Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

Deletion discussions
Deletion today Articles (today, all, closing) Templates (today, all, closing) Files (today, all, closing) PUF (today, all, closing) Categories (today, all, closing) Redirects (today, all, closing) Miscellany (today, all, closing) Stub types (all) Undeletion Deletion review Speedy deletion (candidates) Proposed deletion (books, BLPs) Deletion log Policy, Process, Guide Administrator guidelines

Redirects for discussion (RfD) is the place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic redirects. Items sent here usually stay listed for a week or so, after which they are deleted by an administrator, kept, or retargeted.

Note: If all you want to do is replace a currently existing, unprotected redirect with an actual article, you do not need to list it here. Turning redirects into fleshed-out encyclopedic articles is wholly encouraged at Wikipedia. Be bold.

Note: If you want to move a page but a redirect to that page is preventing this, you do not need to list it here. Place a request in the appropriate section at Wikipedia:Requested moves and an administrator will perform the move for you.

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

Old discussions are archived at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log.

Centralized discussion
Proposals	Discussions	Recurring proposals
An RfC on the Arbitration Committee and how to deal with good-editing sockpuppets. RfC on the conflict of interest guideline, as requested by the Arbitration Committee. RfC on adding a more prominent link to Special:MyContributions for IP editors RfC about allowing watchlisting of user contributions Binding community discussion on the Abortion article titles, as requested by the Arbitration Committee. RfC on the proposed cessation of selective delete (other than history merge fixes) and resulting changes to deletion policies, including the removal of a Revision Deletion criterion. Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.
archive · talk · edit · history · watch

Before listing a redirect for discussion

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

• Wikipedia:Redirect – our general policy on what redirects are, why they exist, and how they are used.
• Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion – our policy on which pages can be deleted without discussion. The "General" and "Redirects" section apply here.
• Wikipedia:Deletion policy – our deletion policy that describes how we delete things by consensus
• Wikipedia:Guide to deletion – guidelines on discussion format and shorthands that also apply here

The guiding principles of RfD

• 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?

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.

Reasons for deleting

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.
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 it 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.)
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 deleted immediately 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.
10. If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject. In such a case, it is better that the target article contain a redlink than a redirect back to itself.

Reasons for not deleting

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

1. They have a potentially useful page history. 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 they 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. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways.
6. The redirect is to a plural form or to a singular form, or to some other grammatical form.

Also, redirects are cheap. Redirects take up minimal system resources, so it doesn't really hurt things if there are a few of them scattered around.

Neutrality of redirects

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. Dalmatian Kristallnacht → Dalmatian anti-Serb riots of May 1991; Climategate → Climatic 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 redirected to Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008).
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

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

To list a redirect for discussion, follow this two-step process:

I.

Flag 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.

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 civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of 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

March 6

User talk:WikiVandBot

• User talk:WikiVandBot → User talk:TGN (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Redirect of user talk - name changed. ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 17:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

User:WikiVandBot

• User:WikiVandBot → User:TGN (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Redirect of user with changed name. ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 17:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Turks in the Middle East

• Turks in the Middle East → Turks in the Arab world (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

The article has been moved to Turks in the Arab world, the term "in the Middle East" is not an appropiate redirect for the subject in matter (given that Turkey itself can be considered Middle Eastern). Turco85 (Talk) 15:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. The article existed at the old title for almost 2 years prior to your pagemove. The new title is better but the redirect from the old title serves to prevent link rot and helps the prior editors and readers find the new location of their content. Rossami (talk) 17:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Book:Strange Information

• Book:Strange Information → Book:Ancient Anomalies (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

This redirect is, more than anything else, confusing. It was created by a pagemove (move history is preserved in the page history of the target page) but there is no revision that contains any mention of 'Strange Information'. Deletion would not break any incoming links and, since the move took place eight hours after page creation, it is highly unlikely that any external links would be broken. The title is not a likely search string for the target page and the redirect is virtually unused: only eight hits in the last six months, most of them from me. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

March 5

FЯED

• FЯED → Fred Figglehorn (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Unlikely search term, most people would search Fred or Fred Figglehorn this the backwards R is not on people's keyboards. JayJay^{Talk to me} 22:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. I don't see it hurting anything. Sure, you can't search it from a non-Cyrillic keyboard, but someone who doesn't recognize the term could copy and paste it in a search, without having to know Fred Figglehorn or Fred (YouTube). FЯED is explained in the lead sentence, and is an appropriate redirect to have. 117Avenue (talk) 04:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Eh, this one is harmless. Very few users except curious Russians and keyboarding geeks will type it out, but copy-pasters will also use it. Nate • (chatter) 05:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep: this is a good example of {{R from alternative name}} and should be tagged as such. Whatever way readers enter it, 29 views in first 8 days of existence is above noise level, so it is useful. – Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Ben Davis (actor)

• Ben Davis (actor) → Benjamin Byron Davis (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

I moved the article "Ben Davis (actor)" to "Benjamin Byron Davis", because the latter name is what the actor is most credited under. However "Ben Davis (actor)" is linked in Les Misérables (musical) and Enjolras is not Benjamin Byron Davis where the redirect link is linked to, they are two different people. I am requesting deletion of "Ben Davis (actor)" to differentiate from Benjamin Byron Davis. QuasyBoy 19:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Retarget to Ben Davis (disambiguation) and add both actors there. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
• Retarget to disambiguation per Czarkoff. Rossami (talk) 17:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

2013 in television

• 2013 in television → 2013 and beyond in television (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• 2014 in television → 2013 and beyond in television (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• 2015 in television → 2013 and beyond in television (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• 2016 in television → 2013 and beyond in television (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• 2017 in television → 2013 and beyond in television (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• 2018 in television → 2013 and beyond in television (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• 2019 in television → 2013 and beyond in television (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• 2020 in television → 2013 and beyond in television (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

