This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion on January 8, 2008
The result of the debate was delete.
WjB
scribe
03:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to make any sense whatsoever. A random acronym leading to a surname. . — Steven Evens ( contribs) 00:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Google turns up nothing at all, suggesting that this is a made up acronym. The user who originally created the redirect appears to have a somewhat mixed contribution history. If we can't figure it out and can't get a logical explanation, delete. Rossami (talk) 03:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete for above reasons. -- M4gnum0n ( talk) 16:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Looks really random. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 19:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete.
WjB
scribe
03:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete really uneccessary. -- Nips ( talk) 00:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per above. -- M4gnum0n ( talk) 16:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom as well. Unlikely to be searched. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 16:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete.
WjB
scribe
03:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. I have nominated many of these as well. I have proposed as well that many cases are speedy deleted by extending the deletion R3 rule. Check here -- Magioladitis ( talk) 21:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Nips ( talk) 00:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per above. -- M4gnum0n ( talk) 16:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete.
bibliomaniac
1
5
03:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep this one because it documents a pagemove.
Rossami
(talk)
05:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- As with any move (that's not ancient), the pagemove is documented at
Cottier too. Aside from any other issues, why is it necessary to keep that record in two places?
Gimmetrow
05:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- There are several potential reasons. For some, it alerts the original editors and readers of the page (at the earlier title) that the page has been moved and tells them clearly where to make further contributions. Simply deleting the redirect after a pagemove can confuse new users who incorrectly assume that they made a mistake saving the page and who then recreate the page at the old, bad title. For others, there is a chance that some reader created an internal or external link to the old, incorrect title. Deleting the redirect breaks any such link. (That's not likely if the page was moved within minutes of creation but is increasingly likely for older pages.) But the big reason to leave them alone is that there is no measurable advantage to the project by deleting them yet there is a small but measurable downside to the deletion. The analysis
here about unnecessarily "fixing" redirects also applies to unnecessarily deleting them. If a redirect is somehow harmful or misleading to a reader, it should be deleted. Otherwise, the project is better served by ignoring them.
Rossami
(talk)
06:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- I did say "aside from other reasons". As for "fixing" redirects, now that these have templates, they all need either an edit (to remove the template) or a deletion, so the server load issues are something of a tossup.
Gimmetrow
06:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- At this point, that's unfortunately true. (And every edit we make in the deletion debate very slightly exacerbates the issue.) But we have many many thousands of these redirects that were created by the pagemove process. The project would not be well-served if these deletions were interpreted as a universal precedent. In my opinion, it's worth our time now to reaffirm the policy and to teach other readers and editors that nothing is really gained by trying to delete them in the first place.
Rossami
(talk)
16:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Redirects from phrases "in quotes" are arguably a bad thing since they override the search algorithm. I think it's better in general that these not go to a specific page, but generate the articles using the phrase, with (hopefully) the most relevant one first. I can imagine exceptions where the search phrase is a notable quote involving common words, and it helps to redirect it to the person quoted. But I think if the phrase in quotes matches the target article, interference with searching likely outweighs the possibilities of breaking third-party links, and the redirect should be deleted. (Ancient page moves recorded nowhere else are another consideration.) Gimmetrow 23:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- At this point, that's unfortunately true. (And every edit we make in the deletion debate very slightly exacerbates the issue.) But we have many many thousands of these redirects that were created by the pagemove process. The project would not be well-served if these deletions were interpreted as a universal precedent. In my opinion, it's worth our time now to reaffirm the policy and to teach other readers and editors that nothing is really gained by trying to delete them in the first place.
Rossami
(talk)
16:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- I did say "aside from other reasons". As for "fixing" redirects, now that these have templates, they all need either an edit (to remove the template) or a deletion, so the server load issues are something of a tossup.
Gimmetrow
06:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- There are several potential reasons. For some, it alerts the original editors and readers of the page (at the earlier title) that the page has been moved and tells them clearly where to make further contributions. Simply deleting the redirect after a pagemove can confuse new users who incorrectly assume that they made a mistake saving the page and who then recreate the page at the old, bad title. For others, there is a chance that some reader created an internal or external link to the old, incorrect title. Deleting the redirect breaks any such link. (That's not likely if the page was moved within minutes of creation but is increasingly likely for older pages.) But the big reason to leave them alone is that there is no measurable advantage to the project by deleting them yet there is a small but measurable downside to the deletion. The analysis
here about unnecessarily "fixing" redirects also applies to unnecessarily deleting them. If a redirect is somehow harmful or misleading to a reader, it should be deleted. Otherwise, the project is better served by ignoring them.
Rossami
(talk)
06:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- As with any move (that's not ancient), the pagemove is documented at
Cottier too. Aside from any other issues, why is it necessary to keep that record in two places?
Gimmetrow
05:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. I have nominated many of these as well. I have proposed as well that many cases are speedy deleted by extending the deletion R3 rule. Check here -- Magioladitis ( talk) 21:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment As Wikipedia:Naming conventions writes: To maintain the functionality of Alphabetical Indexing and avoid needless redirect pages, page names should not begin with non alpha-numeric (A-Z,0-9) characters used solely for emphasis. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 22:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Looks worthless. -- Nips ( talk) 00:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Looks harmful - we don't need redirects from random phrase searches. — Gavia immer ( talk) 16:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. (pagemove still documented at the target) --
Oxymoron
83
16:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- As long as the target page is kept (a question which I think should be investigated because the target page does not appear to assert notability), keep the redirect because it documents the pagemove. Rossami (talk) 05:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strongly Delete. I have nominated many of these as well. I have proposed as well that many cases are speedy deleted by extending the deletion R3 rule. Check here. As another user said "delete before someone creates a bot to create redirects for the existing 2 million articles" -- Magioladitis ( talk) 21:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per above. -- M4gnum0n ( talk) 16:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Disruptive. --
Nips (
talk)
18:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- "Unnecessary" is a judgement call but I'm not going to let you get away with "disruptive" without more explanation. How is the redirect that's automatically created by our own pagemove software "disruptive"? This was not pagemove vandalism, the evidence points to an innocent mistake in the title used in the original creation of the page. Rossami (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Similar redirects nominated some days ago and closed with delete. Check Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 January 2. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 01:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. (Page was the copy&paste target without attribution of the original authors, not the source) --
Oxymoron
83
15:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep this one because the content was merged into the target article, apparently through a cut-and-paste move. GFDL requires us to keep attribution history and leaving the redirect (and its pagehistory) intact is the cleanest way to do that. Rossami (talk) 05:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strongly Delete. I have nominated many of these as well. I have proposed as well that many cases are speedy deleted by extending the deletion R3 rule. Check here. As another user said "delete before someone creates a bot to create redirects for the existing 2 million articles" -- Magioladitis ( talk) 21:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per above. -- M4gnum0n ( talk) 16:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Disruptive. -- Nips ( talk) 18:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete.
WjB
scribe
03:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strongly Delete. I have nominated many of these as well. I have proposed as well that many cases are speedy deleted by extending the deletion R3 rule. Check here. As another user said "delete before someone creates a bot to create redirects for the existing 2 million articles" -- Magioladitis ( talk) 21:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per above. -- M4gnum0n ( talk) 16:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Disruptive. -- Nips ( talk) 18:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete.
bibliomaniac
1
5
03:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep this one because it documents the pagemove. Rossami (talk) 05:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strongly Delete. I have nominated many of these as well. I have proposed as well that many cases are speedy deleted by extending the deletion R3 rule. Check here. As another user said "delete before someone creates a bot to create redirects for the existing 2 million articles" -- Magioladitis ( talk) 21:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per above. -- M4gnum0n ( talk) 16:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. How many times do we have to vote for the same case? Redirects that have quotes only for emphasis are bad. -- Nips ( talk) 21:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. David Pro ( talk) 20:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - unnecessary use of quotes. — Gavia immer ( talk) 16:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete.
bibliomaniac
1
5
03:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep because it documents the pagemove. Rossami (talk) 05:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strongly Delete. I have nominated many of these as well. I have proposed as well that many cases are speedy deleted by extending the deletion R3 rule. Check here. As another user said "delete before someone creates a bot to create redirects for the existing 2 million articles" -- Magioladitis ( talk) 21:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete ohhh that was me!!! Can I get on wikiquote Magioladitis? Victuallers ( talk) 23:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- comment Was it you? I maybe add it as a quote in my page! You have my vote :) -- Magioladitis ( talk) 23:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- M4gnum0n ( talk) 16:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. How many times do we have to vote for the same case? Redirects that have quotes only for emphasis are bad. -- Nips ( talk) 21:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - unnecessary use of quotes. — Gavia immer ( talk) 16:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete.
