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 is preserved as an archive of the discussion.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).
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 is preserved as an archive of the discussion.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).
List of Some Japanese secret agents(1930s to ww2 period)
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, and don't move redirect as the new title is completely different to the original, better to just wipe as the page history is not worth finaggling to maintain, plus unideal viaWP:MOVEREDIRECT.Utopes(talk /cont)06:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.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).
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 is preserved as an archive of the discussion.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).
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,Sentiz (talk·contribs) is the creator as that was the original title of the article. PerWP:G7,for redirects created as a result of a page move, the mover must also have been the only substantive contributor to the pages before the move. --Tavix(talk)03:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.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).
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 is preserved as an archive of the discussion.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).
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: I see that I created it, with edit summaryseems silly but i did click a link to it from outside. Now I wish I had mentioned where I found that link.—Tamfang (talk)21:22, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.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).
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 It is linked from the creator's userpage:User:Teeninvestor. Might be worth preserving just so anyone browsing their page doesnt think the page itself got deleted. However, he has not edited for fourteen years, so those people would be few.—Soap—21:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that is a concern, the path forward would be to update the link on the user page to reflect the article's current name, but that's probably not necessary since readers can see the logs if this redirect gets deleted, see that the page got moved, and follow that paper trail.Steel1943 (talk)21:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perWP:RFD#KEEP point 4, as the redirect is longstanding and the article was formerly at this title. The redirect does no harm, and keeping it reduces the risk of breaking incoming links from other websites. —Mx. Granger (talk·contribs)01:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I wouldn't consider a 2009WP:RDAB redirect to be given old-age immunity. Making an error that long ago I don't think equates to keeping forever; could be worth just updating the links as no context is affected.Utopes(talk /cont)23:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Commenting that I'm opposed to a move to a completely different year range than what currently is in this RDAB situation, as that's doing more than just adding a space. The remaining history does not need to be obscured in this way; better to show it no longer exists through deletion.Utopes(talk /cont)00:53, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.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).
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 is preserved as an archive of the discussion.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).
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 is preserved as an archive of the discussion.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).
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.
Somehow I didn't notice that article. It is in a very poor state, but now I'm inclined to support a retarget to it. I have amended my nomination accordingly.Dsuke1998AEOS (talk)22:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.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).
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 the primary topic on Google for this phrase is a single by Brian Eldredge. The only person of that name mentioned on Wikipedia is an English bell founder who (assuming they are the same person as Bryan Eldredge) died in 1640.Thryduulf (talk)17:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, a small single album with four songs released in 2005.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.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).
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.
It's not a redirect created by moved from the draft article to the main article, it's just a redirect created by an IP user. Also, I think this draft article was redirected to wrong article.Hajoon0102💬14:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.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).
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 WP:XY norm. The talk page comment by Pinball22 justifying the BLAR is a good argument for deletion despite history. ―Synpath23:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the lede:Anatomy andphysiology, which study the structure and function of organisms and their parts respectively, make a natural pair of related disciplines, and are often studied together. I'm not opposed to retargeting, but am definitely opposed to deletion. --Tavix(talk)22:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tavix orretarget toMorphology (biology). I think the lead at Anatomy is slightly clearer for someone using this search term than Morphology (biology) is, but there isn't that much in it. I oppose deletion, as it is very plausible people will be searching these terms together.Thryduulf (talk)10:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we have distinct articles on the two topics. I appreciate Tavix's !vote and no doubt they are correct, but being closely related does not overcome the fact that they are nevertheless distinct. It also seems like an unlikely search term - people can search for these topics separately as needed.‡ El cid, el campeadortalk17:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being closely related enough that they are often studied togetherdoes make this a likely search term, especially amongst students who may be interested in how they intersect. Because there is information on this, I see no reason not to direct searchers directly to that information. --Tavix(talk)18:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence of the page views (often over 100 a month, occasionally over 200) strongly suggests that this is a plausible search term. Just because two things can be searched separately does not mean that everybody does search for the separately or that there is no value in searching for them together. Especially when we have information about both topics in one article, as we do here, we best serve our readers by taking them to the content they are looking for.Thryduulf (talk)12:35, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.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).
