. ✗plicit 10:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
A bundle of pages missing parenthesis after their disambiguation. In all of these cases, there is an identical version to this title, plus a closing parenthesis, that already exists. These redirects' entire histories have existed as just redirects, without any past content. Pageviews for all of these titles are low according to massviews. These titles are all implausible due to the missing parenthesis, cannot be predicted to exist, and will not be sought normally. Utopes (talk / cont) 18:08, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment :{{reply|Utopes}} (and others) - As OA of some of the WP:Redirects noted above, it's *entirely* ok wth me to do whatever is decided in the final WP:CONSENSUS discussion - these WP:RDRs were made as a way of linking to Wikipedia (and thereby extending the range and benefit of Wikipedia to others) from External Websites (like FaceBook), which drops the ending ")", this problem has been fully described and discussed on the WP:Village pump (technical) at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_204#Problem:_External_postings_of_article_title_links_continue_to_drop_endings_of_titles? VP-Archive204 (a Must-Read)]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_180#Redirect_Problem? VP-Archive180]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_162#Workaround_for_dropped_%22)%22_in_titles? VP-Archive162] - in any case - hope this helps in some way - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 18:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete all, Wikipedia shouldn't need extra redirects to cover the shortcomings of external websites. (I know this is already covered by WP:RTYPO,
but maybe an essay specific to this sort of thing wouldn't hurt. WP:RCLOSING or something. ...If I wrote my own essay on this, where would I go to talk about it and stuff?) Nevermind, it exists at WP:UNNATURAL and I'm a silly. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
::Sure, Wikipedia shouldn't (and doesn't) need such pages, but is there any harm in having them once they've been created? I suppose there could be; is there a non-negligible increase in server costs associated with them existing? Zezizzebezt (talk) 20:26, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
:If the redirect exists, it's because somebody was dumped onto that page instead of where they were trying to go because some external source (search engine or embedded link or whatever) left off the closing parenthesis and they fixed that problem with a redirect so that it went straight to the correct page. It's not as if the lack-of-closing-parenthesis redirect page would ever be used for anything other than a redirect, so why get rid of it if one or more people have accidentally landed there? ErdrickLoto (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
::The only possible reason for this sort of redirect to exist is because of an external page that mishandles parentheses. We shouldn't need to bloat our wiki with an extra redirect for every single page- and every single redirect- that includes a closing parentheses at the end of the title. Instead, the other sites should fix their link handling in a manner that un-breaks the link. Thus, whenever one of these redirects shows up here in RfD, they typically end up deleted, as per WP:UNNATURAL. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 20:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
:::I would argue that "redirects are cheap", a guiding principle of RfD, says the opposite of this - {{tq|[r]edirects take up minimal disk space and use very little bandwidth}}; therefore, {{tq|it doesn't really hurt things if there are a few of them scattered around}}. WP:RDAB & WP:UNNATURAL do not explain why these redirects are costly enough to warrant deletion. (To be clear, I'm not proposing the creation of {{tq|an extra redirect for every single page}} here - just that the ones that already exist don't need to be deleted.) All the best, —a smart kitten[meow] 10:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
::::WP:RDAB and WP:UNNATURAL point to a section of WP:COSTLY. The full article explains in great detail why bad redirects are costly. Indeed, while I'm not the biggest fan of parts of this article (WP:PANDORA in particular is admittedly against WP:WHATABOUT), it is a very necessary article. After all, if RfD were meant to never ever delete any redirects ever... are we only here to retarget redirects??? Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 14:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::There are definitely many redirects that need deleting, and I'm definitely not arguing that no redirects should ever be deleted - the redirect guideline lists possible such reasons for deleting. The section of WP:COSTLY that contains WP:RDAB and WP:UNNATURAL starts off {{tqq|[t]here is no need to redirect from}}. To me, this doesn't explain why the listed redirects are costly or warrant deletion - just that, in the opinion of the essayist, these redirects don't need to be created in the first place. However, that is a very different thing to deciding to delete a redirect that already exists - which, as far as I can see, the essay doesn't provide any reason to do. (I would argue that part of WP:COSTLY actually argues in favour of keeping these particular redirects - {{slink|Wikipedia:Redirects are costly|Incoming traffic is cheap}} notes that {{tq|[o]ne valid reason for retaining an older redirect is that it is linked to from outside Wikipedia}}.) All the best, —a smart kitten[meow] 22:50, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::...Honestly, imo WP:COSTLY just straight-up needs a rewrite lol. Incoming Traffic Is Cheap is confusingly written to the point where it seems to contradict the rest of the article, WP:PANDORA goes against WP:WHATABOUT... Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 03:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:COSTLY. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - WP:UNNATURAL and we're not responsible for other website's faulty mishandling of links. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 04:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep all per my comments above. Furthermore, any redirect being found useful by anyone is a reason for keeping specified in the Redirect guideline - WP:R#K5. In the absence of conceivable harm that would warrant deletion (& outweigh the reason to keep them given by K5), my !vote is to keep. All the best, —a smart kitten[meow] 10:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete all Missing parenthesis probably, originally generated by a typo. Highly unlikely to be useful to anyone and presents a slightly dangerous example. Also, I suspect that the mere existence of the typo page will be found by search engines on partial entries and that will amplify its use when it should be being supressed. Ex nihil (talk) 16:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete all due to malformed modifiers --Lenticel (talk) 11:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete all If we are going to draw a line somewhere it should exclude unfinished links. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 14:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete all per the compelling arguments by Lunamann and a few others above. I appreciate Kitten's comments, though, as some good counterpoints are brought up. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: What about Spectre (security vulnerability? Myrealnamm (talk to me) 01:53, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- :@Utopes What I mean is that should this redirect page be added to the list? Myrealnamm (talk to me) 01:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- ::I'd suggest listing it as its own RfD. While an argument could be made as to the idea that if these redirects are deleted, Spectre (security vulnerability should be deleted as well for the same reasons, there's already been a rather extensive discussion on the matter that didn't take into account that redirect. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 03:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- :::I'll see the result of this discussion and I would probably speedy delete Spectre (security vulnerability if this discussion closes as "delete all". Myrealnamm (talk to me) 19:25, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- ::Hi {{re|Myrealnamm}}, and apologies for the delay. While it may seem like there's consensus to delete these, the fact that people have !voted to keep means that these titles are certainly not uncontroversial. I purposely did not include Spectre (security vulnerability in this nomination, as the pageviews that it receives is in a higher threshold than the rest here (the nominated pages are all specifically low views), and the title you mention ranks 43rd in viewcount in this category. Pages such as Genie (feral child have previously been kept at RfD on the basis of its viewcount, so I've been incrementing the limit with each bundle to determine the permissible limit, if there is one. So far these types of titles have been getting deleted, but there is no guarantee that all will be. As for your CSD proposal, no speedy deletion criteria applicable to Spectre (security vulnerability, which was intentionally created in 2018, not in error. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:23, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
:The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).
