Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 8

1712: 1451: 1432: 569: 3562: 816:

There is no list of meat-eating land animals that I'm aware of, and there is no (living) non-carnivoran land carnivores that are even close to making that list. So we have for the two possible interpretations of what someone searching this is looking for: either 1) a suboptimal, still useful page giving more or less what they are looking for, or 2) exactly what they were looking for.

2785: 3142: 3100: 3741:

assumed that the GA review had somehow been started in main space and subsequently moved to its correct location in talk space. At this stage, I was still looking at the talk page notice, I hadn't yet reached this RfD discussion. What I never expected was that the redir would link to the actual article that was up for GA. If the redir had been

3226: 667: 4396:: While not mentioned in the article, it seems harmless to retarget people from this to the non TWC name for this storm. I think that this strikes a good balance of not giving too much credence to Weather Channel names by not putting them in the article, but does provide those who knows the storm by that name to find it on Knowledge. 3268: 1552: 3394: 3352: 3310: 2974: 3520: 3478: 1810: 1255: 4366: 380: 4195: 3184: 3436: 3058: 3016: 3740:

and my first thought was "why would such a redirect be up for deletion - maybe the GA review page was moved in the past but even so, the redir should stay". I hadn't at that stage realised that this was a redir in main space but GA review discussion happens in Talk: space. Once I twigged that, I then

3604:

The Juice Wrld one was one of my old nominations. I created it because it makes for easy navigation by hitting the 'Article' button in the top left. I used to do these because I figured there was no harm in doing it, who would care? Evidently, someone does, so it's no big deal if it gets deleted, but

2463:

The slippery slope argument is never going to be about a single particular case, but about a pattern. It is weak if it is fallacious, e.g. if there's insufficient evidence that accumulation of cruft is harmful. In any event, it certainly seems it doesn't make sense to continue this generic discussion

2448:

Slippy slope arguments are always incredibly weak, and that is even more the case when what is being objected to is neither slippery nor on a slope. We regularly and routinely delete those redirects that have costs which outweigh their benefits - just look at this very page - but this redirect is not

2418:

What does "some semblance of order" mean in this context? What is the benefit of it to readers vs the cost described above? The cost to maintain "all sorts of oddities ... in perpetuity" is (on average) about one human edit per redirect per decade to deal with changes to the redirect (in good and bad

2361:

Well, that still glosses over what seems to have caused most of those 246 hits - some person on the internet made a random website that linked to an otherwise barely used redirect, and now we get to maintain backwards compatibility forever, or at least until a random point in time when their website

3982:

It may be the case that some reviewers don't like using the link provided by the template. These redirects offer an alternative shortcut to the articles (though I don't think they should be created by anyone other than the reviewers). It's not a big deal if they are deleted, but they are completely

797:

covers the broader definition. To quote Wiktionary's usage notes on the term: "Not all meat-eaters (e.g. meat-eating birds and fish) belong to Carnivora, and not all Carnivora are meat-eaters (e.g. giant panda). To avoid the confusion, a new term carnivoran has been introduced to mean 'belonging to

219:

R from miscapitalisation is used for any redirect that features some type of miscapitalization in its title, as is the case with this redirect. The fact that the lowercase version exists is irrelevant, since this redirect also aids readers in finding the article they seek, which is the main purpose

2376:

Firstly we don't know that - we know that one backlink checker knows about one website that has (probably) generated a proportion of those 246 hits, we don't know what proportion have come from there and what proportion have come from other places. Secondly, even if your guess is correct, how does

1649:

as completely harmless. The only reasons to delete redirects from user subpages are (1) if the user requests it, (2) it is actively causing harm in some way. Even in the latter case, which does not apply here, it is usually better to convert it to a soft redirect than to outright delete it as that

771:

The eighth edition of the Macquarie Dictionary defines "carnivore" first as "one of the Carnivora, the order of mammals, chiefly flesh-eating, that includes the cats, dogs, bears, seals, etc", with only the second definition being "any animal that feeds predominantly on other animals". Wikitionary

2599: 1020: 140: 2391:

The benefit should be in keeping things in some semblance of order, as opposed to supporting all sorts of oddities that happen to come up and then having to maintain that in perpetuity. Not sure I would say it's causing harm to people to not short-circuit everything... sending them to the search

815:

covers isn't overly relevant, and in any case it includes a hatnote at the top. I did tend to agree that this was potentially ambiguous (noting that no-one had previously raised that as an issue, instead stating it is misleading), however on consideration there is nothing this is ambiguous with.

