Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 14[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 14, 2024.

Trainspotter[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 retarget to Railfan. Jay 💬 22:27, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Railfan. In this 2005 discussion the article that was than at this title was (along with some others) merged into the Railfan article and it remained redirected there until January this year when a draft article was accepted and moved over the redirect. In a requested move discussion that closed today the article was moved to Trainspotters in the United Kingdom (the present target). While there was discussion of the best target for the redirect in the RM, the closer didn't find there was consensus to change it, recommending a separate discussion (hence this nomination). Railfan is the broader article that covers trainspotting (and related hobbies) worldwide rather than just the United Kingdom. Thryduulf (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Johnc[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 23#Johnc

Inhumans (2019 film)[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 * Pppery * it has begun... 18:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No Inhumans film has released in 2019. Inhumans (film) exists for the unproduced film. Gonnym (talk) 11:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. According to the target section a film was "scheduled for release July 2019" so it's plausible that people will look for it/follow links to it under this title. The section explains that the film was not released then (or subsequently) and so will resolve any confusion or misunderstanding. Thryduulf (talk) 12:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per the user Thryduulf. StaleGuy22AlternateAccount (talk) 13:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Wikipedia:DONOTDISRUPT[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 1#Wikipedia:DONOTDISRUPT

Extremist settlers[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 * Pppery * it has begun... 18:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are other "extremist settlers" that are not necessarily Israeli. The term does not seem to apply to one particular group of people, as anyone who settles and is an "extremist" would be meet this criteria. Does not seem to be a useful and predictable redirect in its current state. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I'm not particularly attached to most articles or redirects I create. To me, they're kind of like children in past centuries- make a lot, hope they all survive. 😁 . . That said, what other some non-Israeli settlers? If this is a substantial thing, we could write an article, or find an appropriate section of an existing article to cover the topic. (Neither settler & settler colonialism currently contain the query word "extrem".) I'm content to do nothing. We could also point it to the price tag attack policy article maybe or Nachala (organisation). skakEL 12:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This is overwhelmingly the primary topic for the search term with 100% of hits on the first five pages of google results being for the target article. Indeed, the search string I had to use to find any results that weren't about Israeli settlers in the West Bank was "extremist settlers" -Wikipedia -Israel -Israeli -"west bank" -Palestine -Palestinian. Thryduulf (talk) 13:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Searched this up and nearly all of them have either the word "Israeli" (or "Israeli Settlers") or at least mention the country and even Palestine in the article's paragraph. StaleGuy22AlternateAccount (talk) 13:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm used to seeing "not mentioned in target" as a deletion reason. I wonder why it doesn't apply here? All the best: Rich Farmbrough 17:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
    Because this is an example where the context makes it clear that the subject is the one being looked for even if the words in the search term are not mentioned explicitly. Thryduulf (talk) 00:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "not mentioned in target" is easy to fix: plenty of sources that speak of violent israeli setters and use specifically this term, e.g., "The executive order follows a December announcement from the State Department that the U.S. will bar certain “extremist settlers” from ..." - Altenmann >talk 22:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

対[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. ✗plicit 14:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kanji not mentioned at the target article, no evident affinity to have one either Utopes (talk / cont) 06:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete Searched this up on the internet and it's own Wikipedia page at Kanji and I found no results for Dyad: (sociology). StaleGuy22AlternateAccount (talk) 13:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ordinary delete - this is probably an acceptable translation of "dyad", see , but, out of context, it would better translate as "pair" in English. It's a one-many issue. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 17:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Sunset Ranch, New Mexico[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. -- Tavix (talk) 02:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target article. Searching for this term externally, there doesn't seem anything that ties "sunset ranch"es in New Mexico with Albuquerque specifically. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Googling for "Sunset Ranch, New Mexico" brings up an apparently empty patch of desert about 7 miles west of Albuquerque, this redirect and nothing else. Thryduulf (talk) 13:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Searched this up on Google Maps and and it just leads to an area next to Mesa Oeste and Rio Puerco Estates, two other extremely unknown and empty areas near the Rio Puerco Bridge. StaleGuy22AlternateAccount (talk) 13:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from creator's talk page:

Please note that Google Maps recognizes Sunset Ranch as a locale, with defined borders, within the Albuquerque, New Mexico boundary.
Google. "Sunset Ranch, Albuquerque, NM 87121" (Map). Google Maps. Google.
Until the area is further established & developed, it should remain as is, a redirect. CityLimitsJunction (talk) 01:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
--ends--
All the best: Rich Farmbrough 17:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Google Maps is not a reliable source for place names (AIUI), especially in the absence of any other sources (reliable or otherwise). Certainly someone looking for information about this place will not find it on Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to ping CLJ an ask what the defn. of "a locale" is. However I thought posting their comment here was the right first step. There are certainly sufficient sources to confirm that SSR exits and is approximately where GM shows it to be. It not being on Wikipedia, is, of course, irrelevant. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 18:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
There are certainly sufficient sources to confirm that SSR exists can you provide examples, as I've not been able to locate any. It not being on Wikipedia, is, of course, irrelevant there being no content, not even a passing mention or list entry, of this place on Wikipedia couldn't be more relevant. Someone searching Wikipedia for this place wants to find information about it, we don't have any and we should not mislead people into thinking that we do. Thryduulf (talk) 03:25, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging CityLimitsJunction on Rich Farmbrough's behalf. @CityLimitsJunction: You need to respond here in order for your opinion to be considered in this discussion. What is a Google Maps "locale" and why should this redirect be kept because of it? Jay 💬 11:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

