Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 July 6

superfluous redir dwboston 23:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Redirect created by editor who has been inactive for four (4) years; unavailable to defend suspect redirect. --Aarktica 00:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There's no point in having such redirect as it doesn't add anything to wikipedia. -- Loukinho 03:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Redirect makes no sense. No-one is likely to spell her name that way. There is nothing of any value in the history under the redirect, that I could see. EdJohnston 20:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Who'd do such a search – and the file history just consists of a most obvious copy vio. --Watsimous 06:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- an extremely unlikely typo I don't see how anyone could mistakenly add a 2 to the end of Christina Aguilera Gudeldar 15:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad confusion: This redirection cruelly misleads the reader to suppose coming to a page WITH NO graphic pictures. -- Watsimous 17:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Bad idea to begin with. Should have been deleted rather than swept under the rug, so to speak. --- RockMFR 19:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Mislead the reader and plus there's no point in doing such redirect. -- Loukinho 23:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. In the history under the redirect, there is an attempt to create such a no-pictures version. Does not seem worthwhile, and the redirect should be deleted. EdJohnston 20:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My very old mistake, seldom use misspelling Matthew_hk tc 16:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per nominator. --Aarktica 00:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Originally {{

• Keep. Puppis is Latin for poop deck as stated at the target article. A quick search of Google[1] shows it being referred to as Puppis the Poop. A quick look at the creator's account shows he's not a vandal. -- JLaTondre 11:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per JLT. --DodgerOfZion 18:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per JLT. It seems that Pup is also an abbreviation in use by astronomers, listed in the Puppis infobox, and it continues to exist as a DAB item at Pup. Everything just mentioned is correct and ought to be kept. EdJohnston 20:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per JLT. Having done my bit on reverting to vandalism to Puppis, I can see the logic in the nomination, but this is a legitimate redirect. See Argo Navis FlowerpotmaN·(t) 20:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dead redirect to article speedy deleted as copyvio Gordonofcartoon 13:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Target non existent. Bendž|Ť 14:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CSD R3 if it hadn't been created in 2003. - ∅ (∅), 23:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And there appears to be a history. - ∅ (∅), 23:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Redirects are cheap, and {{R from misspelling}} --Aarktica 01:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, {{
  R from alternate capitalisation}}. BigNate37_(T) 03:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. There are several redirects like that and all of them comply with WP:Redirect. --Loukinho 03:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- note "preist". - ∅ (∅), 21:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, delete. A typo and mis-cap together are highly unlikely and the number of combinations of such are prohibitive; we should not have redirects for all of them and they are unlikely enough individually that we should not have any of them. Mis-capitalization is fine; we don't need to create every capitalization combination since the search function is flexible, but the mis-capped redirects that exist should be hit with {{
    R from alternate capitalisation}} and left alone. Likewise for simple misspellings, with {{R from misspelling}}. However, this one has more than one independent mistake; too unlikely for my tastes. BigNate37_(T) 01:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete per BigNate37. The possible string of mistakes is too unlikely.There is a history under the redirect but it seems to contain nothing of value. EdJohnston 20:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Aarktica. TomTheHand 21:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Very weak keep: it is an unlikely string of mistakes, but not a completely implausible one, and redirects are cheap. This is, I think, one of the borderline cases that is neither good enough to justify its creation nor bad enough to justify its deletion. Xtifr _tälk 11:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]