706:
engine (external or specific to
Knowledge (XXG)) should be able to do reasonably well finding articles on Knowledge (XXG). Roughly, I would propose: the number of redirects to any one article should be kept to a reasonable number which is roughly defined as the number needed to cover common searches, meet user expectations, and particularly common misspellings (not any misspelling). It is detrimental to Knowledge (XXG) to add unnecessary redirects (not to mention that someone could add numerous malicious redirects (like "John 'Genocide' Smith") to express a single POV). --
1760:
is a Talk:Foo page it is moved to Talk:Bar, and a redirect to Talk:Bar would be left at Talk:Foo. If nothing actually links to Talk:Foo, that "tombstone" redirect will probably never be used (since clicking on the "Discuss this page" link on Bar will get you straight to Talk:Bar), and just clutters up the database. So is there any problem if we just delete them? (And perhaps someday, when we are knee deep in
Developers and all bugs and really needed features have been seen to, the code will be changed to avoid automatically creating them when they are not needed. :-)
306:, I would bet that not one single person who was involved in coming to this brillant conclusion has ever run a SUCCESSFUL business. You don't gain viewers (clients) by offering garbage, you get them by quality and that is particularly true of something purporting to be an Encyclopedia. Note GOOGLE says: Did you mean???? - If the powers that be think this nonsense should continue then at least insert the words: MISSPELLED - REDIRECTED TO: XYZ ....DW
42:
766:; I have repeatedly explained what the reason for it is. Perhaps the reason does not justify the redirect, and if that is the case, I would not object to its deletion. But the reason for the redirect was generated by someone else, and it clearly was not my intention to cause confusion between myself and Charles Boyer (whom I don't think has ever been called confusedly by this name, though I could be proven wrong). --
1064:, you're not going to like seeing it wherever it comes up. People can probably tolerate it if they don't see it too often. I could be wrong about this. I just have a gut feeling that people have more than one reason for saying they want certain redirects deleted, but they tend to only say the more rational ones when questioned. --
404:
spelling variations. It's this lunacy that is sinking
Knowledge (XXG) and one day soon all the hard work of people with a PROFESSIONAL attitude who make REAL contributions, will evaporate. Rarely does one encounter such blatant stupidity. It is obvious that you have no business training or experience so GROW UP....DW
995:
This is related to the search engine problem, because people have to look at the offensive redirects when they come up in searches. But it is not a "subproblem" -- the only way to avoid offence is to make the redirect completely invisible, and if it's completely invisible there's no point having it.
212:
Toby, at first I removed all the text from (and requested deletion of) the "subpage" articles. Then, after discussion with LDC and
Maveric and Brion, I started just replacing the text of subpage articles with REDIRECTs to the new articles. This has left several dozen blank pages, I'm afraid. But soon
158:
Ah, my mistake. For some reason I thought the proper system here would be to put freshest comments at the top of the page, hence the misleading positioning of my comment. I didn't create this page, it just appeared to be the most proper forum when I ran a search. Anyway, question answered, lessons
1908:
If so, you should also have the ability to reach through the internet and change people's personal bookmarks, and have a perfect web spider able to check every web page in existence to be sure there are no external links to the page. And be aware of all printed material and scrawled post-it notes in
1513:
to be added to any page you list on VfD - but does this really apply to
Redirect pages? (For one thing, you generally won't even see it unless you manually pull up text of the Redirect page.) I would assume this rule only applies to pages with actual content - if so, could someone make this clear on
1113:
Many of his changes meet the definition of advertizing and/or self-aggrandizement. Advertizing is already against
Knowledge (XXG) policy and self-aggrandizement should be, if it is not already, because it is itself a form of advertizing (if perhaps more indirect). If I were to, for example, add my
705:
I agree with Jiang's comment. The number and nature of redirects needs to be reasonable. That should be part of the policy. I think search engines are only part of the reason why. I don't think we should depend on Google or future improvements to our own search engine. Even a rudimentary search
473:
Well, I admit I don't feel strongly about it. But all redirects, not just these ones, clutter up the search, so a better solution to my mind would be to somehow improve the way search results are presented. Of course, that's a damn site harder to implement than simply deleting these redirects, but I
1921:
At the same time, delete logs show that
Knowledge (XXG) clearly doesn't have a policy that "no Knowledge (XXG) URL that ever contained valid content (i.e. not just insults, rubbish, copyvio, or something like that) shall ever stop working". A small amount of trolling through deleted articles turned
1759:
I'd like to suggest that when we move pages which have associated Talk: pages, we ought to (in general) not keep a
Redirect from the old Talk: page to the new Talk: page when there's no use for that link; i.e. if nothing links to the old Talk: page. I.e. when moving a page from Foo to Bar, if there
1554:
As if to make it plain that not everyone understands the unwritten policy, I've just noticed that someone recently edited one of the
Redirect pages I listed on VfD to add a "this page is on VfD" notice! Unless someone thinks that it's a bad idea, I'm going to modify the policy pages (above) to make
693:
I am open to the possibility or even probability that this comment is correct; I would just like to point out, however, that in nearly every case the redirects are from a spelling of my name that has seen print (note that I am not saying that this necessarily makes them useful -- I do not object in
123:
If someone creates a new page with a misspelled name and you spot it the day after, I think it's a good idea to move the data and remove the misspelled entry. Of course you should also use search to make sure that any other links to the page are changed. If the misspelling is on an old page so that
539:
But many of these CamelCase redirects were the original homes of current articles and were primitively moved using the cut, redirect and paste method. Therefore the original edit history is at the CamelCase redirect and if we delete that article and its history we violate the GNU FDL by destroying
331:
these redirects will "confuse and delay people". Somebody searches for "philisophy" now, they find the article they want, and because "philosophy" is spelled correctly within that article, they learn how to spell the word to boot. Delete the redirect and the searcher finds nothing. I don't see how
225:
But why are we going out of our way to create broken links in search engines, even temporarily? As mentioned, this seems reasonable is space is an issue, but not otherwise. I've seen this come up several times before, and I never noticed a consensus that we should delete instead of redirect — OTC,
178:
Just to add one more thought, the cost of having a misspelling with a REDIRECT is probably pretty low, and it's not like some is going to have a page on someone else name of Wayne
Gretszky. The only disadvantage I see is that it makes search results somewhat noisier; ideally having a way to tag a
2026:
People seem to use VfD for purposes outside its ostensible aim; I'd say more than half, maybe more than three-quarters, of the stuff posted there should not be deleted. Many people seem to use VfD as a place to post articles that need work in the hope that someone will be inspired to 'save' them
1355:
Martin, I agree with your principle, there is a downside, but I need to rephrase it a bit. It's not the disadvantage vs. the advantage -- there is no advantage per se. Clearly, it would be better to not have to delete any redirects. Ideally, these damaging redirects would not be created in the
