Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 18: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Proposing Slogarithm be deleted.
Line 8: Line 8:
-->
-->
<!-- Add new entries directly below this line. -->
<!-- Add new entries directly below this line. -->
====Slogarithm====
*<span id="Slogarithm">{{no redirect|1 = Slogarithm }}</span> → [[:Super-logarithm]] <span>&nbsp;<span class="plainlinks lx">([[Talk:Slogarithm|talk]] <b>·</b> [[Special:WhatLinksHere/Slogarithm|links]] <b>·</b> [[Special:PageHistory/Slogarithm|history]] <b>·</b> [[:toolforge:pageviews/?start=2023-12-19&end=2024-01-17&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Slogarithm|stats]])</span></span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<small class="plainlinks"><nowiki>[</nowiki>&nbsp;Closure:&nbsp;''{{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|(@subpage)|[{{fullurl:Slogarithm|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Slogarithm]] closed as keep}}}} keep]/[{{fullurl:Slogarithm|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Slogarithm]] closed as retarget}}}} retarget]<span class="sysop-show">/[{{fullurl:Slogarithm|action=delete&wpReason={{Urlencode:[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Slogarithm]] closed as delete}}&wpMovetalk=1}} delete]</span>}}''&nbsp;]</small>&nbsp;

I think this redirect should be '''deleted'''. I can find no evidence that the super-logarithm has ever been called "slogarithm" ([https://www.google.com/search?q=%22slogarithm%22+%22super+logarithm%22&nfpr=1 Google search]). Wikipedia should reflect word usage, not create it. '''[[User:Jak86|Jak86]]''' ([[User talk:Jak86|talk]])([[Special:Contributions/Jak86|contribs]]) 20:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

====Chhindwara - Gwalior Express====
====Chhindwara - Gwalior Express====
*<span id="Chhindwara - Gwalior Express">{{no redirect|1 = Chhindwara - Gwalior Express }}</span> → [[:Passenger]] <span>&nbsp;<span class="plainlinks lx">([[Talk:Chhindwara - Gwalior Express|talk]] <b>·</b> [[Special:WhatLinksHere/Chhindwara - Gwalior Express|links]] <b>·</b> [[Special:PageHistory/Chhindwara - Gwalior Express|history]] <b>·</b> [[:toolforge:pageviews/?start=2023-12-19&end=2024-01-17&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Chhindwara_-_Gwalior_Express|stats]])</span></span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<small class="plainlinks"><nowiki>[</nowiki>&nbsp;Closure:&nbsp;''{{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|(@subpage)|[{{fullurl:Chhindwara - Gwalior Express|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Chhindwara - Gwalior Express]] closed as keep}}}} keep]/[{{fullurl:Chhindwara - Gwalior Express|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Chhindwara - Gwalior Express]] closed as retarget}}}} retarget]<span class="sysop-show">/[{{fullurl:Chhindwara - Gwalior Express|action=delete&wpReason={{Urlencode:[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Chhindwara - Gwalior Express]] closed as delete}}&wpMovetalk=1}} delete]</span>}}''&nbsp;]</small>&nbsp;
*<span id="Chhindwara - Gwalior Express">{{no redirect|1 = Chhindwara - Gwalior Express }}</span> → [[:Passenger]] <span>&nbsp;<span class="plainlinks lx">([[Talk:Chhindwara - Gwalior Express|talk]] <b>·</b> [[Special:WhatLinksHere/Chhindwara - Gwalior Express|links]] <b>·</b> [[Special:PageHistory/Chhindwara - Gwalior Express|history]] <b>·</b> [[:toolforge:pageviews/?start=2023-12-19&end=2024-01-17&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Chhindwara_-_Gwalior_Express|stats]])</span></span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<small class="plainlinks"><nowiki>[</nowiki>&nbsp;Closure:&nbsp;''{{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|(@subpage)|[{{fullurl:Chhindwara - Gwalior Express|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Chhindwara - Gwalior Express]] closed as keep}}}} keep]/[{{fullurl:Chhindwara - Gwalior Express|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Chhindwara - Gwalior Express]] closed as retarget}}}} retarget]<span class="sysop-show">/[{{fullurl:Chhindwara - Gwalior Express|action=delete&wpReason={{Urlencode:[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Chhindwara - Gwalior Express]] closed as delete}}&wpMovetalk=1}} delete]</span>}}''&nbsp;]</small>&nbsp;