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep because it documents the pagemove. Rossami (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- M4gnum0n ( talk) 16:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Having articles with unnecessary quotes is not helpful at all. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 17:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - unnecessary use of quotes. — Gavia immer ( talk) 16:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete.
bibliomaniac
1
5
03:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep because it documents the pagemove. Rossami (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strongly Delete. I have nominated many of these as well. I have proposed as well that many cases are speedy deleted by extending the deletion R3 rule. Check here. As another user said "delete before someone creates a bot to create redirects for the existing 2 million articles" -- Magioladitis ( talk) 21:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- M4gnum0n ( talk) 16:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Disruptive. -- Nips ( talk) 18:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - unnecessary use of quotes. — Gavia immer ( talk) 16:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete.
WjB
scribe
03:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strongly Delete. I have nominated many of these as well. I have proposed as well that many cases are speedy deleted by extending the deletion R3 rule. Check here. As another user said "delete before someone creates a bot to create redirects for the existing 2 million articles" -- Magioladitis ( talk) 21:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- M4gnum0n ( talk) 16:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete.
WjB
scribe
03:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete not because of the quotes but because non-notable marketing jingles are not encyclopedic content. Rossami (talk) 05:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 21:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete this will never be used. Marlith T/ C 05:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per all of the above. -- M4gnum0n ( talk) 16:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete.
WjB
scribe
03:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strongly Delete. I have nominated many of these as well. I have proposed as well that many cases are speedy deleted by extending the deletion R3 rule. Check here. As another user said "delete before someone creates a bot to create redirects for the existing 2 million articles" -- Magioladitis ( talk) 21:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete because of quotes. -- M4gnum0n ( talk) 16:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. Pagemove still documented at the target. --
Oxymoron
83
09:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep because it documents a pagemove. Rossami (talk) 05:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strongly Delete. I have nominated many of these as well. I have proposed as well that many cases are speedy deleted by extending the deletion R3 rule. Check
here. As another user said "delete before someone creates a bot to create redirects for the existing 2 million articles" --
Magioladitis (
talk)
21:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Again, no one is creating these redirects directly. For the most part, they are being created by our own software when someone moves a page. That's a feature, not a bug. Rossami (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. No need to create all these quoted pages. -- M4gnum0n ( talk) 16:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Disruptive. -- Nips ( talk) 18:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - unnecessary use of quotes. — Gavia immer ( talk) 16:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete.
WjB
scribe
03:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'd like to note that I made this redirect because it seemed like this misspelling caused a redlink in the past. It was listed on the red link recovery wikiproject when I made the edit here. Since someone already made this spelling mistake, I thought another person might do it again in the future. Lisatwo ( talk) 19:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Don't encourage typos. -- M4gnum0n ( talk) 16:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete Implausible typo. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 19:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. It starts with a quote! -- Nips ( talk) 21:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete.
WjB
scribe
03:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strongly Delete. I have nominated many of these as well. I have proposed as well that many cases are speedy deleted by extending the deletion R3 rule. Check here. As another user said "delete before someone creates a bot to create redirects for the existing 2 million articles" -- Magioladitis ( talk) 21:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per above. -- M4gnum0n ( talk) 16:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. Pagemove still documented at the target. --
Oxymoron
83
09:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Weak keep. Keep because it documents a page move. Weak because in this case, the pre-move history is very limited. Rossami (talk) 05:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 21:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete because of quotes. -- M4gnum0n ( talk) 16:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete' because of quotes. -- Nips ( talk) 11:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - unnecessary use of quotes. — Gavia immer ( talk) 16:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete.
WjB
scribe
03:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- In this case, the user who created the page (at the wrong title) is the person who moved it. No GFDL issues. Probably safe to delete (but why bother). Rossami (talk) 05:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Why the Dr.? Besides, it has quotes. -- M4gnum0n ( talk) 16:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Quotes make no good. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 17:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Deleted. --
JLaTondre
15:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Song titles are usually given in quotation-marks. Someone created such a redirect which means that for him/her such a title was natural. No need to delete such a redirect IMO. // Halibu tt 14:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as per Halibutt, that's exactly why I created the redirect. -- Merovingian ( T, C) 17:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strongly Delete. I have nominated many of these as well. I have proposed as well that many cases are speedy deleted by extending the deletion R3 rule. Check here. As another user said "delete before someone creates a bot to create redirects for the existing 2 million articles". Quotes are not necessary and unpleasant -- Magioladitis ( talk) 21:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- This one is bad because there are two songs by this name. If there were no redirect, the search engine would list both possible songs. The redirect impedes that (if the user hits "go"). Granted that's the same with any redirect to the primary meaning of a disambiguation, but if we need to have a redirect in quotes for this song title, then wouldn't that apply to all song articles? Gimmetrow 23:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete because of quotes. -- M4gnum0n ( talk) 16:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. A redirect with quotes that redirects in an article with the same name ithout quotes. Useless. -- Nips ( talk) 11:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - unnecessary use of quotes. — Gavia immer ( talk) 16:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. Pagemove still documented at the target. --
Oxymoron
83
09:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep because it documents the pagemove. Rossami (talk) 05:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Indifferent - It was the original name of the page before it was moved to a better name. However, I don't expect anybody to actually look it up by that name, so it's not likely to get used anymore. -- Maelwys ( talk) 14:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Forgotten redirect. Marlith T/ C 05:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. No one will search for this, and it has quotes. -- M4gnum0n ( talk) 16:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete it has quotes. No reason to document page moves. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 17:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Quotes and no one will search for deatiled history. Reywas92 Talk 16:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per Reywas92. No one will search for it. -- Nips ( talk) 11:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - unnecessary use of quotes. — Gavia immer ( talk) 16:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete.
bibliomaniac
1
5
00:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep because it documents the pagemove. Note that this move was conducted before the software automatically started recording moves into the target page's edit history. The redirect is the only record we have of the move.
Rossami
(talk)
05:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- But there is no indication that anything from "Dual Entente" was ever part of the current target article. "Dual Entente" was created on 14 April 2005, and was moved to Dual Entente the same day; the entire article was a single sentence and not particularly accurate. On 25 May 2005 the latter was redirected to the Franco-Russian Alliance because that article, which had existed since 28 March 2004, was much more developed even at the time the "Dual Entente" one-liner was created. Since the content of "Dual Entente" was not used and never will be used, why do we need to preserve a record of title changes? Gimmetrow 19:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. A redirect without the quotes exists. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 21:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Quotes redirects are bad. -- M4gnum0n ( talk) 16:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete The pagemove is already documented. Quotes are bad. -- Nips ( talk) 11:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - unnecessary use of quotes. — Gavia immer ( talk) 16:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete.
WjB
scribe
03:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strongly Delete. I have nominated many of these as well. I have proposed as well that many cases are speedy deleted by extending the deletion R3 rule. Check here. As another user said "delete before someone creates a bot to create redirects for the existing 2 million articles" -- Magioladitis ( talk) 21:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per above. -- M4gnum0n ( talk) 16:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete.
