Talk:Committee on Government Operations

Avoid redirects
The disambiguation term here is "Committee on Government Operations". There is a disagreement between User:Anomalocaris and User:Bkonrad over links to redirects. In this and many other disambiguations, Anomalocaris avoids redirects; Bkonrad does not avoid redirects.

Anomalocaris sets one of the entries as with the edit summary explanation, "This isn't WP:DABREDIR: A redirect should be used to link to a specific section of an article if the title of that section is more or less synonymous with the disambiguated topic."
 * United States House Committee on Government Operations, defunct committee whose function is currently within purview of the United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

BKonrad sets the same entry as with edit summary explanation, "this is very clearly a case of both WP:NOTBROKEN and linking the ambiguous term. In theory both pod of these could become standalone articles".
 * United States House Committee on Government Operations, defunct committee whose function is currently within purview of the United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

The applicability of WP:NOTBROKEN here is to avoid redirects:
 * Good reasons to bypass [i.e. "avoid"] redirects include: ...
 * It may be appropriate to make this kind of change if the hint that appears when a user hovers over the link is misleading. [As here] ...
 * Links on disambiguation pages. [As here] See WP:DABPIPE for rationale and exceptions.

WP:DABPIPE says:
 * Subject to certain exceptions as listed below, piping or redirects should not be used in disambiguation pages. This is to make it clear to the reader which article is being suggested. For example, on the disambiguation page Moment, in the entry Moment (physics), " (physics)" should be visible to the reader. In many cases, what would be hidden by a pipe is exactly what the user would need in order to find their intended article. However, raw section and anchor points should not be displayed; see  for those cases.


 * Though piping and redirects should generally not be used in disambiguation pages, there are certain cases in which they may be useful to the reader: ...

What follows is the section WP:DABREDIR that Anomalocaris mentioned in an edit summary; that section includes:


 * A redirect should be used to link to a specific section of an article if the title of that section is more or less synonymous with the disambiguated topic. This indicates a higher possibility that the topic may eventually have its own article.

This doesn't apply, because the redirect is to an article, not to a specific section of an article.

Thus, as Anomalocaris explained in the edit summary, "This isn't WP:DABREDIR." Moreover, WP:NOTBROKEN calls for avoiding redirects here. I am open to further discussion on this topic. —Anomalocaris (talk) 21:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The language under WP:DABREDIR is deliberately suggestive and not an all-inclusive list. The rationale for using redirects is This indicates a higher possibility that the topic may eventually have its own article. The House Committee on Government Operations is not synonymous with the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. It was a predecessor committee with some similar functions as the current committee. The same is true of the Senate committee. Separate articles could be written for each. Links to the historical committees should not be changed to link to the current committees to avoid creating anachronisms. Similarly, persons fixing links to the ambiguous phrase should link to the correct historical term.
 * WP:NOTBROKEN suggests as the first reason to avoid bypassing redirects is Redirects can indicate possible future articles.
 * As these historical committees are both separate (although related) topics distinct from the target of the redirects. I don't see any benefit for readers by obfuscating this distinction through using redirects. older ≠ wiser 23:11, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Bkonrad: You wrote, "The language under WP:DABREDIR is deliberately suggestive and not an all-inclusive list." Actually, by its own terms it is an all-inclusive list, because it says, in bold, "Subject to certain exceptions as listed below, ... redirects should not be used in disambiguation pages." That means that except for those certain exceptions listed, redirects should not be used. None of the exceptions listed fit this situation. Therefore, redirects should not be used. You have two other arguments. First is that an article could be written for United States House Committee on Government Operations. I doubt that this will happen, except in response to this discussion; in the event of its creation, this disambiguation can and should be updated. Second is that the current committees could be renamed, creating anachronisms. Well, when something gets renamed, there are consequences wherever that something is mentioned. What we now call a capacitor was once known as a condenser, and if Wikipedia had existed back then, over time, most references to condenser, linked or not, would have been changed to capacitor. References to congressional committees might not change that much, because articles should state the name of the committee that a legislator served on, or the name of a committee that held hearings or considered a bill—not the current name of the the committee. I concede that if the committee were ever renamed, there would be a small administrative burden in updating this disambiguation page, but that is a price that should be paid. The provisions of WP:DABREDIR are there for good reasons. Especially on disambiguation pages, where redirects are deprecated, a user expects a link to take the user to what the link actually says, or at least to an article that mentions the linked topic in the lead paragraph. The provisions of WP:DABREDIR minimize confusion and surprise, and the cost is zero unless and until either the redirected term becomes an article on its own, or the target link requires updating. —Anomalocaris (talk) 05:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your thoughtful considerations, but I remain unconvinced.  These are  distinct entities from the target of the redirect not an archaic or alternate name. It would be wrong to say that someone served on the currently named committee prior to it's existence. older ≠ wiser 10:29, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Bkonrad: I don't understand your point. I agree that United States House Committee on Government Operations redirecting to United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform involves distinct entities. In a sense, one is an archaic name, but it was the actual name of the committee, and any reference to it as having held hearings or considered legislation should not be "updated" to reflect any later name for that committee. I agree that a legislator who served on the United States House Committee on Government Operations and not on the later United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform should be associated with the committee by the name it had when the legislator served on it. How does this affect the dispute between us? You said that "The language under WP:DABREDIR is deliberately suggestive and not an all-inclusive list." I challenged this point. You didn't respond to the challenge. If you have support for your theory that "The language under WP:DABREDIR is deliberately suggestive and not an all-inclusive list," please provide it. Moreover, your argument "I don't see any benefit for readers by obfuscating this distinction through using redirects," seems to support my position, not yours. It is your preferred version of this disambiguation that obfuscates the distinction between the various names of the committee through using redirects! —Anomalocaris (talk) 17:31, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * An editor disambiguating an ambiguous link to Committee on Government Operations should link to the correct historical committee. Formatting the diambiguation page to avoid using the redirects in effect encourages editors to erroneously link to the current committee. There have been many long discussions about use of redirects on disambiguation pages and there are split opinions about several aspects of redirect usage. It is not an "not an all-inclusive list" in that it does not spell out every possible exception. And above all WP:MOSDAB is a guideline meaning It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. I fail to see any common sense in encouraging erroneous linking practices. older ≠ wiser 23:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * n.b., I've solicited additional opinions on the talk pages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages, and Wikipedia talk:Redirect . older ≠ wiser 23:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I support the use of a redirect in this situation. It leads the reader to the correct article, and if the predecessor entity ever does get its own article, then all the links already point to the right place. Nick Number (talk) 04:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Bkonrad: Your comment "I fail to see any common sense in encouraging erroneous linking practices" adds no weight to your argument. We all agree that erroneous linking practices should not be encouraged. The question is, what are the best linking practices. You claim "It is not an [sic] 'not an all-inclusive list' in that it does not spell out every possible exception." Actually, by the terms of WP:DABPIPE, it is an all-inclusive list. If it weren't intended to be all-inclusive, it could have said something like, "Subject to certain exceptions such as those listed below, ... redirects should not be used in disambiguation pages." Not only doesn't it say "such as those", it says in boldface, Subject to certain exceptions as listed below, piping or redirects should not be used in disambiguation pages. That is a declaration that the "certain exceptions as listed below" form an exhaustive list. —Anomalocaris (talk) 22:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * In this particular case, link to the extant committee. If there were an entire section about the old one, link to that subheading instead. It's confusing to the reader to link to the old name and have that redirect to an article on something else. It's a WP:COMMONSENSE matter on a case-by-case basis. Neither editor (in the original dispute reported by the OP) is categorically right or wrong on this sort of linking in general.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC)