. -- Tavix (talk) 18:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- {{no redirect|1 = Blood on the Floor (Painting) }} → :Francis Bacon (artist) (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blood_on_the_Floor_(Painting)&action=history history] · [https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews?start=2017-04-10&end=2017-05-09&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Blood_on_the_Floor_%28Painting%29 stats]) [ Closure: {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|(@subpage)|[{{fullurl:Blood on the Floor (Painting)|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Blood on the Floor (Painting) closed as keep}}}} keep]/[{{fullurl:Blood on the Floor (Painting)|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Blood on the Floor (Painting) closed as retarget}}}} retarget]/[{{fullurl:Blood on the Floor (Painting)|action=delete&wpReason={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Blood on the Floor (Painting) closed as delete}}&wpMovetalk=1}} delete]}} ]
Request the deletion of 43 redirects which confound the purpose of a navigation template on the paintings of the artist, which has essentially served as a worklist and has properly shown redlinks where articles were needed. The creation of the redirects (some or all back on March 7 or so) changed the redlinks to bluelinks, perhaps tricking some readers and certainly undermining the point of the navigation template, and has caused some frustration amongst editors. This has been covered in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Another Believer (still open as of 5/9). Removing the redirects would help. doncram 01:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
This regards a total of 43 redirects:
{{collapse top}}
- Blood on the Floor (Painting)
- After Muybridge - Study of the Human Figure in Motion - Woman Emptying a Bowl of Water
- Carcase of Meat and Bird of Prey
- Diptych (Human Body)
- Dog (Bacon 1952)
- Double Portrait of Lucian Freud and Frank Auerbach
- Female Nude Standing in a Doorway
- Figure Study I
- In Memory of George Dyer
- Lying Figure
- Lying Figure with Hypodermic Syringe
- Portrait of Lucian Freud (on Orange Couch)
- Portrait of Michel Leris, 1976
- Portrait of Michel Leris, 1978
- Seated Figure (1973)
- Self-portrait (Bacon, 1972)
- Self-portrait (Bacon, 1973)
- Sleeping Figure (Bacon, 1974)
- Sphinx: Portrait of Muriel Blecher
- Study for a Portrait (Isabel Rawsthorn)
- Study for Head of George Dyer
- Study for the Nurse in the film Battleship Potemkin
- Study for Three Heads
- Study from Innocent X
- Study from the Human Body
- Three Figures and Portrait
- Three Studies for a Portrait of George Dyer
- Three Studies for a Portrait of John Edwards (1980)
- Three Studies for a Portrait of Lucian Freud
- Three Studies for a Portrait of Peter Beard
- Three Studies for a Self Portrait (1973)
- Three Studies for a Self Portrait (Bacon 1974)
- Three Studies for a Self Portrait (Bacon 1976)
- Three Studies for a Self Portrait (Bacon 1979)
- Three Studies for the Head of Isabel Rawsthorn
- Three Studies from the Human Head
- Three Studies of Henrietta Moraes laughing
- Three Studies of Muriel Belcher
- Triptych 1976
- Triptych inspired by T.S Elliot's 'Sweeney Agonistes'
- Two Figures (Bacon)
- Two Figures Lying on a bed with Attendants
- Two Seated Figures
{{collapse bottom}}
:--doncram 01:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
::Doncram, I saw your note at ANI and came here. This list is really rather long (just a display problem; nothing wrong with the batch nomination itself), so I've collapsed it. This won't interfere with the working of the RFD, and since the situation's apparently identical with all of these redirects, I'm sure that you won't get opposition to the format — all the voters will likely give a "keep all" or "delete all". Nyttend (talk) 02:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
:::Okay thanks I guess, though I don't really see why it has to be shortened, but I also am not familiar with how things are done here at RFD. By the way, I did not and do not intend to post notices of this RFD at each of those redirects. --doncram 04:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
::::{{replyto|Doncram}} Posting notices of RfD on redirects nominated is not optional. It's fine to get an AWB user to do it if there are too many for you to do individually, but if the redirects are not tagged the discussion will very likely be procedurally kept or relisted for this reason. Thryduulf (talk) 08:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
:::::It would be fine if an AWB user would do that, please do. But the redirects were all created recently (maybe all on March 7) and the only editor watching them is the creator, who already commented here, so posting notices would notify no one. I can't prove that no one else is watching them, but I cannot conceive how anyone could possibly have found their way to watchlist them. This is unlike other multiple RFD discussions. --doncram 23:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
::::::{{u|Doncram}}, I checked a couple at random, and they had one page watcher, probably the creator. SarahSV (talk) 23:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep all as redirects to List of paintings by Francis Bacon. I know I should probably not participate in this discussion, but I want to at least share that I created these pages as possible search terms. Since I failed to redirect the pages to List of paintings by Francis Bacon from the start, I went through the list and updated all of the pages. In my opinion, the redirects continue to serve as potential search terms and serve a purpose. Editors may disagree, and that's fine, but at least the community can make a decision here as to whether or not these redirects are beneficial to Wikipedia. ---Another Believer (Talk) 03:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
::* O really? right-o.... Okay I guess it is good to have this RFD, because there is real non-agreement here. Another Believer, I assume the only way you knew that these paintings existed was because they were listed in the navigation template. And I assume you just went through it bang bang creating redirects to the artist. This really shows no understanding of how navigation templates have been used to list the articles needed, which another editor or multiple editors were working on (including whoever created the template). For an only slightly more extreme example, would you understand that it would piss off a lot of people, if on National Register of Historic Places listings in Clackamas County, Oregon, say, some editor went through and redirected every red-link to Clackamas County, Oregon. That would screw up the wp:NRHPprogress mapping system, it would obviously immediately screw the visual use of red-links in the list-article. And actually it would be claiming ownership (original author, forever) over every one of those items. Try it, go through the 20,000 redlinks in the NRHP list-article system and see how popular that makes you.
