The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --
BDD (
talk) 20:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Not mentioned in target article. No
WP:ATT issues with deletion. It is mentioned in three articles: A mention in a video game plot summary, a mention at an actor's page that he voiced said video game character, and a mention in the plot summary of a fan film. Not convinced there's any one best targeting point out of any of these.
Hog Farm (
talk) 23:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Vidyasagar(Indian music director)
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --
BDD (
talk) 20:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Charlotte Clair
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete --
JHunterJ (
talk) 19:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)reply
No mention of anyone with this name at any of the possible targets, unable to clearly tell where this was meant to redirect to either.
Iffy★
Chat -- 19:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak retarget to
Charlotte Flair (1st choice), since the F and C keys are adjacent to each other, and someone's finger might slip off the F key onto the C key, and I can also see someone forgetting the E. Weak delete (2nd choice) if that doesn't work-I did find
an actress by the (stage) name Charlotte Claire on IMDb who apparently appeared in
Jaihind 2 but isn't mentioned on its article. To complicate things further,
Charlotte Claire redirects to the page about the French Revolution general Charles Leclerc, which I'm adding to the discussion. Regards,
SONIC678 21:41, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
I'll level with ya—I've had a few friends unfamiliar with Formula One ask me "Who is this 'Charlotte Clair[e]' they keep raving about?" Of course, they mean
Charles Leclerc, which, when pronounced properly with the silent S and C, sounds almost identical to Charlotte Clair[e]. Guess I was helping them out and anyone else who might get them confused, heh.
Mac Dreamstate (
talk) 22:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. Nice story, but not mentioned in article, not a misspelling, and potentially ambiguous.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 08:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Wikipedia bias
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Bundle of many articles that appear like they should have the same target, but do not. Surprisingly, I am of the opinion that these should all target
Wikipedia#Coverage of topics and systemic bias (which none of the previous redirects point to), but all of the current targets could very well be potential answers. Utopes(talk / cont) 18:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Retarget all to target suggested by nom. I agree that that's probably the best target.
Hog Farm (
talk) 19:43, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Retarget all per nom. Good solution.
Narky Blert (
talk) 05:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Retarget all per nom. The "base" article, and a good Level 2 section.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 08:52, 15 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Retarget all - I agree as well. That article provides proper context.
CoffeeWithMarkets (
talk) 10:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Redirects-Wikipedia
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --
BDD (
talk) 20:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)reply
I don't know how someone would search "Wikipedia" in the title of a Wikipedia article in this context (although there are some redirects that help people reach their destinations by including "Wikipedia," I don't know how helpful these would be). As cited in the "Deopahar" one's move, it was done for "more accurate search results," perhaps why some of them were moved. Regards,
SONIC678 17:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete all. I created the redirect from "Mădălina Diana Ghenea - Wikipedia" to
Mădălina Diana Ghenea almost 7 years ago, because the original was a silly title. The original article/redirect does not need to live on. Regards, PKT(alk) 18:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete all some of them make no sense, others are just Wikipedia added to the name. But none are needed.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 18:09, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete all per above. Not necessary to include "Wikipedia" when we're searching in Wikipedia; this is not Google. @
PKT: Is that a
WP:CSD#G7 then?
ComplexRational (
talk) 18:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
No, I wasn't the author. I have no idea why I ever touched the article! I was probably patrolling New Pages, or something like that........ PKT(alk) 18:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete all - We don't need these.
Hog Farm (
talk) 18:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Strong deleteCrete wikipedia page as implausible and misleading; it is a leftover from a move only a few minutes after creation. I am not entirely decided on the others, but lean toward deletion as none seem particularly useful.
Glades12 (
talk) 18:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
I have no memory of creating the redirect at
Count to 10 in many languages wikipedia ten years ago, and I can think of no reason for having an article with a nonsense title like that. Even just "count to 10 in many languages" is doesn't seem useful. "count to 10 in many languages wikipedia" i can't even parse what that is supposed to mean. -
lethetalk+ 19:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete all: I created
Bhagyada balegara (song lyrics) wikipedia 5 years ago by moving the article away from that strange title, and am quite happy to see the redirect disappear.
