Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 September 17: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Undid revision 916274611 by EEng (talk) not helpful, no contribution
Line 76: Line 76:
*Just a note in passing that whoever came up with the idea of separate WP: and MOS: namespaces should be shot. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color: red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color: blue;">Eng</b>]] 16:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
*Just a note in passing that whoever came up with the idea of separate WP: and MOS: namespaces should be shot. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color: red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color: blue;">Eng</b>]] 16:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
::(Per [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#EEng_agression WP:ANI], this post is ''not'' to be considered agressive. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 00:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC))
::(Per [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#EEng_agression WP:ANI], this post is ''not'' to be considered agressive. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 00:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC))
:::And the next person who says it gets a ''punch in the schnozzola!'' [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color: red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color: blue;">Eng</b>]] 01:27, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
* Earlier similar situation: [[WP:PLURAL]] and [[WP:PLURALS]], though solved more awkwardly; see [[Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_211#Shortcuts_plural/s_guidelines|WT:MOS/Archive 211]]. I'm not sure the late-late change by {{U|SMcCandlish}} is sound. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 16:33, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
* Earlier similar situation: [[WP:PLURAL]] and [[WP:PLURALS]], though solved more awkwardly; see [[Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_211#Shortcuts_plural/s_guidelines|WT:MOS/Archive 211]]. I'm not sure the late-late change by {{U|SMcCandlish}} is sound. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 16:33, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


Revision as of 01:31, 18 September 2019

September 17

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

USS Amanda (1856)

Delete. This is a redirect from pagemove; the article was created at this title in 2011 and stayed there until being moved to the current location five months ago. Problem is, it doesn't apply (and has never applied) to the subject of the article: the existence of an (1856) redirect suggests that something important happened to this vessel in that year, but USS Amanda was built in 1858, so the existence of an (1856) redirect is potentially confusing. Nyttend backup (talk) 23:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LISETTE MORELOS

Delete per WP:RCAPS. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anthropomorph

Retarget somewhere, or lacking that, delete. This is an extremely old redirect (January 2003), but it's always gone to a problematic location. Per OED, an anthropomorph is "A representation of the human form in art", and per our article, anthropomorphism is "the attribution of human traits, emotions, or intentions to non-human entities." Similar words but severely different meanings, as if the only meaning of "check" were in hockey and the only meaning of "checkers" was a board game, but someone redirected checkers to the ice hockey concept. The redirect can cause confusion, e.g. this link can cause the reference to anthropomorphs in the petroglyphs of the V-Bar-V Heritage Site to sound like someone's ascribed human qualities to the rocks, not that human figures have been carven on it. If someone can find a good replacement target, great, but otherwise we need to delete this confusing redirect. Nyttend backup (talk) 15:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Döblin

I'm looking to have a discussion regarding the redirect Döblin and the dab pages Doeblin and Doblin. All three point to or list Alfred Döblin and it seems like it makes sense to merge them together. Döblin is linked to from a single article (Expressionism). All three have relatively low page views. Chris857 (talk) 04:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep under Wikipedia:If it ain't broke, don't fix it. No evidence that anything is broken, and the ordinary solution is that Döblin can be edited at any time if its target can be improved. Charles Matthews (talk) 04:23, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Doblin. Doeblin should also be redirected. Alternatively Doeblin could be moved to Döblin but since there's only a couple of name-holders it would be best to keep them in one place. —Xezbeth (talk) 05:50, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add a hatnote to Alfred Döblin. While we do have two articles on people named Döblin, all indications are that Alfred Döblin is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the name. - Eureka Lott 08:50, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Doblin and merge Doeblin to that page as well. We don't need to have separate anthroponymy pages for three variations of a name that are only different by a diacritic or ligature: any of the variations are plausible spellings for any of the names, a reader might plausibly expect to find any of the individuals listed under any variation of this surname. Also, Alfred Döblin is not the only Döblin on Wikipedia, and per pageviews none seem to be primary topics. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:02, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with hatnote, primary topic. —Kusma (t·c) 15:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - what are the indications that Alfred Döblin is the primary topic, over Wolfgang Döblin or Hugo Döblin, or any of the individuals who spell this name without the umlaut? Alfred has a small spike in pageviews from being an On This Day feature on Aug 10, otherwise the pageviews for all three articles are pretty similar, none more than a handful a day, except Alfred has an artificial lift of a few hits because this redirect points there. In ghits, "Alfred Döblin -wikipedia" scores 631,000, versus 705,000 for Hugo and 859,000 for Wolfgang. There's no primary topic here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:27, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, a biography has to be significantly more prominent than the others to justify a primary surname redirect. Someone with the prominence of Churchill and ubiquitously referred to by their surname alone. None of these people are in that realm of notability. —Xezbeth (talk) 20:22, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Google search results for Döblin almost exclusively refer to Alfred Döblin. I think that's a pretty good indicator. I had to go through eight pages of results before I found a result referring to something else. - Eureka Lott 00:59, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AutoProject

Unused. It does not follow the standard wikiproject redirects convention. Magioladitis (talk) 11:58, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak neutral. The original template predated WP 1.0 assessment and was later redirected to the current project banner after the latter was created. I couldn't find a "standard WikiProject redirects convention", but regardless, this would be an odd way of getting to the WikiProject Automobiles template so I don't see much use in keeping it; but by the same token, I see no real benefit in deleting it either. --Sable232 (talk) 00:48, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:CONSISTENCY

Currently, there are two different shortcuts wrt "CONSISTENCY" policy:

MOS:CONSISTENCY (WLH 50–100)
WP:CONSISTENCY (WLH 1500–2000)

Since this is confusing for editors, I suggest we disentangle this somehow. Given the number of WLH links, easiest would be to adjust the MOS: one. We could change the MOS:-name, and adjust open (=non-archive) pages (incoming links). For example:

Move MOS:CONSISTENCY → MOS:INNERCONSISTENCY. (We could also create MOS:TITLECONSISTENCY without any complications).

This would make the archives inconsistent, but as template edits go, we cannot be taken hostage by old discussions.

An other solution would be to deprecate (and delete) MOS:CONSISTENCY altogether after the move to MOS:INNERCONSISTENCY. -DePiep (talk) 10:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC) -DePiep (talk) 10:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the actual correct decision to make would be to disambiguate WP:CONSISTENCY. There are a lot of different things we can be consistent about; having that point only to our page on article titles I think misses the boat. It's also not that great a shortcut given how lengthy it is. I wonder where WP:Consistency points. --Izno (talk) 13:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would not mind widening the topic. Use the DAB page, and create the two new (unambiguous) redirects? -DePiep (talk) 13:55, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As long as we agree that the WP:- and MOS:- difference must be resolved, I'm fine. Then again, multiple shortcuts can exist; helpfullness is the goal not sematical perfection. BTW "ARTCON" is not helpful: is that article title or article itself to be con(sistent)? -DePiep (talk) 14:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that MOS:CONSISTENCY and WP:CONSISTENCY shouldn't lead to different places. "WP:Consistency" (which is a "see also" at MOS:CONSISTENCY) leads to a third place, the disambiguation page. Not a huge fan of "ARTCON" either, but at least it's short. I'm ok if WP:CONSISTENCY goes to the disambiguation page as well. When I look it up, I'm usually looking for something about the general concept of consistency in articles. That could be spelling or date varieties, article titles, or other things - actually it might be nice if there was a more general write-up about that. --IamNotU (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(Per WP:ANI, this post is not to be considered agressive. -DePiep (talk) 00:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Queen Daughter

There are loads of daughters of queens. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elisabeth I of Scotland

Made-up name. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_September_17&oldid=916275112"