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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
No longer in the Astros system and in fact doesnt play for any team so redirect is not necessary for this non notable free agent minor leaguerSpanneraol (talk)22:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete - per Spanneraol, we don't really have a proper target for this player. PerWP:REDLINK: if the player plays in a major league game, someone will write an article about him.Ivanvector🍁 (talk)22:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete- I don't see why this is here, I don't think Rosalina is a real character anyway. SireWonton 17:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)— Precedingunsigned comment added bySireWonton (talk •contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete all - the only one of these that I thought might be a plausible search term (I don't remember which now) only got 5 hits last month. This mass of redirects obstructs legitimate plain-text searches for these words, or similar topics that start with "self-".Ivanvector🍁 (talk)15:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the redirects should be listed separate, for "deny"-variants should be listed separately as the target is "self-denial"; abnegate-forms should not be jumbled with the "sacrifice"-forms either. There are three sets of redirects here, based on the rootwords used, so there should be three discussions. --70.51.44.60 (talk)09:24, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll agree that "delete others by default" should be assumed with only those specifically mentioned being taken more care of by the closing admin. I am trying to find words to say that more concisely (perhaps I just have). To say "Delete all" is not quite right, since later editors might add to the list of exceptions.Si Trew (talk)12:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've split into three boxes, for a start, and therefore moved a few that were noten bloc. I may have missed a few. I'm not sure if it would be wise to s*lit into totally separate discussions, but would have no objection if it were.Si Trew (talk)12:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thanks, Si, that's a useful discussion.Self-abnegation has not been listed here; as such, previous consensus does not alter my !vote to delete these superfluous redirects. I am wondering whetherself-denial should be reverted to a dab page, the stub is taking two related words (altruism andabstinence) and writing out a concept article for them, when there's little evidence that that is even the primary topic for "self-denial" (see the other entriespreviously listed at the dab).Ivanvector🍁 (talk)15:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Comment:Legacypac, the excessive number of meaningless redirects by this editor is under review. SeeThis Incident for more info. It appears likely that there may be an automated bulk removal, so it may not worth your time dealing with this until things are resolved.Hydronium Hydroxide (talk)12:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly the word is we have to do them manually. As a non-Admin all I can do is bring the worst cases up for action. Various Admins are deleting them one by one, and not waiting out 7 days either. Speak if you see something truly useful.Legacypac (talk)13:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
We can't just delete these if they're potentially useful in hopes that someone will recreate them, that violates attribution rules. There's actually quite a few here that are potentially useful, because the target is reliably referred to by multiple names. At the low end, we shouldkeepcrystalism,crystalgazing,crystal seer,crystallomancer,crystal ball gazing,ball gazing andball-gazing. The rest seem to be unlikely modifications and should be deleted. With regard to the target's hatnotes, I don't think anyone is going to think thatBill Gazes' first name is ball, the cutting a woman in half magic trick isn't reliably referred to as "crystal saw", and "crystal see" is implausible nonsense.Ivanvector🍁 (talk)16:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A crystal saw seems to be a tool(?) used in the multi-player online adventure gameRuneScape, but no tools are mentioned at that article. I also get hits for a "crystal SAW" used inVainglory (video game), but I am not sure if that is a caps difference or an acronym. Perhaps ping a WikiProject for advice? I do not know which.Si Trew (talk)04:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: A redirect from a word to a synonym doesn't have enough creative content to be copyrightable subject-matter, and therefore the attribution rules needn't be a concern in connection with the ongoing clean-up. (Of course, that's not in any way meant to be a slight at editors who create useful redirects.)Newyorkbrad (talk)17:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion wasdelete most,keep the following:Double-glazingDouble-glazing,Double glazedDouble glazed, andDouble-glazedDouble-glazed. Please note that the other redirects mentioned as "keep" options were not, in fact, listed here. Perhaps they were before and someone delisted them. Please note also that many of the listed redirects were previously deleted by other administrators; check who deleted before you contact someone, as I'm taking no action on those that were red when I found them.
NO way is there a need for 398 redirects created in a row to one article. Is it a window fedish? Mass delete them and let any that are actually needed be recreated. Links found here[3]Legacypac (talk)08:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At the momentkeep because several of the redirects are entirely reasonable "must have" redirects, e.g. "Double glaze glass" and "{{no redirect|Triple glaze glass" while many of the remaining redirects are quite obscure but still related to the subject matter and none of them are misleading or in any way offensive. Granted, the effort used to create all those redirects is probably an overkill, but I see no compelling reason to spend even more effort in deleting them. In generalkeeping redirects is cheaper than deleting them. I was a bit concerned over the "{{no redirect|Sextuple glazed" redirects since the article only goes up to mentioningQuintuple glazingQuintuple glazing, but it appears that also six layer glass is available on the market.Sjakkalle(Check!)09:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are9,050 hits on a google search for "double glaze glass", and that phrasing is not new from Wikipedia. For articles, I wouldn't useWP:GOOGLEHITS as an argument, but for redirects, terms that have been used previously somewhere, including by dealers, are conceivably useful at very little cost. Among thedeletion criteria for redirects only #8 (a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name) seems relevant, and I don't consider this one "very obscure".Sjakkalle(Check!)07:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' those including "glazed windows",delete the others. "glazed glass" and "glazed glasses" are tautologous; "sextuple panes" is not meaningful (six panes). I've taken the liberty of formatting the list a bit, though I object to this mass listing as unhelpful.Si Trew (talk)
Keep "double glazing", "double pane", "triple glazing", "triple pane" as the 4 most likely redirects.Delete all others as improbable and unlikely redirects.epic genius (talk)15:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the redirects already identified by Ritchie333 and Epicgenius as potentially useful, delete the others. Important to note that Neelix is not a banned user, deleting his redirects and waiting for someone else to create them would violate attribution rules.Ivanvector🍁 (talk)15:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the problem in deleting them (after we have consensus), but if they are to be recreated I guess the right way would be to request that the page be restored. But if any re-creation of a page violates attribution rules, then why does the WikiMedia softwareever allow it? Presumably it is meant for when the new page is completely different from the old, but how is a non-admin to know the previous content until the deleted page is restored?Si Trew (talk)06:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with attribution would be that we're deliberately erasing one user's contributions knowing full well that someone else might recreate the same contributions. Restoring rather than recreating is fine (and proper) but that requires that someone wanting to create the redirect is aware that it was previously deleted.Ivanvector🍁 (talk)15:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I replied in the other discussion but this sub-thread deserves closure. I suppose you're right, the software even allows moves over pages that only have one edit (I think). Makes sense.Ivanvector🍁 (talk)18:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as identified by Ritchie333 and EpicGenius,Delete remainder. These redirects can actually make it harder to find information on the web. For example, the first 10 Google results for sextuple glaze contain seven "dictionary" entries largely scraped from these redirects, two anagram sites and at #5 one link to a web page that actually is about multiple-glazing, though it only mentions sextuple glaze in its headline, not the body, and is a promotional blog rather than a RS. BTW, there wasa previous RfD on these in 2012, closed partly on the procedural ground that most of the redirects hadn't been tagged for deletion. I suggest that if anyone seriously contemplates a similar close, they say so in good time for that chore to be completed. Links can also be found collated by target attoollabs:earwig-dev/neelix/targets.htmlNebY (talk)18:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I'm going to go pick up an extra-large coffee before I even try to parse this one. At a glance, there's a very large danger of me writing the discussion off as aWP:TRAINWRECK. Choo choo! --BDD (talk)15:19, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Keep the ones that say "nanotube",delete the others.
But I object to this manner of listing . It just duplicates readily-available information and causes other editors work to RELINK those redirects (and wade through ab unformatted block) if they actually want to make a considered decision based on links, stats, history, &c. If not, it might as well just be aWP:BOLD delete rather than be brought here. Also, we can't readily see that they have been deleted if they're not linked. I've taken the liberty of linking them all.Si Trew (talk)10:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I count five without the plurals. But I am not bothered whether the plurals are kept or deleted, though I made neither choice clear in my !vote.Si Trew (talk)04:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all the ones that do not say "nanotube" as they are highly biased. Many things have single walled variants that also have multiple walls, like storage flasks. --70.51.44.60 (talk)08:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Keep the ones that say "transmission", delete the others. But I object to this manner of listing. It just duplicates readily-available information and causes other editors work to RELINK those redirects (and wade through ab unformatted block) if they actually want to make a considered decision based on links, stats, history, &c. If not, it might as well just be aWP:BOLD delete rather than be brought here.Si Trew (talk)10:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Without prejudice, I've tagged those as{{R from other spelling}} or{{R from other punctuation}} or both. Partly this is just cos I like categorising Rs as I come across them, but also I'm hoping that either categorising them (or just by editing them at all) they'll disappear from the generated lists – I think the script that generates these Neelix lists works on whether the redirect has been edited at all since creation, which is good enough.Si Trew (talk)04:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I meant to point out that you listed the article as a redirect to keep. Doesn't matter, I'm being pedantic. Adjusted my !vote above.Ivanvector🍁 (talk)15:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete all the ones that do not have some form of stability in the term. 3-axes is unrelated to stability, indeed it is the bases of 3-D coordinates, so it is senseless for those without some 'stabilized' wording to redirect to the target --70.51.44.60 (talk)08:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Not just titties fascinate Neelix, but multi-headed things. Nominating 173 Redirects as a group entries at 26898 to 27071 found[6] and[7]. Nearly all point toPolycephaly, but a few to even stranger places. and all created in a row, not as people naturally found a use for them.. Someone already trashed a bunch more (see second link, scroll down)Legacypac (talk)06:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KeepSix Heads per Si but not its modifications;retargetfourhead toforehead as a plausible misspelling;delete all the rest. There's no need for these overly-detailed examples of the general topic especially because there's no mention of these specific conditions at the target.Ivanvector🍁 (talk)16:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Elsewhere classified hIV disease resulting in multiple diseases
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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Not sure what utility this redirect has. I got a total of 7 hits from Google, and not much help explaining what this means. The HIV article doesn't mention this and it seems vague (what does elsewhere mean?). Also, Ithink that isunusual caps for "HIV". --Tavix(talk)03:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Comment: Speedy deletion criteria would not technically be able to apply to this redirect since the title does not mirror its Commons target: at the end of the title, "jpg" vs "JPG".Steel1943 (talk)02:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Target exists at Commons, where I've created an equivalent re-direct. Ideally the actual file should probably be moved over the redirect, but not sure what policy on this was as it's mostly a cosmetic change.Sfan00 IMG (talk)13:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