2323:

says "likely alternative capitalizations", and I can't imagine these links to be very likely or common, even on a global scale. The most likely scenario seems to be someone reading a PDF and then selecting this string of words from a heading, but even then, that is more likely to go to a search

2002:

Touching on few things with this comment, so bear with me. Just because the guideline isn't followed doesn't mean it shouldn't be. Re precedent for all country all caps redirects: redirects currently work on a very case-by-case basis, one which is okay but not ideal. Classes of redirects should

1967:

I've just researched with various search filters on multiple search engines for links to this exact page on the Internet (Google unfortunately deprecated the "link:" filter in 2017, "case:" doesn't seem to work) trying to find any evidence that external pages link to it. If we were keeping all

2433:

I would think it's a slippery slope from saying that oh this one is just sitting there in perpetuity, it's cheap, it helps a few people, and nobody else cares -- and the project accumulating such huge amounts of this kind of cruft that it escalates and becomes a drain on collective resources.

2003:

really be handled through some complex MediaWiki thingamajig or by bot. As for now, all caps redirects are a long long way down the list of redirects that should be created. Therefore while they might eventually be worth creation, it kind of doesn't matter at the moment. IMO however,

3857:

per DannyMusicEditor. I have been annoyed in the past in this exact regard; I seem to glaze over the bolded article link. Not that it matters much either way, but to bring these redirects to RfD just nullifies the (tiny) positive efficiency they have. Again, not that it matters!

1039:, as that appears to be the more common meaning in English. I could also see dabifying, given that one of the two incoming links appears to have a Russian source that would support the current target (I do not consider this source above because it does contribute to the English 1984:. Reason why even that many could be because it appears as a top result when typing "Republic of Mac" into Knowledge's dynamic search bar, the way I found this redirect. I definitely think it is an unplausible search term in all-caps and redundant in the same way e.g. " 1125: 3664:

is demonstrably redundant: directly below the "GA Review" heading at the top of each true GA page we find a direct link to the article under consideration, plus some other links useful to the GA reviewer and the responders (these are generated by the

4071:

per nom. Nothing in the above discussion has convinced me otherwise. Also, these redirects are not helpful as search terms in the article space since their targets are not encyclopedic subjects named or alternatively named ".../GA1", ".../GA2•, etc.

1952:

I'm not entirely decided on whether new all-caps redirects would be fine to create (as they're not actively harmful and aren't an unplausible search term), but this one should stay based on its age and the fact that it's not actively harmful.

1370:

per everyone above. The target page is a given name, and that redirect is potentially helpful to anyone who's searching for that page, on top of being harmless and unambiguous (even with the unnecessary disambiguation) in the title. Regards,

2338:

All-caps is a reasonably common alternative to sentence case for country names, it seems to be used quite a bit to distinguish them in long strings of region/state/province/etc names. Anyway, when a redirect is unambiguous it doesn't matter

2048:

Thanks for explaining. Anyway that minor search results thing will hopefully be fixed soon – there be something added as to use a magic word to make misnomer redirects be assigned lower priority in search results, or something like that.