PamD 19:40, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Strong delete for all. These are better suited to be search terms on a search engine, not Wikipedia proper. --
Tenryuu 🐲 (
💬 •
📝 ) 20:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete all, they're unlikely Search terms.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 08:54, 15 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Google is smart enough to make this useless, and no one is going to search this in the wikipedia search box.
Natureium (
talk) 15:05, 16 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete all, and we should probably have a policy against this too somewhere. Perhaps alongside
WP:RPURPOSE there should be a "reasons for *not* creating a redirect" as well as the reasons to delete one! |
Naypta✉opened his mouth at 22:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Snow delete per all 13 !votes above. –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 06:55, 18 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Please check on my new article
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. SNOW close, it's basically an R3, so I've used that.
Nick (
talk) 15:15, 16 April 2020 (UTC)reply
This...just doesn't make any sense, and can refer to any article on Wikipedia. Regards,
SONIC678 17:12, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. Redirect probably mistakenly left behind from a page move. --
Bsherr (
talk) 17:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. It could be one of my articles, or anyone's; it is not a plausible title or search term.
ComplexRational (
talk) 18:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - Leftover from an old page move to a better title, should have been deleted after the move in '14.
Hog Farm (
talk) 18:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete, 'nuff said........PKT(alk) 18:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Strong delete. Given enough context it could apply to any article. --
Tenryuu 🐲 (
💬 •
📝 ) 20:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - six years ago I forgot to nominate this redirect for deletion...
Darylgolden(
talk)Ping when replying 00:09, 15 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete this was the name of the article for a little over 20 minuets in May 2014 with no connection to the subject. There is no need for it. I think this could qualify as a
WP:SNOW.--
69.157.252.96 (
talk) 01:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - I agree. This isn't worth keeping at all. Somebody can probably close this immediately.
CoffeeWithMarkets (
talk) 05:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete It's sad that a CSD criteria couldn't be used to avoid this obvious discussion.
Natureium (
talk) 15:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Chaotic Neutral (example of a full article)
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --
BDD (
talk) 20:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure someone would search with this disambiguator...back in 2006,
the page about its associated DnD alignment was moved from this title, turned into an article about the alignment, then redirected here, and later turned into a disambiguation page. Maybe delete this title, or if that doesn't work, retarget back to
Chaotic Neutral? Regards,
SONIC678 17:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. Very unlikely search term. The out-of-standard disambiguation is clearly a relic of something that should never have been in article space and should have been handles in a sandbox (or nowadays in draft space, though that didn't exist at the time). There's no need to retain it, and the bare term goes to the proper disambiguation page.
oknazevad (
talk) 18:13, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete, no point in this redirect anymore..........PKT(alk) 18:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Wikipedia:Keep Calm and Click Edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete.
King of♥♦♣ ♠ 01:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Recently created and unused. The redirect target is just too narrow. This could just as easily point to pages concerning edit warring, disruptive editing, or several other conduct policies and guidelines. It ought to be deleted.
Bsherr (
talk) 17:07, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
WP:CALM, which seems like the most logical place for this to link to. I agree that it's a bit vague though, and I wouldn't miss it too much if it were deleted.
SpicyMilkBoy (
talk) 19:55, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
I would hesitate only because this phrase is not used in that essay, it's not a
Wikipedia:Shortcut, and it's not a likely search term. So what would be the purpose of the redirect? --
Bsherr (
talk) 12:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The purpose would be as a tongue-in-cheek way to refer to the relevant page in talk page discussions, along the lines of, e.g.
the various silly redirects to ANI. But yes, it's not all that useful and kind of vague, so I don't feel too strongly about it.
SpicyMilkBoy (
talk) 23:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete as ambiguous and may cause confusion.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 08:56, 15 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - As stated above, this is too vague. It relates to quite a bit, and no one single target would really fit. Deletion is the right call.
CoffeeWithMarkets (
talk) 10:35, 15 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Not a valid search or link term.
Natureium (
talk) 16:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Waluigi pinball
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --
BDD (
talk) 20:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)reply
I don't see why we need a redirect for one specific race track from this game, especially with an incorrectly capitalised title. It has never had any article content. –
numbermaniac 14:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Over to You
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was disambiguate.
