Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 17

2633:, they are left with the impression that the incorrect title they entered is the subject′s actual title. But when the only redirect that exists is “Baron Sugar”, the correct form, even if they were about to write “of Clapton”, they back of and think “Oh, it looks like I was wrong in thinking that his title included «of Clapton» in it.” In other words, the very existence of this redirect makes the person who does the search believe that something wrong is actually true.-- 2439:

it doesn't matter what his title is, what other people's titles are, why he has a title, whether his surname is relevant, what type of title it is, etc, for the purposes of determining whether this is a good redirect or not. These might be relevant questions elsewhere, but we are concerned here only

2648:

I presume the proper education comes from the article's lede and infobox. Note that in addition to redirects helping readers as they type, they help editors get blue-links in that we hope will be to the correct target. For want of a comma an editor creates an undesirable red-link, and if it's the

1051:

We have incomplete disambiguation redirects because people use them - the parenthetical disambiguation naming scheme is familiar to most readers and editors of Knowledge so they search for titles like this. In this case it will be used by people looking for the article about a Jack Spratt character

1780:

First of all, it is not a "Baronetcy" it is a Barony, because we talk of a Baron, not a Baronet. Secondly, I do not know what is the purpose of all these feudal references. I do not see how it is relevant to our discussion either whether Alan Sugar owns Clapton or whether Clapton is a borough. And

4156:

I can kind of see where the nominator is coming from, in that we can't just have a redirect like this for every social network that may exist, but Google+ is one of the more popular ones (I question whether calling it a "failure" is at all accurate since as of last call, the article we have on it

3775:

I'm kind of puzzled why this was ever created because it has zero links. Since Google+ was a failure I can't see this ever being used again. I don't think we should create shortcuts of every social network, website, etc., and say that it is something that Knowledge is not. It's a bad precedent to

2245:

Indeed, it is. As you see, in the example I posted above it says: "Baron Stevenson of Balmacara, of Little Missenden in the County of Buckinghamshire" which means that his title is "Baron Stevenson of Balmacara" and he is from Little Missenden in the County of Buckinghamshire. On the other hand,

2208:

for example. If the title has an "of", the title's "of" comes before the comma and there are TWO "of's" in the Letters Patent, that of the title and that of the territorial designation. If the title does not have an "of", then there is only one "of" in the Letters Patent, that of the territorial

1089:

In this case, however, Jack Sprat of nursery rhyme fame is presumably known by 99+% of our readers, so instead of being helpful, this new dab-not-called-dab is confusing and a distraction. I would expect that someone who types "Jack Spratt (" and sees his choice of two completions, one to the

156:

Should be deleted: redirect replaced a cut-and-paste content fork of the target article, redirected back to original article in lieu of deletion, but title of redirect is not, as far as I can tell, a term that is in use anywhere, as a Google search for "Advanced persistent vector" will show --

3165:. The internal search is only one of many methods to search and/or browse Knowledge, most of which are case sensitive (e.g. direct URL entry, searches from the address bar, links) and search suggestions are only available to those using the internal search with javascript enabled. 2246:"Baron Shipley, of Gosforth in the County of Tyne and Wear" means that the title is "Baron Shipley" and he is from Gosforth in the County of Tyne and Wear. So, in our case, his title is "Baron Sugar" and he is from Clapton in the London Borough of Hackney. Also, look 3940:. The last three I think are fine as kinda general topics but if we are going to name names, they should either be kept or deleted wholesale. I would go for Delete myself since I don't see they are of any use and are not in article space: just a bit of gnoming. 2695:

as above. The argument was neccessary, vigorous, and without any personal attacks on either side: without it we would not get this consensus. It is a bit long-winded, I know, but it is one of those that run and run and we have consensus now, I think. In the

2108:

His official title is The Lord Sugar. We have to check how he was ennobled I guess, cos this could simply be wrong. A lord beats a baron any time, especially at poker. Baron is the lowest rank really so we better check that. It could be simply wrong.

