Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 January 13

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

January 13

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 13, 2014.

Phthalo Records

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) 18:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Was a redirect to Phthalo, but the content there about this meaning of that term is not there. It was removed as non-notable corp, and instead set as a redirect to a notable other page with a similar name. I don't see a page anywhere with content about Phthalo Records. DMacks (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While Phthalo reasonably redirects to Phthalocyanine Blue BN, Phthalo Records is not mentioned there (as indeed User:DMacks already stated), and it is misleading so to redirect. In the absence of a reasonable retarget, it should be deleted. It was listed at List of record labels: I-Q, but only as Phthalo; that was obviously wrong, so I have changed it to Phthalo Records there, but that is not meant to preclude the discussion here. Si Trew (talk) 11:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have now gone through all the pages that linked to Phthalo, and they were in fact all music-related pages so I have piped them all (about half a dozen or so) through Phthalo Records. That makes it a lot clearer that, in fact, Phthalo Records sthould be a redlink (like a lot of other record labels are). Phthalo has no other science-related links and should also be deleted since it does not appear to be a common term; indeed Phthalo would be better as the name of the article describing Phthalo Records, were there to be one, since the What Links Here showed more use in that sense (both before and after I changed the pipes. I have not changed the pipes to obfuscate the issue, rather to clarify it; they wrongly linked to the chemistry article and needed fixing whatever the result of this RfD. Si Trew (talk) 11:28, 18 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.

Wadi_Feiran

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. While any editor is encouraged to create an article here, I won't do so myself, as an RfD comment doesn't quite meet WP:RS standards. --BDD (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion. Wadi Feiran is an area in the Sinai Peninsuela. Wadi Faran, according to its Wiki article, is a valley in Saudi Arabia. Jbfair728 (talk) 17:45, 13 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.

ALIAE: UK's Official Charts Company (OCC), OfficialCharts.com

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) 18:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really can't work out what "ALIAE:" is supposed to mean, and it seems incredibly counterintuitive to have one redirect being used for two different things. Why would an editor use this when they could just as easily use Official Charts Company or OfficialCharts.com? See also: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_January_8#ALIAE:_Love_.26_Girls.2C_Linguafranc. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • (edit conflict) Delete this is seriously implausible. "ALIAE" means "others" as part of the Latin phrase "et aliae" ("and others") which is used in English in the abbreviated for "et al". What on earth that has to do with the official chart's company I have been unable to establish. Even leaving out that bit, the way to include a link that uses text other than the title of the article is to use a pipe (see Help:Link#Wikilinks and Wikipedia:Piped link) and anyway Wikipedia's style does not allow the linking of entire sentences in this way. Thryduulf (talk) 14:10, 13 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.

Typo in the United States Constitution

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) 19:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There used to be a discussion of misspellings in the United States Constitution article, but there no longer is. As far as I can tell, the material is not in any of the child articles either so cannot be retargeted. It is now a pointless redirect which only serves to lead readers into believing they will find information on misspellings if they read the entire article when in fact they will just waste their time. SpinningSpark 10:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Separate nominations with identical rationales combined by Thryduulf (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What was the material about misspellings in the United States Constitution article? Perhaps it can be rescued and formed into its own article. bd2412 T 19:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
The material was inserted in this edit and removed in this edit (with the title changed to "original errata"), moving the material to United States Constitution as a civic religion. That article was subsequently prodded due to the material being merged into American civil religion in this diff. It was removed in this edit for being off topic (which by now it was). I have no opinion on whether or not it should be reinstated, but it sounds kind of trivial to me. SpinningSpark 00:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Armbrust The Homunculus 10:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust The Homunculus 10:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, begrudgingly (happy to hear other ideas). I'm guessing that the its/it's spelling should be covered somewhere on Wikipedia, but it isnt, and the article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Errors in the United States Constitution (which also mentioned this) was closed as delete. The Pensylvania isnt worth mentioning, as that wasn't a mispelling at the time; it would deserve only the smallest of textual criticism on the Wikisource page, and of course it has its own page at wikt:Pensylvania, attested to the US Constitution no less. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, the AFD closed as merge, not delete, and it is a merge that was carried out. It strikes me that the initial removal was an oversight, the material got accidentally caught up in another move. However, if no one is prepared to reinstate it (and that is an issue separate from this discussion) then there is no point in keeping the redirects. SpinningSpark 11:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    My apology; yes, it was closed as merge - thanks for correcting me. Has this been discussed at Talk:United States Constitution recently? If info about the typo can be reintroduced to the article, the redirect can be undeleted or recreated easily. Whilst it is not in the article, it is misdirecting readers and wasting their time as you said in the nomination. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know if it has been discussed at the article, I couldn't find anything relevant with a search of the archives. There was this discussion which at least shows editors were aware of the material. I have left a note on the talk page pointing here. SpinningSpark 16:25, 13 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.

INTRO:

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) 19:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CNR with a prefix that is not listed in the editing guideline WP:Shortcut. At the previous Rfd in 2011 the argument was that RfD shouldnt be setting policy, so it was kept with two keeps. Adding a new PNR should be done with community consensus. That hasnt happened. This prefix hasnt been proposed to be added to the list. In November 2013, these four redirects received 8, 6, 6 and 3 pageviews. That is 23 pageviews combined in a month, for this unapproved namespace. Help:PG and Help:Talk are shorter shortcuts. To make them even shorter, I've created H:PG and H:TALK. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. — Scott • talk 13:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the previous discussion. RfD is still the wrong place to discuss policy - while there is no consensus that the INFO: prefix is allowed there is also no consensus that it isn't. Importantly, there is also presently no policy that says only approved prefixes may be used (although there is a proposal to that effect, it is not yet policy and was not policy when these redirects were created). If you want to disallow all the INFO: prefixes and delete all the existing uses then you need to get a consensus to do that in the appropriate venue, which is not and never will be RfD. You are of course free to renominate these with individual rationales arguing why they should be deleted (for reasons that are not for violating a non-existent policy), and my recommendation is without prejudice to such a discussion, but that is not this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 14:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Shortcut#List of prefixes is an editing guideline. Sure it is a step below a policy, but it should be followed unless there is a good reason not to. You are advocating that this editing guideline be ignored, without much of a good reason. What is more, RfD is where proposed prefixes for PNR are rejected. c.f. NS:, Mos: and Cat: (lowercase), CSD:, BLP:. This INTRO: batch is hardly big and confusing. Three of these four INTRO: redirects go to the same target! Why split them? I have addressed each of them by showing how long the pageviews are for each of them. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thryd, this is not a policy discussion, even though you try to make it one. Four redirects are up for deletion because their prefix is not accepted. If you want INTRO: to mean something, make a proposal. -DePiep (talk) 07:46, 14 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.

Template soundtrack

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 CSD G7 John Vandenberg (chat) 04:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CNR created in August 2013. viewed 17 times in the last 90 days. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I created the redirect just for quick-access to the article. What's so wrong in that? Kailash29792 (talk) 06:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Soundtrack already points to the right target. You're saving one shift key press with your redirect. The problem is that "template" is a valid search term, and you're redirect is in the search results. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then please go ahead and delete. ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 02:33, 14 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.

Wp breakfast

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) 19:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This WikiProject was launched in April 2013, with all the usual WP:CNR and WP:PNR such as WP:BREAKFAST and WP:breakfast, and this 'Wp breakfast' redirect was created roughly at launch. Nobody deleted it, so Wp council and Wp wer were created by the same contributor in October and November 2013 respectively. Respectfully, 'Wp ' is a valid search term for valid topics, and WP: space redirects shouldnt be in the search results. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:56, 13 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.

Wikipedia:ASS

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. Additionally, editors are advised to forget not that I am an ass. --BDD (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the discussions about WP:FAG and WP:CUM I think this one is equally dubious, if not more so. I find the redirect's title is not very related to its target, and therefore is eligible for deletion under WP:R#DELETE, reason 5. Jinkinson talk to me 04:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2013_November_21#Wikipedia:Fag and Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2013_November_8#Wikipedia:CUM? There was also WP:FUGLY, but WP:UGLY hasnt been nominated as far as I can see. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@John Vandenberg: Yes I am referring to the discussions you mentioned above. While both of those redirects were kept, I think this one is sufficiently different in title from its target article that it should be deleted. Jinkinson talk to me 05:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as I was the creator of both article and redirect, I feel obliged to comment here. While I do not have any strong opinion about keeping or deleting the redirect, I find it fascinating that you have taken the time to bring this up for discussion when it obviously is humour, when the technical aspect of the redirect isn't controversial (not being a WP:CNR), when it doesn't hurt the project, when no other article lays claim to the redirect, and when the connection to the article title is quite obvious (Assume stupidity, pick two out of three s'es). – Elisson • T • C • 09:41, 13 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.

