File:White x in red rounded square.svg Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
: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
. Taking the AfD, the relevant discussion about importing the page history to the English Wikisource (which resulted in a successful import), and this discussion into account, I see that the largest common denominator is to delete the soft redirect that was left behind after the AfD. Deryck C. 13:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Convert to {{tl|wikisource redirect}} per WP:SOFTTEMP or delete. Plain {{tl|soft redirect}} is {{plain link|1=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&target=Template%3ASoft+redirect&namespace=0|2=not used in the article namespace}}. Doesn't really meet the criteria for soft redirecting to a sister project outlined at WP:SOFTSISP. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 16:37, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Wikisource redirect. pretty much works for me. I would advise against deletion since this is a matter currently being discussed on WP:AN. {{shrug}} –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:16, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Keep as soft redirect. What the nom forget to mention was that this page was removed by an AFD discussion on WP:NOT grounds. A template that invites recreation is therefore not appropriate. It is also not helpful that it suggests searching Wikipedia for an article that is not going to be found. SpinningSpark 18:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- WP:SOFTSISP does not proscribe using soft redirect, it explicitly offers it as a possibility. I note that most of the pages in the Wikisource redirect category actually started out as soft redirects. The only reason the soft redirect category is empty is that they have been systematically converted to the Wikisource template – very likely including some equally inappropriate ones. SpinningSpark 18:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Retarget to Behistun Inscription#External links. It's unusual to point to an External links section, but "hard" links are preferred to soft ones when practical. I've added a Wikisource link there, and there are a couple of other links to various English translations. This will do the most good for readers. --BDD (talk) 20:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- That's circular. It's a nonsense to redirect to an article that links to the redirect – in three separate places! SpinningSpark 15:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- ::I would not recommend adding such a link. This should remain unlinked in mainspace. --BDD (talk) 16:11, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
- That's a good idea. It doesn't violate WP:CIRCRED since it aids navigation by linking to the bottom of the article. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
- {{ping|Furius|Agricolae|Eastmain|पाटलिपुत्र|Smmurphy|RobDuch|Peterkingiron}} pinging AFD participants. SpinningSpark 15:49, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- {{ping|xaosflux|MJL|Billinghurst|Xover|Fram|Anthony Appleyard|Nyttend}} pinging ANB discussion participants. SpinningSpark 15:56, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Is someone really going to come to Wikipedia and search for "Full translation of Foo" rather than just searching for Foo? This seems to be the only page in all of Wikipedia that begins with "Full translation of . . . ." so I have to conclude it is a highly unlikely search phrase. Much more likely is that someone will just search for Behistun Inscription, so once the situation with the article at Wikisource stabilizes, mention of that Wikisourse page on the Behistun Inscription page would be quite helpful, but I don't see why we need to do gymnastics to figure out a redirect target for a never-likely-to-be-used search phrase that doesn't really need a redirect at all. So, Delete (once AN, Wikisource and possible DRV issues have been resolved). Agricolae (talk) 16:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
:* The links to Full translation of the Behistun Inscription are mostly placed below quotations from said translation. Would it be permissable for those links to send the interested reader to the page on Wikisource directly? Then it doesn't matter what happens to this redirect... Furius (talk) 19:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
::* {{re|Furius}} I imagine that wouldn't be too great for the outside links as {{u|Thryduulf}} sometimes likes to mention. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
::*The links I saw were: 1) in See Also sections - these should be removed or replaced with a Wikisource pointer - you don't use See Also for a redirect, particularly one that points off Wikipedia; 2) references to the Behistun Inscription that were inexplicably piped instead to the Full Translation page; 3) awkward/unnatural piping of common phrases so that the same sentence could be linked to both the Full Translation and the Behistun Inscription pages and (as with the previous set) are entirely unnecessary given that the Behistun Inscription page has a Wikisource pointer and External Links to other translations, so just like pointing to the soft redirect, pointing to Behistun Inscription brings the reader one click away from the source, but has the advantage of being a full page of information; 4) similarly awkward/unnatural linking of common phrases in lieu of using a citation for the sentence, not the way we are supposed to provide verifiability; 5) one example in which a footnote consisted entirely of the link without further information, in violation of WP:CIRCULAR and 6) used under quotes or within more detailed footnotes. Only the last of these really have any value at all, and I don't see why we should treat these any different than quotes from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle or the Codice de Roda or the Epic of Gilgamesh, none of which we cite by linking to a soft redirect page. Had this page never been, there would be no question of creating such a redirect page just to cite the source, and that should guide how we deal with a page that the AfD basically concluded should never have existed. Agricolae (talk) 23:46, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
::::::FWIW, I have begun retargeting some of these to Behistun Inscription, starting with those that should be pointing there independent of the outcome of this discussion, so you won't find all of the types I talked about any more. Agricolae (talk) 20:56, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
:::* Frankly, I would be fine with a delete and retarget of the incoming links. It is the inappropriate template that I object to. SpinningSpark 23:59, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Hmm. Agree with Agricolae that it's not something we would ever create. But since it did exist it might be reasonable to do something more than just deleting it (I originally tagged it for speedy after it was transwikied). A template similar to {{tlx|wikisource redirect}} (modulo the concerns raised about its contents and phrasing above) would be quite reasonable IMO. But the incoming links should then be changed to point at Behistun Inscription (top level) and a normal link to Wikisource placed in its last section (sisterlinks go in the last non-empty section iirc, not extlinks as such): there is little value in mainspace links to a soft interwiki redirect (it's a potential search target, or target of links from offsite, more than internally useful on enwp). I would also not object to just deleting it outright (with the same result for incoming links etc.). --Xover (talk) 09:03, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete This should have been A5d instead of leaving this implausible (per Agricolae above) redirect behind. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:28, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- I do not oppose deletion. --BDD (talk) 14:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}Relisting comment: Still not seeing consensus, and it doesn't seem like keeping the redirect as is is the preferred option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:01, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
: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.
