August 7

Polkovnik savovo →Polkovnik Savovo

This was created when the place name Savovo was correctly capitalised in 2007. I say we don't need this redirect any more.De728631 (talk)

• Keep first because it helps to document the pagemove to the correct capitalization and second because redirects to support alternate or mistaken capitalization are routine. The new search engine is capitalization-neutral but our wikilinks and other forms of navigation are not.Rossami(talk)16:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Someone might accidentally type it in with the lowercase S, plus it documents the pagemove as stated above.Ten Pound Hammer and his otters •^{(Broken clamshells •Otter chirps •HELP)}23:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, perfectly useful. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello!05:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ian manson →Mr Blobby

User:EarlyBird appears to have made a handful of joke redirects in April 2007. Ian Manson has no relation toMr Blobby, or evenNoel's House Party. He also (confusingly) created:

1. Ian Manson →Socrates

On the same day he also made:

1. Thomas Manson →Marilyn Manson (which now redirects toPob's Programme
2. Celia Meade →Cilla Black (which now redirects toTina Turner

None of these make sense to me. Nor can I see how they can be made in to something useful. I hope its OK to lump these all in to one report.THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk)06:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I saw the Socrates redirect too back in June and askedUser:EarlyBird about it, but never got a reply (and forgot to do anything about it myself - sorry!). I don't think the creator had a good reason for these redirects, and I think they should go.Gonzonoir (talk)19:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, unless some explanation is provided for them. These redirects have the sense of vandalism about them to me; but even if they were created in good faith, we shouldn't keep them unless there is a reason to do so.Terraxos (talk)03:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not Applicable →Na

This page links to theNa disambiguation page, on which the only relevant information is:

• n/a or N/A, short fornot available ornot applicable, used to indicate the deliberate omission of information

This seems to me to be just another excuse for people to link to an irrelevant disambiguation page, nothing links here ATM (I just removed the only 4 or 5 links)Playclever (talk)20:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• comment what about making it a soft redirect to Wiktionary? --Ned Scott07:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I agree, I hadn't seen this done before.Playclever (talk)11:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, exceptNot Applicable isn't in Wiktionary.n/a is, but suffers the same problem as this linkPlayclever (talk)14:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete perWP:WINAD. Normally, I would agree that a soft-redirect to wiktionary would be the cleanest solution. But in this case, thebest definition they have merely reads "not applicable" - the definition is self-evident. There is no history that needs to be preserved behind this redirect.Rossami(talk)21:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: There are a huge number of irrelevant inbound links ton/a (and its capitalization variants). After a little digging, it appears that they are all being created because of sloppy wiki-code by the creators of a number of templates. For example, someone creates a template for each station along a particular rail line and sets the template to conveniently link the stations one stop north and south respectively. When the station in question is the end terminal, users tend to put in "n/a". Rather than suppressing the wikilink, the template just creates it. In this case, a redlink would be vastly more helpful to our editors as an indicator of the templates that need to be fixed.Rossami(talk)21:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]