WjB
scribe
03:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- In this case, the user who created the page (at the wrong title) is the person who moved it. No GFDL issues. Probably safe to delete but again, why bother? Rossami (talk) 05:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete to avoid unnecessary if someone searches the term using quotes -- Magioladitis ( talk) 21:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. I am against all these useless quotes redirects. -- M4gnum0n ( talk) 16:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. Pagemove still documented at the target. --
Oxymoron
83
09:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep because it documents the pagemove. Rossami (talk) 05:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- M4gnum0n ( talk) 16:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Quotes are unnecessary. -- Nips ( talk) 19:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. It has quotes for no reason. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 19:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - unnecessary use of quotes. — Gavia immer ( talk) 16:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. Pagemove still documented at the target. --
Oxymoron
83
09:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep because it documents the pagemove of a page that has already had a troubled history (which makes it more not less likely that we are going to again need to refer to history to keep the topic clean). Rossami (talk) 05:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Why keep a redirect with unneccessary quotes? -- Nips ( talk)
- Delete. Seems I forgot to vote to this one. Quotes are ignored by the search box. Moreover page move id recorded to the new article as well (i still don't understand why this is necessary, but still...) We have an improper use of quotation marks. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 11:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - unnecessary use of quotes. — Gavia immer ( talk) 16:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. --
Oxymoron
83
09:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep because it documents a relatively recent pagemove and the original contributor has not yet demonstrated that he/she knows about the move. Rossami (talk) 05:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Quotes are unnecessary. -- Nips ( talk) 19:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Another redirect with quotes that make no difference. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 19:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - unnecessary use of quotes. — Gavia immer ( talk) 16:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete.
WjB
scribe
03:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- M4gnum0n ( talk) 16:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 19:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete.
WjB
scribe
03:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. I agree - I created it in error for Dutch Admiralties. Neddyseagoon - talk 10:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Quotes are unnecessary. -- Nips ( talk) 19:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. I should have been deleted immediately after the correct redirection created. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 19:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. Content was copy&paste moved from the correct titled page without attribution of the original author. --
Oxymoron
83
09:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. The edit history of these two pages gets more than a little confusing. As near as I can tell, content was moved from here to the correct title. Keep to be sure that we have the full contribution history. Rossami (talk) 05:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Quotes that make no difference. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 19:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - unnecessary use of quotes. — Gavia immer ( talk) 16:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. Pagemove still documented at the target. --
Oxymoron
83
09:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep because it documents the pagemove. Rossami (talk) 05:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- M4gnum0n ( talk) 16:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Quotes are unnecessary. -- Nips ( talk) 19:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Another redirect with quotes of no use. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 19:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - unnecessary use of quotes. — Gavia immer ( talk) 16:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete (redirect created without quotes).
нмŵוτн
τ
19:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- I created this redir because someone used that form in an article. Which means that, most likely, some people would search for "Eagles" of Lwów rather than Lwów Eaglets. I believe the more redirs we have the merrier. // Halibu tt 14:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Remove quotes then. -- M4gnum0n ( talk) 10:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Remove quotes and then delete this. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 01:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete (redirect created without quotes).
нмŵוτн
τ
19:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Remove quotes. -- M4gnum0n ( talk) 10:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Remove quotes -- Magioladitis ( talk) 01:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete.
нмŵוτн
τ
19:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- The target article should probably be reviewed at AFD because the contribution history implies some WP:COI issues and the article doesn't really assert notability all that strongly. But as long as the target page is kept, the redirect should be kept to document the pagemove. Rossami (talk) 05:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- M4gnum0n ( talk) 16:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Quotes are unnecessary. -- Nips ( talk) 19:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. We don't have to keep redirects with quotes. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 19:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Similar redirects with quotes nominated some days ago and the discussion closed with delete. Check
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 January 2. --
Magioladitis (
talk)
17:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Interesting that you choose to ignore the precedent that did not end the same way 2 days prior. Rossami (talk)
- It ended with no consensus. I'm pretty sure that if more people voted and expressed opinions this would be deleted as well. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 08:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Redirects with quotes that redirect in an article with the same name without quotes are worthless. I think its disruptive to try to search for a name and seeing that Wikipedia redirects for a not important reason. -- Nips ( talk) 11:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - unnecessary use of quotes. — Gavia immer ( talk) 16:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete.
WjB
scribe
03:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. If necessary, create another redirect without quotes. -- M4gnum0n ( talk) 16:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Quotes are solely for emphasis. -- Nips ( talk) 21:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete.
WjB
scribe
03:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that it is unnecessary, as the same economic group is known with two similar but different names. I think that the servers used by Wikipedia can handle also such redirections of secondary importance. They are not ultimately necessary but ease the use of the encyclopedia.
SAE1962 (
talk)
14:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. If necessary, create another redirect without quotes. -- M4gnum0n ( talk) 16:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete and create another version without quotes. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 17:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete because of the quotes. -- Nips ( talk) 22:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Kept. --
JLaTondre
15:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep because this one documents a pagemove. Rossami (talk) 05:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strong keep a misguided wikiuser elected to delete this article. I rewrote the article and moved it to Mummy forgeries. travb 06:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC) NOTE: This comment was not added by User:travb but by 68.89.137.174. GlobeGores ( talk | contribs) 06:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete.
WjB
scribe
03:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Delete. I have nominated many of these as well. I have proposed as well that many cases are speedy deleted by extending the deletion R3 rule. Check here. As another user said "delete before someone creates a bot to create redirects for the existing 2 million articles" -- Magioladitis ( talk) 21:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. If necessary, create another redirect without quotes. -- M4gnum0n ( talk) 16:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. It has quotes and the term "electronic charge" is non-sense. The correct term is electric charge. -- Nips ( talk) 11:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete.
matt
br
10:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Another where the person who created the article also moved it. You could delete but why bother? It doesn't aid the project any. Rossami (talk) 05:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Ok we have to group them. I got exhausted writing similar things in all these cases. The good thing is that they are less than 500 redirects of this kind left. :) -- Magioladitis ( talk) 21:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Quotes are unnecessary. -- Nips ( talk) 19:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Similar redirects nominated some days ago and closed with delete. Check Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 January 2. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 01:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. No cut-and-paste move as
Edward Davy Wedge was created before
"Edward Davy Wedge" with identical content by the same author. There is no other significant history at
"Edward Davy Wedge" therefore there is no history to merge.
matt
br
10:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Content appears to have been moved to the target page via cut-and-paste. Rossami (talk) 05:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strong delete I have nominated many of these as well. I have proposed as well that many cases are speedy deleted by extending the deletion R3 rule. As another user said "delete before someone creates a bot to create redirects for the existing 2 million articles" -- Magioladitis ( talk) 17:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Quotes are unnecessary. -- Nips ( talk) 19:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Histmerge per Rossami. -- Ned Scott 20:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
"Episode of the Island of Perpetual Winter". → Episode of Chopper: Bloom in the Winter, Miracle Sakura
The result of the debate was delete.