TBrandley (talk · contribs) created this cluster of WP:CRYSTAL rd's that have no use until near October of each year due to the unpredictability of the TV business. Asking for a delete; beyond the big events we don't know there will be TV in its current form by 2020. "2013 and beyond" article is being put up on AfD for the same reasons, and these rd's are easily susceptible to being turned into unsourced spec articles. Nate • (chatter) 18:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep while the target article exists. The target article currently covers information on television up through 2020, so having redirects up through that year makes sense as long as the target article exists. While the target article is nominated for deletion, there is no reason to consider the redirects separately. If the target is deleted, then the redirects can be speedy deleted, and if the target is not deleted, then the redirects should be kept. Calathan (talk) 20:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep: though they shouldn't have been created, the target is pretty relevant, so I see no good reason to delete this. Specifically true, given that the name template is used in {{years in television}}. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

International B.A. degree in Liberal Arts and Humanities

• International B.A. degree in Liberal Arts and Humanities → Tel Aviv University (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

A recent AfD was closed as "delete" not "redirect", but this redirect was created. A quick Google search shows several universities that are offering or have offered a "B.A. degree in Liberal Arts and Humanities" including Rider University, Charles University in Prague, Iowa State University. Therefore a redirect to Tel Aviv University is inappropriate and could be considered promotional. Pontificalibus (talk) 17:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete and salt: misleading. Given that (1) the name is unlikely to become an article and (2) I see no possible good target, this should be salted. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
• Retarget to Bachelor of Arts, the more general topic about this kind of degree. I concur that this particular example is not especially notable or nor is it obviously unique to Tel Aviv University. Salting is overkill, though, if we can preempt with a reasonable redirect. Rossami (talk) 17:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Gayzing

• Gayzing → Gaydar (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Redirect target doesn't match title meaning, WP:NOTNEO, WP:NOT#DICT #3, Google News search produces absolutely zero hits, google Scholar search produces nothing relevant. Zad68 (talk) 16:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Looking at original article it was about a non-notable neologism. --Pontificalibus (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Alternatively, how about a redirect to Gyalshing, as a Google search suggests this is a common misspelling of that place's alternate name? --Pontificalibus (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
• Retarget per Pontificalibus. That is a reasonable alternate transliteration of a foreign name. I concur that the neologism can not be substantiated. Rossami (talk) 17:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

NPOV

• NPOV → Wikipedia:NPOV (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

A typical example for cross-wiki redirect only supposed to save 3 key presses on typing shortcut. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep again. This redirect pre-dates the software change that records pagemoves in the moved-page's history. This is also where the content used to exist before the creation of the separate namespaces. This redirect is in use on almost 10,000 pages. In the decade that this redirect has been around, it has created no confusion. The arguments to delete cross-namespace redirects are weak and certainly do not justify the disruption that would be caused by deleting this historical artifact. Rossami (talk) 12:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • While I'm not sure that this is the reason we shouldn't perform housekeeping, it should be at least made a soft redirect and tagged with {{historical}}. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
    • The folks who monitor the use of templates would remove {{historical}} from the redirect fairly quickly. That template is for proposals or procedures which either failed to gain consensus or which somehow lost consensus. (We keep them around so we can learn from them.) WP:NPOV is still in force and widely accepted. It has simply been moved to a different location. The "historical" tag doesn't apply to this situation.
      I'm not sure I understand the argument for a soft-redirect. How would that be better than the current hard-redirect? Why would you want to make new readers (the people who are primarily the target of comments including references to our NPOV policy) click twice rather than getting to their content in a single jump? Rossami (talk) 17:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Pile-on

• Pile-on → List of school pranks (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

The specific prank is not discussed in the current version of the article, and therefore, the redirect is confusing. PleaseStand (talk) 03:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Question: Is there any reason why this issue can't be addressed in the target article? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. piling-on is not just a school prank, there are a multitude of other uses. (including on wikipedia's !voting processes) 70.24.251.71 (talk) 05:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. I concur with the anon editor. That phrase has many meanings but none now have the potential to become more than a mere dictionary definition. Rossami (talk) 17:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

March 4

Alice Sanger

• Alice Sanger → The Up-To-Date Sorcerer (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Retarget to disambiguation page. The 1890 article links to Alice Sanger, a historical person, but the redirect is targeting an article about a science fiction short story, which implies that Sanger is a fictional person. This creates confusion. 66.214.40.255 (talk) 23:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Disambiguate between those two. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

February 28–March 3, 2012 tornado outbreak sequence

• February 28–March 3, 2012 tornado outbreak sequence → Early March 2012 tornado outbreak (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Implausible redirect caused by a page move. Technically incorrect as this was actually two separate outbreaks. Tavix |  Talk  22:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete: the page was there for several hours, and the name seems to be misleading or at least overly precise to be plausible. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete: There have been two different tornado outbreaks during that period, rsulting from two different low pressure systems. At the best, this redirect is factually inexact. --Matthiasb (talk) 16:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

FAEP – The European Federation of Magazine Publishers

• FAEP – The European Federation of Magazine Publishers → European Federation of Magazine Publishers (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Implausible typo and an unnecessary redir. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 11:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. Part of a series of pagemoves made to this page over the course of several years. The redirect is neither confusing nor harmful to readers. We can not know if there are inbound links to the old title. Link rot should be avoided whenever possible. Rossami (talk) 15:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
• Speedy keep: this redirect is nominated right after page move, so we have no reason to believe it is not linked off-site. — `Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

