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 O2. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 03:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• O2- → Superoxide  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Ambiguous, could also refer to Oxide. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 23:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget - This should go to 'O2', which is a disambiguation page. It can link to both 'oxide' generally and the specific topic of 'superoxide'. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 Media Player Classic. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 03:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Windows media player classic → Windows Media Player  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:XY - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:12, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: What else could it refer to? Raymond1922 (talk) 00:09, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Raymond1922A: see Media Player Classic. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Media Player Classic, everything on the first three pages of a google search for the phrase relates to that so it's a clear primary topic. Anyone who does want the current target can follow the link in the second sentence. Thryduulf (talk) 16:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "Classic" is only mentioned at Windows Media Player in the context of "classic Mac OS". Is this even a legitimate search term for it? (It seems fine for Media Player Classic, which is made for Windows.) --BDD (talk) 21:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget as per the above.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:56, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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. This redirect is not the result of a move from the draft namespace to the article space (that redirect is at Draft:Kanwarjit Singh). So, this page is not the result of an R from move to the current title and, according to a strict interpretation, RDRAFT only applies to redirects created as the result of a move from the draft namespace to article space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrKay (talk • contribs) 20:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft:Kanwarjit Singh, popularly known by the name, Kanwarjit Singh Rozi Barkandi, is an Indian politician. He is an MLA from Sri Muktsar Sahib, Punjab. He won the 2017 Punjab Vidhan Sabha elections as a Shiromani Akali Dal candidate. → Kanwarjit Singh  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Effectively the entire article in the title as a (cross-namespace) redirect. Not at all useful. ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 20:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete requested Legacypac (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy request reverted. Technically, this redirect qualifies to exist per WP:RDRAFT. See my comment below. Steel1943 (talk) 20:32, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• @DrKay: Please restore this page's edit history; my removal of the speedy tag conflicted with your deletion. Steel1943 (talk) 20:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This redirect is an ((R from move)) to the current title, and thus qualifies to be kept per WP:RDRAFT. Steel1943 (talk) 20:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Notwithstanding it could be kept because it is from a move it is a completely implauseable recently created and pointless redirect. No one needs it to find the page. It exists because of an error. Legacypac (talk) 20:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recently created? This redirect was created on 11 March 2017. That, and "Draft:" namespace redirects don't necessarily have to be "helpful"; the remnants of former titles in that namespace assist any former editors of that draft to locate where the page went. Steel1943 (talk) 20:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 Sushi#Condiments. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Sushi grass → Garnish (food)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target page. Readers looking fir information pertaining to the subject of the redirect will not find information pertaining to what they are looking to find. Steel1943 (talk) 18:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe it should be at the target. I've often wondered why plastic grass in used with sushi. Did they once use real grass? It's weird and seems to serve no iseful purpose except maybe decoration. Legacypac (talk) 19:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak retarget to Sushi#Condiments. That may not sound like a good idea, but that section does describe sushi presentation more broadly, including what I assume to be the topic in question. The term isn't explicitly used there, but it sounds like we all know what is meant by it. --BDD (talk) 19:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget "green strips called baran or kiri-zasa" is explained as originally being leaves. That's exactly it. Thanks I learned something. Legacypac (talk) 20:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per the above.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:56, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 per WP:SNOW. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:NODRAFT → User:A2soup/Don't use draftspace  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirects to an essay that lacks support and has no links to it. The redirect has been used once in a now archived page. The only other use is at the top of the target page. Legacypac (talk) 18:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• What? This is a shortcut to a personal essay, which I was under the impression essay creators were free to choose as they wished. I understand the essay "lacks support", that's why it's in my userspace. The shortcut is sparsely-referenced because the essay is new and I haven't posted it around very much. Is there another place this redirect should be pointing? I don't understand. A2soup (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment you can't just create official looking Wikipedia space redirects to your opinion essay. The essay may need to go as well for going against policy and giving bad advice but that is another discussion. Legacypac (talk) 18:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Shortcuts to an essay do not imply consensus, and being "against policy" is not an issue for essays. Read the template this shortcut appears in. I had no intent to make something "official looking", I just wanted a nice shortcut to cite so that I (and maybe others) could bring the thing up in debates. As for your comment about the essay itself... take a look at WP:USERESSAY. A2soup (talk) 18:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you'd find that a good number of userspace essays have Wikipedia namespace redirects. Killiondude (talk) 22:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I intend to use the shortcut liberally, for what it's worth. It's a good essay. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  It is not uncommon to use such shortcuts for user essays. See, e.g., WP:CHEESE, WP:RAUL, WP:SPOONFEED, WP:REDEX. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:53, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I intend to seek deletion of this essay once the bad advice in it stabilizes. Legacypac (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  In that case, can you maybe withdraw this deletion nom and instead seek the deletion you are actually after? If that is your intent, a discussion here is a waste of everybody's time. A2soup (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  The WP:NODRAFT redirect is a problem for this board. It lends undue legitimacy to the essay and, though around for months, is unused. The essay is an MfD issue if and when it needs to go there. Legacypac (talk) 19:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per WP:SHORTCUT: "Shortcuts are created for the convenience of editors. It is possible to create a shortcut for any page at all. The existence of a shortcut does not imply or prove that the linked page is a policy or guideline." Paradoctor (talk) 23:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: WP:SHORTCUT is a guideline. Paradoctor (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the faulty reasoning of the nomination. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 23:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If the target is deleted then this will be too (per WP:CSD#G8) but until that time there isn't a problem with the redreict: The target does not represent itself as anything other than an essay so there is no misrepresentation inherent. The essay itself presents an opinion that while not universally held does have some support and has not been rejected by the community (compare Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 July 17#Wikipedia:YOGURTRULE which misrepresented content that had been rejected). Thryduulf (talk) 23:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all the above. The sole case I can recall of the deletion of a WP:FOO shortcut to a non-deleted user-space essay was after a "userspace with prejudice" WP:MFD consensus against a one-user essay written like it was a guideline and being disruptively "cited" again and again by someone being very disruptive over a long period of time at WP:RM. This isn't even faintly comparable.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's my recollection also and the discussion I linked to above. Thryduulf (talk) 13:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 delete. --BDD (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Trevor Engelson → Meghan Markle  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Engelson is best known and most notable as the producer of Remember Me (2010 film), All About Steve, Heathers (TV series), Incarnate (film), Outpost 37, Zoom (2006 film) and Snowfall (TV series) not as an ex-husband. DrKay (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'm not sure what the purpose of this nomination is. Do you think it's better to have no redirect at all for this name, even though Meghan Markle appears to be the only place on WP where Engelson is mentioned in the text of an article (rather than just in the infobox)? Do you think the redirect should have a different target—and, if so, which article? The closer of the last AfD about the Engleson article, less than a year ago, expressly left a door open for recreation of the article if adequate sources could be found, so if you think that he is "most notable" for film and TV production, why not overwrite the redirect with an acceptable article focusing on that aspect of his life? Deor (talk) 17:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment overwrite the redirect with a sentence thst says he is a film producer who was married to Markle. He is clearly 100% notable and no reason suchba stub would be deleted. Is there a page under the redirect to revert too? Legacypac (talk) 19:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, article content this title has been deleted at AfD twice. It was created directly as a redirect in its present incarnation. The last AfD was closed by SoWhy