Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 April 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 14[edit]

Las Vegas → Las Vegas (disambiguation)[edit]

The result of the debate was unclear it seems that most people favor the redirect to the disambiguation, but there is a significant amount of other ideas for this redirect. So it stays the way it is for now. If there are continued problems with this redirect bring it back here. John Reaves (talk) 21:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect, until today, went to Las Vegas metropolitan area. It was like this because, as some users, particularly User:Vegaswikian, said, most articles that link to Las Vegas don't mean the actual CITY of Las Vegas, but actually the Strip, which is politically outside of the city. However, it is my impression that articles can be fixed - the user cannot be fixed. And when the USER types "Las Vegas", he likely wants to be taken to the city, just like all of the other 30,000+ Wikipedia articles on United States locales. After I was bold last night and redirected it to Las Vegas, Nevada, Vegaswikian redirected it to the disambiguation page where it lies now. I suggest we redirect it to Las Vegas, Nevada. Long story short, articles can be fixed - we can change erroneous mentions of "Las Vegas" to the proper destination. However, a redirect like this assists the searching user more than the clicking one. We cannot fix the user. The principle of least surprise demands that we redirect this article to the article on the city, rather than a disambiguation page or the metropolitan area page. Golbez 22:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. By redirecting to the city, it will be impossible to determine when the links that are incorrect have been fixed. At least with the dab page, users are asked to fix any redirects that are in error. This has also been considered in various discussions on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements) and consensus there appears to be that Las Vegas is unique among cities and may need to be treated differently then other cites. Given that the formal name is City of Las Vegas and that does not redirect to the city you can see how this gets to be confusing. All of the links to Las Vegas, several thousand at last count, need to be corrected to link to the correct article. A dab is clearly better then deleting this redirect and the dab is better then sending the majority of users to incorrect articles. The editors need to indicate exactly what they mean by Las Vegas in their articles. In many cases, someone familiar with Las Vegas can not figure out what they meant by reading the article. The problem here is the articles. If a user enters Las Vegas, the dab page is the best alternative since the user can then choose the place they meant, most likely the Las Vegas Strip. As someone who has been converting these redirects to articles, it is clear that most are not bound for the city. If anyone thinks otherwise, take a look at the inbound links and you will see what I mean. Vegaswikian 00:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nomination. I see Vegaswikian's point, but a simple redirect to Las Vegas, Nevada, with an "otheruses" template at the top of that article, is the most user-friendly solution. YechielMan 12:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    1. It says above RfD* is not the place to resolve editorial disputes. I doubt anyone is seriously proposing to delete the redirect. Therefore the discussion should be at either Talk:Las Vegas or from WP:RM.
    2. The nominator's belief is flawed that "...when the USER types "Las Vegas", he likely wants to be taken to the city..." given the acceptance that the Las Vegas Strip is in Las Vegas metropolitan area but not in the city area covered by Las Vegas, Nevada. It is a separate issue whether that article is appropriately scoped.
    3. The target of a redirect with over 2000 links should never be changed without an effort to fix the links - many of them will have been created with knowledge of what article it pointed to.
    4. The very existence of this discussion demonstrates that "Las Vegas" should lead directly or indirectly to the page presently named Las Vegas (disambiguation). Unfortunately that means several people will have a lot of work with AWB or Popups to fix all the links.
    I guess that means I support the title of this section, and hence Vegaswikian, not the nominator - there is no principal of least surprise applicable when the "surprise" is that the Las Vegas Strip is not in Las Vegas, Nevada. --Scott Davis Talk 13:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close, incorrect forum for an editorial dispute. Deletion has not been requested. Xtifr tälk 14:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's redirects for discussion. Let the discussion continue, please. Obviously there is an issue here of where the redirect should point, and there's no better place to resolve it. Unless you really don't care about where it points, and you just want to move it out of RFD because you don't think it belongs. --Cyde Weys 15:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I disagree with the assertion that this is not the correct forum, but I do not want to side track this discussion in the process. Interested parties should please see my posting at Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion#Discussion vs. Deletion and discuss further at that location. --After Midnight 0001 15:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Nomination - per as above support nomination Radio_Orange (talk • contribs) 18:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Leave it redirected to Las Vegas, Nevada. Redirects are supposed to aid the reader not the editors, and if we look at it from the readers viewpoint, what are they looking for when they search for "Las Vegas"? I would estimate that they are looking for the article on the city 90% of the time. For the remaining 10%, an otheruses template will get them to the right place in short order. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please read my notes above. The vast majority of the links are NOT for the city. There is no data that supports the city as being the most likely target. As I said above, look at the links and you will see what I mean. Doesen't the guideline state that if there is no clear primary use, the disambiguation page should be the target? Vegaswikian 17:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose nomination. It is not a well-known fact that most of what people consider to be "Las Vegas" is not Las Vegas, Nevada but Paradise, Nevada, and a large number (I am not going to pretend to know the statistics) of people who type "Las Vegas" into the search bar are not looking for the city proper. Having it redirected to the metro area, in my opinion, was the "smart" choice but given the confusion over the subject a redirect to a disambiguation page to clear it up is acceptable. The current setup overuses the {{otheruses}} template and makes a mess of the head of the article. Arkyan • (talk) 19:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Nomination- The disambig. page gives the reader a chance to accurately choose which page they would like to go to when typing "Las Vegas", and as stated above, most aren't looking for the actual city itself, but the strip. By keeping this in place as it is currently is what I believe should happen. (mastrchf91) 23:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Both the manual of style and common sense would agree (for once in their lives) that the status quo is navigationally poor. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages. Here three choices we actually have:
  1. Redirect Las Vegas to Las Vegas, Nevada
  2. Delete the Las Vegas redirect and move Las Vegas (disambiguation) into its place
  3. Delete the Las Vegas redirect and move Las Vegas, Nevada into its place, dropping the state name, as with Chicago, New York City, and possibly others.
Although I'm disappointed to learn that I haven't actually been to Vegas after all. Sure, some cities annex land more readily than others, and it might affect property taxes, census numbers, public utilities, and pizza delivery, but not much else. Vegas is Vegas. The fact that people use "Las Vegas" to mean "Greater Las Vegas" is worth considering, but acting on it would only cause confusion, as there is no common term for "Lesser Las Vegas". — CharlotteWebb 14:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion 3 will likely fail on WP:RM based on the last set of discussions there. Item 2 basically makes the current state more 'official'. Vegaswikian 19:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace with disambig (option 2 by CharlotteWebb above). Las Vegas (disambiguation) should be moved to this location and so that links to Las Vegas can then be disambiguated to the appropriate article in each instance. WjBscribe 16:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support replacing with Las Vegas (disambiguation). I did oppose the change above, but I think that this suggestion is the best solution at this time. Vegaswikian 19:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Properly disambiguate. I don't know where consensus is on it, but LV redirecting to the disambiguation page is basically a no-no.--Wizardman 23:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Hellevi → Hellevi Rombin Schine[edit]

The result of the debate was delete John Reaves (talk) 21:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was initially going to change this, as it is a double redirect to Hillevi Rombin. However, it is really a typo of Hillevi and there are numerous people with that name, so I think this should just be deleted instead of pointing to one in particular. After Midnight 0001 13:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Turkiye Devrimci Işçi Senikalari Konfederasyonu → Confederation of Revolutionary Trade Unions of Turkey[edit]

The result of the debate was keep. John Reaves (talk) 21:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong spelling (apparently). Tizio 11:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, it was the translation that was wrong. The redirect is correct but the article it was redirecting to was translated differently. You can see the correct spelling at the union's website at [1]. No need to delete the redirect.--Bookandcoffee 02:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't the original nominator of the article, but I think the problem was that "Işçi" should actually be "İşçi". I guess the redirect may still be ok as a plausible typo? Tizio 11:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In general, we should not go out of our way to create redirects for every possible misspelling, but once those redirects are created they are pretty much harmless and could aid someone sometime (yes, I have read WP:USEFUL but redirects serve the ad hoc purpose of being useful). Our search tool is simply horrible at helping people who misspell. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_14&oldid=1138574361"