Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 December 16

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. See also: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 July 29#Star Wars: Episode X -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:23, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Star Wars: Episode XI → Star Wars sequel trilogy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I had originally redirected this to Star Wars sequel trilogy#Episode IX, following similar logic to Star Wars: Episode IX. However, there is currently no such thing as "Star Wars episode 11" (XI), and while a Star Wars#Future trilogy may appear in the distant future, there is currently no logical target for this redirect. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:38, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Too WP:CRYSTAL for me. If the speculated trilogy would "differ from the Skywalker-focused films in favor of focusing on new characters", it's also quite possible it wouldn't use the numbering convention of the first three trilogies. --BDD (talk) 18:29, 18 December 2017 (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.

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 to Country song. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 16:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Country Songs → Hot Country Songs  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete per WP:R#DELETE 8, obscure synonym. Too vague and generic to be specific. Note that country songs does not exist and country song is a dab. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 10:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Country song and do the same for Country songs. They would fall in the same disambiguation. 165.91.13.163 (talk) 00:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Country song as a harmless capitalization variant. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Country song. This looks obvious to me as well. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Country song as plausible variant --Lenticel ^(talk) 10:08, 19 December 2017 (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.

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 to delete. Any discussion on whether such redirects should or should not be created en masse would need a wider forum. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:32, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Boeing 767-233 → Boeing 767  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

A redirect does not need to exist for the highly specific instance of a derivative aircraft model that is unlikely to be searched. Delete, or be consistent and similarly create thousands of redirects for other customer codes that are unlikely to be searched. -- Acefitt 22:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This model number is mentioned in articles about a notable incident, from which the redirect was recently removed ([1] [2]) - one of which links to several redirects for other specific models such as Boeing 737-222 and Boeing 737-282. I'm not aware of any proposal to create "a redirect for every explicit Boeing customer code". However, I checked a pattern search on article titles and found we do have hundreds more. Burninthruthesky (talk) 09:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, harmless and on topic, but don't create similar redirects en masse. Wikipedia is not consistent, and any attempts to make it consistent are doomed to fail. —Kusma (t·c) 09:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This redirect, and many like it, was created so that a reference within an article to a particular model could be linked as a whole and send the reader to the appropriate article. Alternative - but undesirable - methods are to link only part of the model number or to pipe the link. Both would be very poor choices. The point of this sort of redirect is twofold: it crystallises the specialist knowledge of the editor who created it - the title of the article which describes a specific model is not necessarily just the high-order part of the model number; and it externalises the linkage between the mention in an article and the actual location that describes that topic. Not only is it not a problem if WP has hundreds of redirects from specific model numbers to the appropriate article, it is a positive benefit, the very reason for which redirects exist. I would strongly encourage the creation of as many such redirects as may be needed; every time a specific model number is mentioned in an article, it should be linked as a whole, with a redirect to send the reader to the appropriate destination. And this is not just my opinion - it is policy - see WP:NOPIPE. And for the reasons stated, I would strongly discourage misguided attempts to replace redirects with piping. Colonies Chris (talk) 10:42, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Colonies Chris:WP:NOPIPE is not policy, unless I'm reading the header of that page wrong. In any event, given that they have the same target, creating multiple redirects in the same article seems in contradiction to WP:DUPLINK, as no additional benefit is provided. You've clearly stated your personal preference, but I still see no benefit of entire redirect page when a couple piped links create only additional syntax, and in latter instances of the link, less syntax. I see no advantage to creating an entire page to serve the purpose of one single piped link. I haven't a clue what you mean by "crystallising the specialist knowledge of an editor" but piping a link when only a few instances will link to a given redirect still seems easier for all parties. For these reasons, I strongly maintain that redirects should not be needlessly created, and given that it does not contravene policy, I will refrain from fixing redirects but continue to pipe links instead of needlessly creating redirects. -- Acefitt 15:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not official policy, but nonetheless widely agreed - that's why it's been there and stable for many years. Perhaps it would be useful for me to clarify the contrasting purposes of redirects and piping. The function of piping is to make a more precise link than the visible one; an example is [[Boeing 747|747]], where the context only requires '747', but the wikilink requires more detail. By contrast, the role of a redirect is to take a reader from a precise visible link to a more general article - in the case of Boeing 767-233, it goes to an article which covers the visible topic in a larger context. WP:DUPLINK has nothing to do with it - that's talking about multiple links to the same item; the fact that several links to different items may be covered by the same target article has no relevance at all. Redirects should not be seen as an overhead or as a problem - on the contrary, redirects allow flexibility and reduce maintenance overhead. A redirect page costs virtually nothing, and the action of redirecting a clicked link also costs virtually nothing. Set that against the cost of adding some piping, which might seem small but in fact you incur a significant cost because it's part of the history of a larger article. What do I mean by 'crystallising your specialist knowledge? I'll give you an example. You may know, as a plane expert working within Wikipedia, that the plane model Douglas C-54D-15-DC is covered by the article Douglas C-54 Skymaster, and you may add some piping into an article that mentions it, but that doesn't help anyone outside the context of that specific article. If you instead make a redirect, then anyone else can go straight from that specific model to the appropriate article without having to have your specialist knowledge; by adding the redirect you've 'crystallised' your knowledge, made it available to everyone, not just in one article, but across the whole encyclopaedia. Colonies Chris (talk) 16:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's specifically of Boeing customer codes that I'm speaking of, though. If one were to search for Douglas C-54D-15-DC, an actual variant of the airplane, it's entirely reasonable for them to be redirected to the appropriate article. Boeing customer codes, on the other hand, do not denote a specific variant and are insignificant to the extent that they have been ditched entirely in newer models. Boeing customer codes crystallize nothing but confusion... heck I'd prefer for the type parameter on Gimli Glider to simply say "Boeing 767-200" and not even have to distinguish. -- Acefitt 18:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's exactly the kind of specialist knowledge I was meaning. You're aware that 767-233 is a customer code, but the average reader or editor won't know that, and thanks to the redirect, they don't need to - they'll be taken to the right place, where all that is explained if they want to know. Colonies Chris (talk) 21:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: It is extremely unlikely the average Wikipedia user will come in and search for a Boeing aircraft by both model and customer code. The customer code isn't even necessary on articles about aircraft incidents, though there's no harm in listing it there. But that doesn't justify having these redirects, and no new redirects like this should be created. Aviation article maintainers know how to link to the appropriate aircraft page, and we don't need to create endless redirects for something editors handle every day. Shelbystripes (talk) 19:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a case such as this, it's possible someone mght search by that code, because that's a plane that was involved in a widely reported incident. But more importantly, why the opposition to the redirect? It's useful for the reasons I've explained above and its cost is insignificant. Why deny readers and editors the benefit of the knowledge 'stored' in that redirect? An aviation editor has a choice; they can pipe a model number to the appropriate article, or they can create a redirect. The cost of either option is trivial, but the redirect has a wider benefit, so why not use it? Colonies Chris (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Redirects are intended for more than the "average" user, they are for any reasonably likely user, and if I ever saw this term, yes I would look for it, as I did not know the meaning of customer codes in this context until I saw this discussion. DGG ( talk ) 00:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Air Canada#Fleet as the customer code indicates that the user is searching for Boeing 767 aircraft operated by a specific airline. feminist 15:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  That is a bit confusing, as there is no mention of 767-233 in that section and no indication that "233" is related to Air Canada. —Kusma (t·c) 21:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Indeed - does the user know he "is searching for Boeing 767 aircraft operated by a specific airline"? Johnbod (talk) 19:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Without mention of the topic at the target article, this is bound to confuse or disappoint readers who don't already know what the 767-233 is. For those who do, we can't offer any new information, and I'm sure they'd be able to find the main 767 article without. --BDD (talk) 16:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per keepers. Johnbod (talk) 19:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Jeepers keepers! --BDD (talk) 14:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - {{R from product}} covers this. Perfectly valid search term. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  No one's disputing that this is a Boeing product, but the Rcat fitting doesn't really tell us whether this redirect in particular would be useful to readers. To use a red example from WP:RFDO, we could have Set hMickfarland tagged with {{R from misspelling}}, but that doesn't mean the redirect should be there in the first place. --BDD (talk) 22:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's why I also said "perfectly valid search term". As I understand it this particular model is not different in any notable way from any other 767-200, it's just configured for a particular customer, so other than finding out what the 233 means they will find the information they're looking for at the target. And I also understand that this is a standard numbering system for Boeing jetliners. I can't produce any sources on either of these points, though, I'm judging by the conversation above between two editors who seem to have more specialized knowledge on this. But anyway, if a reader searches for "Boeing 767-233" we could serve them information on that model of aircraft (the current target) minus the customer code, or we could serve them nothing. Better to give them something, in my opinion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per BDD unless we can point our readers to specific information on the Boeing 767-233. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:18, 19 December 2017 (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.

