Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:RFD)
Jump to: navigation, search

Administrator instructions

Redirects for discussion (RfD) is the place where potentially problematic redirects are discussed. Items usually stay listed for a week or so, after which they are deleted, kept, or retargeted.

Note: If you just want to replace an unprotected redirect with an article, you do not need to list it here. Turning redirects into articles is wholly encouraged. Be bold.

Note: If you want to move a page but a redirect is preventing this, do not list it here. Place a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests.

Note: Redirects should not be deleted simply because they do not have any incoming links. Please do not list this as the only reason to delete a redirect. Redirects that do have incoming links are sometimes deleted too, so it's not a necessary condition either. (See When should we delete a redirect? for more information.)


Centralized discussion
Proposals Discussions Recurring proposals
  • An RfC on the capitalization of bird names.
  • An RfC about whether or not the opt-in requirement should be removed from the enwiki edit counter.
  • A proposal to reimplement the Main Page with an alternative framework.
  • A discussion on ways to improve the "Today's featured article requests" system.

Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.

Contents

Before listing a redirect for discussion[edit]

Before listing a redirect for discussion, please familiarize yourself with the following:

The guiding principles of RfD[edit]

  • The purpose of a good redirect is to eliminate the possibility that an average user will wind up staring blankly at a "Search results 1-10 out of 378" search page instead of the article they were looking for. If someone could plausibly enter the redirect's name when searching for the target article, it's a good redirect.
  • Redirects are cheap. Redirects take up minimal disk space and use very little bandwidth. Thus, it doesn't really hurt things much if there are a few of them scattered around. On the flip side, deleting redirects is cheap since the deletion coding takes up minimal disk space and use very little bandwidth. There is no harm in deleting problematic redirects.
  • The default result of any RfD nomination which receives no other discussion is delete. Thus, a redirect nominated in good faith and in accordance with RfD policy will be deleted, even if there is no discussion surrounding that nomination.
  • Redirects nominated in contravention of Wikipedia:Redirect will be speedily kept.
  • RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes. If you think a redirect should be targeted at a different article, discuss it on the talk pages of the current target article and/or the proposed target article. However, for more difficult cases, this page can be a centralized discussion place for resolving tough debates about where redirects point.
  • Requests for deletion of redirects from one page's talk page to another page's talk page don't need to be listed here, as anyone can simply remove the redirect by blanking the page.
  • Try to consider whether or not a redirect would be helpful to the reader when discussing.

When should we delete a redirect?[edit]

Shortcut:

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

  • a redirect may contain nontrivial edit history;
  • if a redirect is reasonably old (or a redirect is created as a result of moving a page that has been there for quite some time), then it is quite possible that its deletion will break links in old, historical versions of some other articles—such an event is very difficult to envision and even detect.

Note that there could exist (for example), links to the URL "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorneygate" anywhere on the internet. If so, then those links might not show up by checking for (clicking on) "WhatLinksHere" for "Attorneygate"—since those links might come from somewhere outside Wikipedia.

Therefore consider the deletion only of either really harmful redirects or of very recent ones.

Shortcut:

Reasons for deleting[edit]

You might want to delete a redirect if one or more of the following conditions is met (but note also the exceptions listed below this list):

  1. The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. For example, if the user searches for "New Articles", and is redirected to a disambiguation page for "Articles", it would take much longer to get to the newly added articles on Wikipedia.
  2. The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so the redirect should be deleted.
  3. The redirect is offensive or abusive, such as redirecting "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs" (unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is discussed in the article), or "Joe Bloggs" to "Loser". (Speedy deletion criterion G10 may apply.) See also: #Neutrality of redirects
  4. The redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam. (Speedy deletion criterion G11 may apply.)
  5. The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting Apple to Orange. (Speedy deletion criterion G1 may apply.)
  6. It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exception to this rule are the pseudo-namespace shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space. Some long-standing cross-namespace redirects are also kept because of their long-standing history and potential usefulness. "MOS:" redirects, for example, are an exception to this rule. (Note "WP:" redirects are in the Wikipedia namespace, WP: being an alias for Wikipedia.)
  7. If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to itself or to an article that does not exist, it can be immediately deleted under speedy deletion criterion G8, though you should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first.
  8. If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful. In particular, redirects from a foreign language title to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. Improbable typos or misnomers are potential candidates for speedy deletion, if recently created.
  9. If the target article needs to be moved to the redirect title, but the redirect has been edited before and has a history of its own, then it needs to be deleted to make way for move. If the move is uncontroversial, tag the redirect for G6 speedy deletion. If not, take the article to Requested Moves.
  10. If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject, it is better that the target article contain a redlink than a redirect back to itself.
Shortcut:

Reasons for not deleting[edit]

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

  1. They have a potentially useful page history, or edit history that should be kept to comply with the licensing requirements for a merge (see Wikipedia:Merge and delete). On the other hand, if the redirect was created by renaming a page with that name, and the page history just mentions the renaming, and for one of the reasons above you want to delete the page, copy the page history to the Talk page of the article it redirects to. The act of renaming is useful page history, and even more so if there has been discussion on the page name.
  2. They would aid accidental linking and make the creation of duplicate articles less likely, whether by redirecting a plural to a singular, by redirecting a frequent misspelling to a correct spelling, by redirecting a misnomer to a correct term, by redirecting to a synonym, etc. In other words, redirects with no incoming links are not candidates for deletion on those grounds because they are of benefit to the browsing user. Some extra vigilance by editors will be required to minimize the occurrence of those frequent misspellings in the article texts because the linkified misspellings will not appear as broken links.
  3. They aid searches on certain terms. For example, if someone sees the "Keystone State" mentioned somewhere but does not know what that refers to, then he or she will be able to find out at the Pennsylvania (target) article.
  4. You risk breaking incoming or internal links by deleting the redirect. Old CamelCase links and old subpage links should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them.
  5. Someone finds them useful. You might not find it useful, but this may be because you browse Wikipedia in different ways. stats.grok.se can also provide evidence of outside utility.
  6. The redirect is to a plural form or to a singular form, or to some other grammatical form.

Neutrality of redirects[edit]

Shortcut:

Just like article titles using non-neutral language are permitted in some circumstances, so are redirects. Because redirects are less visible to readers, more latitude is allowed in their names. Perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is therefore not a sufficient reason for their deletion. In most cases, non-neutral but verifiable redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term.

Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:

  1. Articles that are created using non-neutral titles are routinely moved to a new neutral title, which leaves behind the old non-neutral title as a working redirect (e.g. ClimategateClimatic Research Unit email controversy).
  2. Articles created as POV forks may be deleted and replaced by a redirect pointing towards the article from which the fork originated (e.g. Barack Obama Muslim rumor → deleted and now redirected to Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories).
  3. The subject matter of articles may be represented by some sources outside Wikipedia in non-neutral terms. Such terms are generally avoided in Wikipedia article titles, per the words to avoid guidelines and the general neutral point of view policy. For instance the non-neutral expression "Attorneygate" is used to redirect to the neutrally titled Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. The article in question has never used that title, but the redirect was created to provide an alternative means of reaching it because a number of press reports use the term.

The exceptions to this rule would be redirects that are not established terms and are unlikely to be useful, and therefore may be nominated for deletion, perhaps under deletion reason #3. However, if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources, it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms. Please keep in mind that RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes.

See also: Policy on which redirects can be deleted immediately.

Closing notes[edit]

Details at: Administrator instructions for RfD.

Nominations should remain open, per policy, about a week before they are closed, unless they meet the general criteria for speedy deletion, the criteria for speedy deletion of a redirect, or are not valid redirect discussion requests (e.g. are actually move requests).

How to list a redirect for discussion[edit]

Shortcut:
I.
Tag the redirect.

  Enter {{subst:rfd}} above the #REDIRECT on the redirect page you are listing for discussion. Example:

{{subst:rfd}}
#REDIRECT [[Foo]]
  • Please do not mark the edit as minor (m).
  • Please include in the edit summary the phrase:
    Nominated for RFD: see [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]].
  • Save the page.
  • If you are unable to edit the redirect page because of protection, this step can be omitted, and after step 2 is completed, a request to add the RFD template can be put on the redirect's talk page.
II.
List the entry on RfD.

 Click here to edit the section of RfD for today's entries.

  • Enter this text below the date heading:
{{subst:rfd2|redirect=RedirectName|target=TargetArticle|text=The action you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for that action.}} ~~~~
  • For the template in the previous step:
    • Put the redirect's name in place of "RedirectName", put the target article's name in place of "TargetArticle", and include a reason after "text=".
    • Note that, for this step, the "target article" is the current target of the redirect (if you have a suggestion for a better target, include this in the text that you insert after "text=").
  • Please use an edit summary such as:
    Nominating [[RedirectName]]
    (replacing RedirectName with the name of the redirect you are nominating).
  • To list multiple related redirects for discussion, use the following syntax. Repeat line 2 for N number of redirects:
{{subst:rfd2|redirect=RedirectName1|target=TargetArticle1}}
{{subst:rfd2m|redirect=RedirectName2|target=TargetArticle2}}
{{subst:rfd2m|redirect=RedirectNameN|target=TargetArticleN|text=The actions you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for those actions.}} ~~~~
  • Please consider using What links here to locate other redirects that may be related to the one you are nominating. After going to the redirect target page and selecting "What links here" in the toolbox on the left side of your computer screen, select both "Hide transclusions" and "Hide links" filters to display the redirects to the redirect target page.
  • It is generally considered good practice to notify the creator and main contributors to the redirect that you are nominating the redirect. To find the main contributors, look in the page history of the redirect. For convenience, the template

    {{subst:RFDNote|RedirectName}} ~~~~

    may be placed on the creator/main contributors' user talk page to provide notice of the discussion. Please replace RedirectName with the name of the redirect and use an edit summary such as:
    Notice of redirect discussion at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]]

Current list[edit]

April 25[edit]

April 24[edit]

Aria (Pokémon)[edit]

I guess Aria and Ariala were names for Clefairy and Clefable in a beta of the first games, but neither of these names are mentioned on the target page, and the Aria redirects could cause confusion, as there's a character of this name in Pokémon Ranger. --BDD (talk) 22:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom.--Lenticel (talk) 08:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Youngster Joey[edit]

This extremely minor Pokémon character isn't mentioned at the target page or anywhere else, nor should he be. BDD (talk) 22:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

List of Pokémon (0)[edit]

Unlikely search term created as a fork of MissingNo. You wouldn't believe how much cruft there is in Pokémon redirects. Or maybe you would. BDD (talk) 22:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Gary oaks arcanine[edit]

This extremely minor Pokémon character isn't mentioned at the target page, and doesn't seem to be mentioned at all on Wikipedia. BDD (talk) 22:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Fixed my vote after seeing the fact that it has been retargeted already. Steel1943 (talk) 22:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thunderbolt Pokémon Attack[edit]

This Pokémon gameplay element isn't mentioned at the target article; the attack isn't even unique to Pikachu. --BDD (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete all. On Bulbapedia, these would be a full-blown article. We're not Bulbapedia. It's bad enough we've got giant lists of all the Pokemon, but I draw the line at their individual movesets. --NYKevin 20:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete all. The move is not exclusive to Pikachu, nor is it notable enough to be retargeted elsewhere. Steel1943 (talk) 22:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Cult of the Helix[edit]

Not notable at all. Pelliesh (talk) 18:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Weak delete - Not discussed by name in the target, but related information is present there, and it could be explicitly named with minimal editing. Notability is irrelevant to redirects. --NYKevin 19:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Take to Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon, per BDD yesterday with French-language redirects to Pokémon. We have a lot of Pokémon redirects coming up lately and [[User:BDD is going to take them as a batch to see what their opinion is. Si Trew (talk) 19:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • How is this even a discussion, oh my god!? This was a troll article set up during the Twitch Plays Pokémon phenomenon, just redirect it to there. Bureaucracy at its absolute worst joke level here. Andre666 (talk) 20:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Mark Arsten doesn't seem like the type to make a "troll article," though I see he's on an indefinite break. Also, it's already redirecting to Twitch Plays Pokémon; does that mean you want it to be kept? --BDD (talk) 22:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Seabird shit[edit]

No links, useless profane redirect. Pelliesh (talk) 18:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Bird shit[edit]

No links, useless redirect. Pelliesh (talk) 18:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Keep. This is the best target. People might find out something about the historic harvesting/mining of guano, if we're lucky. Si Trew (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Bat Shit[edit]

The only link here is a talk page, and "bat shit" is a very unnecessary redirect. Pelliesh (talk) 18:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep - plausible someone would search for it (e.g. see disambig at batshit). If this is deleted, please also delete bat shit for reasons of consistency. --NYKevin 19:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget, and delete the entry at the DAB. Bat shit is definitely not guano, it is the usual solid excrement from a mammal. I don't know what the best retarget would be, feces? It is just wrong at the DAB. Guano is specifically for birds, as far as I understand it, which do not have a separate urinal and anal tract and so produce a combination of both when they evacuate. Si Trew (talk) 19:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
    • According to the very first sentence of Guano, bat shit is indeed guano. --NYKevin 19:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Keep. You're right, it says it there, and it is referenced further down. I've never heard mammalian exrement called that myself, but that is just my ignorance, and that is what encyclopaedias are for. Nice call. Si Trew (talk) 19:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:R&b[edit]

Like the above, but even worse because it comes with inconsistent capitalization as part of the package. Should be deleted in favor of a consistently-named alternative. (See also the RfD for the similarly-titled "Template:C&w" which just closed as delete.) — Scott talk 00:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. WP:REDLINK content uses should trump in-Wikipedia pipeworking ; Wikiprojects are indicated using "WP" or "WPP" and this uses neither. -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 04:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per my arguments for keeping Template:R&B above. There is no harm in this template redirecting to the same target as that one, and indeed other courses of action (including deletion) would introduce confusion where none presently exists. Thryduulf (talk) 10:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
    • "handwaving about the possibility of confusion is not evidence of anything" — Scott talk 13:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  • There *is* harm. It is a non-intuitive shortcut by two accounts (lowercase, omitted "WP"). The harm is that other editors must translate this code to a sensible template name. Not only when using it, but also and more often when seeing this name (reading this name) in talkspace, WP-namespace, or when editing. That we don't see this frustration is no proof of absence. Misformed, non-intuitive shortcuts/abbreviations are a burden for all editors (except those who have learned the hidden code, or have it written on a paper glued next to their computerscreen). -DePiep (talk) 11:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per my arguments for deleting Template:R&B above. Redirects to project banners should use the conventional "WPXX" format". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Could be a WikiProject tag or a navbox. I would've preferred the latter, but since it's already established and used, I don't think a change is worthwhile. --BDD (talk) 19:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, your writing "could be X or Y" proves the point against keeping! What is the use of a "could-be" shortcut? Why require that editors learn or research which one it is (and note, that includes also moments when an editor reads it)? All this while the straight solution is at hand. (That solution is not to rename it {{R&B (disambiguation)}} ;-) ) -DePiep (talk) 06:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
This is absolutely the most important point here: ambiguity should not be tolerated, let alone encouraged, in the internal components of our system. Disambiguation pages and redirects from typographical errors exist for the benefit of readers, who can't and shouldn't be expected to operate in a systematic way. We as editors and programmers, on the other hand, benefit significantly from operating within a regular and predictable environment that facilitates our working practices. — Scott talk 13:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
DePiep and Scott, there are many established titles and redirects we'd probably have to toss if we followed your arguments to their logical conclusion, such as Template:Db. If you're serious that there should be no ambiguity in such names, this might be the start of a lengthy crusade. --BDD (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
OSE argument, won't respond. -DePiep (talk) 17:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
That's your right, but I'm not the one who brought up other stuff. That part, I suppose, was more aimed at Scott. If you're suggesting "all X should be deleted" rather than "this should be deleted," you're talking about other stuff already. --BDD (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
You mean Scott is introducing OSE? I do not read that. What I do read is an argument against ambiguity. To which you have not responded. I find that sloppy reasoning. On top of this, since you do closures I wonder whether you are able to throw OSE arguments out unweighed. -DePiep (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I mean. An editor can mention other stuff without making an OSE argument, but if you phrase an argument in broad terms instead of the item(s) being discussed, you're arguing in relation to other stuff. I'll use an example from AfD, since that's an area this comes up a lot. Suppose Fredy (Portuguese footballer) were up for deletion. If I say, "This guy doesn't meet GNG/NFOOTY," that's fine. If I say, "Footballers aren't notable. This page should be deleted," would I not be making an OSE argument? (Stupid argument, of course, but bear with me for the sake of discussion.) --BDD (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
BDD, re If you're serious that there should be no ambiguity in such names, this might be the start of a lengthy crusade. - God, grant me the serenity to accept the redirects I cannot change, the courage to change the redirects I can, and wisdom to know the difference. There are large parts of our system we simply cannot change for historic reasons. We can draw a line in front of those; everything else we should do our best to make sense out of, for the ongoing benefit of those who follow in our footsteps. — Scott talk 21:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I suppose. I can understand the drive to get rid of the newer redirects, but this one's almost three years old. Is that "historic" enough? If not, what is? --BDD (talk) 23:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
When I said "historic reasons" I meant "presents an extended record of earlier use", not simply "is old". — Scott talk 19:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. As with {{R&B}} above (must have "WP"), plus the horrible lowercase deviation. No editor should be required to do research to learn what the (malformed) abbreviation means. -DePiep (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - "R&B" is shorthand for "Rhythm and Blues". This RfD is extremely similar to the 2013 RfD about Template:Cop and the 2014 RfD about Template:wprk, which I am incorporating by reference for the sake of brevity. There are several templates like this, such as {{Tb}} which is not about tuburculosis, {{pot}} which is not about cannabis, {{hat}} which is not about headwear, etc. WP:R#D8 does not apply as this is not an article space redirect. WP:R#D2 does not apply as confusion is less likely to occur in other name spaces.
  1. Per WP:R#KEEP, "If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do".
  2. The redirect was created over two years ago, so IMO the time has passed for changing the redirect without significant confusion. Alleged confusion is not very plausible at all. So absent evidence of any harm there is no reason to delete.
  3. "There seems to be no evidence of confusion, just conjecture on the part of nominator, and no argument grounded in WP:R. Laziness is the exact purpose of redirects, to be perfectly honest, and the creator of a useful redirect that saves one or two characters should be commended. We don't delete redirects based merely on conjecture. Someone obviously found these useful given they were created."
  4. "One of the lowest things one can do is steal another mans tools. So you have no use for it. That it's being used on [talk pages] is good enough, and there is zero reason to take away something that has no higher use. Such Nominators should be required to be the one to hand edit and remove any deleted tags."
  5. "Redirects are not only cheap but this is a redirect from and to template namespace. That would tend to indicate to me that anyone using it is an editor rather than a general reader and they are hardly likely to get it [confused]. There are lots of little abbreviated things pulled up over the years such as {{tlc}} or {{tlx}} or whatever as useful shorthand for editors." --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
No confusion? Evidence of confusion (one of more) is that it does not have "WP" in it. That is misleading by any common sense. What more do you need? If you accept proof only that shows editors who used it wrongly in a preview or editors who were confused and frustrated so left a page, what evidence would be OK for you? Must we track clicking & thinking response behaviour from editors? -DePiep (talk) 07:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
The abbreviation "R&B" for R&B (in real life too) is not disputed by anyone. There even is no second claim for another use. All fine.
The issue is that "WP" is omitted and the lowercase. (you yourself did uppercase it for your argument).
"steel a mans tools": Your "tool" is in my road. That tool is loading other editors with the burden of grasping the meaning of this template. Typos and non-intuitive abbreviations are not for shortcuts. Who will learn a typo? -DePiep (talk) 07:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Reply - I don't have the burden of proof in cases like this. Without proof, the redirect can stand IMO, because redirects are cheap. The same can be said for {{cop}}. Besides, it is not difficult to type "Template:R&B" into the search box, or to use "Preview" or "Undo" (WP:IDLI). Anyone who used {{r&b}} before I made it got a red link. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I am not asking you for a proof. You are asking for an improbable proof. I am asking how such a thing could be proven at all. -DePiep (talk) 17:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Anyone who used {{r&b}} before I made it got a red link. Except that a link search reveals that nobody used it before you. And if anyone ever did, they immediately replaced it with the correct template name - something that's impossible to prove as ever having happened. So that's a completely specious argument. — Scott talk 21:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Did I miss something? Jax 0677, you didn't create this redirect, did you? --BDD (talk) 18:40, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Huh. He started using it recently, certainly, but he didn't create it; that was Eduemoni. — Scott talk 19:11, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Jax 0677 is being WP:POINTy. -DePiep (talk) 20:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

  • Comment - My point is that I do not have the burden of proof. If one does not use the redirect themselves, it will not take up mental bandwidth. If the redirect with all capital letters points to one location, why would we want the redirect with all small letters to potentially point to something else? If we delete this, then will we need to delete {{songs}} and {{albums}} as well? Also, as of late, I have refrained from creating WikiProject redirects, and I plan to comply with the decision to be made at Wikipedia_talk:Shortcut#Template_shortcuts. Also, there is no proof that I am being "pointy". --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:WPFK[edit]

As below, another redirect to a redirect by Jax 0677. — Scott talk 18:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Yes, it's silly of Jax to create double redirects, but I don't think it makes much sense to discuss them as such. I assume the RfD tag will prevent bots from fixing them. Why not just fix them and discuss accordingly? --BDD (talk) 20:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • speedy keep until the discussion about these sorts of redirects concludes. Thryduulf (talk) 20:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete FK is a country code for the Falkland Islands, which has its own taskforce. -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 20:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
    • FK has many possible meanings and there is no reason why a country code should automatically have precedence, and you have not given any reasons why this country code should get precedence over any other use. Thryduulf (talk) 11:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
      • FK is not a recognized abbreviation for funk, so is a novel creation. As there are uses for recognized uses for FK having wikipedia content, the use of this for funk is inappropriate in all cases. -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 04:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - See my response at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_14#Template:Wprg. Also, "FK has many possible meanings and there is no reason why a country code should automatically have precedence, and [no reason is given] why this country code should get precedence over any other use." --Jax 0677 (talk) 04:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)÷
This is getting tiresome, Jax 0677. 1. There were numerous responses to the list you link to, you do not seem to have even read them let alone process the thinking. And why do you leave out the XfD's where the very same arguments (or 'arguments', see next point 2) have not prevented a deletion? 2. Several points in your linked list do not relate to this one at all. In other words, you are talking irrelevant stuff. 3. You created this one [1] right after posting that list, so you knew it was disputed. 4. Actually, you have been making a WP:POINT. That is a speedy. -DePiep (talk) 19:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jax 0677 created this one to make a WP:POINT only. See my response above. Jax did not actually use (or need) this one. So any argument that it is a reasonable or useful development is not existing. Jax should not talk for other editors. -DePiep (talk) 19:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - Whichever statements apply to this discussion are the ones to which I am referring. The discussions are getting long, so I am incorporating other discussions by reference for the sake of brevity. If one does not use the redirect themselves, it will not take up mental bandwidth. As of late, I have refrained from creating WikiProject redirects, and I plan to comply with the decision to be made at Wikipedia_talk:Shortcut#Template_shortcuts. Also, there is no proof that I am violating WP:POINT. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
So I am let to find it out myself what you mean to say, & why you do so? Thanks. Yes RfD has this drawback of repetition, but at least you could be sincere in argumentation. For me, this is not a serious reply at all. -DePiep (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:WPPK[edit]

Two more misnamed templates by Jax 0677. PK is the country code for Pakistan, and WP:PK is the shortcut for Wikipedia talk:Notice board for Pakistan-related topics. See also the RfDs of Template:Pk and Template:Wpk, both also by the same author.

Note: the target shown above of the first template is not a listing error. This is what Jax 0677 has been doing: creating variant-cased redirects that redirect to each other, in other words nonfunctional double redirects. In each case his error has subsequently been corrected by a bot, as I expect the one above will be.

At this point I'm going to take an unusual step. Jax 0677's apparently endless stream of malformed template redirects is now wasting a significant amount of effort at RfD. I ask the community: is there consensus for the imposition of a moratorium on any further creations by Jax 0677 of music WikiProject template redirects? — Scott talk 18:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Note: it appears that Jax 0677 is currently blocked from editing and will not be able to participate in this discussion until his block expires at 14:00, 16 April 2014. — Scott talk 18:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, it's silly of Jax to create double redirects, but I don't think it makes much sense to discuss them as such. I assume the RfD tag will prevent bots from fixing them. Why not just fix them and discuss accordingly? --BDD (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
    • My point here is that not only are these redirects poorly conceived and in conflict with existing shortcuts, they're also nonfunctional as created. Which is starting to make me wonder if competence is an issue. — Scott talk 20:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep per my comment below. I would support a moratorium on creation of redirects iff it was accompanied by a moratorium on the nomination of all redirects to WikiProject templates until the discussion about them concludes. Thryduulf (talk) 20:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
    • One user wasting the community's time by creating a blunderbuss blast of redirects of questionable value is a discrete issue from how redirects should be named. Certainly Jax 0677 should stop creating redirects until that discussion has been resolved, regardless of the whether the RfDs open on his creations are resolved or on hold. These most recent ones were all created yesterday. — Scott talk 20:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
"below"? And why the "speedy"? -DePiep (talk) 19:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Adding: why bolding the argumentation? -DePiep (talk) 19:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete PK is the country code for Pakistan, which has its own WikiProject -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 20:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
    • PK has many possible meanings and there is no reason why a country code should automatically have precedence, and you have not given any reasons why this country code should get precedence over any other use. Thryduulf (talk) 11:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
      • PK is not a recognized abbreviation for Punk, so it is inappropriate for punk to misappropriate this term in all cases, with other uses that are recognized present and having wikiprojects. -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 04:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
WP:PK is a Pakistan usage, though it's to noticeboard rather than the WikiProject proper. --BDD (talk) 16:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
WP:WikiProject Pakistan / {{WikiProject Pakistan}} ; noticeboards don't support banners, but WikiProjects do , and this is a template redirect. Anyways, the existence of the noticeboard and the wikiproject indicates that PUNK should not use this redirect location. -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 04:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - See my response at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_14#Template:Wprg. Also, PK "has many possible meanings and there is no reason why a country code should automatically have precedence, and [no reason is given] why this country code should get precedence over any other use." --Jax 0677 (talk) 04:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete No one is going to interpret PK as a shortcut for punk rock. Can we escalate a ban on all such creations by the author? --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Clearly created by Jax 0677 for WP:POINT only. Created this one right after Jax wrote the arguments they now link to here (self-serving logic). No editor really needed this one, though Jax is talking for them (non-existant). No base for real usefullness for editors (created but not used). Boilerplate 'arguments' linked to by Xax do not apply reasonably. Linked arguments have been responded to earlier, clearly without change of thought by Jax. And one more question: people who use "strong" in the bold !vote are expected to explain why that is. -DePiep (talk) 19:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - Whichever statements apply to this discussion are the ones to which I am referring. The discussions are getting long, so I am incorporating other discussions by reference for the sake of brevity. If one does not use the redirect themselves, it will not take up mental bandwidth. As of late, I have refrained from creating WikiProject redirects, and I plan to comply with the decision to be made at Wikipedia_talk:Shortcut#Template_shortcuts. Also, there is no proof that I am violating WP:POINT, and the redirect bots will fix double redirects in time. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Worthless argumentation. I can say too: "look at wikipedia what I wrote. -DePiep (talk) 21:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Sir Technocracy[edit]

Straight deletion. They make no sense with respect to the target article. Best I can think of is they were originally to a different article with the same name but this may even just be a hoax. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete all per Peter Rehse. Si Trew (talk) 13:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • n.b. Admins can view deleted edits, and there are none for this article. As far as I can tell, it's always been about the Welsh boxer. --BDD (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
So a mistake from the very beginning. If you do a google search on "Reddit Proposal Malcolm Collins" the Malcolm Collins that comes up is clearly not the Welsh boxer.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong delete "Reddit Proposal" and "Meme Proposal" as exceedingly senseless. There are many reddit proposals and meme proposals. -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 04:42, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Next Hungarian parliamentary election[edit]

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 fixed date in {{Rfd}} tag on the redirect's page. For that reason, this discussion is no longer necessary. Please refer to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 22#Next Hungarian parliamentary election for the current discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 21:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

This wasn't tagged for being under discussion. The target is now being investigated for COPYVIO (not by me). I don't think we need a separate discussion when one is already open here, but I wanted to tag it first. Si Trew (talk) 08:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Wat? If COPYVIO deletes the article, they'll take care of redirects as well; for the most part, there should be nothing to discuss. If it doesn't, we're presumably keeping the redirects. Why are we here? --NYKevin 20:09, 24 April 2014 (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.

Mongoloid idiot[edit]

  • Delete. only in 19th, 20th centuries Mongoloid word was meant Down syndrome. Now it is no longer in technical use. http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/67258/mongoloid-with-reference-to-downs-syndrome. Batka83 (talk) 23:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
    Because it's offensive term for whole country Mongolia. Now it's 21st century. This word is no longer in use. What if we call Americoid or Engloid term as idiot? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batka83 (talkcontribs) 09:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC) Batka83 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    Don't use use mongoloid to refer to Down's syndrome in any form of English, it's offensive.
    The Downs Syndrome Association advise the media of What To Say / Not Say, including:
    Don't Say: Mongol
    Do Say: person/baby/child with Down's syndrome.
    Also in term Brit doesn't have another word Idiot Batka83 (talk)
    Note: Multiple comments placed together. Saying "delete" multiple times will not increase the chance of anything being deleted. — Scott talk 13:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
    It's not a question of what the Down's Syndrome Assoiation advise the media. We're an encyclopaedia not a newspaper: and even if we were a newspaper, we wouldn't have to heed that advice. I accept entirely it is an offensive term, that is not the point. It is a question of if this is used in literature and if it is a likely search term. That is the criterion. Not whether it is politically correct or whatever. You can add that advice – if you have a reliable source, although it would seem rather WP:PRIMARY – at the article itself. The Guardian's style guide here for example does not have any advice on Downs syndrome or on Mongol beyond saying it means "one of the peoples of Mongolia", however there are plenty of Guardian articles available online that say that people with Down's syndrome were called Mongols. Si Trew (talk) 13:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep as likely search term. Although the term "mongoloid idiot" is not in the article, "mongoloid imbecility" is, but reference 94 is "Observations on an ethnic classification of idiots" and lo and behold it was written by Down. A very interesting (and short) paper, actually, in which Down is not using it pejoratively at all. Si Trew (talk) 06:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per SiTrew, though documentation should be added to the redirect -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 06:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per SiTrew as a helpful search term. BethNaught (talk) 06:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per Batka83. It's offensive term used in last centuries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jumbara (talkcontribs) 09:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC) Jumbara (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Sock vote struck (see user's block log). --BDD (talk) 23:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per Batka83.
    The following cases would make it sensible to use that term that way:
    You're living in the late 19th or early 20th century.
    You hate people with Downs Syndrome.
    You're racist.
    You hate people with Downs Syndrome and you're racist.
    If any of the above are true, it would make perfect sense to use that word in that sense. In the case of writing fictional character's speech, take care that people don't confuse their speech with yours. Otemd (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC) Otemd (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Sock vote struck (see user's block log). --BDD (talk) 23:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Plausible search term, particularly for those coming across the term in older documents. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
And Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, so "offensive" terms are fine if they are used (there are exceptions for WP:BLP and so on). But Down used it in the paper, and I guessed coined the term, and mentions that they have certain facial attributes similar to Mongols but not all. He was suggesting quite the opposite of racism: that all races of human beings are the same, and that differences in appearance and so on are not down to race separation/evolution (remember this paper was written at a time when evolutionary theory was highly contentious). He concluded, in that paper, that all human beings belong to the same species. Thus Down himself was not using it as a racist term. Neither did he hate people with Down's Syndrome; he treated people with Down's syndrome who were at that time considered hopeless cases, and said that with training they could learn to walk, talk and so on (like the rest of us!). Neither is the term "idiot" a pejorative term, it was used on a scale of classifying people with mental disabilities (we have moron, for example, which is a DAB for which the first entry is Moron (psychology)). Similarly spastic became a pejorative term in the UK but we still have a redirect for The Spastics Society, which changed its name. You can read Down's paper here online – it's very short. The term Brit is incorrect and mildly offensive to me as an Englishman (and to many other people from all parts of the United Kingdom), but we still have a DAB with British people as top entry. Si Trew (talk) 12:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep That's a great paper (Down's paper)- and if you get around the period language it is decidedly not racist. By way of comment Mongoloid has a long history as a common term for Down's syndrome and is therefore essential as a search term. Now since Mongoloid refers to a population you will need something to distinguish the Down's syndrome variant from the ethnic variant.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
But it doesn't does it? "Mongol" certainly needs to be disambiguated, but "Mongoloid" I would have thought only refers to people with Down's Syndrome? Si Trew (talk) 13:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Well I am taking my lead from Mongoloid (disambiguation). Mongol refers to a specific people (our friend Ghengis) while Mongoloid is a larger racial group.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Then let's 'add a hatnote at Mongols (to which Mongol redirects, whereas usually you would expect Mongol people , on the lines of British people, French people, German people and so on). That's a separate matter for RM if we should change the article title, but the lead starts "The Mongols, or Mongolic peoples"... and does not mention mongoloids. It has a DAB at mongols (disambiguation) which mentions mongoloid, but not mongoloid (disambiguation), which it probably should. It is all a bit of a cat's cradle. Si Trew (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Well it is confusing.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

April 23[edit]

Catacombs of New York City[edit]

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 speedy delete per request of sole author. — Scott talk 14:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

This is an implausible redirect, as no one ever refers to the subway as "catacombs". (I made the page myself accidentally, but I still wanted to take this here.) Epicgenius (talk) 23:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom; this is not about the sewers of NYC, nor the water tunnels where sandhogs work ; which in other locations might be called catacombs -- 65.94.43.240 (talk) 05:25, 24 April 2014 (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.

Angela Trimbur[edit]

Target only has trivial information about this actress: Age 22 (that was in 2004, she is currently 32), from Los Angeles. A search on "Angela Trimbur" shows mention in 13 articles, many of them for better known works. When she has no biography, readers are better served by search results. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Let the search engine handle it. Si Trew (talk) 06:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Otaria (Pokemon)[edit]

This is apparently the name of Seel, a Pokémon, in French. Since Pokémon has no particular connection with French, this should be an easy WP:FORRED deletion. Unless we systematically create redirects from foreign-language names of Pokémon for some reason... --BDD (talk) 22:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Oh dear. Looking over what links to the same place, it indeed seems that there are many redirects from foreign names of Pokémon. While the Japanese forms seem acceptable, the others are fancruft if I've ever seen it—and for what it's worth, I do consider myself a Pokémon fan. But we are not Bulbapedia (which, incidentally, is a good source for such information). So let's consider this a test case. If there's consensus to delete, I'll work on compiling a list of such redirects and bring them up as a batch. --BDD (talk) 22:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per BDD. The Japanese ones should stay as that is the original language, but other foreign-language ones should go per WP:FORRED. Si Trew (talk) 06:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • delete per nom. If there are a lot redirects like this one floating around the wiki then perhaps we should coordinate with Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon to plan on how to get rid of them.--Lenticel (talk) 07:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I've left a notification at the project talk page. My thought was to compile them all at a user subpage of mine, refer to them in a second RfD, and if it's successful, I'll just go through and take care of them. Other admins can help out—with their help, I'll catch delete 'em all. --BDD (talk) 16:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, and concur with SimonTrew. — Scott talk 14:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:WPCL[edit]

Another Jax 0677 redirect (see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 14). WP:CL is the shortcut for Wikipedia:WikiProject Constructed languages. That project may be moribund, but it doesn't change the fact that they got the initials. — Scott talk 18:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep until the ongoing discussion at WT:SHORTCUT concludes. This nomination is disruptive to that discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 18:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Take your accusations of bad faith somewhere else. — Scott talk 18:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
      • That I find that these nominations are disruptive to an ongoing discussion is a simple factual statement, and this is an appropriate place to make such observations. Thryduulf (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
That may be bad discussing practice (though I disagree), but there is no bad faith in there. -DePiep (talk) 19:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I clarify: The bad faith accusation does not belong here. No bad faith in the nomination. -DePiep (talk) 19:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete CL is a country code for Chile, which has its own {{WikiProject Chile}} -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
    • If you think that country codes should be respected in redirect titles, you'll need to raise that opinion at the WT:SHORTCUT discussion, as it's not an accepted practice at present. P.S. Are you the person who was editing from 70.50.*? — Scott talk 21:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Yes, I hadn't noticed my IP jumping to the 65... range from the 70... range. At any rate, this deletion opinion is based on being a misleading redirect, which is an accepted deletion criterion, because CL and WP are accepted abbreviations either (A) worldwide [CL] or (B) on wikipedia [WP]; "CL" is not an accepted abbreviation for classical music worldwide. -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 05:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
        • "CL" is also an internationally accepted abbreviation/code for "chlorine", "Shilluk language", "Lufthansa CityLine", "Centilitre" and other uses, why should the country code automatically take precedence? Thryduulf (talk) 11:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
          • There's no WikiProject Centilitre and unlikely to be one. There is no wikiproject for Shilluk or CityLine or Chlorine. But you've just stated my case as to why this is misleading. -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 04:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - See my response at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_14#Template:Wprg. Also, CL "has many possible meanings and there is no reason why a country code should automatically have precedence, and [no reason is given] why this country code should get precedence over any other use." --Jax 0677 (talk) 04:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Why "strong"? Did you actually read your own linked points, since not all seem relevant (mildly put). And where are your consequences of replies to those points? -DePiep (talk) 19:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Created as a WP:POINT, right after stating that point in an RfD discussion by Jax. -DePiep (talk) 19:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - Whichever statements apply to this discussion are the ones to which I am referring. The discussions are getting long, so I am incorporating other discussions by reference for the sake of brevity. If one does not use the redirect themselves, it will not take up mental bandwidth. As of late, I have refrained from creating WikiProject redirects, and I plan to comply with the decision to be made at Wikipedia_talk:Shortcut#Template_shortcuts. Also, there is no proof that I am violating WP:POINT. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Do not do nothing - Either this redirect should be deleted, or WP:CL should be retargeted. The status quo is unacceptable; shortucts should agree with each other. --NYKevin 19:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius[edit]

Two redirects that are virtually the same but are targeted to different places. Later chroniclers reported that something akin to this phrase was uttered by Arnaud Amalric before the Massacre at Béziers, and this is mentioned in both articles. With that in mind, both redirects are good, but they really ought to be targeted to the same place. Should both go to Amalric's article, or both to the massacre article, or both to somewhere else? I don't particularly care which choice we pick. Nyttend (talk) 12:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

  • It doesn't really matter which to me, but they should point to the same place. Good find. --BDD (talk) 16:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. For way of comparison I found Let's Bring Em Home which doesn't have the apos, and in Bruce Springsteen with The Seeger Sessions Band Tour and We Shall Overcome: The Seeger Sessions is "Bring 'Em Home now" with the apos, and I often abbreviate "them" to "'em" which in speech is quicker but in typing come to think of it doesn't actually even save me a keystrike so I don't know why I do it. A quick Wiikipedia search (not external search engine search) for me shows it is about half and half so they are better deleted to let the search engine deal with it. Si Trew (talk) 03:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC):: A quick Wiikipedia search (not external search engine search) for me shows it is about half and half so they are better deleted to let the search engine deal with it. I have no idea why this was listed under Latin: Kill them, the Lord God knows who are the faithful (or "his own") which for me brings up on My Favourite Search Engine Massacre at Béziers at the first, and Joshua verses 1–12 here in the New International Version. Declaration of non-interest: I am not a Christian. Si Trew (talk) 03:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
    Why would we delete them? They're different forms of a well-known phrase often (mistakenly) associated with the incident, and both of them are good redirects. And what does the beginning of Joshua have to do with it? The only reason I came here was to get input on where they should be redirected, since both targets are good and it's silly to have them go different places. The Latin title is the original phrase, FYI. Nyttend (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
    I realise what the Latin phrase is. The thing is I find it obscure to bring rtwo edirects and list them under a different title from either of the redirects themselves. Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius doesn't exist, neither does kill them all, let God sort it out or kill 'em all, let God sort it out. So either they should be added or these deleted. I agree with you, though, if they stay they should go to the same target. Si Trew (talk) 07:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
As for Joshua, look at verse 24. This is what comes up on My Favourite Search Engine, as I said. I never said it was "right", I said what I got on a search. Si Trew (talk) 07:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I think this phrase is notable enough for its own article, so create a stub at one location, and redirect all variants to it. -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 05:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:Wpcw[edit]

And again. Apparently created to replace Template:C&W/Template:C&w, both of which were likewise deleted here two weeks ago. — Scott talk 00:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep - See my response at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_14#Template:Wprg. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. The main difference between this and the now-deleted C&W templates is that the consensus in the prior RfD was more aimed at the lack of any signifier that it was a WikiProject banner versus an articlespace template. I see no chance of confusion here, and "CW" in this context fairly clearly refers to "country & western music", which is under the umbrella of the Country Music project. Interestingly, keeping this and retargeting {{WPCM}} (per my recommendation in its own RfD above) may serve to resolve the WP:CM/CM/WPCM shortcut conflict that has been identified. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 03:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
    • While I still think my prior rationale is the correct one, I recognize that there is an emerging consensus (both in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Shortcut and in the recent RfDs concerning these redirects) that case variants of WikiProject banner template redirects should not be kept. Thus, Weak delete. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 13:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete {{WPCW}} exists and is allcaps, as SHORTCUTs should be, this being a shortcut to a template. -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 09:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:CHEAP, but Jax 0677, please consider not creating so many redirects of this type. Sideways713 (talk) 10:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Contradiction, Sideways. -DePiep (talk) 18:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
That's just RfD zen: it shouldn't've been created, but neither should it be deleted. (This is not necessarily my position on this redirect.) --BDD (talk) 17:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, BDD is right. When it comes to articles, there's no such thing as something that probably should not have been created, but - having been created - should not be deleted. The same is not true for redirects, though; that's half the point behind WP:RFD#HARMFUL and WP:CHEAP. (Mind you, as this is a recently created redirect WP:RFD#HARMFUL doesn't apply in this case.) Sideways713 (talk) 09:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • delete per 70.24. Frietjes (talk) 17:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete, too many meanings for CW. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - If one does not use the redirect themselves, it will not take up mental bandwidth. If the redirect with all capital letters points to one location, why would we want the redirect with all small letters to potentially point to something else? If we delete this, then will we need to delete {{songs}} and {{albums}} as well? Also, as of late, I have refrained from creating WikiProject redirects, and I plan to comply with the decision to be made at Wikipedia_talk:Shortcut#Template_shortcuts. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Genua[edit]

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 procedural close. Please comment at the RM. --BDD (talk) 16:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

There is a Move Request discussion at Talk:Genua_(disambiguation) which is in effect a proposal to delete this redirect (and to have a dab page at the base name). I'm not sure where the discussion ought to be taking place. PamD 16:20, 23 April 2014 (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.

Template:Cita web[edit]

There is a dispute on this redirect's talk page over whether this should be kept as a redirect or changed to a full template supporting Spanish parameter names. The issue arises as the template occasionally is added to articles due to copy and paste of untranslated or only partially translated content with references from es.wp.

It should be kept as a redirect. Non-English language parameters are errors and should be treated as such. This highlights to any editor adding translated content that templates also need translating, encouraging them to do so before submission. Otherwise they are much more likely to submit the templates with incorrect foreign parameters, which will then be harder for other editors to fix who don't understand Spanish (the vast majority). JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 14:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment. About six years ago I created {{magyar télepulés infobox}} as an infobox template so that I could copy in to all the Hungarian village articles with the infoboxes without having to transcribe them into {{infobox settlement}}. I was told in no uncertain terms by one editor that they should be transcribed, all 2500 of them, rather than having foreign-language terms as attributes (completely hidden from readers but just to editors) in an infobox. Cos that really helps our readers, not to have an infobox as I haven't time to transcribe 2500 infoboxes. But I don't see the point of keeping the "cita" if the template attributes themselves are in English. Si Trew (talk) 20:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment transliterating/translating template parameter names sounds like the job a bot could do in seconds. Could these be imported to draft/user space with Spanish or Hungarian parameter names, have a bot run over them and then moved to article space? Thryduulf (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it probably could be. The point was to move them over first then get the bot to do it. But that wasn't good enough. All the crests for the Hungarian villages etc were imported en masse in SVG format in one go by a bot or script but no, that wasn't acceptable for me to do the same with the infoboxes. At that time we didn't use Draft namespace (it's still kinda new to me) and putting it in User space and doing *another* move of 2500 infoboxes would have been a pain. But your argument is valid, if we can do it that way these days, that's the way to do it. Si Trew (talk) 21:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
    • There's no need for cita web. By the time I came to look at it there was one instance of it, which had English parameters already. I only changed it to cite web so no-one else would need to check it. For a large task like 2500 articles then an automated process makes sense. If you have local copies at some point a simple search and replace across all of them would do. Otherwise a bot. The'd not have to be moved to user or draft space, except if left in mainspace some might be fixed manually before a bot got to them if there were any delay.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 21:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Do you mean Template:Magyar település infobox? - your other links don't work but a quick search turned up that.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 21:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes that was the fellow. Being English I slur all my vowels and forget the distinctions with these vowels that are distinct in other languages, it is one of the hardest things for me. I can say them I just can't hear them. Si Trew (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Comment Other language Wikipedias (Wikipediae?) sometimes have templates both in English and in native language, to make it easier to transwiki (or because it is the copy that is then translated into the native language). French rarely does, they create their own or translate and then delete the English (usually without the appropriate {{translated page}} tag), Hungarian often does. I don't see why English can't have, for the same reason, but to have the title in Spanish but the attributes/parameters in English is silly. and find it easily enough, and {{cite web}} is interwiki linked from there to English and numerous other languages, so I doubt a Spanish editor would find it hard to find the English version. Si Trew (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I can think of two reasons why. One as the oldest and largest WP many things start out on en.wp before appearing on other language Wikipedias. In which case it may often be easiest to copy them over before creating a local version. Two for the same reason (lots of porting from en.wp) disproportionately many editors of non-English WPs can probably understand or at least work with English. So having English templates is much less of a problem. Here though almost any template being copied across probably already exists in English. The English version is probably better and more up to date, is very likely better maintained. So converting any copied templates to English should happen as soon as possible, ideally as soon as they're copied. At the same time the language skills of en.wp users are probably much poorer, likely little better then the general population, and given our geographic diversity any one foreign language is very likely to be very poorly understood. Spanish for example is well understood in the US but is largely unknown in the country with the next most English speakers, India. Hungarian is even less known.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 21:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it would be interesting to know what proportion of template writers are computer programmers. Most computer programmers don't necessarily know English (I remember an excellent Russian programmer telling me) but just treat the English words as symbols like any other mnemonic and so it's not hard for them. In a sense of course we are all computer programmers. Si Trew (talk) 05:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete unlikely misspelling. This is not a shimming template either. -- 65.94.43.240 (talk) 05:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep as a redirect. It is a very likely spelling, since it is created via a copy-paste operation from Spanish-language Wikipedia. I just cleaned one up today. We do need to show error messages to encourage editors to convert the template parameters to English. The template can even be configured to suggest appropriate parameters by adding to Module:Citation/CS1/Suggestions ("editorial" -> "publisher" is already in there).
Category:Pages with citations using unsupported parameters will track any articles that have untranslated parameters. That category is kept clean by a diligent group of gnomes. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
If this exists, it should be a SUBSTITUTION TEMBPLATE since we should not be using non-English in the wikicoding of pages. It is otherwise a misspelling since Spanish is not English and is therefore not a correct spelling. -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 04:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Brian Oliver Producer)[edit]

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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#G6. Thryduulf (talk) 10:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

This is a redirect created through a page move. I doubt that it's useful, and it will probably just be confusing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete G6 clearly a recent mistaken creation, which has since been corrected. -- 70.24.250.192 (talk) 08:43, 23 April 2014 (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.

April 22[edit]

How to write Simple English articles[edit]

WP:NOTGUIDE, plus this isn't the Simple English Wikipedia TheChampionMan1234 23:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete WP:NOTHOWTO/WP:NOTFAQ -- 70.24.250.192 (talk) 04:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. The current target doesn't contain any information on the topic, nor do any other Wikipedia pages (in any namespace) that I know of. Someone searching for this would presumably be looking for simple:Wikipedia:How to write Simple English pages, but retargeting to that would be inadvisable per WP:R#DELETE #6, which only permits redirects to the Wikipedia namespace if they've been around a while, which would seem to preclude creating any new ones (this would also preclude retargeting to Wikipedia:Simple English Wikipedia). We could alternatively retarget this to the disambiguation page at Simple English, which lists entries that no doubt would be useful for someone hoping to learn how to write Simple English articles, but I think "Simple English articles" differs from "articles in simple English" in that it most likely refers to the Simple English Wikipedia. With that in mind, a redirect to a tangentially-related article on this Wikipedia would fall foul of WP:ASTONISH. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 08:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete not mentioned at target. It could go to Basic English, but I don't think that would be useful. While the Simple English Wikipedia is a laudable project, we should all try to write in the simplest English anyway. Si Trew (talk) 10:14, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Flight 60528[edit]

Redirect created by page move. Does not seem alikely search term, since this is the tail number of the aircraft not a flight number. TheLongTone (talk) 18:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Si Trew (talk) 21:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom "60528" is not a flight number, it is a plane ID number. -- 70.24.250.192 (talk) 21:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Cielodrive.com[edit]

Either this Charles Manson site is notable or it isn't. Either way, there doesn't seem to be a good reason to redirect it to its namesake, where it isn't mentioned. BDD (talk) 17:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

  • delete I likewise don't see a redirect from a website to a street address. Mangoe (talk) 12:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Πραικόκιον[edit]

Delete. Not especially related to Ancient Greek. Gorobay (talk) 17:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per Gorobay. Si Trew (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

April 31[edit]

Cannot find a use for this, I don't know why anyone would type this. TheChampionMan1234 12:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment. I mentioned this at the RfD for February 30 but can't find it (BDD will when he wakes up). I went through all the other months as well. It's exactlyt half-and-half: six have "overdates" if we can call them that for brevity and six don't. Si Trew (talk) 13:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
And we have or have not: January 32, February 30, February 31, March 32, April 31, May 32, June 31, July 32, August 32, September 31, October 32, November 31, December 32. Messieurs et dames, faites vos jeux. Si Trew (talk) 20:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh yeah, it was March 32 not February 30, no wonder I couldn't find it. I dunno how others do it but I never seem to be able to pull up past discussions in a search. Si Trew (talk) 08:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:IAP[edit]

This doesn't seem to me like a good candidate for a WP:CNR. I recommend retargeting to the essay Wikipedia:Ignore all precedent, a more logical target. BDD (talk) 16:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per BDD. It's not a rather useful WP:CNR. In fact, if I saw that redirect, I would think that it would redirect to a page that utilizes the entire "IAP" acronym, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject In-App Purchases, which obviously doesn't exist. Steel1943 (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • BDD didn't recommend deletion but retargeting. But I would delete because visually, especially on small screens, it is too close to WP:IAR which is more important, and on some devices "P" and "R" will be very easy to mistype (or e.g. handwriting recognition devices). Si Trew (talk) 21:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • @SimonTrew: Thanks for that information; I completely failed to see the retargeting option that BDD recommended. So, with that information, I change my stance to retarget per BDD. The essay clearly can be described by an "IAP" acronym; works for me. Steel1943 (talk) 00:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget per BDD. A logical and useful target. Thryduulf (talk) 09:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget per BDD. On balance that target is better than my original suggestion of deletion. Si Trew (talk) 10:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Le Canard[edit]

No evidence that this was ever used as an name for this aircraft, referred to in all contemporary cources as the Fabre Hydravion. TheLongTone (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

*Retarget to Le Canard enchaîné. Si Trew (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Canard, as "Le" is French for "The", and "Canard" is French, so it should point to the disambiguation page. -- 70.24.250.192 (talk) 21:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget per 70.24. Oddly, via a search I hadn't found that DAB (I was probably nodding); my previous suggestion is already listed there. Si Trew (talk) 10:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

T:WPMA[edit]