TPYES

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 Type. WJBscribe (talk) 22:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CNR created in April 2011. Shortcut WP:TPYES already exists. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your retarget suggestion admits that today that redirect does not exists, and is not needed. You are only inventing that need. -DePiep (talk) 09:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What a bizarre comment! I'm not inventing a need any more than every other suggestion to retarget a redirect is inventing a need! Thryduulf (talk) 11:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure otherstuffexists. -DePiep (talk) 17:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nom, with only moderate opposition to Thryduulf's proposal to retarget to Type. We already have Types as a plural redirect, but we do not have mispelling redirects for tpyes or tpye. If we are going to support a mispelling for 'tpyes', it should be using normal lowercase, and singular. Search/autocomplete terms/results are not case sensitive. If a reader puts 'TPYES' into the search bar, and sees a 'Tpyes' result, they will probably follow it. If a reader puts 'tpyes' into the search bar, and sees a 'TPYES' result, they are more likely to believe it is an acronym and not what they are looking for. If we have TPYES and tpyes redirects, those searches will generate two results, which is confusing. Therefore the only use-case where 'TPYES->Type' benefits a reader more than a 'tpyes->Type' redirect is if the reader literally type http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TPYES into the urlbar and press enter. I find that use-case to be quite bizare, and not worth the cost of having both TPYES and Tpyes. However, in general, I am less concerned about multiple mispelling redirects of varying cases, as they are not nearly as problematic as CNR. The search engine should merge them into one search result instead of two - the mediawiki search engine doesnt do that, but it could. I havent tested what google search does, as I dont know of multiple mainspace redirects with varying case. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are a great many ways people can search and browse Wikipedia, almost all of them do not give search suggestions and some are case sensitive. Exactly what cost are you talking about for the redirect? Thryduulf (talk) 10:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The only way I know to have a case sensitive browse of Wikipedia is by typing in the URL bar, which I mentioned. Search is not case sensitive. See Wikipedia:Search for confirmation of that. (I think the search result algorithm may favour uppercase, but the input can be in either upper or lowercase and the results will be the same). Is there any other that you know of? As for costs, I wont repeat the costs of CNR as you're not arguing to keep it as CNR. The costs of typo redirects are that they push other results down. The search engine doesnt read the {{R from}} block to determine priority. In this case, entering 'tpy' in the search box should show 'tpyo' as the third result, but this redirect pushes it to fourth spot. As I said, if this is a typo redirect, it has a lower cost and I'm less opposed to it. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • The order of entries in the search results is not guaranteed to be consistent, other than exact matches should be first. In addition to the URL bar, bookmarks and some third party tools are case sensitive. Thryduulf (talk) 22:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget As far as typo redirects go, Tpyes would be better, but as long as that's red, this would still work. --BDD (talk) 19:13, 22 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.

MOS:Common sense

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) 19:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The target is commonly considered to be a Manual of Style page, as is expected by editing guideline WP:Shortcut for WP:PNR starting with 'MOS:'. Created in Feb 2013. No incoming links. Plenty of other shortcuts for this section of the target page. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add: I doubt "common sense" (reasoning) should link to "IAR" (editing) at all. They are not equal, and "use common sense" is used in many more guideline & policy places. -DePiep (talk) 09:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree with the deletion, but to say this has "no XNR prefix" is just wrong. Any redirect that starts with a short sequence of letters followed by a colon and which points to a different namespace has an XNR prefix and "MOS:" is a widely used and accepted prefix for manual of style pages (WP: and WT: are namespace aliases and so redirects using them are not cross-namespace). (So regardless of the fact that this redirect is wrongly targetted to a page that is not a MOS guideline, and there isn't a suitable page in the MOS to point it to, it does have an extant and valid PNR prefix. The problem is only the target not the structure of the redirect - if there was a manual of style page about common sense then this would be a correct redirect to it. Thryduulf (talk) 13:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but can only assume that DePiep means the MOS prefix isnt being used for a MOS page, thereby meaning it is not following the guideline WP:Shortcut, and thus isnt a (valid) prefix for a PNR. That is just my reading of it. Fwiw, this redirect is the only one which isnt style-related. OTOH, There are four other sets of MOS shortcuts which point to style-related pages in WikiProject space, which seems reasonable so I have listed at them at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#MOS outside the MOS for discussion by people who have a better idea whether this is desirable or not. If it is, the guideline will need to be updated to indicate the MOS: shortcut is also used for style guidelines hosted by WikiProjects. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As John writes: MOS: is for MOS pseudo-ns, so should lead to MOS. Current target is heavily misleading. That the characters are also used as a valid pseudo-ns prefix and so is "correct" is quibbling by Thryduulf. -DePiep (talk) 08:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And, of course, not any redirect with such a prefix is a valid namespace (so even less an XNR or shortcut ns). As I had to asked Paine Ellworth on various places repeatedly, in vain: where is that defined? -DePiep (talk) 08:53, 15 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.

English Wikipedia Internal Account Creation Interface

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) 19:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Putting "English Wikipedia" in the search bar is an unlikely way for a newbie to find information about Wikipedia, but if they did, they will see four results offered: English Wikipedia, English Wikipedia blackout, "English Wikipedia Internal...ccount Creation Interfac" and English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee. In that order. yes, a encyclopedic article is placed after a redirect to Wikipedia space. No harm in CNR, yea? (sarcasm alert) This redirect is just an attractive nuisance IMO. If we need this redirect to boost editor numbers, we're in serious trouble. The redirect was kept after user:Mhiji nominated it for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2011_January_9#English_Wikipedia_Internal_Account_Creation_Interface, based on two keep votes by user:Rossami and user:Eraserhead1. user:Eraserhead1 said their reason for keeping was as it (and many other listed on that page) was the same as Wikipedia neutral pov, which has been deleted, as were almost every other redirect that Eraserhead1 voted to keep (to be fair tho, Eraserhead1 also voted delete on some at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 January 9, and they were also deleted ;-)). All in all, time for another test of consensus me thinks. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:44, 13 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.

Notenglish

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) 19:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CNR created in 2004 by retired user:Duncharris. It was recently categorised by user:Wbm1058 in December. No significant history except what is described on this RfD. Not one incoming link in nine (9) years, and surprisingly few pageviews per month (except in December) for a mainspace redirect that is this old. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Google Web search for link:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notenglish turned up nothing; likewise for link:"en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Notenglish" — but by replacing "Notenglish" with "Main_Page" I see 4450 and 9 results, respectively. I do realise that the Google index is not comprehensive. —rybec 23:12, 14 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.

Mos:saint

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) 19:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CNR using 'Mos:' when the page already has MOS:SAINTS. Both created in Feb 2013. Fwiw, naming conventions pages are typically part of MOS, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Honorific prefixes does refer the reader to this target for naming of clergy bios. As there is no MOS:SAINT, I suggest moving this redirect to MOS:SAINT, without leaving a redirect, thereby keeping the history. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noteworthy observations. -DePiep (talk) 08:04, 14 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.

Naming conventions (clergy)

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) 19:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CNR polluting search results. "naming convention" has seven (7) hits including this one. Target has shortcut WP:NCCL. I've fixed the eight incoming links[5]. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:12, 13 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.

NavFrame

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) 19:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CNR to a template coding help page, where that template coding method has been deprecated since September 2007. The redirect was created in May 2011 by a user with 46 edits, and they copied the target page. It looks like a test edit more than anything else, and should have been deleted under WP:CSD#G2, and several other CSDs given it was dumped into article space. The target has shortcut WP:NAVFRAME. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:02, 13 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.

ENGVAR

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) 19:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CNR without appropriate prefix per guideline WP:Shortcut, created June 2013. MOS:ENGVAR already exists. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:53, 13 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.

Mos:co

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) 19:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CNR from 'Mos:' instead of the existing MOS:CO which follows guideline WP:Shortcut and points to the same target section. Created in September 2013. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:48, 13 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.

