Wrestlers who have wrestled under the name Sin Cara[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 keep. --BDD (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Almost comically implausible name for a redirect. There are two "wrestlers who have wrestled" (!!) as Sin Cara, and both are unsurprisingly detailed on the article entitled.... (wait for it....) Sin Cara. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 09:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a standard {{R from move}} and it is consistently getting 20-40 hits each month (I checked all the way back to January) suggesting that this is linked from somewhere external to Wikipedia. It is an unusual name, but that alone doesn't make it implausible, and the target article is the correct one. Deletion would be harmful to the encyclopaedia while bringing no benefits. Thryduulf (talk) 12:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - bit of a mouthful, but clearly sends readers to what they're looking for. WilyD 15:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep kinda weird but still plausible. Lucha libre masks are a big deal in this sport. --Lenticel(talk) 00:34, 24 November 2014 (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.
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 keep. --BDD (talk) 19:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Close without prejudice. It is disputed at Talk:List of islands of Korea that the article only covers South Korea, so this discussion should be closed pending the result of the move discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The list contains, by consensus, islands belonging to both Koreas so this is a correct redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 23:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wikipedia is a work in progress, this is a SO-FIX-IT problem. Requests to undermine the goal of writing an encyclopaedia are not welcome. WilyD 12:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are at least some North Korean islands included on the target article, and the rest should be added. Neelix (talk) 15:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Refuse jurisdiction, somewhat per above (which is to say, close without prejudice). If it is discussed elsewhere it does no good to discuss it here. The remedy is to climb down from the bench and discuss it there, inter pares.Si Trew (talk) 14:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The move discussion closed as no consensus to move, so the North Korean islands have remained on the target list and this redirect remains a valuable one. There is no longer a reason to have this redirect deleted. Neelix (talk) 20:07, 4 December 2014 (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.
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.
This is a redirect from an extremely generic title to the service of one particular organization. It will not help the reader. DGG ( talk ) 07:34, 20 November 2014 (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.
Several redirects that have wiki markup in their titles[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 (all). This is a bit unusual, but anyone who feels that Wikipedia is truly worse off without any one of these should feel free to create that redirect. Within a month or so, it may make sense to discuss it individually. While I appreciate bundled nominations, this one is perhaps too much, and I hope editors will pardon my perhaps too blunt solution. --BDD (talk) 19:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After observing recent consensus to delete other redirects that contained wiki markup, including consensus here at another RfD discussion, it seems that these redirects cause problems with coding and other functions of Wikipedia and links due to containing wiki markup. For example, the first nominated redirect is '', but if it is put into a {{No redirect}} template, this is how it appears between the following parenthesis: (''); it doesn't even appear. Also, the second nomination, '''Tis the Season'' (Vince Gill and Olivia Newton-John album), puts the link in bold when inserted in a template, and makes the first apostrophe completely disappear (the first apostrophe is part of the article's title). These redirects cause more technical harm than good, and if there is ever an instance where two consecutive apostrophes are needed, it will be a non wiki markup-affecting quotation mark ("), not two apostrophes in a row (''). This nomination contains all of the remaining redirects on the English Wikipedia (as of this moment) that start with at least two apostrophes. (Note to the closer: For the above-nominated redirects that had edit history that has to be retained per Wikipedia:Attribution, I moved the attributions from that title to a similar title that does not have two consecutive apostrophes; I did this since I knew that if these are all by chance deleted, the attributions on these titles would need to be preserved.)Steel1943 (talk) 02:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note. The wiki markup causes so many problems that this nomination does not even appear properly on the Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion page; on that page, this nomination contains several lines of unintentional bolding. Steel1943 (talk) 02:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all 357 nominated redirects and any others with the same problem. These were typically created by dint of a perfectly understandable mistake about how wikimarkup works. However, they aren't going to be searched for (you would have to search for an inobvious sequence of single quotes in exactly the right places), they aren't going to be linked from off the wiki (ditto), and links on the wiki can be formatted properly - and often better - with correct markup and without the need for these redirects to exist. They all can, and should, go away. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 03:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Very unlikely for a reader to search for ''Title name'', and these are probably created by mistake. --benlisquareT•C•E 04:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. I can verify that at least the ones I created and were thus notified of this deletion discussion were created by mistake some time ago. If they are of used, they will find their way back. Dkriegls(talk to me!) 06:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Heck if it already messes up this discussion then how much more the actual articlespace.--Lenticel(talk) 06:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [['']] it leads to quotation mark, which is where it should lead to, same as " and "". Delete all others -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 06:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I originally considered not nominating '' (two apostrophes); however, after I realized that it is subject to the same wiki markup errors as the other redirects (and even more so when linked in templates, as I discovered with {{No redirect}} with the entire link disappearing), I changed my mind. Also, as you said, " (quotation mark) exists. Steel1943 (talk) 07:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
However, <code>''</code> is a possible search term, so whereas the others are not to be typed and some weird in wikicode linkage, the double-single-quote would be searchable. Double-single-quote would be similar to the double-double-quote "", and not equivalent to a single-double-quote ", as a search using paired entities instead of a single entity, as one might enter as quotes appear in pairs in normal text. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 06:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep'' it is a reasonable search term and looking at article traffic stats it has been used 130 times in the last 30 days. Delete all others.--Salix alba (talk): 08:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment & note: With regard to ''Southern Seas'' the redirect is a leftover and can be deleted or moved to a disambiguation page. I created it during clean up of ship references in which civilian, Navy and Army operated the ship named Southern Seas covered in the main article Lyndonia (1920). The italic marking is the problem here. The real need is for disambiguation of the term itself as another, all too limited, redirect of the term goes to Gringo-Gaucho, a naval exercise. Palmeira (talk) 11:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nominators comment, which i agree with. LorChat 02:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete away, especially any that are not linked to.NiD.29 (talk) 18:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE I have just discovered that many (possibly all) the links to the usage stats for multiple word redirects nominated here are incorrect. For some reason the space is being replaced with "+" in the link not with "_". As "+" is a valid character in Wikipedia article titles, the stats shown are for pages other than the ones that have been nominated. Any comments that refer to the usage of these redirects need to be verified. Thryduulf (talk) 20:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE 2 I have attempted to fix the stats links per my above note. The links I've tested work, but I haven't yet tested them all and I may have accidentally introduced other errors (I haven't spotted any). The note above regarding any mention of usage is still valid. Thryduulf (talk) 20:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have so far examined only the first few redirects ("''" to "''All Hung up in Your Green Eyes''"), my recommendation for these is below. I will review the others as I get time:
Keep the following:
'' - very well used (>120 hits last month for example)
''12'' (2003_film) - well used (50-85 hits every month since May)
''ALF'' - {{R from move}}, there was content at this page from 2011 until earlier this month when it was redirect then moved. Incoming links are very likely.
Keep but review in a few months (at least 3 full calendar months after this discussion is closed) when there is more evidence regarding usage. If the usage dies off to only bot levels (~5/month at most) then they can be nominated again then but if it doesn't they should be kept as being useful to humans (however unlikely that may look to experienced Wikipedians).
''A Soldier's Rosary''. Despite being at this title for only a day when it was created in July 2014 this is still getting a greater than bot only number of hits (12-20 each month), which is surprising. Could be external links.
''''Aechmea nudicaulis'' 'Parati'. Only one hit in August, but spiked to 13 in October and nearly 20 in the part of November before this nomination, some of that could be related to this nomination but as it isn't replicated in the others listed it is very unlikely to be the whole story (there is nothing in the edit history between 2013 at the nomination). This needs more data (which can only come with time) before a correct judgement can be made, so it should be kept until then.
''Affluenza''. This gets uses, over 1000 in Aguust, but only 15 in October. This suggests that it was linked from somewhere internally but no longer is. I'd suggest keeping this and reviewing the usage in a few months to see if the remaining use dies off (in which case we can safely delete it) or not (in which case it should be kept).
''Affluenza'' (2014). I fixed a link to this redirect that had been in the article almost certainly since August. This means there are lots of hits, but it is impossible to tell at the moment if there is any traffic from external sites.
''Aladdin'' (musical). The traffic stats give the distinct impression that this was linked until late August, but it had an upward spike again in October. The activity on this redirect in November was preceded by views that could have gone either way. Need to reevaluate with more data.
Other notes
''Afroedura transvaalica''. I have moved the target of this redirect (Afroedura transvaalica → Transvaal flat gecko; per WP:COMMONNAME). In the (seemingly unlikely) event this is kept (I can't find any reason to), the target will need updating.
Delete redirects not mentioned above that being with: ' . AN Ae Al Thryduulf (talk) 21:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a few - keep the handful that others have asked to keep. These should be discussed in separate nominations. Delete the other 350 or so. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Too much in one go, impossible to go through them. For if not, let those who say "keep a few" or "keep some" list those they wish to keep. Otherwise, keep the lot as stet. I need then to check out 357 stats, 357 page histories, 357 discussion and talk pages, and wotnot? Am I supposed to discuss each by each or just rubber stamp? I am not prepared to rubber stamp so keep all until they are listed appropriately. Thryduulf started and I think gave up. It is bloating the page and every time I go to edit I have 357 redirect listings in front of me (I still edit in raw text so I get the whole dambed lot). Have some consideration. Si Trew (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Si Trew, as I stated above, I have already took the liberty of going through all of the redirects' page histories and moved all important attribution (including the ones that were previously articles) to other titles so that the closer would not have to through the redirects' histories with a "fine-tooth comb". However, the page links are another story; I didn't expect there to be any due to the wiki markup in the titles, but per above, it looks as though Thryduulf just destroyed that theory. I may have some time in a few hours to review the redirects' page links, and disambiguate/change their targets when necessary. Steel1943 (talk) 18:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Seems like pushing a rock up Mount Olympus, but if you're willing to do it, all power to your oboe. Si Trew (talk) 22:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: At this point, all incoming links to these redirects that are unintentional (essentially all links that are not on a talk page or an archive unless referring to the page's edit history, with the exception of pages on the merge history "project pages") have been retarget to its proper target, usually the redirect's target itself. Here is a list of the redirects listed above which I fixed incoming links for the record:
...These redirects had incoming links that needed to be updated. Steel1943 (talk) 01:52, 25 November 2014 (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.
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 12#Directorate-General for Budget