March 3

Sabre slayer

• Sabre slayer → Folland Gnat (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Non neutral redirect solely created for POV... WP:REDIRECT#DELETE (point 8) applies as well. The aircraft is given this nick name only by the Indian pilots and as such is only used by them. The aircraft is not known by this name other than only a mention of that attributed to the Indian pilots. Also note that Pakistani pilots who captured and analyzed this aircraft are of the opposite view. lTopGunl (talk) 22:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep: sorry, but having redirects from the POV names is actually a good practice, and I see no indication that this name is novel or obscure, and specifically it is not the name in the unrelated language. If this aircraft is known under this name, someone can come across the name and look it up in Wikipedia, so the redirect seems to be useful. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

You can not come across the term without an attribution to the Indian pilots calling "Folland Gnat" as a Sabre slayer. So anyone will look for the aircraft name. Reliable sources on Pakistani view state the opposite of this view [1]. If some one created a redirect "Not a Sabre slayer" on the basis of this source, the redirect would be equally POV. Should be deleted and only mentioned in the article. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

If Pakistani pilots consistently kept referring to the plane as "Not a Sabre Slayer, such that there were multiple reliable sources showing usage of this name, then we could have a redirect from that title. This is not the case however.--Pontificalibus (talk) 18:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Numerous sources (e.g. 1, 2, 3) report that the plane has been referred to by this name. Why that is the case or whether this name is an appropriate one is none of our business when deciding on a redirect. --Pontificalibus (talk) 18:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Año nuevo en el Club Nautico (San Pedro, Buenos Aires).jpg

• File:Año nuevo en el Club Nautico (San Pedro, Buenos Aires).jpg → File:Año nuevo en el Club Nautico (San Pedro, Buenos Aires) at night.jpg (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Re-titled image - No internal incoming links Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete: while harmless on its own, this redirect becomes harmful if used, as the images are ordinarily less frequently patrolled and this redirect will just clutter the File: namespace with no benefits for editors. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Autopatrol

• Autopatrol → Grader (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

I asked on Talk:Grader and was told that this redirect is probably due to a grader vehicle with "Auto Patrol" in its name, but the article does not mention this vehicle or the word 'autopatrol' at all. I propose retargeting to WP:Autopatrolled, which is what I was looking for, and is the first Google result for the word autopatrol. ~ Kimelea (talk) 06:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• "Auto Patrol" (with space and both capitalized) was a brand of Caterpillar grader in the 1930s[2]. Redirecting a semi-notable brand to the article about the parent company is a commonly accepted practice. In this case, however, I agree that the redirect is potentially confusing. A disambiguation page might be best for our readers. Especially if there are other common uses of that phrase? Rossami (talk) 16:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete: if the name was at least correct (eg. "Caterpillar Auto Patrol" or "Auto Patrol"), it could be kept as a search term. Still it is misspelled and no good target exists in main namespace. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Is it not acceptable to have it redirect to WP namespace, as NPOV does? It seems to me that WP:Autopatrolled is by far the most likely intended target for the search term 'autopatrol'. I'm not sure we could justify more than one entry in a disambig page. Google suggests there is a speed camera called the AUTOPATROL PR-100 [2], and the term "auto patrol" with space is sometimes used on forums to describe a feature of security cameras [3][4], but none of these other meanings (including the Caterpillar grader) are mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia mainspace. ~ Kimelea (talk) 22:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Helping encyclopaedia readers find their articles should always take priority over helping editors find their policy documents. Anyone looking for WP:AUTOPATROLLED will likely be a Wikipedia editor and thus should know how to search WP namespace only (or else should be incentivised to find out how to do that). A non-editor certainly won't be looking for WP:AUTOPATROLLED, so the redirect should go to an appropriate mainspace article if there is one. --Pontificalibus (talk) 18:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Understood. Do you think there is one? ~ Kimelea (talk) 10:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

There appear to be two main uses. A type of grader (sometimes as two words Auto Patrol) (e.g. refs 1, 2, 3) and a brand name of a traffic speed camera system (e.g. 1, 2, 3). I wouldn't say either use appears particularly more common or notable than the other, and neither currently has a mention in Wikipedia. Therefore I suggest deleting the redirect as things stand, or alternatively creating a dab page after first inserting details into two relevant articles. There may even be enough material to create two new articles.--Pontificalibus (talk) 11:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Verizon Plus

• Verizon Plus → Verizon Communications (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Verizon Plus redirecting to Verizon Communications is pretty irelevant. The VZ article has no information about Verizon Plus whatsoever, making this redirect questionable. I don't think copying the info from the revision history would be a good idea, because of the bad quality of the article prior to the article's merger with Verizon Communications. No article even links to Verizon Plus, only talk pages. Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 00:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. The Verizon Plus article indicates that it is the storefront for Verizon Communications. If this is correct, then the redirect would remain valid, despite nothing appearing in the Verizon Communications article. (May be regional?) --Haruth (talk) 02:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Pretty much just the name used by some storefronts; with no independent notability I merged it, but there wasn't anything really worth keeping. As an search term, it's not needed. oknazevad (talk) 02:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep because it helps to document the merger to the target page. Redirecting a brand to the more notable parent entity is acceptable practice. Remember that redirects do more than merely support the search engine. Rossami (talk) 16:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I do understand that, but not only am I'm 14, but it seems that the redirect doesn't gather as much attention. Maybe a through research on Verizon Plus for a new section on the store could benefit the redirect.Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 19:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Strictly speaking, this redirect should be deleted, as target contains no information on the name. Still, the topic isn't notable enough for the separate article or section in the target, but it could serve a purpose of mnemonic alias for operator's name for some, and as such can be useful. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Fox's AD

