Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 2#Visual editor
=[[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 2|February 2]]=
==Antiespaña==
==Hamilton, California (disambiguation)==
==Ballyholme Bay==
: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
- {{no redirect|1 = Ballyholme Bay }} → :SS Ballyholme Bay (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ballyholme_Bay&action=history history] · [https://iw.toolforge.org/pageviews?start=2020-12-27&end=2021-01-25&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Ballyholme_Bay stats])
[ Closure: {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|(@subpage)|[{{fullurl:Ballyholme Bay|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Ballyholme Bay closed as keep}}}} keep]/[{{fullurl:Ballyholme Bay|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Ballyholme Bay closed as retarget}}}} retarget]/[{{fullurl:Ballyholme Bay|action=delete&wpReason={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Ballyholme Bay closed as delete}}&wpMovetalk=1}} delete]}} ]
redirects geographic location to a ship named after it Lyndaship (talk) 13:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Question - what action is proposed here? Ship articles should have links from all names connected with the vessel with and without the relevant ship prefix. Nothing has been suggested so Keep until such time as an editor can be bothered to write an article on the bay, after which the ship can be handled by a hatnote therein. Mjroots (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Delete. There are other mentions of "Ballyholme Bay" in Enwiki that are not connected with the listed ships. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)Retarget per PamD below. Thanks {{re|PamD}}. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)- Delete. For unimpeded search and to encourage article creation. A reader looking for information about a geographical feature will be puzzled to find themself looking at an article about a ship. Narky Blert (talk) 18:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- {{re|Narky Blert}} - how will deletion of the redirect enable people to find the ships? Mjroots (talk) 18:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- {{ping|Mjroots}}. By typing "Ballyholme Bay" into the searchbox - the ship appears right at the top. How will keeping the redirect help readers looking for Ballyholme Bay itself? See e.g. Frederick Schomberg, 1st Duke of Schomberg, List of Empire ships (E), 1689 in Ireland, List of shipwrecks in September 1849, List of Empire ships (Co–Cy) and List of shipwrecks in January 1836. Narky Blert (talk) 18:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- {{ping|Narky Blert}} - I've been doing a little research. It seems that Bangor, County Down is the nearest town to Ballyholme Bay. Maybe change the redirect to the town and add the {{tl|redirect}} hatnote to that article pointing to the ships? Mjroots (talk) 19:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- {{ping|Mjroots}} That could work, but it needs to be properly mentioned in the target (it is, just about, at Bangor, County Down#History). It could be tagged as {{tl|R with possibilities}}. However - Vikings, a C17 invasion, several C19 shipwrecks, two C20 ships named after it, Ballyholme Yacht Club based there? My Spidey-Sense says WP:N; affirm delete, to encourage article creation. Narky Blert (talk) 19:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- Question - is it possible to hatnote to a search? If that's possible then I'd say keep this redirect and do that. Otherwise I'm neutral. A7V2 (talk) 21:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- {{replyto|A7V2}} technically yes, that's possible however I don't recall ever seeing it done. Thryduulf (talk) 22:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- Not allowed, according to MOS:HAT - "Hatnotes provide links to the possibly sought article or to a disambiguation page". Narky Blert (talk) 13:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- {{re|Thryduulf|Narky Blert}} sorry I had forgotten to reply earlier... I'm not convinced Wikipedia:Hatnote specifically disallows it (linking to MOS:HAT is a bit misleading since that article is not part of the manual of style. Instead it "is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply"). I think this could/should be an option whenever the primary reason for not keeping a redirect is to enable uninhibited searching (I'm not saying that is the only reason to not keep this particular redirect). I will start a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Hatnote as I feel like if not allowed, the page should be updated to specifically say this as an example of improper use. A7V2 (talk) 05:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Sofixit: I suggest that what is needed is for someone to create the missing (as per WP:UKTOWNS) "Geography" section in Bangor, County Down, where the bay could be mentioned. The term could then redirect there, with a redirect hatnote in the section to point to the ship. PamD 11:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep: I have added a note, in the "history" section of the blue linked ship, to explain the name and link to Bangor. PamD 06:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete PamD's edit is good regardless of the RfD, but the redirect is still putting the cart before the horse. (And what if we had a article on the other ship, which also gave etymology? WP:XY?) Retargeting to Bangor, County Down wouldn't be the worst option.--BDD (talk) 15:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)- :Retarget to Bangor, County Down#Geography. --BDD (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- So I fixed it I've created a minimal "Bangor, County Down#Geography" section with subsection "Ballyholme Bay" and an anchor, and retargetted the redirect. (I suggested on the article talkpage that someone with local knowledge might like to create a geography section... no joy, so I've had a go.) Those voting "Delete" might like to reconsider now ... {{ping|BDD|Lyndaship|Narky Blert|Shhhnotsoloud}} PamD 17:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
:Yep that resolves it. Thanks Lyndaship (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
::Agreed, thanks! --BDD (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2021 (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.