Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 24

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 William Hale (disambiguation)#Academics. (non-admin closure) Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️‍⚧️) 06:51, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• William Hale (professor) → William Mathew Hale  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Just delete this redirect (which resulted from a page move), because there is at least one other notable professor on Wikipedia called William Hale; in fact, the DAB page William Hale (disambiguation) lists 3 academics. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me, William Hale (disambiguation)#Academics being well organized. Sparafucil (talk) 03:29, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to William Hale (disambiguation)#Academics. Steel1943 (talk) 04:03, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems that of all the topics listed at William Hale (disambiguation)#Academics, the current target is the only one who was ever a professor. Steel1943 (talk) 05:29, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Steel1943 You were right the first time! I actually came here to see if I could withdraw and redirect to William Hale (disambiguation)#Academics as you had initially suggested. In any case I've added "professor" to the descriptor on the DAB page for William Gardner Hale, so now we clearly have two people with the same name who were professors. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:07, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to William Hale (disambiguation)#Academics per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 09:57, 25 December 2023 (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).

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 23:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Anerley tube station → Anerley railway station  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not a tube station and never has been a tube station. Always been National Rail/London Overground. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:35, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 19:45, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Cielquiparle (talk) 21:06, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 08:01, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a misleading redirect. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 08:33, 26 December 2023 (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).

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 23:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Canonbury tube station → Canonbury railway station  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not a tube station and never has been a tube station. Canonbury has always been a North London Line station and the East London Line got extended through here in 2010 and always had London Overground. Makes no sense to have a tube station redirect to a London Overground station and there have never ever been proposals to make this a tube station. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 19:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Cielquiparle (talk) 21:06, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a misleading redirect. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 08:32, 26 December 2023 (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).

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 23:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Haggerston tube station → Haggerston railway station  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not a tube station and never has been a tube station. Haggerston was formerly a London and North Western Railway station before closing in 1940 and it reopened as a London Overground station in 2010. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 19:28, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Cielquiparle (talk) 21:06, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a misleading redirect. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 08:32, 26 December 2023 (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).

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 23:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Dalston Junction tube station → Dalston Junction railway station  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not a tube station and never has been a tube station. Dalston Junction was formerly a British Rail station before closing in 1986 and it reopened as a London Overground station in 2010. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:21, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 19:28, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Cielquiparle (talk) 21:06, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It never has been. Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 23:08, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a misleading redirect. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 08:31, 26 December 2023 (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).

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 23:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 1st Hunger Games → The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete because it is debatable whether the target qualifies as the "1st Hunger Games". The first Hunger Games could be referring to the first Hunger Games book or film, rather than this prequel. Also, within the Hunger Games universe, the plot of the targeted article doesn't even focus on the first Hunger Games. Cielquiparle (talk) 18:38, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, within the Hunger Games universe, the plot of The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes focuses on the 10th Hunger Games, not the 1st. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 08:02, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; too vague to be a good redirect. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 08:30, 26 December 2023 (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).

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 disambiguate and create redirects. After two relists, nobody has advocated for keeping or deleting this redirect. The nominator suggested that the title is also used for group extensions and algebra extensions, which these possibilities were later agreed to be good redirect creations. WP:MOVEREDIRECT indicates that redirects should rarely be moved, and in this case the title only has one edit of history. Because the phrase "trivial extension" now applies to three different redirects, the current title is softly kept as a disambiguation page. (non-admin closure) Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 17:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Trivial extension → Field extension  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Also used for group extensions, algebra extensions, etc. 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would it be feasible to create a dab at this title?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:09, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the talk pages of Group extension and Algebra extension.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 11:30, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Create redirects Trivial group extension and Trivial algebra extension, and move Trivial extension to Trivial field extension, with target Field extension#trivial extension.
  This seems not require further discussion, and, IMO, the discussion can be immediately closed with these actions. In any case, it must not be relisted again. D.Lazard (talk) 15:00, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @1234qwer1234qwer4: What do you think? Jay 💬 11:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't understand this. Is this suggesting to move the redirect to a different title? What is supposed to happen under the Trivial extension page name? 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, I believe D.Lazard meant move without redirect. Unless, someone has an idea about converting Trivial extension to a dab page after a normal move. Jay 💬 11:53, 5 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).

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. Jay 💬 13:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Planked boat → Traditional fishing boat#Planking  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Planking (boat building) → Boat building#Construction materials and methods  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Just wanted to get feedback on whether these closely related redirects are okay as they are, should both point to the same target, or something else. (Of note: I created the second one recently, unaware of the first.)