• Fox's AD → Fox's Animation Domination (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Having searched Google and looked at the actual website, there is no evidence that anyone refers to Animation Domination as "Fox's AD". The editor already has a history of creating redirects based on made-up acronyms, e.g., DCHK. Logical Cowboy (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Unlikely and vague initialism, and block is always referred to by its full name in industry media. Nate • (chatter) 00:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Weak keep: it is harmless, nobody claimed the name before and we don't know the reasons of creation. We need at least a month with clean stats to make an informed decision. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Please read the editor's history; this is a very unlikely redirect and the user has issues with creating them. Nate • (chatter) 19:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

March 2

Suggestive dialogue

• Suggestive dialogue → Dialogue (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

This redirects to Dialogue, however that article does not say anything at all about "suggestive dialogue," instead covering dialogue as a literary and theological device. Logical Cowboy (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Retarget to Allusion or something of a kind. As far as I can see from "suggestive dialogue" web search, the main meaning of the wording is the dialog, leading to the adult scenes in the movies. If so, it would be a useful search term, though I'm not sure about the best target. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• "Suggestive dialogue" is a term used in the TV Parental Guidelines. That may be an appropriate target. - Eureka Lott 17:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. I can find no reference to the phrase "suggestive dialogue" that demonstrates anything other than the self-evident "dialogue which is suggestive". There are no inbound links to the redirect nor have I been able to find any indications that such links existed in our pagehistories. "Allusion" has the connotation of a reference to more classical works and does not seem to fit well with the modern connotation of "suggestive dialogue". And while the term is used in the TV Parental Guidelines, so are several other commonly understood phrases which are not (and should be) be redirected. On the whole, I think deletion is better. Rossami (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:Further.

• Template:Further. → Template:Further (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Created less than 1,5 year ago. It contains an uncommon full stop at the end. It should be speedy deleted by R3 but speedy deletion was rejected. Magioladitis (talk) 12:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete: particularly harmful redirect as the difference is not that easy to spot from the first glance. The single possible use case – complicating the tasks of bot masters. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

After-birth abortion

• After-birth abortion → Infanticide (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Delete. Attention-grabbing nonce term used in the title of one article that's controversial at the moment. I don't see it being used in any reliable sources prior to the past day or so. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep The Journal of Medical Ethics just published an article on the subject: After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?. According to the editor of the Journal "The arguments presented, in fact, are largely not new and have been presented repeatedly in the academic literature and public fora by the most eminent philosophers and bioethicists in the world, including Peter Singer, Michael Tooley and John Harris in defence of infanticide, which the authors call after-birth abortion..

So it appears a number of well respected philosophers and bioethicists have used the term as well. Misread, sorry. I should say that it appears that the authors are reffing to infanticide specifically as afterbirth abortion. The source is very reliable, as it's published by the BMJ Group. N^oformation ^Talk 00:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

You're misreading; the editor is referring to Giubilini and Minerva as the "authors" who use this term, not Singer et al. So it's exactly as I said; a neologism used in only one source that happens to be in the news right now. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I had already caught that mistake and edited it out :). Still, it is being used by dozens of sources now, albeit mostly news sources, but the fact that we have a direct sources equating the term with infanticide is enough for a redirect. N^oformation ^Talk 00:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The sources aren't independent and can't be counted separately. If Source A is just reporting on the use of the phrase in Source B, rather than using or discussing the phrase itself, that's not really two separate sources to demonstrate its use. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

(If the paper continues to be discussed in reliable sources, it might prove to be notable itself! But the news-y coverage of this one paper doesn't support the use of this term as a redirect.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree but I don't contest the validity nor the reliability of the claim considering the source, nor was I using the defense to establish independence. The journal has a decent amount of clout and if they are willing to make the statement that the terms are equivalent and if the editor is willing to personally write on the topic then it's something we should take at face value, at least for a redirect. The term is now being used by dozens of publications and people will surely be searching for it, no point in sending them to a "create this page" red link. And I have a feeling that you're on to something: this topic will probably have its own page soon enough (though it might be for the controversy more than anything else). N^oformation ^Talk 01:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete, but make own page, saying, i.e., "after-birth abortion" is a contradictory [and it 'is' contradictory] term used to refer to infanticide for the purpose of discussing medical ethics, especially when discussing the ethics of abortion. It came into use..." etc. Redirecting is inappropriate, as it is acknowledging the feint of the wordplay as valid. Triacylglyceride (talk) 05:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I think that might be a valid solution if the term were used in more reliable sources, but it isn't. It's just this one paper. As I said above, if the paper itself becomes notable (ie. enduringly notable per WP:EVENT, because right now it's a news story) then we might one day have an article on the paper - but one source, even a reliable one, simply won't support an article on a neologism. See WP:NEO. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. As stated, as of right now, this term is not widely used at all outside of the single article presented. It really doesn't have any other third party sources to help establish that this neologism is notable. While the incidents involving this paper being written are getting some media attention right now, that really doesn't help establish that this term itself should be created as a redirect. Rorshacma (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - Whereas two of the above arguments are beside the point, owing to the fact that wp:NEO simply pertains to article titles, not redirects, as it is, nothing in wp:R#DELETE would indicate the redirect should not be in use and wp:R#KEEP # 3 would indicate it should be kept to aid those researching this term (which term generates dozens of Google News hits as well as a few applicable Google book hits).--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

