Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 April 26

• Move Magog (disambiguation) to Magog as there is no separate Magog article. If closing admin doesn't make the move, I'd recommend posting a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves. A similar Gog (disambiguation) page should be similarly renamed or merged with GOG, which is also a dab page. B.Wind (talk) 02:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Discussion of the move of Magog (disambiguation) is out of place here. This discussion is to determine the target of Magog. The (related) move discussion is taking place at Talk:Magog (disambiguation)— Preceding unsigned comment added by JHunterJ (talk • contribs) 11:16 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No, this is the place for discussion of the possible deletion of the redirect article. Discussion of an alternative to deletion when one is advocating not keeping the redirect but not deleting is most appropriate. The

WP:RM requested moves posting is an outgrowth of this discussion. B.Wind (talk) 03:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Do what B.Wind says. The two Biblical topics take precedence over everything else; unfortunately, there's no useful way to choose between the two of them for a target. Placing the dabpage here is the right choice. I also echo B.Wind's thoughts on the topic of "Gog". — Gavia immer (talk) 17:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Followup. Both Gog (disambiguation) and Magog (disambiguation) are now listed on WP:Requested moves. B.Wind (talk) 17:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The primary topic for an ambiguous word is not POV, even if the primary topic happens to be Biblical, reality-TV-based, an Obama supporter, or Icelandic. Talk took place appropriately on Talk:Magog last year. Some Google hit counts:

• "gog +and magog": 146K, 7 News, 1516 Books, 2320 Scholar
• magog -gog: 2.1M, 43 News, 1588 Books, 1870 Scholar

Depending on which flavor of Google search you give weight to, the primary topic could be Gog and Magog, with no POV-pushing (an inappropriate accusation for ambiguous redirect targeting). -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Google hit count, "depending on which flavor", supposedly "proving" that "Gog and Magog" supposedly has "more hits" than just "Magog", is utterly irrelevant for our purposes. You had to slice it a whole lot of different ways to get a result that favored you, then proclaim that the "primary article". Sorry, but what is of more relevance for our purpose is "what links here" to Magog. Almost everything linking to the redirect proves in SPADES that people who type simply "Magog" are thinking of one of the "Magogs", and NOT "Gog and Magog" - which happens to be an article that is usually crucial to someone's attempts to "prove" that everyone on the other side of the world (pick which side) is evil and should be immediately killed, but has always been badly written with little real information. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not move. The two Biblical topics are clearly the primary uses, but Magog (Bible) just reiterates some of the information already found at Gog and Magog. Magog should redirect to the main article, as it did before Til moved it without discussion via a revert war. The disambig page should be accessible from there. Til, I really don't appreciate your accusations, they do nothing to help your case.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, "Gog and Magog" is certainly NOT the "main article" for "Magog". That is your POV, and I have accused you of nothing except pushing that POV, which I think is a fair assessment given your response. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should read what

WP:3RR actually say before accusing others of breaking them. Disagreeing with you on what the primary topic is does not constitute a breach of the neutral point of view policy.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

But, that is your point-of-view that a New Testament topic is the >main article" for an Old Testament character, and yes you are pushing it. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of this is irrelevant to this discussion. This is the forum for determining if the redirect

WP:RfD (read top part of the page). B.Wind (talk) 01:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• All who are squabbling over this should realize that this is supposed to be a Discussion as to whether or not the
  WP:D#Disambiguation pages if you are disagreeing on the content of the dab page... and please take that argument elsewhere else. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 19:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete - as a cross-namespace redirect, this had some use, but as an article-space redirect it's entirely useless. Terraxos (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- Per Terraxos; though I'm unsure of the usefulness of this, even as a CNR.
  水女珊瑚15 01:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Cross-namespace redirects must be avoided. David Pro (talk) 13:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -Pete (talk) 18:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is styled 'WikipediA' in the logo, but it is still an unlikely search term.

• Weak keep. It's possible, even if a little unlikely, for some of the millions of people who visit Wikipedia to search for the article on Wikipedia, and they did not want to look through the whole site to look for alternate spellings, and search for "WikipediA" as in the logo, and if it's a red link, then they might decide there is no article on Wikipedia, and they might be too lazy to look at the boxes on the left and the bars on the top that say "Wikipedia". ~
  U) 18:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak keep - btw, I think this is a legacy of Wikipedia's earliest days, when titles had to have a capital letter somewhere AFTER the first letter in order to get them to link - as opposed to today's method of using [[ ]] !! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An unlikely search term, but still a very plausible one. FYI, the old link method was camelcase, meaning lowercase first, then uppercase, then lowercase (uUu or georgeWashington). --Cryptic C62 · Talk 13:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Redirects are cheap, different forms of capitalisation are usually kept because people might nudge the caps lock accidentaly.--Phoenix-wiki 14:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - No reason not to keep, typos happen. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 16:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not going to be used much, but it doesn't do any harm and it can be kept. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 17:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A reader who's not very familiar with English might read the logo as an intentional capitalization. Useful, inexpensive. -Pete (talk) 18:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Wiki/ (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links
  ) - No links, created due to a misunderstanding of the MediaWiki setup: 'wiki/ is the most popular page according to the stats'. That is true, but only because all pages begin .../wiki/