Recently created cross namespace redirect, and using a name "WPMA" which conflicts with another wikiproject: WP:MA. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I created the redirect, and I might be the only one using it so far ... but it's a heavily edited page with an awkward name, so I think it would be a good idea to have a shortcut of some kind. What do you suggest, John? - Dank (push to talk) 18:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. WP:MILHIST is a very conscientious and very active project. Although a CNR, this does not conflict with anything (which is ironic when most of the subjects are things about conflicts) and so should stay. If it helps editors to improve Wikipedia, and there is no confusion, it should stay. Si Trew (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • As the name conflicts with WP:MA, move to {{WPMH/A}}, first creating {{WPMH}} as a shortcut for {{WikiProject Military history}}, which I'm genuinely surprised to find doesn't already exist. How about that? — Scott talk 20:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I bow to your better knowledge. On a search, it didn't seem to conflict to me. But that seems a reasonable way to do it. I am happy to create the template and docs once consensus is reached. Si Trew (talk) 20:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
@Scott: There is a WP:WPMH which points to Milhist. For one extra character, I would prefer WP:WPMH/A pointing at this redirect, to avoid a 'T:' redirect. If this announcements page flourishes, and most milhist stuff does, it will become bigger than one template soon enough, and the T: prefix will be silly. I see T: prefixes as being for templates people use frequently that have documentation which needs to be consulted to get the invocation parameters right. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Might be a slight misunderstanding here, John - I'm suggesting Template:WPMH, not T:WPMH. I don't see the point of "T:" at all; it only applies to mentioning a template, rather than using it, which is not a particularly useful saving. — Scott talk 00:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Ah, a 'template redirect' to the template. gotcha, and I agree that would be useful to some, but I doubt it would be listed as an official shortcut, whereas something like WP:WPMH/A or WP:MILHIST/ANN might become a stable and useful shortcut. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I still have a disconnect here. What would WP:WPMH/A point to? I thought we were talking about a template. — Scott talk 01:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry I have been a bit obtuse. I am suggesting that 'T:WPMA' be moved to WP:WPMH/A, which would point to Template:WPMILHIST Announcements. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Right, okay, so you are in fact suggesting a CNR as template shortcut. I can't see what particular advantage that would offer? — Scott talk 13:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
@Scott: Yes. We have a lot of similar CNR at Category:Redirects to template from non-template namespace (btw, ignore the characters in that cat due to the RfD of Template:R_from_character and a bug in a template somewhere). My thinking is that it is better to have a CNR from a WP: alias than a CNR in mainspace like T: . T: shortcuts should be limited to cases where a large segment of the community needs to refer to the template documentation in order to invoke it correctly, or established and widespread uses like the DYK T: exceptions. This Announcements page has 389 viewers in the last month, 229 watchers and 177 transclusions. It is too early to guess what percentage are going to use the T: shortcut, the redirect having only been created recently. However it has two shortcuts already, created long ago, being Template:WPMHA and WP:MHREQ, and combined they receive about 10 hits per month. I dont see sufficient justification for using the disputed T: prefix. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I still really don't follow why there would need to be a CNR at all for this! But I didn't know there was already a {{WPMHA}}, otherwise I wouldn't have suggested {{WPMH/A}}. Well then, I can now say delete. This redirect is obviously superfluous. — Scott talk 13:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
7900 edits by 155 authors, 229 watchers ... seems like it's "flourishing" to me. - Dank (push to talk) 00:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not opposed to Scott's intended move but I don't think there's an audience at WikiProject Middle Ages that needs the existing shortcut. I think it could be left, as is. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
    Hi Chris troutman, while the Middle Ages project may not be very active, reusing their shortcut creates confusion. Ideally all milhist shortcuts use one of a few 'base' shortcuts, so they can be easily remembered. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
    It doesn't matter much to me, as long as there's a shortcut that's actually short. Otherwise it's a longcut. - Dank (push to talk) 02:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
    I've notified MILHIST project; hopefully we get some input on which shortcut they prefer. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Next Hungarian parliamentary election[edit]

It's after election and nobody will create an article for prospective election. maybe it's too early but it's easy to forget to remove this redirect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aight 2009 (talkcontribs) 10:07, 9 April 2014

  • Keep. I live in Hungary but don't have a vote here. The national elections were held on 6 April, but there is a second round in a couple of weeks to then sort out the actual seating arrangements and so on. This is exactly the right target. Si Trew (talk) 11:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
    Well what about that, a campaigning van just went straight past my front door with its tannoy on asking "Vote for Me". This is obviously the right target. Si Trew (talk) 12:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
    I don't live in Hungary but I learned that after constitution was replaced in 2012 ther is no two round system. Aight_2009 — Preceding undated comment added 17:21, 9 April 2014‎
    I'm not sure, they might be campaigning for the European elections if there are any? Usually in the UK they are held at the start of May. I did look at the article and it says that it is the first time they have done it in a single round, but my hungarian wife who does have a vote but couldn't cast it said there were two rounds. My wife and I always vote, when we can: that is what gives you the right to complain about things. I'll double check this at some time tomorrow. 21:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
    Comment. I think you are right it was one round, e.g. here:
    "To Viktor, the spoils". The Economist. 7 April 2014. Retrieved 9 April 2014. 
    So I don't know what they were campaigning for this afternoon, I can never understand Tannoy announcements in any language. Perhaps we were being warned of nuclear war for all I know. Normally I just hear the ice-cream van. Si Trew (talk) 22:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - ideally, I think "Next X election" would redirect to "List of elections in X" - where that doesn't exist, it's unclear what to do. This is obviously going to be a common search term, and redlinking will just encourage creation of something (and I can't imagine salting making sense). So until a better target emerges, I can't really support any suggestion. WilyD 08:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete a few weeks ago, listed on March 18, we had [Next Swiss federal election]] and that was closed as no consensus. Next Hungarian parliamentary election is already out of date and there is no Recent Hungarian parliamentary election or Latest Hungarian parliamentary election or Last Hungarian parliamentary election. If it were to go anywhere, it would have to go to the next one: for which we haven't an article. Si Trew (talk) 10:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment. I added a pic of campaign posters from different parties to the article. So at least a little good has come out of this. I didn't want to take the posters down until the election finished: that is something called democracy. Si Trew (talk) 23:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

A notice to Hungarians for the next Hungarian parliamentary elections, for the European Parliament, on 25 May 2014
There is a European parliamentary election in Hungary on 25 May, so I suppose it depends if you mean "Hungarian parliamentary elections" to mean elections to the Hungarian national parliament, or elections in Hungary to a parliament generally. I include a picture of the official notice on the left.

Νεολογισμός[edit]

Delete. Not especially Greek. Gorobay (talk) 16:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete. Latin. And, of course, itself a neologism. Si Trew (talk) 19:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Μονόχρωμος[edit]

Delete. Not especially Greek. Gorobay (talk) 16:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete. Nuff said. Si Trew (talk) 19:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Μονόφθογγος[edit]

Delete. Not especially Greek. Gorobay (talk) 16:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Λογορροια[edit]

Delete. Not especially Greek. Gorobay (talk) 16:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete. Thanks to Gorobay, sincerely, for bringing all these up, because they hurt not help readers trying to find information. Either they are in Hellenic/Greek Wikipedia or they are not, but there is no point sending a Greek reader to an English article by way of an external search that has it with the redirect in Greek alphabet. Neither of the two topics at what is a DAB (and shouldn't be, per WP:TWODABS) has a link to Greek Wikipedia; this is simply unhelpful for people trying to search for information. Logo- is Greek and then into Lain I think, I am not sure where the back end comes from. Si Trew (talk) 19:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Some redirects to disambiguation page Alpha 5[edit]

The helpfulness of all of these redirects is highly questionable. For the above nominated redirects with the word "Alpha" spelled out, none of the entries that are on the page yet have their "5" known by the roman numeral "V". For the others, all instances on the page thus far are not known by the "α" character; they all have the word "Alpha" spelled out. Due to this, all of these redirects seem to not aide a reader in finding proper information. Steel1943 (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep all. If there are things that are referred to as "Alpha V" or "αv", etc then they can and should be added to the disambiguation page as articles or as redlinks. Even if there aren't then it is perfectly plausible that people would search for one or more of the targets using these terms, whether or not those targets use that form. In short, it seems that at worst these are harmless (so no reason to delete) and potentially beneficial (an obvious keep). Thryduulf (talk) 16:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep all for now, plus suggestion for future refinement (when it becomes necessary).
While you are right in your "5 vs. V" statement in regard to the entries currently listed (which is only a subset of articles which might be listed there in the future), the second statement isn't correct - there are many examples, where "α" and "Alpha" are used interchangeable.
I think, these redirects are part of a very useful infrastructure (which is still WIP) to find a particular subject. They all represent variations of the same search term in different alphabets and spelling variants (and all of them are actually used). I deliberately concentrated them all into this one place to see what gets added and sort this out. I envision (and apparently this is what you have in mind as well), that we will soon establish another disambiguation page under Alpha V and then move all those entries ending on "V" there (crosslinking between these disambiguation pages through See Also links, thereby following the example presented by other disambiguation pages such as "A5", "AV", "α5"). If you check out our list of existing articles via advanced search, you will find that we already have many articles, which contain either "Alpha V"/"Alpha-V"/"αV"/"α-V" (or "5-alpha") in their name, so there should be more than enough stuff to justify such a disambiguation page. However, I am not an expert on chemistry or genetics and most of these articles seem to evolve around such topics, that's why I did not compile a list of articles for this future disambiguation page myself yet. But with those redirects in place now, they will "naturally" accumulate on the "Alpha 5" disambiguation page over the course of the next few weeks and once enough such articles are listed (by people who are familiar with these subjects), we can change the "Alpha V" redirect into a new disambiguation page. This is also the reason for the HTML comments suggesting this on all the pages involved and the reason for the Lookfrom and Intitle templates added to the See Also section (which you removed, although such templates can be found on many other disambiguation pages as well) - I was already preparing this next step.
While it makes alot of sense to distinguish between "*5" and "*V" in the future (although I seem to remember having seen articles using both of them intermixed as well), IMO it doesn't make sense to distinguish between "α" and "Alpha", as they are used intermixed in many cases. If you go through the list of articles containing "Alpha 5" or "Alpha-5" you will find that alot of them also use nomenclatures around "α5"/"α 5"/"α-5"/"A5"/"a5", sometimes even in multiple combinations. If we would create separate disambiguation pages for "α*" and "Alpha*", many articles would have to be listed in both of them, making it more difficult to maintain those disambiguation pages. Alpha-5 beta-1, Laminin, alpha 5, Alpha-v beta-5, Integrin alpha-5, Integrin alpha-V, and dozens more...
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 17:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete all with extreme prejudice to the (disambiguation) ones that don't disambiguate anything at all and look like they would be disambiguation pages but are not, instead are redirects to another DAB page that doesn't even have "(disambiguation)" in its title. Why do you want twenty six redirects to the same DAB? That is what the search engine is for. In 2009 I had this for Alfred I, Prince of Windisch-Gratz here at RfD who had 31 redirects (to an article, not a DAB) most of which were deleted, I cannot find that discussion now. Si Trew (talk) 21:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
    Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 December 23#Alfred Candidus Ferdinand Windischgratz. That's pretty special! (Tip, to find RfD discussions try checking what links to the current or former target of the redirect that was being discussed.) — Scott talk 14:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
The "(disambiguation)"-redirects exist per our editing guideline WP:DABNAME. They are mandantory for disambiguation pages with primary subjects, but are recommended elsewhere as well. Going through "(disambiguation)" pages is the preferred method of deliberately linking to a disambiguation page in order to make it easier to distinguish such links from accidental links to a disambiguation page. Nevertheless, the actual disambiguation page itself is typically under a title without the "(disambiguation)" (unless a primary topic resides under this name). Some templates append the "(disambiguation)" to links by default (unless overridden).--Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
The redirects ending "(disambiguation)" all redirect to disambiguation pages, and are thus strongly recommended by the WP:INTDABLINK guideline, and by disambiguation naming guidelines noted by Mattiaspaul. Thryduulf (talk) 09:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Regarding numbers, I am aware of articles with alot more valid incoming redirects. It's not a question of numbers, but of suitability. If the redirects serve the purposes lined out at WP:DISAMB they are fine. Before I created them, I checked that any of these combinations is actually used in already existing articles (although not necessarily as red-links yet), this makes it highly likely, that any of them is or will be used as input into the search box by some. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep α and "alpha" are used interchangeably for several of the entries. "V" and "5" are reasonable options, if there are further entries that are for the letter V instead of numeral V, then a separate disambiguation page can be hived in the future. -- 70.24.250.192 (talk) 21:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • @Gorobay: might have a useful contribution to this since he or she has been listing a lot of Greek-language redirects. Of course α is used all over the place in maths and science, but to mix a Greek symbol with a Roman numeral and do all the possible permutations does not seem to be helpful to a search. I take back the comment about my prejudice against the ones ending (disambiguation), per the editing guidelines stated, but by that reasoning we don't need the ones without (disambiguation). It's just too many. My basic argument (that I can't find) that I put many five years ago is not that it hinders a search but it encourages inconsistency in articles themselves if editors choose different names in related articles (it wouldn't matter if the articles were unrelated) and that this confuses readers who might assume they are different things. This was shown at Xerox PARC (unfortunately I don't have the book but it was Somers's book on Machine Translation and called by that title, and is referenced at that article) that they built an MT system to translate user manuals, obviously as a first pass that was then tidied by a human translator, but by limiting the vocabulary – a necessary step at the time for the MT system to work at all – they found that comprehension amongst readers of the manuals also improved rather than calling it a "button" then a "pushbutton" then a "toggle" then a "pressbutton" and so on. It is this reasoning that I am applying here: nothing wrong with redirects as such (otherwise we just might as well delete the concept) but to have permutations like this for something that is already a DAB, to my mind is likely to increase rather than reduce confusion. Si Trew (talk) 11:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
    • The redirects without the disambiguation are for people searching for this content, or who are attempting to link to a specific topic without realising there is disambiguation. Both forms are needed. Thryduulf (talk) 12:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
    • In order to further illustrate my point for creating these redirects, I added a number of example entries with "V" to the Alpha 5 disambiguation page. As you will see, even the combination Greek letters with Roman numbers is actually used (αV) and (at least for the provided examples) needs to be distinguished from similar entries using Arabic numbers (α5). I have, however, also found examples, where Roman and Arabic numbers were mixed, so the exact semantics may be even specific to the relevant field of science - and that's why I think adding more examples and possibly streamlining the spelling within Wikipedia should better be left to experts in these areas. All we can do is making "casual" readers aware of these subtleties, so that they actually find the correct article they are looking for. My approach was to combine them all on this one disambiguation page for now - with the option of splitting out to other disambiguation pages like Alpha V in the future once enough stuff has accumulated.
Regarding the "consistency" issue. I very much see and appreciate this point as well - if we think of an article as a module (in software engineering f.e.), every incoming redirect is a predefined (and presumably valid) interface into that module that can be docked on and that needs to be maintained - if it reflects some real-world need, everything is fine (that's what the module is good for), but if it is not well-formed, it only increases the complexity and makes future maintenance more difficult, and if someone takes the faulty interface for granted and starts using it, it will even be responsible for spreading faulty information (that's why I propose redirects from obvious misspellings and ad-hoc miscapitalizations into articles to be deleted (or otherwise seriously salted) instead of maintaining them - see other discussions). However, in this case, I think, the current arrangement (or a future split-out of Alpha V) will actually raise the awareness for the existance of different spelling variants and thereby it will aid a more conscientious and consistent usage of them in articles. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
It's not really a question of software maintenance (which I have been doing for all my professional career, just to declare an interest), who cares about that? Well, we care about that because that is why we are at AfD and RfD and CSD and wherever, not the software itself but essentially the encyclopaedia articles are a large bunch of stuff that needs to be tied up and so on and it is we editors who do the maintenance just as we are now. It is more a question of whether readers who know nothing about software and want to find out about "Alpha 5" (or "Alpha V" and so on) will be helped or hindered by all these redirects, and whether editors who add information and find a blue link will then create links all over the place to the wrong articles, to DABs and so on. They are the only criteria; I am not making some kind of political statement here unless you consider that "help readers find the information they want" is a political statement. I just think 26 redirects to the same DAB with very minor variations is too many to be useful. Were they useful, I would have no problem with them at all. Si Trew (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I see a high congruence between us here, except for, perhaps, that we draw somewhat different conclusions or take a slightly different approach in our attempt to reach the common goal. As I wrote I already envisioned splitting out all the "V" stuff to Alpha V at some point in the future, but if we'd do that now, wouldn't that remedy your concerns, not only by reducing the number of incoming redirects into each of these disambiguation pages, but also by emphasizing a distinction between "5" and "V" (even at the risk that some not yet listed articles may end up on both pages in the future)? --Matthiaspaul (talk) 09:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

User/Hakam[edit]

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 speedy delete as uncontroversial housekeeping - unambiguously created in error. — Scott talk 14:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)}}

This is an improperly titled, implausible redirect. Epicgenius (talk) 15:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

  • delete. It's certainly an implausible redirect. If it was created as a redirect to a draft in the creator's userspace that was then moved to mainspace I could understand it's provenance (even if it would still be inappropriate), equally a redirect to a user:Hakam (the account exists, but has no edits to en.wp) would be wrong but understandable, but this was created pointing to the current target directly which is rather puzzling. I'm not sure how this can be described as "improperly titled" though as there is no policy that defines which redirects to articles (generally or specific to this topic area) are "proper" or "impropper" that this breaches - slashes are explicitly allowed in article titles, and redirects from subpage titling schemes are also not prohibited. Thryduulf (talk) 16:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
    • It probably was intended to be a link from User:Hakam; that is how it is an improper title. I wasn't referring to the slash. Epicgenius (talk) 18:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per Thryduulf. Just a typo probably: on some keyboard layouts slash and colon are just a shift key away. It was created by User:HakamShah, so it is probably just a slip. Si Trew (talk) 21:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per Thryduulf. -- 70.24.250.192 (talk) 21:59, 22 April 2014 (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.

April 21[edit]

Vitamin G[edit]

No mention of this name in the article. We need some appropriate mention of this name as an alternative, as well as any additional info about it. Georgia guy (talk) 23:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep Alternative names don't have to be mentioned in an article. Can you imagine if we tried to catalog all nicknames for Cannabis (drug)? In serious contexts, "Vitamin G" seems to always refer to riboflavin, even if it's an outdated term (see, for example [2] and [3]). That said, mentioning this name at the target article would be a good idea. Deleting the redirect wouldn't be. --BDD (talk) 23:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
    Comment. It is mentioned in Essential fatty acid that it was formerly called Vitamin F. A few sentences paralleling those in that article can be added about this being called Vitamin G. Georgia guy (talk) 00:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment this is why we should have redirect documentation when needed. --65.94.77.36 (talk) 05:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. It could be marked as {{R from alternate name}} but it isn't right now. However, Riboflavin is Vitamin B2 so I am not sure it is helpful to call it Vitamin G. It is mentioned in Vitamin#Naming as being renamed such, so it might be best to retarget as an {{R to section}} to there? (The link is there onwards to riboflavin) and easily found). Si Trew (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Outbuildings[edit]

The singular outbuilding is currently a redlink. Estate (land) is not a good target for the general concept of sheds, chicken-houses, excreta. There don't seem to be any good targets so I support turning it into a redlink per wp:redlink and for the sake of consistency. Tideflat (talk) 21:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. There is a little bit about outbuildings at Barn, Barnyard (both articles are a mess though) and Outhouse, any of which would I think be slightly better than Estate (land) but not good. Outhouse (disambiguation) contains the sentence "Any outbuilding outside but adjacent to or attached to a main dwelling e.g. a shed or barn (outside North America)", to which I'll add the outbuilding redlink. I can't find anything else, so a deletion per WP:REDLINK seems the best way to go. Thryduulf (talk) 09:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete, we don't usually have plural titles unless absolutely necessary to disambiguate. Outhouse is an article about an outside toilet/WC (I have one on my property). I'm surprised outbuilding is a redlink. shed is possible but not great. annex seems no good. Si Trew (talk) 20:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Smacks[edit]

I'm not sure about this one. Essentially, the question is about whether or not the primary topic for the term "Smacks" is the cereal Honey Smacks. My thought is to retarget to Smack (a disambiguation page) due to the lack of a primary topic and since the term could refer to the verb, but I'm also for (weak) keep, since I'm not completely sure. Steel1943 (talk) 18:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Retarget to the dab page per nom. The current target is already listed there. Thryduulf (talk) 21:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget per nom -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 05:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget per nom et al. Si Trew (talk)

Vertebral border[edit]

As with 'superior border', this page is too generic to be used as a redirect, and too broad to be used as a disambig. I cannot think of any user who would search for 'inferior border' expecting to be taken to an article about the medial border of the scapula (even less than the superior margin of pancreas!). Therefore I propose deletion of this redirect LT910001 (talk) 22:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep per my argument on inferior border, immediately below. Seems a likely search term for a medical student. Si Trew (talk) 07:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete As per argument below. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 22:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Inferior border[edit]

This page is too generic to be used as a redirect, and too broad to be used as a disambig. I cannot think of any user who would search for 'inferior border' expecting to be taken to an article about the inferior margin on the pancreas. Therefore I propose deletion of this redirect. LT910001 (talk) 22:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep. I am not a medical man, but I can imagine a medical student searching for this. It's not as if someone wanting to know about the extent of countries etc would search for "inferior border" so this is obviously a medical term: I am not saying there aren't other exterior or interior borders in the body (I have no clue, I am quite glad that God put most of the disgusting bits on the inside where you can't see 'em) but in the absence of a better target it might as well stay. Si Trew (talk) 07:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
    In order to provide some explanation, 'Inferior' means below in anatomical terminology, so every organ (not to mention bone and every other structure) has an inferior border. Hence the statement is too general to redirect to pancreas, and too general also to be used as a diambiguation--LT910001 (talk) 07:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
    I can imagine that. But either then we have to delete it and let the search engine take care of it, or redirect it somewhere more general, or leave it where it stands. Since moving it can break incoming links and there is no proposal to retarget it anywhere better. I note that Superior border is a DAB page with two entries Superior margin of pancreas and Superior border of scapula: It doesn't need to be a DAB since they can just be hatnoted (assuming in anatomocial terminology that "margin" and "border" are used pretty much synonymously?) Your expert knowledge is a great help and I thank you for it sincerely. Si Trew (talk) 07:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate this and the one above at inferior border in the same way it is done at superior border. I appreciate that is not perfect, but it is better. We don't have vasa cava inferior and vasa cava superior for example, nor even vasa cava which is what I was taught was part of the arterial route from the heart to the lungs: now I may have mispelled, I did my biology lessons thirty years ago, but if I can't find it they would be useful redirects. We do have hepatic portal vein which is my favourite shortcut, saves a lot of time. This is a case of WP:NOTFINISHED. If medical/anatomical experts are taking these out because they are "wrong" then they have misunderstood the point of redirects, which is to enable people to find the information they are looking for, whether it is technically wrong or not. Si Trew (talk) 08:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Presuming you mean vena cava, vena cava superior, vena cava inferior, they do exist on Wikipedia CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 22:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • comment The whole pattern of these very stubby articles on elements of the geometry of these body parts strikes me as a great deal of padding, especially since they appear, nearly in their entirety, in the main articles on these bones and organs. Gray's Anatomy, for example, deals with the superior border of the scapula in four sentences and a caption on a diagram (which picture appears in our article on the scapula). There's something to be said, in light of @LT910001:'s comments above, to getting rid of these general names entirely and redirecting the specific names back into the corresponding main articles. Mangoe (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete This article is far too broad to form a disambiguation page. Nearly each and every feature of the human body has an inferior border, and as in an earlier example having this article would be like having an article Southern border and have it disambiguate to all articles of countries, cities, villages, forests, etc. etc.
    Its just rediculous. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 22:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
    Disagree. We have lots of articles on borders (for example Berlin Wall or North-South divide or Khyber Pass or whatever), but apparently only two on the superior margin/border of internal organs and two on the interior margin/border of internal organs. It doesn't matter that every organ etc. may have them, the question is what would an intelligent but unknowledgable reader expect to find in an encyclopaedia? Now, you can argue that it's worthless because they want to find I dunno the inferior border of the fibula or something and that article doesn't exist, that's just tough luck. What would a reader expect to find if he typed in "inferior border". I doubt he is looking for geographical articles, or finishing off wallpapering, because he would just type in "border": countries don't really have inferior or superior borders. He is obviously looking for this technical, medical sense of the word "border" and lo and behold he finds a couple of articles on inferior borders. It would be wonderful if every anterior or exterior margin or border, superior or interior or whatever border, was described in great detail: it isn't, that is just WP:NOTFINISHED. Either these go somewhere or nowhere, that is basically the choice.
    I note by the way that interior border does not exist, even though it is used a lot in British English to mean, well, roughly, the Schengen Agreement or Common Travel Area. If that doesn't exist then perhaps this should not exist, but you can't argue "all or nothing". We have what we have. Si Trew (talk) 01:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
    Those arguments are completely beside the point, I feel you are intentionally misunderstanding. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 14:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
    No, I am not: I am stating my case. I gave the example that Superior border is a DAB with two entries (which it doesn't really need to be, but it is). It's not my fault that nobody writes articles about the inferior border of the liver or the inferior border of the heart or whatever: we have what we have. It's not the job of RfD to create those articles but to discuss where the existing things go, to help readers to find them. Now you have expert knowledge and I know nothing about it: that is the point, one must assume a reader comes to an encyclopaedia with maximum intelligence but minimum knowledge. The decision then is how can they best find what they are looking for? That is all there is to it. Si Trew (talk) 21:25, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
    We also have Inferior border of lung, Posterior inferior iliac spine, Costal groove mentions an inferior border, Inferior sagittal sinus similarly, redirect at Inferior fascia of the urogenital diaphragm to Perineal membrane which also mentions it, and plenty plenty more brought up by a Special:Search. I fail to see your argument either: it's not right that that this one particular target has the sole rights to "inferior border", but what to do about it? Just delete it and let the search engine take care of it, or DAB it? Si Trew (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Dabify per Si Trew. Then, if desired, bring this and Superior border up at AfD. It's not an everyday occurrence, but dabs are discussed there from time to time. If there's consensus to delete both, so be it. I just don't see any benefit to inconsistency here. --BDD (talk) 16:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete - the reason this is not worth keeping is that it just isn't interesting; there is simply no connection between the border of a lung and the lower spine of a bone, other than they are lower parts of their respective structures. It isn't a sensible search term, so it should be deleted. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I was thinking along those lines as well but I was patronised for not knowing what "inferior" or "superior" meant, or the terms that I was taught at school are no longer in use, when I perfectly know that "inferior" means "below" and "superior" means "above", and also I had added "interior" and "exterior" and "anterior" for good measure into my argument. It's not the fault of Wikipedia that people in the medical profession use Latin to an excessive degree: but the question is simply what would a reader coming here expect to find?. At this point I abstain. Si Trew (talk) 14:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate per what was done to superior. -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 05:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Sentence fragment[edit]