1829:(that the country is called Macedonia and not North Macedonia). We don't have all-capital redirects for aritcles (or specifically, countries), but if someone needed them, typing in all-caps already works without actual redirect pages. 2013:

doesn't. That accounts for most but not all of the uses I reckon. Case variations are only partially redundant – URLs and links are case-sensitive, unlike the internal search engine.Re WhatLinksHere: well there were two more links

1874:; redirects are cheap. Furthermore – this is linked a few places on the site; from a perusal of various edits concerning this area it seems that a term being stylistically or emphasisingly capitalised is common in North Macedonia. 1896:

should this make a precedent for creating all-caps redirects for all countries? It is inevitable that all countries have (had) their state names (commonly) stylistically or emphasisingly capitalised. Should there be a redirect

3627:

as per DannyMusicEditor. People might still look at the good article nomination and this provides a link back to the article. Doesn’t appear to do any harm. If there is some harm (e.g it pollutes search) then delete them. --

3550: 2410:

going to be harmful relative to taking them directly to the content they were looking for - even if they are immediately presented with search results (depending on multiple factors it sometimes requires several clicks/taps)

3556: 2773: 4377:

This should be deleted, because discussion on the talk page has determined that there should be no mention of the TWC name in the article. As a result, there also shouldn’t be a redirect of the TWC name to the article.

3983:

harmless. For example, these redirects aren't interfering in searches for GA subpages. Nor do they are going to be accidentally linked from other articles. I don't see a reason to delete this tiny class of redirects.

3929:. But in the rare case they were, it's probably because of that very reason. And I doubt more than a handful of GA reviewers and nominators would be bothered at spending some more seconds for reaching their articles. 2779: 4531:. Despite alleged talk page consensus (I'm not able to find it; can you link it?), this is a reasonable search term for that event. Redirects can serve as navigational aids for the reader, and it will do so here. — 3954:? All GA talk pages created since 4 October 2008 have a direct link to the article below the "GA Review" heading. Therefore, in the absence of such redirects (i.e. the vast majority of GA talk pages), users are not 4511:

Keep. Weather channel seems notable enough that people might know storms by those names. Storm names generally are something people like enough that the UK has started officially naming them in recent years. --

3751:, as it would have been if the GA review had been started in main space in error and then moved to Talk: space, I would have !voted keep; but my delete !vote stands, because the redirect isn't intuitive. -- 2021:) before you deleted them! Anyway my main point referring to the links is not to ensure they aren't broken, but rather pointing at them as examples of usage – my question is, why do people do stuff like 2301:

the internal search engine is only one of many ways people use to find Knowledge content they are looking for, some of the other methods, including links from external pages, are case sensitive.

1128:(although the lead author is apparently the same person who first described the genus in 1979). With no sources for synonymy, there isn't a good target for the redirect and it should be deleted. 729:- there are no living land carnivores which are larger than those on this list. "Carnivores" is an alternate name for "carnovorans" so I'm not sure that this is overly misleading. Note also that 428:

is a DAB whose only entry is this (story) redirect. If RFD consensus is 'delete' here, that should also be deleted; otherwise, it should be converted to a redirect to the same target per MOS.

3130: 3088: 461: 3748: 3657: 3544: 3136: 3094: 4554:, ideally with mention. To me it seems that removing a widely used term for something (or at least used by one very popular source) is intentionally unhelpful to readers, bordering on 2099:: How did you find that page? Anyway, are we going to keep this redirect because a sketchy bot-created non-secure and super obscure website did not care enough to update its links? - 3876: 2767: 1719: 1458: 1439: 576: 1285:

To add to my nomination reason: the maintenance bots keep finding this link to a disambiguation page that needs to be solved. But it can not be solved, at lest not at this moment.

1988:" does not exist as a redirect but typing it and pressing enter still leads to the correct article. On the top of that, this country is no longer called "Republic of Macedonia". - 257:

what possible harm is done by a redirect that a user feels is superfluous? People will always search for things you haven't though of, hence redirects like this have a job to do.

3214: 2172: 655: 39: 34: 3649: 3220: 661: 3921:

said above, they at least are serving a navigational purpose and are shortcuts to their main articles. This is not to say that we should be creating mainspace redirects for

206:

was only for the opposite situation. Regardless, typing this capitalisation into the search bar would still take you to the lowercase version if this redirect didn't exist.