matt
br
10:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yet another where the person who created the article also moved it. You could delete but why bother? Rossami (talk) 05:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. If necessary, create another redirect without quotes. -- M4gnum0n ( talk) 16:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Unnecessary redirect with quotes. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 17:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Nips ( talk) 17:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. Pagemove still documented at the target. --
Oxymoron
83
09:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Documents a pagemove. Rossami (talk) 05:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Delete. I have nominated many of these as well. I have proposed as well that many cases are speedy deleted by extending the deletion R3 rule. Check here. As another user said "delete before someone creates a bot to create redirects for the existing 2 million articles" -- Magioladitis ( talk) 21:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. If necessary, create another redirect without quotes. -- M4gnum0n ( talk) 16:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Nips ( talk) 17:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - unnecessary use of quotes. — Gavia immer ( talk) 16:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. Pagemove still documented at the target. --
Oxymoron
83
09:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Documents a pagemove. Rossami (talk) 05:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. As noted, documents a page move. 23skidoo ( talk) 18:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Delete. I have nominated many of these as well. I have proposed as well that many cases are speedy deleted by extending the deletion R3 rule. Check
here. As another user said "delete before someone creates a bot to create redirects for the existing 2 million articles". Wikipedia is not for documenting user actions. History is documented not to lose information that maybe later is useful. A page move is not the case. --
Magioladitis (
talk)
21:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but that is not actually true. GFDL requires us to keep documentation of the contribution history of the content of the project. Pagemoves represent changes to the title of the page and are legally considered "content". As it says in the "keep if" criteria on Wikipedia:Redirect, pagemoves are generally considered useful history. There are several different ways that we can comply with GFDL but we may not simply choose to not comply by alleging an overly narrow view of the reason that we keep history. Rossami (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete The pagemove is also documented in the target page's history. Reywas92 Talk 16:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Quotes are of no good at all. -- Nips ( talk) 22:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Similar redirects nominated some days ago and closed with delete. Check Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 January 2. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 16:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - unnecessary use of quotes. — Gavia immer ( talk) 16:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Deleted. --
JLaTondre
15:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. The article's already forked at least once. Making a page into a redirect help to prevent it from reoccurring. Rossami (talk) 06:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strong delete Redirect without quotes exists. The quoted version is not helping at all. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 17:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Quotes are unnecessary. -- Nips ( talk) 19:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Similar redirects with quotes nominated some days ago and the discussion closed with delete. Check Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 January 2. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 17:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - unnecessary use of quotes. — Gavia immer ( talk) 16:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. Pagemove still documented at the target. --
Oxymoron
83
09:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep because it documents the pagemove. Rossami (talk) 06:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Delete. I have nominated many of these as well. I have proposed as well that many cases are speedy deleted by extending the deletion R3 rule. Check here. As another user said "delete before someone creates a bot to create redirects for the existing 2 million articles" -- Magioladitis ( talk) 21:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- M4gnum0n ( talk) 10:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Quotes are unnecessary. -- Nips ( talk) 19:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Similar redirects nominated some days ago and closed with delete. Check Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 January 2. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 01:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - unnecessary use of quotes. — Gavia immer ( talk) 16:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. Pagemove still documented at the target. --
Oxymoron
83
09:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- At 04:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC), Gwernol speedy deleted this calling it an "implausible redirect". Since the redirect was created by the pagemove, it can not be "implausible" as we use that term. I have restored the redirect pending the conclusion of this debate. Rossami (talk)
- Keep because it documents the pagemove. Rossami (talk) 06:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Delete. I have nominated many of these as well. I have proposed as well that many cases are speedy deleted by extending the deletion R3 rule. Check here. As another user said "delete before someone creates a bot to create redirects for the existing 2 million articles" -- Magioladitis ( talk) 21:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Quotes are unnecessary. -- Nips ( talk) 19:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Similar redirects nominated some days ago and closed with delete. Check Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 January 2. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 17:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - unnecessary use of quotes. — Gavia immer ( talk) 16:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. Whole edit history is at the target page, history merge still documented at the target. --
Oxymoron
83
09:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep because it was part of a history merger of several pages. Rossami (talk) 06:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strongly Delete. I have nominated many of these as well. I have proposed as well that many cases are speedy deleted by extending the deletion R3 rule. Check here. As another user said "delete before someone creates a bot to create redirects for the existing 2 million articles" -- Magioladitis ( talk) 21:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Nips ( talk) 00:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Similar redirects nominated some days ago and closed with delete. Check Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 January 2. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 17:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - unnecessary use of quotes. — Gavia immer ( talk) 16:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. Pagemove still documented at the target. --
Oxymoron
83
09:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep because it documents the pagemove. This page has already been moved several times. The redirect clearly demonstrates to new editors that the community has already considered the question and that this is the preferred destination. Rossami (talk) 06:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strongly Delete. I have nominated many of these as well. I have proposed as well that many cases are speedy deleted by extending the deletion R3 rule. Check here. As another user said "delete before someone creates a bot to create redirects for the existing 2 million articles" -- Magioladitis ( talk) 21:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete unneeded unused redirect. Marlith T/ C 05:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Quotes are unnecessary. -- Nips ( talk) 19:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - unnecessary use of quotes. — Gavia immer ( talk) 16:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. Pagemove still documented at the target. --
Oxymoron
83
09:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep because it documents a pagemove. And while in this case, the original contributor is the person who later moved the page, there were also intervening editors. Rossami (talk) 06:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strongly Delete. I have nominated many of these as well. I have proposed as well that many cases are speedy deleted by extending the deletion R3 rule. Check here. As another user said "delete before someone creates a bot to create redirects for the existing 2 million articles" -- Magioladitis ( talk) 21:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Nips ( talk) 00:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Similar redirects nominated some days ago and closed with delete. Check Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 January 2. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 17:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - unnecessary use of quotes. — Gavia immer ( talk) 16:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was No consensus (defaults to keep). --
JLaTondre
15:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This was originally a redirect to User talk:Gurch but then a bot came around and made it a redirect to Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. Now, I don't quite understand the logic there, but think it should probably be deleted altogether. We obviously don't need random redirects to RFO and secondly, why does User:Gurch need a cross-namespace redirect to his talk page? - Rjd0060 ( talk) 16:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:ZN :) – Gurch 18:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep There's nothing wrong with it. Majorly ( talk) 18:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: Well, now that the redirect was changed back to his user talk page, it isn't that big of a deal I guess. I wasn't aware that everybody was allowed to create redirects to their user pages in the WP namespace. I'll be sure to spread the word then. (just kidding - sarcasm intended) - Rjd0060 ( talk) 18:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep because 200801081850GURCH. – Pomte 18:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete because there is no reason for a user to have a cross name redirect. Any others can get deleted to, unless the user has a specific need for it. - Koweja ( talk) 03:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete unless we grant other editors to start creating wikipedia namespace redirects for themselves. It's pure nonsense and those !voting keep are not giving valid arguments for keeping it. — Save_Us † 19:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete it and delete WP:ZN as well. I think it's confusing to make wikipedia-namespace-like redirects to user pages. (And I hope I win a price for my "wikipedia-namespace-like" new word). -- Magioladitis ( talk) 00:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - I think the question is: if this is kept, will it set a precedent? To be honest I only see no harm arguments for keeping it. I'm not entirely convinced why it should be deleted though. EJF ( talk) 20:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's not harming anything alone, but if he has this, we all should be able to have one. Would it cause harm if every user had one of these? That would only be fair, and that should be the question: whether or not all users should be able to have these. This is an RfD that will set a precedent one way or the other, & the closing admin should take that into account. нмŵוτн τ 00:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Just to note, cross-namespace redirects are not desired for article namespace. Also, this shouldn't even be seen as a "cross namespace redirect" as it's being used as a shortcut, which really isn't a "namespace", but technically lives in one. Plus, we do allow shortcuts to essays hosted in the userspace. -- Ned Scott 02:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was The result was Speedy Delete (Non admin closure).
Marlith
T/
C
05:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Completely pointless vandal redirect. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 17:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as confirmed vandalism. Rossami (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was keep.
WjB
scribe
03:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I originally deleted it as a blank page, but I see that it's a redirect. Should obscure nicknames be redirects? —Preceding unsigned comment added by J-stan ( talk • contribs) 18:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- keep' I do not see a reason to delete it. It is just a nickname, and not obscure. Λua∫ Wi se ( talk) 18:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Fair enough to state in the Giuliani article that he was referred to as America's mayor during the events of 9/11 but not to redirect such a loose term to his article. Not everyone agrees that he is, was or ever will be America's mayor. He was New York's mayor. That's fact. At the most, it should be made a disambig page. --
ALLSTAR
echo
18:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment and what other links would you like to put on the page? Has anybody else ever been called that? - Koweja ( talk) 03:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Change to Rudy_Giuliani#Public_reaction. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Common nickname for Giuliani that was widely used in US press especially following 9/11, definitely not "obscure". Google gives 88 300 hits for "america's mayor"+"Giuliani". We also have similar redirects for nicknames such as " Governator" and about every nickname for US presidents so why not this? / Slarre ( talk) 18:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, people type this in trying to get to the Giuliani article. Its a nickname that everybody recognizes.-- S TX 19:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment When I'm trying to get to the Giuliani article, I type in Rudy Giuliani - because that's his name of course. I serious doubt there are that many people that actually type in "America's mayor" when they have Rudy on the brain. If not deleted, it should at the most be a disambig page. -- ALLSTAR echo 00:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep: Well known term when speaking of Giuliani. - Rjd0060 ( talk) 00:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep apparently people will use this redirect. Marlith T/ C 05:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment You say "apparently". That means you've got some sort of definitive proof? -- ALLSTAR echo 14:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep certainly not "obscure", and is a legitimate search term. The mere existence of a redirect is in no way an endorsement of the usage. - Koweja ( talk) 03:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep a helpful redirect Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ( talk/ cont) 18:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion on January 8, 2008
The result of the debate was delete.
