Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 May 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 1[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 1, 2015.

Shields, Pennsylvania[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 May 9#Shields, Pennsylvania

List of video game hoaxes[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 under WP:CSD#G7 per creator's request below. Hut 8.5 21:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like completely the wrong place to go if it should go anywhere at all. The word "game" doesn't even appear once in the article.JZCL 21:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Reasons for deleting #5: this redirect makes no sense. The putative connection between electronic game hoaxes and April Fools was not substantiated in the list article from which the redirect originated, nor is it mentioned in the target article, nor is it ever likely to be helpful or germane to draw a connection between the annual observances and publications that are not associated with the specific date. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RDELETE#D5: A video game hoax is not always an April Fools hoax. Esquivalience t 01:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since I created the redirect, can it just be speedily deleted? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 07:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since the only other edit to that redirect was a bit regargeting it I think it would be delete if you tagged it as G7.--69.157.253.102 (talk) 20:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to add it myself hopefully that will get things rolling,--69.157.253.102 (talk) 20:58, 4 May 2015 (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.

List of computer and video game hoaxes[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) 15:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like completely the wrong place to go if it should go anywhere at all. The word "game" doesn't even appear once in the article. JZCL 21:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Reasons for deleting #5: this redirect makes no sense. The putative connection between electronic game hoaxes and April Fools was not substantiated in the list article from which the redirect originated, nor is it mentioned in the target article, nor is it ever likely to be helpful or germane to draw a connection between the annual observances and publications that are not associated with the specific date. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as creator. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 18:36, 7 May 2015 (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.

Adam Johnson (South Carolina)[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) 15:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I could not figure out how anyone with this name was related to April Fools' Day.JZCL 21:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just to save others the research, it looks like none of the people listed at Adam Johnson have any connection to South Carolina. --BDD (talk) 20:54, 2 May 2015 (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.

Airline history links[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) 15:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, confusing. The target doesn't provide links to airline history, and it shouldn't per WP:LINKFARM. Tavix | Talk  17:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not sure about that. All airlines, not just defunct ones, have histories to them. If it were historical, that'd be a different story... Tavix | Talk  19:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And indeed if they were historic that would be a third, though the distinction seems to be being lost. Si Trew (talk) 14:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. They are links, they don't have to have "links" in their title, otherwise we would have every list article, DAB etc ending in "links". About the only time we ever use "links" regularly is in the "External links" sections of articles, and even that is just by convention: The French equivalent, back-translated, is "External articles", the Hungarian, "More (or Further) information", though the Spanish also says "External links", just as a random sample. Si Trew (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2015 (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.

Crap sandwich[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 both. Just Chilling (talk) 19:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you've seen This Is Spinal Tap, you may remember they had an album called Shark Sandwich which was panned in a two-word review: "Shit sandwich". Shit sandwich was once an article, was soundly deleted, and ended up as a soft Wiktionary redirect. I assume "crap sandwich" was meant as a euphemistic alternative, but it's not actually used in the film. Let's just delete this... mess. --BDD (talk) 15:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this bizarre gardening accident. Ivanvector (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as misleading (at best). It seems that these phrases are slang for things that are too horrible/incompetent that it's better to eat shit sandwiches than experience said things. --Lenticel (talk) 04:23, 6 May 2015 (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.

Soitenly![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 Curly Howard. This appears most closely associated with Curly, and is prominent enough to be in the lede of his article. --BDD (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why this redirect should redirect here much more than any other film/TV series with this New York dialect. JZCL 16:43, 24 April 2015 (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) 14:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In modern times it is most often associated with the Three Stooges (see EurekaLott's links) even though it may not have originated there or been inspired by the Marx Brothers. Many things in the Looney Tunes series were inspired by other well-known pop culture of the time (even its name comes from Silly Symphonies) and I believe this was one of them. Retargeting per EurekaLott is also not a bad idea, if that's where it's talked about. Ivanvector (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to Curly Howard, More than happy with the general line of reasoning. Declaration of non-interest, I have not seen The Three Stooges (though heard of them), so that gives me a certain neutrality! But the arguments presented here seem unasaillable, the only thing I think would be to decide whether to R to The Three Stooges or Curly Howard: And since the lede there mentions it (as EurekaLott says) and it is easy to jump from there to the article on the group in general, I think it is better to make it to the more-specific article. But happy with either. Si Trew (talk) 14:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Curly Howard Said this at least a few times every episode. It's his pronunciation that is the most well-known. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 18:32, 6 May 2015 (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.