1090:"fictional detective", a regular article, and the to the "character", would presume that other one is heading for the nursery rhyme guy or somebody, but not—surprise surprise!—to a dab. So by reasons to delete #5, this should be deleted. 3575:: of course that is easily fixed but I don't like doing so when things are being discussed. That its title is "lists" not"list" is also out of kilter, but can easily be moved, but if I did so now I imagine it would make matters worse. 1811:. I don't call myself Simon Trew PhD and not just because I don't have one. But it is reasonable, I think, for redirects to direct in that matter. So the question is whether it's the correct title. If it is, it stays, if not, it goes. 709:: JS(c) serves no purpose, and can be misleading. Someone who types "Jack Spratt (" into the WP search box will be offered to choose between the "fictional detective" and the "character", and would presumably assume JS(c) means 2265:

Don't insult me, of course I have read legal documents, how do you think I own my own house outright and have half a million quid in a pension fund without ever reading a legal document? The fact of the matter is not what is

699:

nursery crime mystery novels. I moved it back (the mover hadn't changed links), leaving explanations on relevant talk pages, and then PRODed the R from move that was created. The mover unPRODed, changed it back to R to

2327:

You're right on that one but I have read many legal documents in English, French and Hungarian: I usually speak at least three languages a day, so please don't insult my intelligence. I take it as an apology, although

1747:. He essentially chose his ownn title and being a "common bloke" called himself that. Nevertheless he is the Baron of Clapton and therefore Clapton is his Baronetcy. It is not even a borough let alone a baronetcy, but 695:, on the grounds that it was "Proper disambiguation". In fact it was a case of improper ambiguation, since Jack Sprat (aka Jack Spratt) from the nursery rhyme is just as much a "character" as Jack Spratt from the 3442:

we don't have any listing of penguin species by rarity that I can find, and our complete listing of living penguin species doesn't mention it so there is nowhere useful for this to point. FWIW, our article on the

2461:

Well, I have to agree. Still, I believe that this dicussion had to take place, whether this was the right place or not. And I believe that had I suggested to take the discussion somewhere else, it would have died

3045:; there is no need for another lowercase version, when the official acronym is capitalized. This lowercase version is showing up in search results. Deleting this page will still allow readers to be redirected to 2361:

I certainly did not want to insult your intelligence and I said I am sorry at the Strasburger section. By the way, what I said about Lord Sugar and the comma also applies to Lord Strasburger (the comma is before

3469:

So it does. I think therefore at best we kinda DAB or hatnote the two, since there is conflicting information there, but a delete would seem the more reasonable choice. I guess in theory it could fire over to

1060:- here none of the reasons to delete apply but reason to keep #5 clearly does (note that this is too new for reliable usage statistics to exist though) and the spirit of keep reasons 2 and 3 is also relevant. 4073:

You're right. I don't know why but yesterday it just took me to the top of the page. That anchor actually includes all the ones I listed above, and the infobox on the right lists them too. I suppose that's a

1082:(film)" as a dab to the various year XXXX films. There the rationale is excellent, as it's quite common to be aware of the one but not the other, and someone searches automatically but naively for " 181:. It's wrong (and I worked for a well-known aerospace company for nine years) but useful. The caps are well out as in English one tends to cap each initial, but that is the best we can do right now. 3329:

If anyone were to type this in, they would expect a list of the rare species of penguin. Instead, they would be confronted with a generic article that doesn't even mention the "rarity" of penguins.

3129:

I understand that, but when you search on Knowledge, the search bar is usually not case-sensitive. For example, if you typed in the search bar "ocsp stapling", you will be automatically directed to

2340:

in Hungarian. I still don't know what to do with this, tending to keep, is the comma important or not? If the comma makes a difference we should delete it, but if it is not, we should keep it.