I'm uncertain how to vote on this, and can see arguments for various outcomes. The meanings of the two redirected terms are different, the first one referring to a type of watercraft, and the second to a type of construction. On this basis, I think one could argue that it's all fine as it is. On the other hand, one could argue that the top one, "planked boat", while ostensibly a type of boat, is really only a type of construction and not a type of boat in the way a 'rowboat', a 'catboat', or a 'dugout canoe' is a type of boat, and therefore if they are both the type of boat construction using planks, then they should point to the same article. A minor complicating factor in my view is that the destination article Traditional fishing boat#Planking for the top one is not an ideal target for either a type of boat (if that's what a 'planked boat' is) or a type of construction, as traditional fishing boats can be lots of types, and constructed in various ways. (And what does 'traditional' even mean, here? Ancient? Prehistoric? Most common in the West since the Age of Discovery?) Thanks. Mathglot (talk) 23:40, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Planking (boat building) was not tagged for RfD and I have just done it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:02, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem we have here is that many Wikipedia articles on boat and ship building are highly deficient. Many are based on just a few references that are not really of the quality to be the sole support of an article. I think it would be better to leave things unchanged at present and try and concentrate on improving some key articles. In absence of any better ideas, the article Shipbuilding, or perhaps History of shipbuilding is the place to cover some of the techniques. But Shipbuilding has an article structure that does not fit the subject. It needs to be rewritten from scratch. Then we have the problem that traditionally built vessels are still made today.
Whatever we do, I don't think we need to be rushing into it, as this question is part of a large and complex subject. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 13:47, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a thoughtful response, with a good look at the broader issue involved than I was even aware of. I thought of yet another wrinkle which may argue for keeping things as they are in the short term, while simultaneously arguing for redirecting to the same target in the long term after further development of the articles as you mention, namely: if a user has search suggestions enabled (the default) then while starting to type plank... they may see both terms pop up, and might click both to see what they can find, and until those articles are developed further it might make sense for them to view both articles even if later on they should only target one. I'm good with the concluding sentence above, and with keep as is for now, although I'll keep watching the discussion in case other views appear. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:35, 24 December 2023 (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).

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 Survivor: Vanuatu#Contestants. Jay 💬 13:08, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Lee Masters → List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Lea Masters → List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete Does not appear in target article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:45, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Survivor: Vanuatu#Contestants as a more specific target. This is a plausible misspelling of "Lea Masters" who also appears at the current target article in the table at List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants#Seasons 6–10 (2003–2005). Left guide (talk) 04:45, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Survivor: Vanuatu#Contestants as plausible misspelling per Left guide --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note I've added Lea Masters to this nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 03:32, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget both per above, I can't find any coverage of anybody else by the name of Lee or Lea Masters. Thryduulf (talk) 03:32, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget Lea Masters to Survivor: Vanuatu#Conestants per above, and retarget Lee Masters to Edgar Lee Masters as a {{R from incomplete name}}, if not then delete per my rationale below. CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:32, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget Lee to Survivor: Vanuatu or Edgar Lee Masters? Also notified of this discussion at the talk of the proposed targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:39, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I was previously unaware of Edgar Lee Masters; in that case, disambiguate Lee Masters. Left guide (talk) 07:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I oppose disambiguation, as I can find no evidence that Edgar Lee Masters was ever known by just his middle name and last name. Sources seem to refer to him as "Edgar Lee Masters", "Masters" and "Edgar Masters" but never "Lee Masters". Thryduulf (talk) 02:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then the best thing to do would be to delete Lee Masters as potentially ambiguous, and retarget Lea Masters to the Survivor article. CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:24, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Except the point of my comments is that these terms aren't ambiguous - in practice there is exactly one notable person referred to as "Lea Masters" and thus there is exactly one person for whom "Lee Masters" is a plausible misspelling. Thryduulf (talk) 01:07, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • But this is not the case when searching for "Lee Masters" on Google or other web search engines, "Edgar Lee Masters" appears as the top result and the one readers are most likely looking for. I still think deletion would be best. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:34, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      If you think people are likely to be looking for "Edgar Lee Mathews" when searching for "Lea Matthews" or "Lee Matthews", despite him not being known by that name at all (google treats partial title matches very differently to us) then deleting the redirect makes no sense - a hatnote from the article dealing with the person who actually does have this name would serve all readers better than unpredictable search results (which may be several clicks/taps away, depending on multiple factors). Thryduulf (talk) 01:44, 31 December 2023 (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).