Vc games[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 List of Virtual Console games. Deryck C. 19:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given that VC seems to be a bit of an ambiguous term, there's the potential that the reader could be WP:ASTONISH-ed when they arrive at this redirect's target. The phrase is not in the target article as an official name, and this could cause confusion. Steel1943 (talk) 20:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 06:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Video console would seem equally likely, so we could DAB it somehow (or hatnote) but I am not sure that would be any better than letting the search engine do it. Si Trew (talk) 07:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Am I mistaken as that is red. Weren't thinks like the Atari 2600 called "video consoles"? Si Trew (talk) 07:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to DAB at VCS. I think I am mistaken but we do have VCS as a DAB, for which the first section is "In Gaming", and its first entry is for the Atari VCS and the second for Video Computer System → Atari 2600. Declaration of interest: I programmed Atari 8-bits as a hobby for many years. Si Trew (talk) 07:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Virtual Console is not at that DAB but I'll add it if we have consensus here. Si Trew (talk) 08:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This seems too speculative. Where are you getting the S from? --BDD (talk) 17:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment added after relisting. I don't like to do so but to put it below I think would be more confusing. I agree, which is why I said "if we have consensus here", I was just saying really I don't mind doing so. DABs are there to DAB so if it were useful as a headword then I would add it. Obviously we haven't consensus yet but I can imagine it being a yes or no as part of the closing comments. Si Trew (talk) 14:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm leaning towards a weak keep here. I don't see any other gaming-related term at VC. --BDD (talk) 17:35, 28 April 2015 (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) 14:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just looked up "Vc games" via a rather popular search engine, and apparently, venture capital (accepted abbreviated version "VC") can be considered a "game" due to trying to "game the system", I guess. Steel1943 (talk) 15:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You must get different results from me (not sarcastic). I wouldn't think that venture capitalists are trying to game the system; almost the opposite in fact, in that they want to put in some seed money and it is (in my WP:POV just intelligenty betting that startup companies will grow: most don't but the few that do make them some money. That's not gaming the system, that is being part of the system. (And if it sounds like it, it shouldn't, because I've worked for VC startup companies and had a whale of a time doing so.) Gaming the system is a different thing, i.e. presumably the phrase comes from game theory via some circuitous route, where you see what the other person is doing and then act accordingly as if, usually, it were a zero-sum game. What VCs want is a win-win game because they then get continuous dividends and increases in share prices, so the last thing they want to do is game it. I am not an expert, but most psychologists say people play things as a zero sum game (win-lose game) i.e. if you are ahead I must be behind, when it is not true, we can both be ahead: we do that every day, in real life: you give me a pint of milk, which you have and I need, and I give you money, which I have and you need, and we are both better off. Si Trew (talk) 14:58, 4 May 2015 (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.

