Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 August 24

August 24
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 24, 2018.

Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch.
 Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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  . WP:G5-d. I'm WP:INVOLVED here - as the admin who declined the previous speedy deletion nomination. Turns out that was a mistake on my part. Shirt58 (talk) 09:02, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch. → Llanfairpwllgwyngyll (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch.&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

This failed CSD. I still think it is unnecessary to maintain since the version without the period exists. No media such as a quote refers to it regularly with the period AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 19:04, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:COSTLY, some unneeded redirects - titles with punctuation or obscure errors that have no specific affinity to one title over any other, e.g. a period at the end... . — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 21:07, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. A redirect with an additional character, especially one commonly used in running text, is not an implausible typo, and the fact that someone has seen fit to create this indicates that someone has been inconvenienced by its absence. As such, deleting it would do more harm than good. To respond specifically to Godsy's argument from WP:COSTLY, though, this is an error that does have a "specific affinity" to this title, or at least to this sort of title, i.e. titles that are very unlikely to have been typed out in full by the reader and much more likely to have been copied and pasted, as it only takes a very small slip of the mouse or trackpad to copy the full stop along with the text and paste it into the search box. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * By that logic, it would be reasonable to make a list of all "titles that are very unlikely to have [be] typed out in full by [a] reader" (a vague criteria) and create redirects for them with full stops at the end. Redirects do not exist in vacuum; retaining them sets precedent. That aside, its existence does not mean "that someone has seen fit to create this indicates that someone has been inconvenienced by its absence" per 59.149.124.29 below. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 04:41, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Readers are extremely unlikely to type this lengthy name out in full, meaning its only real use is as a pop-up suggestion, but the correct Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch already exists for that purpose. The move history at suggests this was created in error, not because the creator found it useful. Also that was only five days ago, meaning external usage is unlikely. If someone makes an error in running text and accidentally links a period, the red link provides a useful signal that they should go fix their mistake. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 02:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It almost seems like you "unambiguously created [this] in error" when moving the page (I make similar errors once in a blue moon while moving pages myself). Perhaps a G7 would be in order. —  Godsy (TALK CONT ) 04:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Incorrect; the redirect was made as a request to WP:RM/TR, in which someone moved the article to the new link, and after which I moved it back when it was listed as a controversial move. --  Alex TW 08:11, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I see that now, thanks. It was created by a . — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 08:29, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 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.

Kalyanasundaranar
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 September 2%23Kalyanasundaranar

Facebook Gold
 Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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  . -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Facebook Gold → Facebook (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Facebook_Gold&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Not mentioned in the target, presumably because it doesn't exist. The article that was at this location for eight minutes in 2009 seems to have been a hoax (see Know Your Meme). – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, no such edition. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 19:04, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom; the Know Your Meme entry doesn't contain any RS to write about it on Wikipedia. w umbolo   ^^^  08:49, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Internet troll mentions the scam and its origins. The citation in support is somewhere between a self-published expert source and a WP:NEWSBLOG, I guess. Not quite sure whether to endorse retargeting there or not. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 11:31, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm also not sure about that target. Part of my concern is that the scam seems to have had quite a brief shelf life, peaking in 2010–11 then apparently dying off. (Searches for "Facebook gold scam" and the like turn up a surprising number of articles about scams involving gold bars conducted via Facebook, but nothing more relevant after 2012.) So I don't really know if the sentence there is appropriate, especially given the paucity of sourcing (there are better sources –, , – but none of them use the word "troll" or "trolling", which actually adds the case that it shouldn't be mentioned in that article). Adding a sentence at Internet fraud might be another option, though that article has its own problems. All in all, I'm still inclined to favour deleting the redirect. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 20:12, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as non notable hoax. non existent. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  21:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per above -- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:00, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 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.