Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 March 23

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, move Stress test (disambiguation) to Stress test. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Stress test → Stress testing (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

page was created in error with copy paste. Corrected by reversing and making it a redirect back to the original. Now may be deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by rjlabs (talk • contribs)

• Keep. This is a very likely search term (as evidenced by you looking for the article there) and also a {{R from merge}}. Keeping the redirect will further reduce the likelihood of someone else creating a duplicate article. Thryduulf (talk) 09:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am now of the opinion that Stress test should be a dab page, move Stress test (disambiguation) to Stress test. Thryduulf (talk) 00:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I believe the nominator wants to delete this page in order to make way for an article move. However, since that move is proving controversial it should be keep at least for now until the issue is resolved. SpinningSpark 14:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Have a good look at the history, and if you concur, or after the policy amount of time has passed, Delete. Anyone typing stress test into the search box is immediately presented with stress testing, so there is zero need for a redirect. Anyone going to make a new page, "stress test" would immediately see the standing page, so very low chance of a duplicate ever being created.

1. I moved Stress testing to Stress test as part of a restructuring/addition of other pages
2. Prior to the above I had run the naming of all articles in the restructuring by a top level Admin who gave it the thumbs up. That top level Admin strongly prefers nouns as article titles.
3. After I moved Stress testing to Stress test (the preferred noun form) I completed the restructuring / addition of the other articles. That included some editing of Stress test.
4. The MOVE Stress testing to Stress test was quickly reverted to a prior point in history, after several subsequent edits, by another editor. He was and remains adamantly opposed to a name change.
5. I, IN ERROR went to Stress test (at that point a redirect) and reverted it back into its prior state. I fully admit this action was an error on my part. Frankly, I thought the original editor would see that all the original content was still on Wikipeda in verbatim form, and the name change Stress testing to Stress test was minor but indeed proper and preferable.
6. I was wrong, the editor remained and is vehemently opposed to the article name change.
7. Wikipedia sat with two articles, on precisely the same topic with duplicative content, Stress testing and Stress test, for about a month.
8. Not knowing quite what to do I asked for, and received help from Spinningspark. Upon review he concluded my resurrection of Stress test, alongside Stress Testing was in error. After review of WP policy and the exact details of what I had done I wholeheartedly agree, it was an error on my part and I apologize for it. My reverting Stress test created a new article, that did not contain the full prior article's history.
9. Now, more informed I seek to correct the error.
10. Upon review Spinningspark blanked Stress test making it a redirect to Stress testing. Again I, the creator of Stress test concur. If a page like this is created in violation of Wikpedia policy then it should be deleted. Basically, go back in history to where the policy error was made, correct it, then move forward from there.
11. With the exception of a few very, very minor edits I am the sole contributing editor to the Stress test article. I originated that article with a full copy/paste of contents from Stress testing. As the history clearly shows after I created the article I've been the sole editor past a very few, very minor edits.
12. As the article creator and basically sole editor from its inception I assert that Delete is the way to go here. While Stress test was created in good faith and with the best of intentions, its creation violated Wikipedia policy. With all the "aftermath" I can assure you that type of error will not be repeated. Rick (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • Regardless of where the article is, the other title should redirect to it as both are very likely search terms. Search results are not guaranteed, do not automatically show for all ways of navigating Wikipedia (there are many) and do not aid links (internal and external). Thryduulf (talk) 17:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hear you but would like to know more. Not disagreeing. Just unclear on some of the things you said and would like to be better informed. Perhaps some examples?
    • Search results are not guaranteed? I can't access what you are saying, how are they "not guaranteed"?
    • Do not show all ways of navigating Wikipedia (there are many) - again I'm coming up blank, just a few major examples might help.
    • do not aid links - internal. - can't this be solved by using "what links here" and going to those pages and editing. Won't a missing page show in red?
    • do not aid links - external - don't most of the external to wikipedia links come from search services and get rapidly adjusted?
    • Again, not disagreeing just want to more fully understand #redirects purpose and when they should/should not be eliminated. Rick (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Rick, you would like the article moved to stress test so presumably you must believe that to be a likely search term. If the article is not moved there then stress test should be kept as a redirect, and if it is moved there, then naturally, it will be kept. Either way, the page will be kept. SpinningSpark 20:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • To answer your queries:
        • By "search results are not guaranteed" I mean that we cannot guarantee that a search for "stress test" will always give "stress testing" as a result when there is no redirect in place. Even if it is there we cannot be sure where in the list of results it will be.
        • As an example, if you navigate to a Wikipedia article by directly entering the url into your browser's address bar you do not see any search results if the page does not exist, e.g. try entering http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/About_stress_testing into your address bar. Without the redirect, someone looking for the stress test article in this manner will have a minimum of two clicks to get there (click to search, click on search result) vs no clicks with the redirect in place.
        • Existing internal links can be found and fixed by whatlinkshere, yes, but people will create new ones (they will assume that there is an article at that title, perhaps because they remember it being there) which you'll have to constantly check for.
        • I don;t know what proportion of traffic comes from search engines nor how long they take to update, but there are millions of links from webpages, bookmarks, printed material, etc. that will be broken. Some of these links (and we can never know about the existence of almost all of them) will remain unchanged for years.
      • Basically, redirects serve to help people find the article they are looking for and as a side effect they discourage the creation of duplicate articles. The basic philosophy of RfD is that redirects are so cheap that they should be kept unless they are harmful. In actuality it's a little bit more complicated, but WP:RFD#Delete and WP:RFD#Keep explain it. Thryduulf (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Change redirect to Cardiac stress test, the more common use of this term without the -ing, and hatnote redirect to stress testing atop Cardiac stress test. I associate the concept of a "stress test" much more with CST than with the concept of stress testing itself. Nate • (chatter) 22:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, I don't immediately associate "stress test" with anything to do with medicine - to me it's an engineering concept first and foremost. Thryduulf (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore disambiguation the cut and paster, Rjlabs (talk · contribs) displaced the disambiguation page to Stress test (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) from Stress test (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Therefore it should be restored to its location. This would allow linkage of Stress testing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and cardiac stress test etc. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 01:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• IP 65.92.180.137 [dsl.bell.ca Saint-laurent, Quebec] your comment is outside the scope of the discussion here, which is only to:
  • keep the redirect page Stress test, or
  • delete it.

