August 28

Reba McEntire/Reba

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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion waskeep to preserve history of a merged article (non-admin close).B.Wind (talk)05:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Reba McEntire/Reba →Reba (links to redirect)

Unlikely that anyone would type the slash and redundant "Reba".Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat •^{(Many otters •One bat •One hammer)}20:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Caldorwards4 (talk)20:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the obvious reasons. As far as I can tell there was some content that got moved to a subpage but then the whole thing was an actual stub and then was used to preserve content?See below ~Amory(user •talk •contribs)23:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep to preserve edit history, unless someone wants to do ahistory merge. (Read the note at the top ofTalk:Reba (TV series)). I've added a{{R from merge}} tag for categorization for now. --œ^™03:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I tried to allude to that in my muddled explanation of a muddled history. I must have missed it - what in the history is particularly useful? ~Amory(user •talk •contribs)02:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Probably not, but I think the point was to comply with the various licenses..WP:GFDL,Creative Commons and whatnot --œ^™18:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there a reason then that it has/d to be preserved and a histmerge couldn't be done? AFAICT, the only overlapping dates are the two done as a result of this RfD. ~Amory(user •talk •contribs)14:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't know why a histmerge wasn't done but either way it will preserve the edit history. --œ^™22:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep exactly this reason is given at RELDEL or whatever the page is.RichFarmbrough,14:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep -- As per above. Keep the edit history. —mako๛20:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CE-25

• CE-25CE-25 →CE-20 (links to redirect)

Article appears to have been created at the title due to some confusion between the name of the engine (CE-20), and the stage that it is to be used on (C-25). I have moved it, and I'm not sure whether the old title is a plausible redirect or not, so I thought it should be listed here to allow discussion.GW…15:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but maybe point to the GLV page, unless someone makes it into a dab page for all the various CE-25s out there.RichFarmbrough,14:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep but change where it points if that's at all necessary or useful. —mako๛20:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ortolf von Trier

• Ortolf von Trier →Szczytno (links to redirect)

Suggest delete as only link is a circular one from Szczytno itself. I would prefer a red link there to show a real article needs to be written? Apologies if there are better ways to proceed.Jan1nad (talk)14:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per above. --Zach425 ^talk/contribs10:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

St marks school hong kong

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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion waskeep as a plausible search term (non-admin close).B.Wind (talk)02:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• St marks school hong kongSt marks school hong kong →St Marks school (Hong Kong) (links to redirect)

Unused pointless REDIR.PROD was removed on the basis that it's a plausible search term, but that's what the search engine's for. The REDIR's only useful if something links to it ~ nothing does.Bazj (talk)09:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It is a plausible search term, and redirects are not only useful when they are linked. They also help people to reach the article they are looking for without going through a search page.Jafeluv (talk)09:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not only a plausible search term but a much more likely search term than the article's title. Redirects are cheap and deletion causes more server load than keeping.TerriersFan (talk)21:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as above, as it's a good search term for the article. Redirects are not just for being linked to, Bazj, they prevent confusion by being common search terms. There's no reason to expect someone unfamiliar with the naming conventions to search for (Hong Kong); heck, I am and I'd still search for something like this redirect before the actual name. ~Amory(user •talk •contribs)23:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree with the above points, but in the 19 months from 12/2007 to 06/2009 there wereno hits for this search term. Therefore, it seems superfluous. --Zach425 ^talk/contribs10:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redundancy of a redirect is not a reason foreither keepingor deleting it, however. The fact that nobody appears to be using it could also be used to assert that the redirect is not doing any harm.147.70.242.54 (talk)16:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PAGE

• PAGEPAGE →Gel electrophoresis (links to redirect)

The title of this redirect is used as an example in theTemplate:Otheruses templates page and is linked to from many other templates unrelated to the target article. This causes confusion when people inadvertently get redirected toGel electrophoresis when clicking on an example link. AlsoPAGE1 andPAGE2 are in the same vein. Suggestsalting these titles,Like this.œ^™02:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the problem was dealt with by Rich Farmbrough with thisedit. Now we just need to watch thatPAGE1 andPAGE2 don't get created. --œ^™17:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Would it not be better to "fix" aka alter the template pages? I mean, its usage on those many templates is... regrettable, but at the end of the day PAGE does refer to electrophoresis. I just don't think we should prevent a useful redirect to content for the sake of a few confused clickers. ~Amory(user •talk •contribs)20:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

though it may be confusing, "PAGE" is a standard abbreviation for the technique and a very reasonable search term. DGG ( talk)20:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• How confused do people get?RichFarmbrough,14:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

heh, was that a rhetorical question? --œ^™20:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget toPage disambiguation page. This would be a redirect from alternate capitalisation.147.70.242.54 (talk)22:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and add hatnote toGel electrophoresis, e.g. {{redirect|PAGE||Page}}. --Zach425 ^talk/contribs10:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"PAGE" redirects here. For other uses, seePage.

• Keep per Zach425 above. It's a valid search term, and the reader is more likely to look for the electrophoresis article thanPage. The links from the template pages need to be fixed, though.Jafeluv (talk)10:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rose-Marie (1933 film)

• Rose-Marie (1933 film) →Rose Marie (operetta)#Subsequent adaptations, productions, parodies etc. (links to redirect)

A redirect with 1933 in the title is unnecessary; the firstRose-Marie film wasn't released until 1936. --Joseph Hewes (talk)08:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure. At the time I created this redirect, it was an apparently mistakenredlink on a disambiguation page.older ≠wiser14:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Bkonrad, I would suggest a speedy delete underG7. --Zach425 ^talk/contribs10:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete misleading/confusing title of a redirect. There was noRose-Marie motion picture released or filmed in 1933.B.Wind (talk)02:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]