Revision as of 20:28, 18 January 2024

January 18

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 18, 2024.

Slogarithm

I think this redirect should be deleted. I can find no evidence that the super-logarithm has ever been called "slogarithm" (Google search). Wikipedia should reflect word usage, not create it. Jak86 (talk)(contribs) 20:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chhindwara - Gwalior Express

This train is not mentioned in the target or any other article. Even the version of the article at the time of the redirect's creation didn't mention any train named "Chhindwara - Gwalior Express". Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 17:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Day New York Cried

Pointless redirect.. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the primary topic on Google for this phrase is a single by Brian Eldredge. The only person of that name mentioned on Wikipedia is an English bell founder who (assuming they are the same person as Bryan Eldredge) died in 1640. Thryduulf (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, a small single album with four songs released in 2005.
    What are your thoughts on this redirect? GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 17:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Pixel 8a

It's not a redirect created by moved from the draft article to the main article, it's just a redirect created by an IP user. Also, I think this draft article was redirected to wrong article. Hajoon0102 💬 14:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anatomy and physiology

This redirect has WP:XY issues since Anatomy and Physiology are separate articles. However, this redirect is a {{R with history}} as the result of a WP:BLAR performed in 2007. Steel1943 (talk) 14:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the lede: Anatomy and physiology, which study the structure and function of organisms and their parts respectively, make a natural pair of related disciplines, and are often studied together. I'm not opposed to retargeting, but am definitely opposed to deletion. -- Tavix (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Tavix or retarget to Morphology (biology). I think the lead at Anatomy is slightly clearer for someone using this search term than Morphology (biology) is, but there isn't that much in it. I oppose deletion, as it is very plausible people will be searching these terms together. Thryduulf (talk) 10:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or Retarget? Also notified of this discussion at the Morphology (biology) talk.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 13:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SQ/200

I don't know what "SQ/200" stands for, and it isn't mentioned in the target nor on any other article. The search results are not enlightening either. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 09:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I can find absolutely no connection between "SQ/200" and anybody or anything called "Rubius" outside of Wikipedia, even then only this redirect. The article was created at this title, but it was only here for about 10 days in 2007. Thryduulf (talk) 12:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Mohammed Ahmed Al-Odaini

No need for a redirect with "Mr." in the title, and COSTLY tells us we should not keep redirects like this which could be added for all bios. Mohammed Ahmed Al-Odaini without the title redirects to same target. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 16:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as harmless. We shouldn't routinely create these sorts of redirects, but deleting them once they have been created is pointless at best and harmful at worst (someone found it useful to create, there may be external links). Thryduulf (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that someone used "Mr." is far more likely to signify a basic misunderstanding of naming conventions than it is to signify any usefulness. There may be external links to -any- redirect, that is not a basis to keep a redirect without more. And it is not harmless, because someone seeing these redirects may very well assume it is normal and create similar redirects. We do not redirects at Mr. Joe Biden or Mr. Napoleon Bonaparte for a reason. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 21:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If someone creates similar redirects, and something thinks the effort of nominating them here is a good use of their and other editors' time (hint: it really isn't) then I will recommend keeping them for the exact same reason as this one: they will be harmless and we don't redirects unless they are actively harmful in some way. Thryduulf (talk) 01:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects which do not provide any help to readers either for navigation or otherwise have no reason to exist. Maybe I'm an idiot for nominating these, but I still maintain they serve no purpose. With that being said, we are all entitled to our opinions and I acknowledge yours. Cheers ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 22:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 04:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Mohammad Nematzadeh