1271:. The relisting of this discussion was bumbled, such that it remains on its original date too. I had closed that discussion as keep, and consensus here is the same. Stronger, if anything. -- 1670:

The "of" actually is an important part of the title. If you are "Lord Finchley" you can pass it on to your son, if you are "Lord of Finchley" you cannot. It's the difference between an

2863: 3369:) but I don't see much use in retargeting it there, since this does not say "rarest" only "rare" (and of course the plural of "species" is "species" so that doesn't help matters). 2629:, the utmost goal of Knowledge is that the reader learns something, right? In our case, when someone searches for “Baron Sugar of Clapton” and they are automatically redirected to 522:

did the directing. But that seems unlikely since Ken Stott is usually behind the camera and Nicholas Renton in front of it. Anyway, we have to sort out WP not IMDB — it's a start.

1999:

So, what is a better source, the House of Lords (no "of"), Leigh Rayment (no "of"), the Letters Patent themselves (no "of") or the Telegraph (with "of"). Answer that, please.--

1340: 39: 34: 1635: 1206:

a redirect to a dab exist in the first place. There are times when it is pretty much unavoidable, multiple titles in the same medium, but here it seems totally unnecessary.

1973: 1167:. I think I learned the rhyme with two T's but no doubt there are variations. The lede of that article lists both spellings. I'm inclined to take this over the top as 133: 3865:). Do you want to add that to the nomination? I hope, uncontroversially, I added the section in that your nom is for, we really need to get Twinkle fixed to do that. 2738:

I perfectly agree with Simon here. I know that TL;DR is not meant as an offence, but, still, it hurts a little to see your beautiful, long argument tagged as TL;DR.--

2395:

All this arguing is irrelevant here and were I not involved I would hat it as such. All that matters is whether "Baron Sugar of Clapton" is not a useful search term.

1537:

to keep it. The fact that I think he is an arsehole is irrelevant, that is his ennobled title. I appreciate we don't list people by their titles here, but this is a

237:

i.e. things that influence journalists. That is a totally different meaning, and a neologism, from what I would expect to find. A vector is an angle and a distance,

4132: 4172: 3917: 3306: 663: 420:

this is clearly not a misspelling, but it might be a plausible nickname or something like that - it gets a lot of hits. However, I am recommending deletion per

1124:

per Thryduulf, the nursery rhyme has a character named Jack Spratt, and there is the detective, etc, so pointing to the dab page is the correct thing to do --

2418:

I am sorry, but I would not call it irrelevant, at all. I believe that it was a healthy discussion and it will largely contribute to the eventual consensus.--

1639: 1304: 3752: 1647: 871:(1) Agreed, just saying. (2) Obvious to me, after you demonstrated what sort of novels Jasper Fforde writes. (3) According to which section of this page?-- 1605:, the first person whose surname was Sugar, took the title "Baron Sugar", without an "of". If another Sugar becomes a Baron, then there will be an "of".-- 1052:

who don't know there is more than one. See also the top of the RfD page where the valid arguments for keeping and deleting redirects are enumerated (also

4259: 1888:

I do not have the slightest thought concerning how is this helpful in our discussion. "Sugar" is just his surname and even if it had to do with actual

1017: 885:(1) Sigh. (2) It's obvious on the dab page, which starts off with the nursery rhyme name in bold. (3) Per your suggestion that it should be mentioned 1699:(I just noticed this one) It seems to me that you have an unclear view of the subject. What you mean by "honorary title" is what we actually call a 1573: 920:

the other day (so I would have trouble RSing that), but would whack the two F's together whhen people wrote it that way and they set it up in type.

3137:. (This is the case regardless of whether you pressed the "enter" key on your keyboard or clicked on the "search" button.) Thus the redirect at 2857: 1869:(ec) whacking this in before I read yours. I just thought of something. In the East of England, Anglia, there is a lot of good sugar grown by 1598: 21: 3655: 3595: 3255: 2491: 1594: 2232:

ref you gave it is "Baron Sugar, of Clapton" (I am not sure how important the comma is, but I think it is the sticking point on this one).