Delete per WP:REDLINK. Strangely enough, it's not discussed at the target article. BDD (talk) 17:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

  • @BDD: I find it odd that this redirect doesn't have a good candidate for a "Retarget". I may find a possible option here in a moment, but I still find it odd. Are there any other articles/article sections you have found that made you come to this conclusion that it should just be deleted altogether, or do no other options truly exist (currently)? Steel1943 (talk) 17:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not seeing anything. It looks like it was sent to Wiktionary once upon a time, but soft redirects are supposed to used sparingly. I do think we could have an encyclopedic article about sentence fragments. --BDD (talk) 17:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
@BDD: I saw the fact in the edit history that the redirect was previously a soft redirect to the Wiktionary entry. However, what you said about Wiktionary redirects: when I looked at the first page of Special:Shortpages the other day, I thought the exact opposite; looks like there are quite a few soft redirects to Wiktionary. Steel1943 (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to clause. A sentence fragment is esssentially a well-formed grammatical part of a sentence. There is no point sending it to Sentence (linguistics)] because that discusses what a sentence is, whereas the redirect discusses a sentence fragment, which the closest I think we have is clause. It is a linguistic term so I am not sure it is a likely search term anyway. Si Trew (talk) 18:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
To declare an interest: I speak about six or seven languages extremely badly (one day I might get the hang of English) and studied computational linguistics as part of my bachelor's degree. Si Trew (talk) 18:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
It's not discussed there either, though, nor is it an absolute synonym. I think that would still cause confusion. --BDD (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what to do with the redirect, but it is a likely search term as computer grammar checkers frequently complain about sentence fragments (or at least they do for my writing). Thryduulf (talk) 21:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Right, I think I see what you mean. When computer grammar checkers (a particular one springs to mind from one of the most popular word processing applications) complain about a "sentence fragment" then what they mean is that somehow you haven't formed a complete sentence according to their own grammar rules. Like this. That last sentence would probably be marked as a sentence fragment since it has no verb. I agree, the trouble is where to put it. There are teaching examples such as here if you throw "sentence fragment" into Google, and that one starts "an incomplete sentence is called a sentence fragment", but incomplete sentence is also a redirect to sentence (linguistics). Perhaps the best is after consensus to add a short section at the target? I'm quite willing to do it, but don't like to do so while things are being discussed. Si Trew (talk) 07:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I suppose there is a plausible article on the grammar of sentences that would be a good place to put that content if not Sentence (linguistics). Incomplete sentence should point to the same place as Sentence fragment, wherever that is. Thryduulf (talk) 14:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
There are plenty of articles on the grammar of sentences, in particular things like SVO word order and OSV word order and VSO word order and so on. But there doesn't seem to be a good target for this, if my suggestion of clause is ruled out. Si Trew (talk) 15:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
With an extra sentence or two added to Dependent clause#Dependent clauses and sentence structure, that would be a decent target, i think, but I am not an expert in this field so I could have it all terribly wrong. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I think you have it terribly wrong. A dependent clause is one that requires context from an independent clause, often in the form of a pronoun that is used to refer to an antecedent (grammar). A sentence fragment is simply a fragment that in some sense is "ungrammatical" according to prescriptive grammarians such as H. W. Fowler because it does not follow the grammatical rules they laid down, which were mostly derived from the rules of Latin and classical Greek and have little to do with how people actually speak or write English (a descriptive grammarian would argue): in particular, so-called grammar checkers pick it up because there is no verb in the sentence. (Like this.) I don't think "Dependent clause" would be any better than "clause". Almost by definition a sentence fragment, or incomplete sentence, is an independent clause (or simple sentence, which that article mentions in the first line of the lede, and is a redirect to sentence clause structure). That might be a better target and we could stuff a bit in there? I am quite willing to stuff it in and do my homework etc. to make it all tight, but we have to know where we want it to go first.
While I am at it I have paid a hitman to go out and find whoever came up with the word "spellchecker". It doesn't check spells, it checks spelling. Si Trew (talk) 21:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Sentence clause structure looks like a much better target! I'm glad my terrible wrongness was the cause of a great rightness from you ;-) John Vandenberg (chat) 06:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
It's how it works, isn't it? I think you're right, no point going through the R to get to that. That's how we get consensus. But I will put a decent section in there if we get consensus in and I think you are right that is the best target. So should we then retarget the R at (nearly) the same time? Si Trew (talk) 18:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Retarget to sentence clause structure if the content is added there (it seems a good place to put it). In an ideal world the content would be added first, but in the real world it doesn't matter overly much about the order. Thryduulf (talk) 21:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to section. Taking my cue from Thryduulf, I've added a section at Sentence_clause_structure#Incomplete_sentence so I guess we retarget both to that section. I usually don't like changing articles etc while they are being discussed, but in this case sentence clause structure was not the issue so I felt OK to go ahead and addthe content, which is essentially as my description above but more consicely and with piped links that I deliberately avoided here at the RfD (since I feel they just obfuscate things here). It's got three references all of which I would consider RS. Of course numerous more could come from various style guides but surely, at least for the purpose of deciding the RfD, that's enough. Si Trew (talk) 10:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Hands in the Sky[edit]

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 speedy delete. --BDD (talk) 18:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that future films should redirect to the lead actor because it is often debatable who the lead is, and actors often drop out of projects. It should either redirect to the director, writer or not exist at all. JDDJS (talk) 17:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah it should be deleted, it was one of my impulsive redirects. --Captain Assassin! «TCG» 17:16, 21 April 2014 (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.

Bolden![edit]

I don't think that future films should redirect to the lead actor because it is often debatable who the lead is, and actors often drop out of projects. It should either redirect to the director, writer or not exist at all. JDDJS (talk) 17:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Agree in principle, though it would be nice to just put a sourced statement at Buddy Bolden#Plays and films and redirect there in the meantime. --BDD (talk) 18:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Agree in principle, per BDD. Si Trew (talk) 12:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Πάθοςγἰγνομαι[edit]

Delete. “Πάθοςγἰγνομαι” is fake Greek, and pathogens are not especially Greek anyway. Gorobay (talk) 15:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete generic topic not restricted to Greece; WP:NOT a translation dictionary -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 05:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per Gorobay. More Latin anyway. Si Trew (talk) 12:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Περίμετρος[edit]

Delete. Not especially Greek. Gorobay (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete generic topic not restricted to Greece; WP:NOT a translation dictionary -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 05:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per Gorobay. More Latin anyway. Si Trew (talk) 12:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Κοσμολογία[edit]

Delete. Not especially Greek. Gorobay (talk) 15:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete generic topic not restricted to Greece; WP:NOT a translation dictionary -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 05:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment as below, if this is well-formed Greek I would keep it as it will be written that way in etymologies in dictionaries etc (unfortunately all my books are in store so I can't check) and someone might search for it. If it is not well-formed and would not appear that way, delete it. Gorobay is obviously the expert on this. Si Trew (talk) 12:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Πορτογαλία[edit]

Delete. Not Greek. Gorobay (talk) 15:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete this is not Portuguese, the only language that would be the non-English language associated with this topic. WP:NOT a translation dictionary -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 05:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment the Mirandese language also has official status in Portugal, and so I consider Pertual (the Mirandese for "Portugal") redirecting to the country also acceptable. The Greek is not though, I agree. Thryduulf (talk) 09:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Παλαιόςγράφειν[edit]

Delete. Not especially Greek, and this is fake Greek anyway. Gorobay (talk) 15:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Not sure. There is a section in palaeography#Greek palaeography which it could be retargeted to. But I don't know what you mean by "fake Greek", is it along the lines of New Latin in that meaning? The two halves of this compound word are patently Greek, do you mean simply that it is not classical Greek? However, the only thing of anything close to RS is factolex.com here and I have a (totally unfounded) suspicion that they essentially copy and condense facts from Wikipedia without attribution. Si Trew (talk) 15:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
By “fake Greek”, I mean that it is two morphemes concatenated to form a chimera unattested in actual Greek writing. The use of the final sigma in medial position is a give-away. Gorobay (talk) 17:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Delete per Gorobay. Okay, I see what you mean (I am not familiar with Greek particularly). My ums and ars are simply if Greek terms crop up in English dictionaries, learned journals etc in the Greek alphabet even if they are malformed would an English-speaking audience then try to search for them? It's unlikely because presumably they would search for "Greeek palaography" or whatever in the Latin alphabet, but that is really my only criterion: we are not a translation dictionary, but if these things are actually in papers etc (and it seems this one isn't) then I can understand why people would search for it, that is my only criterion. (Actually "criterion" is another one for you to search for in Greek!) Si Trew (talk) 11:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete generic topic not restricted to Greece; WP:NOT a translation dictionary; the study of Greek writings is also not restricted to Greeks. -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 05:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Ελέφαντας[edit]

Delete. “Ελέφαντας” means ‘elephant’, which is not an especially Greek topic. Gorobay (talk) 15:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per Gorobay. Si Trew (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--Lenticel (talk) 03:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete generic topic not restricted to Greece; WP:NOT a translation dictionary, and this doesn't appear to be the correct translation -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 05:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Virtual sim[edit]

Deletion. Cleaning up and organizing redirects into the target article, I ran into these redirects from incorrect capitalizations which happen to duplicate other redirects of exactly the same term in proper capitalization (Virtual SIM, SIM number, Micro SIM). Some are even left-overs from page-moves. As the search box is case-insensitive, the correct redirects will automatically "take over" once the faulty redirects are deleted. There are no incoming links, they have no page history, and therefore can be deleted safely without any negative side-effects. Actually, keeping them harms, as editors might accidently link to them in other articles (thereby introducing unnecessary capitalization errors into other articles) rather than just using the correct redirects. Considering this a normal house-keeping action only, I nominated them for speedy deletion per G6, but user Xoloz asked me to nominate them here instead. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 13:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete for all the reasons Matthiauspaul stated. While alternate titles are sometimes useful, {{R from alternate capitalisation}} is less so these days than it ws in the past, and these are not even marked as such (and the last is not marked {{R to section}} either). If it breaks incoming links, so be it, people end up at the search page. I notice that from my search (with google.hu) the terms "Micro-SIM" with the hyphen and "Nano SIM" are also used and have redirects at English Wikipedia in the same manner and to sections of the same target; Micro–SIM with an en dash does not exist. Si Trew (talk) 14:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep all as useful search terms. In addition, looking through the history of Virtual sim, I found that it was later renamed Virtual SIM, then finally Subscriber identity module, the target of these redirects. Terms that help describe a topic at one point or another should remain, such is the case with these redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 20:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep all per Steel1943. Not all methods of searching or browsing Wikipedia are case insensitive, and links from anywhere other than current revisions of pages on the English Wikipedia are not shown by whatlinkshere. This, along with other reasons like discouraging the (accidental) creation of duplicate articles, is why keeping redirects from alternative capitalisations is a Good Thing. Tag them as {{R from incorrect capitalisation}} and they can be easily checked to and links to them fixed. Thryduulf (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete "micro sim" is a simulator based on a microcomputer; Virtual sim is a type of simulation, not restricted to cellphones, but found in all manner of simulation. -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 05:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Can you give an example of "virtual sim" meaning simulation? I would have thought simulation by definition was virtual. Virtual simulation redirects to simulation (and should probably be changed to redirect to the section simulation#Common user interaction systems for virtual simulations) but it would seem somewhat of a tautology to me. Google brings up for me a few companies called Virtual Simulation and Virtual Simulation Systems and Virtual Simulations, Inc. the last of which at least says that they use Virtual Reality in their simulations: but those are just company names. The only way I could think these were "virtual" (and declaration of interest: I worked on military simulation systems for a number of years) is in apposition to a "real" simulator, i.e. that it was entirely computer-based or at least used no element of the real system they were simulating, rather than using elements of the real hardware or mock-ups of that, which is done to simulate the physical layout of the military hardware for training squaddies etc to get the physical job of loading and unloading missiles etc right, fault-finding on the hardware and so on, rather than the mental job of accurate aiming of weapons systems and so on. But it does not seem to be used in any sense like that. Si Trew (talk) 11:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Virtual sim: [4][5][6] etc (yes, it means that it is not a "hard" or "real" physical simimulator, but all computer based with screens replacing hardware or using VR glasses instead of a mockup) -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 06:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep all for the reasons Steel1943 so eloquently elucidated. Xoloz (talk) 21:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Ross Burkinshaw[edit]

Deletion-was entered as a redirect but no mention of the subject in the target article - if a normal article it would be deleted as non-notable and unreferenced. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

  • delete. I don't know about his notability, but it is easily verifiable that there is a super flyweight boxer called Ross Berkinshaw. That said he is not notable enough for a mention in the main article about the weight category, so readers are not helped by the presence of this redirect. If he is notable, then the redirect is also hiding that we don't have an article on the topic (c.f. WP:REDLINK). Thryduulf (talk) 21:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per Thryduulf, WP:REDLINK. Si Trew (talk) 11:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Shaa[edit]

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 disambiguate. Thryduulf (talk) 12:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The target has no additional information about the subject and Shaa is known to have authored other works.

References and links
Manry, Gia (December 2007). "Kyouhaku Dogs". Newtype USA 6 (12): p. 116. ISSN 1541-4817
ANN linkAllen4names (contributions) 05:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not sure if this can be repurposed as a dab for people named Shaa. (Edmund Shaa, John Shaa, Ralph Shaa and Shaa Wasmund ) --Lenticel (talk) 04:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate per Lenticel's good suggestion. Thryduulf (talk) 10:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate per Lenticel. Si Trew (talk) 11:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Assuming that it goes DAB, is it worth adding Shah (which is an article but has a disambiguation at Shah (disambiguation)) and Shia (which redirect to Shia Islam) at that DAB, or is that muddying the waters? Si Trew (talk) 11:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Shah would certainly merit a "see also" entry (and reciprocally) as clearly they are plausible spelling errors for each other. For Shia, I don't want to say an outright "no", but I wouldn't include it if it were only down to me. Thryduulf (talk) 13:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn for conversion to a disambiguation page per Lenticel's suggestion. – Allen4names (contributions) 19:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I've converted the redirect into a dab page.--Lenticel (talk) 01:05, 23 April 2014 (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.

Dirk Dickbutt[edit]

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 Speedy Delete, G10 by User:TParis. Procedural Close Lenticel (talk) 07:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Deletion. Abusive redirect, with no connection to target article other than for a hoax.

Procedural close please. This was deleted at 06:52, 21 April 2014 by User:TParis as CSD G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP. Si Trew (talk) 07:04, 21 April 2014 (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.

Rivoli Cinema[edit]

Delete. The Redirect is evident vandalism. Vzeebjtf (talk) 07:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Odd. I suspect it should redirect to Rivoli Theatre, some of which by American custom mean movie houses/cinemas. The redlink 'Rivoli Cinemas' also occurs on a dab page. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The article at Beirut has two interpolated mentions of "Rivoli". Vzeebjtf (talk) 22:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC):

My mistake. It seems the references to Rivoli Cinema in Beirut are legitimate. So the DAB should include Beirut. I apologize for jumping to conclusions. Vzeebjtf (talk) 00:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
It appears that "Rivoli Cinema site" is a nickname for Beirut VII, an archaeological site in Beirut. If either this or a disambiguated version of "Rivoli Cinema" do redirect to Beirut, I submit that they should be more specifically targeted to Beirut#Archaeology and prehistory. Cnilep (talk) 23:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment for information, there are also redirect at Rivoli (disambiguation) to Rivoli which is the main DAB and also one at Rivoli Theatre (disambiguation) (but no redirect at Rivoli Theater (disambiguation) even though it only has four entries and three are US English "Theater" and only one British English "Theatre" and that is for a place in Portugal and could presumably be translated either way, anyway). We probably should tidy up the DABs a bit. I don't know what the correct forum is to discuss that. The only incoming links are a few user pages, one project page, and a couple of talk pages: none from articles. Si Trew (talk) 11:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Vzeebjtf (talk) 23:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I listed it at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation#Rivoli_Cinema, but forgot to mention here. I don't know what the procedure is now with whether we can make a procedural close or leave them both open concurrently? I've referred it back to here. Si Trew (talk) 13:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

April 20[edit]

World market[edit]

Market (economics) is about the idea of a market; someone searching for a "world market" is probably looking for information about the World economy, so I propose retargeting there. Strictly speaking, there isn't a "world market" (the phrase "world markets" is perhaps more common), but I think the world economy is closer to that idea. --BDD (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Pinging BrownHairedGirl, SimonTrew, Lenticel, and Tideflat, who participated in a similar RfD for the capitalized version. --BDD (talk) 20:02, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I can see a case for redirecting to either of those titles, and am not sure which I would prefer. Neither article gives much coverage to idea of a global market, so it's a choice between two poor options. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep at Market (economics), or Retarget all four of them together. I can see the case for it going to world economy or global economics (which redirects there) or global village (which is DAB) or international trade (which has its own article) or something similar; my point is simply that they should all go to the same place: the search engine does not distinguish on letter case. It used to be common to have different articles (and redirects) varying by case, but that is not true any more, so it would be misleading to send them to different places. Since the previous consensus, referred to by BDD, resulted in it being put at market (economics), so should these be; or we retarget all four together. Si Trew (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep for now. Hmm... perhaps we can have a hatnote to world economy for now?--Lenticel (talk) 06:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Convert to a disambiguation page per the mixed answers above, the fact that the redirect World Market was recently the subject of another RfD discussion (Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 13#World Market), and the fact that now 3 topics have been identified that could be called "World market": Market (economics), World economy, and Cost Plus, Inc.. My preference is that World market should become the disambiguation page due to 2 of the 3 possible topics referring to the lowercase version of the word. Steel1943 (talk) 19:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
...Which would mean, in turn, that World Market should be retargeted to World market, in case that wasn't clear. Steel1943 (talk) 19:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Thalapathy (2013 film)[edit]

No such film exists. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment This title was originally created as a duplicate article for the then-upcoming film Thalaivaa, and Thalapathy Thalapthy is the name of a song from that film. Ilayathalapathy (obviously containing the name of this redirect) is also in the title of a few of the references, Ilayathalapathy redirects to Vijay (actor), the star of Thalaivaa. All this makes me suspect there is some plausibility to this redirect, I'll inform Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force and see if they have any insight. Thryduulf (talk) 18:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Sunnyhillselementary[edit]

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 deleted as basic housekeeping. The original declination of speedy deletion for this redirect was a triumph of nitpicking over common sense. If you want to take this decision to DRV I won't stand in your way, but I really think we have better ways to spend our time. — Scott talk 16:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

This is otherwise speedy-deletable under WP:CSD#R3. However, what happened was, this page was nominated for deletion at this title, then moved to Sunny Hills Elementary school one minute later. The article was ultimately redirected at AfD. The CSD was declined due to this technicality. Propose deletion as an implausible redirect. Mz7 (talk) 02:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC), revised 02:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per Mz7. WP:COMMONSENSE comes in to play here and I don't understand why the CSD was declined. We're not in the business of being jobsworths but of making a better encyclopaedia. Si Trew (talk) 04:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete if the article were are Sunny Hills Elementary or Sunny Hills Elementary school then this would not be a CSD-R3 candidate (G7 though would have been absolutely fine, and G6 possibly so). Given that that title remains as a perfectly good redirect, and that it has now existed for the best part of a month then I can find no fault in the declining of an R3 speedy deletion for this title, nor can I even come close to endorsing the "jobsworth" epithet used by SiTrew. R3 is a time-limited criterion, and all CSD criteria must be interpreted narrowly based on the letter of the rules, so while "recent" and "implausible" are not defined, if there is doubt that either condition applies then it is not eligible for speedy deletion. That said I do not think that this is a useful redirect, and so I am recommending deletion - but only after the full listing period. Thryduulf (talk) 10:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
    It would seem to me, Thryduulf, that if someone proposes a CSD but happens to put it in the wrong category, then to decline it on that basis is detrimental to improving the encyclopaedia. Nevertheless, I was not criticising the individual administrator, and I don't even know how it was, but simply that things require judgment (and I get things wrong often enough). If that administrator felt I was criticising them personally, I absolutely completely apologise for that. I was simply making the point that we need to exercise judgement rather than strictly following rules: WP:IAR essentially. I expressed myself very badly and for that I apologise. Si Trew (talk) 12:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. It is unlikely that some one would search for such a name without spaces. -- Fauzan✆ talk ✉ email 11:17, 20 April 2014 (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.

April 19[edit]

Wikipedia talk:SHC[edit]

Both of these shortcuts are six years old today. Happy birthday. Unfortunately for them, in that time nobody has found them worth using. If nobody on the project has used a shortcut years after its creation, it demonstrably serves no point in existing. Shortcuts are editors' tools, and the degree to which editors use them is the measure of their utility. Shortcuts to talk pages are also barely ever of value except on high-traffic or important talk pages.

Now, I know for a fact that someone is going to say "redirects are cheap" and also "no benefit is offered by deleting these". Well there is a benefit - not cluttering our namespace (and visually cluttering the start of a page) with unnecessary items. My opinion on this matter is that the RfD criteria are choking us under a smothering blanket of bureaucracy that muffles the voice of any contributor who believes in keeping a clean shop. I'm one of those users, and I'm dog-tired of seeing the same hackneyed old comments on nomination after nomination, as if the RfD criteria are the Ten Commandments. They're not, they're based in consensus, just as every rule on this site is. And I know I'm not the only one who feels this way.

It's high time that we collectively accept that people have a tendency to get excited and make shortcuts, and that sometimes time shows it to have been unnecessary; and when that does happen, we smile, clean it up and move on. It's basic housekeeping. That's why I'm nominating these. — Scott talk 02:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep "SHORT" Seems a reasonable shortcut, unless some other use appears to contest that. Further, you haven't nominated WP:SHORT or WP:SHC for deletion, so I fail to see why the talk equivalent shouldn't exist. -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 05:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Firstly, "seems reasonable" has been demonstrated to be pointless. Or you would have preferred that I'd waited until these redirects had lain around unused for a full decade before nominating them? Secondly, that's an other stuff exists argument. We're not in a hurry, we can deal with one thing at a time. And thirdly, WP:SHORT is being used, which is completely the opposite of this nomination. — Scott talk 10:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
      • The subject-side pages are not being deleted, so I don't really see why the talk-side pages can't exist. If you want to delete the subject-side redirect WP:SHC then that will also delete the talk-side redirect WT:SHC. -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 22:46, 19 April 2014 (UTC) (Moved up to keep the conversation together - S)
        • First point, see above. Second point, no it won't. I don't know what you're trying to say there. — Scott talk 00:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep both. Firstly WT:SHC is actually used, so the nomination is factually incorrect there. Secondly, both WP:SHORT and WP:SHC are very well used, so there is every reason for people to assume that the equivalent talk page shortcuts will also exist. Finally, there really is no benefit to deletion - the visual "clutter" is entirely independent of the redirect's existence, if you want to remove what you perceive at clutter then do so: WP:BRD applies. If you want to change the RfD criteria then you need to propose that at Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion and get consensus to change them before you can apply different ones to individual redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 09:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
    • No, the nomination is not "factually incorrect". WT:SHC was linked to once in an automatically-generated list of pages with shortcuts. It has never been used. Perhaps you meant WT:SHORT, which was mentioned precisely once, by its author, and then forgotten about forever after. So that's that.
    • Secondly, directly removing redirect clutter is a complete waste of time because it only leads to one-on-one arguments with indiscriminate collectors such as yourself those who persistently call for the retention of redirects on the basis of entirely unproven claims of utility. This is the place to discuss it.
    • Thirdly, policy follows practice, which takes place on the ground in venues such as this one. That's why there are now ongoing discussions about interlingual redirects and WikiProject template redirects. — Scott talk 10:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
      • When I say the redirect is used, I was looking at usage figures not counting links. I am not an "indiscriminate collector" of redirects (and I would prefer it if you could avoid further ad hominems) - I base my recommendations on an assessment of the costs and benefits of keeping and deleting the redirects under discussion, placing high value on those redirects that have demonstrated utility and no value on irrelevant arguments like lack of necessity. Thryduulf (talk) 13:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
        • I note you have rephrased your comment, but it still mischaracterises the rationales of those who hold different opinions to yourself - firstly the burden of evidence is on those wanting to change the status quo, so you would need to demonstrate non-utility yet in many cases (such as this one) utility is demonstrated. When there is no evidence either way, then we fall back to the standard required of redirects - namely "plausibly useful" and in every case that a redirect is plausibly useful then it should be kept in the absence of evidence that it is somehow either harmful or that deletion would benefit the encyclopaedia more (e.g. because we want an article at that title). In this case, "SHC" and "SHORT" are both plausible abbreviations for "shortcut", there has been no proposal to retarget them elsewhere, and no evidence presented that they are harmful. This means that there is no reason to delete them, and we should not delete any page from Wikipedia without there being a reason for doing so. Thryduulf (talk) 16:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
          • If a thing is useful, it will be used. These aren't used. Not sure why you find that hard to understand. The rest of your comments are the exact same bureaucratic hoarder's responses that I was anticipating from the moment I made this nomination. — Scott talk 16:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
            • If something is used it is useful, but just because something is not used does not automatically mean it is not useful - how do you know that someone will not need it tomorrow or next week for example? I'm not at all sure why you feel the need to use more ad hominem arguments, but as you clearly have nothing else to bring to the table I do not see that explaining again why unnecessary deletions are harmful is a productive use of my time. Thryduulf (talk) 16:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
              • "How do you know that someone will not need it tomorrow or next week"? Because that "tomorrow or next week" has spent six years failing to arrive so far. It's called common sense. And as regards "explaining again why unnecessary deletions are harmful", that's because you can't. Not unless you resort to your stock argument of the theoretical needs of imaginary people, in exactly the same fashion that you just did. — Scott talk 17:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
If WT:SHORT is being used and Wikipedia talk:Shortcut isn't (I mean, if people always use the abbreviation rather than the longer name to find the article) that's an argument for keeping it. As for WT:SHC that seems to me like a bit of insider knowledge, nobody who is not an editor would search that way, and the purpose of redirects is solely to help people to find what they are looking for. It could go to Washington Technological School of High Columns or Willesden and Teddington Private Socratic/Hippocratic Club for all I know, it seems a particularly obscure abbreviation. Si Trew (talk) 11:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
"WT:" is a namespace alias for "Wikipedia talk" so all redirects should go to pages in that namespace (Wikipedia talk:SHC redirecting to an article would be very bizarre), and almost all should go to the talk page of the page the corresponding WP: redirect points at. Thryduulf (talk) 13:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I realise that. The point I am making is that "SHC" is not a particularly obvious redirect through that namespace alias (and we have a lot of cross-namespace redirects). I was not suggesting to create those articles, as far as I know those places don't actually exist, though it would not surprise me one of those horrible scamming private school people now sets one up and uses Wikipedia as a reference. Si Trew (talk) 05:11, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep both. The right place for a discussion of the RfD criteria would be WT:RFD. I can't help but feel you're going about this backwards: policy may follow practice,[citation needed] but a consensus to delete these redirects wouldn't constitute a consensus to change the criteria. A consensus to change the criteria, on the other hand, could reasonably be expected to constitute a consensus to delete these redirects. Aside from the procedure though, I'm afraid I'm firmly in the WP:CHEAP camp. I tend to take the view that if someone went to the trouble of creating it, it's probably useful to at least enough people for the potential harm caused by deleting to oughtweigh the benefits; in this case I also think it's probably reasonable to expect a "WP:" redirect to be accompanied by a matching "WT:". – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:46, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Any attempt to change the critera through discussion there will be met with "this does not reflect longstanding consensus" by the people who want to maintain the status quo. On the other hand, if the community shows itself willing to do away with pointless redirects, there will clearly be an evidence-based argument for an update to the criteria.
    • Regarding "potential harm", would you mind setting out what that is for two shortcuts that nobody is using or has been using in the last six years? Even their creator only linked to one of them, once. These were speculative creations, made on a hypothesis of necessity that has been comprehensively disproven by time. — Scott talk 12:04, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
      • The potential harm would be if, for example, someone who's used these shortcuts before were to use them again but find them no longer functional. Or if someone were to use WP:SHORT and then reasonably assume that an associated "WT:" shortcut exists for the talk page, but find that it doesn't. Or if an incoming link to one of these shortcuts from another site, which we can't track, was broken. That sort of thing. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 01:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
        • All of that is pure conjecture. That these redirects have lain unlinked-to for six years is fact, as is their mean daily traffic level of less than one hit, which is the level of random noise caused by bots. By the way, we are also not beholden to other websites to maintain redirects, especially not without evidence that they even exist in the first place. That's a common misapprehension at RfD. — Scott talk 01:47, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