1277:
So what? Even if I cared about "breaking" a vanity link, which I don't, none of these redirects or articles were necessary. He was adding redirects for personal vanity, like a single misspelling on an external website that wasn't even a link, permutations of his name and initials, etc. Most of
1071:
It is a deviation from NPOV to say that we should limit the appearances of the AIDS Kills Fags Dead slogan due to its offensiveness. Sure, I find this slogan highly offensive, but that is a POV. The number of redirects should be based on their encylopedic usefulness and not limited due to their
322:
Delete the page - PERIOD! This is a learning site, not one to confuse and delay people in their searches. The redirect setup now causes confusion. It is time to get professional. I have no objection to crappy, incomplete articles, (although the laziness tees me off) but they can and will be fixed
1570:
I disagree and I have been adding the notice to redirects. There may have been content on the page before it was a redirect, and the author may still want to be informed that their page is being deleted. There may be no current content, but there could be content in the history. If the policy is
636:
have a policy to keep valid redirects. It's been regularly asserted in practice by comments on VfD, and removing articles from VfD, and in discussion on this page. It's been in bold at the top of VfD for ages. It's as much a policy as you can get on Knowledge (XXG), which admittedly isn't saying
403:
been successful because of its lack of direction from someone with SUCCESSFUL business experience. Morons want to maintain the status quo because of their lack of business acumen combined with tunnel vision and the need to control. Get real! Encyclopedias, none, nowhere, no how, zip, rien, offer
298:
QUOTE: Do not delete anything that might be a common misspelling of a title. Redirect those pages to the correct spelling. (This can actually result in higher traffic to the website. E.g., if philisophy is created, we might as well just redirect it to philosophy, since "philisophy" is one of the
515:
show up in a search (we will probably eventually want a redirect qualifier to distinguish incorrect spelling from alternative names), it's just the CamelCase redirs that are completely useless. Aside from that, dozens of them have already been deleted because there were no objections on VfD. I
1892:
Hmm - you asked if there was any problem if you just delete talk page redirects. I'm answering: yes, there is a problem. The only problem you mention in respect of these links is "cluttering up the database", and Brion, who knows more about the database than both of us, doesn't think that's a
1684:
No doubt someone's going to say (they already do!) "but it could be useful". So what? I could create thousands of different wrongly spelled versions of almost any page. There is just no need or use to clutter up the database with them. If we really want to make allowances for people who can't
1992:
must continue to work unless there is a real reason they can't (such as, the www.wikipedia.org domain name is taken away from the project somehow and none of us can control what's at that address; or if the link was in fact an invalid URI in the first place due to a software bug and can't be
1310:
Martin, you are a bit confused. There are no broken links. A broken link is a link to a page that doesn't load. The page loads. There is just no content. What is wrong with this? It is either delete it, or keep it. You seem to be suggesting that we should never delete a page that is a
1735:
I'm not after alternative and/or very plausible spellings, I agree we should keep those. I'm only asking about "complete" typos in redirects. I would have thought those fell into the "shoot on sight" category, but several I have listed on VfD are still there, so I can only guess there is no
626:
Redirects cause only one practical problem: in searching. This is very much a technical issue, and can be solved technically. I don't think we should change deletion policy because of this issue - or if we do, then we should be clear that it's a temporary workaround rather than a permanent
1437:
Perhaps that's the difference: I navigate primarily by links and URL-hacking: other people here navigate primarily by searching. So I don't care that much about breaking the search engine (especially since it's disabled anyway! :), and presumably you don't care that much about breaking my
115:); I would like to do away with them also but I'm not sure it would be a good advertisement for Knowledge (XXG) to leave dead links. I guess whatever action is taken depends on how common the misspelling is? It seems that wikipedia does not fuzzy-match search results; is that the case?
2000:(ie, garbage pages and copyright violations that have been deleted from the database) are free to turn up a blank slate. That is the purpose of deletion: to un-publish material that wasn't supposed to be published in the first place (because it's 100% garbage, or is legally unusable).
453:
Lisewise, there's no need to delete them. There's always a possibility that somebody made a link to one of these pages from their own website (or in a newsgroup posting, email, or whatever) back when CamelCase was used, so it's better to keep them to avoid breaking those links.
947:
In cases of different spellings, or different ways of titling a page, if a redirect has been created once, then it's because at least one person browsed there. If it's been browsed once, it's likely to be browsed again. A redirect will put a smile on the second visitor's
1356:
first place. We're choosing between the lesser of two evils: allowing bad redirects to persist and be published, to be abused, to offend, to mislead, to grow over time, and encouraging further such redirects leaving the redirects in place ... compared against the cost
1929:
So, if what you're saying is that you want to have such a policy, that no Wiki URL that ever pointed to non-bogus content shall ever stop working, fine, but those aren't the ground rules that seem to be in place at the moment. Are you proposing such a change?
1114:
own name to many of the Linux and Open Source articles (as I could, with as much justification as Daniel C. Boyer has had), I could be rewarded with additional consulting business just as Daniel C. Boyer's litter attracts attention to his artistic works. --
398:
Stop with the little "club" patting each other's back (I've seen it before from you guys), and use your brains, limited though they obviously are. This site (and I always call it "SITE" unless my limited little brain is running faster than my fingers), has
1039:
Aside from the search results, when have so-called "offensive" redirects ever caused actual offense? As you say, I see this as a sub-problem of the search engine - if there are examples of people taking offence in other ways, I'd be interested to know.
540:
the author attribution. Which reminds me that I have been meaning to bug the developers about possibly creating an interface that would allow Admins to easily move the history of an article without having to do the delete, move, restore routine. --
203:
and try it for yourself!) will quickly come to the conclusion that following Knowledge (XXG) links is a waste of time. Are we really having space issues that these redirect orphans can't continue to bring in traffic from search engines? —
648:
I don't think searching can be solved technically, because many users search through google, and google is unlikely to magically delist the redirects. I personally support changing the deletion policy so only useful redirects are kept.
170:
this page looked familiar! I think it's a really old one. Sorry, Colin. As you can see, I was indeed confused by the position of your comment. Isn't interesting how the place where your comment is put conveys semantic information...
951:
It makes editing much easier when there are superfluous redirects, as you can put square brackets round any old word or phrase that you think is significant, and trust that it'll go to the right place. For example, if I don't know
1383:
link in the first place (at least not often or as a preferred mode of operation); and while people might follow a "Donnelly" link off of Google, were they really looking for a Colorado college comic strip by Daniel C. Boyer?
1926:
_of_Japan" which are now gone too, moved somewhere else, with no redirects left behind (probably because the "What Links Here' page for them was empty, I would assume.) Again, someone might have saved URL's to them out there
668:
magically delist duplicates. "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 9 already displayed. If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included".
1278:
them were not internal Knowledge (XXG) links. And while it may be a short-term inconvenience to delete articles or redirects, that is the only reasonable way to handle advertizing and similar inappropriate content. The
1924:
I understand why they were deleted, but that's not the issue: the point is that someone out there may have them bookmarked, and now they don't work anymore. In addition to them, I saw a whole series of "Emperor_<foo:
694:
any way to their deletion). (And don't even get me started on the number of times I've been called "Daniel Blair" or "David Blair" or received mail so addressed! Something about my name leads people to "Blair" me!) --
870:
this is actually an argument for being judicious with redirects, if anything. Don't waste google or any search engine's time or storage capacity by making it index/resolve/organize unreasonable or unneeded redirects.
1634:
I just simply copy the history & content (I've yet to encounter more a stub) to the moving-in-article's Talk page before I delete, since the requesting person usually has good reason. Those redirects deserve to be
323:
eventually as part of the building process. Get rid of the redirects: It turns people away when three variations, of which 2 are misspelled, show up as your Encyclopedia's choice? PREPOSTEROUS & AMATEURISH.....DW
1235:(for example). #1 result (as of the time of writing) is a broken link, because the redirect has been deleted. It doesn't matter why redirects are added - the point is that if we delete them, we break links. Always.
1872:
exists? If there is no content, is there an article? Of course, links themselves carry information, so before deletion it is nice if someone ensures that the text with the links makes sense without the link.
141:
delete pages but only the data they contain, you might as well make the page with the misspelled title point to the one with the correctly spelled title. We do this all the time, and search engines like it (why
179:
page as not being searchable, only reachable directly might be nice to have. Though first I want search results to put the best result -- pages with the request name in them -- at the top of the search list. --
1838:
Hand-typed article names are in basically the same boat as off-site URL's - and see my reply to Brion about those. Are you also proposing that we never, ever, delete a page that ever had any non-bogus content?
119:
I think there are two things discussed here. One is deletion of data. I don't like that. The other is moving data from an unsuitable location (a misspelling) to a correct one. I don't think this is a problem.
1178:, either. :) I was referring to fixing Boyer's edits, but what you've done is good too. I disagree with some of it - I'll try to edit appropriately. Also, I think much of this should probably be addressed at
1315:, and google crawls it and adds it to the database? Opps, we can't delete it, that would make it a broken link. We can't make broken links, that would be a bad show to our "customers." It's just absurd.
146:
give poor spellers a positive result for their trouble? So Knowledge (XXG) catches the poor speller traffic--grand!). Colin, it would have been a little better to have asked this question in the FAQ or on
1363:
Encourage and favor deletion of inappropriate and unreasonable redirects. (And I think sooner is better for these redirects, always. Get 'em before they get indexed, linked, before they affect additional
1072:
offensiveness, because if the standards of Knowledge (XXG) were not to have offensive articles, not only would we not have any article on AKFD, but there would be many more articles we would not have. --
1098:, which could easily include material on almost all of his advertizing articles about his works. It offends me that Knowledge (XXG) can be abused for the purpose of advertizing (see my recent edit to
151:
rather than making an entire new page for it. By this time we have thought through most of the basic issues, so it's not a matter of debate, it's a matter of us informing you what the consensus is. --
1918:
Look, I understand, and sympathize with, the sensitivity to leaving dangling pointers out there in URL-space. I maintain more than one page of the form "this page isn't here any more, go <here: -->
1247:, and the page will exist. So, the link isn't broken, it's just that google points to an empty article for a very short period of time. This will always happen, and I don't see it as a problem.
968:
That's a genuine problem, but I think there are ways to fix the search engine (and external search engines, via noindex, nofollow, noarchive, etc) such that we keep the many benefits of redirects.
1946:
of "do not delete valid redirects", which we had for over a year. Those are the ground rules. Some sysops are either unaware of those guidelines, or choose to ignore them, which is unfortunate.
1367:
Over time, work on technological methods to lessen the negative impact of deleted redirect via a phase-out strategy. Delete them promptly, but allow them to work for a brief transition period.
1297:
How the frig is that going to help? It still gives our customers a broken link. Sure, it's got a nice friendly error message, but it's a nice friendly error message that disguises a broken link.
1819:
No it doesn't. If you delete a redirect today, I may hand-type a link to it tomorrow. Hence my suggestion that you follow me around to ensure that I'm not adversely effected by your deletion.
762:
I would agree that Charles Boyer is "by any sane standard... someone else." I find it offensive that you are revising my position in order to argue against it. The redirect in question is
603:
17? The line has to be drawn somewhere. Unfortunately, unlike other Wikipedians with articles, Daniel Boyer has used the slack he's been given to promote himself beyond a reasonable level.
190:
Hi, may I ask why we're deleting subpages that have been around for a long time, instead of leaving them as redirects? I just teased Ed Poor for wanting to delete a bunch of subpages of
1155:
anyway. I tried to make it succinct and capture the things people seemed to agree on. Of course, in specific cases, there will always be disagreement (that's why there is voting). --
251:
I should also point out that the "Move page" feature of the wiki software (is this still restricted to sysops?) automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new title. ---
555:"dozens of them have already been deleted because there were no objections on VfD" -- do we really have to specifically object every time someone votes to delete a valid redirect? :-(
1327:, and it takes you to a blank page with no hint as to where to find the content you were looking for, that's a broken link. A matter of definition, of course - what would you call it?
607:
is a case in point. And we don't have a policy to keep redirects, even if our policy documents say we do. A "policy" enforced when it suits us is a newbie-deterrent, not a policy. --
682:
Redirects should only be made for misspellings if they are common and logical. I don't think people mess up the word "boyer" so easily that they will type in one of the redirects. --
1964:
a VfD page? Junk and insults get deleted on sight, and for copyvio we can just blank the page. If not orphaning external pointers is so important, why do we ever delete anything?
516:
challenge you to show me a single website that links to a CamelCase based Knowledge (XXG) article. Unless you can do this, I think we should just go ahead and delete them all. --
1791:
What Brion said. I hand-type a lot of links to talk pages: unless you're planning to follow me around changing them all to point to the correct place, then keep them. Thanks.
1670:
typos on the part of people working on the 'pedia should be candidates for instant deletion, no debate needed. They just clutter up the database, and "What links here" pages.
100:
I have seen that it is very desirable not to delete pages, but only do #REDIRECTs, will be keep doing that, even when a page is some mispelling (especially mistyping, like
938:
If content has been moved from one article to another, then it's probably more in the spirit of GFDL to keep the old article as a redirect, in terms of crediting authors.
785:
they are offensive (see below) primarily due to their advertizing and self-aggrandizing nature. They serve no good purpose that outweighs the downsides and abuse. --
1957:
Sorry, but discussing only the redirects doesn't answer my basic point: there are pages with real content - i.e. not junk, not insults, not copyvios - being deleted.
1967:
I'm not trying to be difficult, I just don't understand what seems to me to be a disconnect between the goals y'all have stated here, and how things actually work.
1457:
Actually, it was never disabled, the link was just removed. If you type in your seach in the search box and then hit enter, the default is not go, it is search.
148:
474:
don't think they add that much clutter, and if even one link is broken by deleting them, then it's a loss. Incidentally, how long was the CamelCase period? --
1993:
maintained once the bug is fixed). This includes talk pages, and redirects to renamed talk pages are the way this link continuity is maintained in that case.
2054:
1638:
As for those redirects with no hist, a notice is unnecessary and impedes time efficiency. Again, as long as the requesting person provides good reason. --
1424:
thing we can provide them? If a redirect is more useful than a blank page, keep the redirect. If the blank page would be more useful, delete the redirect.
194:, since these have all been archived by search engines. I guess I was wrong; they're being deleted by the truckload! I remember people being chastised on
21:
1677:
elangelo Buonarroti" instead of "Michelangelo Buonarroti"; someone who wasn't sure of the spelling could easily type the former. I mean things like "Mich
1588:
OK, how about excepting redirects with history from the exception? (Note that if the old page was moved, the history would have gone along with it.)
956:'s first name, it's not a problem, because the redirect will take the reader there anyway. Searching wikipedia to find the full name would take time.
85:
My admittedly newbie opinion is that misspelt names should not be allowed in. This is, after all, a reference work. Inaccuracies should be purged.
1282:#1 status is merely proof that Daniel succeeded in gaming the system to get better recognition of his works. If you don't like broken pages, let's
1311:
redirect, b/c google crawls them. This is simply ridiculous. What if someone creates a redirect page "Martin is a fag", and then redirects it to
1619:
Since we seem to be done here, maybe this section should get removed from VP and moved over there? I'll fix things to clarify about the notice.
198:
for voting for these pages. Now anybody that does a Google search for the words "Middle-earth" and <fill in the blank with most anything: -->
1526:
Redirects have modified rules, as they have no content other than a computer-ese line, so no, the "Listed for deletion" notice is not listed --
883:
these redirects were not added because a page had moved. (We're talking about 17 redirects added by one guy to his own non-user page.) --
462:
The link likelihood is near zero, as the CamelCase period was very brief. I say they should be deleted, they just clutter up the search. --
1596:
1243:
And? It's not our fault that google take a few hours/days to re-crawl wikipedia for changes. Besides, the page isn't gone, you can type
111:
I think the suggestion to keep all pages came as a means of avoiding dead links in search engines. I've encountered similar mispellings (
1960:
If "not orphaning pointers residing outside the Knowledge (XXG) database" (be they mental or electronic) is so important, why do we even
279:). I will, however, recreate any deleted page title as a redirect if it is deleted solely because it is no longer the article's title. --
1985:
You seem to have conflated two separate concepts here. I apologize if I was unclear above; for clarity let me state my position again:
1571:
going to be that you have to add a notice (which btw I don't think it should be), then I think it ought to apply to redirects as well.
1224:
these redirects were not added because a page had moved. (We're talking about 17 redirects added by one guy to his own non-user page.)
880:
When google indexes a page, it stays indexed for (at least) a month: deleting a redirect means that google has a broken link to us.
428:. But this page says "Do not delete a page which could logically be made into a REDIRECT to an article". Is the policy out of date?
2006:
1804:
If you will note, I clearly made an exception for cases where " links to the old Talk: page". I think that covers this case, yes?
1210:
When google indexes a page, it stays indexed for (at least) a month: deleting a redirect means that google has a broken link to us.
435:
No I don't think so. I think it's just people not bothering to read or understand that a misspelled page may be a useful redirect.
200:
58:
17:
637:
much. Yes, some folks have been ignoring it. That is regrettable - it would be better if they explained why it should be changed.
1502:
425:
365:
BTW, Mav misspelled the plural, not the singular :-) At least correct the correct tense, if you are going to correct it... --
195:
1666:
says nothing about real typos, but lists "Misspellings" as one use for them. I would argue that all Redirect pages caused by
1047:
Hello, I'm offended... the search engine argument is largely technical for me. It only adds to the level of my offense. --
275:
deleting old page titles when their content has been moved to a new page title. My reasoning is in many other places so (See
310:
There's certainly a case for an alternate redirect syntax. I've been pondering for a while the idea of having #MISSPELLING
1360:
a few pages, pages we agree that we should have had in the first place. This is why I think we need to do the following:
808:
correctly redirect, despite expressing a POV. If a nickname exists and is not purely idiosyncratic, then it can redirect.
1015:
I hesitate to get involved in this, but... how could anybody possibly find the Wikicide or Boyer redirects offensive? --
864:
Redirects avoid broken links. Note that you can't use google back-links to prove that no links will be broken, because:
1943:
1659:
1506:
1340:
delete a redirect. I'm saying that deleting redirects creates broken links. Any advantages of deleting a redirect will
1152:
589:
27:
1649:
anyway, so the boilerplate text would not be used. I mean if a redirect is to be deleted and nothing to replace it.
107:
If there is a consensus that some pages should be deleted every now and then, I'd put the previous one on the list.
511:
Yes, redirects will be handled differently in the search, but this still doesn't solve the problem. Most redirects
49:
286:
Good for you! Too bad that that doesn't restore the history (unless it was moved by secrect sysop superpowers). —
1861:
1344:
need to be weighed against that disadvantage, even if on first sight it may appear that no links will be broken.
1105:
self-aggrandizement: The act or practice of enhancing or exaggerating one's own importance, power, or reputation.
1061:
233:
I forgot, there's another reason not to delete these: We no longer know what their history is (unless we look in
1000:
1689:(e.g. like the one Google has) to suggest what people might have wanted if a search/lookup turns no matches.
1864:, indeed that is one of the published ways to create an article. In what way is a link to an article which
1286:
redirect all such pages to a "page has been deleted because we're trying to provide better content" page.
1183:
979:
that I think could circumvent a lot of the problems we are discussing here. I'd appreciate any comments.
921:
Redirects avoid need for cluttering VfD or sysop superpowers. Redirecting scales much better than deletion.
101:
1370:
1175:
572:
490:
1379:
I don't think the phase out strategy is really needed since I don't think anyone really needs or uses a
1094:
I find almost all of the Boyer articles and material offensive -- aside from his primary non-user page,
827:
use of the name. It fits under my proposed modification to the deletion policy regarding redirects. --
1939:
1663:
1179:
932:
93:, but is it really beneficial? Eventually search engines will update and dead links will phase out. --
1909:
the world to make sure that no one, anywhere, has that URL. Only then should you delete a redirect. --
1267:
It is our fault. We didn't have to delete this redirect. By deleting it, we've created a broken link.
763:
1324:
1095:
1073:
1004:
767:
695:
580:
1922:
up "Beadwork patterns" and "Gold Faced Pumpkins", both of which contained real content at one point.
1770:
never knowingly break links to your pages, no matter how useless you think they are or how sure you
1662:
calls for keeping Redirect pages, except "when the problems they cause outweigh their advantages";
1385:
1380:
1287:
1156:
1115:
1080:
1048:
908:
896:
884:
872:
854:
828:
786:
707:
351:
1919:" because I reorganized some stuff; and I also really hate it when you follow a link and it 404's.
1701:
If you want to "del redir to make way for move". It'll done by an admin within hours if possible.
1645:
I didn't mean redirects where there was a new page moving in. Those go through the fast track of
562:
Yes. There is obviously no consensus on the matter, so people need to express their opinions. --
443:
2010:
1910:
1781:
1300:
I told you that this would create broken links. You claimed that it wouldn't. You were wrong.
1065:
1026:
1008:
608:
340:
I agree. There is no reason to delete common mispellings. BTW DW, it is "site" not "sight". --
287:
276:
262:
252:
244:
227:
205:
160:
94:
89:
is what sent me searching for a page talking about deleting pages. ATM Gretszky redirects to
1323:
Well, in my semantics, when you click on a link that you expect to take you to an article on
213:
Google and other search engines will have re-indexed Middle-earth and every part of it (even
127:
2005:
If you do see any deleted redirects to existing pages, please restore them or list them on
1646:
1279:
1232:
541:
341:
280:
226:
popular opinion seemed to go the other way. Did I miss a (public) discussion somewhere? —
112:
853:
Most of these arguments are for redirects for pages that have moved or are reasonable. --
1400:
1947:
1894:
1893:
problem. Thus, in the case of these particular talk pages, they should not be deleted.
1820:
1792:
1519:
1439:
1345:
1312:
1301:
1268:
1236:
1187:
1134:
1041:
1016:
969:
670:
638:
593:
563:
556:
517:
494:
475:
463:
455:
447:
429:
413:
333:
180:
86:
924:
Redirects keep history available. Where a redirect has history, this is good because:
744:
650:
240:
90:
1874:
1481:
1458:
1316:
1248:
980:
801:
618:
604:
436:
315:
218:
191:
1501:
First, I have a question about the "Listed for deletion" notice, as called for by
1129:
So fix it, dear Henry, dear Henry, dear Henry. So fix it, dear Henry; dear Henry,
819:
I agree with this, to an extent. I have not, for example, suggested removing the
2041:
1725:
1650:
1639:
1600:
1572:
1527:
1099:
977:
805:
57:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
1416:
I like to look at it this way: if someone goes to their address bar and types
895:
these redirects were added after the fact, not because the page had moved. --
683:
2040:
Is the problem that the only 'problem article' page anyone reads is VfD? --
1777:
1658:
Second, about deleting Redirect pages which are created by typos. Currently
823:
redirect even though it is POV. I think it's legitimate redirect given the
800:
Purely malicious redirects should be deleted, of course. However, note that
214:
1681:
langelo Buonarroti", i.e. a real mistake that's just a slip of the finger.
1595:
Ok. The issue of adding the boilerplate message is also being discussed at
1130:
1108:
advertizing: the business of drawing public attention to goods and services
1968:
1931:
1840:
1805:
1776:
Anyone who's deleting redirects really really needs to not do so. (Here,
1761:
1737:
1692:
1620:
1589:
1556:
1542:
1258:
Google crawls Knowledge (XXG) once a month. It's not a few hours or days.
366:
271:
I just want to say that I am in 100% agreement with Brion and Toby about
172:
152:
1541:. Shall I fix them so the exception for pages without content is clear?
987:
I think you're missing a very important argument for redirect deletion:
1717:
spellings, especially for ancient people and non-English personalities.
846:
991:
Some people find the existence of certain kinds of redirects offensive
350:
I agree as well. BTW mav, it is "misspellings", not "mispelling". :)
1079:
I agree that most redirects of this type should also be removed. --
939:
820:
304:
golly, gosh, fellas, if we keep misspellings we will get more hits
904:
people email links to each other, or mention them in newsgroups.
1686:
953:
931:
It may be subsequently useful - example off the top of my head:
1774:
you are that no one's got them stored and is going to use them.
588:
These are valid redirects, and should stay, in accordance with
311:
36:
235:
1704:
Complete typo ("Presidenté Busch") in redir is also deleted.
1244:
1417:
964:
clutters up search engine results. (internal and external)
621:
is obviously bad, and I won't defend that self-promotion.
592:. The wikipedia search engine should be fixed, longterm.
159:
learned, one step closer to being better informed. :) --
1938:
I'm happy enough with the deletion advice currently at
1537:
Well, that's what I thought seemed logical, but that's
999:
Examples that come to mind are the AKFD redirects, and
720:
I think search engines are only part of the reason why.
261:
Yes, it's still resticted to sysops — see next item. —
28:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Deletion policy/redirects/Archive1
907:
not these... I think I'm done, you get the idea. --
124:
it can be suspected of being in search engines like
1996:Corollary: links to material that Knowledge (XXG)
1555:an explicit exception for pages with no content.
1025:Perhaps I'm using the term "offence" loosely. --
1868:exist different from a link to an article which
1518:The rule is now optional. Ignore it if you want.
2055:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Deletion policy/redirects
1673:By "real typos" I don't mean things like "Mich
488:I suggested something to that effect - now at
302:No wonder this sight has problems. With this
8:
1942:, and I was reasonably happy with the prior
1707:Similar typo are preserved exactly because:
1480:Correction, it is disabled now. Oh well.
