Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 March 24

March 24
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 24, 2011

秦



 * 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). Acather96 (talk) 07:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * → Qin Dynasty (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Qin Dynasty (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Vietnam (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Jackie Chan (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Nanyue (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Germany (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → France (links to redirect • [ history] • )

deletion. Redirects made in a different language from the language in which the Wikipedia is written are not unnecesary and inappropriate. Interwiki language links at left are for that purpose. Mistakefinder (talk) 17:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Unlike the redirect to United States (discussed below), there is no allegation here that the redirects are technically incorrect. Keep because no valid reason for deletion has been offered.  The usage statistics show steady hits, indicating that at least some users find them helpful.  They do not harm and, yes, redirects really are that cheap.  Note:  Redirects and interwiki links serve entirely different purposes and can not be used to replace each other.  Rossami (talk) 19:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep the first five (Qin Dynasty, Vietnam, Jackie Chan, Nanyue) this is the language in which the topic originates. Delete France and Germany. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 02:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep all, harmless. —Кузьма討論 10:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep except for Germany and France, per Rossami. Also, read WP:FORRED. -- HXL's Roundtable  and  Record  13:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep all - useful redirects for Chinese speakers, and no confusion as to their meanings.--Danaman5 (talk) 07:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Myammar



 * 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). Acather96 (talk) 07:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * → Myanmar (links to redirect • [ history] • )

deletion. Just a mispelling that one would realize when seeing entry list in search box. Mistakefinder (talk) 15:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep-Plausible typo, no reason to delete.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there a Wikipedia policy on keeping "plausible" typos? Who determines what's "plausible". Any typos can be realized by searcher seeing the typing suggestions in the search box. There's too many ways words and names can be misspelled and do we need to create redirect for each? Mistakefinder (talk) 17:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Here on the redirect editing guideline, says "Likely misspellings (for example, Condoleeza Rice redirects to Condoleezza Rice)" are one of the purposes for redirect page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tideflat (talk • contribs) 02:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * While it is true that someone typing into the search box would likely (but not necessarily) spot a typo, there are many different ways to search and browse Wikipedia that do not have the benefit of the suggested articles feature, and for these users redirects from typos are very useful, in addition to the benefits from accidental linking, etc. We determine plausibility by a combination of factors including (but not limited to) traffic stats, search engine hits, known common typos and spelling errors, personal experience, etc. Redirects are so cheap that we generally keep them unless they are harmful (e.g. they're misleading, obstructing something else, or there is no good target for them). In this specific case, the stats show that it is getting between 170 and 330 hits each month, which is huge for a redirect, so this is a very useful redirect. Strong keep. Thryduulf (talk) 18:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Redirects do far more than merely support the search engine.  This is a plausible typo and, yes, there is a policy that we keep redirects that help readers plus a strong and long-standing consensus that redirects for common typos are helpful.  By the way, that does not mean that we should encourage their preemptive creation but redirects are cheap and once created, there is no benefit to the project to deleting them.  Rossami (talk) 19:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: The above "keepers" have already said it best: It is certainly plausible as a typo or misspelling one might make en route to the target. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 06:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)