Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 August 19

August 19
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 19, 2012

EGR



 * 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 both to EGR (disambiguation). Ruslik_ Zero  16:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * → EGR (disambiguation) (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → Exhaust gas recirculation (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Stood as a redirect to Exhaust gas recirculation since 2007, then last month it was changed to redirect to Earnhardt Ganassi Racing. The target was then changed a few weeks ago to redirect to EGR (disambiguation). Google search results suggest that Exhaust gas recirculation is the primary usage for the acronym so it should be restored as the correct target for EGR. France 3470  ( talk ) 16:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The number of searches returned by Google on EGR is About 35,700,000 results and for Exhaust gas recirculation is About 1,280,000 results (about 3.5%). Therefore I cannot see how Exhaust gas recirculation is the primary usage for the acronym. Let me know if there is any search on Google or other relevant statistics. Thanks.  Nashu2k 12:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nashu2k (talk • contribs)
 * Yeah, I was the one that changed the redirecting EGR to Earnhardt Ganassi Racing last month, because Exhaust gas recirculation us to have two redirections (EGR and egr), and Earnhardt Ganassi Racing didn't, and the fact is that EGR secundary way of saying Earnhardt Ganassi Racing. Ohh, and thanks to User:Frank3470 for talling my about the redirect discution. I could change rediraction EGR from EGR (disambiguation) to Earnhardt Ganassi Racing as soon as the discution is over. HotMAN0199 23:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HotMAN0199 (talk • contribs)
 * should definitely share the same target as EGR. Fairness is not a concern, and we have mechanisms to help readers get to what they're looking for—whether we target a primary topic or a disambiguation page with these initialisms. I have added it to this discussion. BigNate37(T) 01:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: Thanks for the addition of egr to the discussion (I didn't see that one). I should clarify what I meant by primacy of the topic in Google search results. When one types "EGR" into the search box about 50% of the items on the first pages (what google classifies as the most relevant results) relate to Exhaust gas recirculation. I will admit that there are certainly additional items which come up here, however none are items which we have articles on (therefore they present no challenge to exhaust gas recirculation being the primary topic). Most telling though is the results for a google book search for "EGR"; looking at the results it is clear that virtually all instances of the acronym are using it to refer to exhaust gas recirculation. France 3470   ( talk ) 13:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Retarget EGR to Exhaust gas recirculation as the clear primary topic. In June, the month before the retargetting took place, EGR got 2030 hits, Exhaust gas recirculation received 21371 and Earnhardt Ganassi Racing. Even if we assume that everyone using the "EGR" redirect wanted the racing team article (extremely implausible as there are many things this acronym can mean) the exhaust gas article still gets nearly 20,000 more hits and so, proportionally, is going to get more hits. EGR should have a hatnote pointing to the dab page though. Thryduulf (talk) 14:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, i created the dab page a few years ago but then kept the redirect to Exhaust gas recirculation because of the incoming links. Now, I wouldn't be sure that all people typing an acronym necessary want to end up inside one of the articles, they may just be content to simply find out what it means or may mean. In that sense a dab page for an acronym is hardly wrong but for the most obvious cases such USA or IBM, even if here the engine term seems still to be the main topic. Moreover, having a acronym redirect seems to incite editors to link to them, from say Fiat Tempra, instead of directly writing say Exhaust gas recirculation and relieving the reader from scratching their heads and augmenting the page hits in the first place. In other words, both from a reader and editor perspective, I'd give less weight to the primary topic argument than usual. --Tikiwont (talk) 20:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * 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.

Sean Mulroy



 * 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 all. JohnCD (talk) 21:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

"One of many victims not mentioned in target article, such redirects have been deleted in the past and we have no encyclopedic reason to create redirects for the thousands of victims of accidents and incidents MilborneOne (talk) 09:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * → Pan Am Flight 103 (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → Pan Am Flight 103 (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → Pan Am Flight 103 (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * delete all per long-standing precedent. We don't redirect the names of non-notable victims of accidents/disasters/etc to the articles about the incident that led to their death when they are not mentioned in the article. c.f. Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 July 3. Thryduulf (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.