2575:

I believe that redirects that are even mildly controversial do have to be categorised. And you can certainly say that for this redirect.--

1541:

and a useful one, the article does not say "Sir Alan Sugar" and never has, even before he was ennobled or knighted. Do you want to delete

429: 2759:

viable search term. Redirects do not only exist for proper terminology, they exist to enable access to articles through viable uses. --

1590: 1334: 479:, it would be before their time when it was broadcast, but I can imagine them showing it. I swear it was in English, I have to find it. 3571:

With a population of 1,800 Thryduulf beats me on this one, probably, but I'll have a stab. The list is good but does not enumerate the

3046: 3042: 3009: 17: 2760: 2262:

the territorial designation. Thus, the title is "Baron Green of Deddington" and he is from Deddington in the County of Oxfordshire.

1125: 692: 376: 3893:

have a few links so the argument to delete it isn't as strong. However, it's not hard to pipe the links where it has been used...

1086:(film)". And even when you know there are two or more films, your memory of the exact year of the one you want is typically iffy. 4453: 4436:

tend to lose their spaces and are fused, I am not really qualified evem to attempt to make that article. In boxing or wrestling,

4136: 2205: 1582:"Baron Davies", Alan Sugar's title is "Baron Sugar". Note that the first person of the surname "Davies" who was created a Baron, 836:

case, Fforde′s Jack Spratt is obviously based on the rhyme′s Jack Sprat and this should be mentioned at the disambiguation page--

2313:

Still, although it is not my custom, I would bet that it was the first time you read Letters Patent for creations of Peerages.--

2247: 3862: 3746: 2544: 2080: 1631: 1529:

I don't see your point. His title is "Baron Sugar of Clapton" to distinguish him from (made up) "Baron Sugar of Mortlake". It

4444:

and so on are single words. I am not saying we should create words, but whether they are kinda out there in the market: well

2672: 1643: 1583: 1188:

as redirect to disambig page, per Thryduulf: this is an obvious case where we have a policy that fits this case exactly. --

3863:

Knowledge:What Knowledge is not#Knowledge is not a blog, Web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site

1037:

I don't understand how this reason leads to a "keep". Why bother with the incomplete disambiguation in the first place?

3541: 3471: 852:(1) That's a topic for the dab page, not here. (2) It's obvious, so why mention it? (3) It should not be mentioned, per 3141:

doesn't really serve any real purpose, besides showing up in the list of search results in a confusing manner. Thanks,

1425:

He is in fact Baron Sugar of Clapton, as it says at the article in section 3. So that would seem the obvious retarget.

3493: 3265: 2974: 2895: 2829: 2130:

No, Baron and Lord are a bit synonymous. We never say "the Baron Smith" when he is a Baron. We say "the Lord Smith".--

1512:

The problem is that his title is "Baron Sugar". "of Clapton" is part of the territorial designation, not the title. --

1098: 701: 657: 101: 3188:

That makes sense to me. Thanks for explaining! I have changed my mind and don't think it should be deleted anymore.

2157: 178: 4511: 4482: 4465: 4416: 4402: 4376: 4362: 4344: 4327: 4305: 4240: 4177: 4148: 4087: 4068: 4033: 4015: 3984: 3970: 3949: 3909: 3874: 3840: 3831:. It's useful to say that Knowledge is not a social network, though... but that's perfectly covered at the target. 3796: 3731: 3668: 3646: 3624: 3606: 3584: 3528: 3505: 3487: 3460: 3432: 3407: 3378: 3349: 3285: 3202: 3174: 3155: 3115: 3090: 3067: 3015: 2994: 2917: 2899: 2842: 2768: 2747: 2729: 2687: 2658: 2642: 2617: 2599: 2584: 2563: 2535: 2510: 2471: 2449: 2427: 2404: 2371: 2349: 2322: 2301: 2287: 2250:: "Baron Green of Deddington, of Deddington in the County of Oxfordshire". In this case, Deddington is referred to 2218: 2184: 2139: 2118: 2100: 2053: 2026: 2008: 1958: 1937: 1919: 1901: 1854: 1820: 1796: 1768: 1732: 1712: 1687: 1663: 1614: 1554: 1521: 1504: 1479: 1458: 1434: 1413: 1376: 1280: 1215: 1197: 1180: 1147: 1133: 1110: 1069: 1046: 1032: 995: 965: 933: 902: 880: 865: 845: 822: 804: 791: 764: 744: 722: 642: 577: 555: 531: 502: 488: 459: 441: 411: 357: 295: 262: 220: 200: 190: 166: 127: 114: 1094: 4372: 4367:

