Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 September 5

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 No consensus. I do not see any consensus for any action here. Ruslik_Zero 20:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Virginia Panhandle → Northern Panhandle of West Virginia (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Virginia sort of has a panhandle, though we don't really call it that. West Virginia itself has another panhandle, so absent evidence this one is commonly called "Virginia Panhandle", this redirect should be deleted. BDD (talk) 18:09, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment West Virgina was part of Old Virginia prior to the Civil War, so, what was this back then? -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at a map, yes, this was perhaps the only thing that might have been called "Virginia Panhandle" at the time. But for modern readers, it's more likely to mislead. However, if we had evidence that pre-Civil War sources referred to this area by that name, it might be worth keeping. --BDD (talk) 21:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 20:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse redirect to "Northern Panhandle", which then would match the lede. I was expecting there to be other northern panhandles, but there are not (at least, not yet). Si Trew (talk) 20:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Parallels would be, I assume Ohio panhandle does not exist, but Oklahoma panhandle does, or perhaps where Pennsylvania takes a cut to get to Lake Eire, would that be a panhandle? Pennsylvania panhandle? But it would be a pan hung up on a rack. We are not here to make up words, leave that to the primary sources: Gerrymander springs to mind.Si Trew (talk) 11:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Si, are you recommending retargeting to another redirect? --BDD (talk) 20:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure yet. I still think Northern Panhandle of West Virginia is superflous – I probably did not make that clear. But Northern Panhandle covers it for a search term and matches the lede, which does not refer to it as the "Norther Panhandle of West Virginia" but the "Northern Panhandle". Opening sentence, "The Northern Panhandle is..." (not mentioning WV at all).

So to me patently there is some tidying up to do but entirely uncertain how. Virginia panhandle would seem to be the best, really: there are other panhandles so I don't see why it should be WP:CAPS. But of course that would be [ex carborundum ad feo] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help), out of the frying pan, into the fire. I note also "Panhandle" is very much U.S. Englsh and rarely used outside the U.S; we don't call the Lizard peninsula the Cornish panhandle, for example (and the former is a redirect to section at Cornwall), even though Lizard is on the Weather reports from coastal stations and inshore waters four times a day from BBC Radio 4. So perhaps WP:WORLDWIDE comes into play.) But I agree, BDD, R to R would be the worst solution. (talk) 21:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now I probably have to refimprove the frying pan one. "Out of the frying pan" is in Fowler^[1], to correct some small error but leave a larger one in its place. Oh! My ears and whiskers! [O Tempora! O Mores!] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) the old poet sung. ("Oh The Times, oh the Daily Mirror".) Si Trew (talk) 21:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• comment. I think Si Trew is trying to say that the article should be at Northern Panhandle or Northern panhandle (I'm confused about which) with Northern Panhandle of West Virginia and Virginia Panhandle redirecting there. The rest of the comment is about "panhandle" being US English, but as West Virginia is clearly a topic with strong ties to the USA I'm not sure why this is relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 22:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of. I think we are kinda all on the same side here but I am being clumsy in saying so. I hing Northern Panhandle of West Virginia is superflous, and said so. I would move the article to make it match its lede, Northern Panhandle. But I don't do these things when they are under discussion. I would then fix up the necessary redirects for {{R from alternate capitalization}} and so on. But we need to sort it out here first. Sorry to ramble so much, this is just so obvious to me what needs to be done that I kinda steamrollered into it, or perhaps more of a blunderbuss. Si Trew (talk) 22:25, 17 September 2014 (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 The Identical, and tagged with {{R from incorrect name}}. --BDD (talk) 16:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The Identical (2013 film) → Ray Liotta (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Deletion. Per the page author's comment: "Film is not started filming or production yet so redirect to its lead actor". The film is now in theatres and has its own page at The Identical. The redirect target's page points to the film's page. Morfusmax (talk) 17:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to The Identical per nom. Thryduulf (talk) 20:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If "per nom" means "in accordance with the nomination", I'd like to point out that my nomination was for deletion. I didn't say the current link should point to the correct page; I said the current link points to a page that itself points to the correct page. The redirect points to Ray Liotta, but his film credits point to The Identical. IMO, it's more confusing to have both The Identical and The Identical (2013) come up as search options, and pointless to have one redirect to the other. Morfusmax (talk) 17:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I should have been clearer. My comment means that I believe the redirect should be retargeted to The Identical for the reasons you gave in your nomination, even though you feel that those reasons mean it should be deleted. Having two similar titles come up as search options is a tiny inconvenience to some people and is far outweighed by the much greater convenience to others I describe below. Thryduulf (talk) 08:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to The Identical per nom. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Why delete instead of "retarget"? The film was released in 2014; the more accurate disambiguator for the redirect would be "2014 film", making the redirect's title The Identical (2014 film). So, I say create the aforementioned redirect (or not) and delete the nominated one. Steel1943 (talk) 03:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because being one year out is an extremely plausible thinko, with the liklihood of it increasing as time passes. We don't need to pre-emptively create redirects like this, but when they exist deletion brings no benefits (and may break any external links) wheras keeping it has real (albeit small) benefits and costs us nothing. Thryduulf (talk) 09:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe the nominated redirect is harmful since it contains the wrong date, and after a quick search on a popular search engine, the date that shows up on basically all examples with a year is year 2014. The search engine shows no proof that the existence of the nominated redirect will benefit our readers. In addition, any currently existing external links would be wrong anyways since they would direct the reader to the actor Ray Liotta rather than the film. (There are some cases where a redirect tagged with {{R from incorrect disambiguation}} is helpful to our readers: This isn't one of them.) Steel1943 (talk) 13:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The current target is unhelpful, which is why I'm recommending it be retargetted above. Redirects do not have to be correct, as {{R from incorrect disambiguation}}, {{R from typo}}, etc. demonstrate. People arrive at Wikipedia through many different routes, not just by looking up their search term in a search engine first, so I stand by my argument for this being useful above. Thryduulf (talk) 11:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree the current target is unhelpful, but retargeting it to the film is problematic, as I stated above. From what I have seen, the Rcat tag {{R from incorrect disambiguation}} is only used if the disambiguator is correct but doesn't follow standard Wikipedia naming conventions, and {{R from typo}} is supposed to be used if the typo that exists doesn't affect the accuracy of the target article's description (which is not the case here since the typo contains the wrong year). In fact, most (if not all) {{R from incorrect disambiguation}} contain disambiguators that accurately describe the subject, such as "dog", "cat", or "movie". Allowing the nominated redirect to exist could potentially result in consensus to create date disambiguators that are +/-1 year in difference from the correct year, and that is unhelpful. Steel1943 (talk) 14:40, 7 September 2014 (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. --BDD (talk) 16:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Penerbangan Malaysia Berhad → Malaysia Airlines (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Related topic, but not exactly the same, I am nominating this because I was removing a link to this redirect when I was editing the target page. - TheChampionMan1234 03:55, 5 September 2014 (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.