2632:. Draftspace redirect was created way before the other one in mainspace. Though I don't get why anyone would create a draft for a redirect? Regardless, keeping seems best. 1821:

Back in 2005 all-capital redirects probably did not matter much and the country was indeed known as "Republic of Macedonia", but situation has changed since then and this

1632:

for lack of any convincing reason to do anything else. Userspace cross-namespaces redirects do not cause any harm, and there's no reason to expect them to be well-viewed.

1098: 3256: 3244: 1540: 406:

I'm not sure why I created this redirect. I apparently did so in 2009, back when I was perhaps a bit more indiscriminate in creating redirects. Feel free to remove it.

3685:) when a GA review is started). So the creation of the mainspace redirects was completely unnecessary, and remains so. Addendum: my previous comments also hold for 3538: 3382: 3340: 3298: 3262: 1546: 2258:" both redirect to the same page as a plausible capitalization. Most of the all-lowercase names redirect to the corresponding capitalization of the target page. 3388: 3346: 3304: 2962: 4042:

I did see that--but as someone who looks at a lot of GANs it's a mistake I've made more times than I'd like to admit, even with the option to click "article".

3577:, which can be found on their respective talk subpages (just because that's the case doesn't mean similar titles should appear in article space). As stated at 2377:

deleting this redirect benefit the mission of creating an encyclopaedia? It will cause harm to those people using the redirect, and will not benefit anybody.

3578: 3508: 3466: 831: 799: 759: 712: 697: 207: 152: 2968: 2797: 1798: 1243: 3900:

point 5). When keeping results in a benefit and no harm, and deletion results in no benefit and some harm, there is no justification at all for deletion.

4354: 4342: 3514: 3472: 2419:

faith) that bots can't deal with (or get wrong) - is does this really outweigh the benefits to readers of finding the information they were looking for?

1201: 368: 356: 2362:

goes away. I'm not sure how this benefits the mission of creating an encyclopedia for the general public, as opposed to one guy's helpless readers :) --

3124: 3082: 1935:

If the redirect is kept based on its age, then the precedent for new redirects is not necessarily set. This redirect is reasonably old and, as within

1804: 1249: 4360: 374: 798:

Carnivora'." Therefore, as both you and this excerpt state, the term is ambiguous, and ambiguous redirects are generally something to be avoided.

4183: 3172: 21: 4004:

per DannyMusicEditor – that's a use case I haven't thought of but is useful nonetheless and I don't see why the redirects should be deleted.

3424: 1616:

per nom. Useless redirect created as a test. Why should it be kept if it's not serving any purpose? Deletion seems preferable in this case.

4189: 3710: 3706: 3208: 3178: 3046: 3004: 649: 3430: 1578: 4413: 4379: 3574: 3052: 3010: 1506: 1047: 17: 2434:

Hopefully we'd notice it before it got out of hand, but I don't see why we'd want to test that just because of something so minor. --

2587: 1008: 200: 172: 128: 4210:

of a stub that would not survive Afd. Since there does not appear to be a good redirect target, suggest soft deletion of the page.

3250: 3118: 3076: 2930: 1534: 643: 3694: 2593: 1014: 151:

There's already an otherwise-identical redirect with the second word lowercase, so that should make this entirely unnecessary.

134: 3653: 3376: 3334: 3292: 3768:

The redirect may not be intuitive to you, however other people have described how its use as a link is intuitive to them so

775:. So to say that carnivores and carnivorans are not the same depends on the context since "carnivore" is an ambiguous term. 2956: 1949:

not that uncommonly, and WhatLinksHere is unable to check edits and their summaries. External sites may also link there.

2415:

the search engine is 100% reliable (it isn't) and the relevant page is always the top result (impossible to guarantee).

3698: 3502: 3460: 3202: 2274:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?fulltext=1&search=REPUBLIC%20OF%20MACEDONIA&title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1

1650:

maintains the link the author desired (and absent any evidence to the contrary we must assume they still do desire).

