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 Template:Banner holder. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:55, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Banner shell → Template:WikiProject banner shell  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Suggest retarget to Template:Banner holder. Shell is mostly a synonym of holder. One would expect this template name to go to the general talk page banner holder, not to the WikiProject one. This only has 300 transclusions and is low-usage, so can be replaced without disruption. Common & expected redirects to the talk page template may encourage users to use the banner holder template, which is currently relatively low usage itself, and that would aid with our talk page clutter problem. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Template:Banner holder per nom. That is indeed a better target. WP:SURPRISE applies here. I am the creator of the redirect.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  15:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom and creator. Mathglot (talk) 07:01, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:45, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Cite jorunal → Template:Cite journal  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Created in response to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 21#Template:Cute news. Implausible typo not in use on any page. No more useful than previously deleted examples such as ((ctie book)) (deleted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 10#Template:Ctie book). Such misspellings should be corrected at source not via redirect to prevent confusion (reason for deletion #2) and avoid the risk of making it unreasonably difficult (reason for deletion #1) for bots, automated systems and searches to deal effectively with templated citations. DrKay (talk) 12:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. There is a significantly higher bar for utility of typo redirects in template space than article space, and this does not meet that bar. Thryduulf (talk) 12:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Wikipedia:Redirect#K5. When I created it, there was at least one transclusion, which violated the guideline at WP:REDNOT and clutters up reports like Special:WantedTemplates. The existence of such a transclusion demonstrates that it is a plausible typo. The documentation at ((R from misspelling)) says: Use this rcat template in any namespace. It should be trivial for a bot to fix transclusions of templates that are tagged with ((R from misspelling)), which would address the nominator's valid reasons #1 and #2 above. RFD closer: Please note that I have cited multiple guidelines in my !vote. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Ain't doing us any harm to have it. pbp 13:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, pointless. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete typo redirects are for the benefit of readers, not editors. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete easier and better to fix the typo instead of creating template redirect; will also tell editors in preview that the template is redlinked Dudhhr (talk) 06:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. For the reasons mentioned above. --Bsherr (talk) 06:08, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. Looks like this is still no consensus, with significant numbers of editors supporting either retargeting to Home page or keeping as is, not to mention a few editors supporting disambiguating or retargeting to project space. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:37, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• HomePage → Main Page  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This page has been listed on the RfD twice. However, I still feel that this redirect may not have the best target. Although this is a historical name of the Main Page, some wikis don't have it, e.g. zh:HomePage. Yet fr:HomePage gives a different target. To maintain the "See the current version of this page on Wikipedia" on wp.nost, special code could be used to link to Main Page instead. I'm not sure what to do with this redirect. 54nd60x (talk) 11:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - the main page of wikipedia seems like clearly the most likely place someone typing "Home Page" would be looking to go. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget. In the 2020 discussion I wrote "While we should always be careful not to break links, especially old links, unnecessarily we do need to balance that with accessibility of current uses. In this specific case there is a hatnote at home page leading to the main page but one in the other direction would not be appropriate, so the balance imo is clearly in favour of the retargetting.". In the 2012 discussion I !voted to retarget per an ip editor who wrote "simple and clear ((R from alternate capitalization)), and we already have a hatnote on the page to point to Wikipedia's entry point. Clearly we have an encyclopedic topic for that title, and the main page is not encyclopedic content (which is why some other language wikipedias have moved it into portalspace) ; It hasn't been the main page since 2001, the only year it was the main page.". Nothing has changed in the past 8½ years or the past 1 year to change my mind - readers will still better served by arriving at Home page with a hatnote to the main page than the main page with no link to the encyclopaedia article. Thryduulf (talk) 12:29, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• @Lee Vilenski: I'm not sure about keeping this redirect. For example, Home is the name of the main page on foundation.wikimedia.org, and that doesn't give us a reason to use it as the name of our home page. However, Main Page is the current name of our main page, and on almost every wiki, it redirects to the main page on their wiki, or otherwise it's the name of their main page. Homepage redirects to Home page, but HomePage with an uppercase P redirects to Main Page? I know this is for historical reasons, but both should target to the same page, and it doesn't make too many sense to have two nearly identical titles pointing to different pages. 54nd60x (talk) 13:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for mushy historical reasons as well as a lack of need. When you type in "Home page" in the search bar , the camel case version is the 5th(!) result down, and is not bolded. Indeed, the properly-capitalized Home page gets ~900 views a day, whereas the camel case HomePage gets less than 100 views a day, presumably those going down Wikipedia memory lane.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For those unaware, "HomePage" was the name of the main page of Wikis using UseModWiki, which included the English Wikipedia from January 2001 to January 2002. It's in camel case because that's how things were done back in those days. The reason some "emotion" is involved in the matter is because the page contains the very first edit to Wikipedia, which was used back when it was Wikipedia's main page. Therefore, the current target is the most historically accurate, as well as the relative obscurity of concept of other websites' home pages that doesn't justify a retarget IMO.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• But why should Homepage redirect to Home page then? 54nd60x (talk) 13:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because it lacks the history of the camelcase version.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the keep arguments in the prior RfD's, John M Wolfson's comments above - and really the lack of any problem or pressing need to retarget this. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per John M Wolfson. This *was* the main page once, so it seems reasonable for it still to redirect there, given that no readers are being harmed.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• In the previous discussion, I said:

  Retarget The time to care about nineteen-year-old (!) history to this extent passed long ago. What matters now is what the most logical target for "HomePage" is, and home page, which already has a hatnote to Main Page, seems clearly more logical. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

  Nothing has changed since other than it now being twenty-year-old history, and I still feel that the redirect should be retargeted. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree that HomePage may not be best to be redirected to Main Page without a hatnote, but with that said, I do want to mention an example: Main Page is not the best name for our main page, but it's still used without a hatnote as that has stuck for a really long time. But how significant is the use of HomePage? wp.fr and wp.zh don't use it the way we do, but I do believe that this history should be preserved. 54nd60x (talk) 14:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Well for one, the phrase "HomePage" is clearly in English - so that French and Chinese projects don't use it isn't really something that concerns me. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Look, I know we prefer to pretend that we don't care about the ancient history of the project, but who are we kidding? This page was the main page back in 2001, and keeping it as a pointer to that page retains that history. If you want the very serious justification that pretends we're emotionless robots, there may still be a link somewhere that assumes that HomePage points at the main page. Tamwin (talk) 18:25, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  We do care about old history, but we cannot let it get in the way of the needs of today. In this case we can maintain the link to the history with a hatnote at Home page - which already exists. This is also how we manage every other redirect we retarget when there is (or even might be) the possibility of incoming external links. Thryduulf (talk) 09:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd agree if I thought that someone was likely to use camelcase. That's pretty unlikely though. In this specific case, I think the historical value of maintaining the redirect's target outstrips the (negligible) value of changing it. Tamwin (talk) 18:48, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget "homePage" to Home page, which is where such a WP:CAMELCASE redirect should point to. The topic of homepage is home page, and it already contains a hatnote to the Wikipedia Main Page frontpage. If this is not retargetted, the main page needs a hatnote to the encyclopedic topic of a "homepage" -- 67.70.27.105 (talk) 01:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Experiment - Turn this into a two entry DAB page with tracking redirects. This is still getting around 1000 page views a month, but we have no idea whether readers are coming from ancient links to the Wikipedia homepage, or whether they're searching for "home page" in a camel case format (after all, camel case is very commonly used in programming). If we get a couple of months of data on where readers coming across this are actually intending to go then this would allow us to make an informed decision on where this should target. I'm not 100% on board with the "Keep for historical reasons" arguments either, while I'm all for preserving the history of the project and ancient pages but we should not be doing so in a manner that is confusing or disruptive for our readers, and retargeting a redirect is hardly erasing the history of the project. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 12:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I understand that retargeting HomePage may not reflect this project's history, but the redirect target is getting in the way of people who may be searching for the term "home page." There's no hatnote on the Main Page (and there shouldn't be.) Main Page has been the name of our main page for such a long time that moving it to a different page would disrupt our site, but HomePage has only been used in 2001 for not a long period of time. Who would type in "HomePage" in the full URL or search bar expecting the main page? 54nd60x (talk) 12:29, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: a harmless quirk, and testament to the project's history. I struggle to believe that this particular intonation of capitalisation and space is the cause of any confusion for users looking for the home page article. The only time I trip over redirects for varying capitalisation is when I seldomly type out an (presumed) article URL in my browser. Even in that strained circumstance, I doubt the user is likely to try camel-case. --Inops (talk) 16:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per my nomination in the 2020 discussion. We're not breaking things by retargeting, and considering that the main page is hatnoted at Home page, even user trying to find the main page from this will find the main page. Hog Farm _Talk 17:29, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate per 192.76.8.91. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:43, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I am not too sure about my opinion. I agree that the redirect should be kept to preserve our history, especially if it contains the first edit to our project. However, I also must note that we shouldn't let something like this get in the way of what our readers are looking for. "(Redirected from ((-r|HomePage)" isn't something that will get shown on the top of our main page, so it's harder to find the page. Retarget to Wikipedia:Main Page history#Appearance. 54nd60x (talk) 09:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Proposal would a retarget to Wikipedia:History of the Main Page work for people?  