::*I am not positive how DYK works nowadays, but if someone were to start an article where you have created a redirect, I think you would might get DYK credit. I know that it would count as an article that you created, forever, and add to your tally in lists of articles created. You don't need that, and if you were driving for that, it is unworthy, and you should avoid that impression.
::*I doubt that many or any of the painting titles would be searched for, but if that happened, the navigation template would show up (or an article that included the given temple), and the reader would see that there was a redlink, accurately conveying the fact that there is not an article. Try searching on a redlink in the Clackamas NRHP list, e.g. search on "Charles C. Babcock House" with the quote marks, and it brings you to the Clackamas NRHP list. A redirect replacing the redlink would not help.
::*Right now, on the Template:Francis Bacon (artist), a reader is clearly poorly served. I think there do exist a couple real articles, but I cannot tell which ones they are, all show as bluelinks. I would like to know which I could click on to actually get something. Readers are immediately, currently disserved by the trickery, and it somewhat undermines readers' belief that bluelinks elsewhere will get to anything useful. I do hope others will comment and clarify this. --doncram 04:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
::*I was not aware of List of paintings by Francis Bacon existing but that does not change things. It would show up if you searched for "Study of a Dog", if there was not a redirect. That list-article could, perhaps should be edited to show links for all the expected articles, properly showing red-links where there is no article. With the redirects, it can't do that, it would show all bluelinks like the navigation template. Clearly the editors developing about paintings are using the list-article and the navigation template differently than is done by NRHP editors about historic sites, because they are shying away from showing (ugly?) redlinks on the list-article, but who the hell are you or me to dictate they should do their development differently. It adds no value, still, and it hurts readers and developing editors, too, to have those topics as redlinks. --doncram 05:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete all. There is no purpose to these redirects: if they are deleted, a reader searching for the artist of a particular painting will still find it through List of paintings by Francis Bacon, and the redirects offer no more information than that. The creation of useful articles on the individual paintings, the longer-term objective, is hampered rather than assisted by the existence of the redirect; see WP:REDLINK. This has been explained at AN/I to the creator of the redirects in connection to the use of the Francis Bacon navigation template, and having red links in a navigation template as an indication that an article is needed is not unprecedented (I've created a couple of such articles myself). Creation was mistaken and does more harm than good, deletion will be helpful and does not hurt the reader in any way. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thoughts on this. 1) do we assume every painting on the list deserves its own article? Ones that don't would better have a link to a list than nothing at all; 2) some of these are surprising there's no disambiguation page or other meaning for them. Bacon can't be the only painter of a "Lying Figure" or "Figure Study I" or "Two Seated Figures." Hyperbolick (talk) 20:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
:*To User:Hyperbolick, I think (not sure) the way it is being done is that the navigation template lists only paintings where an article is intended (and is intended to show redlinks), while the list-article lists more paintings but shows "blacklinks", i.e. unlinked painting titles, where no future article is expected. Where it is reasonable to expect future disambiguation will be needed, I happen to think that an article would better be titled with parenthetic disambiguation, e.g. if/when an article is created for "Two Seated Figures", it could be put at Two Seated Figures (Francis Bacon), and "Two Seated Figures" could be a redirect, marked as a {{tl|Redirect with possibilities}}, but that is not urgent. --doncram 21:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
:** Could be, yes. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
::*Hyperbolic; both of your questions are astute. On the first, Doncram is exactly correct in substance and in describing the preferred title formulation; a number of the article names used by AN are legacy, not well thought, and would have been changed as future reasonably substantially articles were created; indicating the ill thought out nature of the recent, out of the blue, venture under discussion here.
:: Re "every painting": Bacon is a very significant 20th century painter; to be vulgar see here, and the literature is vast and accumulating (one of the reasons I am disappointed by the quality of sources used for the redirects later dressed up as 1 line stubs). Any of his works are inherently notable, and sell at minimum in the hundreds of thousands (to be vulgar again), more over, he was figurative, and his popularity and regard seem to be invulnerable to whims and fashion. Ceoil (talk) 21:27, 12 May 2017 (
- Delete all Not every work has to have a redirect. Also (Painting) with capital P as a modifier should be discouraged. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: Another Believer voted above to keep, but later said he is "fine if others feel they must be deleted as some sort of resolution". [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=779649494] SarahSV (talk) 17:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete, for both reader and editor utility. Without wanting to go into the history behind these, the sources used for the micro stubs support nothing other than Bacon painted a title of this name, and are all very poor. To see the minimal effort required for such below par article creation results, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Pectoral_and_Necklace_of_Sithathoryunet_with_the_Name_of_Senwosret_II_(Metropolitan_Museum_of_Art)&action=edit&preview=yes&redlink=1&editintro=Template:Mbabel/intro&preload=Template:Mbabel/MET&preloadparams%5b%5d=Q29385778 click]. I would like again to be able to assess what works are reasonably covered on wiki and which are not yet, rather than weed through a heap of sub-bot generated nonsense. Ceoil (talk) 21:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - These should be redlinks so there is a chance that someone will turn them into real blue links someday. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
:*Nail on head. Look at DYK - editors are far more motivated to turn red into blue than expand a one line stub. Its human nature. One line stubs are in that way counter productive. There are https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Head_III&diff=779786080&oldid=779233648 exceptions, but few and far between. Ceoil (talk) 22:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete all per Yngvadottir. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:52, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete all as I stated at Template talk:Francis Bacon (artist). These are not useful at all. The list provides minimal information about the paintings. We are better off with the red links that people might create into actual articles. ~ GB fan 02:25, 13 May 2017 (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.