1060:The point is that if you don't like seeing
960:As far as I can tell, the case against is:
383:O: Exactly why we should support common mis
867:google only indexes about 1/4 of websites
747:who by any sane standard is someone else),
743:They lead to confusion (as in the case of
1768:Rule one of responsible web publishing:
126:], then I guess a redirect is better. --
1988:Links to material that Knowledge (XXG)
1685:spell/type, we should add some sort of
1597:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Votes for deletion
299:common misspellings of "philosophy.")
1245:http://www.wikipedia.org/Anything_here
424:I notice a lot of redirects listed on
55:Do not edit the contents of this page.
1418:http://www.wikipedia.org/daniel_boyer
1186:for possible copyright infringement.
1182:, just as this page simply points to
916:people write URLS on scraps of paper.
7:
2007:Knowledge (XXG):Votes for undeletion
1151:My name is not Henry... but I fixed
732:What's the other part of the reason?
201:Knowledge (XXG):Article deletion log
133:Hi Pink, a redirect in that case is
18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Deletion policy
1755:From Village Pump 6 September 2003
1503:Knowledge (XXG):Votes_for_deletion
1102:) as well as self-aggrandizement.
845:Let's make the pro-redirect case:
196:Knowledge (XXG):Votes for deletion
35:
1399:If they were searching for, say,
446:and other camel case redirects?
332:that would be an improvement. --
40:
1736:agreed-upon policy about them.
1660:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion_policy
1507:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion_policy
1280:google:donnelly+Knowledge (XXG)
1233:google:donnelly+Knowledge (XXG)
1153:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion policy
892:people add bookmarks to pages.
217:) will be instantly available.
137:better. Since ordinary users
1:
1497:Deletion notice for redirects
1174:Well, I bet you don't have a
942:, so ignore this if you wish.
2053:New comments can be made at
1401:google:donnelly+daniel+boyer
1198:
976:I've tabled a suggestion at
426:wikipedia:votes for deletion
1862:articles which do not exist
1724:Anything I didn't cover? --
1509:etc. It's stated that this
1371:meta:searches and redirects
1062:AIDS Kills Fags Dead slogan
573:meta:searches and redirects
491:meta:Searches and Redirects
2071:
1750:Useless Redirects in Talk:
1642:20:54, Aug 19, 2003 (UTC)
1369:(details of suggestion to
1319:20:17, Jul 31, 2003 (UTC)
1860:Wiki encourages links to
1728:06:35, Aug 17, 2003 (UTC)
1695:06:18, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
1592:00:01, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
1530:06:35, Aug 17, 2003 (UTC)
1290:17:27, Jul 31, 2003 (UTC)
1251:16:47, Jul 31, 2003 (UTC)
1239:13:52, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)
396:What a bunch of nonsense!
290:13:27 Jul 25, 2002 (PDT)
283:19:32 Jul 24, 2002 (PDT)
247:11:17 Jul 24, 2002 (PDT)
236:http://old.wikipedia.com/
230:11:08 Jul 24, 2002 (PDT)
208:03:19 Jul 24, 2002 (PDT)
1934:18:25, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
1764:23:54, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)
1740:17:10, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
1664:Knowledge (XXG):Redirect
1623:16:31, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
1575:20:35, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
1559:18:43, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
1545:17:10, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
1484:14:21, Aug 1, 2003 (UTC)
1461:13:53, Aug 1, 2003 (UTC)
1388:07:18, Aug 1, 2003 (UTC)
1348:20:37, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)
1304:19:56, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)
1217:Daniel Quinlan replied:
1068:00:20 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)
1044:13:44 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)
1011:13:00 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)
1001:Knowledge (XXG):Wikicide
983:17:42 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)
972:12:46 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)
566:23:23 Feb 19, 2003 (UTC)
520:08:55 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)
466:19:53 Feb 17, 2003 (UTC)
369:00:53 Dec 19, 2002 (UTC)
354:00:48 Dec 19, 2002 (UTC)
318:23:59 Dec 18, 2002 (UTC)
265:11:38 Jul 24, 2002 (PDT)
221:08:47 Jul 24, 2002 (PDT)
2044:03:39, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)
2013:23:35, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
1971:20:37, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
1950:20:14, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
1897:20:14, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
1877:19:40, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)
1843:19:57, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
1823:18:53, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
1808:18:25, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
1795:09:38, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
1784:01:00, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
1442:09:37, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)
1190:14:29 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)
1159:10:25 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)
1118:06:01 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)
1083:06:01 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)
1076:12:55 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)
1051:06:01 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)
1029:00:20 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)
911:06:01 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)
899:06:01 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)
887:06:01 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)
875:06:01 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)
857:06:01 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)
831:06:01 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)
789:06:01 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)
770:14:14 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)
710:08:19 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)
698:17:55 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)
686:21:20 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)
673:19:44 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)
653:16:45 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)
641:15:21 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)
611:14:15 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)
596:12:31 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)
382:Insert foot here -: -->
1539:not what the pages say
1336:saying that we should
102:Wofgang Amadeus Mozart
53:of past discussions.
1990:continues to publish
1199:Boyer's broken links
1184:wikipedia:copyrights
571:suggestion moved to
243:for reminding me. —
149:Knowledge (XXG) chat
1998:no longer publishes
1710:we don't have DWIM.
1176:hole in your bucket
1003:and (arguably) the
1940:wikipedia:redirect
1180:wikipedia:redirect
579:discussion of the
933:list of dictators
841:pro-redirect case
664:Actually, google
277:Talk:Middle-earth
241:Julie's talk page
161:User:Colin dellow
78:
77:
65:
64:
59:current talk page
26:(Redirected from
2062:
1203:Above, I wrote:
764:Charles C. Boyer
238:
74:
67:
66:
44:
43:
37:
31:
2070:
2069:
2065:
2064:
2063:
2061:
2060:
2059:
1944:deletion policy
1752:
1499:
1325:Daniel C. Boyer
1201:
1096:Daniel C. Boyer
1074:Daniel C. Boyer
1005:Daniel C. Boyer
843:
768:Daniel C. Boyer
696:Daniel C. Boyer
590:deletion policy
585:
581:Daniel C. Boyer
422:
387:pellings. --mav
296:
234:
188:
113:Martin Scorcese
83:
81:really old talk
70:
41:
33:
32:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
2068:
2066:
2051:
2050:
2049:
2048:
2047:
2046:
2045:
2033:
2032:
2031:
2030:
2029:
2028:
2027:from deletion.