  • Comment. Scott, if I may summarise: you are complaining (it seems to me) that we never change policy (or guidelines). But we do. The place to discuss changes of policy is at the discussion page of RfD itself, not at a particular redirect's entry. In any case, WP:BOLD still applies. I am not myself in the WP:CHEAP camp, not because of the appalling waste of terribly expensive bytes but because I think many redirects make it harder not easier for people to find things via the search engine: however, I also often gnomely create redirects myself (especially with {{R from title without diacritics}} and {{R to section}} and things like that): the only question is does it make it easier or harder for people to find the information they are looking for? Now, that requires some second-guessing about what people are looking for, which is why we come here to find consensus. Si Trew (talk) 05:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

April 18[edit]

JonTron[edit]

This page should not redirect to Game Grumps, as it is only a small part of his life and career and Jon has expressed the same thing here. I say that we just delete the page outright and topic ban any article for a year, or until someone can make a properly sourced article. Redirecting him to Game Grumps permanently with the indef full protection will tie him to Game Grumps when he has nothing to do with it anymore, and is only a small part of his career. TheMesquito (talk) 14:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC) –Copied here from Talk:JonTron. 22:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

  • This page should redirect to Normal Boots instead, since he is both the co-founder and member of the site, and he is most known for his work at Normal Boots with the JonTron show and whatnot. RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 17:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC) –Copied here from Talk:JonTron. 22:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • A quarter of his career isn't small by any stretch of the imagination. Game Grumps is what most people know JonTron for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.70.86 (talk) 19:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC) –Copied here from Talk:JonTron. 22:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm in favor of removing all redirects since JonTron is a person and not a character. Hirohiigo (talk) 00:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC) –Copied here from Talk:JonTron. 22:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I have struck out the text that was here prior to the discussion happening on Talk:JonTron being copied over here. I have done this since the last two comments have not added any new information for the discussion, and it was essentially stating that the RFD tag could not be placed on JonTron, which has now been resolved. TheMesquito, I hope you don't mind. Steel1943 (talk) 22:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't mind at all, I'll just remove the striked text TheMesquito (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't think a redirect to Normal Boots will work since the current AFD for that is clearly leaning towards deletion. Based on that it appears the only options are to keep it here or remove entirely.--67.70.140.89 (talk) 21:58, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - In the vein of Jon's very own interests, I'd much rather see the redirect deleted than for it to be redirected to Game Grumps. It just doesn't seem reasonable. RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 08:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Jon Jafari[edit]

I retargeted this back to Game Grumps for the time being since Normal Boots was deleted. I have no real opinion on this but if JonTron is deleted this one probably should be too.--67.70.140.89 (talk) 00:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)--67.70.140.89 (talk) 00:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Manmohan Tiwari[edit]

Non-notable person. Contestant of a reality TV show. Redtigerxyz Talk 19:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. What next, people on phone-in shows? Si Trew (talk) 08:01, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. The nomination is probably an accurate description of Manmohan Tiwari, but it's not an argument for deleting a redirect. Topics of redirects aren't required to be notable; in fact redirecting to a broader topic is a common outcome of deletion discussions relating to non-notable topics, and serves to discourage editors from creating articles on such topics. In this case the redirect is a plausible search term and mentioned in the target article. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I see your point, but Wikipedia is not Who's Who or an Equity list either. The single mention of his name is the link itself in a table including profession and hometown: no substantial information on the subject. No other contestant has a blue link (they all have red links) and this one blue link is of course just a circular link via the redirect. It's not even an {{R to section}}. It should go per WP:REDLINK. Si Trew (talk) 06:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Huh? WP:REDLINK is clear that red links should only be included for articles that are likely to be created. As a personal name and an article that's not likely to be created (per your !vote I assume you agree this person isn't notable), redlinking to this is specifically discouraged per WP:REDNOT. I've removed all the links to personal names in the table accordingly. You're right of course that there's only a brief mention of this contestant, but if the article were expanded it could easily include a more comprehensive description (see, for example, Big Brother 10 (UK)#Housemates). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 00:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

360 Pensacola Beach[edit]

Delete. Was listed, but now removed as it has become apparent that it does not meet the list criterea. No alternative target, which is unlikely to change as the installation no longer exists. 49.230.83.117 (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom and WP:R#DELETE #10. News articles on the first page of Google results indicate the topic is likely notable. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Commonism[edit]

Procedural nomination on behalf of Chricho (talk), who misnominated this at AfD with the following rationale:

Why the page should be deleted“Commonism” is a distinct term not identically with “communism” and frequently used by commons-activists. This is a source explicitly stating that these are distinct concepts. But it should not be my duty to prove that: The word “commonism” is not even mentioned in the article communism, this redirect is an unsourced claim that these two things are identical. Sideways713 (talk) 16:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment. This redirect was created in 2005 as a redirect to communism without any explanation by a user who last edited in 2007. In August 2011 UltraMagnus retargetted it to The Commons (which has since been moved to Commons), again without explicit explanation. In June 2012 the target was changed back to Communism by Neelix with the edit summary "The word "commonism" does not appear on Commons, but "commonism" is a common alternate spelling of communism.". If that claim of being an alternate spelling is correct (I haven't looked) then the redirect is not inappropriate, as would be the case if it were a plausible typo/thinko for Communism (which is what I expected it to be). If Commonism is a topic about which we should have an article, then a deletion per WP:REDLINK is probably the way to go, a disambiguation page or hatnote is another possibility. Thryduulf (talk) 00:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - Thanks for the breakdown, Thryduulf! If you type "Commonism" into the Google search bar, it asks, "Did you mean: Communism", so "commonism" is clearly a common misspelling of "communism". Unless someone finds enough significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources to demonstrate the notability of a concept that is actually called "commonism" and creates an article about it, the redirect should remain as it is. Neelix (talk) 03:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Plausible typo and surely "commune" and "common" are cognates anyway? Si Trew (talk) 07:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. urbandictionary.com defines it (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Commonism here) as J. Edgar Hoover's pronunciation of "communism", although it is easy for a stenographer just to miss when typing up shorthand notes. I don't think that is RS, but does tend to indicate that it means the same thing. There are a couple of references such as [this one at turbulence.org.uk] and [this one at blog.p2pfoundation.net] to a lecture/paper by Nick Dyer-Witheford (who he?) but that seems rather a neologism and neither is WP:RS in my opinion. (He wrote Cyber-Mar: Cycles and Circuits of Struggle in High Technology Captialism. University of Illinois. 1999. ISBN 978-0252067952.  and I would guess is an academic there for which the the others quoted are from his pupils, that is just a guess). According to those papers, Witheford defines commonism as different from communism (but then what is communism?) and in one in the lead attributes to him "a number of articles [in which he] has sought to promote the concept of commonism as a way to avoid the bad history of authoritarian state communism, while, at the same time, providing an antidote to centralised planning and the restrictions of private property through new forms of collective ownership. However, we don't have an article, if we did it would seem to be sourced to one person, and this obviously is not widespread. THere is a paper here by Witheford himself but it seems to be a neologism on his part and has not become widespread. It should stay where it is. Si Trew (talk) 10:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure there's a way to check this now, but if Commonism were red, would a reader searching for this term get a suggestion from Wikipedia (ex.)? If so, I would support deletion. I understand the nominator's concern that there is a concept called "commonism" that differs from communism, so I'm torn on whether we should treat this as a typo or delete to encourage creation and/or prevent confusion. Certainly it's one letter off, and U and O are very close on a QWERTY keyboard, so it's a plausible typo. But keeping this also seems to conflate two separate ideologies. --BDD (talk) 19:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
No, I don't think they are two separate ideologies. I think it is just a neologism from one professor at one univeristy who has made a nice living out of it but obvously hasn't caught on, and the redirect should stand. We might as well redirect it to Luddite or Socialism or Common land or Commons or House of Commons or anywhere else. As for the typo, if you touch type you shouldn't miss like that because you rest your index fingers on the F and the J (which have indents for the purpose of you finding them without looking) and use different fingers for U (index finger) and O (ring finger) but on small devices that people use these days, it is very easy to miss. Si Trew (talk) 08:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually here's a test. I don't use that awful predictive typing thing on mobile phones, I just make loads of my own mistakes instead, but if you type "commonism" into your mobile phone what do you get? Si Trew (talk) 08:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't have an appropriate device to test that on, but remember that is not only touch typists but two-finger typists, people with non-qwerty keyboards and non-native speakers as well. I guess it's also a plausible mistake for someone using speech input. Thryduulf (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting that it was implausible: quite the opposite. I was saying if you touch-type on a QWERTY (or AZERTY) it would be hard t miss like that: BDD said the U and the O are are close together, but they are not adjacent and one shouldn't miss in that manner if touch-typing properly. (Incidentally it's hard to touch-type properly for Wikipedia editing because of all the special symbols one has to insert.)
But all the various other input methods make it a plausible typo. Certainly yes with speech input it would seem to be very easy to miss, either that the speaker's dialect makes it "wrong" or the limitations of speech detection software. If either Hoover or his stenographer managed to say or record "communism" as "commonism" then the current redirect seems more likely than an idea by a professor that does not seem to have been widely repeated. Si Trew (talk) 08:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete as this is a term used in academic books and journal articles to describe various models that have some of the benefits of Communism. user:BDD, yes search DYM will suggest Communism. See fr.wp search results. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
If you know of academic books and journal articles that use the term "commonism" to describe variations on communism, why not add them to the Communism article? I see no benefit to making users who have misspelled the word go through the additional step of DYM before arriving at the intended article. Neelix (talk) 15:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
It would be WP:UNDUE to mention Commonism in the Communism article. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete Let the software help those who made a typo. As a redirect, it appears that we're saying "commonism" is a form of communism. I'm not convinced that that's accurate. --BDD (talk) 16:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment. From what I read in the professor's paper, commonism is a form of communism (or socialism) and right in the abstract it says so – but the intent is to remove the more authoritarian aspects. That being said, Marx would not have recognised the "communism" of the USSR as communism at all but as totalitarianism, probably. This is just down to how people use words. What about "democracy". As Orwell points out, every state calls itself democratic without defining what it means by democracy, because the word is seen to be inherently "good". As far as I see it, I am just repeating what I said above, this particular model is by one professor at one university and has not been widely reported: he and his paper are not WP:N. A typo for communism, in my opinion, would be far more common. But as I think Thryduulf said above, how can we find out while this redirect is here? And particularly, while this discussion is here, since the redirect of course then no longer takes them automatically to the article. That's the bind. Si Trew (talk) 08:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

World's Largest Artificial Pysanka[edit]

Delete. It's the "artificial" that makes this an unlikely search term. Si Trew (talk) 10:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete We don't have a naturally-occurring Pysanka. In addition, this looks like a mean of disseminating unreferenced information and getting away with giving the source. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep it is sourced in the target, and IMO 'artificial' is an possible/reasonable search term, but I agree it is not a likely search term. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:19, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • n.b. I created World's largest pysanka the other day, probably figuring that if a pysanka isn't artificial, you'd just call it an egg. --BDD (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment. Well I was wondering whether pysanka was at all a likely search term for an English-speaking audience in the first place. I don't want to pat myself on the back but I have a fairly good vocabulary and I had never heard of it. You might as well have Hungarian: tojas or French: oeuf or whatever. There is an article at pysanka but wouldn't this maybe be better targeted from World's largest Easter egg? What about Fabergé egg or Ostrich egg? What is someone likely to want to find, I don't know. Si Trew (talk) 22:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

World's largest port[edit]

Delete. I am not simply trucking through proposing deletion of every article, list etc that has "world's largest" in it. That is valuable for a search. But this is misleading, because the largest port and the busiest port are different things. Si Trew (talk) 10:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete - simply not the same thing. No reason one should redirect to the other. Stalwart111 12:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. This would make a good redirect to List of ports by area, but as we don't yet have that article or anything similar that doesn't help us now. I've revamped and expanded Lists of ports, but there is nothing there or in category:Lists of ports that would make a good target either unfortunately. Thryduulf (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete a smaller well managed pory could esaily be busyier that a larger point so therfore the redirect is misleading.--70.49.72.34 (talk) 03:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete Not the same thing. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Viable search term, WP itself should sort out a good target. It is an encyclopedic search term right? Though it may not have a precise hit target, any reader actually searching, typing and finding this would be helped out. Target page may be improved, but deletion is not needed. Just this week the BBC reported that "Heathrow is not the biggest airport by passenger count any more". I mean to illustrate, it is common in RL. (btw, DXB now is, I heard. How would you find that in WP). -DePiep (talk) 07:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - the term 'largest' is equivalent to 'busiest' within the industry, and the overlap between ports that largest by activity and largest by 'land' area size is quite close. Also, land area size is not really comparable or relevant, as the way ships are managed through the waters in and outside the port are equally important, and technology is constantly being employed to reduce the amount of space wasted to achieve the same result. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Weak keep per John Vandenberg. I can imagine a fair amount of readers searching for this are looking for the busiest port. If there were a convenient way to fit in their physical size at the target article, that would be even better. --BDD (talk) 16:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per John Vandenberg and BDD. I am the nominator and I leave the original nomination but strike out my delete; but I know this is redirects for discussion which is why I brought it here. I'm convinced by the arguments above (including Thryduulf's that said delete) that people might search for this, and in the absense of a list of ports by area or some such, this is the best target. Si Trew (talk) 11:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete world's largest port does not mean busiest. It is more likely to mean the number of docking locations, area of the port (landside or seaside or both); further value of goods transshipped versus volume of goods transshipped versus mass of goods transshipped are all different matters. And the largest size of ship that can be handled, the volume of water in the port control zone, the tonnage of shipping processed, can also meant. So redirecting to busiest is not a very good use. -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 22:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Although they're not the same thing, someone searching for "world's largest port" (which we don't have an article on) would be well served by our article on "world's busiest port." -- King of ♠ 02:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Conciseness razor[edit]

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 speedy delete. G7 cuts like a knife—but it feels so right. --BDD (talk) 16:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Unacceptable mainspace -> projectspace redirect. There is no such real world term, let alone an expectation to find such a thing in mainspace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. This is unacceptable. — Scott talk 14:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete! I created it by mistake, and did not realize it until now. --B2C 15:13, 18 April 2014 (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.
There's a problem with the lede there as well in that the title says "Occam's Razor", Occam's Razor is actually a redirect to Ockham's Razor (this is because William of Ockham spelt it both ways as was common at the time) but the title of the article and the lede don't match. I don't know what to do about that. There is of course Occam (programming language) and so on, so I would tend to prefer the OCC spelling but I presume this has been argued about long and hard before: but the lede and title should match. I daredn't touch it. Si Trew (talk) 23:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Is there any evidence of anyone anywhere ever looking for Occam's razor with the phrase "conciseness razor"? As the inventor of the latter, intended for internal WP use only, I would be very surprised if there is such evidence. --B2C 22:09, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Everyone's entitled to make a mistake and it is rare that an editor will admit to it. Delete per creator Born2cycle. I don't understand why an article in mainspace would be created for "internal Wikipedia use only", though. Si Trew (talk) 23:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Did you read the closed discussion, SimonTrew (talk · contribs)? I explained it there. (speaking of mistakes!). --B2C 01:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
@Born2cycle: I did, yes. I just actually disagree that it is useless: I think it could be a useful redirect. I meant it as a compliment, by the way, that an editor will state openly "I made a mistake": but I am not sure thaty you did! Si Trew (talk) 01:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Lista di laghi e dighe della Svizzera[edit]

Unnescceary, per WP:NOTDIC. TheChampionMan1234 05:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete no need for Italian in this instance per WP:FORRED. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Italian is one of the official languages of Switzerland, so this is not as implausible as some we see here. Thryduulf (talk) 12:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Those needing this topic in Italian can find it, unsurprisingly, at it:Lista di laghi e dighe della Svizzera. — Scott talk 15:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep, actually. I doubt it's going to be very useful, but there is a connection between the language and the topic. I wouldn't really want to see German, French, Italian, and Romansh redirects to every Swiss topic, but that's an example of what I call RfD zen: this redirect shouldn't've been created, but now that it has been, it shouldn't be deleted either. --BDD (talk) 17:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. We are not the Italian-lanugage Wikipedia. It is already at Italian Wikipedia, it:Lista_di_laghi_e_dighe_della_Svizzera there. The problem I see with BDD's "RfD zen" is that if you're not careful you set a precedent and soon we have it in two hundred and fifty different languages. I am an inclusionist by nature but there are lines to be drawn, and for me, foreign language terms where articles exist in the appropriate encyclopaedia is over the line: someone searching externally will then come up at an English-language article for an Italian term, what help is that to them? Si Trew (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. I am generally in favor of redirects in different languages when that language is related to the topic, but not when it translates several common words of the English language like "list" or "lakes." -- King of ♠ 02:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:UE, this is not the Italian Wikipedia, our article is not written in Italian. The topic has no native Italian name, since it is a purely descriptive name come up with by Wikipedia editors, and not a prescriptive name coming out of Italian. -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 05:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Nowiki[edit]

I was looking for help on the nowiki syntax, not no.wp. Plus, there is some vandalism right now on the page [7], which I will clean up in a sec. TheChampionMan1234 05:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep "nowiki" is the code for the Norwegian Wikipedia in the same way that "enwiki" is the code for the English Wikipedia, and the mainspace article about the Norwegian Wikipedia is better than a cross-namespace redirect to information about the nowiki syntax, especially since there is a hatnote at the article pointing people there already. The vandalism is not relevant to which is the best target. Thryduulf (talk) 12:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Whose code? At least at WP:PNT, unless I have been mistaken all these years, people just say EN:WP or IT:WP or NO:WP and so on. Since there are two Norwegian Wikipedias, for different variants of the language, that is just misleading (to an English audience) anyway. Si Trew (talk) 08:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
If it is just two topics then that can go per hatnotes with WP:TWODABS. The thing is, to encourage readers to turn into editors. This, I feel, discourages that, QED nom. Si Trew (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I'd be very surprised if there were an article that discussed the nowiki function. However, we could use a {{selfref}}, similar to that at AGF, if the redirect is kept: "Nowiki" redirects here. On the English Wikipedia, nowiki is an element of Help:Wiki markup. --BDD (talk) 23:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Good point. I think that might serve a better purpose, especially since Parsing currently fails MOS:DABMENTION for the purpose behind my disambiguation page idea. On a related note, I'm changing my vote to "keep". Steel1943 (talk) 23:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @SimonTrew: To use a hatnote means that a primary topic has been established for the term "Nowiki", and I don't see either one of these terms proven to be the primary topic for the term. So thus, the reason I say "Convert to a DAB". Steel1943 (talk) 23:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete "no" is an English word, and "nowiki" is a tag on MediaWiki, so this is highly confusing. -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 05:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. There is actually Wikipedia:NOWIKI but I know some other editors are against cross-namespace redirects like that. The current hatnote at the target redirects through that, though at least to me it would seem more obvious if. assuming this is kept, it is used at the target explicitly in the hatnote, rather than "Help:Wiki markup" which while correct seems less helpful. Si Trew (talk) 08:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Keleti pályaudvar[edit]

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 wrong forum - see WP:RM if you want to move the location of an article. From personal experience I know that discussions about the name of foreign railway stations are sometimes controversial, so it's best to use the correct procedure for them. Thryduulf (talk) 12:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

This redirect should be reversed. It simply means "Eastern terminus". We do not have "Gare du Nord" redirecting to Northern station or Station of the North, we have it at what it calls itself. Si Trew (talk) 04:53, 18 April 2014 (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.

Lista de codigos telefonicos[edit]

WP:NOTDIC TheChampionMan1234 04:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:FORRED and this Portuguese title should point at List of telephone codes, if anywhere, not a Mexico list. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I think this is also Spanish, isn't it? It would be "Lista de códigos telefónicos." That's still not a good reason to keep, though. There are many Spanish-speaking countries. --BDD (talk) 16:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
It's cognate with Spanish, yes, but you are out: in Spanish it is es:Anexo:Prefijos telefónicos mundiales here, through the Interwiki links. The English, through the Interwiki, is at List of country calling codes. But we might as well redirect it to Yellow Pages or Telephone directory, the first of which if memory serves me right (it seldom does these days) was published in New York at about the turn of the last century and listed 112 numbers. It is already in Portuguese Wikipedia pt:Lista_de_códigos_telefónicos here Si Trew (talk) 23:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Looking at this again, there are a few other oddities here. First, the title of the target "Area codes in Mexico by code" is a bit odd (why not just have "Area codes in Mexico", which redirects there, and is the simpler title?. Make it a list article with a table? but that is probably outside of the remit of RfD but I am happy to do it if consensus is reached for that.) Second, the Interwiki links are to country codes – at least the Spanish and English, is the international dialing codes (+44 for the UK and so on) not the interior codes (what in UK English are called STD codes or elsewhere probably area codes). So the Interwiki links are a bit out of whack, but I am not sure what we can do about that. It should probably be deleted, per John Vandenberg: even a Portuguese speaker stumbling into English Wikipedia will not expect to find a list of Mexican area codes. Si Trew (talk) 12:29, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete the Spanish title is descriptive not prescriptive, so many alternate formulations are available. This is not the definitive name for the topic in Spanish, as there is no such name. WP:NOT a translation dictionary or a phrase look up book. -- 04:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:User TFBH2[edit]

This template was never a userbox template which using the 'User x' naming convention required by {{Babel}}. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC) Delete per John Vandenberg. Si Trew (talk) 21:49, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Murica[edit]

The subject is not mentioned on the page. Also, Wikipedia is not the Urban Dictionary. I recommend either delete, or retarget to Murcia and tag it with {{R from misspelling}}. Steel1943 (talk) 03:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

  • retarget as a plausible typo for Murcia. Thryduulf (talk) 12:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget per nom.--Lenticel (talk) 13:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget as above. I never make a tpyo myself, of course. Si Trew (talk) 08:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment. I believe another stalwart at RfD used this term the other day about himself, knowing that I was British, but I had never heard the term. I think the term he used was Murica, Florida and I assumed it was an actual placename and tried to look it up but couldn't find it – I knew the editor was joking but didn't quite get the joke, sorry, because I didn't realise the meaning. So this is genuinely misleading. The editor was in entirely good faith and probably assumed I knew the term, but perhaps it is not WP:WORLDWIDE, I have never heard it. Having kinda spoken it in my head I can see how it is formed now, but when written if one has not seen it before one doesn't think automatically that "murica" is a slurring way of saying "America". It's not mentioned at the target. Si Trew (talk) 11:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I think this is used frequently enough to (1) be a plausible search term (to the point where somebody searching for this is more likely looking for the neologism than they are to be mispelling the name of the Spanish city; see the Know Your Meme page for examples) and (2) meet Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion. As such I think a soft redirect to Wiktionary would be the best option, but I'm not going to put that in bold because at present there's no such Wiktionary entry for it to point to. The term is also mentioned at Apheresis (linguistics), which might be a plausible target; and there's also apparently a biological use of the term, which comes up in this 1979 book about Globigerinida and might merit a mention somewhere. Finally, I'd like to note that 'Murica also exists and points to the same target (where it isn't mentioned), but is much less likely to be entered as a typo of Murcia. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 02:37, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Nice find with 'Murica. Who is going to type that? Urban Dictionary has it here but (I am not sure but assume) that is not RS. More of the problem is it's not mentioned at the target, and I've looked but can't really find an RS for it, it's all Twitter and Facebook and stuff like that. It's not a meme, it's a word: but perhaps a neologism? That is not in itself a problem, all words have to be invented at some point, but do we have evidence that this one is more than a passing fad? Si Trew (talk) 05:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • ...And Merica is an article about a genus of sea snails. Arms & Hearts, I'm not opposed to this reasoning, but if this situation is going to be fixed, it will involve a lot more than just resolving the redirect I have nominated here. Steel1943 (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Update (@SimonTrew, Steel1943:) I've just realised wikt:'Murica does exist after all and have soft-redirected 'Murica there and changed my !vote here accordingly. Hopefully that clears things up a bit. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 00:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Soft redirect per above. -- King of ♠ 02:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