with the summary "The result was delete. At this point, consensus is in favor of deletion, however, DESiegel, once you have access to more sources, I see no reasons here for you not to restore the article to work on it (let's call it a "somewhat soft delete")." Redirection was not mentioned by anyone in either discussion. Based on that, the content could be undeleted to draft or userspace by request of someone who wants to work on it (personally I'd restore that over the redirect, move it to the desired location and then retarget the resulting redirect back to the current target). I would not recommend recreating the article without getting feedback about the expanded draft and its sourcing first. Thryduulf (talk) 23:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for likely article creation. While he narrowly got deleted last time, he looks notable now.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Either retarget to Family of Meghan Markle (and make a section for him there as her ex-husband, or delete for article creation per above. He's definitely notable enough. Paintspot Infez (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 Silver#Occurrence and production. Seems well-covered there ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:14, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Silver ore → Ore  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The target article does not seem to identify or define the subtopic as described by the redirect. To compare, Copper ore redirects to List of copper ores, so there may be reason to delete this redirect per WP:REDLINK. Steel1943 (talk) 13:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It may be best to retarget to Silver#Occurrence and production, where it explains how silver is extracted. From what I gather, pure "silver ore" is rare outside of video games, rather silver is extracted from the ores of other minerals, such as copper, copper-nickel, lead, and lead-zinc. Another good candidate would be Silver mining, but that seems narrower to me. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:53, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Tavix.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:51, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I also support a retarget change. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to silver mining per the principle of least surprise. ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 21:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 per WP:CSD#G7 (and possibly WP:CSD#G6 too). Thryduulf (talk) 15:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Life Is Strage 2 → Life Is Strange 2  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. Was a typo. Probably not a misspelling many people will make. Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 11:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. I originally created the page with the typo and moved it over. The page is no longer required. Lordtobi (✉) 15:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 disambiguate. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 03:11, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Archbishop of London → Bishop of London  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Should this target Bishop of London (who isn't an archbishop), or Coptic Orthodox Church in Britain and Ireland#Coptic Orthodox Diocese of London (the target of the redirect Coptic Orthodox Archbishop of London, who is an archbishop, but maybe not the one that readers are searching for)? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambig. I'm seeing approximately equal uses referring to the coptic archbishop and mistaken references to the Bishop of London. Archbishop of Southwark and Archbishop of Westminster would make good see alsos, being archbishop's of places in the heart of London. There is also a David Bell who is a self-proclaimed Archbishop of London as leader of a Catholic splinter group [1], we don't have any coverage of him or his group that I have found, and I'm not immediately convinced he/they are notable but I've not looked deeply and this is not a topic area I'm familiar with - if we do have or gain content though then it should be mentioned on dab page. Thryduulf (talk) 10:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I've drafted a disambiguation page. This is a bit thorny, since there's really only one reasonably accurate use of the term (the Coptic archbishop), but it seems unlikely to be what readers would be looking for. Since the page would be almost all misnomers anyway, I threw Archbishop of Canterbury on there. I figured someone unfamiliar with the Church of England might assume its leader would have such a title. Too much of a stretch? --BDD (talk) 19:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not too much of a stretch for me. I've expanded the descriptions slightly to give a bit more context, noting the archbishops of Southwark and Westminster are Roman Catholic and that the Bishop of London is sometimes mistakenly referred to as an archbishop (something one source I found earlier implied was not just a recent phenomenon). Thryduulf (talk) 00:05, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Good, thanks. I like those changes. --BDD (talk) 01:33, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 with Paradoctor's refining. (non-admin closure) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 16:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Cherokee citizen → Cherokee  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is a relatively specific redirect pointing to a very broad target. Do we have any material that specifically addresses Cherokee citizenship? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I refined to § Marriage, which discusses Cherokee citizenship in the context of marriage. Paradoctor (talk) 11:32, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep based upon Paradoctor's focusing edit. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but don't refine since the article does mention Cherokee citizens outside of the marriage section. In a colloquial sense, "Cherokee citizen" can mean the same thing as simply "someone who is Cherokee", which the article does do a good job covering. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:41, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Cherokee Nation. "Citizen" implies membership of a nation, not an ethnic group. And while there's a great deal of overlap in this case, one can only be a citizen of the Cherokee Nation. Citizenship is discussed throughout that article. --BDD (talk) 16:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The Cherokee Nation isn't the only Cherokee tribe though, otherwise I would agree with you. There is also the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians in North Carolina, and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians, not to mention the former Cherokee Nation (1794–1907). -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My bad for not remembering or realizing that! Still, I think the contemporary Cherokee Nation might have something of a primary topic claim to this. I've also just come across Cherokee cultural citizenship, which could use work, but might ultimately be the best place to point this, especially if its scope can be expanded beyond the Cherokee Nation. I'm always a bit wary of instances of "Foo bar" redirecting to "Foo", since presumably readers searching on the longer term would already know to check the shorter. --BDD (talk) 17:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; I'm not sure about the narrowing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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. I'll admit to being surprised by this result. Compared to the others yesterday (Wikipedia:MOS and MoS:), these have somehow garnered the most attention and numerically the most support. I could mostly echo my close yesterday for MoS:, especially that the helpfulness argument is persuasive; I encourage you to read it. That being said, I do find the arguments for keep less strong here, as there's some nuance beyond painting these all with the same brush: there are upper-, lower-, and mixed-case letters after the mos: prefix, and while many are quite old, some have been created just a few months ago. As such, by my read this is has a hint of traincwreckiness to it, and as with the previously-linked discussions, this close should not preclude the nomination of individual redirects created after and in contrast to the 2014 RfC, provided there is a good rationale for doing so. Still, this discussion was about pseudo-namespace redirects (PNRs, or PXNRs) with a given prefix, and on that basis, consensus here is to keep these. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:44, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Formally nominating these because SMcCandlish opined on them and because that opinion differed from the other set. Pinging others: (SnowFire—Thryduulf—rogerd). — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 01:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 June 3 § MoS:

• Delete the "Mos:" ones, which serve no purpose and are just a typo. It doesn't match any style of abbreviation for the target pages, so people aren't going to use it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  I'm striking this is and re-posting below with a detailed rationale, as copy-pasting the above into a new nomination takes what I said out-of-context, and because there's a much stronger delete rationale in this case.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Plausible typo, WP:R#k2, WP:R#k5, WP:CHEAP. I created mos:TITLES because I found myself typing exactly that into my searchbox / adress bar often enough that it became a nuisance. Paradoctor (talk) 01:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from the number and the age range of these redirects, I am not the only one who finds them useful. Paradoctor (talk) 01:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per Paradoctor --rogerd (talk) 01:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Lowercase titles of other redirects (MOS:XXXX).  Nixinova  T  C  02:32, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I just ended up one of these lowercase redirects by searching "MOS:disambig" so they are definitely being used.  Nixinova  T  C  19:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:CHEAP and per WP:R#KEEP point 5 - as further evidence of their utility I spot checked the usage figures for about half a dozen of these redirects and all of them were used - 150 times last year in one case. Even if they weren't this well used, there would be no benefit to deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 03:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as pseudo-pseudo-namespace pollution of mainspace. While we have a long-standing consensus to have a few defined pseudo-namespaces, including "MOS:", it must be remembered that these actually live in mainspace. Every single time we create a non-article in mainspace we increase the risk of colliding with a real-world topic, and also make mainspace maintenance more difficult. Thus, we absolutely should not create duplicates of pseudo-namespace shortcuts at misspellings of the pseudo-namespace (i.e. we are not duplicating shortcuts like WP:CONSENSUS