Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 November 25
November 25[edit]
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 25, 2012
File:St marys university college text block.png[edit]
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was speedy delete as G7. SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- File:St marys university college text block.png → File:St Mary's University College Twickenham.png (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]
Delete Redirect caused by file rename. Cloudbound (talk) 19:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Question Why did you not just upload the new image under the new name? You've made exactly the same edit to the article as would be needed in that case, but you've made the edit history of the image file more complicated. Thryduulf (talk) 12:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Multiple: Insulated glazing[edit]
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was no consensus. Yes, I've commented in this discussion but as it's now been open over 2 months and 10 days since the last comment. None of the redirects have been tagged for deletion, not even the five initially listed, despite requests and plenty of time to do so, and so any deletions would not be within process anyway. There is a consensus to keep at least the most common of these, but no obvious consensus about which subset this applies to and no consensus about the less common ones. Overall, I don't consider it worth the time to figure out which redirects have consensus keep and which don't, so I'm closing the whole lot as no consensus with no prejudice to a renomination that is better organised and in which the nominated redirects are explicitly tagged (by human or otherwise).
As this is an "involved" closure, anyone can undo it without penalty, however I would ask that you enunciate what benefits you consider doing so brings if you do. Thryduulf (talk)
** NOTE TO CLOSING EDITOR- PLEASE FEEL FREE TO PASS THE IMPLEMENTATION OF WHATEVER'S DECIDED ON THIS BACK TO THE NOMINATOR (User:Topbanana) IF YOU DON'T FANCY DOING IT YOURSELF **
- Double-paner → Insulated glazing (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]
- Triple pane windows → Insulated glazing (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]
- Quadruplepanes → Insulated glazing (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]
- Quintuplepaned windows → Insulated glazing (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]
- Sextuple-glaze glasses → Insulated glazing (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]
These are a representative sample of a set of 428 (bulk-created?) redirects to this article. I would propose deleting the 84 redirects each from from quadruple, quintuple and sextuple variations on the grounds that these are extremely rarely used specialised constructions that the target article does not discuss. I would also propose removing most of the 84 redirects each from double and triple variations, retaining only those for which google shows at least one non-Wikipedia result. The remaining 20 or so unique redirects to be left as is. TB (talk) 19:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Triple pane windows, as that redirect is actively used. Delete the others explicitly listed above as they are not used. Keep without prejudice those not listed above: The list of 84 contains some very obviously useful redirects that should not be deleted (e.g. Double glazing) and others that are possibly plausible so I'm not prepared to agree to the deletion of some unspecified subset. Thryduulf (talk) 12:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- For clarity, the same 84 variations exist for each of 'double', 'triple', 'quadruple', 'quintuple' and 'sextuple' (so 84 x 5 = 420 redirects). The entire list can be seen here. - TB (talk) 13:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I've seen the list. I'm not going to give my support to any proposal that doesn't list which ones from the list you are proposing to delete so that I and others can investigate which ones we agree with and which we disagree with. Thryduulf (talk) 16:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Seconded there. Explicitness is good. I am more than willing to have this discussion based on the ones explicitly listed here, but not the ones listed on the other page. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I've seen the list. I'm not going to give my support to any proposal that doesn't list which ones from the list you are proposing to delete so that I and others can investigate which ones we agree with and which we disagree with. Thryduulf (talk) 16:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- For clarity, the same 84 variations exist for each of 'double', 'triple', 'quadruple', 'quintuple' and 'sextuple' (so 84 x 5 = 420 redirects). The entire list can be seen here. - TB (talk) 13:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete everything beyond triple and keep the rest Ego White Tray (talk) 04:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete everything beyond triple etc. per EWT. Topbanana appears to have done a lot of work here, and I'm willing to trust him. Probably some of the double-glazed and triple-glazed (wow, those sounds like extra-sweet doughnuts) windows need to be deleted as well, but because some of them are good, some of them are bad, and some of them are neutral, I'd suggest that we close this as "delete quadruple and up, and no consensus on double and triple". Immediately upon closing, let's have a new nomination for double and triple, where we could discuss them more easily without the pile of other redirects sitting on top fo them. Nyttend (talk) 06:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Appending the full list here per requests above:
- Delete almost all. Delete everything above and including "triple-" (except eventually a couple exceptions pointed above. From the "double-something" family of redirects keep only a handfull, at most, keeping the 'simple' forms, not sure which would be the most common. Probably "Double pane" and "Double glaze" only... If WP has a decent search engine (I guess it has) then searching for any of the others will get one of those quite near the top. - Nabla (talk) 01:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- No, Wikipedia doesn't have a decent search engine. It has a search engine that is sometimes moderately good and sometimes basically useless. Search results cannot be guaranteed, do not appear in all circumstances and do not help at all with links. Thryduulf (talk) 02:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- I bet it is good enough for this purpose. I use it a lot and I usually get where I'm aiming at. Anyway, should we create lots of variations for every title? Will it help in what? I can't see a reason why, nor I can see a reason why this article should be special. - Nabla (talk) 02:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- No this article should not be special. All articles should have as many redirects from likely and logical search terms as will enable the greatest number of people to directly find the article they are looking for. There is never any benefit in search results over a redirect when there is a clear target for a likely search term; deleting such redirects is actively harmful. The question in this case is determining which terms are likely to be used and which aren't or are incorrect, and that is far more than you appear to be suggesting. "Double glazing" to take one example is by far the most common term of the "double" family in British English. Thryduulf (talk) 10:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- My suggestion was to include some from the "double" family, and noted that I was unsure of which are the most common. By all means, keep "Double glazing". Not against that at all. But I fail to see your reasoning in full (and admit my mind is not crystal clear about redirects, thus the question). If the search engine is so bad (and readers are so inept at using it) that a reader can not find, say, Sextuplepaning, without the redirect, why not keep them all? Why not actively create all the regular plurals? Really I am not trying to fool you on some trick question, I am curious. Feel free not to reply as off-topic, as it is, or to move it to my talk page. - Nabla (talk) 20:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- No this article should not be special. All articles should have as many redirects from likely and logical search terms as will enable the greatest number of people to directly find the article they are looking for. There is never any benefit in search results over a redirect when there is a clear target for a likely search term; deleting such redirects is actively harmful. The question in this case is determining which terms are likely to be used and which aren't or are incorrect, and that is far more than you appear to be suggesting. "Double glazing" to take one example is by far the most common term of the "double" family in British English. Thryduulf (talk) 10:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- I bet it is good enough for this purpose. I use it a lot and I usually get where I'm aiming at. Anyway, should we create lots of variations for every title? Will it help in what? I can't see a reason why, nor I can see a reason why this article should be special. - Nabla (talk) 02:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- No, Wikipedia doesn't have a decent search engine. It has a search engine that is sometimes moderately good and sometimes basically useless. Search results cannot be guaranteed, do not appear in all circumstances and do not help at all with links. Thryduulf (talk) 02:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete all except those that are in use in article space. Dicklyon (talk) 06:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete most some of these terms don't even exist in google searches Triple-glazers but some of the higher layers do quadruple glazing . I think we need to keep one of each number of layers and many of the synonyms could go. Ideally the insulated glass article should discuss the trend for glass with more layers. I'm quite happy to give the closing admin a fairly free hand in deleting as they see fit as it is in-practical to decide on each term. --Salix (talk): 08:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Is it appropriate to retain a redirect to an article to indicate a subject it may (or indeed ought to) cover in the future, but which at present not? I'd favour accuracy over inclusiveness here - the cost of adding redirects from relevant quadruple terms once the article covers the subject is minimal. - TB (talk) 10:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comments. This nomination is procedurally defective as none of the redirects were marked for deletion. Ruslik_Zero 19:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed it is chief, indeed it is. While it would have been possible (albeit tedious) to add RfD templates to each of these 428 bulk-produced redirects, it was my opinion that this task fell into the wrong quadrant of the usefulness / effort graph. - TB (talk) 19:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- Explicitly tagging pages nominated for deletion is not optional. It is perfectly