King of♥♦♣ ♠ 01:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC)reply
That's great research. I've gone ahead and made the disambiguation page and added a hatnote to the current target. I express no opinion as to whether and which is the primary topic, and thus whether the redirect should be retargeted. --
Bsherr (
talk) 17:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The new
Over To You (disambiguation) page is a good idea. However, I would tend to favor the redirect now being retargeted to that DAB page rather than the Black Sabbath song, which does not seem to have been the subject of
WP:SIGCOV.
Muzilon (
talk) 19:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
I'd support that --
Bsherr (
talk) 01:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Move dab over redirect. Per above. --
Bsherr (
talk) 01:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Move dab over redirect. With thanks to Bsherr.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 08:58, 15 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Computer Science (art)
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --
BDD (
talk) 20:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - My first thought is that this ought to point to a different article, but then the redirect is rather unclear in the first place. Is it meant to involve artwork created with the aid of computers? Artwork portrayed on computers? Artwork created by computer programs themselves, running independently without people? Deletion seems to be the right call.
CoffeeWithMarkets (
talk) 05:48, 16 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Original content
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --
BDD (
talk) 20:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Redirect created in 2008. Pretty sure the target is not what it means today.
Paul_012 (
talk) 09:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - In this context, both "original" and "context" are
fuzzy concepts. I'm inclined to think that we should simply let people use the search engine.
CoffeeWithMarkets (
talk) 10:34, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete as ambiguous. Could also refer to copyright infringement issues, among other things.
Narky Blert (
talk) 10:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. It's probably most likely to be encountered in the context of
Content (media), but we don't seem to have relevant coverage, and the phrase is ambiguous anyway. –
Uanfala (talk) 12:20, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. This redirect may cause confusion.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 09:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Wikipedia:Monobook
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Found
this discussion and thought this anomaly of targeting is worth a discussion here. I don't recommend a particular action at the moment, just throwing this out here for thoughts. — J947[cont] 06:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep. The linked discussion was for a mainspace redirect, so it's not the same situation. This is a Wikipedia space redirect, and so only has to be "notable"/relevant in the context of Wikipedia, not the larger world. There's no harm in the redirect; on the contrary, what would be harmful is the lack of a redirect: a user looking for help or information about Monobook and finding nothing and not getting any result when they type in "Wikipedia:Monobook", which one would expect to find help or get useful information. —
Lowellian (
reply) 15:40, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Lowellian: Sorry, I didn't make it clear. There are two redirects being discussed here which have very similar names, but point to different targets. I made the discussion to sort out where these redirects should target; they probably should both target to the same place. I found this targeting anomaly by reading the closure of
the aforementioned discussion. — J947[cont] 20:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
I don't agree that they "should both target to the same place". Someone typing in "Wikipedia:Monobook" is probably looking for information about the skin or to edit the skin, and someone typing in "Wikipedia:Monobook.js" is probably looking for the JavaScript file, so they are not the same. —
Lowellian (
reply) 03:14, 15 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Soulji
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --
BDD (
talk) 20:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Not mentioned at the target. No other mention.
Jalen Folf(talk) 05:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. Not mentioned anywhere else in WP. Useless redirect.
Narky Blert (
talk) 10:43, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - No notability and no reliable sourcing that I can see. It doesn't seem possible to discuss this person's musical career anywhere. I agree. Deletion is the right call.
CoffeeWithMarkets (
talk) 16:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. Enwiki has nothing about "Soulji".
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 09:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Macedonia(kingdom history)
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --
BDD (
talk) 20:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Malformed disambiguator (missing a space before the open paren). Apologies if this is the wrong venue: this redirect does have history (it was an unsourced, rambling schoolboy essay created in 2010 and blanked-and-redirected 20 minutes later), but I do not think it has to be preserved as potentially useful content (it is not) or for the sake of licensing and attribution (it has not been copied/merged elsewhere, as far as I can tell). Cheers,
gnu57 03:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom and because the qualifier is ungrammatical. (Yes, this is the correct venue; and good background reaearch.)
Narky Blert (
talk) 04:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - I agree. This seems to be a pretty clear-cut case.
CoffeeWithMarkets (
talk) 06:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete: malformed disambiguator, implausible search term. This is absolutely the correct venue: we don't have qualms deleting unsalvageable content found in the the ancient layers of a redirect. –
Uanfala (talk) 12:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete, although it's a shame if the original content can't be merged elsewhere and preserved—perhaps it could be archived on the target's talk page. Personally I find it charming!
P Aculeius (
talk) 14:31, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Edit: copied the rambling schooboy essay to the talk page of "Macedonia (ancient kingdom)", along with the perfectly accurate description given in the nomination above. Now nothing will be lost when the redirect is deleted.
P Aculeius (
talk) 14:46, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
.csproj
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Keep: I added the file extension to the list you mentioned. This is the C# project file for Microsoft Visual Studio.
Stefán Örvar Sigmundsson (
talk) 21:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Retarget: It is a reasonable search term for someone seeking Microsoft Visual Studio, but it would be less confusing if retargeted to the
List of filename extensions (A–E), since it has now been added and provides a link to
Microsoft Visual Studio. Someone who is trying to determine what the associated application is will be left without confirmation that Microsoft Visual Studio uses this extension if brought straight to the article on the application. —
Quondum 12:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 01:14, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --
BDD (
talk) 20:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. Redirects and titles with mixed alphabets are useless clutter, no-one can type them from a single keyboard.
Narky Blert (
talk) 02:13, 5 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep – at least for now –
per K4. It is useful at the moment from old links and deletion doesn't help anyone. — J947(
user |
cont |
ess), at 03:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. There's long-standing precedence for deleting redirects such as these.
Steel1943 (
talk) 05:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)reply
In a redirect context,
high utility with little drawback should definitely be considered a better argument than leaning back upon precedent. — J947(
user |
cont |
ess), at 02:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~
mazcatalk 00:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per Steel1943. Even if many people make a mistake, it's still a mistake, and keeping redirects such as these would only encourage that.
ComplexRational (
talk) 01:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Look. The
pageviews here are from old links. They are not mistakes, just a result of the MediaWiki structure. There is nil point in deleting this redirect right now. — J947[cont] 02:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Except for the unnecessary confusion of being offered two seemingly identical options in the searchbox. That just makes WP look bad.
Narky Blert (
talk) 04:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Narky Blert: So you're saying that such a minor anomaly as that outweighs
K4 and the high prevalence of old links here? — J947[cont] 05:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
I'm saying that it's bad for the encyclopaedia and that
WP:5P5 trumps the literal interpretation of all rules.
Narky Blert (
talk) 05:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Please follow
MOS:LISTGAP. So you're saying that minor confusion trumps helping
20-odd readers a month? The minor confusion is very unlikely to be found anyway – this is a ridiculously uncommon search term, the views presumably come from fairly-used old links which are pointless to break. — J947[cont] 06:13, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Also – I don't know about others, but I can see in
Vector the Cyrillic К as different from a normal K. — J947[cont] 06:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
And following this discussion, I think it reasonable to surmise that many of the pageviews come from the two seemingly identical search options, which again proves that it is a mistake.
ComplexRational (
talk) 17:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
I don't think so at all; the first time the target comes up in the dropdowns is when you have typed Nina Ko and the Cyrillic redirect never shows up in the dropdown menu – that's what happens to me, at least. — J947[cont] 05:04, 15 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The Office (U.S. seasons))/redirects
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --
BDD (
talk) 20:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)reply
These redirects were left over from moves to get away from incoming links.
Lookingattheirhistories,
they were kept to avoid "recklessly caus[ing] linkrot" in 2012, but it doesn't seem like
anythinglinkstothemnow, further making me wonder if we should still keep them here, or how useful they are. Also, the last four have double parentheses at the end. Regards,
SONIC678 00:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. Unnecessary clutter. Accidental leftovers of no value from page moves.
Narky Blert (
talk) 04:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete all - None of these should be kept. I agree.
CoffeeWithMarkets (
talk) 05:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete all. I also don't think Wikipedia supports referring to the United States as "the U.S." per MoS. --
Tenryuu 🐲 (
💬 •
📝 ) 20:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
There has been recent mass renaming of (UK TV series) and (U.S. TV series) pages, presumably to make them comply with
MOS:US. I've never looked for the relevant discussion.
