Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 July 4

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

July 4

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 4, 2012

Goshin-Ryu Kempo

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 article restored and sent to AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 01:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the redirect really has nothing to do with Kempo. It was a made up art with no connections for the organizations discussed in Kenpo. I had wanted this discussed on the Martial Arts Project. Based on discussions on the Talk page the original re-direct was in error - it should have been a straight deletion.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Could someone who is more familiar with policy comment on the possibility of reverting this redirect to the version where the article was still present and then taking that article to AFD? jmcw (talk) 15:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be fine if done in good faith (rather than to circumvent a process), and seems a reasonable approach. There's some history in the pre-blanked version of the article's talk page. Whouk (talk) 15:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Always in good faith. I will do that and submit to AfD on the understanding that the change to Redirect was not fully discussed.Peter Rehse (talk) 00:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

English and British

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 and adapt where necessary. There is certainly no consensus to delete them and whilst discussion beyond isn't that conclusive, there is a certain gist in favor of solutions that help to find or link to the currently separate articles and lists from similar titles that use both terms. Noting that the first target has meanwhile been moved to British queens mother, better disambiguation and further discussion may be necessary, but there seems little point in relisting this now here. Tikiwont (talk) 15:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are seperate English and British lists for these articles, so English and British redirects are not neeeded and only make it more confusing. The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 04:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • These should point to a disambiguation type page as history, etc means that these will likely be the target of incomming links. Unfortunately it cannot be called a disambiguation page as our disambiguation guidelines actively work against the reader in situations like this. 82.132.211.241 (talk) 09:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, I would say these should be kept for attribution and potential link rot purposes. I would say the first group should be retargetted to English queens dowager, although keeping their current targets is fine if a hatnote is added to British queens dowager. TimBentley (talk) 15:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the age of these titles (2006 and 2007), TimBentley is absolutely correct that they should be kept to minimize the potential for link rot and, to a lesser degree, ensure our compliance with the attribution requirements of our license. I have no strong opinion about where or if they should be retargeted but they definitely should not be deleted. Rossami (talk) 15:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Couldn't we just relink them? Most of the links are on user pages and talk pages. There were only three article pages which I have just changed. Others like them have been deleted already English and Britishs Queen mother and List of heirs to the English and British thrones. It doesn't make sense to choose which list to redirect to when it says both English and British or England and UK/Great Britain.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 04:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for pointing those two out. They were invalid deletions (one a CSD#R3 way outside of the allowable time window and the other a PROD which is not allowed for redirects) which have now been restored pending discussion here.
        To your question about relinking, the short answer is "no, that will not solve the problem of link rot". We can control the links on active pages in Wikipedia but we can do nothing to fix the old links that remain on pagehistories throughout the project. Any one of those links could be restored if, for example, a page using it has to be reverted to fix previously-unidentified vandalism. More importantly however, we can do nothing to fix external links to those page. Inbound links, bookmarks and web citations to old titles are not within our control to update nor can we even see whether or where they exist. Because link rot is an evil to be avoided whenever possible, the threshhold for keeping a non-harmful redirect is very low.
        By the way, I still have no strong opinion about whether or where they should be retargetted but I disagree with the anon's comment that a disambiguation page is impossible - to those outside the UK, the "English" vs "British" distinction is very ambiguous indeed. I have taken the liberty of drafting a possible disambiguation version under the RfD tag at English and British Queens mother but for consistency, it probably belongs at English and British queens dowager. And as TimBentley points out, even that may be unnecessary since both the "queens dowager" pages are already hatnoted. Rossami (talk) 15:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While Rossami raises good points, these redirects combine two similar but different groups of people. I don't think longevity gives a bad redirect legitimacy. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 16:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep of English and British Queen mothers, as the content of British queens dowager and English queens dowager came from there. TimBentley (talk) 16:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: One alternative to outright deletion would be a short DAB. Created at one page, it could provide links to the relevant national articles while absorbing all the redirects that are contentious when pointed at English articles specifically. Just a thought. BigNate37(T) 18:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recommend relisting to avoid a deleterious outcome. Failing that, keep all. There are many issues with these topics, and it would be best to find a workable solution for all of them. Once that happens, it should be relatively simple to determine what to do with these redirects. For instance I am thinking right now that after cleaning the articles up for scope (see Talk:British queens dowager#Scope problems), the history-rich page (English and British Queen mothers) could be moved to a neutral title such as British Queen mothers (depending on the outcome of the scope cleanup) and turned into a disambiguation page that ties all these articles together. BigNate37(T) 01:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not a fan of splitting up "English" and "British" monarchs in this way, something which we seem to do all over the place on Wikipedia. In the actual literature, this distinction is almost never actually made. john k (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_July_4&oldid=1039429013"