acceptable to ask an AWB user to do something like this on your behalf though. Thryduulf (talk) 10:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'll have to politely disagree with you there. The RfD process is in almost all cases both fit-for-purpose and beneficial, but it fails to scale well. Here we have a large 'block' of semantically similar redirects - it's (IMHO) more practical to treat them as either a monolithic entity or a small set of more finely-distinguished entities, enacting the RfD process for each entity. - TB (talk) 12:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Regardless of whether you think the RfD process scales well or not is irrelevant - the process requires that all pages nominated for deletion are tagged, regardless of whether they are semantically linked or not. As I noted it doesn't require the pages be tagged manually, only that they are tagged. If you think this needs to be changed then discuss it at WT:RFD and get consensus rather than unilaterally choosing which bits of the process you want to follow and which you don't. Thryduulf (talk) 13:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- I asked for a helping hand, at wp:Bot_requests - Nabla (talk) 02:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- Regardless of whether you think the RfD process scales well or not is irrelevant - the process requires that all pages nominated for deletion are tagged, regardless of whether they are semantically linked or not. As I noted it doesn't require the pages be tagged manually, only that they are tagged. If you think this needs to be changed then discuss it at WT:RFD and get consensus rather than unilaterally choosing which bits of the process you want to follow and which you don't. Thryduulf (talk) 13:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'll have to politely disagree with you there. The RfD process is in almost all cases both fit-for-purpose and beneficial, but it fails to scale well. Here we have a large 'block' of semantically similar redirects - it's (IMHO) more practical to treat them as either a monolithic entity or a small set of more finely-distinguished entities, enacting the RfD process for each entity. - TB (talk) 12:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Explicitly tagging pages nominated for deletion is not optional. It is perfectly acceptable to ask an AWB user to do something like this on your behalf though. Thryduulf (talk) 10:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed it is chief, indeed it is. While it would have been possible (albeit tedious) to add RfD templates to each of these 428 bulk-produced redirects, it was my opinion that this task fell into the wrong quadrant of the usefulness / effort graph. - TB (talk) 19:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep these redirects are neither new nor harmful. The cost of tagging them and listing them and deleting them is greater than the supposed advantage. Note also that quadruple glazing, while unusual, is significant, being manufactured for residential and light industrial use in Alaska and I think the Yukon, also possibly in Switzerland - quintuple glazing is a leading edge product. Nontheless anyone searching for these terms should go to this article. Note further than a more common term is "Multi-pane glazing" Rich Farmbrough, 12:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC).
- Keep anything mentioned in the target article (currently up to and including quintuple glazing) and variations; while I've only heard of up to triple glazing and some of these seem obscure they are plausible and not harmful. I'm not certain that searching would lead to the article, as search results for "Wacky Wheel" and "Wacky Wheels" (another recent RFD) return different results. Peter James (talk) 00:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Future self[edit]
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- Future self → Grandfather paradox (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]
Based on the provided article, the title of this redirect doesn't make since. Nathan2055talk - contribs 18:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Strong Keep - The target article is closely related to the redirect. Also, it does not make sense that the target displayed on the RfD page is invalid. Weihang7 (talk) 20:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete the target is not closely related to the term "future self", since that term is frequently used in introspective contexts, such as about obesity, addiction, or career goals, etc. -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 06:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per 70.24.250.26; the grandfather paradox involves one's past self doing something impossible that prevents the existence of one's future self, while "future self" typically refers to one doing something during or at the end of an uninterrupted period of time, includign obesity and career goals. It would be better to retarget somewhere else, but unless someone can find a good target, we should delete. Nyttend (talk) 22:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Template:Non-free fair use in[edit]
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was Keep. No reason for deletion given. Ruslik_Zero 18:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- Template:Non-free fair use in → Template:Non-free fair use (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]