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 can find absolutely no connection between "SQ/200" and anybody or anything called "Rubius" outside of Wikipedia, even then only this redirect. The article was created at this title, but it was only here for about 10 days in 2007.Thryduulf (talk)12:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.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).
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 need for a redirect with "Mr." in the title, and COSTLY tells us we should not keep redirects like this which could be added for all bios. Mohammed Ahmed Al-Odaini without the title redirects to same target.‡ El cid, el campeadortalk16:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as harmless. We shouldn't routinely create these sorts of redirects, but deleting them once they have been created is pointless at best and harmful at worst (someone found it useful to create, there may be external links).Thryduulf (talk)20:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that someone used "Mr." is far more likely to signify a basic misunderstanding of naming conventions than it is to signify any usefulness. There may be external links to -any- redirect, that is not a basis to keep a redirect without more. And it is not harmless, because someone seeing these redirects may very well assume it is normal and create similar redirects. We do not redirects atMr. Joe Biden orMr. Napoleon Bonaparte for a reason.‡ El cid, el campeadortalk21:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If someone creates similar redirects, and something thinks the effort of nominating them here is a good use of their and other editors' time (hint: it really isn't) then I will recommend keeping them for the exact same reason as this one: they will be harmless and we don't redirects unless they are actively harmful in some way.Thryduulf (talk)01:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects which do not provide any help to readers either for navigation or otherwise have no reason to exist. Maybe I'm an idiot for nominating these, but I still maintain they serve no purpose. With that being said, we are all entitled to our opinions and I acknowledge yours. Cheers‡ El cid, el campeadortalk22:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Ironically, there is in fact a redirect calledMr. Biden, but I digress on that. I do actually have aquestion though forUser:El cid, el campeador, because I do agree with the general sentiment (that unnecessary prefixes aren't particularly useful redirects). I was scrolling through the list of redircts that start with "Mr", and it seems like these do pop up quite a bit, seemingly for random (and non-random) people, with this being one of such possibly "random" examples.
@Utopes: - honestly, there was and RFD for Mr Devil, and I wanted to see if there were redirects for other religious topics likeMr. Jesus (there is but not the religious figure),Mr. Buddha, andMr. Muhammed. When I started typing in Mr. Muhammed I saw all the other pages starting with Mr. M and decided to nominate them. Just random chance, really. I am of the opinion that none of these pages should be kept unless there is a specific reason that person is addressed as 'Mr.'.‡ El cid, el campeadortalk02:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All good, that makes sense as well for this RfD. I was just curious if the reasoning had anything to do with "this person absolutely doesn't go by Mr" which would make it a higher need for deletion compared to the others, but if this is just a guy without any affinity towards being called a "Mr", probably good toweak delete this.Utopes(talk /cont)02:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I search for pages starting with "Mr.", I get 2629 redirects. I picked 5 of them randomly (Mr. Amit Bando,Mr. Brodie Lee,Mr. E. Blackadder,Mr. Edward Roger Carney,Mr. John Trail) and found that the prefix of Mr. made sense in 4 of them. Mr. Amit Bando appears to be a case similar to the nomination. If someone shows me that most of the 2629 redirects are similarly erroneously created, with the creator unaware of titling conventions at the time, then I can let it go as a timesink exercise. Otherwise, I'm good withdeleting these redirects that are harmful by cluttering the search. Jay 💬09:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.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).