NUM:MOS

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) 19:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CNR from prefix not listed on guideline WP:Shortcut, created in May 2012. Target has shortcut MOS:NUM, which does follow naming convention. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. — Scott • talk 13:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Before making any decision, it would be useful to answer two questions: 1) is it useful? and 2) does it make any harm? NUM:MOS is an anagram for MOS:NUM and as such it is a plausible mistake user may do. I myself typed accidentally NUM:MOS instead of MOS:NUM in the search field. I don't think that I am so unique person that nobody else does not make the similar mistake. Learning from my own mistake was a reason behind creating this redirect. So, this redirect is certainly useful as plausible mistake. For the second question, I don't see any harm this redirect does. It does not redirect to the incorrect page, it is not vandalism etc. So, taking account these two answers and also the principle that user-friendliness should prevail over formal arguments, I think that this redirect should be kept. Beagel (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beagel: The immediate harm is that NUM:MOS is a WP:CNR. It is in mainspace. It pollutes search results. Go to Special:Search and search for 'num'. Better yet, download a few mobile Wikipedia apps and search for num in those apps. A search for 'num' places NUM:MOS at position 13, in front of more useful search results like Num Tok Mhu. Also included in the search/autocomplete results for 'num' is MOS:NUM, MoS:NUM and MOS:Num. Four results are to a manual of style page. This pushes other valid results like Num. R. (redirect to Numbers Rabbah) further down the list and off the first page of results. This redirect typically receives one or two hits per month. I doubt those hits are people making this mistake; more likely they are people wondering what the heck this is doing in their search results. But even if we assume that there are one or two Wikipedians making this mistake per month, this redirect preferences those Wikipedians over people searching with the three letter combination 'num'. The bigger long term harm is that if this redirect is kept, the same argument can be made for DATE:MOS, CAPS:MOS, LINK:MOS and hundreds of other MOS:* redirects. Currently your redirect is the only one. But why should 'NUM' be the only mistake we support? Once deleted, if someone types NUM:MOS into the URL, they will be shown a deletion log message which should point them in the right direction. Google and MediaWiki searches both present "MOS:NUM" as the second results for a search for "NUM:MOS". If this redirect is deleted, searches for "NUM:MOS" will result in "MOS:NUM" being the first result. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
re Beagel: an anagram is helpful as a shortcut? Really? -DePiep (talk) 07:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if it is a plausible mistake users may do. Beagel (talk) 15:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not in shortcut naming, shortcuts don't serve typo variants. The "plausible typo" idea exists for within-mainspace redirects. -DePiep (talk) 09:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
re PE: shortcuts don't serve typos (wikiwide). The accessability reason with "plausible typo" in mainspace exists for in-mainspace searches & redirects. And let's not forget that this pagename is polluting mainspace. -DePiep (talk) 09:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some people are into that kind of thing. I consider it to be a grave moral disorder. — Scott • talk 14:29, 15 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.

Medmos

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) 19:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CNR not following guideline at WP:Shortcut. Target has shortcut MOS:MED. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:18, 13 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.

Manual of Style (mathematics)

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) 19:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CNR without the appropriate prefix. It was created in 2005, probably before there was much clarity about appropriate prefixes and the like. It appears in the search results for 'manual of style', which should contain only manual of style and redirects Manual of Style for Technical Publications, but also includes this nominated redirect and the now deleted Manual of style register (deleted two days ago, but lingering in the search cache) as the result of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 January 4#Manual of style register. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:17, 13 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.

Terms should only be wikilinked once

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) 19:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Manual of Style WP:CNR created in 2011 without a prefix. They have a shortcut WP:OVERLINK and WP:REPEATLINK. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:05, 13 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.

WPMOS

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) 19:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CNR without a colon created in December 2012. WP:MOS already exists. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:00, 13 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.

MOSS:SECTION HEAD

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 Speedily deleted under R3 under G7. Since this is 100% unused (outside of the two wikilinks created by this TfD nom) and obviously a simple misspelling, its deletion seems entirely uncontroversial. about 20 months is arguably "recent" but the concept of recentism is highly subjective anyways. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect prefix for WP:CNR; created in April 2012. WP:Shortcut says it should be MOS:. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:58, 13 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.

List of editors

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) 19:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CNR created in December 2012. The word 'editors' should not be misused this way in mainspace. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:53, 13 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.

MOS:USERGENERATED

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) 19:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The original target of this shortcut (created March 2011 by admin user:nightscream) was the same as the shortcut WP:USERGENERATED, that being Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Self-published_sources_(online_and_paper). That target is not part of the Manual of Style. In November 2013 user:Paine Ellsworth retargetted it to Wikipedia:User pages. That is even further away from a MOS page. I believe it should be deleted, as it has never been an appropriate MOS: PNR, which the guideline WP:Shortcut says should point to Manual of Style pages. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:45, 13 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.

Self-published sources (online and paper)

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) 19:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This WP:CNR was created in August 2011. A search for "self-publish" in the search box has two results offered to the reader: self-publishing and then this redirect which is displayed as "self-published sourc...(online and paper)" and redirects the user to Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Self-published sources (online and paper). There should only be one search result, so the reader does not need to consider which one they should pick: the encyclopedic article. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:38, 13 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/2014_January_13&oldid=1140678529"