(EC 2.4.1.197, uridine diphosphoacetylglucosamine-oligosaccharide acetylglucosaminyltransferase, acetylglucosamine-oligosaccharide[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. ✗plicit 05:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely to have this title beginning with a parenthesis without one to close as well. Could possibly be moved to a new title, but I don't know whether that would be valuable and make this search term any more likely. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'Commnet. If, as I suspect but haven't checked, this is the fully systematic name for the enzyme then the correctly parenthesised version is a very plausible search term for someone copying and pasting (or for automated systems generating links programmatically). If so then it should probably be moved after verifying with people familiar with enzyme naming that this is an error. Thryduulf (talk) 04:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

(جامعة جورجتاون (قطر[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. ✗plicit 05:18, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect appears to be a combination of both Latin and Arabic scripts in order to copy the appearance of an existing redirect. It seems that this situation has resulted in the unnatural copying of two left parenthesis, but with an axis flipped to appear rightward facing. I'm not convinced that this is a plausible way to stylize this search term, but I could be mistaken. A visually identical version exists at: جامعة جورجتاون (قطر), which maintains a left and a right parenthesis. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

(Instituto do Coração da Universidade de São Paulo[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. ✗plicit 05:18, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely to precede this search term with a parenthesis, and no views in the last 60 days, one in the last 90. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Truly (Melanie Amaro album[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. ✗plicit 05:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The history for this redirect comes from a user that was writing two of the same articles at the same time, over the course of 5 minutes. The page was moved at XX:06, but the main contributor did not realize that the page was moved, so at XX:11 the rest of the changes were made onto the Truly (Melanie Amaro album) page. Both of these were later BLAR'd very shortly after. This title in particular has quite minimal history, and was only accidentally edited, apparently. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:53, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

William Melling[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. ✗plicit 05:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am suggesting that this redirect be deleted. Melling is an actor who played Nigel Wolport, a minor character in the films who is not included in the Harry Potter books (see Colin and Dennis Creevey). In December 2019, an article on Melling was the subject of an AfD (link) which closed as Redirect to the list article. In August 2022, editor El Millo removed (link) Melling and Wolport from the list, having found no reliable sources that could document Melling in the Harry Potter films. I have also found no reliable sources.

This leaves us with the odd situation where Melling is bluelinked in his other appearances (Vanity Fair (2004 film) and Fried (2015 TV series)), but following those bluelinks redirects readers to an article that offers no useful information about Melling. Melling appears to have had a minor role in the former film and an ensemble-ish role in the latter film; I doubt that that these appearances clear WP:NACTOR, which require significant roles in multiple notable ... productions. IMDb suggests no other major appearances. Consequently, I think that the redirect is best deleted to avoid the confusion that the bluelinks presently create. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 02:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Should it also be of any relevance, in the 2019 AfD, an editor suggested that WP:SALT be applied. This is the article's second creation (the first was in 2013, not sure if it was a CSD). IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 02:53, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nomination as the actor is not fit for inclusion in the article it redirects to and he is not currently notable enough for an article of his own. —El Millo (talk) 03:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I understand that this actor can't have an article on his own, but he isn't even mentioned in the films where he worked, i.e. [1]? Yann (talk) 10:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, this is the alternative: a redirect to, e.g., his biggest(?) role at Fried (2015 TV series). I'm just not sure it's really that valuable for someone reading Dumbledore's Army or Vanity Fair (2004 film) to be redirected to the sitcom. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 14:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete and salt as vanity magnet. Also from the discussion I conclude the name must be de-redlinked everywhere due to low probability of article. - Altenmann >talk 22:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Miss You (Nickelback song[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. ✗plicit 05:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article for this song was created and reverted by a single user, but converted into a redirect. A redirect at this title would be an implausible search term, and duplicates the (current) redirect for Miss You (Nickelback song), which has been edit-warred on 8 or so times since 2015, across which included the involvement of the user that created this redirect. The history of this one is quite miniscule in comparison, and seems to have been full-cleared by the only contributor. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Moonlight (Ariana Grande album[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. ✗plicit 05:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect which was a BLAR'd one-sentence stub that duplicated Moonlight (Ariana Grande album) several days after THAT page was developed, and also BLAR'd. Does not seem to be an added-value redirect with the missing parenthesis and content duplication. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I am unsure at the moment. This is a tricky choice for me. StaleGuy22AlternateAccount (talk) 13:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (The Non Alternate-Account Version of StaleGuy22) You know what? I would say Delete since even though it is a popular song with some views towards the page from a few months if not a few years ago, there is no way somebody would make this mistake and would definitely search up something more common like "moonlight ariana grande" or similar terms. StaleGuy22 (talk) 18:48, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it doesn't contain any content not in the correct title and the correct title was also redirected. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RDAB. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 10:33, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Cold blob (North Atlantic[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. ✗plicit 05:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have been posted once on Youtube. I never would have been able to tell, because the pageviews are microscopic, meaning this R from external link does not seem to be helping. On the flipside, this redirect is unnaturally constructed, interferes with navigation, and not likely to be searched due to the unexpected missing parenthesis. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Yanny\ or\ Laurel[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. Complex/Rational 19:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

When this redirect first ended up at RfD, it was a few months old redirect that just was settling down in views after being faultily linked to once on reddit. Since then, this redirect only is goggled at as one of a small handful of redirects in the "R from external links" that looks the most abnormal among the other abnormalities. If created today, it would likely be an R3 candidate due to its unnatural punctuation. But, now in 2024, it seems as if this title has served its external use, and now is only an implausible typo that clogs a category full of other unnatural titles, without the external views to show for it. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Implausible typo and unlikely search term. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is not a typo (plausible or otherwise), but an intentional escaping of the spaces to signal that the spaces are an integral part of the string, not separators (in the same way that mediawiki replaces spaces with underscores and URL encoding replaces them with %20. It's incorrect syntax for Wikipedia, but it is continuing to get a trickle of views and hasn't caused any problems since the last RfD so it's continuing to help a few people and there is no benefit to deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 04:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:COSTLY. If this is justified, so is the creation of a redirect prefacing spaces with a backslash for every single page or redirect containing a space that exists. Without the redirect it already shows "Did you mean", see e.g. foo\_bar. Nardog (talk) 08:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is justified to create individual redirects in any case where that redirect would be useful. In only a very few cases will that include redirects of this pattern, and as very few is neither "never" nor "costly" there is no issue that deletion will solve here. Your link actually perfectly demonstrates the usefulness of the redirect - if you click on it (as an autoconfirmed editor) you get the page "Creating Foo/ bar"*, not search results. If you click the link while logged out you are invited to search or to log in/create and account.
    *"/" not "\" as that's what you put in the piped link for some reason; Foo\ bar works identically Thryduulf (talk) 14:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Logged-out users also get "Did you mean". (Link fixed.) Nardog (talk) 14:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps some do, but I didn't when I tested it. Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 15:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:Nardog. Escaping should be done in the calling end, not on Wikipedia. Otherwise we would have to create such redirects for every page title containing spaces. JIP | Talk 19:54, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keeping one redirect does not imply the need to (mass) create other redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 00:23, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No significant views, not Wikipedia's responsibility to clean up others' messes of this sort. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:00, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Common buzzard)[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. ✗plicit 05:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible searching error to make with the last parenthesis only. Was created due to an external link, but has sat at 0 views in the last 5 months (despite being linked on 2015's TOPRED and in the category for R from external links). External typos shouldn't require the existence of clutter redirects on Wikipedia. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirects that provide benefit to readers are never "clutter" but an essential part of maintaining an accessible encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 04:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it gains absolutely *no* views in five months, and low single-digit monthly views in the half year preceding that (as in, there is not a single month in 2023 where it received more than 3 views—a number more consistent with internal gnoming/maintenance work than with any actual reader making use of it), does this redirect provide any benefit to readers? I'd argue it doesn't, and a redirect that provides no benefit and would not natively have been created if not for an external typo can, I think, indeed be fairly described as "clutter". AddWittyNameHere 13:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete although its existed since 2019 its always been a redirect. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: the lack of pageviews shows that this is an implausible search term. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 10:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Conjunction (grammar and etc.[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. ✗plicit 05:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The set of remaining redirects that have 0 pageviews according to massviews, from C-S. All of which do not have substantive history, all make errors in the act of disambiguation, and all having replicated titles in existence, or not able to have one. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:UNNATURAL, I'm guessing you meant to bundle this with Shreya on down? Whoops. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 01:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the ones without a parenthesis on the end are likely workarounds for the old Reddit bug that took the bracket off the end of disambiguated Wikipedia URLs. I believe MediaWiki now suggests the proper title if the version without a parenthesis doesn't exist - David Gerard (talk) 09:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These do no harm, and if anyone were to enter them they would be sent to the right place directly. I see no advantage to deleting these, just a waste of everyone's time. (And also a waste of disk space, database entries, and just about any resource you care to name.) All the best: Rich Farmbrough 16:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:RDAB. Steel1943 (talk) 20:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:RDAB; the lack of pageviews indicate that these are unlikely and unhelpful search terms. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 10:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_February_14&oldid=1211128810"