Narky Blert (
talk) 05:56, 15 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete all per nom / above --
DannyS712 (
talk) 07:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete all. Unlikely search terms.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 09:06, 15 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --
BDD (
talk) 20:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Not mentioned in target article. No
WP:ATT issues with deletion. It is mentioned in three articles: A mention in a video game plot summary, a mention at an actor's page that he voiced said video game character, and a mention in the plot summary of a fan film. Not convinced there's any one best targeting point out of any of these.
Hog Farm (
talk) 23:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Vidyasagar(Indian music director)
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --
BDD (
talk) 20:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Charlotte Clair
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete --
JHunterJ (
talk) 19:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)reply
No mention of anyone with this name at any of the possible targets, unable to clearly tell where this was meant to redirect to either.
Iffy★
Chat -- 19:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak retarget to
Charlotte Flair (1st choice), since the F and C keys are adjacent to each other, and someone's finger might slip off the F key onto the C key, and I can also see someone forgetting the E. Weak delete (2nd choice) if that doesn't work-I did find
an actress by the (stage) name Charlotte Claire on IMDb who apparently appeared in
Jaihind 2 but isn't mentioned on its article. To complicate things further,
Charlotte Claire redirects to the page about the French Revolution general Charles Leclerc, which I'm adding to the discussion. Regards,
SONIC678 21:41, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
I'll level with ya—I've had a few friends unfamiliar with Formula One ask me "Who is this 'Charlotte Clair[e]' they keep raving about?" Of course, they mean
Charles Leclerc, which, when pronounced properly with the silent S and C, sounds almost identical to Charlotte Clair[e]. Guess I was helping them out and anyone else who might get them confused, heh.
Mac Dreamstate (
talk) 22:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. Nice story, but not mentioned in article, not a misspelling, and potentially ambiguous.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 08:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Wikipedia bias
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Bundle of many articles that appear like they should have the same target, but do not. Surprisingly, I am of the opinion that these should all target
Wikipedia#Coverage of topics and systemic bias (which none of the previous redirects point to), but all of the current targets could very well be potential answers. Utopes(talk / cont) 18:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Retarget all to target suggested by nom. I agree that that's probably the best target.
Hog Farm (
talk) 19:43, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Retarget all per nom. Good solution.
Narky Blert (
talk) 05:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Retarget all per nom. The "base" article, and a good Level 2 section.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 08:52, 15 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Retarget all - I agree as well. That article provides proper context.
CoffeeWithMarkets (
talk) 10:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Redirects-Wikipedia
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --
BDD (
talk) 20:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)reply
I don't know how someone would search "Wikipedia" in the title of a Wikipedia article in this context (although there are some redirects that help people reach their destinations by including "Wikipedia," I don't know how helpful these would be). As cited in the "Deopahar" one's move, it was done for "more accurate search results," perhaps why some of them were moved. Regards,
SONIC678 17:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete all. I created the redirect from "Mădălina Diana Ghenea - Wikipedia" to
Mădălina Diana Ghenea almost 7 years ago, because the original was a silly title. The original article/redirect does not need to live on. Regards, PKT(alk) 18:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete all some of them make no sense, others are just Wikipedia added to the name. But none are needed.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 18:09, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete all per above. Not necessary to include "Wikipedia" when we're searching in Wikipedia; this is not Google. @
PKT: Is that a
WP:CSD#G7 then?
ComplexRational (
talk) 18:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
No, I wasn't the author. I have no idea why I ever touched the article! I was probably patrolling New Pages, or something like that........ PKT(alk) 18:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete all - We don't need these.
Hog Farm (
talk) 18:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Strong deleteCrete wikipedia page as implausible and misleading; it is a leftover from a move only a few minutes after creation. I am not entirely decided on the others, but lean toward deletion as none seem particularly useful.
Glades12 (
talk) 18:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
I have no memory of creating the redirect at
Count to 10 in many languages wikipedia ten years ago, and I can think of no reason for having an article with a nonsense title like that. Even just "count to 10 in many languages" is doesn't seem useful. "count to 10 in many languages wikipedia" i can't even parse what that is supposed to mean. -
lethetalk+ 19:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete all: I created
Bhagyada balegara (song lyrics) wikipedia 5 years ago by moving the article away from that strange title, and am quite happy to see the redirect disappear.