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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:21, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• SP-103 (disambiguation) → SP-103  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. The target was an INTDAB redirect that is no longer required because there is a primary topic article at SP-103 - see Talk:SP-103#Requested move 26 November 2017. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:31, 16 December 2017 (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.

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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:21, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Styendranagar Aurangabad → Aurangabad district, Bihar  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I don't think this is a useful redirect. I cannot access the history of this article so I may be wrong here. However, I have never heard of any place with the name "Styendranagar". I don't think there is any particular use in keeping it. DreamLinker (talk) 06:50, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Could "Styendranagar" be some kind of a flubbed translation (or something like that) for Surendranagar? We might want more opinions here. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:29, 18 December 2017 (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.

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 procedural close. An article has been created at the title, so this is no longer under the jurisdiction of RfD. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:50, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Chief Justice of Samoa → Politics of Samoa  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Chief Justice of Samoa bizarrely redirects to Politics of Samoa, despite that Samoa, like most places, has a constitutional separation of powers. This is a worse than useless redirect that's hiding that we have no article on an important topic. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Supreme Court of Samoa, where the position is described. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:30, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most other countries have articles on their Chief Justice, and I suspect this has only been missed because of the fake blue link. I just wrote the article you want to redirect to on the assumption that a Chief Justice article already existed. Having trouble deleting blatantly inappropriate redirects bluelinking the titles of obviously notable topics is the bane of content creation. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:10, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Close Nominator removed RfD template and started a stub, which I've expanded with a mishmash of sources. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 13:56, 16 December 2017 (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.

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 to British Airways#Marketing. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:05, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• British Airways Ads → British Airways  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unlikely search term. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:59, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It isn't terribly unreasonable, given that there is a "Marketing" section in the article. I would make this title a section redirect pointing there. bd2412 T 02:35, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
• Keep not unreasonable. jcc (tea and biscuits) 12:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I recommend that this be refined to 'British_Airways#Marketing'. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:27, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Refine target to British_Airways#Marketing to point our readers to a more plausible section. --Lenticel ^(talk) 10:10, 19 December 2017 (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.