at "QP:CONSENSUS" or "EP:CONSENSUS" in case people's fingers are misaligned on their keyboards). Those particular redirects are not, in fact WP:CHEAP at all. We need plausible-typo redirects in mainspace for things like Arnold Schwarzeneger, to help millions and millions of readers find the actual content this site is all about. We have no such rationale for trying to account for every possible typo in entering a cross-namespace shortcut for editorial hyper-convenience. That's the tail wagging the dog. While I'm in a "weak keep" stance on the "MoS:" versions of these (separate RfD), because in running prose it's common to refer to WP:Manual of Style as "MoS", no one calls it "Mos", and we have no namespace or pseudo-namespace in sentence-case ("Xyyy...") form. There is thus no excuse for "Mos:" in a bunch of redirs in mainspace. @Paradoctor, Rogerd, Nixinova, and Thryduulf: Pinging previous commenters because I'm skeptical they've considered all these factors. This is not a typical "redirects are cheap" case.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems to me that there are actual (minor) benefits, while the potential harm is insignificant. While SMcCandlish's argument is essentially good, does it really apply? People do type "mos" which is why these were created. Capitalization is quite different to spelling errors, because of the way that people usually expect URLs and searches to be case insensitive, so I don't think comparisons between "WP" and "QP" or "EP" are valid. Also is namespace collision really an issue here? I can't see there ever being a large number of articles created beginning with "Mos:", but even there were, it takes no more effort to replace the redirect with the article than if the redirect didn't exist. The only potential issue is if the article creator doesn't create any other redirects, e.g. they make the article "Mos:DP" (wut rly) but not "Mos:dp", so a redirect unexpectedly points out of article-space, however again is this really significantly worse than having no redirect at all? ··gracefool 💬 07:32, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's not commingle "accidentally type" and "intentionally use". By mis-defining "use" or "type" in constructions like "I have used this" or "people do type it", we might as well never, for any reason, ever delete a misspelled redirect in any namespace, and actually go create numerous more of them that have nothing to do with getting readers to articles. There are 1,078 "MOS:" shortcuts you need to go make "Mos:" copies of, and by your reasoning every single "CAT:" shortcut badly needs a "Cat:" duplicate. The idea just doesn't hold up to scrutiny. While we quite grudgingly have a shaky consensus to permit a handful of pseudo-namespaces at all (and many editors oppose them, including in ongoing threads right now), permitting pointless duplication of them at redundant "case typos" – which are going to be accidentally used by a tiny number of people but intentionally by nearly zero, this could easily encourage those already skeptical or angry about pseudo-namespaces to go on the warpath. You're taking a "give me convenience of give me death" suicide-pact approach, probably without realizing it.

  An missing-the-big-picture "keep non-misleading redirects if ever possible, at all costs" WP:LOCALCONSENSUS effect is going on here. If I go RfC this at WP:Village pump ("Should we permit expansion of pseudo-namespaces like 'MOS:' to cover typo versions like 'Mos:' for editor convenience?"), the result with be a WP:SNOWBALL "No". I would bet real money on it. We're here to work on an encyclopedia, not make the encyclopedia and its article namespace do cute tricks that piss off lots of other editors just to save us 0.5 seconds of hitting backspace over 2 characters. The amount of time you and I have already spent talking about this has probably exceeded the total amount of time saved by all editors on the system by this handful of bogus redirects for the entire time that they've existed.

  PS: Something notable named or abbreviated "Mos:something" could appear at any second. Please take a stroll through our redirects and see how many odd text strings like this exist in them and point to real articles. CP/M, ST:TWoK, E=mc², F102, etc., etc., etc., They come up all the time in computing, science, entertainment, product names, and more. Lack of a "Mos:" one right this moment is pure (and probably temporary) coincidence. [Some of them are already broken by our Mediawiki being coded to treat language code prefixes case-insensitively. E.g., you cannot do [[ST:TWoK]] directly; I had to pipe to STTWoK. Let's not introduce more namespace problems than we have to.] Anyway, I can't make the case any clearer, so I'll stop and go back to my game of TES4:OB.
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "risk of colliding with a real-world topic" As gracefool pointed out above, this is a non-issue. There are no actual collisions, not even with Mos Def or MOS Technology or Mos Eisley. And if one were to happen, we redirect or create the article content, then place a hatnote, if deemed appropriate.

"trying to account for every possible typo" Who does? We certainly should not indiscriminately create typo redirects, but nobody is proposing that. The one I created, I created to address an actual issue I have. Presumably, the other editors did the same.

"The amount of time you and I have already spent talking about this has probably exceeded the total amount of time saved" Achieving consensus with my fellow editors is worth it. Also, there is the issue of motivation / retention. Different contributors have different styles. Accomodating them when there is no harm in doing so is a good thing.