PamD 19:40, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Strong delete for all. These are better suited to be search terms on a search engine, not Wikipedia proper. --
Tenryuu 🐲 (
💬 •
📝 ) 20:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete all, they're unlikely Search terms.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 08:54, 15 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Google is smart enough to make this useless, and no one is going to search this in the wikipedia search box.
Natureium (
talk) 15:05, 16 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete all, and we should probably have a policy against this too somewhere. Perhaps alongside
WP:RPURPOSE there should be a "reasons for *not* creating a redirect" as well as the reasons to delete one! |
Naypta✉opened his mouth at 22:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Snow delete per all 13 !votes above. –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 06:55, 18 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Please check on my new article
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. SNOW close, it's basically an R3, so I've used that.
Nick (
talk) 15:15, 16 April 2020 (UTC)reply
This...just doesn't make any sense, and can refer to any article on Wikipedia. Regards,
SONIC678 17:12, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. Redirect probably mistakenly left behind from a page move. --
Bsherr (
talk) 17:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. It could be one of my articles, or anyone's; it is not a plausible title or search term.
ComplexRational (
talk) 18:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - Leftover from an old page move to a better title, should have been deleted after the move in '14.
Hog Farm (
talk) 18:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete, 'nuff said........PKT(alk) 18:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Strong delete. Given enough context it could apply to any article. --
Tenryuu 🐲 (
💬 •
📝 ) 20:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - six years ago I forgot to nominate this redirect for deletion...
Darylgolden(
talk)Ping when replying 00:09, 15 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete this was the name of the article for a little over 20 minuets in May 2014 with no connection to the subject. There is no need for it. I think this could qualify as a
WP:SNOW.--
69.157.252.96 (
talk) 01:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - I agree. This isn't worth keeping at all. Somebody can probably close this immediately.
CoffeeWithMarkets (
talk) 05:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete It's sad that a CSD criteria couldn't be used to avoid this obvious discussion.
Natureium (
talk) 15:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Chaotic Neutral (example of a full article)
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --
BDD (
talk) 20:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure someone would search with this disambiguator...back in 2006,
the page about its associated DnD alignment was moved from this title, turned into an article about the alignment, then redirected here, and later turned into a disambiguation page. Maybe delete this title, or if that doesn't work, retarget back to
Chaotic Neutral? Regards,
SONIC678 17:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. Very unlikely search term. The out-of-standard disambiguation is clearly a relic of something that should never have been in article space and should have been handles in a sandbox (or nowadays in draft space, though that didn't exist at the time). There's no need to retain it, and the bare term goes to the proper disambiguation page.
oknazevad (
talk) 18:13, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete, no point in this redirect anymore..........PKT(alk) 18:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Wikipedia:Keep Calm and Click Edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete.
King of♥♦♣ ♠ 01:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Recently created and unused. The redirect target is just too narrow. This could just as easily point to pages concerning edit warring, disruptive editing, or several other conduct policies and guidelines. It ought to be deleted.
Bsherr (
talk) 17:07, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
WP:CALM, which seems like the most logical place for this to link to. I agree that it's a bit vague though, and I wouldn't miss it too much if it were deleted.
SpicyMilkBoy (
talk) 19:55, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
I would hesitate only because this phrase is not used in that essay, it's not a
Wikipedia:Shortcut, and it's not a likely search term. So what would be the purpose of the redirect? --
Bsherr (
talk) 12:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The purpose would be as a tongue-in-cheek way to refer to the relevant page in talk page discussions, along the lines of, e.g.
the various silly redirects to ANI. But yes, it's not all that useful and kind of vague, so I don't feel too strongly about it.
SpicyMilkBoy (
talk) 23:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete as ambiguous and may cause confusion.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 08:56, 15 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - As stated above, this is too vague. It relates to quite a bit, and no one single target would really fit. Deletion is the right call.
CoffeeWithMarkets (
talk) 10:35, 15 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Not a valid search or link term.
Natureium (
talk) 16:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Waluigi pinball
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --
BDD (
talk) 20:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)reply
I don't see why we need a redirect for one specific race track from this game, especially with an incorrectly capitalised title. It has never had any article content. –
numbermaniac 14:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Over to You
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was disambiguate.