!@[edit]

No obvious reason for this to exist. — This, that and the other (talk) 01:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete - per nominator, I don't see why anyone would type that --TheChampionMan1234 04:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • keep or retarget these are the first two symbols obtained by pressing the number keys while holding shift when using a US QWERTY keyboard, and as such it has a history of test edits, which I suspect was the reason for the redirect in the first place (it has existed harmlessly since 2010). It gets a lot of traffic (78 hits last month for example), probably also from the curious so there is definite benefit in keeping something at this title. I can't find scope for an article, so we should redirect it somewhere, the current target is not bad but perhaps QWERTY, Punctuation or Template:Punctuation marks would be better? Thryduulf (talk) 12:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Indeed, the section is actually called "#Computer programming". Thryduulf (talk) 15:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
My cock-up entirely. Si Trew (talk) 22:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. This is a great example of why getting hits isn't always a reason to keep a redirect. — Scott talk 15:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Why? The redirect is preventing unwanted test edits, and while we could salt the title a redirect is very significantly preferable. Thryduulf (talk) 23:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete, the current target is erroneous and arbitrary. So are the other targets suggested, unless this two character combination can be shown to be used for some purpose. Anti-vandalism isnt a good reason to create junk redirects. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete a bit vague to be useful as a redirect to any pages.--Lenticel (talk) 00:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to 12. I was thinking about this for a while to try to figure out what possible keys could be pressed to get this combination of characters, and on the QWERTY keyboard, this key combination would equate to "12" if the "shift" key is held at the same time. (In fact, looking at the comments above, it seems as though Thryduulf said something similar.) Steel1943 (talk) 08:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to section to At sign#In computer languages, where this string would be well-formed syntax in many languages (I originally suggested Forth (programming language) but am changing my own because no-one has replied/is awake yet so it is not helpful for me to strike my own out). "12" is only a typo in the way Steel1943 suggests if you have a US keyboard layout (and perhaps others): on my UK one (which is QWERTY) you would get !" and on my Hungarian one (which is QWERTZ) you would get '". The "QWERTiness" is irrelevant since these are the number keys. Si Trew (talk) 08:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment. When you come to think of it, the history of the at sign is quite interesting. It was used forever in accountancy until computers were invented and tills became automated by National Cash Register and all that, when it became almost redundant. Then someone kinda repurposed it to be used as the separator in email addresses and it got a new lease of life. I remember when there were battles whether email addresses should be big-endian or little-endian (both terms of course from Gulliver's travels and how to write them. The British held out for a while that it should be called e-post instead of email and that in itself is curious since the Americans have the US Postal Service to deliver the mail while the British have the Royal Mail to deliver the post. "NEITHER RAIN NOR HAIL NOR SNOW NOR GLOOM OF NIGHT CAN STAY THE COURIER FROM THE SPEEDY EXECUTION OF HIS APPOINTED ROUNDS". Well, what is it then? Si Trew (talk) 09:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Probably. I did check the section but I got distracted and put in the wrong retarget. There's no specific mention of that symbol in that section either, but it would be valid in various computer languages. Si Trew (talk) 22:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete or Retarget to 12 as a {{R from typo}} for shift errors, preferably delete. SiTrew might want to consider creating a set-index listing all the programming languages this is valid code for, if such content covering the actual usage of syntax "!@" (and not just "@", as it doesn't indicate usage of the modified by "!" version) exists on wikipedia, if not, it should be WP:REDLINKed. -- 70.24.250.192 (talk) 04:59, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

April 17[edit]

Επίκεντρον[edit]

Delete. Not especially Greek. Gorobay (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment. Not sure. Epicentre actually is Greek. Still it seems an unlikely term for an English-speaking audience. There is an article [here at epicentre.gr] although I typed into My Favourite Search Engine in the Greek alphabet (by copying it from the title) but the URL is in the Latin alphabet (but the article in Greek). I am not sure this helps people to search or not. Si Trew (talk) 11:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete topic has no particular ties to Greek, yes Greece experiences earthquakes, but to say that Greece is an especial concern for earthquakes is wrong. WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a dictionary, the derivation of the word "epicentre" from its Greek roots is not a particular concern, since the word epicentre was not coined by the Ancient Greeks. -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 22:56, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
That wasn't what I meant, that Greece is especially prone to earthquakes. What I meant was that the word "epicentre" etymologically is Greek and so this is perhaps more likely a candidate for keeping than some of the others. Si Trew (talk) 14:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Βραδυκαρδία[edit]

Delete. Not especially Greek. Gorobay (talk) 16:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Weak keep on this premiss only: that there is no article for it in Hellenic Wikipedia and a Greek speaker (Grecian?) will probably have English as a second language if he has any second language, and for that reason only it would be useful. If that premiss is false, I change my opinion. Si Trew (talk) 12:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOT a translation dictionary. There's no reason to assume Greeks would choose English Wikipedia over German Wikipedia either. For articles that did not exist in language Y, we don't have redirects on every other language wikipedia with an article. This topic has no particular ties to Greek, as people other than Greeks experience bradycardia frequently. -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 22:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Ελεφαντίασις[edit]

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. --BDD (talk) 17:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete. Not especially Greek. Gorobay (talk) 16:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom Gorobay. The target is a DAB, there is no Hellenic Interwiki, and this is not helpful. Si Trew (talk) 12:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOT a translation dictionary. The topic has no particular ties to Greek. -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 23:00, 20 April 2014 (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.

Δέονλογία[edit]

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. --BDD (talk) 17:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete. It is not a Greek subject and it is not a real Greek word. Gorobay (talk) 16:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete. There's an article at el:Δεοντολογία and looks fuller than the one at EN:WP, they are properly linked via Interwiki, so there is no need to subvert a search in this way. Si Trew (talk) 12:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete the topic has no particular ties to Greek, was not coined in Ancient Greece being a modern word. -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 23:01, 20 April 2014 (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.

Bloomingpedia[edit]

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. --BDD (talk) 17:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The subject of the redirect is not mentioned anywhere in the target page. In addition, it seems that back in 2005, there was an article at Bloomingpedia and it was deleted per an Articles for deletion discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 14:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per Steel1943. Si Trew (talk) 12:01, 19 April 2014 (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.

Robin Geffen[edit]

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. JohnCD (talk) 14:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Not mentioned on target page. PamD 07:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete. As the redirect and target were created by the same user minutes apart, I would be amazed if there was not a connection, and indeed Google suggests there is a fund manager of this name, but the redirect does not assist readers looking for information about him. Thryduulf (talk) 13:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Thryduulf. Si Trew (talk) 12:09, 19 April 2014 (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.

I hate you[edit]

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 dabify I Hate You, retargeting I hate you there. --BDD (talk) 16:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be many musical albums (among other things) with this title, so I think its better to create a disambiguation page, if not delete it TheChampionMan1234 07:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, a disambig page seems to be the best bet. Percivl (talk) 10:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

  • disambiguate per the above. Note I have added the differently capitalised I Hate You to this nomination, and the dab should probably go at that title with the lowercase version redirecting to it. Thryduulf (talk) 13:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I have just noticed that I Hate You was AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Hate You, which closed as delete but it was instead redirected to I Hate U, which should appear on a disambiguation page. Thryduulf (talk) 15:50, 17 April 2014 (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.

Aniliidae (synonym) et alia[edit]

These "synonym" redirects do not serve any useful purpose. They appear to be an idiosyncratic attempt by one editor to "fill" a category - see Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_10#Acontias_.28synonym.29. DexDor (talk) 05:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete all per nom DexDor. We might as well have "antonym" or "homonym" or whatever. Now, there may be a technical anatomical sense for "synonym", but if they need disambiguating, that is what a DAB page or hatnote is for. These are not even consistent: Tisiphone (synonym) goes to a DAB whereas Echidne (synonym) redirects to the article Echidne and is patently unnecessary. Halys (synonym) redirects to Halys which is a DAB. Si Trew (talk) 05:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. I note many if not all of these are not tagged as being under discussion here. Si Trew (talk) 06:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
    perhaps I was mistaken but now Echidne (synonym) redirects to the DAB at Echidne which has two entries and should go per WP:TWODABS, either one is primary or the other. Echidna (synonym) redirects to the DAB at Echidna (disambiguation) for which the lede links to Echidna which is presumably primary. Cenchrus (synonym) redirects to Cenchrus (disambiguation). Mesopteryx is an R to an article, Eastern Moa. Taking Occam's Razor I am not going to needlessly multiply examples, but the whole point of taxonomy is to give something a name so people can find it, and a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. But this is foolishly inconsistent. Si Trew (talk) 11:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
    In matters zoological/ it all seems quite rhetorical/ the question is not stated/ whether these get kept or slated./ But since it seems quite clear to me/ to say "echidna" or "echidne"/ are likely searched for those not knowing/ we should sort out where they are going. Si Trew (talk) 11:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
    and what is constrictor (synonym) doing there? The boa constrictor is the one species for which its common and taxonomical name are the same. You might as well direct it to bottleneck or pinch point, which we just discussed the other day. Si Trew (talk) 21:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
    Si, I've indented your comments above to form a group, as the presence of one bolded line start per user aids at-a-glance assessment of discussions. I hope you don't mind. — Scott talk 14:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I do mind a bit. I don't change yours. I looked up every single one of these redirects and only didn't list where they went to because I thought it was needlessly multplying examples per Occam's Razor. Most of them are not tagged for being at RfD, which doesn't help other editors. But I don't change your comments. Don't worry, I'll get over it by breakfast time, and am very happy because I got my permanent residency card for Hungary today. Despite seventeen pieces of paperwork they managed to put the wrong address on it so that means whoever lives at number 34 has to pay my taxes. Si Trew (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment from someone else: I have went ahead and fixed all of the malformed entries on this page. Also, I have stuck out Tortricidae (synonym) since it is not a redirect, but a disambiguation page, and thus does not belong on this forum (I may do something with that page myself). Also, I have placed RfD templates on the rest of the nominations on this page (since only the first nominated redirect had an RfD template placed on it. Steel1943 (talk) 03:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I have added Tortricidae (synonym) back to this discussion, now that it is now a redirect, and seems to have the same issue as discussed here. Steel1943 (talk) 03:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: I am not a zoologist or taxonomist, and I wonder whether there are any such specialists contributing to this discussion? While the redirects as listed above don't seem useful, the situation seems to be:
  • Some biological taxonomic groups have recognised synonyms, earlier names now no longer used butlisted in the taxobox under "Synonyms", and presumably used in older literature.
  • Wikipedia ought to have a way for a reader to get from any of these older names to its current equivalent.
  • Consider the first item listed above: the page for the family Cylindrophiidae shows that "Aniliidae" is a synonym. We should therefore (as far as I can see) provide an access to that article from that term.
  • But Aniliidae does not offer a link to Cylindrophiidae.
  • Aniliidae (synonym) is a redirect to Cylindrophiidae, but not likely to be found by a reader looking for the older term.
  • So I suggest that there needs to be a hatnote at Aniliidae or (if there are multiple potential targets) then a dab page at Aniliidae (disambiguation), to help such a reader.
  • There are several different scenarios among the list of redirects above. I suggest that these unlikely-to-be-useful redirects should be deleted, but that we must ensure that there are links from the undisambiguated names of all those synonyms through to the articles to which those redirects were linking.
  • We really need a taxonomic expert to comment here! Me, I'm just a retired librarian with O-level Biology and a passion for helping readers to find the articles they need by making sure we have all the right redirects, hatnotes and dab pages. PamD 14:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Pinging Faendalimas, who's a taxonomist and works in the area of reptiles. He may also be able to suggest some other people worth consulting. — Scott talk 14:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
ok got the message give me a day I am chatting to a colleague who works on these species, but it is Easter so may not see her for a day or two. Faendalimas talk 15:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
No hurry, thanks for your help. That's even better than I had hoped for. Have a good Easter. — Scott talk 21:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

April 16[edit]

Xylocopa appendiculata[edit]

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. JohnCD (talk) 13:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

No need for a xwiki soft redirect. This article will eventually be created. GZWDer (talk) 13:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep. Seems like a useful search term, why would someone search for the longer one? Xylocopa redirects to Carpenter Bee. A very useful bee indeed unless you are a carpenter and the sodding things ruin a bit of two by four. Si Trew (talk) 20:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
    Retarget to Carpenter Bee. Although perhaps slightly inaccurate, we can't have redirects escaping EN:WP. That is just misleading. Si Trew (talk) 21:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete Species names can redirect to their genus (which itself redirects to Carpenter bee in this case), but this isn't going to be very helpful. Better to leave it red to encourage creation. Almost any reader using this search term will be familiar with Binomial nomenclature and know to check Xylocopa next. In fact, Carpenter bee is likely to be the first hit on a search for the species name anyway. --BDD (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per BDD. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2014 (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.

Brachydiplax chalybea[edit]

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. JohnCD (talk) 13:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

No need for a xwiki soft redirect. This article exists in 7 wikis, so it's very unlikely that this article would never be created. GZWDer (talk) 13:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. I don't know why there are all these cross-wiki redirects about, that is what Interwiki is for. It's not hard to create a stub and add an interwiki link. Since it has not been, delete it, it is probably some idiot biology student who can't be arsed to do his homework. Si Trew (talk) 21:22, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Brachydiplax. There is already a genus at Brachydiplax. Just redirect it there. Sure it is not so specific but you can't go diverting EN:WP out to other places with redirects, that is not just misleading but positively harmful to WP as readers would then think that content came from EN:WP. Si Trew (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete Species names can redirect to their genus, but this isn't going to be very helpful. Better to leave it red to encourage creation. Almost any reader using this search term will be familiar with Binomial nomenclature and know to check Brachydiplax next. In fact, it's likely to be the first hit on a search for the species name anyway. --BDD (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and BDD. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Yeah, Delete per BDD. Si Trew (talk) 07:07, 17 April 2014 (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.

Insurgent attack on Fort Hood[edit]

While redirects are allowed to be non-neutral, this phrase is completely unattested outside of Wikipedia; see "Insurgent attack on Fort Hood" -wikipedia. You can call Nidal Hasan an Islamist, a terrorist, whatever, but he wasn't an "insurgent" in any meaningful sense. This title implies some Afghan or Iraqi militants attacked Fort Hood. BDD (talk) 20:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. — Scott talk 13:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. For some reason the BBC always call these people "insurgents" now, I suppose they are not allowed to call them "terrorists" or "freedom fighters" or whatever, so that is what they call them. So, Keep as likely search term. Si Trew (talk) 01:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per Si Trew. The redirect gets uses above background noise, and there is no other article this could be referring to (that I know of anyway) so there is no reason to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 12:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete or (weak) retarget to Fort Hood shooting. I'd rather this redirect be deleted per nom, but if it has to remain ... well, umm ... there's a disambiguation page. Steel1943 (talk) 13:58, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Incidentally Ford shooting also redirects to that DAB. I am not sure that is a good redirect. Si Trew (talk) 22:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
That has now been resolved. --BDD (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

List of colloquialisms[edit]

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. JohnCD (talk) 14:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no list of colloquialisms at Colloquialism. Wiktionary has wikt:Appendix:Australian English colloquial proper nouns and wikt:Appendix:Glossary of Hiberno-English slang and jargon, but no list for other varieties of English. I would suggest deleting the redirect. Cnilep (talk) 03:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment I suppose this could be converted to a list of lists, there being lists of colloquialisms on Wikipedia [8] -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 07:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete We don't have such a list, and I'm not seeing many good suggestions in those search results either. --BDD (talk) 17:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep 9 years old and harmless. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 20:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC).
  • Delete per BDD; this is a surprising redirect. — Scott talk 18:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete even in 2005, when the redirect was created, the target didnt contain a list of colloquialisms. If someone wants to create a list of lists, have at it, but it is a wasted effort as word/phrase lists tend to be deleted as they are migrated to Wiktionary, unless the list has lots of prose and/or purpose to rise above WP:NOTDIC/WP:NOTDIR/etc. John Vandenberg (chat) 19:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 11:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete per various above. This is WP:ASTONISH, it is not a list of colloquiallisms, and if it were, it would be WP:DICDEF probably. Si Trew (talk) 07:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
While a list of colloquialisms may or may not be appropriate for Wikipedia, one would not necessarily be just dictionary definitions - one which contained links to articles about notable individual or groups of colloquialisms for example. Thryduulf (talk) 13:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
That's true, but this isn't a list: so to call it a list is misleading. We might as well make a list of articles with paraphrase and slang and backslang and Eric Partridge and Cockney rhyming slang and patois and pig latin and so on, then. But I am not suggesting that is worthwhile to do: that is what the search engine is for. Si Trew (talk) 21:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)list
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.

Some Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion section/subpage redirects[edit]

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 withdrawn/resolved. Thank you David Biddulph for correcting what was wrong with their redirect, which turned out to be the issue with the other redirects: replacing "#"s with "/"s. Then, I realized that ".2F" means "/", and fixed that as well. Steel1943 (talk) 05:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm assuming that these redirects served a purpose to refer to a discussion on the Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion page, but as it stands, without proper up-to-date targets (as well as no incoming links), it is difficult to understand the point of the redirects. I'm thinking that there is probably a valid "retarget" option for each of these redirects, but as they are redirects of subpages/sections that currently do not exist (each of these redirects have only one edit [other than the RfD notice I put on them]), I originally thought that CSD G6 may apply to these redirects. At this time, these redirects seem to be unnecessary redirect clutter. Steel1943 (talk) 04:59, 16 April 2014 (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.

April 15[edit]

Template:WPFK[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 24#Template:WPFK

Template:WPPK[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 24#Template:WPPK

Template:WPCL[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 23#Template:WPCL

Air France Flight 107[edit]

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. --BDD (talk) 15:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete the redirect, because the flight number (and year) used was incorrect and will lead to (further) confusion. Frank Geerlings (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe the latter 2 are OK if I change them to point them to the 178 article instead. The first link should probably still go. Sorry for the confusion. —Frank Geerlings (talk) 17:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, those were double redirects. It looks like you've fixed them, though. --BDD (talk) 17:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • delete "Air France Flight 107" - I can find no information (that didn't originate on Wikipedia) that AF178 was in any way connected with a flight number of "107". Thryduulf (talk) 17:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete it was created in error and has no connection and an unlikely search term for Flight 178. MilborneOne (talk) 18:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Airlines do change flight numbers, either for operational reasons or when a flight crashes.But not very often. AF107 according to FlightStatus.com is currently in flight (as I write) from Guangzhou to Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport so these are simply not the same thing. Si Trew (talk) 21:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure some aviation buffs can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe flight numbers get regularly reused. My guess is that they might "retire" some that end in tragedy, but perhaps not. --BDD (talk) 22:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not an aviation buff, but you don't need correcting. Unless a number becomes particularly associated with a specific route or specific event in the public consciousness (most often due to tragedy) then numbers chop and change whenever required or desired by the airline. Even ending in tragedy is no guarantee that the number will be forever retired - strong association of flight number and accident is primarily a US media thing (although as in many things UK usage is increasingly following American) and memories fade over time. e.g. British Airways flight 9 is presently en route from London to Bangkok, in 1982 it was a stopping flight from London to Aukland. Thryduulf (talk) 23:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Flight numbers actually are incredibly stable. Obviously airlines change routes and so on, introduce new ones and remove unprofitable things, but e.g. BA152/153 from London Heathrow to Cairo and back has had the same flight number for at least thirty years (when I travelled on it) simply because it is the law of least resistance there is no need to change it. So they tend to get changed only when a flight crashes (the airlines somehow think that people will be put off by booking a flight with the same number as the Miracle on the Hudson or whatever) or for operational reasons when routes are changed. Bus numbers are the same, they last forever. I think the 19 in London has been going for about 100 years now. They are incredibly stable. Si Trew (talk) 12:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
To correct or augment myself: British Airways used 001 and 002 always for Concorde (there and back) but have never reused those numbers, I think. I never travelled on Concorde myself – I don't use public transport. Si Trew (talk) 12:39, 19 April 2014 (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.

Unsimulated real sex[edit]

Implausible search term, mostly because of redundancy. Created within the last six months. BDD (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

  • strong keep or retarget this is getting nearly 400 hits every month, so it's clearly not an implausible thing to look for. The only question is whether the current target is the best - sexual intercourse is not inappropriate by any means, but my gut feeling is that this is a term more related to pornography so either pornography or reality pornography are worth considering as targets too. The former may be too general and the latter is quite stubby, so I'm very open to other suggestions too. Thryduulf (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
That is more hits than I expected, but a lot of readers are probably searching for Unsimulated sex, see this suggested, and get curious. --BDD (talk) 17:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
That is an argument for possibly retargetting to Unsimulated sex, not one for deletion. People following the link out of curiosity are being educated - educating people is Wikipedia's core mission. Thryduulf (talk) 20:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
More titillation than curiosity, I'd think. I could create George Washington's clown career, and it might get some hits from curious readers. How are we "educating" these readers? By letting them know that... sex exists? But as a good friend of mine is fond of saying, "You can't just make things up." --BDD (talk) 20:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh yes you can. That is why there is a redirect for Beethoven's liver, which I made up, the content was correct but the article went to AfD and I incorporated into Death of Beethoven quite rightly since it is more about his offal more generally than his liver (which according to pathologist J S Madden was "twice the normal size and covered in pea-sized nodules" and if that ain't poetry I don't know what is) – but I created the article and the content has stayed there. The fact an R is incorrect does not make it an unlikely search term, in fact one of the points of Rs I would have thought was to help people who search things wrongly to find the right article, and if it gets that many hits (I haven't checked I am taking it on trust) then all to the good. Si Trew (talk) 04:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
WP:Articles for deletion/Beethoven's liver was closed as merge, but WP:Deletion review/Log/2013 December 25 overturned that to delete. User:S Marshall recreated the redirect a day later (history), and you added Madden to Death of Ludwig van Beethoven#Autopsy and post-mortem findings around 6 weeks after that (history). Flatscan (talk) 04:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Implausible search term. "Unsimulated real sex" is not only redundant but also implies the nonsensical existence of "unsimulated false sex". Removing this redirect won't impede anyone's searching: if you type "unsimulated" in the search box you get unsimulated sex, and searching Google for "unsimulated sex" unsurprisingly returns unsimulated sex as the first result. — Scott talk 20:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)ld be.
    • People use many different methods to search and browse Wikipedia, most of them don't get search suggestions - even those using the main search bar only get them if they have javascript enabled. Google results vary by many factors, including location, version of google and personal search history, so cannot be relied upon - indeed the presence of a redirect aids google to direct users to the right place. Not that Google results for "unsimulated sex" are that relevant to the "unsimulated real sex" redirect in the first place... Thryduulf (talk) 11:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Unsimulated sex. I don't know what real artificial sex or real simulated sex would be, but if it gets that many hits it should stay. Si Trew (talk) 04:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia[edit]

Should this go to Wikipedia:Welcome instead? I think so. TheChampionMan1234 05:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete WP:XNR that seems a very unlikely thing for someone to type in. Redirect from content-space to something to do with the functioning of Wikipedia should not be stumbled upon by readers who will never edit. Any links to those pages should come though the substitution welcome templates; for readers, we already have the article Wikipedia. -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 07:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - hundreds of incoming links. Harmless and not new. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 20:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC).
  • Keep That's quite a lot of incoming links. I don't like to keep CNRs, but it's clear that this one used to be part of a formalized welcoming process. Would breaking those links cause massive harm? No, probably not, but it would probably cause some. --BDD (talk) 21:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Retarget per John Vandenberg below. This could be fixed with a bot run so no historic links would be broken (and talk page notifications not triggered). However, it's questionable whether altering the historic record in such a fashion in order to tidy the namespace would present much of a benefit. The term is unlikely to be searched for, so I don't envisage it causing any problems by continuing to exist. — Scott talk 18:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC) Changed to retarget. — Scott talk 20:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Wikipedia, which is a great introduction and has a selfref at the top to Wikipedia:About which is a good entry point for new readers and editors alike. fwiw, the majority of the incoming links are substed versions of {{Welcome}} from pre 2006. The intended recipient has long since visited the link if they wished to do so. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Retarget per John Vandenberg, Scott, and Rich Farmbrough (who didn't !vote retarget but from his valid argument I would say retarget and it was useful for him to say it). Anything that helps readers to find information is useful. Si Trew (talk) 02:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Нас Не Нагонят[edit]

Delete. This is not the title of the song. Gorobay (talk) 16:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep it is the title of the song from which it is translated, unless we have a separate article about the widely listened too Russian version, this is a good redirect. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 17:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC).
    • We do have a separate article on "Nas Ne Dogonyat". Is that what you are referring to? Gorobay (talk) 18:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
      • Yes, better perhaps to redirect there then. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 20:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC).
  • Keep It's a few characters off from the Cyrillic form given in the article, but it is a language related to the subject. No problem here. --BDD (talk) 17:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Retarget to Nas Ne Dogonyat. --BDD (talk) 15:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete With Gorobay on this one too Nedgreiner (talk) 18:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC) 18:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Nas Ne Dogonyat as a {{R from typo}} and {{R from alternate language}} -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 08:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - directs readers to the content they're looking for. No argument has been presented for deletion, nor can I imagine any. WilyD 09:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep, now THIS is an "extraordinary case" as I refer to above. LazyBastardGuy 15:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Nas Ne Dogonyat. — Scott talk 17:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
    Wait, what, it's not even spelled correctly? I missed that. Delete. Not plausible, Nyttend is right. — Scott talk 22:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete, redirects for alternative Cyrillic representations of the title is insane - one Cyrillic redirect is enough. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

  • retarget per 70.24.250.235. People are far more likely to make typo or c&p errors in foreign languages than their own, so we should be more accommodating where we can be so, such as this case. Thryduulf (talk) 17:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
    And people who are far more likely to be searching in another language at all are the ones to whom it is not foreign. This is a vanishingly small edge case in comparison. — Scott talk 16:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not a plausible typo. Most people who will be able to type this title are those who have a Cyrillic keyboard, so they'll know that two letters are wrong and that there should be just one capital letter, not three. People without a Cyrillic keyboard and without a knowledge of Russian are going to be copy/pasting the title from somewhere else, and copy/paste errors won't be responsible for several different letters being incorrect in this way. Nyttend (talk) 22:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not a plausible typo. I just bought a keyboard with Hungarian layout, because I know all the accented letters are on the right hand side but I don't touch-type in Hungarian. the missus can because she taught touch-typing in Hungarian but I have to look at the keys to find the letters with the diacritical marks. The idea an English-speaking audience will type in Cyrillic is absurd. They will go to RU:WP or wherever Their Favourite Search Engine takes them. If it is also wrong, that is compounding the felony. Si Trew (talk) 02:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Эўро[edit]

