Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 17[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 17, 2019.

Wikipedia:DEFUNCT[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. --BDD (talk) 15:07, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to retarget this. It seems to be practically unused, and it is confusing that this points to a very specialized project page that is different from the target of Wikipedia:DEFUNCTS. The latter redirect comes up once in a while in Talk page discussions (although not as much as I had previously thought), and I have personally accidentally linked to the wrong one of these before when trying to remember the redirect name. I suggest that the singular and plural should lead to the same place and that this should not be the airline topic. The proposed target is Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Subject no longer exists. If anyone wants a link to the airline topic, I suggest something like WP:DEFUNCTAIR or WP:AIRDEFUNCT. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:36, 17 November 2019 (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.

Yên Lạc, Bắc Kạn[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 both. Ruslik_Zero 20:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is the incorrect name. The township's name is Yến Lạc. By the time it was created, no one had noticed; that's why it exists until now. Cn5900 (talk) 04:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC) Just found another page with the same issue Cn5900 (talk) 20:48, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not just that; it is also missing a diacritic on the second letter. Geolodus (talk) 05:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • זָרַח, please look at the name carefully. It is Yên Lạc, Bắc Kạn (Yên not Yến, missing a diacritic). If it was Yến Lạc, Bắc Kạn, I wouldn't have listed it here for discussion since there's no reason why I should do that. My point here is, we can either delete it or move it to Yến Lạc, Bắc Kạn without leaving a redirect. Cn5900 (talk) 06:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These were the titles of the respective articles for 10 years, so there has been a decade for external links to be established. Furthermore, I believe these articles were created from a database, so I believe it to be plausible for someone to search for these articles using the same database Dr. Blofeld used to set up these articles. -- Tavix (talk) 23:33, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as harmful. Redirects without diacritics are useful (and exist), but redirects with incorrect diacritics increase the likelihood of the incorrect title being used in other articles. The harmful risk of these errors outweighs the benefit of preserving the old title. @Cn5900: Can you please take a look here? Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:52, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix. The articles were moved only a week ago, and there's 10 years of being the titles of the articles. Deleting them will break any incoming links from outside wikipedia. However, to reduce the potential of the redirects to interfere in searches (and so to address the concerns of the "delete" comments above), they should be tagged with {{R from incorrect name}} or a similar template. – Uanfala (talk) 20:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    We're entitled, of course, to disagree on the redidrects, but adding a tag does not materially reduce the risk/harm of mis-linking within article text, and therefore does not address my concern (I can't speak for User:Cn5900 and Zerach...). I imagine it would be quite rare for someone to insert a link in article text and then, after seeing that it is blue, to navigate to the redirect page and actually read the R... templates. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As I see it, the harm of having redirects from misspelled English words is lower because most of us can spell English pretty well. Vietnamese diacritics are pretty tricky and easy to mess up, and I've never clicked onto a redirect to check whether I'd used an incorrect name. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 21:00, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There are editors who patrol links to these types of redirects. My point, however, was more about readers: redirects from incorrect names are given less weight by the wikimedia engine that orders the search results and the suggestions in the search box drop-down list. Keeping redirects from moves away from long-term titles is such a well-established part of RfD practice that it's listed right at the top (point 4 of WP:RFD#KEEP). – Uanfala (talk) 21:34, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:34, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unless there's actually a Yên Lạc in Bắc Kạn or a Tân Mỹ in An Giang, just tag them with {{R from incorrect name}}. --BDD (talk) 19:08, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or move to redirect titles with correct diacritics. What persuaded me was that in each of the two titles, one tone mark is correct and the other tone mark is wrong. I think there's a stronger case for keeping if all the tone marks were stripped, but in this case the tone marks are part right and part wrong, making it an unlikely candidate for a useful redirect. For search behaviour, we already have diacritics-stripped redirects which will capture all the cases with incorrect diacritics. Deryck C. 14:06, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would be opposed to moving these redirects. If the redirects with correct diacritics do not exist, they should be created separately without tying their fate to these. -- Tavix (talk) 14:21, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 12:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist to get an old log day closed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:07, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix and WP:RKEEP 4. The first one got over 200 page hits last year suggesting that there are a number of links that would be broken. Wug·a·po·des​ 22:44, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that the ~200 page views are likely due to the fact that the article was at the incorrect title until last month. I cannot tell, however, if the error actually exists outside Wikipedia (i.e., a candidate for {{R from incorrect name}}) or if the error originated and is being perpetuated on Wikipedia. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, I could see these redirects being useful somewhere down the line. Ambrosiawater (talk) 08:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    In what way? -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:01, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now; the pages were at incorrect titles for such a long time that I think it would be very prudent to leave the redirects in place for now. Checking page-view stats in a year or so and revisiting these might be a good plan, but I'd rather steer away from breaking external/mirror links without a more compelling reason. ~ mazca talk 00:31, 29 November 2019 (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.

Early On (Chris Brown song)[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 per WP:G7. (The deletion log does not reflect the "G7" speedy deletion, but that is what happened here.) (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 01:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect has pointed here, and at Chris Brown discography, but no mention of a song of this name on either target. Richhoncho (talk) 11:17, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural close. The track listing was initially announced by Chris Brown himself, not an unofficial source, as containing different track titles than it did when the album was actually released. "Early On" became "Early 2K", and this must have been one of the few I didn't catch/correct. I have moved it to "Early 2K (song)", so this doesn't really need to go through the whole rigmarole now. Ss112 19:38, 17 November 2019 (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.

Template:Current Mexican Senators[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 soft delete following the successful deprecation of this template redirect Deryck C. 11:11, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The current legislature is now at {{LXIV Legislature Mexican Senators}}, but there's no overlap between the two in terms of would-be transclusions. Convert transclusions of this redirect to {{LXII Legislature Mexican Senators}} and either redirect to LXIV or delete. Raymie (t • c) 07:20, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Convert, then delete - The existence of this redirect simply invites errors, since any transclusions will automatically become incorrect after each Senate election. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:06, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This redirect currently has 90 transclusions ... Steel1943 (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    ...And now, there are 0 transclusions. Steel1943 (talk) 19:52, 27 November 2019 (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/2019_November_17&oldid=930338860"