Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 September 15

September 15
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 15, 2013.

St Mary's Chruch, Chastelton



 * 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. Ruslik_ Zero 19:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * → St Mary& (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Implausible typo created in 2011 during a series of typo-creating page moves; the page was at this particular title for 2 hours 13 minutes, so is unlikely to have generated many incoming links from external websites in that brief period BencherliteTalk 22:33, 15 September 2013 (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.

Nrop
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 September 25%23Nrop

Moviefilm



 * 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 Film. --BDD (talk) 17:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * → Borat (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

It's probably a quote from the movie or something, but there's no evidence that this a term that specifically refers to Borat. (Most of the Google hits are related to Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film for Theaters.)  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 16:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Film. This term is actually used twice in the present target. However, it is too generic for that to be a good redirect. A Googe search shows wide usage; sometimes spaced and sometimes hyphenated. I can see it being used to dstinguish from photographic film and it is at least a conceivable search term. The Whispering Wind (talk) 03:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Film per TWW, seems the best. -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 10:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Film per TWW, not exactly the best synonym out there but it's better than nothing. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 03:25, 18 September 2013 (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.

Bleeding Edge (novel)



 * 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. [Additional comments.] Tóraí (talk) 19:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * → Bleeding Edge (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

This is a redirect to Bleeding Edge. I find it difficult to place within existing criteria, but it seems wrong and confusing.

It strikes me as a "conceptual" typo, where the creator, used to typing "XYZ (novel)" for various novel links did this with "Bleeding Edge" and was annoyed the page was redlinked. At the moment, name completion software offers "Bleeding Edge (novel)" as a choice when you type "Bleeding Edge". When that first happened to me, I assumed the "Bleeding Edge" article was either a dab-page or a genuine article on some other "Bleeding Edge", so I created an unnecessary link to the redirect. I assume others will make this mistake. Considering that the novel has just been/is about to be published, and Thomas Pynchon has a core of dedicated readers/editors, it seems best to fix this immediately.

(In general, I conclude "XYZ (dab) --> XYZ" redirects in general are a bad thing, but I'm not much for policy discussions.)

As for the future (a dubious concern), it is possible that some other "Bleeding Edge" will take over the page as primary topic. At that point, the existing page will have to be moved, the redirect deleted, and links fixed. So? Choor monster (talk) 13:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, no reason to delete this harmless redirect.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 16:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As stated, I did not find it harmless. Its existence meant it was there in a name expansion choice, and I automatically assumed it was the correct target link.  Why create work for bots and later editors to fix? Choor monster (talk) 19:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's still harmless. The fact that you linked the redirect instead of the article doesn't really matter at all.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 21:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a typical R from unnecessary disambiguation. --BDD (talk) 03:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep as a 'R from unnecessary disambiguation'. The Whispering Wind (talk) 16:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep some people, who are worried about another topic taking over the title, prefer to link to the disambiguated title just in case. Siuenti (talk) 22:44, 23 September 2013 (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.