4608: 4588: 4571: 4546: 4521: 4504: 4476: 4441: 4421: 4407: 4387: 4327: 4254: 4237: 4219: 4158: 4087: 4059: 4037: 4013: 3992: 3970: 3938: 3909: 3888: 3867: 3849: 3781: 3763: 3729: 3637: 3619: 3595: 2935: 2861: 2840: 2809: 2746: 2677: 2660: 2640: 2623: 2560: 2473: 2458: 2443: 2428: 2401: 2386: 2371: 2356: 2333: 2310: 2285: 2267: 2242: 2225: 2186: 2162: 2148: 2126: 2108: 2090: 2058: 2034: 1997: 1962: 1930: 1883: 1860: 1838: 1771: 1679: 1659: 1641: 1624: 1608: 1590: 1568: 1513: 1401: 1377: 1362: 1341: 1324: 1298: 1279: 1216: 1137: 1050: 983: 914: 893: 865: 838: 825: 806: 784: 766: 746: 719: 704: 685: 628: 536: 508: 480: 437: 415: 400: 341: 266: 249: 228: 214: 186: 159: 101: 4487: 4456: 2950: 1918: 1792: 1237: 876: 491: 472: 262: 4627: 4601: 4539: 4301: 4271: 4134: 4104: 3806: 3802: 3645: 2908: 2878: 2724: 2694: 2538: 2508: 2218: 1745: 1696: 1484: 1416: 1184: 1154: 961: 931: 602: 553: 362: 313: 283: 79: 1035:. I could not find any English sources relating "Archangelia" to Pteridinium. As such, recommend retargeting to 4348: 1914: 1510: 1076: 2347:

they do, and as this got 246 hits last year it's very clear they do so we need a compelling reason to delete.

1901:? Two pages (both in talk), unrelated to this RfD currently link to this redirect: one uses a pipe link with 3988: 3934: 3794: 2761: 2043:: Here's one way they might have ended up linking to the all-caps version: 1) Use VisualEditor 2) Enter two 2018: 2015: 1937: 1870: 453: 396: 327: 4177: 3589:) unless someone can provide a justification, though I'm also open to other options if necessary. Regards, 4417: 4383: 3814: 3810: 2022: 1502: 4623: 4517: 4436: 4402: 4297: 4267: 4233: 4130: 4100: 4055: 4009: 3918: 3633: 3607: 3370: 3328: 3286: 3166: 2904: 2874: 2720: 2690: 2619: 2575: 2534: 2504: 2263: 2251: 1946: 1942: 1902: 1856: 1847:

as plausible all-caps version. There are many good all-caps versions of country redirects, such as the "

1741: 1692: 1586: 1564: 1480: 1412: 1180: 1150: 1036: 1032: 957: 927: 598: 549: 469: 411: 309: 279: 258: 75: 1071:). For the herb, "Archangelia" is a misspelling of "archangelica". A genus of Ediacaran organism named 4430:

by a wikipedia article on a winter storm even if it does not mention the name Goliath in the article.

4166: 1002: 4595: 4533: 3896:

per DannyMusicEditor et al. These redirects are completely harmless and some people find the useful (

3682: 3418: 2826: 2212: 2007:

such redirects is a backwards step.The search result is plain odd in that this redirect shows up and

1958: 1898: 1395: 1292: 1273: 1040: 520: 55:

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 8, 2023.

1308:. Not misleading, as the opening sentence in the DAB tells readers that Reinaldo is a "given name". 4584: 4083: 4033: 3966: 3905: 3845: 3777: 3759: 3725: 3040: 2998: 2742: 2556: 2454: 2424: 2382: 2352: 2306: 1655: 1212: 1133: 979: 910: 734: 97: 3581:, they also don't have any meaningful history that seems to be worth preserving. I'm proposing to 4427: 4215: 3984: 3945: 3930: 3826: 3676: 3496: 3454: 2136: 2076: 1969: 1936: 1869: 1079:; that link should not go to the herb or the girls name. The list claims (with two sources) that 991: 730: 682: 392: 2075:

reach? That can be seen by clicking on the stats link above. It's possible they are coming from

4498: 4321: 2834: 2634: 1822: 1765: 1618: 1498: 1318: 1044: 887: 622: 502: 222: 193: 180: 4622: