Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 December 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 31[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 31, 2010

Ambassadors of Israel to the United Kingdom[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. — ξxplicit 00:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary cross-namespace redirect —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep-In what way is in "unnecessary"? As it is now, a reader searches for a topic and gets a page that gives them the information they're seeking. Admittedly, a list article would be superior, but in lieu of that this redirect is perfectly reasonable. Cross namespace redirects aren't ALWAYS bad things.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a perfectly fine example of when to redirect to a category. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of Ambassadors and High Commissioners to the United Kingdom. Mhiji 18:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why? The first link is more in theme with the redirect's name. Yours is too general. Even if it's redirect-to-category vs redirect-to-article, the relevance of the linked-to topic should matter more than labels. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 11:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Retargeting to that page makes no sense; it doesn't provide the information the reader is searching for. The category does. Again, cross namespace redirects are not universally bad.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Amtrack at Old Saybrook[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. — ξxplicit 00:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible misspelling, but 3 years old. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 15:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Doesn't appear to be implausible. Google automatically redirects it and our own Amtrack even says it is a common misspelling. No harm in keeping the redirect in place. --Polaron | Talk 17:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems very plausible especially considering that track is a word and is a term associated with trains. That being Track (rail transport). Someone hearing the term Amtrak verbally could very well think the name is a reference to railroad tracks and is that track is the right way to spell the end of the word.--76.66.180.54 (talk) 02:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know "Amtrack" is a plausible misspelling, but notice that the target is a bridge. Even if one doesn't know the bridge name, one doesn't use the form "<operator> at <location>". — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 04:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - long-standing title whose deletion risks breaking links in external sites for no benefit. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Equichordal point problem[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 close, this is not the venue for renaming the main article. Please initiate a request at WP:RM. — ξxplicit 00:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Equichordal point problem currently redirects to Rychlik's theorem, and previously had no useful content. However, Rychlik's theorem is a misnomer and blatant self-promotion, and in fact that article should be named equichordal point problem. Request deletion of current redirect, renaming of Rychlik's theorem to equichordal point problem, and subsequent deletion of Rychlik's theorem as an article name/redirect. See discussions at WP:Articles for deletion/Marek Rychlik and the Maths Wikiproject talk page. Nageh (talk) 10:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Le Quack[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 characters in Courage the Cowardly Dog#LeQuack. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects to the Courage the Cowardly Dog article. This article does not mention the fictional villain in the section. JJ98 (Talk) 08:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Clean Vehicle Research Institute[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. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; disambiguation pages should not serve as targets for names of non-notable groups not even mentioned on the disambig page. bd2412 T 01:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete - pointless redirect. The creator is a blocked sock, well known for producing many dubious redirects. Bridgeplayer (talk) 03:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Bleach the Movie: Memories of Nobosy[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. — ξxplicit 00:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unused typo, unlikely anybody would find it useful or search for "Memories of Nobosy". Anime Addict AA (talk) 14:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too for out of a typo. bd2412 T 17:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep Very plausible. The S and D keys are right next to each other. 173.26.237.244 (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unlikely typo for "nobody" on top of extra words "the Movie". People sometimes argue that a redirect doesn't hurt anything, but that's not true, because as one types into the search field, Wikipedia automatically guesses what you're typing, and it's annoying to choose a redirect when you meant the correct title, or more correct title. Anomalocaris (talk) 02:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The search feature on wikipedia no longer guesses misspelling, so you have to type in the correct title. If someone's finger slips and they hit S instead of D, the search feature will no longer be of any help. As a result, this redirect should stay. 173.26.237.244 (talk) 06:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, 173.26.237.244. You completely missed the point. As the user enters a hoped-for article name into the search box, a drop-down list of suggestions appears. By the time the user has entered "Bleach the Mo" (without quotes) the list has four items:
Bleach the Movie: Memories of Nobody
BLEACH the Movie: Fade to Black, I Call Your Name
Bleach the Movie: Memories of Nobosy
Bleach the Movie 2:The Diamond Dust Rebellion
The spurious redirect, "Bleach the Movie: Memories of Nobosy" clutters up the suggestion list and wastes users' time as they detect (or not) the difference between the first item with "Nobody" and the third item with "Nobosy" and the existence of the third item slows down people who were looking for the fourth item. Yes. Fact. Redirects cost something, and redirects for unlikely typographical errors should not exist. The fact that this redirect gets a few hits doesn't mean the redirect helped them. More likely, the redirect tricked them into entering the misspelling. They may have entered "Bleach the Mo" (without quotes) and then aimed the mouse wrong, or pressed the down arrow three times instead of once because the computer didn't respond immediately to the first down arrow. Finally, note that by the time the user has entered "Bleach the movie: M" (without quotes), the list of suggestions is down to two, the correct one and the wrong one. At this point most people probably stop typing and choose from the suggestions, and the wrong one is just noise. Delete! Anomalocaris (talk) 20:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anomalocaris: Wow, I didn't see it (or think of it) that way. You pointed out some interesting stuff.
For the record, I don't think redirects cost anything, but as pointed out above, this one actually does, and does more harm than good. I don't agree with the "people stop typing" argument above, but the discussion isn't about this, so I won't go into details. But I agree with the reasoning in this particular case. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 11:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although, now that I think about it, I understand where 173.26.237.244 is coming from: typing in a search engine other than Google may not result the first link as Wikipedia if it's a typo. But as Google has the same autocomplete system as Wikipedia ( ... wait ... paranoia mode on), and even a did you mean that phrase system, and that it "coincidentally" lists Wikipedia articles first for any concievable term (more or less), it'll still bounce it as the first. It wouldn't be much loss if the Wikipedia article wouldn't be the first on some search engines, it's not like it allows for in-depth analysis or talks about the subject of the article, but I'm divagating. The above reasons are still enough to make me keep my view of delete. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 11:39, 6 January 2011 (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_December_31&oldid=1138577228"