  Comment I would argue that wp:R#KEEP #3 does not apply in this case, however. The actual target article does not mention this term at all, thus someone who searches for the term "After-birth Abortion", and just gets redirected to infanticide with nothing in the actual article discussing it, is just going to get the mistaken impression that this is a common, widespread synonym, which is not the case. This is certainly not going to be useful in the same sense that is shown in that example, where an official, widespread nickname is used as a redirect. If the Infanticide article actually had a section discussing the term and the controvery surrounding it, then yes, a redirect would be appropriate. However, then we run into the problem of whether the word actually has any lasting signifigance that would allow it to be discussed in the article, which would be a different debate all together.Rorshacma (talk) 22:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep: this term is a plausible search term. As the wording itself isn't self-evident and can be understood in different ways, the redirect with this name would be very useful for those who came across the term in media or papers. The fact that the name is a neologism would warrant the deletion if this was an AfD discussion, which is not the case. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Killbox

• Killbox → Iron maiden (torture) (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

No links between killbox and iron maiden established. Googling "Iron maiden killbox" gives auto-generated hits generated due to this redirect. Furthermore, this redirect causes confusion because there is a band and a software known as Killbox. Neither of these have articles yet, so a disambiguation page is not appropriate. If ever both software and band gets an article, a disamb. could be created in this space. Dr bab (talk) 06:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per nom's findings.--Lenticel ^(talk) 08:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Retarget to Kill zone Kill box. Good catch.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Retarget- To Kill zone, as a plausible synonym or machine translation of the ambush term. Dru of Id (talk) 10:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

To Kill box; much likelier intended destination. Dru of Id (talk) 03:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Retarget to Kill box. It has nothing to do with the target. It was created when a two-edit editor created an article duplicating Iron maiden (torture), and another well-meaning editor redirected it instead of deleting it. It has generated genuine confusion, see Talk:Iron maiden (torture). The only incoming link is an erroneous one intended to link to an article on the software. I see no point in retargeting to Kill zone absent some evidence that "killbox" is used as a synonym for "kill zone." TJRC (talk) 15:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
• Retarget to Kill box. TimBentley (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Now that looks like a worthy retarget. I'm abashed I didn't think to check that. TJRC (talk) 01:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete: I found no mentions of the term as synonym for Iron maiden, and I see no other targets. Kill Box doesn't make the good target for me, as I see no mention of this target with the words joined together. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Retarget to "Kill box" per TJRC and TimBentley. Rossami (talk) 17:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

March 1

Disney Channel (Kazakhstan)

• Disney Channel (Kazakhstan) → Disney Channel (international) (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Doesn't have info about this channel. jcnJohn Chen (Talk-Contib.) RA 12:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per nom: Article does not contain any information about Disney Channel (Kazakhstan). Redirect creator has a history of WP:DISRUPTive redirects. Logical Cowboy (talk) 01:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete: the topic seems to be not notable enough even for redirect. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
• Retarget to Disney Channel, --TBrandley (talk) 04:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Cryohydrate

• Cryohydrate → wikt:Cryohydrate (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Not wikt. Should be a redlink per WP:REDLINK, since the possibility exists for encyclopedic content here. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete: per WP:REDLINK. Redlink will increase the chances for an actual article to be written on that location. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
• I don't think a redlink is the best solution in this case. Either restore the deleted version (from 2012 Feb 23) and tag with {{stub}} or replace the current (broken) hard-redirect with the soft-redirect {{wi}}. I'm willing to give the restored stub a chance - we can always convert it back to a soft-redirect if the page is not expanded in a reasonable time. Rossami (talk) 14:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Strike that. The deleted stub was a copyright violation and needs to stay deleted. Rossami (talk) 14:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Do you expect that no encyclopedic content can be written? — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
      • I am uncertain. When attempting to draft a replacement stub myself, I found no sources that supported more than a mere dictionary definition. It's not my area of expertise, though. I do not know whether an article is possible. I could live with either redlink or {{wi}} until someone does write a proper article. Rossami (talk) 17:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per WP:CSD § G8. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete for now.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Discrimination against non-Muslims in Pakistan

• Discrimination against non-Muslims in Pakistan → Freedom of religion in Pakistan (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

The article is about freedom of religion in Pakistan. Though it might discuss if there have been incidents where it has been breached for non Muslims, it doesn't mean that it should be implied that this article is about discrimination of these rights. This is a POV redirect. lTopGunl (talk) 08:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:RNEUTRAL (POV fork). The classical redirect use case IMHO. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

This was not a POV fork, rather created as a redirect. [3] --lTopGunl (talk) 12:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I know. The idea is the same, actually: this page redirects from non-neutral title to a neutral one. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Supertonic chromatic chord

• Supertonic chromatic chord → Secondary dominant (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Delete the redirect, the term "supertonic chromatic chord" was used in quotation marks in one book only, as a way for one writer to describe only one of the many forms a secondary dominant may take, thus making "supertonic chromatic chord" utterly impractical. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 03:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep: I see no indication of implausibility or harmfulness of this redirect. One may come across the term in some students' diploma or some paper, and looking up in Wikipedia in such case may be a possible reaction. That said, I believe the book nominator mentions should be mentioned on a talk page with a brief explanation of redirect. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep: per above. Redirects are cheap. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: "Supertonic chromatic chord" may have more meanings, and in no way, shape or form is it directly related to "secondary dominant" (other than this one writer using it once in one book in quotation marks). This is an utter failure of WP:UNDUE, as the majority does not hold the view required to "turn Pinocchio into a real boy". Keeping the redirect gives a made up word much more legitimacy than it deserves. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
    • That would be a good point for retargetting this redirect, though I see no better target and, nor you propose one. The WP:UNDUE is content policy, it doesn't apply to redirects. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Now that's just abuse of semantics. Quoting from WP:UNDUE: "the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all"... this is the classic case for that. Hyacinth created the redirect only to try and give the term legitimacy for inclusion in Ragtime progression, citing it to one book that used the "term" almost as a joke, in quotation marks. This kind of behavior should not be encouraged, as this produces misinformation which hinders the very idea of an encyclopedia. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
        • This redirect will only help some one searching that term to get to the right article. The redirect term is not opposed by any position or atleast not shown by you, nor are there any other claims for the title. It is a safe redirect on that account. This does not give the term any more credibility rather a route to the article. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
          • It would, had the term existed... except it doesn't. You're ignoring comments again, so if you want to prove the existence of this term in that context in multiple sources, please do so. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
            • Example: say, a book describes a battery-powered electric razor as "that thingamajiggy no travel pack is complete without". Would you support the redirect of "thingamajiggy" to an article about battery-powered electric razors? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 04:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
              • Definitely yes. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
        • WP:UNDUE is a content policy, it has no effect on redirects. Though having a redirect from undue to due name is encouraged. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
          • Funny, I have just re-read the policy... does not mention having no effect on redirects. Are they not part of content? But hey... if you'd like to go there – be my guest, here's a quote from the policy directly pertaining to redirects: "You might want to delete a redirect if[...]the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful." Hearfourmewesique (talk) 13:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