No need for a redirect with "Mr." in the title, and COSTLY tells us we should not keep redirects like this which could be added for all bios. Page was originally misnamed and this is apparently the leftover redirect. Should be purged. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 16:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as harmless. We shouldn't routinely create these sorts of redirects, but deleting them once they have been created is pointless at best and harmful at worst (someone found it useful to create, there may be external links). Thryduulf (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 04:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Mohamed Zahir Hussain

No need for a redirect with "Mr." in the title, and COSTLY tells us we should not keep redirects like this which could be added for all bios. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 16:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as harmless. We shouldn't routinely create these sorts of redirects, but deleting them once they have been created is pointless at best and harmful at worst (someone found it useful to create, there may be external links). Thryduulf (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, they are not harmless, because somebody will see some of them and think that all the missing Mr/Mrs/Mz/Ms (with and without fullstops) need to be added. That's a lot of data being used for something which could be considered bordering on vandalism. Let's rid WP of bad examples and practices. Richhoncho (talk) 00:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been dealing with redirects for about 15 years now and in that time not once has anybody ever provided any evidence at all that the existence of one redirect leads to the mass creation of other similar redirects - unless you can it's just worthless fear-mongering. I'd also like to see some evidence that creating redirects like this is "bordering on vandalism" and evidence of how the creation of redirects that take people to the content they are looking for is "bad practice". Thryduulf (talk) 01:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not fear mongering. Have a look at this example of redirects on one artist page], contributed by an editor who has failed to grasp the meaning of 'avoided redirect' and created all them at the same time. There were other editors, who created every variant of a song title name, misspelled, unnecessary disambiguation etc and I am happy to show you various older examples.Most of these editors have stopped now because I have tagged appropriately and hopefully they realise that unnecessary title pages are not helping WP.
    BTW, A2R is growing by about 2000 members per month (nowhere near all my work!), which is appropriate to this discussion. Cheers. Richhoncho (talk) 10:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirects from song titles are exactly the sort of redirects that we want Wikipedia to have. Redirects from plausible misspellings are highly beneficial to the project. Unnecessary disambiguations vary between harmless and very useful depending on how likely other topics are to have that title. None of this is evidence that redirects of either the type under discussion here or the type in your examples (and they are not quite the same thing) are harmful. Thryduulf (talk) 12:26, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We fundamentally disagree. A title is a title, it conveys no special meaning. A listing of every song title that has appeared on every album, with or without errors is hardly beneficial to an encyclopedia of any description. Render unto All Music that which is All Music's. In the example I have given, none, or few, of the song titles were mentioned in the target. What benefit?
    If I was to create redirects with Mr etc for every individual it would be considered vandalism, quite rightly, but here you are defending vandalism.
    A little consideration of what we fill the bucket with is no bad thing! Richhoncho (talk) 12:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no (practical) limit on the number of page titles that can exist (c.f. WP:NOTPAPER), there is no bucket to fill. The existence of one title does not impact our ability to have other titles. Thryduulf (talk) 13:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah but there is. Convolution is not a benefit to WP. Nor are unrequired redirects, but I accept your unwritten appreciation of approving vandalism.
    This convo is over, you will now read what I have written and appreciate that I did not oppose your keep vote, but pointed out the damage that such votes would do. But if you cannot nor will not consider all options then I am wasting my time. Happy editing. Richhoncho (talk) 13:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 04:47, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects to Antiarchi

These redirects give the wrong impression that we have articles about these genera. Thus I would like to delete them. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 17:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added Jiangxilepididae. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 14:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all and remove the self-redirects at the target. Unless the suggestion was to redlink them to encourage article creation, which is not clear from the nomination. Jay 💬 17:38, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_January_18&oldid=1196895349"