Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 January 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rossami (talk | contribs) at 04:16, 16 January 2008 ("Embedded Compact Extended" → Embedded Compact Extended). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

January 8

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion on January 8, 2008

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)[reply]

  • Keep this one because it documents a pagemove. Rossami (talk) 05:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
            • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. //Halibutt 14:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Halibutt, that's exactly why I created the redirect. --Merovingian (T, C) 17:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete because of quotes. --M4gnum0n (talk) 16:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete. Why keep a redirect with unneccessary quotes? -- Nips (talk)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. //Halibutt 14:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 (talkcontribs) 18:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. -- ALLSTARecho 00:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You say "apparently". That means you've got some sort of definitive proof? -- ALLSTARecho 14:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]