Delete. This does not seem to mean ‘euro’ in any language. It does mean ‘Évreux’ in Belarusian, but that is not a Belarusian topic. Gorobay (talk) 16:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep - redirected and categorised as per your research. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 17:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC).
  • Delete per nom. And not so fast, Rich. We can retarget if there's consensus here, but for now, that would just muddle the discussion. And anyway, a Russian-language redirect to a French commune with no apparent connection to Russian should be deleted anyway. --BDD (talk) 17:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I am on your side, people changing things under your feet. I was away for a day and hadn't even a chance to see what the original was before sticking my oar in. Although there are no hard and fast rules, changing something while it is under discussion seems harmful to me. Happy Easter everyone, and thank you all for your contributions to Wikipedia to make it better. It doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be better. Si Trew (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep This is actually related to the language Nedgreiner (talk) 18:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC) 18:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • @Scott: Explaining is a very difficult task for a blocked editor. Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Évreux then, yes. We want readers to find the content they're looking for. WilyD 09:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
    • What he said Actually, not sure. Again, I don't see the value in linking something in Russian or whatever language uses Cyrillic to something that has no connection to such a language whatsoever. But pending possible cultural connections I'll abstain from further participation here. LazyBastardGuy 15:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
    • If people are searching for Évreux in Belarusian, what they want is be:Эўро, which doesn't currently exist. I'm sure the Belarusian Wikipedia has their own equivalent of WP:FORRED, and we shouldn't be hijacking their search terms. — Scott talk 21:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:FORRED. No strong cultural ties have been provided. John Vandenberg (chat) 21:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
    What is the benefit in deleting it? Genereally we only delete very new or harmful redirects. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 03:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC).
I think it's harmful to imply to non-English speaking readers that searching in their language is an effective way of navigating the English Wikipedia. --BDD (talk) 18:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
This is what I've been trying to point out on similar recent listings. Since my use of the word "random" seemed to cause some confusion then, I'll pick another: these redirects are completely arbitrary. As you say, this is not an effective way of navigating. That would only happen if these redirects were created systematically everywhere, which of course they aren't. We already work very conscientiously to remove ambiguity in article titles; redirects like these introduce a much more subtle, insidious and difficult-to-resolve kind. It also makes us look bad if we willingly tolerate a completely haphazard and ineffective undocumented subsystem. Any foreign reader who has the bad luck to encounter and try relying on it is going to be far from impressed. — Scott talk 19:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep. I don't have a Euro note on me, but Greek is on the Euro notes although only one country of the 28 Euro nations uses the Greek alphabet has it on the notes: so that is a useful redirect. (I've often wondered how Greeks write a micrometre, since on road sings at least in Crete they use Greek letter mu to mean metre.) This is not Greek but Cyrillic, but it seems a useful incoming link. Let's assume its Belarussian: it's not that far away from the Eurozone and Euros are traded widely there. Si Trew (talk) 02:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
    And I wish people would stop changing things while they are under discussion. Si Trew (talk) 02:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. See uk:Євро, ru:Евро, bg:Евро, and be:Еўра — Ukrainian, Russian, Bulgarian, and Belarussian all call this currency something other than "Эўро". If any language calls the currency "Эўро", it's not a language in common use anywhere near the Eurozone. Nyttend (talk) 16:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I found a few links on YouTube e.g. [[9]] with that name but I am having trouble discerning which language it is. I'll ask at WP:PNT. Si Trew (talk) 21:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I've listed this at the talk for WP:PNT although that project is very active the discussion doesn't seem to be, so I am not sure we will get anywhere. My searches, I cannot distinguish what language it is and it is too short a term for the automated language finders to distinguish.
May I just restate also: it is not helpful to change things while they are being discussed. I don't know why people keep doing that, I know it is good faith but is harmful to other editors until consensus is reached, it is a fait accompli that is very difficult then to discuss. Si Trew (talk) 21:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
It's Belarusian, as mentioned above. Google Translate is pretty good at identifying languages. — Scott talk 21:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
“Эўро” does not refer the euro in that video; it refers to Euro 2012. Gorobay (talk) 22:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Oops, yes, I meant to note that as well and totally forgot to. — Scott talk 22:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Nyttend. — Scott talk 21:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Gorobay. It's Gorobay who called it as Belarussian in the first place; but other languages also use the phrase, so I wasn't sure and did a search. I thought also it was Belarussian but since it is such a short word I guess it is used elsewhere so that is why I searched. Gorobay I think has found the best target: Euro 2012. Si Trew (talk) 12:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
But it doesn’t mean ‘Euro 2012’. It also doesn’t mean ‘euro’. It only means ‘Évreux’. However, Belarusian has nothing to do with a French town, so it should not redirect there either. If other languages use the word, please elaborate. Gorobay (talk) 20:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
It certainly doesn't. In fact, the author of that video seems to be the only person using the word "Эўро" in conjunction with "2012". Who knows why, but it's clearly a completely idiosyncratic usage and should be ignored. — Scott talk 21:10, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
@Gorobay:, @Scott:, it's not a question of it being right, it is a question of what would an English-speaking audience be likely to be looking for when they search. I doubt they want to search for Évreux, which is what we would call in the UK a county town and I am sure a very nice one but unlikely to be what people are after. I think it far more likely they want to find Euro or Euro 2012, if they type it at all. How would they type it, they would have to go out of their way to type it on an English keyboard layout? And so, we then say, where would they get it from and that would be from a search and via a translation tool etc. Now, most of my searches with My Favourite Search Engine are about a Kiev football team playing in Évreux 2012, but as far as I can tell there was not a match between FC Dynamo Kyiv or any other Kiev team with Évreax in 2012 or any kind of competition there, and they are Ukranian not Belarussian (at least, at the moment!). So this would seem to me a mistranslation. Do we delete it, or do we retarget it, that is the question. Si Trew (talk) 06:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
...
You've now gone completely off the beaten track and into the realm of bizarre conjecture based on the title of one YouTube video. To borrow a phrase, the above isn't right; it isn't even wrong. — Scott talk 14:28, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
@Scott:, the problem is that at least one well-known search engine tends to list Wikipedia articles very prominently so that is where it gets into the realms of the bizarre, that I end up looking up my own – erm – contributions (ahem) –) instead of actually trying to find out other information about it from other sites. I couldn' find anything reliable about this, so perhaps it should go delete. That being said, I go via the Hungarian version of that search tool which often gives me different results from what you probably get: so you might do better. I still don't see that Évreux is a decent target. Si Trew (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
It demonstrably is a word in Belarusian. But we don't have a pressing need to offer Belarusian names for things that aren't particularly related to Belarus; that's the principle of WP:FORRED. Why not just vote delete? — Scott talk 22:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Contact (1997 film)[edit]

Redirect created from page move to Contact (1997 US film), allegedly to disambiguate from The Contact (1997 South Korean film). Titles are different, so no disambig needed ("Contact" vs "The Contact"). uKER (talk) 15:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I would be fine with moving the US film to this title, but if we're going to treat this term as ambiguous, it should go to a dab. --BDD (talk) 17:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm opposed to this. Doing this would cause possible confusion on the disambiguation page. Also, as far as I know, I did not think it was standard practice to try to determine a primary topic for a term that has a disambiguator. (If someone can prove me wrong with an example, please do; I would at least like to know if this has been done before.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Γαμέτης[edit]

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. --BDD (talk) 15:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete. Not especially Greek. Gorobay (talk) 15:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per Gorobay. Si Trew (talk) 03:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete No particular ties to Greek, WP:NOT a translation dictionary -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 23:02, 20 April 2014 (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.

Αντινομος[edit]

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. --BDD (talk) 15:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete. This does not appear to be a real Greek word, and even if it were, antinomianism is not particularly Greek. Gorobay (talk) 15:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete. My Favourite Search Engine brought up a couple of Greek songs on YouTube, this article at third, and then oddlyh a translation site that (not My Favourite Search Engine dot translate) that thought it was Hebrew, very oddly since patently it is not Hebrew. If anything we could redirect it to Antimony but I don't see the point, that would be misleading. Si Trew (talk) 03:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete No particular ties to Greek, being an Protestant term is also not related to Greek Orthodox. WP:NOT a translation dictionary -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 23:03, 20 April 2014 (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.

Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 23#Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius

Sprint finish[edit]

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 retarget to Racing#Sprint finish. --BDD (talk) 15:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Confusing redirect. "Sprint finish" usually refers to sprinting at the end of a long-distance race, whereas this redirects to an article on short-distance running. LukeSurl t c 10:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Interesting case. "Spring (running)" could just as easily refer to sprinting (i.e., the act) as "the" sprint (i.e., the type of competition), but the article is on the latter. If we had an article on the former, it would be a good place to target, and a logical place to discuss sprint finishes. But they aren't only used in running either. It seems like we should be able to find a place to retarget, but I'm leaning delete. --BDD (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • This is my fault. I intended to re-frame the sprint (running) article as one covering not just sprint races, but sprint running in general. I've started this change now. Still, sprint finishes are present in sprint cycling, speed skating etc. I think this should be redirected to sprint (disambiguation). SFB 19:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • CommentDelete. Seems a good call from Sillyfolkboy. I have been grumbling lately about things changing fast under your feet, but I didn't expect it to get this literal. Si Trew (talk) 03:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. "sprint finish" is frequently used to refer to the end of a cycling stage, or the end of a cross-country skiing race. -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 05:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Given the use in different contexts I suspect there is the potential for an article about this, and nowhere I can find to sensibly redirect to in the meanwhile. Thryduulf (talk) 13:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Sillyfolkboy. — This, that and the other (talk) 02:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Sillyfolkboy. John Maynard Keynes once said when challenged over some point said "When the facts change I change my mind. What do you do?" [10] Si Trew (talk) 21:38, 18 April 2014 (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.

April 14[edit]

Bus routes in Hertfordshire[edit]

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. --BDD (talk) 17:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Unneeded redirect, Nothing about bus routes are in the Hertfordshire article, And to be honest other than bus enthusiasts no one would even search for the above search term. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 21:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per Davey2010. My elder brother was actually a bus driver in Hertfordshire and I grew up there but this is not notable. My brother drove buses for about I dunno fifteen years in Herts and sometimes I would go out on a Sunday doing route learning with him on a new route, me navigating with him driving. But I think even he, who bought and restored a old one off the company, restored Almex machines, collected roller blinds and changed his numberplate to be that of a scrapped Leyland Atlantean, would find this redirect ridiculous. The 304 from Hitchin to St Albans is a nice route to see the countryside, I used to like taking that each morning to work, but the 734 is a pain, theoretically shorter but practically longer. Neither is mentioned at the target, and if it redirects anywhere, it is probably best to take it to London Country Bus Services or Sovereign Bus or Arriva The Shires, but it is better to delete it, I think. Si Trew (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to leave it as it stands but Almex machines are the old-fashioned manual bus conductor's machines. Si Trew (talk) 22:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per previous consensus to delete redirects with similar names. @Davey2010: Do you recall what dates (I think it was in 2013) that these discussions happened? I know that you had participated in them; I was the one who grouped them all together. Steel1943 (talk) 21:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
@Steel1943: - Yep it was definitely 2013, I think between March-June, I can't recall the grouping as the AFD'ing went slightly mad but yeah was definitely 2013, -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 21:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
@Davey2010: I found the discussion: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 April 4#List of bus routes in Cambridgeshire. Okay, they're not named completely the same, but the reasoning is the same for why the nominated redirect should be deleted: this redirect's name is very misleading. Steel1943 (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Bloody hell good find!, All in all imo a useless, misleading and most definiately unneeded redirect. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Agree. There is an article (not redirect) for Stagecoach bus route X5, which is at the DAB at X5, but I add this here not to disagree but to show the pattern. This runs through four counties, and has a substantial article (it is essentially a replacement for the old Varsity line) and has won trade awards etc and is notable. But any old bus route is not notable. If anything it should be called "List of bus routes in Xshire" anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talkcontribs) 04:56, 17 April 2014
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.

Template:WikiProject Public Policy[edit]

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. Involved close given the backlog and unanimous consensus after a full listing period. --BDD (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

This is a misleading redirect; fortunately, it has no uses. Education and Public policy are very distinct topics, even if they may have some overlap. Also, there's never been a Wikipedia:WikiProject Public Policy as far as I can tell. No objections to retargeting to Template:WikiProject United States Public Policy, but that's not the course I'd recommend. BDD (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Do not redirect to the US project, as it does not deal with non-US topics. (As an unrecommeded option, it could redirect to WikiProject Politics) -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 21:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Public policy is far broader than just the policy on education. Si Trew (talk) 22:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete, or Redirect to Template:WikiProject United States Public Policy and hope that the WikiProject expands to include non-U.S. public policy. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment it should be expanded first. If it isn't expanded prior to retargeting, then it is misleading. I see no notice on the project talk page asking the project to expand its scope, so this "hope" is misplaced, as there's not even an indication that the project should expand. -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete, though I could see a retarget to either the Politics or US Public Policy projects. Since it is ambiguous in that sense, perhaps deletion is the best option. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 06:12, 17 April 2014 (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.

Thomas K. Turnage[edit]

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. --BDD (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete. WP:RFD#DELETE. "If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject, it is better that the target article contain a redlink than a redirect back to itself." This is a notable person, one of the last Administrator of Veterans Affairs in the U.S. government, but it's a redirect to his wife, an actress. Until I figured out that Turnage was married to Adams, I thought it was vandalism or a completely different person with the same name. 149.160.173.195 (talk) 18:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete: 149' is right on the money with the policy here. Turnage is best left a redlink until someone creates an article about him. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 06:11, 17 April 2014 (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.

Wikipedia:Involuntary health consequences[edit]

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. Involved closed given the backlog, with unanimous consensus after a full listing period, and with G7 eligibility. --BDD (talk) 17:14, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

While I'm not aware of a specific policy regarding such cross-namespace redirects, the case of the Yogurt Rule (see RfDs 1 and 2) suggests that they're misleading in that they imply stronger community consensus for an idea than actually exists. Like the Yogurt Rule, this one was created in W-space but returned to userspace since it was considered too much of a minority view. And for what it's worth, this userspace essay seems largely abandoned, its author inactive. --BDD (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The redirect is unnecessary. You have accurately described the situation. I am in the minority, but years later, the issue continues to receive mention by people other than me. I still maintain that the mission of Wikipedia is not served by compromising the usefulness of information. The first encyclopedist, Denis Diderot, would not approve of an encyclopedia that does not preserve USEFUL information for the next generation. Sadly, it would appear that this point of view was impossible to understand or acknowledge 4 years ago by people in the Open Source / Open Content Community. Anyway, thank you for your consideration. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 18:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment. As apposition, what would "voluntary health consequences" be? If we have one, we should have the other.
    I smoke, for example, because I enjoy it, although I know it harms my health and I know it in six different languages: Rauchen gefardhat das gesundheit, fumer tue, roken is dodelik, a donhányzás halaált okzalt, Smoking kills, and so on. I know what it says on the back of the packet and I know that it costs me money – to deliberately ruin my health is a voluntary health conseuquence. Actually smokers tend to overestimate their risk of shortened life expectancy from smoking (it is about seven years and in surveys they guess about eleven) and insurance companies actually pay more to smokers when paying out on endowments or annuities on their life assurance on the assumption they'll die earlier (it is called the Smokers' Premium in the UK, I don't know about elsewhere, but a case was brought to court in the UK with the claimant, an habitual smoker, being refused his smoker's premium because he gave up for a couple of years: the claimant won. It was reported in the legal reports in The Times but I doubt I could find it). Si Trew (talk) 23:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete very failed policy proposal; doesnt need a WP: shortcut. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • No objection to deletion. –xenotalk 01:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete all; redirect creator agreed above anyway. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 06:09, 17 April 2014 (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.

C: category shortcuts[edit]

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 moot. Recommendations taken forward before C: implementation makes it impossible. — Scott talk 18:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

These category shortcuts were discussed here in February, and that discussion closed with a lack of consensus for any change, due to the unresolved status of the RfC on Meta about making c: an interwiki prefix for Commons. As that has now concluded with a demonstrable consensus for implementation, which will add titles beginning with "C:" to the list of unusable titles, these redirects can be discussed with clarity. I'll open a separate discussion for "C:" redirects to articles. — Scott talk 10:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

C: shortcuts where matching CAT: shortcuts exist

Recommend deleting all.

C: shortcuts without matching CAT: shortcuts

Recommend renaming each to CAT:x.

Obviously, CAT:OMMONS doesn't exist. However, CAT:COMMONS does. Recommend deleting.

Inconsistent cases

CAT:FUR exists already, but redirects to Category:Non-free content review requested. Recommend renaming to CAT:NFT or something more appropriate.

Content categories

No evidence of on-project usage, so recommend deleting.

  • Keep C:CSD - which gets a lot of use, and probably C:ATT, which is important, unless there's any evidence they actually conflict with something. I have no real opinion about the rest, I think, as they seem no more valuable to me than interwiki links to Commons. WilyD 10:42, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I think you've misunderstood - once the c: interwiki prefix goes live, all titles beginning with "C:" will become unusable. This RfD is a formality - either we dispose of these shortcuts now, or they get scooped up by cleanupTitles.php and moved to "Broken/whatever" first, which is more of a pain to deal with. There's no real option of keeping any of them. — Scott talk 12:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Concur with the recommended implementation plan. IMO Category:Non-free use rationale templates should start with the shortcut CAT:NFURT, and CAT:FUR should also be renamed to CAT:NFCR (non free content review), but that is a separate issue. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
    • That was actually my first thought as well. If no other suggestions demonstrate consensus, could the closer of this debate please take this as support for CAT:NFURT. — Scott talk 15:37, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Formatting request: Can someone remove the quotes? Makes it illegible for me. There are better ways to show a copypaste. -DePiep (talk) 09:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
    • What do you mean "illegible"? And it's not a copy and paste, by the way, at all. — Scott talk 11:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Ornamental not descriptional. Big font takes more rows (while being a list). If it's not a quote/cp, that's a very good reason not to use {{quote}} :-) -DePiep (talk) 11:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • About alternatives (C: and CAT:). As was listed in February, all C:X-to-Category:X redirects already have a parallel redirect named CAT:X.
One exception: C:OMMONS. For me, that one can be deleted without alternavtive. (In other words, deserves Deletion anyway without creating CAT:COMMON Red XN). -DePiep (talk) 09:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Actually there are a number of exceptions, and they're all detailed above. — Scott talk 11:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
That's the layout effect. -DePiep (talk) 11:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I struck. Did not/could not follow the details enough. -DePiep (talk) 12:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Given the comment from This, that and the other here - I suggest to just go ahead and add c: to the interwiki map for now. - will anyone object if I get on with deleting/moving these shortcuts in the fashion I proposed above? Where there are incoming links, I'll fix them as appropriate. — Scott talk 19:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Okay, I'm just going to get on with it. — Scott talk 17:47, 15 April 2014 (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.

Wikipedia:Pseudonym[edit]

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 retarget to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Nicknames, pen names, stage names, cognomens. After a month of discussion, such as it was, I think we're all in agreement here. --BDD (talk) 17:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Also redirect Wikipedia:PSEUDONYM and Wikipedia:Nickname to Wikipedia:NICKNAME. The terms "pseudonym" and "nickname" are more likely to be used in contexts where names in biographical articles are discussed, rather than the Wikipedia username policy. Anonimski (talk) 09:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Still confused. WP:PSEUDONYM doesn't exist, so there is no redirect for discussion. If you want it, create it. Si Trew (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2014 (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.

Requests for adminship[edit]

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 retargeted to Administrators (Wikipedia)#Requests for adminship. The Bushranger One ping only 02:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:CNR: "Currently, the general consensus seems to be that newly created cross-namespace redirects from the main (article) namespace to the Wikipedia (project) namespace should be deleted." 6an6sh6 03:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I noticed after nominating that it used to point to Administrator (Wikipedia)#Requests for adminship, but was recently changed by someone else. 6an6sh6 04:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - confusion is possible. My opinion is that we should not have any links for Wikipedia administration articles.Lighthouse01 (talk) 17:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per 70.50. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - confusion is possible, yes that is true but people who are looking for the requests for adminship page (for instance, to see what it is) it is a much better redirect than Administrator (Wikipedia)#Requests for adminship. Fremantle99 (talk) 06:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Administrator (Wikipedia)#Requests for adminship. I don't see the need for deletion when we have a viable target; I don't see the need for a CNR when we have a viable mainspace target. --BDD (talk) 18:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per 70.50. — Scott talk 10:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget per BDD; viable target, and while adminship is not a purely Wikipedia pursuit, the primary use of the phrase "request for adminship" appears to be in reference to the Wikipedia process. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 05:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:13, 14 April 2014 (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.

BBC English[edit]

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 dabify. --BDD (talk) 17:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

It redirects to Received Pronunciation yet in the lead of that article it specifically says, not to be confused with "BBC English" Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 15:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It also says Received Pronunciation (RP) is the standard accent of Standard English in England... It is important not to confuse the notion of Received Pronunciation – a standard accent – with the standard variety of the English language used in England that is given names such as "Standard English", "the Queen's English", "Oxford English" or "BBC English". That suggests that Standard English ought to contain some discussion of "BBC English" (it doesn't at present) and that this redirect should point there instead. So there's a content issue that needs to be fixed first. — Scott talk 15:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment. Orwell called it "BBC English" in an essay about how to not sound so stifled on the radio. I can't remember the name of the essay offhand, it might be Poetry and the English Language, but he realised that the limitations of technology at that time (microphones, speakers and so on) meant one had to speak very clearly and in a rather stilted fashion were it to come across at all. (And remember Orwell worked for the BBC from 1942 to 1944). I can dig this out from the Essays which I have here now but surely that would be RS? He specifically compared against Received Pronuniation. Si Trew (talk) 23:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate Convert to disambiguation page. Apparently, there are at least two topics that can be referred to as "BBC English", considering that there is currently a hatnote on Received Pronunciation that directs the reader to BBC English Regions, and even with the current target of the redirect being in question, there are at least two topics and I don't see any of them (or any others that are being questioned as part of this discussion) being the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. However, if it is decided that the current target is bad, and there are no other options (besides BBC English Regions), then my vote would be (weak) retarget to BBC English Regions solely on technicalities. Steel1943 (talk) 23:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Upon further investigation, it seems that the "BBC English" in Received Pronunciation refers to the topic BBC Learning English. After finding that out, I can am state with 100% certainty that the wording in Received Pronunciation that the explanation of "BBC English" in the lead is very misleading and confusing. In fact, at this point, I have struck out my "weak" vote; I'm fully endorsing disambiguation, but not including any redirects to Received Pronunciation on the page at all. Steel1943 (talk) 00:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
You want to apply WP:DAB to a redirect? What new title for this redirect do you suggest? -DePiep (talk) 02:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
No new title. The title would still be "BBC English", and would have at least BBC Learning English and BBC English Regions listed. Having Received Pronunciation added to list would be determined by this discussion. But, then again, I don't know if BBC English Regions is ever specifically referred to as "BBC English", so it may not work due to being a partial title match (however, BBC Learning English is referred to as "BBC English" as stated in its article.) So, if not turning this title into a disambiguation page would not be an option, BBC English may just simply need to be retargeted to BBC Learning English. Steel1943 (talk) 03:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Got it. Turn this redirect page (content) into a full dab page, with two or three targets listed there. No need to change the name into BBC English (disambiguation). Including the third page (as you question) can be done and changed outside of this TfD. -DePiep (talk) 09:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • ...and now, I'm even more confused. I found this line in The Noose (TV series)#B. B. See: ...And speaks with a received pronunciation accent (better known as BBC English). Thanks to this sentence, I am now beyond baffled, and at this point, trying to figure out where the bad information started, what is the bad information, and how to fix it. Steel1943 (talk) 00:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Convert to dab page: I don't think there's a primary topic for this phrase. It could be someone talking about Received pronunciation, BBC Learning English, BBC English Regions, or a number of other topics. I don't support a delete because it's pretty clear that this is a plausible redirect for BBC Learning English. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 04:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Convert to dab page, same name. Per Scott Steel1943. Steel's confusion can be solved after that (including article improvements), not part of RfD. -DePiep (talk) 10:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC) corrected editors name -DePiep (talk) 06:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Convert to DAB per DePiep. BBC English used to be used as a synonym for Received Pronunciation, and was used in the thirties and forties partly because everyone working at the BBC was upper-middle-class and partly because it was the best way to convey English over primitive microphones and loudspeakers (see for example Orwell's essay "Poetry and the Microphone"). . Then, in the seventies, the BBC put in a deliberate policy of using regional accents – which means that "BBC English" doesn't really mean anything except as a historical term. For god's sake, the BBC just moved their whole central TV production from BBC Television Centre to Salford Quays and I studied in Manchester and my accent is a variant of Mancunian and Cockney. On the BBC World Service the presenters, I am not sure if they literally have a metronome but pace themselves slower than on the British radio channels so that firstly those who do not speak English as a first language can understand them, and secondly so that if the radio reception is very poor it can still be understood. But that does not come from Bush House any more, that is now from Broadasting House, and people like Neil Sleat who has a quite deep voice but extremely clear, which had many complaints when he first started but has grown to be loved, broadcast both on Radio 4 and on the World Service as announcers. So there is no such thing as BBC English any more. Si Trew (talk) 14:22, 15 April 2014 (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.

Διάλυσις[edit]

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. --BDD (talk) 17:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete. Not especially Greek. Gorobay (talk) 14:28, 14 April 2014 (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.

Ασβός[edit]

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. --BDD (talk) 17:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete. Not especially Greek. Gorobay (talk) 14:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Si Trew (talk) 06:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete No particular ties to Greek, this is not exclusively or nearly so found only in Greece. WP:NOT a translation dictionary -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 23:05, 20 April 2014 (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.

Αλλος[edit]

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. --BDD (talk) 17:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete. Allo- is found in many English words derived from Greek. There is no reason to redirect it here over the many other words incorporating that morpheme. Gorobay (talk) 13:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment. I note Allo- redirects to Emic unit, which is described as things like a morpheme, grapheme or phoneme. I am not sure whether that is a good target, either, but would seem the obvious one if any. Si Trew (talk) 06:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete Generic topic, apparently incorrect translation -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 23:05, 20 April 2014 (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.