AA340[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 as ambiguous. Deryck C. 19:30, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unhelpful redirect, this is a flight number of a flight from Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport to Kansas City International Airport, which, nevertheless, is operated on a McDonnell Douglas MD-80 - TheChampionMan1234 05:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, but for a different reason than the nominator's rationale. The fact that this is a flight number doesn't matter unless there was a notable flight by that number (which isn't the case). However, I don't see any connection between "AA340" and Airbus. I figure if that was actually used as an abbreviation, there would be some hits, but I'm just not seeing it. Tavix | Talk  19:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but for a different reason than either.
We tend to reserve (if that's the right word) flight numbers for notable aircraft accidents. Now I do not want to tempt fate, but I think that tradition should continue. Flight numbers in themselves are not relevant (and are constantly changing as routes change etc so are not encylopaedic), WP:NOTDIRECTORY.
To give an example that may be relevant: yesterday I flew back from Madrid to Budapest and the flight number on the screens was different from that on my ticket (and not because of a code-sharing arrangement but simply a typing mistake I imagine): I checked because I am not an entire idiot but indeed it was the correct flight so I didn't end up in Dnepetropovsk or, even worse, Toronto. that is how inconsequential they are.
They are only notable when an accident happens when suddenly the media start calling it "KZ781" or whatever it might be so they sound intelligent when they know nothing. Si Trew (talk) 15:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as {{R from typo}}. A340 → Airbus A340 as it should (in the absence of ambiguity). The chances of someone using Wikipedia to look up flight numbers is slight, and if they do, they should be disabused of the fact they can, per WP:NOTDIRECTORY as I said. Si Trew (talk) 15:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Without prejudice to this discussion, I've marked it as {{R from typo}}, because it is right now. Si Trew (talk) 15:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per Tavix. I was initially leaning the way Si Trew came down, that it seems a logical enough abbreviation for the aircraft. But the fact that it's not commonly used and there's potential confusion makes me think this is better off red. --BDD (talk) 14:48, 8 May 2015 (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:1r[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 sadly, no consensus, default to keep. Deryck C. 20:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I came across the use of both the "1r" and "lr" templates in some articles in which they were tagged, and I simply couldn't tell which one was which. While one editor may find them useful, other editors who perform maintenance on such articles will find their use confusing and may have to perform a series a steps just to figure it out (oops, I cleaned up the bare URLs, but I removed the "one source" tag). Other editors could also mistakenly add the wrong tag to articles, simply because they've seen one or both of these in other articles or by copy-and-pasting the incorrect one to another article. This will add more work for themselves or for other editors who come across them and just add to the confusion. Because "lR" and "LR" are the same thing, I've added the capitalized redirect to the nomination as well. There are less confusing redirects that can be used to help out readers and editors in understanding the tags that are applied to such articles that might need them. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep -
  1. Per WP:R#KEEP, "If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do".
  2. The redirect was created weeks ago with dozens of uses to its name, so IMO the time has passed for changing the redirect without significant confusion. Alleged confusion is not very plausible at all. So absent evidence of any harm there is no reason to delete.
  3. "There seems to be no evidence of confusion, just conjecture on the part of nominator, and no argument grounded in WP:R. Laziness is the exact purpose of redirects, to be perfectly honest, and the creator of a useful redirect that saves one or two characters should be commended. We don't delete redirects based merely on conjecture. Someone obviously found these useful given they were created."
  4. "One of the lowest things one can do is steal another mans tools. So you have no use for it. That it's being used on [talk pages] is good enough, and there is zero reason to take away something that has no higher use. Such Nominators should be required to be the one to hand edit and remove any deleted tags."
  5. "Redirects are not only cheap but this is a redirect from and to template namespace. That would tend to indicate to me that anyone using it is an editor rather than a general reader and they are hardly likely to get it [confused]. There are lots of little abbreviated things pulled up over the years such as {{tlc}} or {{tlx}} or whatever as useful shorthand for editors."
--Jax 0677 (talk) 19:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with this statement in regards to {{Tlc}} and {{Tlx}} and how they pertain to this discussion is that they are the actual names of the templates, not redirects. For that reason, how this point relates to this discussion is like comparing apples to oranges. Steel1943 (talk) 04:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - By this same logic, if {{Tlc}} and {{Tlx}} are acceptable names for the templates, the redirects are also acceptable as they are. If not, these two redirects should be renamed. Per @Thryduulf:, "we also have the {{hat}} (not about hats), {{temp}} (not about temporary workers), {{link}} (not about chains, golf courses, an American singer, etc), {{user}} (not about drug, computer or telecommunication system users), {{admin}} (not about administrators), {{ill}} (not about illness), {{top}} (not about spinning tops or clothing), {{bottom}} (not about buttocks or the seabed), {{columns}} (not about architecture), {{reliable sources}} (not about publications, {{cleanup}} (not about cleaning), {{fiction}} (not about fiction), {{copyedit}} (not about copyediting), {{tone}} (not about literature, linguistics or music), {{neutrality}} (not about international relations), and many others". --Jax 0677 (talk) 05:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not only that, but copy pasting RfD's own policy into an argument is perhaps preaching to the converted... Si Trew (talk) 08:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Shortcuts in the template namespace are usually very ambiguous to a point where they are not helpful, and the nominator has made a good statement why; in the template namespace, if there is a shortcut used, the shortcut creator has