This is not a deletion/discussion nomination that I take lightly. I am quite aware that this redirect is linked on many thousands of pages due to the template's previous existence at this location for a number of years. I make this nomination because my past experience has given me the impression that non-free image license tags don't get redirects, based on the movement of the general non-free template to this (old) location and the conversion of Template:Fairusein to a soft redirect rather than leaving it as a real redirect. I realize that under normal circumstances, it would be a no-brainer to leave the redirect in place, but I feel that this may be a special case. Obviously, with thousands of transclusions using this redirect title, a bot would be needed to change all of the transclusions to point to the new location. Due to the fact that this title has existed for a number of years, a soft redirect rather than outright deletion may be advisable, but ultimately the community needs to decide what to do with this redirect. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm not getting this. Why would there be a general principle that non-free image tags can't have redirects to them? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per lack of any reason given to do anything else. The nomination says "under normal circumstances we would keep this, but these aren't normal circumstances" but does not explain what these circumstances are nor why this means changing thousands of transclusions would bring any benefit? Thryduulf (talk) 11:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Basically, I noticed a while back that when we standardized the non-free content license tag titles a few years ago to include "Non free" in them, we got rid of the old titles entirely. Not a redirect to the new title, but we got rid of them outright. Thus the question really is, do we want to do this again here since the tag got relocated, or do we leave the redirect in place? It feels like this needs to be discussed, because I don't know what the reasoning was behind it before. I just saw that it happened, and it needs to be determined if we're going to continue it or not. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Fair enough, but what is the benefit to making the thousands of edits and then deleting the template vs leaving it as is? It's not presently broken. Thryduulf (talk) 02:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Again, I don't know the reasoning behind the original moves that brought things to their present state. Take my nomination as, "do you want to continue what was done in the past, for whatever reason it was done before". I really don't know why it was done, just that it was done. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Fair enough, but what is the benefit to making the thousands of edits and then deleting the template vs leaving it as is? It's not presently broken. Thryduulf (talk) 02:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Basically, I noticed a while back that when we standardized the non-free content license tag titles a few years ago to include "Non free" in them, we got rid of the old titles entirely. Not a redirect to the new title, but we got rid of them outright. Thus the question really is, do we want to do this again here since the tag got relocated, or do we leave the redirect in place? It feels like this needs to be discussed, because I don't know what the reasoning was behind it before. I just saw that it happened, and it needs to be determined if we're going to continue it or not. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete by all means, but only once it has no remaining use (read: transclusions). The template is part of our internal bureaucracy rather than the encyclopaedia; as such it should be removed as a matter of general housekeeping when it serves no purpose. - TB (talk) 21:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Broken - whatever's going on, it's badly broken, leaving lots of (thousands, you say?) articles with no yellow license visible, just a red block directing people to the wrong place to a) discuss and b) fix the problem. Seriously, take a look - that should be a yellow fully fleshed-out license template there, no matter what anyone is doing with redirects. --Lexein (talk) 22:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Wish there were some intermediate solution, to still call to discussion while still redirecting, but that would require a change to the way MediaWiki processes redirects.--Lexein (talk) 06:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yes - add the deletion tag underneath the redirect (rather than above it) and all is well. This has been done. SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Wish there were some intermediate solution, to still call to discussion while still redirecting, but that would require a change to the way MediaWiki processes redirects.--Lexein (talk) 06:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- May I beg here that a bot first bypass the redirect, then delete {{Non-free fair use in}} the template redirect under discussion? --Lexein (talk) 22:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Certainly the redirect should be bypassed if it is then going to be deleted, but I don't see what benefit either action has to the encyclopaedia? Thryduulf (talk) 02:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Absolutely, if it is determined that this redirect must die, we would get a bot to fix all the transclusions before it's actually deleted. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete is fine with me if disruption is minimized. Redirects are fragile. They're intended to be temporary or helpful (typo, alt. term, breadcrumb), and this one is neither. The initially sound reasons for redirects are inevitably lost in the mists of time, which has risks (debacles like the galling WP:IMAGES hijack). --Lexein (talk) 06:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- I must be missing something. {{Non-free fair use in}} doesn't seem to add functionality over {{Non-free fair use}}. What's the special use case? Habit? Javascript tools or widgets? --Lexein (talk) 12:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- There is no added functionality. {{Non-free fair use}} used to be located at {{Non-free fair use in}}, and was moved after the parameters that the "in" part represented were removed. So it's not a difference in functionality, but rather an historical name. SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- I must be missing something. {{Non-free fair use in}} doesn't seem to add functionality over {{Non-free fair use}}. What's the special use case? Habit? Javascript tools or widgets? --Lexein (talk) 12:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep What's wrong with non-free image license tags having redirects from their former title. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 12:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Lesbian kiss episodes[edit]
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was keep. Rcsprinter (warn) @ 11:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Lesbian kiss episodes → Lesbian kiss episode (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]
Delete - The target article was created in May 2009 and it does not appear that the redirect was looked at even once in the intervening three and a half years, before an editor whose contributions around LGBT topics has been, shall we say zealous, created it. No one looking for the article is ever going to type a search string that is longer than the actual article title, which will appear as a search result before the redirect will. Nothing links to the redirect. Nothing has ever linked to the redirect. This is the textbook case of a redirect that does not serve and cannot serve any useful purpose whatsoever. Speedy delete was declined because this search term which, again, had never been viewed before less than a month ago is "eminently plausible". No, no it is not. Buck Winston (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, the article discusses more than one episode of this "genre", anyone who knows or suspects this may well type the plural, especially if they are unfamiliar with Wikipedia naming conventions. Siuenti (talk) 03:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Seriously? Someone's going to type "lesbian kiss episode" and get the link to the article and the link to this plural and they're going to choose the plural? Do you really think that readers are that rock stupid? Buck Winston (talk) 15:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- I think someone might type "lesbian kiss episodes" all in one go, without stopping after "episode" to look at their options. Siuenti (talk) 21:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- And yet that never happened in over three years. Buck Winston (talk) 05:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Page views for pages that do not exist are seemingly not always recorded, thus the statistics prior to a title being created are not reliable. I suspect that they are only recorded if someone clicks on the red link, and so it wont note when people selected a different option from the search results page for example. Thryduulf (talk) 12:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- And yet that never happened in over three years. Buck Winston (talk) 05:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- I think someone might type "lesbian kiss episodes" all in one go, without stopping after "episode" to look at their options. Siuenti (talk) 21:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Seriously? Someone's going to type "lesbian kiss episode" and get the link to the article and the link to this plural and they're going to choose the plural? Do you really think that readers are that rock stupid? Buck Winston (talk) 15:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. No less plausible than any of the other 6,300+ redirects from plurals. I'll tag it as such. Thryduulf (talk) 04:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- The difference of course being that many of those redirects involve changes in spelling from the original, i.e. "centuries" from "century". That isn't the case here and no one with a functioning brain is going to choose the plural when the singular is right there and, in the absence of this redirect, is going to select the only option that comes up. The existence of this redirect is the only thing that would induce anyone to select this redirect. Maintaining a redirect that does nothing but encourage people to make the wrong choice of two options, the other option being the article they are looking for, is stupid and a disservice to readers. Buck Winston (talk) 15:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- The problem with that logic, Buck, is that not all people get to Wiki articles through the search. Some people will make an educated guess as to the url (www.wikipedia.com/wiki/lesbian_kiss_episodes), some people writing articles will need to make links to the page and might guess that it's a plural title. Deleting a redirect requires not that the redirect is necessary, but that the redirect makes navigating Wikipedia difficult - for example, if it's confusing. You've given to reason to delete this. Ego White Tray (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- The reason to delete this is that it's STUPID to maintain search strings that are longer than the actual name of the target article. Someone Googling "lesbian kiss episodes" in the plural