Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 5

< November 4

November 6 >

November 5

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 5, 2016.

Act dischairging the Yule vacance

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 16#Act dischairging the Yule vacance

Space before comma

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.

Closing rationale

The result of the discussion was delete some, unbundle others.

There is rough consensus to delete redirects that have:

1. No significant hits prior to RfD nomination (i.e. group 2); and
2. Been stripped of all internal links from article space (which should've been done by XXN); and
3. No significant page history to preserve

The list of group 2 redirects is quite long so I urge participants of this discussion to help check them and delete them (non-admins can use {{db-xfd}}).

Although there is a majority opinion that everything in this nomination should eventually be deleted, a significant proportion of editors argued to procedurally unbundle or to keep certain subsets. So the remainder of redirects are closed as no consensus, default to keep without prejudice against speedy unbundled renomination. Deryck C. 12:20, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Lists of redirects

Redirects with incorrect titles, each of them having space(s) before comma (some of them containing, in addition, other mistakes). No need to keep them, just pollutes the main namespace. --XXN, 21:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

All links to these redirects in articles were replaced with their targets. --XXN, 21:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

All these redirects were tagged with {{rfd}}. XXN, 21:44, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

• Note - I've added the rfd2 template for all of these redirects, to enable the information links. The listed target is obviously incorrect. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Discussion: space before commas (edit break)

• Guaranteed WP:TRAINWRECK. I've looked through some of the nominated redirects, and some of them do not have equivalents that exist with proper spacing, including the first one, .32 Rimfire short ,extra short ,long ,& extra long. It does not target an equivalent title without the spacing, and the alternates without spacing don't exist as redirects either, including .32 Rimfire short, extra short, long,& extra long and .32 rimfire short, extra short, long, & extra long. Another one with the same issue is BHATOLA , SHIKARPUR , BULANDSHAHR , UTTAR PRADESH , INDIA. It may be better to nominate these in two separate groups: One group where equivalent article or redirect titles with the spacing issues removed exist, and one where they do not. (I know that this nomination must have taken quite a while to create as I know from experience, but since some of these nominated redirects don't have existing "fixed" equivalents, the initial rationale could be seen as somewhat misleading.) Also, were all of these redirects checked for incoming links prior to this nomination, especially in the "Article" namespace? If there are incoming links to these, the links could be broken as a result of this nomination. Steel1943 (talk) 02:04, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Prior to start this RFD, I fixed all instances of these redirects in Article namespace. --XXN, 16:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

First step is move the redirects that don't have corresponding " , [space]" entries to the correct format. Whether to remove this place name qualified redirects is a matter that would need considerable discussion (and which I would very strongly oppose). Deleting the ones where there is also a correct form is much more obvious, provided every incoming link is checked. DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

• delete all. We should not provide redirects for every conceivable mistyping. If space-comma-space is a sufficiently common issue, it should be easily solved by the software, not by having zillions of redirects. I see no problem in losing a couple of weird redirects; anyone looking for ".32 rimfire short, extra short, long, & extra long" will get ".32 rimfire" at or near the top of the search page, and so on. - Nabla (talk) 11:27, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment: I support deletion of all of these redirects as well (but still think this discussion is a WP:TRAINWRECK situation based on my previous comment, and would prefer it be closed as a WP:TRAINWRECK as opposed to deleting all of these redirects as a result of this discussion.) Steel1943 (talk) 16:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

• keep. These redirects are qualify as plausible typos and as such could be useful. Beagel (talk) 13:27, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
• Delete all, even if they were typos, and they aren't really typos, the search box would find the correct article. So delete since they serve no purpose. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:39, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
• Check each one before deletion! Before deleting it is essential to do a "What links here" check. Some of these were created to provide an interface with other lists, typically from badly-digitised old reference media. While they are 'implausible' many are in fact 'actual' and were not created just to irritate. Of course many can go, but look for the reason they were created in the first place or risk them being recreated. S a g a C i t y (talk) 23:00, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
• Keep Delete all is absolutely not an option as some of these redirects (including at least the one I created that brought me here in the first place: Ber City , Bhadra to Ber, Rajasthan) is not a redirect solely based on a misplaced comma, but rather a redirect based on the article having been created at the wrong title (the place name is Ber, not Ber City, and it is in the Indian state of Rajasthan, which is the proper disambiguating term for a city in India). I see no reason to delete the redirects based solely on the misplaced comma, as redirects are cheap. It isn't as if the redirect leads to an improper location. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 00:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
• Keep Redirects are cheap. Can't believe how much effort has been wasted in bringing this here, instead of spending time building and encyclopedia. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 08:06, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:COSTLY says:

Some unneeded redirects

There is no need to redirect from:
[...]