King of♥♦♣ ♠ 01:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC)reply
That's great research. I've gone ahead and made the disambiguation page and added a hatnote to the current target. I express no opinion as to whether and which is the primary topic, and thus whether the redirect should be retargeted. --
Bsherr (
talk) 17:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The new
Over To You (disambiguation) page is a good idea. However, I would tend to favor the redirect now being retargeted to that DAB page rather than the Black Sabbath song, which does not seem to have been the subject of
WP:SIGCOV.
Muzilon (
talk) 19:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
I'd support that --
Bsherr (
talk) 01:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Move dab over redirect. Per above. --
Bsherr (
talk) 01:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Move dab over redirect. With thanks to Bsherr.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 08:58, 15 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Computer Science (art)
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --
BDD (
talk) 20:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - My first thought is that this ought to point to a different article, but then the redirect is rather unclear in the first place. Is it meant to involve artwork created with the aid of computers? Artwork portrayed on computers? Artwork created by computer programs themselves, running independently without people? Deletion seems to be the right call.
CoffeeWithMarkets (
talk) 05:48, 16 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Original content
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --
BDD (
talk) 20:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Redirect created in 2008. Pretty sure the target is not what it means today.
Paul_012 (
talk) 09:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - In this context, both "original" and "context" are
fuzzy concepts. I'm inclined to think that we should simply let people use the search engine.
CoffeeWithMarkets (
talk) 10:34, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete as ambiguous. Could also refer to copyright infringement issues, among other things.
Narky Blert (
talk) 10:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. It's probably most likely to be encountered in the context of
Content (media), but we don't seem to have relevant coverage, and the phrase is ambiguous anyway. –
Uanfala (talk) 12:20, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. This redirect may cause confusion.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 09:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Wikipedia:Monobook
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Found
this discussion and thought this anomaly of targeting is worth a discussion here. I don't recommend a particular action at the moment, just throwing this out here for thoughts. — J947[cont] 06:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep. The linked discussion was for a mainspace redirect, so it's not the same situation. This is a Wikipedia space redirect, and so only has to be "notable"/relevant in the context of Wikipedia, not the larger world. There's no harm in the redirect; on the contrary, what would be harmful is the lack of a redirect: a user looking for help or information about Monobook and finding nothing and not getting any result when they type in "Wikipedia:Monobook", which one would expect to find help or get useful information. —
Lowellian (
reply) 15:40, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Lowellian: Sorry, I didn't make it clear. There are two redirects being discussed here which have very similar names, but point to different targets. I made the discussion to sort out where these redirects should target; they probably should both target to the same place. I found this targeting anomaly by reading the closure of
the aforementioned discussion. — J947[cont] 20:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
I don't agree that they "should both target to the same place". Someone typing in "Wikipedia:Monobook" is probably looking for information about the skin or to edit the skin, and someone typing in "Wikipedia:Monobook.js" is probably looking for the JavaScript file, so they are not the same. —
Lowellian (
reply) 03:14, 15 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Soulji
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --
BDD (
talk) 20:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Not mentioned at the target. No other mention.
Jalen Folf(talk) 05:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. Not mentioned anywhere else in WP. Useless redirect.
Narky Blert (
talk) 10:43, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - No notability and no reliable sourcing that I can see. It doesn't seem possible to discuss this person's musical career anywhere. I agree. Deletion is the right call.
CoffeeWithMarkets (
talk) 16:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. Enwiki has nothing about "Soulji".
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 09:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Macedonia(kingdom history)
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --
BDD (
talk) 20:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Malformed disambiguator (missing a space before the open paren). Apologies if this is the wrong venue: this redirect does have history (it was an unsourced, rambling schoolboy essay created in 2010 and blanked-and-redirected 20 minutes later), but I do not think it has to be preserved as potentially useful content (it is not) or for the sake of licensing and attribution (it has not been copied/merged elsewhere, as far as I can tell). Cheers,
gnu57 03:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom and because the qualifier is ungrammatical. (Yes, this is the correct venue; and good background reaearch.)
Narky Blert (
talk) 04:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - I agree. This seems to be a pretty clear-cut case.
CoffeeWithMarkets (
talk) 06:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete: malformed disambiguator, implausible search term. This is absolutely the correct venue: we don't have qualms deleting unsalvageable content found in the the ancient layers of a redirect. –
Uanfala (talk) 12:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete, although it's a shame if the original content can't be merged elsewhere and preserved—perhaps it could be archived on the target's talk page. Personally I find it charming!
