Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 October 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 7[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 7, 2012

Template:StateGov-AZ[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 Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G8 - pages dependent on a deleted page. Thryduulf (talk) 22:59, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dead redirect Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:19, 7 October 2012 (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.

Template:Swastika[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. Swastika is a general term. So, redirecting to just one meaning is not appropriate, especially for a template redirect. Ruslik_Zero 18:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently unused. Was this retained for a reason? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as this is doing no harm, and is a very plausible place to look for the target template. As far as I can tell this is the first discussion about the redirect or template since the latter's creation in 2010 so the use of "retained" in the nomination statement may be misleading. It is also worth noting that commons:Template:Swastika exists as a redirect to commons:Template:Nazi symbol and is in use there. Thryduulf (talk) 23:08, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clearly harmful. The swastika is a traditional Asian symbol, deriving from India, and used in Buddhist East Asia. This biases swastika to only mean Nazi symbol, and not the symbol itself. -- 70.50.149.56 (talk) 04:09, 10 October 2012 (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.

Google.ocm[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. Tikiwont (talk) 16:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google.ocm: "random mispellings - not misnomers, don't see that random possible user entered errors should be valid redirects". Nominated by Oranjblud (talk · contribs), I believe the requested outcome is deletion. "Pepper" @ 12:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes deletion request - I don't believe a possible accidental typo is a valid reason for a redirect.Oranjblud (talk) 13:20, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Typos are not a reason to have or create redirects - see reasons at Wikipedia:Redirect#Purposes_of_redirects, common or likely mispellings, alternative spellings etc are. There are literally millions of "plasible typos" if you go down that route.Oranjblud (talk) 22:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there are millions of plausible typos, and we currently have redirects from thousands of them. We do not categorise them differently from misspellings, so it's not easy to say exactly how many, but their existence and many prior RfDs show clearly that redirects from plausible typos can be just as useful as any other type of plausible misspelling. Thryduulf (talk) 23:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excluding for a moment that "otherstuffexists", and the fact that I've never seen a single one of these "redirects from thousands of them" - how exactly are they useful ? - all I see is spam filling up the autocomplete box.87.102.93.101 (talk) 00:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For examples of other redirects from typos, see transclusions of template:R from typo which categorises (along with other types of misspellings) into Category:Redirects from misspellings where you will find more. Redirects included in Category:Unprintworthy redirects (which those tagged with the typo or other misspelling templates are) do not appear in the list of autocomplete suggestions. I will tag the redirects accordingly with my next edit (although I can't remember whether the autocomplete suggestions list updates instantly or not). As for how the redirects are useful, this is most easily demonstrated by looking at the stats for page views, in September this year the four listed redirects had 524, 137, 80 and 128 hits respectively. Around 2-4 hits per month is the typical level of background noise from bots, etc., and 10 hits per month is a large number of hits from humans for many very obviously useful redirects. That these redirects get 8-50 times that clearly demonstrates their usefulness in helping people find the article they are looking for. My recommendation therefore is strong keep. Thryduulf (talk) 00:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per redirect guidelines Likely misspellings (for example, Condoleeza Rice redirects to Condoleezza Rice). -- 70.50.149.56 (talk) 04:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plausible typos, nothing to motivate deletion. WilyD 08:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep plausible typos TBrandley 19:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep plausible misspellings.--Lenticel (talk) 01:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Google, rather than the more specific than expected Google search. Ego White Tray (talk) 15:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no opinion about the proposed retarget - these redirects have been accessed - for example, Google.con was accessed over 400 times in the approx. 2 1/2 months leading up to the nomination. And Goole.com was over 1000 times. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:21, 16 October 2012 (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/2012_October_7&oldid=1138578531"