February 29

Bomber pilot

• Bomber pilot → Bombardier (air force) (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Like many redirects, this was created as an easy fix to a pointless entry. But strictly speaking a bombardier is not a pilot, but the guy in the bottom of the plane who drops the bombs. The two entries are related but the redirect is misleading. Hairhorn (talk) 20:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Good argument to retarget. I could see either bomber or aviator as credible targets. (A third alternative would be to delete in hopes that the redlink would encourage an article parallel to fighter pilot but given the difficulties of that page, I can't recommend it at present.) Looking at the two inbound links to the redirect, it appears to me that our readers are more likely to expect to land at the content at Aviator#Military. With only two data points, that's a weak conclusion, though. Rossami (talk) 22:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
• Retarget to Aviator#Military: as I see it, the information one would generally expect to find under this name is the differences between the bomber pilot and other pilots. This kind of information can be probably expected in the Aviator#Military article. The bits of history are also more likely to land there. Once they appear the decision on whether the topic warrants the separate article would be much easier to make. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Retarget to Aviator#Military. I considered a dab of sorts with bomber but the bomber article focus more on the plane themselves rather than the pilot. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

February 28

Лиbераlно-Демократска Партија

• Лиbераlно-Демократска Партија → Либерално-Демократска Партија (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Delete this recently-created redirect, and many like it. RjwilmsiBot creates redirects from diacritic-less forms of article titles, but it seems to think "б" and "л" are just "b" and "l" with diacritics. Therefore it creates many pointless redirects, none of which will ever be used.

It is possible, I suppose, that this is prompted by Cyrillic keyboard layouts, as in a recent RFD, but it seems unlikely. Gorobay (talk) 16:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete: implausible... it's neither search term, nor typo actually. Though I'm pretty sure that every Cyrillic keyboard ever made had "б" and "л", this redirect features "Л" (upper case variant of "л"). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:UD

• Wikipedia:UD → Wikipedia:Usage of diacritics (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

I think this WP shorthand redirect would be better served as a redirect to Help:Userspace draft, in order to be consistent with the target of Wikipedia:USERSPACEDRAFT. Thoughts? —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Retarget per nom and add hatnote pointing to Wikipedia:Usage of diacritics.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep, but add hatnote pointing to help:Userspace draft: the proposed target seems to be more of a "read once" and is easier to discover. I actually didn't know about the current target. Still, there are planty of possible mnemonic shortcuts possibilities for the proposed target (eg., WP:DRAFT), though it is a tricky task to make up a plausible and easy to remember shortcut for Wikipedia:Usage of diacritics. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Userspace draft

• Wikipedia:Userspace draft → Wikipedia:So you made a userspace draft (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

I think this redirect would be better served as a redirect to Help:Userspace draft, in order to be consistent with the target of Wikipedia:USERSPACEDRAFT. I definitely don't think the two redirects should point to different targets. Thoughts? —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Retarget per nom and add hatnote pointing to Wikipedia:So you made a userspace draft.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
• Retarget per Lentice1.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
• Retarget per above. –Grondemar 00:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Retarget: the principle of least surprise in action. I would discourage any changes to the proposed target, as it already lists Wikipedia:So you made a userspace draft in See also section. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Various other unlikely redirects to penis

• Meat injector
• Peeenis
• Peenis
• Peniss
• Peniz
• Eight equals equals equals D

Unlikely spellings and names. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• I am not sure that these can be dealt with as a bulk nomination. The respective page histories raise different issues.
  1. The first on the list was created by a user who has been repeatedly chided for joke edits but who also has made positive contributions. The phrase is sufficiently ambiguous (my first thought was of marinade hypodermics) that it should be deleted.
  2. The second and third were created by a user with a positive contribution history and with assertions in the edit summary that these are somewhat common misspellings. I think the google hits are more likely to be deliberate attempts to evade corporate porn filters but the contribution of the redirects appear to have been in good faith. They are not especially helpful to readers but they are also not obviously confusing. Assumption of good faith leads me to keep.
  3. The fourth, fifth and sixth were created by confirmed vandals without explanation. The fourth might be a plausible typo but the sixth is a text rendition of an ASCII art profanity. None seems to me strong enough to overcome the bad faith of the creators.

  Rossami (talk) 20:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete 1, 2, and 6 per Rossami. No opinion on the others. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete 2-5 and keep 1 and 6: the first one is a plausible search term for people with limited knowledge of English, the last one is an ASCII art rendition that can also be used for search purposes (though the target should be amended with illustration). The rest of them are typos and misspellings of a 5-letter word; I see no good reason to keep those. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep the typos. 1 is known slang, and should be kept. 6 is obscure garnering only 30 ghits, almost all mirrors or "honda-tech". Should be deleted if new, else kept. Rich Farmbrough, 14:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC).
  