True, but, after seeing that the creator of the page was indeed a vandalism-only account, I ruled mistakes out.--

4340: 4218: 3709: 3241: 2958: 2913: 2875: 2809: 2743: 2638: 2613: 2580: 2531: 2467: 2423: 2367: 2318: 2297: 2214: 2135: 2096: 2049: 2004: 1954: 1897: 1850: 1792: 1728: 1659: 1610: 1517: 1500: 1372: 1258: 876: 841: 818: 740: 620: 335: 77: 122: 3391: 3387: 1720: 515:

directed it. I think the decision now is not that it exists but what to do with it? 09:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

3812: 3808: 3475: 3395: 564:, which seems a long way away. But if it reminds me would it remind others? I think the unusual spelling of " 2654: 1211: 1143: 1106: 1042: 991: 924:

might serve as another example, but Wodehouse did that on purpose, and the P is silent, as in "taking the".

898: 861: 760: 718: 1925: 4248: 3824: 3820: 2891: 1467: 1168: 476: 4315: 3961:. Odd that it links to section (well presumably an intended anchor) WEBSPACE as there is no such anchor. 2623:

I understand that a redirect should be kept if it is a common search term, whether or not it is correct.

2088: 4214: 3997: 3921: 3816: 3705: 3237: 2954: 2887: 2805: 2764: 2650: 1254: 1207: 1139: 1129: 1102: 1038: 987: 894: 857: 756: 714: 616: 331: 73: 3828: 1352: 4478: 4368: 4336: 4144: 3925: 2909: 2823: 2739: 2634: 2609: 2576: 2559: 2527: 2506: 2463: 2434: 2419: 2363: 2314: 2293: 2210: 2131: 2092: 2045: 2000: 1950: 1893: 1846: 1788: 1724: 1655: 1606: 1513: 1496: 1389: 1368: 1367:

the title. Practice is to have a redirect for the title itself, without the territorial designation.

913: 872: 837: 814: 736: 519: 508: 110: 53:

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 17, 2015.

4507: 4461: 4449: 4358: 4323: 4083: 4064: 4029: 4011: 3966: 3945: 3870: 3836: 3620: 3580: 3572: 3524: 3501: 3483: 3456: 3448: 3428: 3403: 3374: 3366: 3362: 3170: 3134: 3111: 2838: 2725: 2445: 2400: 2345: 2283: 2180: 2114: 2022: 1933: 1915: 1816: 1764: 1683: 1550: 1475: 1454: 1430: 1409: 1193: 1176: 1065: 1028: 1023:

as there are multiple Jack Spratt characters this could refer to which are listed on the dab page.

961: 929: 800: 573: 551: 539: 527: 498: 484: 437: 291: 258: 216: 186: 162: 234: 4429: 4398: 3937: 3642: 3197: 3150: 3085: 3062: 2709: 2390: 1907: 1874: 675: 407: 365: 246: 242: 4425: 3815:

I can never remember if WP is an alias or a real namespace) and fortunately not. We do not have

145: 3318: 1646:, was just "Baron Wolfson", no "of" because he was the first of his surname to become a Baron. 3933: 3929: 3602: 3545: 3444: 2705: 2683: 1708: 1449:- entirely logical search term that goes to the article people are looking for when using it. 1316: 1053: 750: 421: 4213:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

3704:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

3236:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

2953:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

2804:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

2526:

Hmm, I would not call it "alternate punctuation" but I do not think that it would look bad.--

2015: 1439:

Oh, it already does. So a redirect goes to exactly where it should. And your point was.... ?