to basically realize that the shortcut cannot mean anything other than its target, even if the other options don't exist as a template, given that new editors may think that the template shortcut will return a function that they think is possible, but has neither been created nor will ever be created. In addition, I can add these two examples to the nominated redirects' ambiguity: "1r" could mean "One redirect", and "LR" commonly means "Left right". Steel1943 (talk) 00:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - See my reply at "05:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)". --Jax 0677 (talk) 05:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I was on that line of thinking. LR commonly means left and right, and the "1", at least in my font (Courier ten point), looks extremely similar to a lowercase ell. I would have thought Template:Bidi_Class_(Unicode) as a possibility, but these can go as WP:RFD#D2, confusing, and WP:RFD#D5, makes no sense. Si Trew (talk) 08:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Template:LR, which matches WP:LR. Weak keep on the others. I do see the potential for confusion, but it's simply a fact of life that lowercase l and the number 1 look alike, or are even identical. Somehow we manage to survive. Since these aren't in mainspace, the matter is even less urgent. --BDD (talk) 15:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's true. Striking mine as a bit of WP:IDONTLIKEIT on my part, I think. Si Trew (talk) 07:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't even have a number 1 on my typewriter, I have to use a lowercase ell. When I started, all we had were ones and zeros, and sometimes we didn't even have ones. I built a whole database using only the number 1 and spaghetti hoops for the zeros. Si Trew (talk) 08:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - I agree, as the arial font is the most common font that I have seen used on Wikipedia. The "1" and "l" indeed look different in most fonts anyway, including the font that I am using now. --Jax 0677 (talk) 05:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So if it's useful to one it's acceptable, but if it's confusing to one, it doesn't matter? Something existing for weeks does not mean there is potential for confusion. It was only when I saw these being used in the same main space article that I could see there could be confusion because I was confused. Not everyone will have the fonts displayed significantly different. Interesting how the author's initial "copy and paste" response above has nothing to do with the argument being presented here. Not about usefulness, not about laziness, not about what other shortcut templates exist. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - I have struck through my error, as I meant to say that being used on articles is good enough. This seems like a case of WP:IDLI, and people can preview their work before they submit their changes. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:12, 25 March 2015 (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) 16:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - Templates {{1r}} and {{Lr}} [{{Lr}} does the same thing as {{lr}}] do not look similar to each other (nor do {{1R}} and {{LR}}). Regrettably in this case, Wikipedia does not acknowledge the case of the first letter of an article or template name. If these three redirects are only confusing to one person, then that is not such a good reason to delete these redirects. ASSUMING that we need to eliminate confusion in this case (which I do NOT think is necessary), we would only need to delete one of the lower case redirects ("lr" and "1r"), not both. AFAIK, there is no 1-2 character redirect for these targets. Additionally, WP:1R redirects to Wikipedia:Articles with a single source. Lastly, if a bot is changing {{lr}} to {{Cleanup-bare URLs}}, this does even more to eliminate confusion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:RFD#KEEP #5 (someone finds them useful). I had to look through this thread to figure out what the templates mean, but that doesn't mean that they aren't stunningly obvious to other users, and I'm not convinced that they're sufficiently harmful for that reason to warrant deletion. Ivanvector (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, confusing, since there are many meanings for LR. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete all, as mentioned, not an obvious shortcut due to multiple meanings for LR, with the most obvious listed in LR. Frietjes (talk) 18:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - There are a lot of template redirects with ambiguous names on Wikipedia, and there have been no higher uses mentioned for these redirects. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tavix | Talk  02:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per WP:RFD#KEEP #5. I stand by my comment quoted above about how being poentially misleading is not a deletion reason here. Thryduulf (talk) 09:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, certainly not in template space, where people who use templates patently are editors and should have to learn the ropes a bit, and like any long term project there will be some cruft that is just too hard to shift, so I tend to agree with your Keep all.
But more generally, in mainspace, think we do have to guess, and what a lot of intelligent and interesting people we have here at RfD who I think do an excellent job of guessing, I am sorry I let the side down. We must think "is this potentially misleading?" because although we have the stats we don't know how they got there and it may be "blocking" something else. Taking as read that we are here to direct people where they want to go, we must make those decisions intelligently but with almost nothing else but our own knowledge and external searches of course and our intelligence: that is what makes it fun.
For if not, if we relied on the stats, we would find that the stats for the current target are probably more than the states for any proposed target. If you say "potentially misleading" is not a reason to delete, (which it is not explicitly), then you are saying "look, it got this many hits so it must be useful".
The key statistic we do not have, and I can think of no way of getting it (and have said this before), is when someone goes through a redirect, lands on an unexpected target and immediately clicks back or searches again etc, how long did they stay at the target? That would be an incredibly useful statistic but I have no idea how or if we could gather that. If we found that somesuch R 85% of people were at the target for less than, say, five seconds, that would be a good indicator it was redirected to the wrong place. (Only an indicator.) Without that, we must kinda be clairvoyant, unfortunately, saying "What would I do?
Fortunately we have such a wide range of regulars here, I think we do a good job, on the whole. Si Trew (talk) 15:41, 4 May 2015 (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/2015_May_1&oldid=1166567111"