. (non-admin closure) feminist 02:58, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
- {{no redirect|1 = Macedonian Navy }} → :Macedonian Lake Patrol Police (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Macedonian_Navy&action=history history] · [https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews?start=2017-08-01&end=2017-08-30&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Macedonian_Navy stats]) [ Closure: {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|(@subpage)|[{{fullurl:Macedonian Navy|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Macedonian Navy closed as keep}}}} keep]/[{{fullurl:Macedonian Navy|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Macedonian Navy closed as retarget}}}} retarget]/[{{fullurl:Macedonian Navy|action=delete&wpReason={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Macedonian Navy closed as delete}}&wpMovetalk=1}} delete]}} ]
For starters, "Navy" isn't mentioned at the target, and I haven't seen evidence of the Macedonian Lake Patrol Police being called a Navy (from my experience, Navies are typically separate from Police). Furthermore, my search for "Macedonian Navy" is overwhelmingly about the navies of the ancient Macedonian kingdom ("navy/ies" has 17 mentions on that page). With how ambiguous and controversial the word "Macedonia" is, I propose this redirect be deleted, although I'm okay with it being retargeted somewhere that describes the ancient Macedonian Navy (perhaps a section at Ancient navies and vessels?) -- Tavix (talk) 21:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. With the possible exception of the Vatican City, every country's navy is plausible search term - even landlocked ones (See Brownwater navy) and this redirect got 131 hits between 1 and 30 August and 1,399 last year. Fortunately for the project we don't decide what things are based only on your experience, we base them on evidence and the article makes it clear that despite the name this organisation is a branch of the Macedonian armed forces not the civilian police force so it is exactly what people will be looking for when searching this term or clicking on a link to it. If we information about the ancient Macedonian navy then that article can be added as a hatnote. The name of Macedonia is controversial, but only because it also refers to a region of Greece and it is not plausible for almost all sub-national regions to have navies so "Macedonian" in this context is not ambiguous with it - and even if it were then that would be a rationale for a hatnote or dab page, not deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 22:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
::{{tq|With the possible exception of the Vatican City, every country's navy is plausible search term}} Sure—if they have one. {{tq|this redirect got 131 hits between 1 and 30 August and 1,399 last year.}} Search results only tell you that a redirect was used. They don't say how they were used or if someone arrived at the target they were wanting. {{tq|Fortunately for the project we don't decide what things are based only on your experience, we base them on evidence}} I'll cast your snide remark aside, no worries. {{tq|the article makes it clear that despite the name this organisation is a branch of the Macedonian armed forces not the civilian police force}} {{citation needed}} {{tq|so it is exactly what people will be looking for when searching this term or clicking on a link to it.}} Not according to my search results. "Macedonian Navy" overwhelmingly refers to the ancient Macedonia. {{tq|it is not plausible for almost all sub-national regions to have navies so "Macedonian" in this context is not ambiguous}} Ancient Macedonia wasn't a sub-National region, it was a kingdom with a navy as I linked above. {{tq|even if it were then that would be a rationale for a hatnote or dab page, not deletion.}} But we'd need a second entry. There's still no evidence presented that the current target is known as "Macedonian Navy". -- Tavix (talk) 23:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
:::We should not require people to know the answer to their query before they have searched for the answer to it, it is likely that every country has a navy of some description so we should have redirects in place for the likely search terms such as this one. If you think that the target is wrong then why are you proposing deletion instead of retargetting? We don't delete demonstrably useful redirects (as this is) if they go to the wrong target, we retarget them. In this case disambiguation is needed (which is never a reason for deletion), and hatnotes can do that just fine (either way, assuming we do have something about the ancient navy). In your haste to persue your deletionism, you've completely overlooked the fact that I didn't say it wasn't ambiguous, I said it was not plausible that it is ambiguous with a navy of the modern Greek region - I know the ancient territory was not a sub-national region, but I was not talking about the ancient territory as you would have known if you read what I actually wrote. I know the lake police are not called the Macedonian Navy, that's why this is tagged as a {{temp|R from incorrect name}}. Thryduulf (talk) 08:57, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
::::{{tq|it is likely that every country has a navy of some description}} Do you have evidence for that claim? Fortunately for the project we don't decide what things are based only on what you think is likely, we base them on evidence. For what it's worth, List of navies says otherwise (and Macedonia isn't mentioned there at all, navy or no navy). {{tq|why are you proposing deletion instead of retargetting?}} It's a vague search term (noting that Macedonia is ambiguous) and we don't have a good target for it. I mentioned in my nomination that I'm fine with retargeting somewhere that describes the ancient navy. Macedonia (ancient kingdom) mentions it several times, so that would work, but I would prefer a section or article that actually describes that Navy. In that regard, I think WP:REDLINK deletion to be beneficial here. {{tq|I know the lake police are not called the Macedonian Navy}} Then there shouldn't be a redirect of that sort to that target! Going back to your first sentence, if someone is looking for "Macedoinian Navy", it would be confusing and misleading to redirect them somewhere that isn't called Macedonian Navy, whether that be correct or incorrect. {{tq|that's why this is tagged as a {{temp|R from incorrect name}}.}} It's not though. -- Tavix (talk) 13:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::I don't assert "it is likely that every country has a navy of some description" the signficant majority of countries in the world today have a navy or equivalent water-bourne military force, therefore " navy" is a reasonable search term that should lead somewhere. Re not being called the navy - this is the entire point of having {{temp|R from incorrect name}} and arriving at a target that is about a branch of the Macedonian armed forces that carries out duties on water is neither misleading nor confusing (as for the lack of tag, I thought the category was how I found this one, but obviously not. I'll tag it now). If something is ambiguous we disambiguate it (via a hatnote or dab page), we don't delete it, even if you don't like it - unless we only have information for one of the topics in which case we point to that as we do here. Thryduulf (talk) 07:40, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
