Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 April 4

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. (non-admin closure) B dash (talk) 02:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Annals of the carnegie museum → Annals of Carnegie Museum  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Annals of the Carnegie Museum exists as a redirect, but so does Annals of the carnegie museum (lower case) - when you type in "Annals of the c"... or even "Annals of the C..." in the Wiki searchbox, the lower case version automatically pops up in the list. It seems to be over-riding the capitalised version, which is not showing up at all. Therefore, I suggest the lower case version of the redirect needs to be deleted. Rodney Baggins (talk) 14:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep perfectly fine {{R from other capitalisation}}, search suggestions are only shown to a subset of people who use a subset of ways to find content on Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

→ Carnegie Museum is a proper name that should always be capitalised. Also there is no redirect for "Annals of carnegie museum" (lc, no article) so why do we need one for "Annals of the carnegie museum" (lc with article)? Rodney Baggins (talk) 18:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge: please see discussion here. Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep perfectly fine use of {{R from miscaps}}. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:55, 5 April 2019 (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.

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. (non-admin closure) B dash (talk) 02:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Annals of joseon dynasty → Veritable Records of the Joseon Dynasty  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Annals of Joseon Dynasty exists as a redirect, but so does Annals of joseon dynasty (lower case) - when you type in "Annals of j"... or even "Annals of J..." in the Wiki searchbox, the lower case version automatically pops up in the list. It seems to be over-riding the capitalised version, which is not showing up at all. Therefore, I suggest the lower case version of the redirect needs to be deleted. Rodney Baggins (talk) 14:08, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep perfectly fine {{R from other capitalisation}}, search suggestions are only shown to a subset of people who use a subset of ways to find content on Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

→ Not so sure about this one. I would say that "Joseon Dynasty" is a proper name that should always be capitalised, but if you look at the Joseon article, they don't seem to agree! Rodney Baggins (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: redirects don't have to be grammatically or syntactically correct. That's the point. They are, amongst others, deliberately incorrect titles that redirect readers to the correct one. Lithopsian (talk) 19:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge: please see discussion here. Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep perfectly fine use of {{R from miscaps}}. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:55, 5 April 2019 (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.

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. (non-admin closure) B dash (talk) 02:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Annals of xanten → Annales Xantenses  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Annals of Xanten exists as a redirect, but so does Annals of xanten (lower case) - when you type in "Annals of x"... or even "Annals of X..." in the Wiki searchbox, the lower case version automatically pops up in the list. It seems to be over-riding the capitalised version, which is not showing up at all. Therefore, I suggest the lower case version of the redirect needs to be deleted. Rodney Baggins (talk) 14:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep perfectly fine {{R from other capitalisation}}, search suggestions are only shown to a subset of people who use a subset of ways to find content on Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

→ Xanten is the name of a town, therefore a proper noun that should always be capitalised. Without the lower case redirect, auto-correct will produce the upper case version anyway, so I simply don't see the need for the lc redirect. Rodney Baggins (talk) 18:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge: please see discussion here. Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep perfectly fine use of {{R from miscaps}}. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:55, 5 April 2019 (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.

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. (non-admin closure) B dash (talk) 02:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Annals of wales → Annales Cambriae  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Annals of Wales exists as a redirect, but so does Annals of wales (lower case 'w') - when you type in "Annals of w"... or even "Annals of W..." in the Wiki searchbox, the lower case version automatically pops up in the list. It seems to be over-riding the capitalised version, which is not showing up at all. Therefore, I suggest the lower case version of the redirect needs to be deleted. Rodney Baggins (talk) 14:01, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep perfectly fine {{R from other capitalisation}}, search suggestions are only shown to a subset of people who use a subset of ways to find content on Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

