Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 7

October 7
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 7, 2016.

Q42

 * 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 dabify. Are ships typically referred to by hull number alone? Those might be better suited to a See also. --BDD (talk) 20:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Q42 → Khareef-class corvette (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Q42&action=history history] · [//tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews?start=2016-09-07&end=2016-10-06&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Q42 stats])     [ Closure:  ]

No explanation for this redirect; in Wikidata, Q42 is a Douglas Adams reference Orange Mike  &#124;  Talk  22:01, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per Royal_Navy_of_Oman, it's the hull number of one of the ships in the class. Unless there's some other use, it's fine as a redirect. Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:52, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Given findings below, keep the disambiguation page created by Tavix. Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep as per Patar knight. Also see commons:Category:ONS Al Rasikh (Q42) - I created this redirect when trying to find out more about the ship I photographed, and felt that having a redirect in place would help others find out more about it in the future. There's no (intentional) connection with Wikidata. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk)
 * Retarget to, where it's mentioned unlike at the current target; readers can still click through to the Khareef-class corvette article from there. nyuszika7h (talk) 11:16, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It is now mentioned in the target article. I think it's more useful to link to the article about the class of ships, than the article on the whole of a country's navy. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, that looks good. nyuszika7h (talk) 19:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:XY or disambiguate. We also have Q42 (New York City bus) and ARA Cabo San Antonio (Q-42). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Disambiguate between the various entities known by this name CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Disambiguate per NCFF's links. I have drafted a disambiguation page under the redirect. -- Tavix ( talk ) 22:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep the disambiguation page per above. – Uanfala (talk) 08:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 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.

Wikipedia:Ц

 * 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. -- Tavix ( talk ) 22:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Ц → Help:Reverting (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:%D0%A6&action=history history] · [//tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews?start=2016-08-31&end=2016-09-29&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Wikipedia%3A%D0%A6 stats])     [ Closure:  ]

WP:R - nonsensical unicode character redirect to a target that has nothing to do with its title. Apparently, this was linked to save space in the automatically-generated edit summary for undiong a revision briefly in 2008, which explains the "please do not delete" stuff on the talk page. However, the text that this used to be piped as has not been linked to anything since 2010, so a redlink would not provide confusing. Only 72 views over past year. P p p er y 21:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Edit summaries are permanent, of course. I'm sure that the deletion's impact would be minimal, but I'm curious as to what harm the redirect's retention is causing.  (Visits via page histories obviously are infrequent, but it seems likely that other views are virtually nonexistent.)  —David Levy 21:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The redirect might confused editors who happened to arrive it it from some method other than the edit summary link. P p p er y 21:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Such as...? —David Levy 04:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Seems to have very little use, if any. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 21:49, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Of course, editors might get a bit confused (although the redirect goes where it's supposed to and it also has a talk page that explains its purpose), but the only way they could arrive at it is when following incoming links from edit summaries or talk page archives, and breaking these would confuse readers a lot more. Uanfala (talk) 07:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Uanfala. —David Levy 04:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per the explanation at Wikipedia talk:Ц. There isn't any harm in retaining this. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 11:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep – Redirects are cheap, this is a historical thing that can't be fixed, even though it was only used for a relatively short time, it could confuse people if they see a redlink. nyuszika7h (talk) 20:36, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 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.


 * (Tangentially related) It haunts me to see my own writing from almost 10 years ago linked from a deletion discussion . Deryck C. 11:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Maju Pulu Kita
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 24%23Maju Pulu Kita

Guinea-Bissau/People

 * 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 ) 22:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Guinea-Bissau/People → Demographics of Guinea-Bissau (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guinea-Bissau/People&action=history history] · [//tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews?start=2016-08-30&end=2016-09-28&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Guinea-Bissau%2FPeople stats])     [ Closure:  ]