1253:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

615:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

330:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

72:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

4044: 3916:

None of those links is in article space: so no great harm in deleting it. One of the links,

1828: 1675: 565: 471:. I remember that film but I swear I saw it in English, so will try to find the title etc. 4499: 4474: 4298: 4286: 4271: 4140: 4128: 4124: 4120: 3902: 3789: 3764: 3549: 3416: 3342: 3278: 2987: 2570: 2555: 2521: 2502: 1978: 1949:

Again, would the site of the House of Lords be (as a source) as fine as Burke's Peerage?--

1572:"Baron Sugar of Clapton". His title is "Baron Sugar". As much as Quentin Davies' title is 1138:

That's the correct thing to do if we have this redirect in the first place. Why have it?

1057: 786: 238: 106: 3365:

is apparently the rarest species of penguin, with a colony of around 4,000 (see section

1756: 1707:

concerning whether a title is a life peerage or an hereditary peerage. For example both

1074:

My apologies, I meant "why bother with the incomplete disambiguation in the first place

253:

publishing industry: and it is an industry but they like to think they are all perfect.

4503: 4457: 4354: 4319: 4116: 4079: 4054: 4025: 4001: 3962: 3941: 3866: 3832: 3616: 3576: 3559: 3520: 3497: 3479: 3452: 3424: 3399: 3370: 3259: 3183: 3166: 3124: 3101: 2834: 2721: 2697: 2498: 2456: 2441: 2413: 2396: 2356: 2341: 2308: 2279: 2240: 2191: 2176: 2125: 2110: 2071: 2039: 2018: 1994: 1944: 1929: 1911: 1870: 1842: 1836: 1812: 1804: 1775: 1760: 1740: 1694: 1679: 1671: 1621: 1561: 1546: 1542: 1490: 1471: 1450: 1426: 1405: 1189: 1172: 1061: 1024: 957: 941: 925: 912:. "fforde", like "fforbes",, is usually spelled with the two F's in lower case: it's a 796: 569: 547: 523: 494: 480: 450: 433: 287: 254: 212: 182: 158: 95: 4433: 4411: 4392: 4236: 3980: 3727: 3663: 3636: 3189: 3142: 3130: 3077: 3054: 1651: 1393: 1276: 979: 975: 778: 732: 696: 638: 543: 454: 401: 353: 280: 4441: 4437: 4112: 4000:) also redirect to this section. So, I see this as useful and a valid search term. 3993: 3659: 3598: 3563: 3516: 2679: 1716: 1700: 971: 561: 370: 91: 3415:. Looking at the history, this was an article in 2007 and had a section about the 1634:, took the simple title "Baron Sainsbury", without an "of", while the two others, 1593:

called Davies was created a Baron he took an "of" for distinguishment, and so did

4024:

Actually they redirect to different sections or nonexistent sections, as I said.

4445: 4108: 4104: 3361:

What would be a common species of penguin? I've never seen any around here. The

2701: 2076: 945: 3398:(I just realised the nominated redirect has unusual initial cap on "Penguin"). 2084: 1171:

but not very strongly, since there is obvious confusion here with the end T's.

691:: JS(c) was very recently created by a move (made without any discussion) from 425: 388: 4292: 3896: 3850: 3783: 3336: 3272: 2981: 2630: 2044:

I consider this one the best source, too. Do you see any "of Clapton" there?--

1878: 1808: 1533:, is it not, part of his title? Even if not it is a useful search term, so it 1401: 1298: 1164: 250: 4053:

targets. In fact, it seems that they all target anchors in the same section.

2602:

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

2196:

Oh my God, have you ever read Letters Patent before? The title is what comes

1974:"Sir Alan Sugar takes House of Lords seat and becomes Baron Sugar of Clapton" 241:. You can't go bandying around techinical terms in that way and not expect a 754: 512: 245:

to say something back. It's nonsense, absolute nonsense. I'm trying to find

4157:

lists that it had 540 million users, which makes the redirect more valid).

1781:

still you have not addressed my main argument. I am going to say it again:

916:

done by printers because they didn't realise it was a long F, according to

4207:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

3698:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

3230:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

2947:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

2798:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

1247:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

983: 609:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

324:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

66:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

4232: 3976: 3723: 1272: 634: 349: 2153:

He is actually Baron Sugar of Clapton in the London Borough of Hackney.

4253: 3300: 2229: 1744: 917: 890: 853: 4529: