Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 December 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 26[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 26, 2013.

Lotht[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. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 09:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete - its redundant with "LotHT" (below). Sbalfour (talk) 00:05, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Redundancy is not reason to delete redirects, indeed alternate capitalisations are good. Thryduulf (talk) 00:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Seems to send the reader to what they're looking for, and there's no rationale here for deletion. Unless there's a need for disambiguation I'm missing, this seems like a no-brainer. WilyD 08:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per User:Thryduulf and User:WilyD. RJaguar3 | u | t 19:59, 27 December 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.

Wp soap[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. --BDD (talk) 23:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No connection, no Wp soap mentioned at target, google shows this is a software plugin that has no Wiki article. Beerest 2 talk 23:33, 26 December 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.

Campbell Elynuik[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. --BDD (talk) 23:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable hockey player who fails the GNG and NHOCKEY criteria by a country mile. Played only 37 undistinguished games for the Lumberjacks (a lower level junior team), and therefore an extremely implausible search term. One of a series of bizarre redirects created by the article creator [1][2][3][4] and on which discussions, so far, consensus is unanimously against his POV. Ravenswing 23:28, 26 December 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.

LotHT[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. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 09:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

another redirect (same as below) pointing to that article that games the system. Sbalfour (talk) 21:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I could see a case for the animal redirects (even then I find it questionable) but this is not one of those and was created by a different user. I don't see how this particular redirect games the system in any way. I am not sure if it should be kept but I am not convinced by the current rational.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 21:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is in use and unambiguously refers to the target, no evidence of gaming the system (nor can I see how this could be) so there is no valid rationale given for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 00:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - directs the reader to what they're looking for. Unless I'm missing a potential disambiguation? Google suggests I ain't. There doesn't appear to be any rationale for deletion. Certainly none has been presented. WilyD 08:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep useful and unambiguous, entirely appropriate redirect. RJaguar3 | u | t 19:52, 27 December 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.

Red Jaguars[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. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 09:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete - that these six terms were entered as redirects was gaming the purpose of 'redirect', and it makes legitimate searches for animals of that description impossible merely for the sake of incidental references to the terms in that article. Sbalfour (talk) 20:46, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weakish keep (all of these). Not likely search terms but the current target is probably more plausible than the articles for the respective animals (i.e. I think someone searching for "red jaguars" or "silver snakes" is more likely to be looking for Legends of the Hidden Temple than jaguar or snake, or indeed specific species known to be red or silver). Given that the terms are mentioned, albeit briefly, in the target, I can't see the potential for confusion being great enough to justify deletion, and the names of the animals are linked so hatnotes would be redundant. Would it be possible to combine these nominations? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment some of the team names have other primary topics that merit retargeting, while others (like this one) do not appear to have them. The nominator acted entirely appropriately in creating separate discussions, as is suggested for AfD nominations to avoid creating a trainwreck of a discussion, under WP:BUNDLE. RJaguar3 | u | t 19:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Useful search term which is discussed at target. Dolovis (talk) 01:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - maybe I could be sold on disambiguation, but I'm not seeing it. Certainly not for Red Jaguars. The redirects appear to fulfil two major purposes of redirects - sending the reader to the subject they're looking for, and discouraging article creation where the subject isn't going to meet WP:N. WilyD 08:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a useful redirect from a reasonable search term. RJaguar3 | u | t 19:48, 27 December 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.

Blue Barracudas[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. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 10:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete - same as for Orange Iguanas and etc. below. Sbalfour (talk) 20:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – Useful search term which is discussed at target. Dolovis (talk) 01:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - maybe I could be sold on disambiguation, but I'm not seeing it. Google certainly makes it seem like this is the primary topic. The redirects appear to fulfil two major purposes of redirects - sending the reader to the subject they're looking for, and discouraging article creation where the subject isn't going to meet WP:N. WilyD 08:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as Legends of the Hidden Temple is the primary topic. RJaguar3 | u | t 19:56, 27 December 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.

Orange Iguanas[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 Orange iguana. The disambiguation page was created at this page, and consensus is clear, that this page should be retargeted to that. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 10:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete - same as for Silver Snakes and etc. below Sbalfour (talk) 20:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – Useful search term which is discussed at target. Dolovis (talk) 01:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate -Orange Iguana probably needs disambiguating, and neither is an obvious primary target. Any animals could be added, but I'm not aware of any. WilyD 09:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create disambiguation page and retarget both this redirect and Orange Iguana. This seems to be the best move as there is no primary topic. RJaguar3 | u | t 19:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the disambiguation page Orange iguana. Dolovis (talk) 14:31, 29 December 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.

Silver Snakes[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 Silver Snake. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 10:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete - same as for "Green Monkeys" and etc below Sbalfour (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to the disambiguation page Silver Snake. Dolovis (talk) 02:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget - Several possible targets, as far as I can see, none is the primary. WilyD 08:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget as there is no primary topic. RJaguar3 | u | t 19:51, 27 December 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.

Green Monkeys[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 Green monkey. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 10:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete - same as Purple Parrots, an incidental use of the term, prevents search for animals of that name Sbalfour (talk) 20:24, 26 December 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.

Purple Parrots[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. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 10:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete-"Purple Parrots" is the name of a children's team in the article, but the article is not about the team, it's about a game - this is a really incidental occurrence of the term, which is ostensibly about birds. It is plausable for the page to redirect to Anodorhynchus, a genus of all blue (blueish-purple or purple) macaws/parrots 184.76.111.134 (talk) 20:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - there doesn't seem to be anything to disambiguate, but if anyone finds it, I certainly wouldn't be opposed to making it into a disambiguation page. In the absence of any other target, there's no rationale for deletion. WilyD 09:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a useful redirect with no other plausible target (compare the other Legends team name RfDs). RJaguar3 | u | t 19:50, 27 December 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.

Blue Parrot[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 Blue parrot. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 10:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete - no mention of "Blue Parrot" or even "Parrot" in the target article; it's the name of an experimental radar system tested in that aircraft, but there's no article for the radar system. I searched for "Blue Macaw" (a bird) and turned up nothing likely, so tried "Blue Parrot" and got redirected to an article about fighter jet?? It is plausible for the page to redirect to Anodorhynchus, a genus of all blue macaws/parrots, though "Blue Parrot" could also be a book, a film, a bar, and any one of a number of parrot names like "Blue-fronted Parrot", as well as the name of a radar system. Sbalfour (talk) 19:40, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak retarget to The Blue Parrot as the only article we have under (a version of) this title. If sources exist suggesting that this is a plausible search term for Anodorhynchus and/or Blue-fronted Amazon, and/or if the term resurfaces in the current target, then I wouldn't be opposed to a disambiguation page. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the disambiguation page I've just created at Blue parrot. Thryduulf (talk) 00:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Blue parrot. Dolovis (talk) 01:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget - disambiguation page is the natural target, in the absence of an obvious primary one. WilyD 09:04, 27 December 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.

Burn (Scotland[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. WJBscribe (talk) 13:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary redirect (with mismatched brackets) DexDor (talk) 21:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - a mismatched bracket is certainly a plausible typo, and the search term is plausible enough, so there's no rationale for deletion. WilyD 10:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:23, 26 December 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.

T:AD and Template:AD[edit]

Relisted, see: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 January 12#T:AD and Template:AD. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P:CU[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. Consensus is that this redirect is not a useful shortcut. Thryduulf (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually unused shortcut for Portal:Current events, which uses the shortcut P:CE. 6 or 7 pageviews is typical. Created in 2009 by a user with 200 edits who was subsequently banned. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This should be kept under the d6 "major exception" and k5. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 04:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not useful, not a relevant abbreviation. Cleanup misguided page in mainspace. -DePiep (talk) 12:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too obscure a synonym to be very useful. --BDD (talk) 23:12, 3 January 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.

P:CEANZ[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. Consensus is that this particular redirect is not a useful shortcut. Thryduulf (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shortcut to current events portal, with ANZ being an abbreviation for Australia and New Zealand, but there isnt a functioning Current events sub-portal for Australia and New Zealand. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This should be kept under the d6 "major exception" and k5. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 04:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a meaningful abbreviation for shortcut, not needed (as the disfunction pproves). A misguided page lost in mainspace. -DePiep (talk) 12:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --BDD (talk) 23:12, 3 January 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.

Day redirects to Portal pages[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 the appropriate section July 2013 or August 2013. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 10:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These are all WP:CNR recently created by User:SuperHero2111 to point to individual days under Portal:Current events. We have typically redirected dates to the relevant year or month-year (see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 January 23#November 9, 1985). I suggest these are deleted, or redirected to July 2013 and August 2013, which includes an archived version of the current events portal. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:43, 26 December 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.

Wikipedic content policy[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. --BDD (talk) 23:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mispelling or strange reference to meta:Wikipedic or urban dictionary:Wikipedic. Relatively recently (March 2013) created WP:CNR with low pageviews (7). John Vandenberg (chat) 10:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete. I wouldn't necessarily be against a link from the correctly spelled Wikipedia content policy to the most appropriate project space page (although I'm not certain that is necessarily WP:NOT), but I don't see the value in this redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 11:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete XNR -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 06:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nothing strange about a usage of Wikipedia as an adjective that follows the well-established usage of "encyclopedic", as in "encyclopedic content". Yes, it's a CNR; it's a CNR that I find very useful. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 03:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neologism XNR of unlikely utility. — Scott • talk 22:51, 3 January 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.