WjB
scribe
03:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to make any sense whatsoever. A random acronym leading to a surname. . — Steven Evens ( contribs) 00:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Google turns up nothing at all, suggesting that this is a made up acronym. The user who originally created the redirect appears to have a somewhat mixed contribution history. If we can't figure it out and can't get a logical explanation, delete. Rossami (talk) 03:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete for above reasons. -- M4gnum0n ( talk) 16:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Looks really random. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 19:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete.
WjB
scribe
03:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete really uneccessary. -- Nips ( talk) 00:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per above. -- M4gnum0n ( talk) 16:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom as well. Unlikely to be searched. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 16:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete.
WjB
scribe
03:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. I have nominated many of these as well. I have proposed as well that many cases are speedy deleted by extending the deletion R3 rule. Check here -- Magioladitis ( talk) 21:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Nips ( talk) 00:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per above. -- M4gnum0n ( talk) 16:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete.
bibliomaniac
1
5
03:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep this one because it documents a pagemove.
Rossami
(talk)
05:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- As with any move (that's not ancient), the pagemove is documented at
Cottier too. Aside from any other issues, why is it necessary to keep that record in two places?
Gimmetrow
05:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- There are several potential reasons. For some, it alerts the original editors and readers of the page (at the earlier title) that the page has been moved and tells them clearly where to make further contributions. Simply deleting the redirect after a pagemove can confuse new users who incorrectly assume that they made a mistake saving the page and who then recreate the page at the old, bad title. For others, there is a chance that some reader created an internal or external link to the old, incorrect title. Deleting the redirect breaks any such link. (That's not likely if the page was moved within minutes of creation but is increasingly likely for older pages.) But the big reason to leave them alone is that there is no measurable advantage to the project by deleting them yet there is a small but measurable downside to the deletion. The analysis
here about unnecessarily "fixing" redirects also applies to unnecessarily deleting them. If a redirect is somehow harmful or misleading to a reader, it should be deleted. Otherwise, the project is better served by ignoring them.
Rossami
(talk)
06:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- I did say "aside from other reasons". As for "fixing" redirects, now that these have templates, they all need either an edit (to remove the template) or a deletion, so the server load issues are something of a tossup.
Gimmetrow
06:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- At this point, that's unfortunately true. (And every edit we make in the deletion debate very slightly exacerbates the issue.) But we have many many thousands of these redirects that were created by the pagemove process. The project would not be well-served if these deletions were interpreted as a universal precedent. In my opinion, it's worth our time now to reaffirm the policy and to teach other readers and editors that nothing is really gained by trying to delete them in the first place.
Rossami
(talk)
16:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Redirects from phrases "in quotes" are arguably a bad thing since they override the search algorithm. I think it's better in general that these not go to a specific page, but generate the articles using the phrase, with (hopefully) the most relevant one first. I can imagine exceptions where the search phrase is a notable quote involving common words, and it helps to redirect it to the person quoted. But I think if the phrase in quotes matches the target article, interference with searching likely outweighs the possibilities of breaking third-party links, and the redirect should be deleted. (Ancient page moves recorded nowhere else are another consideration.) Gimmetrow 23:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- At this point, that's unfortunately true. (And every edit we make in the deletion debate very slightly exacerbates the issue.) But we have many many thousands of these redirects that were created by the pagemove process. The project would not be well-served if these deletions were interpreted as a universal precedent. In my opinion, it's worth our time now to reaffirm the policy and to teach other readers and editors that nothing is really gained by trying to delete them in the first place.
Rossami
(talk)
16:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- I did say "aside from other reasons". As for "fixing" redirects, now that these have templates, they all need either an edit (to remove the template) or a deletion, so the server load issues are something of a tossup.
Gimmetrow
06:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- There are several potential reasons. For some, it alerts the original editors and readers of the page (at the earlier title) that the page has been moved and tells them clearly where to make further contributions. Simply deleting the redirect after a pagemove can confuse new users who incorrectly assume that they made a mistake saving the page and who then recreate the page at the old, bad title. For others, there is a chance that some reader created an internal or external link to the old, incorrect title. Deleting the redirect breaks any such link. (That's not likely if the page was moved within minutes of creation but is increasingly likely for older pages.) But the big reason to leave them alone is that there is no measurable advantage to the project by deleting them yet there is a small but measurable downside to the deletion. The analysis
here about unnecessarily "fixing" redirects also applies to unnecessarily deleting them. If a redirect is somehow harmful or misleading to a reader, it should be deleted. Otherwise, the project is better served by ignoring them.
Rossami
(talk)
06:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- As with any move (that's not ancient), the pagemove is documented at
Cottier too. Aside from any other issues, why is it necessary to keep that record in two places?
Gimmetrow
05:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. I have nominated many of these as well. I have proposed as well that many cases are speedy deleted by extending the deletion R3 rule. Check here -- Magioladitis ( talk) 21:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment As Wikipedia:Naming conventions writes: To maintain the functionality of Alphabetical Indexing and avoid needless redirect pages, page names should not begin with non alpha-numeric (A-Z,0-9) characters used solely for emphasis. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 22:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Looks worthless. -- Nips ( talk) 00:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Looks harmful - we don't need redirects from random phrase searches. — Gavia immer ( talk) 16:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. (pagemove still documented at the target) --
Oxymoron
83
16:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- As long as the target page is kept (a question which I think should be investigated because the target page does not appear to assert notability), keep the redirect because it documents the pagemove. Rossami (talk) 05:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strongly Delete. I have nominated many of these as well. I have proposed as well that many cases are speedy deleted by extending the deletion R3 rule. Check here. As another user said "delete before someone creates a bot to create redirects for the existing 2 million articles" -- Magioladitis ( talk) 21:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per above. -- M4gnum0n ( talk) 16:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Disruptive. --
Nips (
talk)
18:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- "Unnecessary" is a judgement call but I'm not going to let you get away with "disruptive" without more explanation. How is the redirect that's automatically created by our own pagemove software "disruptive"? This was not pagemove vandalism, the evidence points to an innocent mistake in the title used in the original creation of the page. Rossami (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Similar redirects nominated some days ago and closed with delete. Check Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 January 2. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 01:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. (Page was the copy&paste target without attribution of the original authors, not the source) --
Oxymoron
83
15:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep this one because the content was merged into the target article, apparently through a cut-and-paste move. GFDL requires us to keep attribution history and leaving the redirect (and its pagehistory) intact is the cleanest way to do that. Rossami (talk) 05:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strongly Delete. I have nominated many of these as well. I have proposed as well that many cases are speedy deleted by extending the deletion R3 rule. Check here. As another user said "delete before someone creates a bot to create redirects for the existing 2 million articles" -- Magioladitis ( talk) 21:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per above. -- M4gnum0n ( talk) 16:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Disruptive. -- Nips ( talk) 18:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete.
WjB
scribe
03:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strongly Delete. I have nominated many of these as well. I have proposed as well that many cases are speedy deleted by extending the deletion R3 rule. Check here. As another user said "delete before someone creates a bot to create redirects for the existing 2 million articles" -- Magioladitis ( talk) 21:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per above. -- M4gnum0n ( talk) 16:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Disruptive. -- Nips ( talk) 18:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete.
bibliomaniac
1
5
03:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep this one because it documents the pagemove. Rossami (talk) 05:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strongly Delete. I have nominated many of these as well. I have proposed as well that many cases are speedy deleted by extending the deletion R3 rule. Check here. As another user said "delete before someone creates a bot to create redirects for the existing 2 million articles" -- Magioladitis ( talk) 21:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per above. -- M4gnum0n ( talk) 16:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. How many times do we have to vote for the same case? Redirects that have quotes only for emphasis are bad. -- Nips ( talk) 21:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. David Pro ( talk) 20:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - unnecessary use of quotes. — Gavia immer ( talk) 16:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete.
bibliomaniac
1
5
03:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep because it documents the pagemove. Rossami (talk) 05:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strongly Delete. I have nominated many of these as well. I have proposed as well that many cases are speedy deleted by extending the deletion R3 rule. Check here. As another user said "delete before someone creates a bot to create redirects for the existing 2 million articles" -- Magioladitis ( talk) 21:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete ohhh that was me!!! Can I get on wikiquote Magioladitis? Victuallers ( talk) 23:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- comment Was it you? I maybe add it as a quote in my page! You have my vote :) -- Magioladitis ( talk) 23:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- M4gnum0n ( talk) 16:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. How many times do we have to vote for the same case? Redirects that have quotes only for emphasis are bad. -- Nips ( talk) 21:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - unnecessary use of quotes. — Gavia immer ( talk) 16:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete.