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 need for a redirect with "Mr." in the title, and COSTLY tells us we should not keep redirects like this which could be added for all bios. Page was originally misnamed and this is apparently the leftover redirect. Should be purged.‡ El cid, el campeadortalk16:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as harmless. We shouldn't routinely create these sorts of redirects, but deleting them once they have been created is pointless at best and harmful at worst (someone found it useful to create, there may be external links).Thryduulf (talk)20:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Furthercomment, was pondering what to do about these discussions (I'm replying on this thread, but this still refers to the Mr above and the Mr below), but I do think a no-consensus is a fair outcome of this. Mainly because, and what's been bothering me slightly about these noms (nobody's fault), is that they're more so a single representative of a greater problem that hasn't been acted on, i.e. whether or not "Mr" redirects are useful and necessary. Do I think these redirects should be deleted? Probably. But does this discussion really push the needle one way or another? Not really, because this is just one instance of a bigger picture of person redirects containing prefixes, which have an enormous amount of variation in usefulness. In my opinion no consensus could be a fine close for that reason, and can be brought back later with a recontextualized scope. In the meantime there's not a lot to be gained or lost from keeping or deleting one of these redirects as it stands, probably the most indifferent I've felt towards a redirect that I acknowledge probably shouldn't exist (as being both unlikely to type and a bad precedent, worthless to maintain and etc), but don't really feel strongly about due to this being one of hundreds 😅.Utopes(talk /cont)06:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.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).
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 as harmless. We shouldn't routinely create these sorts of redirects, but deleting them once they have been created is pointless at best and harmful at worst (someone found it useful to create, there may be external links).Thryduulf (talk)20:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, they are not harmless, because somebody will see some of them and think that all the missing Mr/Mrs/Mz/Ms (with and without fullstops) need to be added. That's a lot of data being used for something which could be considered bordering on vandalism. Let's rid WP of bad examples and practices.Richhoncho (talk)00:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been dealing with redirects for about 15 years now and in that time not once has anybody ever provided any evidence at all that the existence of one redirect leads to the mass creation of other similar redirects - unless you can it's just worthless fear-mongering. I'd also like to see some evidence that creating redirects like this is "bordering on vandalism" and evidence ofhow the creation of redirects that take people to the content they are looking for is "bad practice".Thryduulf (talk)01:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not fear mongering.Have a look at this example of redirects on one artist page], contributed by an editor who has failed to grasp the meaning of 'avoided redirect' and created all them at the same time. There were other editors, who created every variant of a song title name, misspelled, unnecessary disambiguation etc and I am happy to show you various older examples.Most of these editors have stopped now because I have tagged appropriately and hopefully they realise that unnecessary title pages are not helping WP.
Redirects from song titles are exactly the sort of redirects that we want Wikipedia to have. Redirects from plausible misspellings are highly beneficial to the project. Unnecessary disambiguations vary between harmless and very useful depending on how likely other topics are to have that title. None of this is evidence that redirects of either the type under discussion here or the type in your examples (and they are not quite the same thing) are harmful.Thryduulf (talk)12:26, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We fundamentally disagree. A title is a title, it conveys no special meaning. A listing of every song title that has appeared on every album, with or without errors is hardly beneficial to an encyclopedia of any description. Render unto All Music that which is All Music's. In the example I have given, none, or few, of the song titles were mentioned in the target. What benefit?
If I was to create redirects with Mr etc for every individual it would be considered vandalism, quite rightly, but here you are defending vandalism.
There is no (practical) limit on the number of page titles that can exist (c.f.WP:NOTPAPER), there is no bucket to fill. The existence of one title does not impact our ability to have other titles.Thryduulf (talk)13:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah but there is. Convolution is not a benefit to WP. Nor are unrequired redirects, but I accept your unwritten appreciation of approving vandalism.
This convo is over, you will now read what I have written and appreciate that I did not oppose your keep vote, but pointed out the damage that such votes would do. But if you cannot nor will not consider all options then I am wasting my time. Happy editing.Richhoncho (talk)13:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would probably agree with Thryduulf if this were a more specific title that did some disambiguation work—Dr., Rev., St., etc. Besides the fact that this person is a Dr., he also doesn't have a gender-neutral name, so it's not useful in that regard either. --BDD (talk)20:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.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).
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 all and remove the self-redirects at the target. Unless the suggestion was to redlink them to encourage article creation, which is not clear from the nomination. Jay 💬17:38, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.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).