• Comment #1. Porn filters may let Peeenis pass, but will blank the target page. So yes, technically, readers can cheat the filter, but the article won't, because WP is not censored.
  Comment #2. "the first one is a plausible search term for people with limited knowledge of English": fallacy. That's what simple.wp (or maybe wiktionary) is for.
  Kill #1 as bad joke, and #2 as unlikely spelling. Keep #3. It is plausible and not next to the correct spelling. Kill #4, as its target would be right next to it anyway. Kill #5, as the spelling is implausible on en.wikipedia (although more plausible on otgher languages). Finally, kill and salt #6, and nuke from high orbit to be sure. After all, it is not only useless; the correct spelling is Eight equals equals equals equals equals D. - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 12:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Note: My comment about the porn filters was not that it had anything to do with the presentation of Wikipedia pages, merely that the redirect creator thought that the google hits were evidence that those two were common accidental misspellings. I believe that people on the internet were deliberately misspelling the word to evade their own filters and google is finding those instances. Thus 2 and 3 don't qualify (for me at least) as plausible typos but the redirects were nevertheless contributed in good faith. Rossami (talk) 17:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Big boobs

• Big boobs → Breast (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

It is completely unencyclopedic and an unlikely search term. I am also nominating

• Big tits and
• Big-tit

for deletion. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Two of the three redirects have troubling histories which have been (mostly) successfully preempted since the creation of the redirects. While sophmoric in their phrasing, I can't see an argument that they should point anywhere else (though one of the redirects did once point to the bird of a similar name). Reluctant keep after tagging with {{unprintworthy}}. Rossami (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep 1 and 2, delete 3 (unless it has a separate meaning): the first and second are words used in a wild, so it is possible that someone would search them on Wikipedia. I never came over the last one, and my search doesn't return off-site hits, so I would consider it implausible. Those surviving should be tagged with {{R unprintworthy}}. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep 1 and 2 or change target to dab Large breasts => Breast engorgement, Breast augmentation, Brassiere measurement (where, unfortunately Breast size redirects); keep 3 or make a dab between afore-mentioned and Great tit. Rich Farmbrough, 15:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC).
  

B00bs

• B00bs → Breast (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

"Leet"-speak for boobs. This could possibly be retargeted to leet. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a corcordance. Not every instance of leet-speak should point to leet. This particular example is not especially noteworthy or illuminating to the article. That said, the redirect is also not in the way of any legitimate content or obviously confusing to readers. The creator's contribution history is favorable, supporting the assumption of good faith. Retarget to "leet" is reasonable. Rossami (talk) 18:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
• No action required If somebody is searching "B00bs", they probably want to arrive at the "Breast" article. A412 (Talk • C) 00:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Retaget to wiktionary:boob: I can hardly imagine that someone would search for encyclopedic information on female breasts with this term; instead it seems more likely that the goal of a search would be to understand the meaning of the word "b00bs". — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Niqqer

• Niqqer → Nigger (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Another unlikely misspelled redirect by an indefblocked sock. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• This one is harder to call. While the creator's contribution history is troubling, the page history prior to the creation of the redirect shows that this title was a magnet for even more inappropriate content. The redirect has successfully preempted the recreation of that content. It is not patently confusing or in the way of legitimate content. To me, that is an argument to (just barely) keep the redirect despite its sketchy provenance. Note: If this is deleted, then it should be salted as well. Rossami (talk) 18:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
• Weak delete: the difference between "g" and "q" in some fonts is not evident, so I would believe that one can possibly search with this term after getting misguided by an obscure font or another one's attempt to bypass forum filter somewhere. That said, my rationale implies low level of English, which is something I hardly can combine with English Wikipedia. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

NIGGEER

• NIGGEER → Nigger (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Bad spelling / caps and created by an indefblocked sock. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Speedy-delete as overlooked vandalism. Creator's contribution history confirms. Rossami (talk) 18:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
• Speedy-delete as G5 and/or G3.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
• Speedy delete: very implausible search term (all caps and typo). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Pewp

• Pewp → Poop (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Highly unlikely spelling of "poop". Salt too since it keeps getting created for vandalism. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete as probable vandalism. The creator's contribution history around the time of this edit does not substantiate our normal assumption of good faith. While the creator has made some legitimate contributions since, his/her history is at best mixed. This spelling is not in such common usage that I am willing to overlook the source. Rossami (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep: quite a few hits in the wild, it may be considered plausible. Being created by vandal doesn't necessarily equals to uselessness. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Deep doo doo

• Deep doo doo → Feces (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

I strongly doubt people interested in an encyclopedia article on feces will be looking up a term like "deep doo doo". Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete, possibly speedily, as overlooked-vandalism. The creator's contribution history strongly suggests that this was not a good-faith effort. While a few of the user's early edits were reverted on neutral grounds, all his/her edits since were patent vandalism. Rossami (talk) 18:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete: implausible search term. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Westminster City Hall

• Westminster City Hall → City of Westminster (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

I think the tenth point at WP:R#DELETE applies here. There's no substantive mention of the subject in the target, and an article on the City Hall could well be valuable. – hysteria18 (talk) 11:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete: it seems to be a leftover since the early days of Wikipedia, when the use practices in relation to redirects were not as advanced. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

February 27

Receiving (disambigation)