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep because it documents the pagemove. Rossami (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- M4gnum0n ( talk) 16:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Having articles with unnecessary quotes is not helpful at all. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 17:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - unnecessary use of quotes. — Gavia immer ( talk) 16:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete.
bibliomaniac
1
5
03:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep because it documents the pagemove. Rossami (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strongly Delete. I have nominated many of these as well. I have proposed as well that many cases are speedy deleted by extending the deletion R3 rule. Check here. As another user said "delete before someone creates a bot to create redirects for the existing 2 million articles" -- Magioladitis ( talk) 21:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- M4gnum0n ( talk) 16:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Disruptive. -- Nips ( talk) 18:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - unnecessary use of quotes. — Gavia immer ( talk) 16:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete.
WjB
scribe
03:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strongly Delete. I have nominated many of these as well. I have proposed as well that many cases are speedy deleted by extending the deletion R3 rule. Check here. As another user said "delete before someone creates a bot to create redirects for the existing 2 million articles" -- Magioladitis ( talk) 21:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- M4gnum0n ( talk) 16:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete.
WjB
scribe
03:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete not because of the quotes but because non-notable marketing jingles are not encyclopedic content. Rossami (talk) 05:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 21:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete this will never be used. Marlith T/ C 05:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per all of the above. -- M4gnum0n ( talk) 16:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete.
WjB
scribe
03:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strongly Delete. I have nominated many of these as well. I have proposed as well that many cases are speedy deleted by extending the deletion R3 rule. Check here. As another user said "delete before someone creates a bot to create redirects for the existing 2 million articles" -- Magioladitis ( talk) 21:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete because of quotes. -- M4gnum0n ( talk) 16:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. Pagemove still documented at the target. --
Oxymoron
83
09:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep because it documents a pagemove. Rossami (talk) 05:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strongly Delete. I have nominated many of these as well. I have proposed as well that many cases are speedy deleted by extending the deletion R3 rule. Check
here. As another user said "delete before someone creates a bot to create redirects for the existing 2 million articles" --
Magioladitis (
talk)
21:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Again, no one is creating these redirects directly. For the most part, they are being created by our own software when someone moves a page. That's a feature, not a bug. Rossami (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. No need to create all these quoted pages. -- M4gnum0n ( talk) 16:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Disruptive. -- Nips ( talk) 18:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - unnecessary use of quotes. — Gavia immer ( talk) 16:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete.
WjB
scribe
03:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'd like to note that I made this redirect because it seemed like this misspelling caused a redlink in the past. It was listed on the red link recovery wikiproject when I made the edit here. Since someone already made this spelling mistake, I thought another person might do it again in the future. Lisatwo ( talk) 19:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Don't encourage typos. -- M4gnum0n ( talk) 16:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete Implausible typo. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 19:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. It starts with a quote! -- Nips ( talk) 21:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete.
WjB
scribe
03:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strongly Delete. I have nominated many of these as well. I have proposed as well that many cases are speedy deleted by extending the deletion R3 rule. Check here. As another user said "delete before someone creates a bot to create redirects for the existing 2 million articles" -- Magioladitis ( talk) 21:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per above. -- M4gnum0n ( talk) 16:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. Pagemove still documented at the target. --
Oxymoron
83
09:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Weak keep. Keep because it documents a page move. Weak because in this case, the pre-move history is very limited. Rossami (talk) 05:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 21:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete because of quotes. -- M4gnum0n ( talk) 16:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete' because of quotes. -- Nips ( talk) 11:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - unnecessary use of quotes. — Gavia immer ( talk) 16:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete.
WjB
scribe
03:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- In this case, the user who created the page (at the wrong title) is the person who moved it. No GFDL issues. Probably safe to delete (but why bother). Rossami (talk) 05:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Why the Dr.? Besides, it has quotes. -- M4gnum0n ( talk) 16:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Quotes make no good. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 17:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Deleted. --
JLaTondre
15:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Song titles are usually given in quotation-marks. Someone created such a redirect which means that for him/her such a title was natural. No need to delete such a redirect IMO. // Halibu tt 14:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as per Halibutt, that's exactly why I created the redirect. -- Merovingian ( T, C) 17:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strongly Delete. I have nominated many of these as well. I have proposed as well that many cases are speedy deleted by extending the deletion R3 rule. Check here. As another user said "delete before someone creates a bot to create redirects for the existing 2 million articles". Quotes are not necessary and unpleasant -- Magioladitis ( talk) 21:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- This one is bad because there are two songs by this name. If there were no redirect, the search engine would list both possible songs. The redirect impedes that (if the user hits "go"). Granted that's the same with any redirect to the primary meaning of a disambiguation, but if we need to have a redirect in quotes for this song title, then wouldn't that apply to all song articles? Gimmetrow 23:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete because of quotes. -- M4gnum0n ( talk) 16:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. A redirect with quotes that redirects in an article with the same name ithout quotes. Useless. -- Nips ( talk) 11:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - unnecessary use of quotes. — Gavia immer ( talk) 16:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. Pagemove still documented at the target. --
Oxymoron
83
09:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep because it documents the pagemove. Rossami (talk) 05:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Indifferent - It was the original name of the page before it was moved to a better name. However, I don't expect anybody to actually look it up by that name, so it's not likely to get used anymore. -- Maelwys ( talk) 14:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Forgotten redirect. Marlith T/ C 05:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. No one will search for this, and it has quotes. -- M4gnum0n ( talk) 16:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete it has quotes. No reason to document page moves. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 17:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Quotes and no one will search for deatiled history. Reywas92 Talk 16:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per Reywas92. No one will search for it. -- Nips ( talk) 11:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - unnecessary use of quotes. — Gavia immer ( talk) 16:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete.
bibliomaniac
1
5
00:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep because it documents the pagemove. Note that this move was conducted before the software automatically started recording moves into the target page's edit history. The redirect is the only record we have of the move.
Rossami
(talk)
05:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- But there is no indication that anything from "Dual Entente" was ever part of the current target article. "Dual Entente" was created on 14 April 2005, and was moved to Dual Entente the same day; the entire article was a single sentence and not particularly accurate. On 25 May 2005 the latter was redirected to the Franco-Russian Alliance because that article, which had existed since 28 March 2004, was much more developed even at the time the "Dual Entente" one-liner was created. Since the content of "Dual Entente" was not used and never will be used, why do we need to preserve a record of title changes? Gimmetrow 19:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. A redirect without the quotes exists. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 21:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Quotes redirects are bad. -- M4gnum0n ( talk) 16:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete The pagemove is already documented. Quotes are bad. -- Nips ( talk) 11:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - unnecessary use of quotes. — Gavia immer ( talk) 16:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete.
WjB
scribe
03:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strongly Delete. I have nominated many of these as well. I have proposed as well that many cases are speedy deleted by extending the deletion R3 rule. Check here. As another user said "delete before someone creates a bot to create redirects for the existing 2 million articles" -- Magioladitis ( talk) 21:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per above. -- M4gnum0n ( talk) 16:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete.