will find Lesbian kiss episode in the singular as the very first search result. This redirect serves no purpose. Buck Winston (talk) 05:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- Further to EWT's comment, the internal search is only one of many different ways that people use to navigate Wikipedia - other methods include links from other Wikipedia pages, links from external sites, links from search engines, external Wikipedia search tools, external search engines, direct URL entry (I use this a lot), the url bar search shortcut feature in Firefox (this is the way I most commonly find pages on WP. Maybe other browsers offer similar too), etc. Of these methods, only the internal search box is guaranteed to offer the suggested articles drop-down and even then only for those people using a graphical browser with javascript enabled; of the other methods of searching some dedicated external tools may offer this or similar funcionality, but not all of them and none of the others do. Also, many people with a perfectly functioning brain will select the pulural if they don't know the article is at the singular title (given the content, either is plausible) and suggesting that a plural form would only be visited by people with significantly lower than average intelligence is getting very close to personal attack territory. Thryduulf (talk) 02:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Find me a single search method by which entering lesbian kiss episodes doesn't bring up the article as the first result. And I'm not the one suggesting that readers are stupid. The people arguing to keep the redirect are, suggesting that readers are too dumb to choose between the singular and the plural. Buck Winston (talk) 03:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- The problem with that logic, Buck, is that not all people get to Wiki articles through the search. Some people will make an educated guess as to the url (www.wikipedia.com/wiki/lesbian_kiss_episodes), some people writing articles will need to make links to the page and might guess that it's a plural title. Deleting a redirect requires not that the redirect is necessary, but that the redirect makes navigating Wikipedia difficult - for example, if it's confusing. You've given to reason to delete this. Ego White Tray (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - plausible as a search term, even more plausible as a guess on what to bluelink by someone writing an article. No rationale for deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilyD (talk • contribs)
- Search strings that are LONGER THAN THE TARGET are NOT PLAUSIBLE. That is because anyone searching for them will STOP WHEN THE THING THEY ARE SEARCHING FOR APPEARS. Seriously, what is wrong with you people? Search strings that are LONGER THAN THE TARGET are NOT NEEDED. Buck Winston (talk) 05:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I closed this as Snow Keep, but Buck reverted it. Loads of Category:Redirects from plurals redirects are of this type such as Apples, Agonists, Acorns, Actors, and Apples. Buck, your entitled to your oppion that these aren't plausible, but the community strongly disagrees with you. Please don't nominate redirects such as "Lesbian kiss episodes" and "Apples" for deletion, they won't be deleted.
- Also it's already been pointed out to you the search box is not the only way people look up articles on Wikipedia. Even if every one did, not every one has JavaScript, and even if everyone did we don't force our readers to be on the lookout for their article to appear in a dropdown box, we redirect them to the article their looking for. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, the TWO RESULTS that appear when one types lesbian ki in the search box are such a trial for a reader to slog through and the ONE RESULT that remains after hitting lesbian kis is completely confusing. How can we expect anyone to figure it out? And I'll nominate what I like so unless you're the Wikipedia police don't tell me not to. Buck Winston (talk) 03:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- While you are generally free to nominate what you like, nominating things that have no chance of being deleted (such as obvious redirects from plurals, which have had consensus as useful redirects since at least 2003) is pointless and in some circumstances, especially if done repeatedly, is seen as disruptive. Thryduulf (talk) 13:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, the TWO RESULTS that appear when one types lesbian ki in the search box are such a trial for a reader to slog through and the ONE RESULT that remains after hitting lesbian kis is completely confusing. How can we expect anyone to figure it out? And I'll nominate what I like so unless you're the Wikipedia police don't tell me not to. Buck Winston (talk) 03:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Buck, please cool down. Users already on Wikipedia may well find what they're looking for before they finish typing "Lesbian kiss episodes," but not everyone comes to articles that way. Suppose someone has that phrase copied and pastes it into a search box. Does it really make sense for them to not go to this article? It may also aid external search engines. As Emmette has pointed out, there are plenty of redirects from plurals that serve similar purposes. If you disagree with this concept, you could nominate Template:Redirect from plural for deletion, although I'll warn you that you're very unlikely to be successful. And please remember that capital letters are often perceived as "shouting" online, and thus are generally bad wikiquette. --BDD (talk) 23:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.