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 Retarget to HUD (video gaming). Ruslik_Zero 15:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Status screen → Role-playing video game (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Original page was deleted, unlikely typo. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 20:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per nom. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC) Actually, HUD (video gaming) would make a good target, so retarget. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not sure what you mean that the "original page was deleted". Neither the history of the redirect page nor the history of any of the targets pages (the target has been updated several times) show any deleted history except briefly for a history-merger. It is also patently not a "typo". This redirect was deliberately created at this title in apparent good-faith.
  While the phrase "status screen" is not used in the current target article, it was used in the article at the time the redirect was created. The redirect has existed since 2006 without any evidence of controversy, harm or confusion. While it's not a redirect that I would personally create, per WP:CHEAP there is also no reason to delete it. Keep unless someone can present an actual showing of harm or confusion.
  Having said that, the general concept of a "status screen" is not unique to RPGs. I could see a good argument for retargetting to a more general article such as HUD (video gaming). Rossami (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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. Peridon (talk) 16:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 3.14159265358979323846264338327950288 → Pi (links to redirect • history • stats) 
• 3.14159265358979323846264338327 → Pi (links to redirect • history • stats) 

This is just a little crazy on the number of digits. I do not think that anybody will type that many digits just to go to "pi". Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• We have had lots of discussions about similar numbers. The consensus has always been that while we wish editors would do something more useful than to create these, once they have been created there is no point to deleting them. Bear in mind that redirects do more than merely support the search engine. I wouldn't type the digits in either but users might cut-and-paste them or find them somehow useful for external linking. They have existed without controversy for one and two years respectively. They are not harmful or confusing. So, keep unless there is a real reason to delete them. Rossami (talk) 18:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Rossami. This redirect does no-one any harm, and people who have never heard of pi and seen this number, might copy-paste it into Wikipedia to see what it means. There is no real reason to remove this article. Zezizzebezt (talk) 17:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Out of curiosity, then, why don't we have the numbers between these two, such as 3.141592653589793238462643383279503 or 3.1415926535897932384626433832795029? Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because nobody has created them. Thryduulf (talk) 09:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Redirects are cheap and I don't see any real harm in keeping these redirects around. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—Nobody would type this, and there are an unlimited number of such redirects just for pi, let alone e, √2, etc. — Anomalocaris (talk) 06:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, doing no harm, causing no confusion, getting in the way of nothing, the target is correct and obvious. In short there is no reason to delete.Thryduulf (talk) 09:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - they are accurate, correct? I could see deleting if they were not pi, but they won't do any harm. The fact that they were created by two different people means that at least two people thought they were useful. Redirects aren't just for typos, and it is possible these were from copy-and-paste searches. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 21:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in case of copy=paste searches.AerobicFox (talk) 07:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Keep - no good reason in deleting and in case of copy and paste searches. Besides, there is only 35 digits after the decimal point so it is not extraordinarily long. If there was 1 million digits then it will really be crazily large. ★Oliverlyc★ (My talk page here) 06:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]