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:07, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  No, because it would not benefit either the majority of people looking for something at Home page nor those few looking for the main page. I would support adding it to the hatnote at Home page though. Thryduulf (talk) 10:53, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't retarget to projectspace but I'm fine with any of the other three options, probably slightly preferring a straight keep as is. There are many links to this redirect directed at the main page, so a place where it is easily accessible is ideal. Retargeting a common search term to projectspace is unhelpful when the search term is not related to editing Wikipedia. My stance in the last discussion hasn't change but for the slight increase in pageviews, which could really only be caused by a new link meant to target main page. I don't like harming readers' search, but there are links pointing to this redirect meant to direct clickers to the main page. So that's my argument against retargeting, I guess. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 20:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Home page per above. This is a close spelling to the chosen target. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 15:26, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Home page. Sentimental about this being the old name for the Main Page? Make a hatnote linking to a project page about it. --Bsherr (talk) 06:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Bsherr and Thryduulf. This is a mainspace page, and home page is the more expected target, and there's no hatnote on the Main Page to point to there. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:14, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  BTW, just noting for the record, there is no policy or guideline page that says redirects should be preserved for 'sentimental' reasons. So the closer may need to rebalance some of the votes in line with their soundness and basis in policy. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:51, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for this title's place in project history. As a camel-case title, this is not the page that comes up when you search "homepage" and hit enter. If someone does accidentally use this when they wanted Home page, it's not that hard to search again and find the correct page. User:GKFX^talk 07:42, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, essentially per Lee Vilenski and John M Wolfson. Without any showing that the majority of people using this redirect don't intend to reach the main page, there's no reason to disturb the status quo. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:54, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per above.🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 21:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Lee Vilenski and John M Wolfson -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 11:53, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 the first and keep the second. ✗plicit 03:44, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Sleep with me, I'm not too young → ...Baby One More Time (song)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• It's fun to smoke marijuana → Another One Bites the Dust  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unhelpful, orphaned, puerile redirects created by since-permablocked editor. Delete. Lagrange613 05:20, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete: G6, uncontroversial housekeeping. Clearly just vandalism Joseph2302 (talk) 17:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  If it' "just vandalism", why not G3? ~~~~
  User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:29, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Come on guys, at least check if it actually is vandalism. It isn't. It's even been discussed on Wikipedia (here and here). It might still be best to delete, but definitely not speedy. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 21:40, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because an IP discussed it in 2005, doesn't make it sensible, or at all appropriate as a redirect. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Joseph2302: It doesn't, but the ip wasn't claiming they were. They said only that it indicated the redirects were not vandalism, which their evidence supports. Thryduulf (talk) 16:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not useful, and would never rate either a mention on the pages themselves or indeed a dedicated page of their own.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the second: mentioned at Another One Bites the Dust#Alleged backward masking. The first is more difficult... maybe retarget to Backmasking? -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 16:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the second as mentioned. The first one isn't even notable as a lyric. "My loneliness is killing me" would be more notable. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the 2nd because it's mentioned at its target; delete the 1st because it isn't. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:28, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the first and Keep the second. I agree with other editors on the second one - as the whole paragraph in the target article discusses the phrase it should be kept as a plausible search term. Less Unless (talk) 18:29, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 SNOW. (non-admin closure) — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 19:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:NOTGOOGLE+ → Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a blog, Web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Google+ was shut down in 2019. 128.127.214.213 (talk) 07:21, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. So what? Unless there is a proposal to reuse the shortcut for some other target there is absolutely nothing to be gained by deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Wikipedia isn't Google Plus, so the redirect still holds even if the former site has been closed now.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep we still have WP:NOTMYSPACE.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This was a well known social network while it was active, and we don't delete pages because the thing they're referring to no longer exists. Completely harmless redirect. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 12:28, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. This doesn't seem to be hurting anything, and is useful to keep around for the handful of old links and for anyone who still remembers this thing. Hog Farm _Talk

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.

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. I have confirmed there are currently no transclusions. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:23, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Cute book → Template:Cite book  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Created after Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 21#Template:Cute news. No more useful than ((cte bok)), ((ctie book)), etc. Such misspellings should be corrected at source not via redirect to prevent confusion (reason for deletion #2) and avoid the risk of making it unreasonably difficult (reason for deletion #1) for bots, automated systems and searches to deal effectively with templated citations. DrKay (talk) 07:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Less useful than ((ctie book)), since that's at least a plausible typo. (((cte bok)) is a bit much, but ((cte book)) or ((cite bok)) in isolation would be plausible too.) This is not: unlike those, it's not the sort of typo a hunt-and-pecker might make, and a touch typist won't miss i->u without also doing o->i and k->j for ((cute biij)). Besides which, most uses of ((R from misspelling)) (to which ((R from typo)) redirects) in the template namespace are to genuine misspellings, not typos, much more so than in mainspace; and the only other missplaced-fingers typo I'm seeing in there is ((cote web)), itself less than a week old. Full list at quarry:query/54722. Delete. —Cryptic 11:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, Cryptic and my comments at #Template:Cite jorunal. Thryduulf (talk) 12:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Wikipedia:Redirect#K5. When I created it, there was at least one transclusion, which violated the guideline at WP:REDNOT and clutters up reports like Special:WantedTemplates. The existence of such a transclusion demonstrates that it is a plausible typo (the letter "u" is one letter away from "i" on the keyboard). The documentation at ((R from misspelling)) says: Use this rcat template in any namespace. It should be trivial for a bot to fix transclusions of templates that are tagged with ((R from misspelling)), which would address the nominator's valid reasons #1 and #2 above. RFD closer: Please note that I have cited multiple guidelines in my !vote. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Sure, there are myriad typos people might make, but we don't have to make a redirect to cover every single one of them. That applies to project templates as much as to article titles. It's also a name which actually means something in itself, that has nothing to do with the template it redirects to, so there's extra reason not to have it hanging around distracting people.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that I make redirects only to handle typos that people actually do make, per the link I provided above. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:39, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete pointless. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Headbomb, I have explained the point of this redirect above, with links to relevant guidelines. If you have time, can you please elaborate on your argument here? Which of the guidelines that I linked to should be changed if this sort of redirect is pointless? I genuinely do not understand which part of the guidelines I am misunderstanding. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:53, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What about ((vite journal))? ((cire journal))? ((citw journal))? There's nothing special about ((cute book)), and these unlikely typos just cause maintenance headaches down the line, and are just pointlessly WP:COSTLY. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I find this line of reasoning confusing. Redirects to templates have the same "cost" as redirects to articles. They both render intended content properly, even in the face of minor human fallibility, and both are detected and fixed by gnomes who monitor usages of pages that transclude ((R from misspelling)). – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Fix transclusions and delete per Headbomb. The maintenance burden this could potentially cause down the road demonstrates potential harm from this. It's not like it's a search term - making a typo in here is going to be obvious; we don't need to plan for every conceivable error someone could make in attempting to produce a citation template. Hog Farm _Talk 18:21, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete typo redirects are for the benefit of readers, not editors. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Elli: Can you please elaborate? If this redirect is deleted, readers will see Template:cute book in an article where this typo is made, instead of the content a properly rendered citation template. How does replacing content with jarring red text benefit readers? – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Jonesey95: editors will easily see the issue and fix it. We don't want errant Wikitext - the Wikitext of a page should be clear. This is the same reason we're not supposed to link to typo redirects - we don't want typos in articles. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:11, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Editors routinely fail to fix problems that they create. That is why Special:WantedTemplates exists, and why Wikipedia:WikiProject Check Wikipedia/ISBN errors exists, and why countless error-tracking categories exist. Gnomes monitor these reports and categories, cleaning up errors that other editors create and do not fix themselves. Between the time that the errors are created and the time they are fixed, redirects like this one create a better experience for readers. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Jonesey95: fixing these should be the job of people who patrol Special:WantedTemplates, then. Obviously an easy gnomish fix. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Special:WantedTemplates is updated only once per month. You seem to be arguing that it is to the benefit of readers to see an ugly red link for a month or more instead of the template rendering as the errant editor intended until a gnome or bot arrives to quietly replace this redirect in the background. That argument is simply illogical. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:21, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete as possibly a WP:POINTy response to the linked RfD. Dudhhr (talk) 22:51, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a speculative assumption of bad faith; please retract it. As I have stated in other venues, I did not know about the linked RFD. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:21, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Typos occur in code and in prose. I think this solution to address the former only is excessive. --Bsherr (talk) 22:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If someone makes this sort of typo in a template invocation, they need to see it's an error so it can be corrected (the non-existence of the redirect works just fine here). The existence of this redirect means this error is not obvious, so it's likely to persist in the wikitext, possibly confusing editors. Whether it's used or not, the redirect will also get in the way of searches – "cute" is not just an obscure typo for "cite", but a word of its own. – Uanfala (talk) 14:33, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. ✗plicit 07:01, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

I first redirected this to an article where the name was mentioned. Large parts of that article turns out to be completely unsourced and partly plain hoax, created by the same editors who have lots of redirects challenged and nominated for deletion. T*U (talk) 06:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Enwiki has nothing about Damien Gottlieb and their connection with the target is not mentioned. Having said that, RfD is not the place to resolve editorial disputes about Gottlieb. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Can't find any notable person with this name. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I couldn't find any Damien Gottlieb that would have any connection to the the arcade game corporation, not mentioned in the target either. Less Unless (talk) 18:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per comments above because I AM TOO LAZY TO WRITE MY OWN! --StaleGuy22 (talk) 15:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. ✗plicit 07:00, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

I first redirected this to an article where the name is mentioned. Parts of that article turns out to be a hoax, created by the same editors who created this and also has lots of redirects challenged and nominated for deletion. T*U (talk) 05:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Enwiki has nothing about Damien Synertek and their connection with the target is unclear and not mentioned. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:13, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and hoax. Creator has been publicizing these random names and associations on youtube as well. [1] to try to promote his YouTube channel and other stuff. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:52, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Cross over basketball → Crossover dribble  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible redirect. "Crossover" as a noun (referring to the basketball dribble) is always spelled as one word. Coincidentally, the word "crossover" is in my username. Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 03:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, sometimes spelt as two words. Readers are using it, so why delete? — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 04:09, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Normally (according to typical Wikipedia convention), it would be Cross over (basketball) with parentheses. I already created Crossover (basketball). "Cross over" is usually only spelled as such when used as a verb. Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 04:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Readers (and redirects) don't always follow "Wikipedia convention", as is shown by the pageviews. What is the harm in having this redirect, when it evidently helps readers? — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 04:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • 152 views in nearly 6 years. Sounds negligible to me. That doesn't count those who search "crossover (basketball)" in the search box and see "cross over basketball." Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 04:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's less than 5 years. I don't see any cross over results pop up if I type crossover. It's a lot of readers helped. And deleting this redirect is a lot of readers harmed for no reason. How would deleting this redirect benefit the encyclopedia? — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 04:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • That was because I created the redirect Crossover (basketball) on April 16, 2021. And "less than 5 years" is still a very long time. The page received 152 views in that time. Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 05:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Answer the question: How would deleting this redirect be beneficial to the encyclopedia? — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 05:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • Is the redirect needed or even useful now that we have Crossover (basketball)? Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 05:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • It's not needed but nothing is. It's still useful to anyone who searches it up, especially through the URL bar. But you didn't answer my question. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 05:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                  • The redirect is a pretty implausible search term. As I mentioned earlier, "crossover" (the basketball dribble) is almost always spelled as one word when used as a noun. I initiated the discussion in order to survey other Wikipedians' views on this redirect - not necessarily because I oppose it. Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 06:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                    • The readers don't necessarily know that. I'm still seeing no reason why deleting this redirect would benefit Wikipedia. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 06:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per J947. Clearly useful for readers and clearly harmless. There is no evidence that deletion will bring any benefits, but it is almost certain that deletion will make it harder for readers to find the content they are looking for. The only justifiable course of action therefore is keeping. Thryduulf (talk) 12:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Note that Cross over basketball originally redirected to Basketball moves before I changed the target to the more specific Crossover dribble on April 28, 2021. Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 20:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I believe the redirect is useful. I would actually use the same combination without parentheses. Less Unless (talk) 18:48, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.