Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 27[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 27, 2024.

Tubber GAA[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The result of the discussion was withdrawn as moot, the redirect has been replaced with an article. Thryduulf (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense redirect. Let it be a red link instead of redirecting a place. Misleading now. The Banner talk 22:33, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn Much to my pleasant surprise someone overwrote the redirect with an actual article about the - with for it - Tubber GAA-club. The Banner talk 23:20, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Awit 101866[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. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 01:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in the article or anywhere else called "Awit 101866". My searches likewise couldn't find anything related to Abadilla containing this cryptic number. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 19:04, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination, now that a mention has been added to the target article, sourced to a book. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 14:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. My searches for the exact phrase turned up nothing unrelated to this redirect, other searches mostly just found dates on the 10th day of a month in 1866 and nothing obviously connected to anyone or anything called "Awit" or "Abdilla". Thryduulf (talk) 20:39, 27 January 2024 (UTC) Struck Thryduulf (talk) 10:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:42, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Thryduulf and Lenticel: Thoughts? ✗plicit 00:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now that there's a cited mention of the redirect. Thank you for the ping. --Lenticel (talk) 00:55, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the ping. I haven't got time right now to look into this again, but I've struck my !vote above. Thryduulf (talk) 10:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

HMHS Olympic[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. ✗plicit 00:48, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RMS Olympic had never been in service as a hospital ship and during World War I, she was converted to troopship Vitaium (talk) 15:27, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This does get some hits, but almost all of them are either collocations, errors or alternate history. Thryduulf (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Novi Ssanzhary Raion[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. ✗plicit 00:48, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably originating from a typo, but the typo is extremely unlikely, no need in having such a redirect Ymblanter (talk) 14:51, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unlikely to spell the title in this way. Utopes (talk / cont) 20:24, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

192.0.34.166[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. Leaning keep, and would be closer to keep if a proper mention were added. (non-admin closure) QueenofHearts 05:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Example.com currently resolves to 93.184.216.34 (Edgecast). 192.0.34.166 is part of 192.0.32.0/22, which belongs to ICANN, and was likely the IP of example.com when the redirect was created, but currently does not have any apparent connection. DefaultFree (talk) 08:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As many search results show, this was the old IP that example.com resolved to and was referenced as such in older web pages. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 23:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and tag {{R from former name}} per anon --Lenticel (talk) 00:44, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is that rcat applicable here? If an IP editor is anonymous, then an IP is not a name. DefaultFree (talk) 02:18, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because the IP is no longer associated and/or statically assigned to the target. Leaving this in place is erroneous to a point of being unhelpful. Worst case scenario, readers could begin thinking that Wikipedia is a directory of IPs, which can get outdated quite often, especially when DHCP is involved. That, and the IP could be hosted by one company, but the website which it represents could be something else, which falls into WP:XY territory. And for the aforementioned reason, I oppose this being retargeted to ICANN for the reasons I just stated. In a nutshell, Wikipedia is not a reverse DNS service, nor should it be especially since it's more likely the information will be wrong than right. Steel1943 (talk) 00:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Change to weak delete if Skynxnex's proposed solution gets implemented to get a target for this. I'm still "delete" though since I don't agree with any part of their statement that contradicts mine, but a mention is better than not. Steel1943 (talk) 01:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as outdated. I agree that {{R from former name}} would be inapplicable here. It's a former IP address, not a former name. -- Tavix (talk) 01:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Striking in favor of Skynxnex's solution. -- Tavix (talk) 18:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 192.0.34.166 was the IP for example.com for many, many years and is referenced a lot of online documentation and books. Our example.com page is pretty short so expanding it to mention the history of its IP addresses would be valuable, encyclopedic content if the correct set of sources could be found. We don't delete redirects when something changes names/locations if people may still refer to that thing by the former name and by the volume of forum posts etc including this IP, it could easily still get traffic and I don't see any specific harm in keeping this notable IP. I don't see this as a reverse DNS entry and am not worried about getting tons of IPs since people have to actually do need to find it helpful or discuss it. I'd support deleting a redirect 208.80.154.224 to Wikimedia Foundation even though, for me, en.wikipedia.org resolves to that IP since it's not helpful and there's no particular discussion about that IP anywhere. For the old example IP, it is widely discussed, used as an example itself, and exists as a topic in the world. Skynxnex (talk) 17:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm curious when this happened and if there's any place talking about the change; I've failed to find any. But I think an example of what may be added to the "History" section of example.com might be useful (it may be a tiny bit out of scale for the article as it exists but it still has lots of room to grow):
    The second-level domains previously resolved to the IP address 192.0.34.166.[1] It is also used as a placeholder IP address in documentation, mirroring the usage of the domain names.[2] As of 2024, the IP is still assigned to ICANN but the example domains no longer resolve to it.{{cn|date=January 2024}} Skynxnex (talk) 17:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC) Corrected my typo in the IP in quote from 196. to 192. Skynxnex (talk) 16:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't have access to the cited Gilmore ref, so can't verify exactly what it says, but I'd disagree with the claim mirroring the usage of the domain names - that's what TEST-NET-{1,2,3} (192.0.2.0/24, 198.51.100.0/24, 203.0.113.0/24) are for, which have stable, non–publicly routed addresses reserved by RFC 5737 for use in documentation, similar to how example.com/net/org are reserved by RFC 6761 for use in documentation. 192.0.34.166 is not reserved for any particular use - it appears to just be one address out of many in ICANN's publicly routed corporate address space. DefaultFree (talk) 06:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      For Gilmore, it's one of the archive books that requires borrowing unless you search for things in particular ways, I think that https://archive.org/details/beginningphpmysq0002gilm/page/64/mode/2up?q=%22This+returns+a+numerical+IP%22 should let you see the page. But the gist is "This returns a numerical IP address, such as 192.0.34.66." after when accessing $_SERVER['REMOTE_ADDR'] in PHP.
      We can reword the example bit to make it more clear that it's not the intended usage but was de facto used that way and many places pair example.com and 192.0.34.66 and a decent number using 192.0.34.66 as a generic example IP, probably since example.com used to resolve to it: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] to give some examples (there are plenty more).
      I don't see how our readers would be better served without this long-standing redirect and brief description of it given how commonly it's been used this way. Skynxnex (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand the target with the history section. Nice research, Skynxnex. JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:21, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Douglas, Susan; Douglas, Korry (2004). Liunx Timesving Techniques for Dummies. Wiley. p. 450. ISBN 0-7645-7173-7. Retrieved 2024-01-29.
  2. ^ Gilmore, W. J. (2006). Beginning PHP and MySQL 5: From Novice to Professional. Apress. p. 64. ISBN 978-1-4302-0117-5. Retrieved 2024-01-29.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Anglais[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 disambiguate. Jay 💬 06:13, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any search for this term will tend to result in references to the English language or English people, not a style of country dancing. I suggest to redirect it to English. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please also consider Angloise and its potential target article Angloise (Leopold Mozart) for similar reasons. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundled Angloise with this. Also notified of this discussion at the talk page of the proposed targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:45, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_January_27&oldid=1204469656"