2019:
2018:
2017:
2016:
2015:
2014:
2003:
2002:
2001:
1994:
1977:
1975:
1974:
1973:
1972:
1965:
1958:
1952:
1951:
1928:
1923:
1920:
1916:
1915:
1914:
1913:
1903:
1902:
1901:
1900:
1899:
1898:
1885:
1884:
1883:
1882:
1881:
1880:
1879:
1878:
1851:
1850:
1849:
1848:
1847:
1846:
1845:
1844:
1829:
1828:
1827:
1826:
1825:
1824:
1812:
1811:
1810:
1809:
1799:
1798:
1797:
1796:
1786:
1785:
1751:
1748:
1746:
1744:
1743:
1742:
1741:
1730:
1729:
1722:
1721:
1720:
1719:
1718:
1713:alternate and
1711:
1705:
1702:
1656:
1655:
1654:
1653:
1636:
1631:
1630:
1629:
1628:
1627:
1626:
1625:
1624:
1610:
1609:
1608:
1607:
1606:
1605:
1604:
1603:
1581:
1580:
1579:
1578:
1577:
1576:
1563:
1562:
1561:
1560:
1549:
1548:
1547:
1546:
1532:
1531:
1523:
1522:
1498:
1495:
1494:
1493:
1492:
1491:
1490:
1489:
1488:
1487:
1486:
1485:
1469:
1468:
1467:
1466:
1465:
1464:
1463:
1462:
1448:
1447:
1446:
1445:
1444:
1443:
1430:
1429:
1428:
1427:
1426:
1425:
1409:
1408:
1407:
1406:
1405:
1404:
1392:
1391:
1390:
1389:
1386:Daniel Quinlan
1377:
1376:
1375:
1365:
1350:
1349:
1329:
1328:
1313:User:MyRedDice
1308:
1307:
1306:
1305:
1298:
1292:
1291:
1288:Daniel Quinlan
1274:
1273:
1272:
1271:
1262:
1261:
1260:
1259:
1253:
1252:
1229:
1228:
1227:
1226:
1215:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1200:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1192:
1191:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1157:Daniel Quinlan
1142:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1138:
1137:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1119:
1116:Daniel Quinlan
1111:
1110:
1109:
1106:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1081:Daniel Quinlan
1077:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1049:Daniel Quinlan
1035:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1020:
1019:
1007:redirects. --
993:
992:
985:
974:
966:
965:
958:
957:
949:
945:
944:
943:
936:
926:
925:
922:
919:
918:
917:
914:
913:
912:
909:Daniel Quinlan
902:
901:
900:
897:Daniel Quinlan
890:
889:
888:
885:Daniel Quinlan
878:
877:
876:
873:Daniel Quinlan
861:
860:
859:
858:
855:Daniel Quinlan
842:
839:
838:
837:
836:
835:
834:
833:
832:
829:Daniel Quinlan
812:
811:
810:
809:
795:
794:
793:
792:
791:
790:
787:Daniel Quinlan
778:
777:
776:
775:
774:
773:
772:
771:
753:
752:
751:
750:
749:
748:
736:
735:
734:
733:
727:
726:
725:
724:
723:
722:
712:
711:
708:Daniel Quinlan
702:
701:
700:
699:
688:
687:
679:
678:
677:
676:
675:
674:
657:
656:
655:
654:
643:
642:
629:
628:
623:
622:
615:
614:
613:
612:
598:
597:
584:
577:
568:
567:
553:
552:
551:
550:
549:
548:
547:
546:
545:
544:
528:
527:
526:
525:
524:
523:
522:
521:
502:
501:
500:
499:
498:
497:
481:
480:
479:
478:
468:
467:
459:
458:
440:
439:
421:
418:
417:
416:
393:
392:
391:
390:
389:
388:
375:
374:
373:
372:
371:
370:
358:
357:
356:
355:
352:Chas zzz brown
345:
344:
337:
336:
320:
319:
314:for these. --
295:
292:
269:
268:
267:
266:
256:
255:
223:
222:
187:
184:
181:User:Belltower
176:
164:
156:
131:
117:
109:
98:
87:Wayne Gretszky
82:
79:
76:
75:
63:
62:
45:
34:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2067:
2058:
2056:
2043:
2039:
2038:
2037:
2036:
2035:
2034:
2025:
2024:
2023:
2022:
2021:
2020:
2012:
2008:
2004:
1999:
1995:
1991:
1987:
1986:
1984:
1983:
1982:
1981:
1980:
1979:
1978:
1970:
1966:
1963:
1959:
1956:
1955:
1954:
1953:
1949:
1945:
1941:
1937:
1936:
1935:
1933:
1912:
1907:
1906:
1905:
1904:
1896:
1891:
1890:
1889:
1888:
1887:
1886:
1876:
1871:
1867:
1863:
1859:
1858:
1857:
1856:
1855:
1854:
1853:
1852:
1842:
1837:
1836:
1835:
1834:
1833:
1832:
1831:
1830:
1822:
1818:
1817:
1816:
1815:
1814:
1813:
1807:
1803:
1802:
1801:
1800:
1794:
1790:
1789:
1788:
1787:
1783:
1779:
1775:
1773:
1767:
1766:
1765:
1763:
1757:
1756:
1749:
1747:
1739:
1734:
1733:
1732:
1731:
1727:
1723:
1716:
1712:
1709:
1708:
1706:
1703:
1700:
1699:
1698:
1697:
1696:
1694:
1690:
1688:
1682:
1680:
1676:
1671:
1669:
1665:
1661:
1652:
1648:
1644:
1643:
1641:
1637:
1633:
1632:
1622:
1618:
1617:
1616:
1615:
1614:
1613:
1612:
1611:
1602:
1598:
1594:
1593:
1591:
1587:
1586:
1585:
1584:
1583:
1582:
1574:
1569:
1568:
1567:
1566:
1565:
1564:
1558:
1553:
1552:
1551:
1550:
1544:
1540:
1536:
1535:
1534:
1533:
1529:
1525:
1524:
1521:
1517:
1516:
1515:
1514:those pages?
1512:
1508:
1504:
1496:
1483:
1479:
1478:
1477:
1476:
1475:
1474:
1473:
1472:
1471:
1470:
1460:
1456:
1455:
1454:
1453:
1452:
1451:
1450:
1449:
1441:
1438:URL-hacking.