::::::For a redirect to be a cromulent {{tl|R from incorrect name}}, it first has to be a search term that is actually incorrectly used to refer to the subject. There has still been no evidence provided to suggest that might be the case. -- Tavix (talk) 16:50, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::::You mean other than the usage figures I quoted? I know that this is where I would expect this redirect to lead so it stands to reason that at least some of those thousands also use this search term to find information about the topic of the article. Some will probably be looking for the ancient navy, but not all as for example [http://gethashtags.com/photo/1258557669948573767_1770152097] and [https://www.flickr.com/photos/andarko/1437146886] demonstrate. And that's with less than 5 minutes searching. Thryduulf (talk) 19:30, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
::::::::I also found a third, z15 [dot] invisionfree [dot] com/illyria/index.php?showtopic=62 but that trips the spam blacklist so I can't directly link it. Thryduulf (talk) 19:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::Thanks, I guess that's something. I'm looking for a reliable source so a sentence can be added to Macedonian Lake Patrol Police that it is sometimes incorrectly/alternatively referred to as the Macedonian Navy. That way, it would be able to meet WP:DABMENTION in case it is decided to disambiguate the title. -- Tavix (talk) 01:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
{{od|10}} I don't know why the insistence on a reliable source, as I've clearly demonstrated this is a name that is used for the target which is what matters for redirects. A rigid reading of the WP:DABMENTION style guideline would for the same reasons be a detriment to our readers and therefore a perfect application of WP:IAR. Thryduulf (talk) 16:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
::Rather, it's confusing and/or misleading to have an entry in a disambiguation with no mention of the term in the article. Since that is a detriment to our readers, WP:IAR would not apply. -- Tavix (talk) 16:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
:::No, the disambiguation page would say that this is a term that is sometimes used to describe the target (see evidence presented above) nobody would be confused or mislead. In other cases, we can safely assume that someone using this search term knows what a navy is/does (if they don't then they can easily look up the navy article where the lead makes it clear that the activities the Lake Police undertake are covered) and that Macedonian can refer to the modern nation of Macedonia - nothing misleading or confusing about this at all. Thryduulf (talk) 22:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
::::That's an awfully long string of assumptions you'd have to make to get there. If that is a common set of assumptions, it should be easy to add a reliable source to the article. There'd be no need to violate WP:DABMENTION. -- Tavix (talk) 22:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with Thryduulf in that we can expect users to search for the navy of just about any country. In a case like this, whether they're being clever or whether they don't realize Macedonia is landlocked, I want to do something for them besides just giving them search results, which may suggest we'd one day have an article. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November 20#Andorran Navy for a similar discussion with, IMO, a good solution.
:So how to proceed here? Unfortunately, {{no redirect|Military of Macedonia}} redirects to Army of the Republic of Macedonia, with no mention of a navy. Does this police force function at all like a navy? If so, the redirect could be acceptable. Ideally, I'd like a sentence at Republic of Macedonia#Military or Macedonian Lake Patrol Police stating that Macedonia doesn't have a navy, and/or that the lake patrol is something like a navy, if that's at all accurate. We could then point to one of those places, and maybe add Macedonia to the list at Navies of landlocked countries. --BDD (talk) 14:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
- Retarget to Navies of landlocked countries#Non-independent units and a blurb stating that {{tq|while the Republic of Macedonia does not operate a military navy, it has the Macedonian Lake Patrol Police as a waterborne border police force.}} Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 15:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
- :That would suffice for me. While a sourced statement about the country's lack of a navy, or the lake patrol's functioning as one, would be ideal, we should be fine with a statement that's simply easy to verify and unlikely to be challenge. Either "As a landlocked country, Macedonia has no navy" or what you've suggested fit those criteria. --BDD (talk) 18:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
- ::{{re|BDD}} However, it's important to keep in mind that Ancient Macedonia did have a navy, and it's easily the primary topic from my fairly exhaustive search on the topic. -- Tavix (talk) 21:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
:The how about Convert to SIA as drafted here? Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 22:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
::A couple issues with that. First, with the Ancient Macedonian navy being the primary topic, a disambiguation wouldn't be necessary per WP:TWODABS. Second, if the lake patrol article is to be used, "Macedonian Navy" is going to have to be mentioned there to overcome WP:DABMENTION. Sure, it'd be easy to add a sentence somewhere, but sourcing it would be problematic from what I've seen. -- Tavix (talk) 22:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
- I'm happy with that set index suggestion. Dabmention is not a hurdle as (a) this is not a disambiguation page, and (b) the associated explanation removes any possible ambiguity and will not leave anyone confused. Style guidelines (which is all the status dabmention has) must never be treated as more important than helping readers find the content they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 09:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 11:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- SIA as the lesser of two evils. The search resulsts don't do a decent job of highlighting the relevant articles, so deletion per WP:XY is out of the question. And so is keeping targeted to the lake patrol: we shouldn't have an {{tl|R from misnomer}} when the name properly refers to a topic for which we have content. The trouble is that this content isn't in one place. There's no article on the Ancient Macedonian Navy, and the closest thing we have is Antigonid Macedonian army#Navy, but this is only relevant to a certain period, while the rest is covered by the brief mentions at Macedonia (ancient kingdom) that Salvidrim's draft SIA links to. I imagine that this topic should ideally have a section of its own within either Ancient Macedonian army or Ancient navies and vessels, with a hatnote pointing to the lake patrol. But until that happens, a SIA is probably the best we can do. – Uanfala 12:53, 13 October 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.