• implausible typos
• titles with punctuation or obscure errors that have no specific affinity to them
  • errors in the act of disambiguating such as disambiguated titles with extra spaces and/or missing brackets

--XXN, 16:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

• I sorted the list first of all into those redirects which have had significant activity (registering an average of more than 1 hit/day over the 30 days prior to the nomination) and those which do not. Keep group 1: these apparently have off-wiki links (probably Wikipedia mirrors) which point external incoming links to the correct articles, and should be kept (WP:RFD#K5) notwithstanding the errors in the titles. Delete group 2: they are apparently of no use at all (since nobody uses them) and should be deleted as they will obfuscate searches for the correct articles. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
• Strong delete all (but carefully review): Yes pleasssssseeeee. These errors certainty have triggered my OCD. Errors in namespaces such as Délice , Arcahaie, Ouest has got to go. It was also most likely unintentional by an editor who didn't take enough time to review his/her submission. Savvyjack23 (talk) 05:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes that's true, most of these strongly appear to be redirects left behind from page moves from erroneous titles moments after the articles were created, and ought to have qualified for R3 speedy deletion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

R3 does not apply to redirects created as a result of a page move. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:51, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

an example of that is David D. Kirkpatrick ,reporter. This is necessary to maintain attribution, and therefore by our copyright policy must remain, regardless of the original title being made improperly. DGG ( talk ) 00:47, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

That's not accurate at all. When a page is moved, the history of that page gets moved along with it. After the move, the only history is the fact that it was moved, so there's nothing that must be retained per copyright policy. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I am the one who moved David D. Kirkpatrick ,reporter to David D. Kirkpatrick (reporter), and that's where the attribution history is for that page. I agree with DGG that all incoming links should be fixed, but then I think it should be deleted. Yes, redirects are cheap, but when I search for this fellow the first messy title is displayed on the list of suggestions, but not the newer one.—Anne Delong (talk) 20:49, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

• Delete or whatever as creator of 2 of them. Just some over-zealous redlink recovery probably, that I or someone else later corrected the spacing in article. I don't think or care if they're ever so slightly useful/useless in some way but I think discussion about them is a greater waste of resources. The human kind I mean. The important and much more limited kind. (Besides, pretty sure this request itself takes way more machine resources than a couple entries in their database redirect table. Our free labor makes up for both costs either way)... I sympathize with the nominator. I understand how things like this can brother us. Same reason I'm taking the time to respond here. I wish we all could make better use of our time :) Cheers, Voxii (talk) 09:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• Delete all per reasoning advanced by Nabla and Headbomb.  — Scott • talk 19:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom, Savvyjack23 and others. Neodop (talk) 00:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Jay Haher

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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:49, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

• Jay Haher → The Story of Tracy Beaker (TV series)  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Pointless redirect - Jay Haher has only been in The Story of Tracy Beaker and that was only for 1 series so unlikely to ever be remembered or even known now, I realize redirects are cheap however IMHO with this BLP it's simply useless (Had they been in TSOTB for 4 series or even 2 then I wouldn't have an issue but they've only been in 1 series and so I don't believe they'll be remembered at all, Thanks –Davey2010^Talk 18:35, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. No news articles or books that focus on the actor. If there are some that consistently refer to his Tracy Beaker role, then that would mean the redirect stays. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Agnostic Satanism

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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:41, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

• Agnostic Satanism → LaVeyan Satanism  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect was created by a now non-existent user (Sirius85) with a pattern of contributing vandalism and disruptive edits that often involved redirects. The redirect also fits into a pattern of agnosticism-related articles that have been deleted as violating WP policies on notability, lack of reliable citations, verifiability, and representing neologisms. Searching for sources on 'agnostic Satanism' this redirect appears not to correspond to any reliable or verifiable rationale. I would have submitted this redirect for speedy deletion if it had been made recently.

Here is a list of the aforementioned similar deleted articles.

Deleted Page Agnostic Solipsism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Agnostic_Solipsism

Deleted Page Agnostic Neutralism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Agnostic_neutralism

Deleted Page Spiritual Agnosticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Spiritual_agnosticism

Deleted Page Christian Agnosticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Christian_Agnostic

Deleted Page Agnostic Meta-Agnosticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Meta-agnosticism

Deleted page Agnostic Pedestrian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Agnostic_Pedestrian

Deleted page Model Agnosticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Model_agnosticism

Edited to clean up formatting and duplicate signature.

KSci ^(talk) 00:36, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

• Delete - The worldview isn't known as "agnostic Satanism" according to reliable sources, and this is rather misleading. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:36, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
• Delete - couldn't find any reliable sources, the only thing I could find related to the term besides our redirect was a Reddit thread, an Urban Dictionary entry, a query on Yahoo Answers, and a post on a tumblr forum that describes it in depth.— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 20:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.