Aja viide. Aja lugu.

January 12

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 12, 2010

The result of the discussion was delete. Redirects of this kind are harmless and usually kept; I think the requester's worries are illusory, but this is no big deal and I see no harm in agreeing to her request. JohnCD (talk) 11:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Donald braswell

Donald braswell → Donald Braswell (links to redirect • history • stats)

delete the original page with lower case 'b'. This is an unnecessary redirect Lucia medea (talk) 01:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would happily see this one go, but there are probably tens of thousands of redirects like this, and I think they are generally considered acceptable. — the Man in Question (in question) 00:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are trying to eventually set up a page for Donald's father, also named Donald Braswell, who is a singer/actor. This will require Donald's page to be redirected to Donald Braswell II, and I'd like to limit the number of redirects on the page. Lucia medea (talk) 00:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you like to limit the number of redirects on the page? Which page? Josh Parris 01:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To prevent it from being a double redirect. People will (eventually) be redirected only from "Donald Braswell" to "Donald Braswell II". Lucia medea (talk) 04:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what Wikipedia says about about a double redirect:

"A redirect is a special page that automatically causes the text of another page to be displayed in its place. A redirect that points to another redirect is called a double redirect. These pages are undesirable, because Wikipedia's MediaWiki software will not follow the second redirect, in order to prevent infinite loops (to prevent endless looping, a redirect will not "pass through" more than one entry; if someone is redirected to a redirect, the chain stops after the first redirect). These situations create slow, unpleasant experiences for the reader, waste server resources, and make the navigational structure of the site confusing." Lucia medea (talk) 04:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Don't worry about it. There's at least one bot that runs around fixing double-redirects. Josh Parris 05:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and tag with {{R from other capitalization}}. --Thin boy00 @219, i.e. 04:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think {{R from incorrect capitalization}} is better. Josh Parris 05:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand this kind of redirects happen all the time, but the original page was an error on my part. Deleting it would be a simple action that would not hurt anyone and would only make Wikipedia cleaner and more efficient. Lucia medea (talk) 03:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, deleting makes it less efficient, as now there's a delete record as well (on Wikipedia, nothing is deleted; but stuff does become non-visible). Don't worry about performance, worry about building an encyclopedia. Redirects are handy for other users who make the same error - so this redirect is helpful. Josh Parris 04:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Granted, it's not helpful right now because it's being discussed, proposed for deletion. But normally it would be invisible. Josh Parris 00:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects can be a slower irritating way for users to get to where they want to go and invalid pages clutter up Wikipedia servers. If someone wants to clean up areas they are creating and maintaining, I would think that is a good thing for everyone Plus as mentioned an unneeded redirect increases the risk of later having a double redirect. Unnecessary pages and redirects ought to be deleted.Wikiauthenticity (talk) 04:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment above. Josh Parris 04:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to keep the Donald braswell name from appearing in the dropdown when a search is done, so someone doesn't accidentally select it and have go through the redirect? I think most searches are typed lower case which brings up both version the way it is now. Thanks.Wikiauthenticity (talk) 01:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Picking either of them will get you to the right article. Don't worry about it. Josh Parris 11:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see the reasoning behind denying someone the option of cleaning up a mistake they made, and why so much time and energy is devoted to disallowing the cleanup, rather than just cleaning it up. Why would Wikipedia want to hold onto garbage pages and subject the public to weed through them to get to where they want to go. You would think if there are people wanting to make Wikipedia look better, they would be embraced not shoved to the side and vilified.Wikiauthenticity (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Normally a redirect just magically takes you to the article it targets and you don't see that page that brought you here. It was by proposing it for deletion that it stopped functioning as a redirect and you saw that bloody big sign and related chatter on the redirect page rather than the Donald Braswell article. Josh Parris 00:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that's not quite true. The reason we put the request in was that when people put in a search for "donald braswell" they are presented with the faulty page in two ways. One is it shows in the drop down that appears and they will sometimes pick the wrong one. If they just hit enter in the search they are presented with a list that contains both pages. This is how I encountered the first time and asked to have it deleted. Also, when the redirect is executed there is a message at the top of the page that says "redirected from Donald braswell". All three are just a bit tacky looking and we would like to have it cleaned up. Thank you.Wikiauthenticity (talk) 00:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really? If I type 'donald braswell' into the search box and press return it takes me straight to the redirect - and would take me to the correctly capitalised article if it weren't for the deletion notice. Did you click on 'search' instead? That will take you to a search results page no matter how many articles there are. As for "it shows in the drop down that appears and they will sometimes pick the wrong one" - it's only the 'wrong' one if there's some other reason to dis-prefer the redirect to the article; so we seem to be left just with your distaste for the "redirected from" notice at the top: and I really don't think that's important enough to be worth setting a precedent of deleting the thousands of redirects of this type that we have, which would be very time-consuming and render tons of them useless for a week. Olaf Davis (talk) 16:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No one is trying to set any precedents or ask for other changes. Just one little one that the directions say is easy and normally done as I quoted from the redirect pages below. We are simply trying to clean up a little mess that serves no purpose. As I said there are 3 ways the redirect is seen. 1) in the dropdown when typing in search. 2) When clicking search it comes up in the list. 3) on the top of the valid screen it is shown as having been redirected. Also, we ultimately want another page built for his father "Donald Braswell" and this redirect will be in error. The time it has taken up of peoples time here would have easily been saved by simply deleting the page. If it is such a odious task to delete this simple error, maybe some consideration of letting the authors delete their own errors? Really guys, I don't want any arguments or hard feelings here. Why is this really such a big thing?Wikiauthenticity (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The request to delete this page fits the acceptable reasons in the deletion criteria page
"Redundant or otherwise useless templates".Wikiauthenticity (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Check Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion for valid and invalid delete criteria. Josh Parris 00:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing out that page to us. I think the thing is, this discussion seems a bit unnecessary. I don't think anyone is anxious to keep the page that was put up in error. I haven't heard from anyone saying they like the page and think it should remain. Why anyone thought this needed to be a controversial topic is a mystery to me. The page is totally unhelpful makes no improvement to the encyclopedia, so why are there people wanting to force us to have it if we don't want it? To quote from the discussion page you informed us about it says:

"deleting redirects is cheap since the deletion coding takes up minimal disk space and use very little bandwidth. In general, there is no harm in deleting problematic redirects that do not contribute to improving the encyclopedia. The default result of any RfD nomination which receives no other discussion is delete. Thus, a redirect nominated in good faith and in accordance with RfD policy will be deleted, even if there is no discussion surrounding that nomination."Wikiauthenticity (talk) 00:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm a bit confused by Wikiauthority's comment "The reason we put the [deletion] request", since it was in fact Lucia medea who opened the discussion... have I misunderstood something? Olaf Davis (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm involved in content for this page and have an interest in its validity and appearance.Wikiauthenticity (talk) 23:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How long does this process take before a determination is made and the redirect discussion page can be removed?Wikiauthenticity (talk) 23:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I read somewhere that the process takes seven days, which would be tomorrow. Who makes that final decision and what criteria do they use to making it? Wikiauthenticity and I are the only ones providing content for the Donald Braswell page in this discussion. Why would people not involved in the creation or modification of the page be so concerned about the deletion of an error? Lucia medea (talk) 01:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]