Talk:Doctor Biggles-Jones

Why do we want to get rid of redirects? Our search sucks, and this is the work around. What's the cost of having them?--Jimsorenson 12:06, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

One talk page complaint, or perhaps one on my talk page, would've been enough. I would guess Abates to be the only one to bother deleting these and he usually waits a while to let others oppose the proposal.

But on to my reasons for getting rid of redirects, if there's any reason our search sucks it's because redirects clutter up the suggested page list. Some redirects have purpose - you might notice I have left just "Biggles-Jones" alone and only ask all the title variations get removed. But others are just superfluous and often the result of a well-reasoned move and not worth the maintenance. And... I don't know if I am the only one to experience this, but I end up disappointed every time I click something that seems like a page I have not read before only to find it a redirect. Geewunling 12:19, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

I've always thought that though we usually have articles at the persons name without any titles, we should always keep redirects with the titles on, because it's often what they're addressed as in official fiction. In this particular case, I don't know if we keep all the variations or not—I notice we don't have a redirect for "Doctor Sidney Biggles-Jones", but I think we should. OTOH, I'm not sure if anyone's likely to be typing "Doctor Biggles-Jones" in by itself. --abates 01:35, 16 August 2011 (EDT)