Are the redirects useful to some of us? I assert it, and I see nobody disagree. Also, as Thryduulf pointed out, they are in active use.

Are the redirects harmful? SMcCandlish pointed out a risk, but there does not seem be an actual instance, at least not among the 39 delinquents brought before us.

Would deleting them improve Wikipedia? Not on the evidence so far. Paradoctor (talk) 10:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per Paradoctor. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 08:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: Wikipedia:Shortcut: "The following prefixes do not enjoy broad community support – MoS:, Mos:".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• But they do enjoy some support. Paradoctor (talk) 09:53, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Wikipedia:Consensus can change. Thryduulf (talk) 10:02, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – because redirects are cheap and because 'mos:' is a quicker and less cumbersome way to type in 'MOS:' – Having fun! Cheers! ((u|Checkingfax)) {Talk} 15:02, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as I've been intentionally using these shortcuts for as long as I can remember, because I intuitively expect input into a search box to be case-insensitive whenever practical. I'm happy to re-evaluate if collisions with article titles occur, but I think SMcCandlish overestimates how likely that is. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 12:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I just did about 20 searches of the form abc:, where a, b and c are letters I picked by randomly mashing the keyboard. None of them found any Wikipedia articles. This reinforces my impression that collision with an article beginning with mos: or Mos: is unlikely. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 12:13, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  There are 13,953,175 (i.e. 13.9 million) page titles in namespace 0 (the article namespace) as of the latest database dump (01:58 3 June). Of those 3516 start with three unaccented alphabetic characters (0.02%). Of those 3156, 1074 begin "MOS", 35 begin "MoS" and 39 start "Mos", totalling 36% of the subset or 0.008% of all titles), this includes two titles (MOS:PARTIAL and MOS:PARTIALMATCH) that have since been deleted. The list is at User:Thryduulf/3 character prefixes. Thryduulf (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:CHEAP and Thryduulf. Whoever took it upon themselves to fix what wasn't broken has created a massive timesink for users of the MOS (like me) and, by repeatedly creating RFCs and multiple discussions such as these, refuses to accept consensus—making it more difficult for the rest of us to improve the encyclopedia. Miniapolis 15:30, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the reasons set out by SMcCandlish. We went through this in an interminable series of discussions in 2013/14 and there isn't anything to show that the broader community position on the matter has changed since then.  — Scott • talk 19:33, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as yet another person who was redirected here after not pressing shift and typing a shortcut. Redirects are cheap, and these are useful. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 01:51, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unnecessary XNRs (WP:R#D6). Typing "mos:numbers" (in any case) in the search will take you to MOS:NUMBERS → Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. The MOS pseudo-namespace is sufficient for linking. As for WP:R#K2: a duplicate article is not likely to be created. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Commonly used shortcuts Reywas92^Talk 19:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 delete. --BDD (talk) 13:57, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Lutte a la corde → Parliamentary ping-pong  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete per being based on a lie. I am seeking deletion for this article, as it is an untruth that I believe to have been added mischiveously, without citations, in 2006, to both the main article and the redirect, by the same editor. I have been unable to find any proof that this term was ever used to describe Parliamentary Ping-Pong, and the only references to this term are dated AFTER this untruth was added to the encyclopedia - a regrettable instance of Circular reporting. I firmly understand this to be an untruth that was added in jest - I am unsure how to 'prove' this exactly, given that this has now been repeated in media outlets over the past 12 years since the redirect's creation, and the inclusion of the lie in the target article. I understand I cannot cite my expertise on wikipedia, but for what it is worth I am a Parliament and Constitution expert working for Parliament.

See the target article history for the un-cited line that introduced this untruth - I have now excised it. ShieldMaidens (talk) 16:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, a quick search will show the phrase has never been used in Hansard as far back to 1803. ShieldMaidens (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I can't find anything to disagree with the above case on Google Books or Google News. Ralbegen (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.