![]() ![]() If users see that the redirect's subject is covered in the target article, they'll be discouraged to recreate it. There are hundreds runescape redirects that don't include brackets, which are more likely to be searched and then redirect users to the runescape article.- Snakese 19:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC) Reply.xDanielx T/ C 07:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC) Reply Redirects are free don't see the point in deleting these. I'd guess that at least a handful of other Wikipedia regulars do as well. Keep - I don't know about y'all, but I do " ()" searches quite often to skip the disambig pages and go straight to articles that probably exist.Terraxos 02:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC) Reply I'd also argue that keeping them actually increases the risk that the articles will get re-created, as the pages already exist. Delete - I can see no GFDL justification for keeping these redirects, and they're pretty unlikely search terms. ![]() Chris Cunningham 11:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC) Reply Delete doesn't seem like a likely search term, does it? really, who types things in parentheses to find out about stuff? Law & Disorder 23:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC) Reply.Rossami (talk) 17:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC) Reply Here's a better context for your contributions." Unless you really have a bad-faith or repeat recreation, the redirect accomplishes the same goal without biting the good faith contributors as badly. A redirect, on the other hand, says "We want your contributions - just not at that title. Removing the copyvio from all active versions has been generally deemed sufficient to meet the law's requirements.) Protection is certainly an options but in my opinion, it is often unnecessarily hostile and unhelpful to new contributors. ![]() (I suppose you could request a history cleanup but that's normally not required.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |