Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 May 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 2
May 4 >

May 3[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 3, 2013

FAT (reserved sectors)[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 Mixed This could be a relist or no consensus but instead I'm Gordian knotting this. Delete the ones with no space before the parenthetical (as should've been done already) but Keep the others. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remnant of a poorly thought-out split, for which there was no consensus, and was ultimately reverted. Awkward title. Does not add much value to the search result list.

Also nominating (for the same reasons):

Keφr 12:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • How long did they spend at these titles? There may still be links from outside Wikipedia. Siuenti (talk) 13:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • About a month: [1], [2]. I somehow doubt it. Keφr 16:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I've fixed the formatting of the other nominated redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 18:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep these all still get use so links from outside Wikipedia seem very likely and deletion would therefore be harmful for no benefit. Thryduulf (talk) 18:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, "What links here" shows that these redirects are orphans in article space, and they always were (except for a few hours after their creation, when some of the redirects pointing to the main article were temporarily changed to point to these pages). Where do you see them actively used? --Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What links here only shows pages on the English Wikipedia. However they are still getting traffic after a couple of months, which suggests that there are links from somewhere else on the internet. Thryduulf (talk) 10:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As Kephir said, these pages serve no purpose and are a left-over from a good faith, but not thought-through and therefore very short-lived attempt to split the main article. The pages were orphans and deliberately turned into unprintworthy redirects a few weeks after their creation. I doubt that there are any incoming external links to these pages (except for in some temporary search engine caches perhaps). Since all the contents were copied from the main article and no new information was incorporated into these pages before they became redirects, no information or important edit history gets lost if we delete these redirects. Also, there are many much better shortcuts into various sections of the main article already (f.e. FAT12, FAT16, FAT16B, FAT32, VFAT, etc.). --Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The continued traffic is very unlikely to be search engine cache after this length of time. It could be though that they are proving the best match to someone's search term (a good reason to keep), or maybe there are links to them somewhere - whatlinkshere only shows pages on en.wp, we can't know about elsewhere on the internet which is why we have to infer things from the traffic statistics. Thryduulf (talk) 10:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Compare the traffic before and after the articles were converted to redirects (about halfway through March). The drop would be much less significant if external links were ever created. And if the readers put "file allocation table" in the search box, I am quite confident they are going to find the right article even after these redirects are deleted. What is this harm you spoke of? Keφr 13:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, all that shows is that the majority of the traffic was from within Wikipedia, and most != all. The harm is from link rot and making it unnecessarily hard for people to find the content they are looking for. Remember that the search box is only one of many ways to find Wikipedia articles, most of which do not lead you to search results or suggest possible articles if the phrase you look for doesn't exist. Redirects are so cheap that harm from inconveniencing even a small number of people often outweighs any benefits from deleting sub-optimal titles. In this case I'm not seeing any benefits that will come from deleting these redirects.Thryduulf (talk) 14:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Don't the logs show where the traffic actually comes from (http referrer)? Do you see traffic also coming for the two misspelled redirects (those without a space before the opening parenthesis)? I think we should at least delete these unusual misspellings, just as we'd normally do as well. The other two redirects are useless, but don't cause harm either... --Matthiaspaul (talk) 15:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • The statistics link next to each redirect above takes you to the hit counts for each redirect, which simply show the number of hits each page received on each day in a month and the total for that month. Experience of looking at stats for almost every redirect nominated here for a couple of years says that the background noise of bots etc is usually around 2-3 hits per month, and each of the redirects above gets more than that. Server logs presumably show refers where they are known (and AIUI this isn't always known (e.g. due to privacy settings), and where links are copied and pasted, manually entered into the URL bar or opened from bookmarks there is no referrer), but I don't know if these logs are public or where to find them if they are. Additionally, I'm still not seeing what benefits deleting these redirects will bring? Thryduulf (talk) 16:20, 4 May 2013 (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.

Ezzelino II da Romano[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 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think is useless a Redirect to a disambig that link this page... Stigni (talk) 11:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, redlink to encourage creation, assuming notability. Siuenti (talk) 13:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - is better as a red link. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:Red link. A German version of the article can be found at de.wiki so I believe an editor more fluent in the German language can help translate it.--Lenticel (talk) 02:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ezzelino da Romano was originally an article about a family (although the lead section was for a disambiguation page) and contained a paragraph about Ezzelino II da Romano. An editor added a {{hndis}} template, another made it into a disambiguation page, and now it's at an article title "Ezzelini", with an article lead section, but disambiguation content and template. If the content is restored, it can be a suitable redirect with {{R from subtopic}}, and can eventually be split to a separate page if necessary. Peter James (talk) 21:08, 8 May 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2013_May_3&oldid=1052656038"