Sourcemonkeys[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. --BDD (talk) 23:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CNR to failed proposal page Wikipedia:Sourcehelpers (abandoned since September 2009), which typically receives 1 or 2 pageviews per month. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:46, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per nominator. I wondered whether this term would make a good redirect to code monkey, but neither it nor the spaced variant "source monkey" are used that way. Thryduulf (talk) 11:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Valid nickname for sourcehelpers, as valid as "WikiPuma, WikiKomodo and WikiPlatypus. CNR from 2009 means that deletion could break a lot of links on the vast Internet. That proposal has not been closed and "kept for historic reasons", so it is still "live" and its shortcuts should remain intact even after it is closed. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 03:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete redirect. "WikiPlatypus" is being redirected in the source above, but Sourcemonkeys is actually in article space, potentially showing up as a suggestion for searches and so forth. No need for it. This is not a comment about the underlying proposal, which I do not believe to be included in this AfD. Wnt (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Note: That proposal failed to launch in 2009. Accordingly I've marked it as historic. Participants in this discussion should bear that in mind when considering the utility of this redirect. — Scott • talk 21:42, 3 January 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.

Linguafranc[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 Love & Girls. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 10:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should this point to Love & Girls, as the "B" side of this single is a song named Linguafranc, or should it point to Lingua franca? See previous discussion at User talk:Rybec#About Linguafranc. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 06:48, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • retarget to the song and add a hatnote to Lingua franca. Google results consistently show that the song is the primary topic for this term, but both it and the media wiki search engine offer a "did you mean" to the common language article which combined with the views expressed in the preceing discussion make me believe a hatnote is worthwhile. Thryduulf (talk) 12:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'target to the song is my first impression too, based on a 10 mins googling only to determine primary, and also I wouldn't like to see a note on top of Lingua franca linking to Love & Girls for its B-side. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:40, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it is right now. As conveniently pointed out by several people, this is apparently a misspelling of "Lingua franca". Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 04:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see them saying that the title of the song should be written Lingua Franca (with a capital "F"), not that the term "lingua franca" is often misspelled, which is what we're discussing here. I also see that, on that page, Raykyogrou0 disagrees with them, writing [5]

Also once again, quite contrary to your popular belief, iTunes does not do misspellings. If the songwriter really believed it was "spelled wrong" then he certainly would have contacted the record label which in turn would have contacted iTunes to change it.

Raykyogrou0 argues, on the other page, that "Linguafranc" is the correct English title of the song.
Correct or not, the appearance of the spelling "Linguafranc" on Itunes and Allmusic means that people looking for information on the song are likely to come here and use that spelling. That people are also prone to use that misspelling when for the term "lingua franca", and not the song, is not in evidence: I looked on stats.grok.se and didn't see any requests for "linguafranc" prior to the release of the song. —rybec 08:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NB: The song page's hatnote might best be to Lingua franca (disambiguation).   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 18:21, 28 December 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.

WPRK (Wikipedia)[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. --BDD (talk) 23:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and very unusual shortcut to Wikipedia:Pronunciation respelling key, which already has shortcuts WP:RESPELL and WP:PRK. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Impossible to measure overall and true usage. How does the nom know it is "unused"? This is no more "unusual" than any initialism would be. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 04:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Paine Ellsworth, each RfD discussion header includes a 'stats' link, which will help you confirm that it is unused. For this redirect, 3 hits in November 2013. And before you argue that 3 hits is not unused, those stats include bots and web crawlers[6]. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Precisely my point. There is no way of telling which of those stats are actual users clicking and which are something else. And how accurate are those stats? From what I've read, they can be off significantly. And what is the significance of making it sound as if bots and web crawlers are not as important as human clickers? The bots and webcrawlers are hitting for a reason – and sometimes that reason may involve several people doing a search. So the page ends up on a search engine page via this redirect. How do the stats show how many people clicked in from other websites? or from an Internet search engine list? – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 05:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Where have you read that the stats can be significantly off? The only issue I know of is the tool doesnt differentiate between upper and lower case (the log files used by the tool do record case properly). The stats are all inclusive. It doesnt matter how a person arrives at a page - via other websites or typing the page name directly into the URL bar - the page request is logged and is aggregated into those stats. You are incorrect about why bots and web crawlers hit the page. They hit the page because they *crawl* every page in mainspace - see Special:Allpages - and they cant exclude WP:CNR - they can only exclude a WP:CNR after fetching it to determine what is in the page, and in most cases they don't bother excluding it as they are a tiny percentage of problematic pages. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
re Paine Ellsworth. How is this title an abbreviation? Did you read the initialism page you linked to? (For starters: Acronyms should be used in a page name if the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject). -DePiep (talk) 14:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In no way within naming convention. A shortcut? No. A pseudo namespace? No. Plausible name? No. In the History, there was a Speedy R3 rejection only because of being "not recently created". Well, apart from that the R3 essence is valid too. And about "usage": a page with wrong title in mainspace we are not supposed to maintain, even if some "use" may have happened. -DePiep (talk) 14:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Extremely weird mutant redirect, totally uncalled-for. — Scott • talk 22:25, 3 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2013_December_26&oldid=1142587459"