Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 November 6
November 6[edit]
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 6, 2008
Monster House (2006 film → Monster House (film)[edit]
The result of the debate was Keep. Lenticel (talk) 23:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Implausible redirect due to typo (missing ending parenthesis). Speedy delete was declined. Correct version of redirect already exists. JaGatalk 06:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep because it helps to document the multi-step pagemove of the original content from this page to the final and corrected title. Redirects are automatically created by the pagemove process on purpose. There is no value to deleting them. Rossami (talk) 16:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. No sense whatsoever to keep a misspelled redirect.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep If the page creator made this mistake, it's certainly plausible that others may as well. I see no real reason to delete it. Firebat08 (talk) 23:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Gosh, what are the chances someone makes the same mistake? If we apply this as a standard we'll have millions of "redirect-by/for-mistake pages".--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- I suspect that you may be working from a fundamental misunderstanding of how deletion works at Wikipedia. Unless a redirect is actively harmful or confusing, there is essentially no value to deleting a redirect once it's been created. Deletion of a redirect frees up no server space, reduces no workload and saves no money. (In fact, to the extent that you care at all about the nearly trivial costs of server space, deletion actually takes slightly more because you've now added several extra records in the database.) None of us would ever advocate the preemptive creation of redirects for these kinds of mistakes. But once a redirect has been made, there is no value to deleting it. And when the redirect is the result of a non-vandalism pagemove, there is usually some value to the projects history in keeping it. So to answer your question, yes we do have many thousands of these "redirect by mistake" pages. I don't know if we're up to millions yet but we could be. And there's nothing wrong with that... Rossami (talk) 14:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- And I suspect you didn't get my point as your response seems to be not on my actual statement but rather on a misinterpretation of it and therefore, can we drop any further commenting on each other?.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 16:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- I suspect that you may be working from a fundamental misunderstanding of how deletion works at Wikipedia. Unless a redirect is actively harmful or confusing, there is essentially no value to deleting a redirect once it's been created. Deletion of a redirect frees up no server space, reduces no workload and saves no money. (In fact, to the extent that you care at all about the nearly trivial costs of server space, deletion actually takes slightly more because you've now added several extra records in the database.) None of us would ever advocate the preemptive creation of redirects for these kinds of mistakes. But once a redirect has been made, there is no value to deleting it. And when the redirect is the result of a non-vandalism pagemove, there is usually some value to the projects history in keeping it. So to answer your question, yes we do have many thousands of these "redirect by mistake" pages. I don't know if we're up to millions yet but we could be. And there's nothing wrong with that... Rossami (talk) 14:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Gosh, what are the chances someone makes the same mistake? If we apply this as a standard we'll have millions of "redirect-by/for-mistake pages".--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete i consider this a valid speedy deletion of an implausible redirect. specific spelling mistakes are one thing, generic punctuation slips of this nature or another. Indeed, it could happen, but there's no more reason for it here than anywhere else, and so the way to deal is to program the software so it automatically corrects missing ending parentheses. alternatively, automatically make a redirect for every possible such case. DGG (talk) 22:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as a very likely typographical error. People forget right parentheses all the time. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 20:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
President McCain → John McCain presidential campaign, 2008[edit]
The result of the debate was Delete. Lenticel (talk) 23:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Ill-advised redirect in first place (advertising ploy?), now rendered wrong and obselete by yesterday's election. No correct place to change redirect to; should be deleted. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- This is a prime example of why WP:CRYSTAL is important to the project. It should have been deleted back in February. So should President Obama (though that one is moot now). Rossami (talk) 03:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete and salt against potential recreation. WP:BEANS and all that... B.Wind (talk) 04:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete silly redirect. President Obama shouldn't have existed until election day either. --JaGatalk 06:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Retarget to Michael McCain. He is the president of Maple Leaf Foods after all! Ruslik (talk) 10:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. What else is there to say?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete This shouldn't have been here in the first place. Firebat08 (talk) 23:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Provides misleading verification. -DMurphy (talk) 03:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete No reason for this redirect to exist. Enigma message 15:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete this redirect. Or let's have a President Nader and President Paul and of course President Colbert redirects.... csloat (talk) 20:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)