P Aculeius (
talk) 14:31, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Edit: copied the rambling schooboy essay to the talk page of "Macedonia (ancient kingdom)", along with the perfectly accurate description given in the nomination above. Now nothing will be lost when the redirect is deleted.
P Aculeius (
talk) 14:46, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
.csproj
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Keep: I added the file extension to the list you mentioned. This is the C# project file for Microsoft Visual Studio.
Stefán Örvar Sigmundsson (
talk) 21:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Retarget: It is a reasonable search term for someone seeking Microsoft Visual Studio, but it would be less confusing if retargeted to the
List of filename extensions (A–E), since it has now been added and provides a link to
Microsoft Visual Studio. Someone who is trying to determine what the associated application is will be left without confirmation that Microsoft Visual Studio uses this extension if brought straight to the article on the application. —
Quondum 12:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 01:14, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --
BDD (
talk) 20:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. Redirects and titles with mixed alphabets are useless clutter, no-one can type them from a single keyboard.
Narky Blert (
talk) 02:13, 5 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep – at least for now –
per K4. It is useful at the moment from old links and deletion doesn't help anyone. — J947(
user |
cont |
ess), at 03:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. There's long-standing precedence for deleting redirects such as these.
Steel1943 (
talk) 05:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)reply
In a redirect context,
high utility with little drawback should definitely be considered a better argument than leaning back upon precedent. — J947(
user |
cont |
ess), at 02:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~
mazcatalk 00:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per Steel1943. Even if many people make a mistake, it's still a mistake, and keeping redirects such as these would only encourage that.
ComplexRational (
talk) 01:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Look. The
pageviews here are from old links. They are not mistakes, just a result of the MediaWiki structure. There is nil point in deleting this redirect right now. — J947[cont] 02:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Except for the unnecessary confusion of being offered two seemingly identical options in the searchbox. That just makes WP look bad.
Narky Blert (
talk) 04:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Narky Blert: So you're saying that such a minor anomaly as that outweighs
K4 and the high prevalence of old links here? — J947[cont] 05:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
I'm saying that it's bad for the encyclopaedia and that
WP:5P5 trumps the literal interpretation of all rules.
Narky Blert (
talk) 05:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Please follow
MOS:LISTGAP. So you're saying that minor confusion trumps helping
20-odd readers a month? The minor confusion is very unlikely to be found anyway – this is a ridiculously uncommon search term, the views presumably come from fairly-used old links which are pointless to break. — J947[cont] 06:13, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Also – I don't know about others, but I can see in
Vector the Cyrillic К as different from a normal K. — J947[cont] 06:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
And following this discussion, I think it reasonable to surmise that many of the pageviews come from the two seemingly identical search options, which again proves that it is a mistake.
ComplexRational (
talk) 17:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
I don't think so at all; the first time the target comes up in the dropdowns is when you have typed Nina Ko and the Cyrillic redirect never shows up in the dropdown menu – that's what happens to me, at least. — J947[cont] 05:04, 15 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The Office (U.S. seasons))/redirects
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --
BDD (
talk) 20:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)reply
These redirects were left over from moves to get away from incoming links.
Lookingattheirhistories,
they were kept to avoid "recklessly caus[ing] linkrot" in 2012, but it doesn't seem like
anythinglinkstothemnow, further making me wonder if we should still keep them here, or how useful they are. Also, the last four have double parentheses at the end. Regards,
SONIC678 00:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. Unnecessary clutter. Accidental leftovers of no value from page moves.
Narky Blert (
talk) 04:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete all - None of these should be kept. I agree.
CoffeeWithMarkets (
talk) 05:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete all. I also don't think Wikipedia supports referring to the United States as "the U.S." per MoS. --
Tenryuu 🐲 (
💬 •
📝 ) 20:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
There has been recent mass renaming of (UK TV series) and (U.S. TV series) pages, presumably to make them comply with
MOS:US. I've never looked for the relevant discussion.
Narky Blert (
talk) 05:56, 15 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete all per nom / above --
DannyS712 (
talk) 07:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete all. Unlikely search terms.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 09:06, 15 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.