Delete, I think. This is not how we usually do these things, but we don't have Guinea-Bissau people; the correct redirect by the way we usually do things is (sic) -> Demographics of Guinea-Bissau. Si Trew (talk) 12:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep as R from subpage - This wouldn't be a reasonable title per Subpages, and it wouldn't be searched for in this manner. However, looking at the page history (i.e. Special:Permalink/15966390), this was seemingly a very early title for this content (see Subpages for further information). — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 12:48, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. For the record, this redirect is a R with old history, not a R from subpage since subpages are technically unable to be implemented in the "Article" namespace. With that being said, I'm "weak delete" per nom and since this is a very unlikely search term due to the slash (the "delete" rationale by me), but it's an old R from move created over a decade ago (what degrades my "delete" rationale to "weak delete"). Steel1943  (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - It's not really helpful. I don't think it's worth retaining. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:31, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:R "You risk breaking incoming or internal links by deleting the redirect. For example, redirects resulting from page moves should not normally be deleted without good reason. Links that have existed for a significant length of time, including CamelCase links and old subpage links, should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them. See also ."; Category:Redirects with old history "These redirects are kept to retain edit history, and to avoid breaking links that may have been made externally. This category includes titles in CamelCase, which older versions of Wikipedia used for linking, as well as article subpages, which were originally used for subtopics." That's the guidance we have on pages of this nature. It may or may not be good advice anymore, perhaps a discussion about it in the proper place is due. Until then, the editing guideline (i.e. the first quote I linked) still applies. —  Godsy (TALK CONT ) 10:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes. I think the "retaining history" argument is stupid, because deleted links still have their history retained. As far as external link rot goes, I think that argument is also stupid unless we want never to change any page in any way because it breaks an external link: it is the responsibility of those maintaining their websites to make sure their links are up-to-date, it's not WP's responsibility. (If we took the "might break external links" argument to its logical conclusion then we couldn't remove or change any information from any article, or delete any page, or overwrite a redirect with content, because it might invalidate an external link: a partial solution to that is to encourage those linking externally to use permalinks, and a guide to whether there are any external links it is to check stats to see if it is actually being hit: this had zero in the ninety days before this discussion.) As you imply, that's off-topic for this particular redirect, so I'll strike my !vote, but I agree it deserves wider discussion. Si Trew (talk) 11:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ...And that's why I'm "weak delete". Steel1943  (talk) 20:45, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand the value of history. However, I think the primary questions are always going to be both "Is it helpful?" and "Does it violate any clear-cut, important guidelines?" All of this 'under the hood' Wikipedia stuff from article talk page discussions to debates about who gets to be an administration to everyone else is for the primary service of those two causes, really: Be helpful. Keep to the standards. You know? I'm getting esoteric here, yes, but I'm really not one to like the argument of, basically, "history exists for X, and, therefore, leave X alone". CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom as subpages are not used in article namespace. P p p er y 19:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 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.

Culturally significant

 * 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 cultural heritage. -- Tavix ( talk ) 21:47, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Culturally significant → Culture (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Culturally_significant&action=history history] · [//tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews?start=2016-09-07&end=2016-10-06&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Culturally_significant stats])     [ Closure:  ]
 * Cultural significance → Culture (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_significance&action=history history] · [//tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews?start=2016-09-07&end=2016-10-06&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Cultural_significance stats])     [ Closure:  ]

Too vague to be a useful search term, especially for a concept as broad as "culture". The phrase makes me think of the National Film Registry criteria; we also have Register of Culturally Significant Properties, but "culturally significant" itself is just an adjectival phrase without much meaning absent some context. Maybe retarget to Cultural heritage, but even that seems tentative. --BDD (talk) 18:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Conservation-restoration of cultural heritage, as used in websites like The Society for the Preservation of Ancient Buildings Burra and Understanding Conservation Most of the news articles use this context about preserving culture, so maybe Cultural heritage might be okay as well. AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 15:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Retarget to either 'Cultural heritage' or 'Conservation-restoration of cultural heritage'. I might have a slight preference for the latter, but I don't want this deleted either way. The term "cultural significance" has an academic and activist context that I see used in various places (such as this list here). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Retarget to cultural heritage; I think that article provides better context for readers. However, if we retarget culturally significant there, then I think we should also retarget cultural significance to cultural heritage as well. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:16, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well spotted by you, and added by me. --BDD (talk) 19:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 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.