WjB
scribe
03:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- In this case, the user who created the page (at the wrong title) is the person who moved it. No GFDL issues. Probably safe to delete but again, why bother? Rossami (talk) 05:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete to avoid unnecessary if someone searches the term using quotes -- Magioladitis ( talk) 21:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. I am against all these useless quotes redirects. -- M4gnum0n ( talk) 16:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. Pagemove still documented at the target. --
Oxymoron
83
09:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep because it documents the pagemove. Rossami (talk) 05:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- M4gnum0n ( talk) 16:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Quotes are unnecessary. -- Nips ( talk) 19:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. It has quotes for no reason. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 19:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - unnecessary use of quotes. — Gavia immer ( talk) 16:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. Pagemove still documented at the target. --
Oxymoron
83
09:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep because it documents the pagemove of a page that has already had a troubled history (which makes it more not less likely that we are going to again need to refer to history to keep the topic clean). Rossami (talk) 05:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Why keep a redirect with unneccessary quotes? -- Nips ( talk)
- Delete. Seems I forgot to vote to this one. Quotes are ignored by the search box. Moreover page move id recorded to the new article as well (i still don't understand why this is necessary, but still...) We have an improper use of quotation marks. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 11:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - unnecessary use of quotes. — Gavia immer ( talk) 16:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. --
Oxymoron
83
09:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep because it documents a relatively recent pagemove and the original contributor has not yet demonstrated that he/she knows about the move. Rossami (talk) 05:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Quotes are unnecessary. -- Nips ( talk) 19:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Another redirect with quotes that make no difference. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 19:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - unnecessary use of quotes. — Gavia immer ( talk) 16:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete.
WjB
scribe
03:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- M4gnum0n ( talk) 16:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 19:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete.
WjB
scribe
03:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. I agree - I created it in error for Dutch Admiralties. Neddyseagoon - talk 10:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Quotes are unnecessary. -- Nips ( talk) 19:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. I should have been deleted immediately after the correct redirection created. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 19:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. Content was copy&paste moved from the correct titled page without attribution of the original author. --
Oxymoron
83
09:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. The edit history of these two pages gets more than a little confusing. As near as I can tell, content was moved from here to the correct title. Keep to be sure that we have the full contribution history. Rossami (talk) 05:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Quotes that make no difference. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 19:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - unnecessary use of quotes. — Gavia immer ( talk) 16:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. Pagemove still documented at the target. --
Oxymoron
83
09:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep because it documents the pagemove. Rossami (talk) 05:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- M4gnum0n ( talk) 16:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Quotes are unnecessary. -- Nips ( talk) 19:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Another redirect with quotes of no use. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 19:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - unnecessary use of quotes. — Gavia immer ( talk) 16:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete (redirect created without quotes).
нмŵוτн
τ
19:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- I created this redir because someone used that form in an article. Which means that, most likely, some people would search for "Eagles" of Lwów rather than Lwów Eaglets. I believe the more redirs we have the merrier. // Halibu tt 14:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Remove quotes then. -- M4gnum0n ( talk) 10:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Remove quotes and then delete this. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 01:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete (redirect created without quotes).
нмŵוτн
τ
19:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Remove quotes. -- M4gnum0n ( talk) 10:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Remove quotes -- Magioladitis ( talk) 01:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete.
нмŵוτн
τ
19:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- The target article should probably be reviewed at AFD because the contribution history implies some WP:COI issues and the article doesn't really assert notability all that strongly. But as long as the target page is kept, the redirect should be kept to document the pagemove. Rossami (talk) 05:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- M4gnum0n ( talk) 16:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Quotes are unnecessary. -- Nips ( talk) 19:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. We don't have to keep redirects with quotes. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 19:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Similar redirects with quotes nominated some days ago and the discussion closed with delete. Check
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 January 2. --
Magioladitis (
talk)
17:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Interesting that you choose to ignore the precedent that did not end the same way 2 days prior. Rossami (talk)
- It ended with no consensus. I'm pretty sure that if more people voted and expressed opinions this would be deleted as well. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 08:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Redirects with quotes that redirect in an article with the same name without quotes are worthless. I think its disruptive to try to search for a name and seeing that Wikipedia redirects for a not important reason. -- Nips ( talk) 11:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - unnecessary use of quotes. — Gavia immer ( talk) 16:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete.
WjB
scribe
03:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. If necessary, create another redirect without quotes. -- M4gnum0n ( talk) 16:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Quotes are solely for emphasis. -- Nips ( talk) 21:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete.
WjB
scribe
03:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that it is unnecessary, as the same economic group is known with two similar but different names. I think that the servers used by Wikipedia can handle also such redirections of secondary importance. They are not ultimately necessary but ease the use of the encyclopedia.
SAE1962 (
talk)
14:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. If necessary, create another redirect without quotes. -- M4gnum0n ( talk) 16:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete and create another version without quotes. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 17:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete because of the quotes. -- Nips ( talk) 22:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Kept. --
JLaTondre
15:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep because this one documents a pagemove. Rossami (talk) 05:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strong keep a misguided wikiuser elected to delete this article. I rewrote the article and moved it to Mummy forgeries. travb 06:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC) NOTE: This comment was not added by User:travb but by 68.89.137.174. GlobeGores ( talk | contribs) 06:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete.
WjB
scribe
03:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Delete. I have nominated many of these as well. I have proposed as well that many cases are speedy deleted by extending the deletion R3 rule. Check here. As another user said "delete before someone creates a bot to create redirects for the existing 2 million articles" -- Magioladitis ( talk) 21:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. If necessary, create another redirect without quotes. -- M4gnum0n ( talk) 16:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. It has quotes and the term "electronic charge" is non-sense. The correct term is electric charge. -- Nips ( talk) 11:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete.
matt
br
10:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Another where the person who created the article also moved it. You could delete but why bother? It doesn't aid the project any. Rossami (talk) 05:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Ok we have to group them. I got exhausted writing similar things in all these cases. The good thing is that they are less than 500 redirects of this kind left. :) -- Magioladitis ( talk) 21:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Quotes are unnecessary. -- Nips ( talk) 19:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Similar redirects nominated some days ago and closed with delete. Check Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 January 2. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 01:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. No cut-and-paste move as
Edward Davy Wedge was created before
"Edward Davy Wedge" with identical content by the same author. There is no other significant history at
"Edward Davy Wedge" therefore there is no history to merge.
matt
br
10:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Content appears to have been moved to the target page via cut-and-paste. Rossami (talk) 05:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strong delete I have nominated many of these as well. I have proposed as well that many cases are speedy deleted by extending the deletion R3 rule. As another user said "delete before someone creates a bot to create redirects for the existing 2 million articles" -- Magioladitis ( talk) 17:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Quotes are unnecessary. -- Nips ( talk) 19:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Histmerge per Rossami. -- Ned Scott 20:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
"Episode of the Island of Perpetual Winter". → Episode of Chopper: Bloom in the Winter, Miracle Sakura
The result of the debate was delete.
