. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
- {{no redirect|1 = QWE }} → :QWERTY (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=QWE&action=history history] · [https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews?start=2019-08-21&end=2019-09-19&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=QWE stats]) [ Closure: {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|(@subpage)|[{{fullurl:QWE|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#QWE closed as keep}}}} keep]/[{{fullurl:QWE|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#QWE closed as retarget}}}} retarget]/[{{fullurl:QWE|action=delete&wpReason={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#QWE closed as delete}}&wpMovetalk=1}} delete]}} ]
Not in use as an actual abbreviation of QWERTY, could easily be an acronym for something else. signed, Rosguill talk 20:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
:: I'm sick of this. Why does the same person who looks like an admin but is not have to mess with all of my redirects? Page QWE didn't exist before, so that means that it can only be short for QWERTY. Barracuda41 (talk) 21:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
:::So, technically any editor can nominate any redirect for discussion or tag it for speedy deletion (although the latter is then pending review from an admin, and if someone has a habit of bad CSDs it could result in sanctions). But that's not a complete answer, as it doesn't explain why I'm looking at these redirects in the first place; I have new page patrol permissions, which means that I can approve new articles and redirects to be released to search engines for indexing. I would estimate that I do the lion's share of patrolling redirects, as every day I patrol the end of the backlog to make sure nothing gets missed, going through 100-200 redirects per day on average (and sometimes as many as 500+). I haven't taken an exact count, but I would estimate that of the redirects I look at, I nominate maybe 3% for discussion. Believe me, I'm not trying to pick on you, and there's been several times that I actually approved redirects created by you that I probably would have nominated for discussion had someone else created them, simply because I didn't want to start a fight and because the redirects in question were, if not really useful, then at least harmless. Despite this, redirects that you've created probably account for at least 10% of the redirects that I nominate for discussion.
:::These redirects are neither mine nor yours, they are Wikipedia's, and should serve the purpose of creating a useful encyclopedia that is easy to navigate. The ones that I nominate for discussion or deletion are ones that I think do not fulfill this criterion, usually because they go against either WP:FORRED or because they meet criteria #1 or #8 of WP:R#DELETE. I would suggest thinking carefully about whether a redirect actually meets one of the criteria at WP:RPURPOSE before creating it. I think that this specific redirect is actually a borderline case, and I would appreciate it if other editors would weigh in, even if only to disagree with me––I was going to let it pass but then doubled back and brought it here after deciding that the benefit of this redirect did not outweigh the possibility of confusing someone looking [https://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/QWE for something that uses this as an acronym] or something else (such as QWERTZ or Quechuan languages, which has an ISO code of QWE). The same cannot be said about many of the other redirects that you have created, such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=&user=&page=Kezboard+lazout&wpdate=&tagfilter= this one]. signed, Rosguill talk 22:39, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
:::QWE doesn't have to refer to anything. If the page didn't exist before, it's probably because QWE doesn't actually refer to any existing concept to begin with and so a redirect is not justified. Even then, I would have to ask why QWERTY, already a pretty short term, needs further abbreviation, let alone one that is used popularly enough to make this a viable search term. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 04:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. There's no evidence that "QWE" is used as an abbreviation for anything, and it can't work as an abbreviation for keyboard layouts because it would be ambiguous between QWERTY and QWERTZU. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 10:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. No evidence that it is short for QWERTY, but there is evidence that it could be an acronym for one of the following (and probably others).
:QWE Quality Week Europe
:QWE Quality Work Environment
:QWE Quebecor World Europe
:QWE Quality Web Education (website)
:QWE Quarter Water Entertainment (Los Angeles, CA)
:If this info leads editors to another option, I probably wouldn't disagree. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:29, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
::Clarification. That list came from a Gsearch, not WP. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
:*Do we have information about any of those? I don't see any mentions on Wikipedia. As Rosguill mentioned, qwe is an ISO code for Quechuan languages, but that's lower case, and ISO 639:qwe redirects there. QWES points to Arrow keys#WASD keys, but it's not discussed there. I have to go with delete, as well. - Eureka Lott 17:29, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
:: Then if it can refer to more than one thing, turn the page into a dab page instead of deleting it! geez! Barracuda41 (talk) 02:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
:::The purpose of disambiguation is to differentiate between articles whose subjects are referred to by the same title. Per WP:PARTIAL and WP:DABABBREV, it's not really appropriate to create a disambiguation here, as you're essentially asking to create a disambiguation between partial matches (which don't belong on dab pages) and several topics that we don't currently have articles for. signed, Rosguill talk 02:24, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. WP is not the place to make up abbreviations that may be useful for other article searches. 4.7.25.147 (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2019 (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.
