Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 May 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 26[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 26, 2010

SGES (disambiguation)[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 Kept. This is a standard Wikipedia naming convention so it is very much indeed a likely search term. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very unlikely search term with the parenthetical, and not linked anywhere. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as one who originally tagged for CSD and for reasons already stated. Unlikely search term and it just points to SGES which is the actual disambig page. Very unlikely someone will come to this looking for that. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for same reasons as mentioned above. --DAJF (talk) 22:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The target page is in fact a disambiguation page, and redirecting "Foo (disambiguation)" to the disambiguation page for "Foo" is beneficial to the encyclopedia; it allows self-documenting direct links to the disambiguation page where appropriate and enhances the search/autocompletion function by allowing unambiguous searches that don't depend on knowing in advance where the disambiguation page is located, among other functions. This sort of page will never have many links, but they are still extremely useful, even if you can't imagine using them. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep by author. I have already mentioned my reasons for keep in the article talk page per use of {{hangon}} on the article. This occured before this RFD discussion was created, so they could have been included from the start, but I will mention them here again. WP:INTDABLINK prescribes this redirect for use in linking to the SGES disambiguation page. I just linked to SGES (disambiguation) in this comment itself in the method prescribed by WP:INTDABLINK. Per instructions, we are supposed to create these, not delete these. This was also already explained by the text description provided by the {{R to disambiguation page}} tag added by RussBot prior to CSD tag add. Also according to WP:RFD, "Redirects are cheap. Redirects take up minimal disk space and use very little bandwidth. Thus, it doesn't really hurt things much if there are a few of them scattered around. On the flip side, deleting redirects is cheap since the deletion coding takes up minimal disk space and use very little bandwidth. In general, there is no harm in deleting problematic redirects that do not contribute to improving the encyclopedia." I quoted both lines for a full quote, but I think the second half was added later and wasn't the intended original point. I was referring to this portion the other day in a discussion so I thought I will point them out here. --Bxj (talk) 00:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is a recurring theme on here. WP:INTDABLINK suggests the creation of such pages when a plain title is a disambiguation page. Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Cooerdinates (mathematics)[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 Deleted. As these were bot created, I'm finding the delete arguments stronger. Human created spelling mistakes are one thing, but bot created ones are another. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only rational I can think of for this is that someone started with an obsolete spelling of 'coordinate', confused the diaeresis with an umlaut, and converted it to plain text as if it were a German word. It's not plausible that the combination of the events needed for someone to come up with this particular spelling when looking for the subject would happen simultaneously. RDBury (talk) 17:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - probably because my spelling is awful but this long-established redirect seems an entirely foreseeable typo. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator, qualifies as an implausible typo. In fact as far as I can tell no human ever did this - the entity who confused o+diaeresis with o+umlaut and created this redirect was a robot. Page view history reveals an almost complete lack of use (save for the expected spike today). Sideways713 (talk) 09:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm nominating Cooerdinate system, which is a very similar implausible typo, created by the same bot, used even less. Sideways713 (talk) 09:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Zooelogy was also created by the same bot. These aren't typos or long established. They were systematically generated by converting ö to oe. They have an old edit history because they went unnoticed when mass-created, not because it withstood the scrutiny of many eyeballs. That said, these "oe" spellings which I am unfamiliar do turn up some Google hits, so I am taking precaution and siding with neutral. --Bxj (talk) 15:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - when typos appear in reliable sources they are both plausible and foreseeable search terms. See here and here. I am not saying it is widely used merely that it is used, and by humans, so there seems no good reason for deletion. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - practically every imaginable typo has appeared in a reliable text at some time or another. Make a similar Google search for cordinates, coardinates, ceordinates, coerdinates, coordinetes, coeordinates etc. - all of these will give you more results than cooerdinates. Stats show people aren't using these as search terms - all of the Cooe* are getting less views than the recently deleted Texas indpendce (Zooelogy gets roughly as many). We could also throw in Zooenomia - another from the bot - again, nobody uses it. Sideways713 (talk) 08:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Tree Goblin[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 Re-targeted to List of animals of the Edge Chronicles#T. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No discussion or explanation of the term "Tree Goblin" exists at the target. A Google search suggests that this term is occasionally used for a variety of goblin, not for anything involving squirrels. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2010_May_26&oldid=1148047565"