matt
br
10:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yet another where the person who created the article also moved it. You could delete but why bother? Rossami (talk) 05:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. If necessary, create another redirect without quotes. -- M4gnum0n ( talk) 16:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Unnecessary redirect with quotes. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 17:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Nips ( talk) 17:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. Pagemove still documented at the target. --
Oxymoron
83
09:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Documents a pagemove. Rossami (talk) 05:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Delete. I have nominated many of these as well. I have proposed as well that many cases are speedy deleted by extending the deletion R3 rule. Check here. As another user said "delete before someone creates a bot to create redirects for the existing 2 million articles" -- Magioladitis ( talk) 21:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. If necessary, create another redirect without quotes. -- M4gnum0n ( talk) 16:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Nips ( talk) 17:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - unnecessary use of quotes. — Gavia immer ( talk) 16:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. Pagemove still documented at the target. --
Oxymoron
83
09:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Documents a pagemove. Rossami (talk) 05:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. As noted, documents a page move. 23skidoo ( talk) 18:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Delete. I have nominated many of these as well. I have proposed as well that many cases are speedy deleted by extending the deletion R3 rule. Check
here. As another user said "delete before someone creates a bot to create redirects for the existing 2 million articles". Wikipedia is not for documenting user actions. History is documented not to lose information that maybe later is useful. A page move is not the case. --
Magioladitis (
talk)
21:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but that is not actually true. GFDL requires us to keep documentation of the contribution history of the content of the project. Pagemoves represent changes to the title of the page and are legally considered "content". As it says in the "keep if" criteria on Wikipedia:Redirect, pagemoves are generally considered useful history. There are several different ways that we can comply with GFDL but we may not simply choose to not comply by alleging an overly narrow view of the reason that we keep history. Rossami (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete The pagemove is also documented in the target page's history. Reywas92 Talk 16:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Quotes are of no good at all. -- Nips ( talk) 22:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Similar redirects nominated some days ago and closed with delete. Check Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 January 2. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 16:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - unnecessary use of quotes. — Gavia immer ( talk) 16:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Deleted. --
JLaTondre
15:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. The article's already forked at least once. Making a page into a redirect help to prevent it from reoccurring. Rossami (talk) 06:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strong delete Redirect without quotes exists. The quoted version is not helping at all. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 17:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Quotes are unnecessary. -- Nips ( talk) 19:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Similar redirects with quotes nominated some days ago and the discussion closed with delete. Check Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 January 2. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 17:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - unnecessary use of quotes. — Gavia immer ( talk) 16:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. Pagemove still documented at the target. --
Oxymoron
83
09:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep because it documents the pagemove. Rossami (talk) 06:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Delete. I have nominated many of these as well. I have proposed as well that many cases are speedy deleted by extending the deletion R3 rule. Check here. As another user said "delete before someone creates a bot to create redirects for the existing 2 million articles" -- Magioladitis ( talk) 21:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- M4gnum0n ( talk) 10:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Quotes are unnecessary. -- Nips ( talk) 19:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Similar redirects nominated some days ago and closed with delete. Check Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 January 2. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 01:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - unnecessary use of quotes. — Gavia immer ( talk) 16:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. Pagemove still documented at the target. --
Oxymoron
83
09:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- At 04:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC), Gwernol speedy deleted this calling it an "implausible redirect". Since the redirect was created by the pagemove, it can not be "implausible" as we use that term. I have restored the redirect pending the conclusion of this debate. Rossami (talk)
- Keep because it documents the pagemove. Rossami (talk) 06:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Delete. I have nominated many of these as well. I have proposed as well that many cases are speedy deleted by extending the deletion R3 rule. Check here. As another user said "delete before someone creates a bot to create redirects for the existing 2 million articles" -- Magioladitis ( talk) 21:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Quotes are unnecessary. -- Nips ( talk) 19:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Similar redirects nominated some days ago and closed with delete. Check Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 January 2. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 17:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - unnecessary use of quotes. — Gavia immer ( talk) 16:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. Whole edit history is at the target page, history merge still documented at the target. --
Oxymoron
83
09:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep because it was part of a history merger of several pages. Rossami (talk) 06:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strongly Delete. I have nominated many of these as well. I have proposed as well that many cases are speedy deleted by extending the deletion R3 rule. Check here. As another user said "delete before someone creates a bot to create redirects for the existing 2 million articles" -- Magioladitis ( talk) 21:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Nips ( talk) 00:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Similar redirects nominated some days ago and closed with delete. Check Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 January 2. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 17:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - unnecessary use of quotes. — Gavia immer ( talk) 16:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. Pagemove still documented at the target. --
Oxymoron
83
09:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep because it documents the pagemove. This page has already been moved several times. The redirect clearly demonstrates to new editors that the community has already considered the question and that this is the preferred destination. Rossami (talk) 06:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strongly Delete. I have nominated many of these as well. I have proposed as well that many cases are speedy deleted by extending the deletion R3 rule. Check here. As another user said "delete before someone creates a bot to create redirects for the existing 2 million articles" -- Magioladitis ( talk) 21:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete unneeded unused redirect. Marlith T/ C 05:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Quotes are unnecessary. -- Nips ( talk) 19:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - unnecessary use of quotes. — Gavia immer ( talk) 16:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. Pagemove still documented at the target. --
Oxymoron
83
09:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep because it documents a pagemove. And while in this case, the original contributor is the person who later moved the page, there were also intervening editors. Rossami (talk) 06:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strongly Delete. I have nominated many of these as well. I have proposed as well that many cases are speedy deleted by extending the deletion R3 rule. Check here. As another user said "delete before someone creates a bot to create redirects for the existing 2 million articles" -- Magioladitis ( talk) 21:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Nips ( talk) 00:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Similar redirects nominated some days ago and closed with delete. Check Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 January 2. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 17:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - unnecessary use of quotes. — Gavia immer ( talk) 16:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was No consensus (defaults to keep). --
JLaTondre
15:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This was originally a redirect to User talk:Gurch but then a bot came around and made it a redirect to Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. Now, I don't quite understand the logic there, but think it should probably be deleted altogether. We obviously don't need random redirects to RFO and secondly, why does User:Gurch need a cross-namespace redirect to his talk page? - Rjd0060 ( talk) 16:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:ZN :) – Gurch 18:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep There's nothing wrong with it. Majorly ( talk) 18:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: Well, now that the redirect was changed back to his user talk page, it isn't that big of a deal I guess. I wasn't aware that everybody was allowed to create redirects to their user pages in the WP namespace. I'll be sure to spread the word then. (just kidding - sarcasm intended) - Rjd0060 ( talk) 18:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep because 200801081850GURCH. – Pomte 18:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete because there is no reason for a user to have a cross name redirect. Any others can get deleted to, unless the user has a specific need for it. - Koweja ( talk) 03:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete unless we grant other editors to start creating wikipedia namespace redirects for themselves. It's pure nonsense and those !voting keep are not giving valid arguments for keeping it. — Save_Us † 19:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete it and delete WP:ZN as well. I think it's confusing to make wikipedia-namespace-like redirects to user pages. (And I hope I win a price for my "wikipedia-namespace-like" new word). -- Magioladitis ( talk) 00:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - I think the question is: if this is kept, will it set a precedent? To be honest I only see no harm arguments for keeping it. I'm not entirely convinced why it should be deleted though. EJF ( talk) 20:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's not harming anything alone, but if he has this, we all should be able to have one. Would it cause harm if every user had one of these? That would only be fair, and that should be the question: whether or not all users should be able to have these. This is an RfD that will set a precedent one way or the other, & the closing admin should take that into account. нмŵוτн τ 00:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Just to note, cross-namespace redirects are not desired for article namespace. Also, this shouldn't even be seen as a "cross namespace redirect" as it's being used as a shortcut, which really isn't a "namespace", but technically lives in one. Plus, we do allow shortcuts to essays hosted in the userspace. -- Ned Scott 02:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was The result was Speedy Delete (Non admin closure).
Marlith
T/
C
05:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Completely pointless vandal redirect. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 17:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as confirmed vandalism. Rossami (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was keep.
WjB
scribe
03:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I originally deleted it as a blank page, but I see that it's a redirect. Should obscure nicknames be redirects? —Preceding unsigned comment added by J-stan ( talk • contribs) 18:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- keep' I do not see a reason to delete it. It is just a nickname, and not obscure. Λua∫ Wi se ( talk) 18:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Fair enough to state in the Giuliani article that he was referred to as America's mayor during the events of 9/11 but not to redirect such a loose term to his article. Not everyone agrees that he is, was or ever will be America's mayor. He was New York's mayor. That's fact. At the most, it should be made a disambig page. --
ALLSTAR
echo
18:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment and what other links would you like to put on the page? Has anybody else ever been called that? - Koweja ( talk) 03:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Change to Rudy_Giuliani#Public_reaction. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Common nickname for Giuliani that was widely used in US press especially following 9/11, definitely not "obscure". Google gives 88 300 hits for "america's mayor"+"Giuliani". We also have similar redirects for nicknames such as " Governator" and about every nickname for US presidents so why not this? / Slarre ( talk) 18:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, people type this in trying to get to the Giuliani article. Its a nickname that everybody recognizes.-- S TX 19:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment When I'm trying to get to the Giuliani article, I type in Rudy Giuliani - because that's his name of course. I serious doubt there are that many people that actually type in "America's mayor" when they have Rudy on the brain. If not deleted, it should at the most be a disambig page. -- ALLSTAR echo 00:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep: Well known term when speaking of Giuliani. - Rjd0060 ( talk) 00:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep apparently people will use this redirect. Marlith T/ C 05:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment You say "apparently". That means you've got some sort of definitive proof? -- ALLSTAR echo 14:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep certainly not "obscure", and is a legitimate search term. The mere existence of a redirect is in no way an endorsement of the usage. - Koweja ( talk) 03:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep a helpful redirect Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ( talk/ cont) 18:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)