start an article, invited to request and article, be told about the deleted page, or be shown an error message depending on the combination of the method they used to navigate, whether they have the privileges to start an article, the device they are using and whether the search engine is working at that exact moment. The internal search box is only one of many ways to navigate (some are case sensitive), and deletion will cause significantly more harm to the project than the very small benefits to those using the search box. I have, without prejudice to the discussion, tagged it as {{R avoided double redirect}} and {{R from incorrect capitalisation}} (the latter marking it as unprintworthy). Thryduulf (talk) 11:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would surmise that the only reason this redirect is "incredibly well used" is precisely because it hijacks the correct spelling in the search box. That's how I ended up here myself: typed "mh17" in the search box and clicked the link titled "Mh17" while "MH17" was nowhere to be found. Same issue on the mobile app (I just tried). — JFG talk 12:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What's the issue? The redirect got you to the article you were looking for. It doesn't "hijack" the correct capitalisation (note it's not a different spelling) as that's still available, the presence of both allows everyone to reach the article directly rather than only some people. What possible benefit would there be to deleting this? Thryduulf (talk) 18:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, the correct "MH17" spelling is totally invisible to users of the search box or the mobile app. Let's run an experiment: delete "Mh17" for a week and look at the stats. I'm pretty convinced that the better "MH17" redirect would then get 95% of page views among all redirects, and "Mh17" would get practically none. If I'm wrong, I'll be happy to drop the case; if I'm correct, there are plenty of similar cases to handle. In both cases, we will have learned something. — JFG talk 20:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@JFG: Eh? If you delete the redirect then it cannot get any views because it wont exist. Some people will still be able to find the article they are looking for, but others will not. Both Mh17 and MH17 take you to the article, so it is irrelevant which is shown in the search box. Thryduulf (talk) 23:04, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's look at another example to compare: TransAsia Airways Flight 222 has a redirect GE222 but no Ge222. Indeed, nobody goes to "Ge222", and the search box + mobile app correctly show "GE222" whenever a reader types "ge222". This would work the same if we deleted Mh17. There is no inconvenience whatsoever, and there is an improvement in user experience when displaying only the full-caps flight ID. — JFG talk 04:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@JFG: I've just created that redirect to enable everybody to get the article, not just those who use the correct capitalisation, thanks for pointing it out. You are compeltely missing the point - nobody is inconvenienced by using the incorrect capitalisation because everybody gets to the article they wan't. Without it some people are inconvenienced. That the wrong one appears in the search box is irrelevant as it prevents absolutely nobody from finding the aritcle they want. Thryduulf (talk) 10:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We are talking past each other. Let's see if any other editors have comments. Introducing a lowercase alias does not help anybody. There are dozens of other examples which work just fine; I'll give you another case with a (sadly) very popular article from several years ago: AF447, please just observe how the all-caps redirect works and do not create Af447. — JFG talk 12:01, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@JFG: "Af447" works if you enter it into the search box. It doens't work if you follow the link, it doesn't work if you enter the URL directly, etc. Just because you navigate using the internal search box doesn't mean that everybody does - see WP:RFD#K point 5. Points 2, 3 and 4 also apply. Thryduulf (talk) 14:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're making my point. If Mh17 did not exist, you would have been directed to MH17 when typing "mh17". — JFG talk 20:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So if we delete this redirect page, typing "mh17" will be corrected to "MH17" and redirected to Malaysia Airlines Flight 17?
Assuming that what JFG wrote above is technically correct, I change my vote to Retarget. Heptor (talk) 21:23, 31 May 2018 (UTC) Vote withdrawn, confused about the technical details Heptor (talk) 23:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Heptor and JFG: Both Mh17 and MH17 are redirects to Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, were are you suggesting retargetting them to? Currently, everyone searching for "Mh17" (using any method, including the search box) gets to the article they are looking for. If Mh17 is deleted only people will be taken to the article via the capitalised redirect, others will not be (see my comment above) - the latter group will be inconvenienced, some very significantly. There are no advantages to anybody from deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 23:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: I don't understand the technical details. If typing "mh17" still gets the users to the right place after the redirect is deleted I support the deletion, otherwise I agree with Thryduulf Heptor (talk) 23:04, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Heptor: If the redirect is kept all users will get to the right place, if it is deleted only some will. It is not possible to know what proportion of those currently using Mh17 who will be inconvenienced but it is more than zero. Thryduulf (talk) 23:13, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf:, thanks.. I have to admit that I don't understand enough technical detail to participate in this vote. Don't want to inconvenience users however. Heptor (talk) 23:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Harmless. "Polluting the search box display" may be a cause of irritation to some, but it is not a rationale for deletion that is grounded in any Wikipedia policy or guideline. I hope the nominator isn't planning to nominate all 400,000+ other redirects from other capitalisations. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As stated above, this is a solution in search of a problem. Acebulf (talk) 01:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I withdraw the nomination; obviously getting no support for such a change. Learning something every day on the wiki! — JFG talk 15:05, 6 June 2018 (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/2018_May_31&oldid=1036307455"