→Wales is the name of a country, therefore it is a proper noun which should always be capitalised, and for that reason alone I don't see why we even need to entertain the idea of a lower case version. Cf: If I incorrectly type "wales" into the Wiki searchbox, it is auto-corrected to "Wales" in the list that pops up, because "wales" does not exist as a redirect (and rightly so). For this same reason, I don't think "Annals of wales" should exist as a redirect. It should just get auto-corrected to Annals of Wales in exactly the same way. Rodney Baggins (talk) 18:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • Sorry, I should have said {{R from miscapitalisation}} but the same reasoning I gave holds. That it is grammatically incorrect is not relevant, not everybody searches using correct grammar. Regarding Wales, the first character of a page title on Wikipedia is case insensitive and canonically uppercase. This means that wales and Wales are exactly the same page, it is not possible for one to be a redirect to the other. For a better example, New york, Bill clinton, New delhi, Margaret thatcher, College of arms, and literally thousands of similar ones all exist as redirects (Category:Redirects from miscapitalisations has 4,303 members and not all such redirects are tagged). Thryduulf (talk) 01:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Thryduulf I understand that now. The lower case 'w' in "Annals of wales" is not the opening letter of the redirect so my Wales/wales analogy was not equivalent. But I'm still concerned that this redirect is unnecessary. I notice that numerous other Annals articles have no such lower case redirect, e.g. "Annals of essenbæk", "Annals of lund", "Annals of medicine", "Annals of probability", the list goes on... So I think the problem I have is a matter of consistency. When you bring up the article list in the Wiki searchbox, all the suggestions come up with caps except the erroneous one, i.e. type in "Annals of w" and you get "Annals of Winchester", "Annals of Waverley" and "Annals of wales" and the reason you don't get the capitalised "Annals of Wales" in the list (which would look more correct and consistent) is because the lower case version exists and therefore over-rides the uc version, and that's the very reason for my objection to it :) Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: this is one of multiple discussions started by the same author for the same reason. I think they were all on the same day, but I might be wrong about that. It might make sense to lump them to avoid having the same (rather simple, technical) discussion repeatedly. Lithopsian (talk) 19:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, feel free to merge. Thryduulf (talk) 01:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes they can be merged and continue discussion here under the Annals of Wales entry. Rodney Baggins (talk) 07:46, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep perfectly fine use of {{R from miscaps}}. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:53, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to {{R from miscaps}}, the redirect exists as a temporary measure (hence it's in the Temporary maintenance holdings category) purely to maintain links, and pages that link to this redirect should be updated to link directly to the correct form. Logically, this implies that the redirect can be removed once it's served its purpose and its temporary function is no longer required. According to the list of links to this redirect, there's nothing there that wasn't created as a direct consequence of the discussion we're having now, so I don't see why this redirect can't be deleted as it appears to serve no purpose, other than to over-ride the correct capitalised form in the searchbox list (the "slightly irritating" thing that alerted me to it in the first place). (Assuming this argument also applies to xanten, joseon dynasty & carnegie museum above). Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:06, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you might have gotten turned around, the addition to Category:Temporary maintenance holdings is done by the {{rfd}} template. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 09:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What Amorymeltzer said. This is related to the rfd, not {{R from miscaps}}Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:06, 6 April 2019 (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.

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 Brussels attacks. (non-admin closure) B dash (talk) 02:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Brussels bombing → 2016 Brussels bombings  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Brussels bombings → 2016 Brussels bombings  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

More than one bombings occurred in Brussels B dash (talk) 12:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Terrorist activity in Belgium; all notable Brussels bombings are/should be listed there. ComplexRational (talk) 12:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Brussels bombing can be changed to a disambiguation page or redirected to Terrorist activity in Belgium if 2016 Brussels bombings is not its primary topic. --Neo-Jay (talk) 15:43, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 26#Attack in Brussels. Pinging the participants to that discussion who haven't commented here: @Ivanvector and BDD:. Thryduulf (talk) 15:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• (responding to ping) I'm of two minds with this one. It points to the most recent event, which you'd think would be the most likely event readers would be searching for, and has hatnotes pointing to the other topics which match this query. On the other hand I don't know if it's WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and so retargeting to the dab page would also work, but would be an extra click for readers looking for this topic who aren't aware of prior incidents. I guess I'm neutral. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed. RECENTISM is fine policy theoretically, but is often going to make it more difficult for readers to find what they're looking for. It can be a difficult needle to thread. --BDD (talk) 15:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate, do not retarget to Terrorist activity in Belgium. When our readers type in "Brussels bombing," they are likely to be looking for a specific incident, and it's going to be hard to find on a whole article on terrorist attacks in Belgium, many of which are not bombings and/or did not occur in Brussels. Brussels bombings should be the disambiguation page and Brussels bombing the redirect to it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It should be turned into a dab page: 1979 Brussels bombing, 2016 Brussels bombings & June 2017 Brussels attack. Jim Michael (talk) 23:48, 11 April 2019 (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.

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) 20:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Romantic relationships in Peanuts → Peanuts  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The article doesn't discuss any romantic relationships except for one mentioning of Peppermint Patty's infatuation for Charlie Brown early on in the strip. Implausible search term. Goveganplease (talk) 14:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - certainly a valid thing to search for, but we don't seem to have much information compiled in one place: the characters' romantic (and platonic) relationships are discussed mostly within the articles for each character. The main article is as good a place as any for readers to start. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "Romantic relationships" is nonexistent as a prefix outside of this redirect; there exist no other articles or redirects starting with "Romantic relationships". Given that Peanuts isn't even a romance-focused work, I see no reason to have this around when "Romantic relationships in X" doesn't exist for anything else. (An important clarification to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS/DOESNTEXIST is that most of the time, things exist or don't exist for a good reason. Now it's not valid to argue for the existence of something just because others exist when you cannot justify the existence of the other things, and vice versa, but here I can say very well that having thousands of "Romantic relationships in" redirects for every entry in Category:Romantic fiction would be completely pointless.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:44, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Implausible search term, no one is ever going to search for it. Peanuts does include romantic relationships, but that's not the main point of the strip. Charlie Brown's interest in the little red-haired girl, Sally's interest in Linus and Lucy's interest in Schroeder can be covered on the respective character pages as an aside. JIP | Talk 22:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete implausable search term and if anyone did use it they should be smart enough to look for the Peanuts page themselves. Not useful for linking. Legacypac (talk) 01:41, 12 April 2019 (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.