Refrain from name calling. Discussion of a move of stress test (disambiguation) needs to be on that talk page. Rick (talk) 17:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • I didn't do any name calling, since you displaced the dab page, and the cut "stress testing" and pasted it to "stress test" per the various edits shown here. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 02:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, the IP's opinion that Stress test should be a disambiguation page is both relevant and valid. They are effectively recommending that the redirect be retargetted to Stress test (disambiguation), which would then by defualt move to the plain title per our article naming conventions. This page is "Redirects for discussion", not deletion, because it deals with retargetting and other options as well as a simple keep/delete. Thryduulf (talk) 18:01, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• If you are saying Stress test should remain, but it should redirect to Stress test (disambiguation) I think that's fine. The user then lands on a page titled disambiguation so there is no confusion. I'd suggest the title wording discussion for the disambiguation page (either Stress test or Stress test (disambiguation)) belongs in that page's talk, since it involves moving that article.
• Shifting gears. When a person types in stress test or stress testing in the page 1 search box where do you want them to land, on a broad stroke article or a listing type disambiguation page? I'd say the first landing should be on a broad brush article, designed to cover the bulk of the territory and satisfy most users.
• for example World War II is made up with several short "overview" paragraph sections that each lead with hat notes out to a more detailed and specific article. Example of a section heading:
  • {{Main|Causes of World War II}} Which shows as:
  • Main article: Causes of World War II
• the broad brush article covers the main topic and perhaps several but not all possible subsidiary topics.
• A disambiguation page is still needed, referenced in the hat note at the top of the broad brush article. Example:
  • {{Redirect|WWII|other uses|WWII (disambiguation)}} Which shows as:
  • "WWII" redirects here. For other uses, see WWII (disambiguation).
• The disambiguation page will often need (disambiguation) in the title to prevent potential confusion.

Rick (talk) 19:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate. No primary topic, so put Stress test (disambiguation) back to Stress test and leave Stress testing where it is (& adjust the hatnote). Siuenti (talk) 22:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Siuenti - thanks for adding
    • {{Otheruses|Stress test (disambiguation)}} to the top of the Stress testing article, showing as:
    • For other uses, see Stress test (disambiguation).
    • Not sure there is need to chop off the (disambiguation) part of that title?
  • I can live with the notion there is "No primary topic" here at all, hence no need for ANY article to be broad brush style. User types in stress test or stress testing and they land directly on the disambiguation page decide what they really want with a guide to content. In that case content currently housed in Stress testing can be removed to the detail pages: Stress test (software), Stress test (financial), Stress test (hardware) perhaps the brief material on nuclear power plant stress testing could then also find a new home. Rick (talk) 23:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia's naming conventions state that "The title of a disambiguation page is the ambiguous term itself, provided there is no primary topic for that term." (see WP:DABNAME), so we don't redirect plain titles to titles with (disambiguation) - indeed we do the reverse (e.g. Mercury is a dab page to which Mercury (disambiguation) redirects (see also WP:INTDABLINK). Thryduulf (talk) 00:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• If Stress testing content was all moved out to the detail pages there would be, as you say, no primary topic for that term. At that point I totally agree, you are correct, the (disambiguation) part of the title would then not be needed. Rick (talk) 01:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete to allow Stress test (disambiguation) to be moved here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.