Change. Hi. I'm the one who created the original redirect, the one that pointed to the Main Page. I did this because numerous times I would type in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki\. It's an error, because my finger would hit the slash instead of the enter key. Considering the number of times I made that mistake, I thought that there could be the possibility that it could also happen to others. So that's why I set up the redirect. Sending it to

talk) 00:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep as-is I used this redirect once, I typed "wiki" then accidentaly hit the slash the key on the way over to enter. Deleting it offers no benefit, as it's still saved, just hidden, and it had helped some people. Redirects are cheap, so keep it.--Phoenix-wiki 14:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget both to Main Page. These are more likely catching a mistake in trying to reach the Main Page the short way (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/) rather than a mistaken attempt to reach the Wiki article. In any case, do not delete these - they are almost certainly very common mistakes. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget both per Gavia. -Pete (talk) 19:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't notable, doesn't need to be redirected as unlikely search term

• Keep. Honestly - somebody WILL search for British Rail Class 37 37025. SilkTork *^YES! 21:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. This is, at least, a preserved example of its class, and there might be something notable enough for an article to be built. The redirect doesn't hurt anyone, so it could stay, but I doubt anyone would really miss it.EdJogg (talk) 23:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it's a redirect from merge; it was originally a separate article. --
  Snigbrook ^(talk) 00:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• D ∧ D (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) - No links, special char. makes it an unlikely search term
• Dungeons ∧ Dragons (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) - See above
• 4e (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) - Could refer to many things, not relevant as far as I can see

None of the abbreviations seem likely search terms, and none of the terms are mentioned in the target article. No links.

• Keep but change target. I redirected Tanglefoot bags originally. Looking at my edit history it appears that there may have been a number of items on a Tanglefoot page which I redirected to their appropriate topics (
  Spells of Dungeons & Dragons. I suspect that if deleted, somebody will start one. Redirects tend to prevent that happening. SilkTork *^YES! 21:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete all. Sorry, but I don't see that there's anywhere relevant to redirect 'tanglefoot bags' too, and the others are just not useful. Terraxos (talk) 22:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all. Difficult to assess likelihood of searching without specialized knowledge;
  assuming good faith on part of creators, there may be a reason. (Not so sure on 4e, which definitely could mean a lot of things.) -Pete (talk) 18:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak keep 4e and do something sensible with it. I actually just used it as a search term, curious to see whether and how WP was covering the development and hype of the 4th edition of D&D. Since it might refer to multiple things, a disambig page might be appropriate. (A quick google search turns up topics in: leadership, various company names, and uses as an abbreviation for "4th Edition" in the context of a number of books.) On the other hand, the stupidly-common term "
  3e" used to refer to D&D 3rd Edition isn't and has never been created as an article or redirect, which is why it's a "weak" keep. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete all, especially the last one as "4e" is a generic abbreviation for Fourth Edition and should not point to an article for any specific product. B.Wind (talk) 02:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all but 4e. Per Pete, & as for 4e, a little too generic to lay claim. --mordicai. (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term, created by a page move, but the only inbound link comes from the talk page of the orginal creator when they were notified of the page move. JulesN Talk 08:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - possibly links existed before but were edited to bypass the redirect. The redirect itself is unlikely, but as redirects are cheap, no harm in keeping. Also, links exist in edit summaries, as here. Note the name of the account. I suspect they were trying to move it to something like Asgard (Childers). Also, type "Asgard Childers" in the search box. Previously, that took you to the article. Once the redirect is deleted, I think the same search will take you to a results screen with the article at the top of the results, as seen here. Not sure how widely accepted this method is, of using redirects for common searches. Carcharoth (talk) 09:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The name should be a redirect only if the Asgard was once named Asgard Childers as per
  WP:NC-S. Mjroots (talk) 12:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak keep. The article
  Asgard Childers and also changed incoming links to point to the new name. I moved it back again, and explained my reasons at User talk:ChildersFamily#Asgard.
  As noted above, links exist in edit summaries and in previous versions of other articles, and the "Asgard Childers" is also a likely search term, because this historic yacht (probably the most famous ship or boat in Irish history) is so closely associated with the Childers family. I see no reason whatsoever that the name "Asgard Childers" would ever be needed for any other purpose, so the redirect does no harm. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong keep Brown Haired Girl is too modest. No likelihood of a competing article, no way of knowing what external sites or offline documents might have linked to the article before it was moved. -Pete (talk) 18:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible nonsense, and a user page can't redir to an article. David Pro (talk) 21:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove the redirect. SilkTork *^YES! 21:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as useless and a misuse of user space. Terraxos (talk) 22:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a CNR and extremely useless and unlikely redirect.
  水女珊瑚15 01:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Close and move to MFD as this is a user page of an editor whose last edit was in 2006. In the interim, blanking the page should be sufficient. B.Wind (talk) 03:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep, userspace pages can redirect to article space pages, it's only the other way around that we
  avoid. -- Ned Scott 05:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]