User talk:Oiyarbepsy/topic/20170619

Your G6 request at Apple blossoms

I am going to decline your request to delete the redirect page Apple blossoms so that Apple Blossom (disambiguation) can be moved there. Your reasoning was "No article specifically discusses apple blossoms". That didn't make sense to me. IMO the DAB page should remain at its current name. It's mostly about things named Apple Blossom, not plural, and with a capital B. Or are you suggesting there SHOULD be an article about apple blossoms? If so, the way to create it is to expand the redirect into an article. If I am misunderstanding your intention here, please explain and I will look at it again. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 03:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:MelanieN, To explain better, we have an article about apples, and an article about blossoms, but no article specifically about apple blossoms. The article on apple doesn't even have a section discussing blossoms. So a redirect to apple blossom to apple is not really useful. Therefore apple blossoms has no primary topic and should be a disambiguation page. I maybe skipped a little too many steps on this one. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 12:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What would you like me to do - if anything? Maybe we should simply delete "Apple blossoms" as an unnecessary redirect? We don't need a page called "apple blossoms" at all, since we already have "Apple blossom" (a redirect), "Apple-blossom" (a redirect), and "Apple Blossoms (disambiguation)" (a DAB page). On the other hand, it isn't doing any harm and "redirects are cheap" as the saying goes. --MelanieN (talk) 14:39, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:MelanieN I say all should go to a disambiguation page. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:23, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. Right now the redirects to "Apple#production" which as you pointed out doesn't make a lot of sense. I'll redirect everything to the DAB page. --MelanieN (talk) 00:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing this

I'm here because Category:Articles with redirect hatnotes needing review flagged Apple. There's a hatnote on Apple that says Apple blossom redirects to that page. Changing the redirect makes the hatnote untruthful.
The redirect to Apple#Apple production was done by Neelix. That's problematic because
1. The section title Apple production was changed to simply Production.
2. That section doesn't mention blossoms.
3. Blossoms are discussed in the Apple#Botanical information section: "Blossoms are produced in spring simultaneously with the budding of the leaves, and are produced on spurs and some long shoots. The 3 to 4 cm (1.2 to 1.6 in) flowers are white with a pink tinge that gradually fades, five petaled, with an inflorescence consisting of a cyme with 4–6 flowers. The central flower of the inflorescence is called the "king bloom"; it opens first, and can develop a larger fruit."

These issues make me less than enthusiastic about redirecting to section links. Such redirects also bypass the {{redirect}} hatnotes placed at the top of the page. For section links that are strongly supported, the hatnote should be placed at the top of the section.

You neglected Apple Blossom, the one redirect that arguably should go to the dab, as it's in the form of a proper name.
Also Appleblossoms, Appleblossom and Apple-blossoms. I deleted those, and Apple-blossom, per WP:CSD#X1.
I think consensus would find that Apple is the WP:primary topic for apple blossom. If you disagree, feel free to start a discussion at WP:RFD. Note the links in Altes Land and Usher (fragrance). The fact that cherry blossom is an article supports the idea that apple blossom is an {{R with possibilities}}. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 14:09, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wbm1058: Yikes, what a mess! Sorry for doing such a half-baked job of this. Those others didn't show up for me on the search suggestions - one of the disadvantages of having a million similarly-titled redirects. Thanks for deleting all those unnecessary / redundant redirects, that will make the situation much simpler for a searcher. What would you think about deleting Apple blossoms as well? Does it serve any purpose not already served by Apple blossom? If people are offered a simple choice between Apple blossom and Apple Blossom it could make searching easier.

I have changed the target of Apple Blossom to the DAB page. ~~Is the (disambiguation)-named page even necessary? I believe we could move the dab information to plain Apple Blossom and eliminate the middleman; would that be a good idea?~~ Never mind, I see you already did this.

Of course you are right that Apple blossom should be a redirect to Apple. (When I saw that the redirect target did not mention blossoms, I had wondered what was the point of redirecting it there.) Would you suggest making it go to #Botanical information and moving the hatnote there? Or do you prefer a redirect to Apple and leave the hatnote at the top? (Darn Autocorrect, it keeps changing the word hatnote to whatnot! 0;-D)

@Oiyarbepsy: what are your thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 14:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I moved Apple Blossom (disambiguation) to the base title, per WP:MALPLACED. We keep the parenthetical (disambiguation) page around for intentional links to disambiguation, such as in the hatnote at the top of Apple. This is so such links will not be tagged for disambiguation by WP:WikiProject Disambiguation members or others. In fact, if we did delete Apple Blossom (disambiguation), a bot would likely soon re-create it. Apple blossoms is probably a legitimate {{R from plural}}. I wouldn't hang that one on Neelix, though I'm ambivalent about deleting it, as no articlepages are linking to it. wbm1058 (talk) 15:08, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the improvements and the lessons! It's good to have input from an expert; I can tell you deal with redirects and similar issues all the time. Along with now and then cleaning up after and educating the rest of us. 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 16:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]