1436:
1435:
1434:
1433:
1432:
1431:
1423:
1420:, what's the
1419:
1415:
1414:
1413:
1412:
1411:
1410:
1402:
1398:
1397:
1396:
1395:
1394:
1393:
1387:
1382:
1381:Joe is a jerk
1378:
1374:
1372:
1366:
1362:
1361:
1359:
1354:
1353:
1352:
1351:
1347:
1343:
1339:
1335:
1331:
1330:
1326:
1322:
1321:
1320:
1318:
1314:
1303:
1299:
1296:
1295:
1294:
1293:
1289:
1285:
1281:
1276:
1275:
1270:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1263:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1250:
1246:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1238:
1234:
1225:
1222:
1221:
1220:
1219:
1218:
1211:
1208:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1189:
1185:
1181:
1177:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1158:
1154:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1136:
1132:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1125:
1124:
1123:
1117:
1112:
1107:
1104:
1103:
1101:
1097:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1082:
1078:
1075:
1070:
1069:
1067:
1063:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1050:
1046:
1045:
1043:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1028:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1018:
1014:
1013:
1012:
1010:
1006:
1002:
997:
990:
989:
988:
984:
982:
978:
973:
971:
963:
962:
961:
955:
950:
946:
941:
937:
934:
930:
929:
928:
927:
923:
920:
915:
910:
906:
905:
903:
898:
894:
893:
891:
886:
882:
881:
879:
874:
869:
868:
866:
865:
863:
862:
856:
852:
851:
850:
849:
848:
847:
840:
830:
826:
822:
818:
817:
816:
815:
814:
813:
807:
803:
799:
798:
797:
796:
788:
784:
783:
782:
781:
780:
779:
769:
765:
761:
760:
759:
758:
757:
756:
755:
754:
746:
745:Charles Boyer
742:
741:
740:
739:
738:
737:
731:
730:
729:
728:
721:
718:
717:
716:
715:
714:
713:
709:
704:
703:
697:
692:
691:
690:
689:
685:
681:
680:
672:
667:
663:
662:
661:
660:
659:
658:
652:
647:
646:
645:
644:
640:
635:
631:
630:
625:
624:
620:
617:
616:
610:
606:
602:
601:
600:
599:
595:
591:
587:
586:
582:
578:
576:
575:
574:
565:
561:
560:
559:
558:
543:
538:
537:
536:
535:
534:
533:
532:
531:
530:
529:
519:
514:
510:
509:
508:
507:
506:
505:
504:
503:
496:
493:
492:
487:
486:
485:
484:
483:
482:
477:
472:
471:
470:
469:
465:
461:
460:
457:
452:
451:
450:
449:
445:
438:
434:
433:
432:
431:
427:
419:
415:
411:
407:
406:
405:
402:
397:
386:
381:
380:
379:
378:
377:
376:
368:
364:
363:
362:
361:
360:
359:
353:
349:
348:
347:
346:
343:
339:
338:
335:
330:
326:
325:
324:
317:
313:
309:
308:
307:
305:
300:
293:
291:
289:
284:
282:
278:
274:
264:
260:
259:
258:
257:
254:
250:
249:
248:
246:
242:
239:). Thanks to
237:
231:
229:
220:
216:
211:
210:
209:
207:
202:
197:
193:
185:
183:
182:
175:
174:
169:
163:
162:
155:
154:
150:
145:
140:
136:
130:
129:
125:
121:
116:
114:
108:
105:
103:
97:
96:
92:
91:Wayne Gretzky
88:
80:
73:
69:
68:
60:
56:
52:
51:
46:
39:
38:
29:
23:
19:
2052:
1997:
1989:
1976:
1961:
1917:
1869:
1865:
1771:
1769:
1758:
1754:
1753:
1745:
1714:
1691:
1683:
1678:
1674:
1672:
1667:
1657:
1599:by the way.
1538:
1510:
1500:
1421:
1368:
1357:
1341:
1337:
1333:
1309:
1283:
1230:
1223:
1216:
1209:
1202:
1066:Tim Starling
1034:
1027:Tim Starling
1009:Tim Starling
998:
994:
986:
975:
967:
959:
844:
824:
802:Chemical Ali
719:
665:
633:
619:1994 in film
609:Tim Starling
605:1994 in film
570:
569:
554:
512:
489:
441:
423:
409:
400:
395:
394:
384:
328:
321:
303:
301:
297:
294:Misspellings
285:
272:
270:
253:Brion VIBBER
232:
224:
192:Middle Earth
189:
177:
167:
165:
157:
143:
138:
134:
132:
122:
118:
110:
106:
99:
95:Colin dellow
84:
71:
54:
48:
1422:most useful
1403:? Could be.
1284:temporarily
1100:Connecticut
806:Comical Ali
442:What about
186:Ex-Subpages
128:Pinkunicorn
47:This is an
1927:somewhere.
1520:—Eloquence
420:Camel case
135:definitely
1870:no longer
1778:read this
1017:Camembert
583:redirects
564:Eloquence
518:Eloquence
476:Camembert
464:Eloquence
456:Camembert
444:AbductioN
414:Camembert
334:Camembert
215:Rivendell
199:(look at
72:Archive 1
22:redirects
1635:deleted.
1358:breaking
651:Delirium
329:deleting
173:User:LMS
153:User:LMS
20: |
1875:SEWilco
1715:correct
1364:users.)
981:GrahamN
627:change.
437:Mintguy
327:Surely
316:Tarquin
219:Ed Poor
168:thought
50:archive
2042:Morven
1948:Martin
1895:Martin
1821:Martin
1793:Martin
1726:Menchi
1651:Angela
1640:Menchi
1601:Angela
1573:Angela
1528:Menchi
1440:Martin
1346:Martin
1342:always
1302:Martin
1269:Martin
1237:Martin
1188:Martin
1135:Martin
1131:fix it
1042:Martin
970:Martin
825:common
804:, and
671:Martin
639:Martin
594:Martin
557:Martin
513:should
495:Martin
448:Martin
430:Martin
166:Oh, I
2011:Brion
1911:Brion
1866:could
1782:Brion
1780:.) --
1772:think
1338:never
1231:Note
1133:! :)
948:face.
940:IANAL
821:Dubya
684:Jiang
410:drĂ´le
408:Very
139:can't
16:<
2009:. --
1969:Noel
1962:have
1932:Noel
1841:Noel
1806:Noel
1762:Noel
1738:Noel
1693:Noel
1687:DWIM
1668:real
1621:Noel
1590:Noel
1557:Noel
1543:Noel
1332:I'm
954:Kant
666:does
412:. --
288:Toby
263:Toby
245:Toby
228:Toby
206:Toby
1925:-->
1647:VfD
1511:has
1334:not
632:We
542:mav
401:not
367:RTC
342:mav
312:foo
281:mav
273:not
144:not
104:)?
2057:.
1505:,
1482:MB
1459:MB
1317:MB
1249:MB
871:--
649:--
634:do
454:--
171:--
1679:r
1675:a
1373:)
935:.
385:s
61:.
30:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.