Αρκτικός Κύκλος[edit]

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. --BDD (talk) 17:45, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete. Neither Deception Point nor the Arctic circle is especially related to Greek. Gorobay (talk) 13:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete. If this Greek phrase were to be redirected anywhere it would have to be Arctic circle (per WP:ASTONISH), but per WP:FORRED this is not really useful. It might be different if the Greek phrase were somehow prominent within the novel but our article indicates no connection at all. Thryduulf (talk) 14:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete per nom. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete No particular ties to Greek, apparently incorrect translation ; English language novel about Canada -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 23:07, 20 April 2014 (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.

Law 18[edit]

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. --BDD (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect redirect. While association football has numbered Laws, there are only 17 of them. It is law 16 that covers Goal kicks. LukeSurl t c 11:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete per LukeSurl. Though not a great follower of football (though the match between Barcelona and Atletico Madrid last week was great to watch) soccer/association football is notable for having very few laws compared to other sports. This is simply incorrect (assuming LukeSurl is correct, I don't have a rule book on me) and it could just as well go to many other sports that do have a Rule 18. Delete it. Si Trew (talk) 12:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete. I almost certainly watch even less football than Si Trew, but the laws of the game are available on the FIFA website at [11], and LukeSurl's nomination is correct in both its points. Google seems to show that there are only three significant uses: (1) in the context of Association Football it seems to be used to mean "referees should use common sense", but this is an informal, specific usage that should not be in the common sense article as too specialised; it wouldn't be implausible pointed at Laws of the Game (association football) if there was anything there specifically referencing a "Law 18" but the single sentence presently there, "Referees are expected to use their judgement and common sense in applying the laws." is not sufficient to support a redirect though. (2) Title 18 of the United States Code (18 USC), but that is not a single law and is not referred to as "Law 18" (the uses are of the form "xxx law (18 USC...)" and so I wouldn't support that as a redirect. (3) Cricket does have a Law 18, "Scoring runs" and so I wouldn't object to retargetting this to Laws of cricket#Scoring and winning or Run (cricket)#Rules but I don't see it as really necessary. Thryduulf (talk) 15:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I think it would be unwise to retarget it to cricket. Cricket has a very complicated rule book built up over the years by the Marylebone Cricket Club (Lord's). Because I am very bad at sports I was left to do the scoring, and it's the hardest job you have to do double-entry bookkeeping essentially on the fly from a hundred yards away with an umpire who sends tiny hand signals and can't count and puts seven runs in an over. On the wireless when someone gets out for a duck (dismissed without without scoring any runs) they say "that's made it easy for the scorer" when it is actually a right sod for the scorer cos you have to wait until you know who's coming in for the next innings so you can put it in the book and so on, who went off and mark that out and where are we, it is far harder than sitting in the pavilion and coming out once in a blue moon to play the game. Same with soccer really because I am so useless at sports "we'll put you in goal". Yeah thanks then you can blame me for every one I let through, can't I be left back: especially, left back in the changing room. Si Trew (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't even know what I was thinking all those years ago when I made this. Law 16 is what covers goal kicks. Sorry for the inconvenience. --Aristeo (talk) 20:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Looks like the creator is okay with deletion as well.--Lenticel (talk) 05:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Law 1-15 do not exist either. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - these kind of redirects are so vague, and can apply to so many different things, that they serve no purpose. GiantSnowman 11:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. To add to the confusion, what about Nineteenth hole in apposition, i.e. the golf clubhouse? Si Trew (talk) 06:51, 20 April 2014 (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.

AMC-2[edit]

The name of the ship is AMc-2, not AMC-2. There is another article at AMC-2 (satellite) with the same name so if this could be deleted, the article could be moved to this name. No use of a dab page as because of just two links. A hatnote could be used instead . Zince34' 09:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment. This is a question of whether the satellite or ship is the primary topic for "AMC-2" (with that capitalisation). If it is the ship, then the current situation is correct and a hatnote at the ship's article should be added. If it is the satellite then that article should be moved over this redirect. The satellite's article should retain it's hatnote in either scenario. The question though should I think be asked at WP:RM rather than here. Thryduulf (talk) 11:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Add both at DAB. There's a DAB at AMC that lists AMC 34 and AMC 35 and AMC-3 and AMC-18 and of course lots of other things. AMC-2 (satellite) is not listed there, neither is AMC-2 nor USS Magpie (AMc-2). I am not suggesting that is not the correct title for the ship, but what will an intelligent but ignorant reader search for? In my opinion, to disambiguate by literally one bit, the smallest possible amount of change one could possibly make in information theory, is unlikely for most people coming to Wikipedia: the search engine does not distinguish on case. AMc-2 is also a redirect to the same target, USS Magpie (AMc-2). Si Trew (talk) 13:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm a liar, it hasn't: as you see from the redlink. But that is the point: since the search engine doesn't distinguish, it took me straight to the R anyway which is why I thought it had. Si Trew (talk) 13:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete, and move AMC-2 (satellite) there. Nothing wrong with its current hatnote referring to the ship, though. --BDD (talk) 17:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete to make way for a move of AMC-2 (satellite), which is a clear case of WP:NATURAL/WP:DIFFCAPS and as such should be handled under G6. The current redirect is based on an incorrect capitalisation of an obscure alternative designation of a ship which is fairly obscure anyway. While I appreciate Simon's point that it may be difficult to differentiate AMC-2 and AMc-2 in a search, a) the search was only redirected because AMc-2 does not exist, b) it is at odds with wider consensus on the issue and c) I would contend that anyone looking for the ship is far, far more likely to search for "USS Magpie" than "AM(C/c)-2". --W. D. Graham 20:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Apology There is already a hatnote at the AMC-2 Satellite, which I did not notice. Sorry for the misinformation. Zince34' 08:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:WPCM[edit]

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. --BDD (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

'WP:CM' is the abbreviation of Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music, and has been since 2005. The standard convention, and common sense, is for the WikiProject talk template to use the same abbreviation. I recommend this template shortcut is retargeted to Template:WikiProject Classical music. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Weak keep - Please note that WP:WPCM redirects to Wikipedia:Christian music, and that {{wpcm}} was closed as keep on April 5, 2014. Also, see my response at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_14#Template:Wprg. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
    Sadly nobody in that discussion raised conflicts with other wikiprojects. Thank you for finding another conflict 'WPCM'. Note that their project tag template has the shortcut is {{CCM}} which lines up with their other project shortcut WP:CCM. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Point to {{WikiProject Classical music}} for now, which has the WP:CM shortcut, and is active (whereas the Christian Music project is noted to be semi-active). However, I believe there needs to be a broader discussion of where the WP:CM/CM/WPCM shortcuts need to point. Also oppose deletion on the grounds that once the tangle of shortcuts is resolved, there will be no real risk of confusion. Finally, I renew my request that a community-wide discussion be started addressing the propriety of short, possibly ambiguous template redirects for WikiProject templates (i.e., whether there need to be naming/capitalization standards, to what standard ambiguity in WikiProject template redirects need conform, and moreover which WikiProject should prevail in conflicts over long-extant shortcuts). The fact that the discussion over {{Wpcm}} closed as keep when there was this conflict waiting in the wings is exactly why we shouldn't be deciding these one-by-one. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 03:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
    I've started that conversation over at Wikipedia talk:Shortcut#Template shortcuts. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Note - I have just notified several individuals who have taken part in previous RfDs. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

  • delete as confusing, with multiple meanings for CM (Classical, Country, or Christian). Frietjes (talk) 22:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment "CM" is a country code for Cameroon .cm[12] -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 21:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm going to maintain my stance that this should point to the Classical Music project banner either way to maintain consistency with WP:CM. If, however, that shortcut should point to Wikipedia:WikiProject Cameroon, then I would support changing the target of this redirect to the Cameroon project's banner (presently {{AfricaProject|Cameroon=yes}}). —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 21:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
    • That WikiProject has yet to become active - if it was active, and I hope it does soon, I would recommend that they take over any relevant shortcuts currently using 'CM'. However by then we might have a very different technology layer to play with. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete, too many meanings for CM, including Cameroon. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • 'Delete per Plastikspork. Let the search engine deal with it. It has got slightly better. Si Trew (talk) 13:24, 19 April 2014 (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.

Template:Wprb[edit]

And again. See also ongoing discussion of the redirects Template:R&B and Template:R&b. — Scott talk 00:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Nothing strong found. Are you sure your linked points 2, 4, 5 are valid here? -DePiep (talk) 21:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Leaning delete there is already {{WPRB}} pointing at this target. I much prefer that we keep shortcuts as only upper case, unless there is some context that means people will naturally presume they should use lower case. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep as a lowercase shortcut variant of {{WPRB}}. I respectfully disagree with John that we should have one or the other; templates are case sensitive, and I think we should err on the side of convenience for our editors (someone created this to save time, and I'm fine with erring on the side of believing that person) unless and until the MediaWiki software allows otherwise (as it has for caps variants entered in the search bar). I'll note that we don't go out deleting our caps variant redirects that preexisted that change. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 03:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
    • While I still think my prior rationale is the correct one, I recognize that there is an emerging consensus (both in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Shortcut and in the recent RfDs concerning these redirects) that case variants of WikiProject banner template redirects should not be kept. Thus, Weak delete. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 13:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Procedural close please for as long as the other discussion is open. -08:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DePiep (talkcontribs)
  • Delete per JV, the SHORTCUT should be allcaps. -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 09:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • delete per 70.24 and JV. Frietjes (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete, better to just keep the uppercase version. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per Mendaliv. No evidence of harm. --BDD (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Harm is. Who is expected to know or recognise that "Wp" is a WIkiProject, we otherwise always shortcut to "WP"? -DePiep (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I might be sympathetic to that argument if we were talking about mainspace, but anyone who applies WikiProject tags probably knows what "WP" means, and that capitalization often doesn't matter here. --BDD (talk) 16:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - If one does not use the redirect themselves, it will not take up mental bandwidth. If the redirect with all capital letters points to one location, why would we want the redirect with all small letters to potentially point to something else? If we delete this, then will we need to delete {{songs}} and {{albums}} as well? Also, as of late, I have refrained from creating WikiProject redirects, and I plan to comply with the decision to be made at Wikipedia_talk:Shortcut#Template_shortcuts. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:Wpcw[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 23#Template:Wpcw

Template:Wpjz[edit]

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. --BDD (talk) 17:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

And again; apparently created to replace Template:Jz which was deleted here two weeks ago. Note that the author of this template also created {{Wpjazz}}. — Scott talk 00:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Why the strong? And how do your links #2, 3, 4 and 5 (out off 5) apply to this nomination? -DePiep (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Reply - Whichever parts of the statement make sense with "wpjz" apply, and I am not sure how to make that any clearer. --Jax 0677 (talk) 04:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Reply - Template {{WPJAZZ}} is good, but {{wpjz}} is better, as it is shorter. If there is a better use, I'd love to hear it, otherwise, my position stands. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: It's not a matter of one or the other. There is nothing wrong with both. The redirect is there, it exists. Performance arguments are not relevant (see also: here). In short, there is literally zero benefit to deleting this particular redirect. As I state above in the {{WPCW}} RfD, the main difference between this and the now-deleted Jz template is that the consensus in the prior RfD was more aimed at the lack of any signifier that it was a WikiProject banner versus an articlespace template. I see no chance of confusion here either. Jz is an uncommon combination of letters (at least in English). I simply see no reason to believe that there is confusion with some other WikiProject (unless maybe Jay-Z has a project, but even then I would disagree that deletion is the preferred outcome). —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 03:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete {{WPJZ}} already exists, and SHORTCUTs should use allcaps. This is a shortcut to a tempalte. -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 09:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per 70.24 finding {{WPJZ}}, where I didnt, because it was a double redirect. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • delete per 70.24. Frietjes (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete I find these kind of redirects not useful. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete, too many meanings for JZ. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per Plastikspork and nom Scott. Could just as well be a search for Jersey or Jizz or Juventas or javelin or whatever; it is too vague and on a QWERTY the Z is right next to the shift key and easy to mistype. Our task here at RfD is to direct people to the information they want to find, and this gets in the way. Si Trew (talk) 13:28, 19 April 2014 (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.

Template:Wpcl[edit]

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. --BDD (talk) 17:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Yet again. "Wpfk", what even is that? — Scott talk 00:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Reply - Apologies, that is my mistake. I tried to correct my comment, but my internet has been going haywire tonight. I was going to say that maybe {{wpfk}} should redirect to {{WPRB}}, just like {{wprk}} redirects to {{WPROCK}}. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Wpcl, Retarget Wpfk to {{WikiProject R&B and Soul Music}} (funk is within that project's scope). Delete neither. The nominator makes no cogent argument for deletion here (unless the intent is to incorporate some other deletion rationale by reference). If so, I argue that the "WP" signifier makes it clear that this points to a WikiProject banner; thus many if not most of the prior RfDs that closed in delete referenced by Scott above are not relevant (as most of those had to do with shortcuts lacking the "WP" signifier). In short, there is no chance of confusion. Moreover, keeping Wpfk rather than replacing it with WPRB may be preferable in case funk music spins out into its own project or task force within the R&B project. It would make reassigning the affected articles virtually instantaneous. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 03:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Retarget Wpcl to {{WikiProject Chile}} per the discovery of 70' below. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 16:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Retarget Wpfk to {{WikiProject South America|Falkland Islands=1}} per Frietjes' point below, which I think can be done (i.e., it works as the South America project but with the Falkland Islands workgroup flag automatically tripped). This would be useful in case the South America project ever spins off the Falkland Islands workgroup into its own project (makes for rapid retagging). —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 02:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. "CL" is a country-code for Chile, which has its own {{WikiProject Chile}} -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 09:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • delete, confusing since CL is Chile, and FK is the Falkland Islands. Frietjes (talk) 22:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • delete or retarget both. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete all and not retarget. I do not understand why are we trying to create more and more redirects with name that are difficult to remember. WikiProject Classical music exists for years and till now I have not seen anyone complaining of having to type too much to add a banner. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete as clutter and confusing. Jax seems just to be creating such redirects for any two letter combination that he can come up with which may or may not make sense, going beyond the point of usefulness. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:14, 18 April 2014 (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.
  • In case you were wondering, each of these had one transclusion when they were deleted. Both were on templates for folk bands (i.e., Template:WikiProject Roots music), not funk or classical. While some of these redirects seem harmless or helpful, I think that in this case, those who argued they were confusing have been vindicated. --BDD (talk) 17:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:Wprok[edit]

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. --BDD (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

As below. Note, there's already a {{WPRock}} shortcut, and even {{wprk}} and even even {{wpr}}, which latter both survived an RfD in February. There's a long name and two varieties of abbreviated shortcut; this is unnecessary badly-named clutter. — Scott talk 00:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Further note. {{Wrok}} added to nomination following suggestion by Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars below. — Scott talk 14:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - See my response at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_14#Template:Wprg. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong delete ROK is South Korea, and ROC is Republic of a lot of other counties. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget Wprok to {{WikiProject Korea}}, Delete Wproc (hopelessly ambiguous), Retarget Rok to {{Korea topics}}. Fairly straightforward. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 03:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
    • And delete Wrok; I'm becoming more and more convinced that WikiProject banner templates should generally have the "WP" prefix. "Wrok" is just an uncased variant of WROK, which itself more sensibly refers to a radio station with those call letters (though I don't think any of the WROK stations are big enough to merit their own nav templates). Anyway, while I don't think banner redirects (or project shortcuts for that matter) need to intrinsically have meaning, I think there's enough of a consensus emerging at Wikipedia talk:Shortcut#Template shortcuts that we should generally have the WP prefix with template shortcuts of this length. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 15:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per JV. South Korea (ROK) and Taiwan (ROC). Further All Wikiprojects should use "WP"/"WPP" prefixes instead of usurping content-space usability. -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 09:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • delete as confusing per John Vandenberg, since ROK is South Korea and ROC is Taiwan. Frietjes (talk) 22:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete all per above. I guess {{WP Rock}}, {{wprk}}, {{wpr}}, among others, aren't enough. Each project tagging template doesn't need 100 redirects created by a single user without verification that each one will actually be useful. Another one that should be nominated is {{Wrok}}. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
    Added. — Scott talk 14:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete all I do not understand why are we trying to create more and more redirects with name that are difficult to remember. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete all of them, simply confusing with multiple meanings for these abbreviations. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete all as too confusing!. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:20, 18 April 2014 (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.

Template:Wprg[edit]

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. --BDD (talk) 17:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Another inconsistently-named musical template redirect made by Jax 0677. This should be deleted for the same reasons as the numerous ones at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 27 were. — Scott talk 00:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep - "Rg" are two letters in the word "reggae". This RfD is extremely similar to the 2013 RfD about Template:Cop and the 2014 RfD about Template:wprk ("R" and "K" are two letters in the word "rock"), which I am incorporating by reference for the sake of brevity. There are several templates like this, such as {{Tb}} which is not about tuburculosis, {{pot}} which is not about cannabis, {{hat}} which is not about headwear, etc. WP:R#D8 does not apply as this is not an article space redirect. WP:R#D2 does not apply as confusion is less likely to occur in other name spaces.
  1. "Unless a WikiProject [or anyone else, for that matter] has actually expressed interest in usurping [these redirects], I don't see [them] doing any harm." To date, no other use for {{wprg}} has been suggested at all. Per WP:R#KEEP, "If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do".
  2. Alleged confusion is not very plausible at all. So absent evidence of any harm there is no reason to delete.
  3. "There seems to be no evidence of confusion, just conjecture on the part of nominator, and no argument grounded in WP:R. Laziness is the exact purpose of redirects, to be perfectly honest, and the creator of a useful redirect that saves one or two characters should be commended. We don't delete redirects based merely on conjecture. Someone obviously found these useful given they were created."
  4. "One of the lowest things one can do is steal another mans tools. So you have no use for it. That it's being used on [talk pages] is good enough, and there is zero reason to take away something that has no higher use. Such Nominators should be required to be the one to hand edit and remove any deleted tags."
  5. "Redirects are not only cheap but this is a redirect from and to template namespace. That would tend to indicate to me that anyone using it is an editor rather than a general reader and they are hardly likely to get it [confused]. There are lots of little abbreviated things pulled up over the years such as {{tlc}} or {{tlx}} or whatever as useful shorthand for editors." --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep The main difference between this and the now-deleted templates is that the consensus in the prior RfDs was more aimed at the lack of any signifier that they were WikiProject banners versus articlespace templates (with the exception of a few that genuinely were unintuitive, a consensus with which I disagree). I see no chance of confusion here. Give me another WikiProject to which "RG" could apply and I think we could consider retargeting. Otherwise there's just zero point to deleting. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 04:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete {{WPRG}} already exists, and SHORTCUTs should use allcaps, this is a shortcut to a template. -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 09:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment "RG" is a country code for Guinea [13] -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 20:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete this redirect, and as {{WPRG}} is new I would vote to have that pre-allocated to the closed WikiProject to Guinea, which I am guessing is the Africa WikiProject. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • delete or retarget to Template:WikiProject Africa. Frietjes (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete I do not understand why are we trying to create more and more redirects with name that are difficult to remember. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete, too many meanings for RG, including Roleplaying Game and others. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per above - Too many meanings which all becomes confusing!. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:18, 18 April 2014 (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.

April 12[edit]

Nac1[edit]

Obvious typo (Cl=>C1). Delete or retarget to sodium chloride. GZWDer (talk) 11:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Retarget to sodium chloride. This is an obvious, plausible typo that gets about one hit a day, but it's true that the actual sodium chloride article is a better target. 172.9.22.150 (talk) 15:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to NAC Freelance as the NAC NAC-1 Freelance actually uses the "1" -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 05:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment NaCl isn't the only potential mispelling, there's the NACC1 gene for encooding BTBD14B — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.250.235 (talk) 05:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate - As above, there are multiple meanings for the misspelling TheChampionMan1234 05:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete this is no good, it should be nac1 (as an exponent)Nedgreiner (talk) 19:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment why wouldn't the NAC-1 airplane be the proper target? -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 05:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate Seems sensible, though I've not seen it done for typos before, that I recall. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 21:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC).
  • Retarget to NAC Freelance. The idea of a dab with one legitimate use and two potential typos is just bizarre. --BDD (talk) 16:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 13:11, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Touch typing on a Remington.JPG
  • Retarget. In some typefaces, probably most notably Microsoft Courier, on small screens ell and one are rendered identically. I think I mistyped a name of a respondent earlier becaus I couldn't see a difference and assumed it was Welsh ell ell whereas it was probably Russian Ilyich. So NaCl is a likely search term for this if you are on a screen that renders fonts where lowercase ell and digit one are almost indistinguishable. I have my aunt's baby 1950s E. Remington and Sons typewriter – the pic is on the article at touch typing – this typewriter doesn't have a "one" and you use lowercase ell to type a one). I am not sure what the default font is on WP (I use Mozilla firefox) but caps eye and lowercase ell are rendered identically on my 1024 × 768 screen.
However Sodium chloride has its own article and should probably be retargeted there rather than to salt, although it is mentioned in the lede there so I doubt people will get confused either way. Si Trew (talk)
  • Delete, I agree with BDD that a dab page listing only mispellings is very wrong, but I consider 'Nac1' -> 'NAC-1' to also be a mispelling. The search engine already shows NAC Freelance and BTBD14B in the search results; it doesnt list sodium chloride, so that should be raised as a bug in the MediaWiki search algorithm. Interestingly, googling 'nac1 site:en.wikipedia.org' doesnt list sodium chloride either, but 'nac1 site:wikipedia.org' does include the same page from other languages. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
    To work around the MediaWiki search engine not matching (1=l) as a possible mispelling, I recommend that we create a redirect NaC1 -> sodium chloride. That way the search results for nac1 will include all existing articles which are discussed above. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Would it match NaCI? (That is an uppercase eye at the last character). Si Trew (talk) 04:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Reliable Sources use "NAC1" to refer to the Freelance, so it is a variant spelling, not a mispelling. [14][15][16] assuming that you allow for all lowercase nac1 to mean NAC1 -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 05:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Marcus Aemilius Lepidus (49 BC)[edit]

While this was the article title almost ten years ago, it's misleading because the significance of 49 BC to Lepidus is unclear. It's not a year of birth or death—not even close. Looking over the dab Marcus Aemilius Lepidus, many are disambiguated by the year in which they held an important position, but again, no special significance of 49 BC is indicated. A user searching for this term would expect someone born that year, or perhaps holding a consulship that year. BDD (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete This is true, BDD is right this time. 49 BC has no significance with this topic Ned1230|Whine|Stalk

Delete. Unlikely search term. Si Trew (talk) 05:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep - did nobody do even a cursory examination, or are they just out and out lying? The article lists 49 BC as the year Lepidus was placed in charge of Rome (albeit temporarily), but this kind of formatting is what you'd use quite commonly for kings and other rulers. This is seemingly the most important thing that happened to him, and thus probably the context in which readers are going to be searching for him. Although formatting like this is possibly a mistake, it's a very likely search term (and even the assertion that it's a mistake is dubious - probably there are house styles that would so format it). WilyD 06:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
I did more than a cursory examination. But surely the (49 BC) at the back is hardly a likely search term. Even the (triumvir) is a bit dodgy but that's another matter but surely the (49 BC) is out of whack. Otherwise we have Elizabeth Barrett-Brown (1752 AD)] or whatever, and we don't. (She probably wasn't born that early I just made it up for the example, I imagine about 1810). Si Trew (talk) 19:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Ok, so the year does have some significance, but I still don't see it as a likely search term. It's still likely to be read "person named Marcus Aemilius Lepidus born in 49 BC." What's next, Bill Clinton (1993–2001)? Ah yes, the boy president, RIP. --BDD (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
For historical people, whose birth and death dates are often unknown, this kind of formatting is common. For people from the last ~200 years, when birth and death dates are usually known, it's far more uncommon. But this is clearly a case of the former. WilyD 09:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 13:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment Bill Clinton (1993–2001) actually sounds to me like a good redirect for the Clinton Administration, yes. Tenures of office are sometimes associated with names of leaders, whether they are ancient or modern. I don't feel compelled to go around creating these redirects, but they aren't completely unreasonable. That is assuredly how this one began. I'm indifferent to the survival of this redirect because I do believe it could mislead one into believing it represents a birth or death date. In this sense, Bill Clinton (1993–2001) is a more reasonable redirect, because the chances of anyone being confused about a modern figure are substantially less. Xoloz (talk) 17:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
But why bother? Bill Clinton is already the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Why do you want to add the dates on a redirect? The search engine will find it if someone had the temerity to put in "Bill Clinton (1993–2001)". I just tried it and my first link was to Bill Clinton, section 5, "Presidency, 1993–2001". Oddly enough if you search with a straight hyphen instead of a an en dash your first result is Al_Gore#Vice_Presidency_and_second_presidential_run but Bill is still in third place and easy to find. Si Trew (talk) 21:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep per Xoloz's reasoning. -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 09:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, strictly this should be "Marcus Aemilius Lepidus (fl. 49 BC)", but it is close enough, and there is no other 'Marcus Aemilius Lepidus' for that year so it isnt misleading. However extra redirects add results to the autocomplete options for a search of 'Marcus Aemilius Lepidus', potentially confusing readers efforts to guess which one they want. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't know exactly how this works, but doesn't the search box suppress redirects to a certain extent? I can't think of a specific example offhand, but sometimes I'll type, for example, four letters and there will be two suggestions popped down. I write another couple of letters, and there's one suggestion that wasn't present before. I believe proper titles are favored; it may also have to do with popularity. --BDD (talk) 03:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
@BDD:, I'm not familiar with the new search engine wrt selection from large lists of partial matching results, so I cant comment on general principles it uses. However if you put 'Marcus Aemilius Lepidus' into the search box, you see everything in special:prefixindex/Marcus Aemilius Lepidus (including this redirect). John Vandenberg (chat) 04:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

April 31[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 22#April 31

Outlook Web Access[edit]

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 keep. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 12:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

All redirects have been fixed now! Microsoft has rebranded Outlook Web Access as Outlook Web App. So this page has been moved successfully. Compfreak7 (talk) 06:12, 12 April 2014 (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.

JB-2 Loon[edit]

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 keep, and tag as incorrect names. --BDD (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

This is an erro