• Receiving (disambigation) → receiving (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• Geraldo (disambigation) → Geraldo (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• Grado (diambiguation) → Grado (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• Skyservice (disambigation) → Skyservice (disambiguation) (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• Ripley (disabiguation) → Ripley (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• Nairne (disambigation) → Nairne (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• Mitsui (disambigation) → Mitsui (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• Kronos (disambguation) → Kronos (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• Islwyn (disambguation) → Islwyn (disambiguation) (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• Gand (disambiguaton) → Gand (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• Sisseton (disambigution) → Sisseton (disambiguation) (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• Gaja (disabiguation) → Gaja (disambiguation) (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• Lehtmetsa (disambiguaton) → Lehtmetsa (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• Hebe (dismbiguation) → Hebe (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

All of these redirects are misspelled. None of these have any incoming article space links, and all are unlikely search targets. WP:CSD G6 has already been attempted and reverted. I'm not sure if I'm technically allowed to group them all up myself, but I thought I'd be a little WP:BOLD. -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 05:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete all as misspellings of "disambiguation". These are just leftovers from moves for the most part. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 06:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete all: FWIW, typos in the "(disambiguation)" is not something we should keep for any reasons. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
• Housekeeping Delete --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

February 26

Citation style

• Citation style → Template:Citation style (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Delete. This redirection doesn't seem to fulfill any purpose whatsoever. 212.201.73.229 (talk) 20:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Addendum: redirect to Citation or Citation#Citation Style. That's what I was looking for (and I had found it sooner if this stupid redirect hadn't block me. --212.201.73.229 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC).

• Retarget to Citation#Citation Styles: cross-namespace redirects should have some purpose, but this one doesn't. The target proposed by 212.201.73.229 seems ideal though. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• Retarget to Citation#Citation Styles per anon and Dmitrij D. Czarkoff. The target article also has hatnotes for wiki related citations so I think it serves a pseudo-CNR purpose anyways.--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Common cats

• Template:Common cats → Template:Commons category multi (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• Template:Commonscat inline → Template:Commons category-inline (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• Template:Commonscatinline → Template:Commons category-inline (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• Template:Commonscat-inline2 → Template:Commons category-inline (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• Template:CommonsCat-inline → Template:Commons category-inline (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• Template:Commons cat inline → Template:Commons category-inline (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• Template:Commonsinline → Template:Commons-inline (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• Template:Commons inline → Template:Commons-inline (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• Template:Commons+cat → Template:Commons and category (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• Template:Wikimedia → Template:Sister project links (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• Template:Sisterproject → Template:Sister project links (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• Template:Sister-links → Template:Sister project links (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• Template:Sister project link → Template:Sister project links (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• Template:Sister links → Template:Sister project links (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• Template:Commonscat-N → Template:Commons category multi (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• Template:Commonscat show2 → Template:Commons category multi (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• Template:Commonscats → Template:Commons category multi (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• Template:Commonscat multi → Template:Commons category multi (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• Template:Commons cats → Template:Commons category multi (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• Template:Commons cat show2 → Template:Commons category multi (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• Template:Commons cat multi → Template:Commons category multi (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• Template:Commoncats → Template:Commons category multi (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Cleanup in redirects for different commons related templates. Per Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_February_10#Template:Wikicommons. More will follow. MGA73 (talk) 12:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Joined similar nominations. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I joined the new ones also --MGA73 (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete: these redirects make problems for bots, but still are unhelpful for readers and misleading for editors. Basically, all they do is making extra code in bots (thus extra bugs), extra work for bots' masters and extra load on Wikimedia servers. The benefit is also questionable, since they are quirkier but not substantially shorter then the targets' names. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• I have no issue with a rationalisation of the templates, especially culling of the more obtuse names, though I do have some commentary. We need to observe that some of the base templates exist crosswiki, so looking to align functionality and naming is useful when aligned, and I note that CommonsCat is one such name that is used xwiki. There is a need for both a box and an inline version. Some template names can be problematic due to punctuation or case, so getting rid of that may just cause problems, especially if the alternate means are used elsewhere. Can I encourage some redirects to exists, and if there are ongoing issues, then look to have underlying subst: commands that convert the format at the time, alternatively run a bot through to do a clean up. Think about how they have sprung up and remember usability for people first, and bots second. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

You are right that some of the names may excist on other wikis. The only reason for that is that an article or a category was once copied from en-wiki and translated. As mentioned in the original nomination the problem is that the names we use here tend to spread to other wikis. So if we have 50 redirects many of them will end up on other projects making it all more complex. If we were to have the same names they use on other wikis we sould end up with redirects like "위키공용과 분류". I do not think that it would be helpfull.

This DR will not remove any of the formats used (box or inline etc.) it will just remove some of the redirects. --MGA73 (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you should say obscure rather than obtuse. Rich Farmbrough, 19:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC).

I don't see any usability improvements for humans with these redirects, only usability problems. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I am reluctant to see these redirects deleted. Some are obvious typos that will recur, others have been in extensive use on the past, and we are breaking historical versions by deleting them (remember, good referencing practice is to perma-link to historical versions)> Of course there is a cost to some bots, but not necessarily a significant one, depending on the algorithm and purpose of the bots. It is good practice to deal with necessary template redirects. However I do think they confuse matters by being left in active use so I would support:

• Orphan but keep Rich Farmbrough, 19:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC).
  
• Keep, but support actively orphaning. There is no harm in keeping them as reminders. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep, but orphan. The reality is that people do make these typos. Bots should be coded to automatically detect template redirects using the Backlinks API. This only needs to be coded once, and once tested there should not be any bugs no matter how many new redirects are needed. I have no problem with a bot automatically orphaning these on an ongoing basis. Superm401 - Talk 20:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

If you can implement it it would be super cool :-) Feel free to comment on http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=603138&aid=3494734&group_id=93107 or take ownership of it. --MGA73 (talk) 17:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I've commented with a slightly more detailed version of what I posted here. The API is not complex. There's an example on the API page. I'll look into implementing it, but I'm not familiar with the Python Wikipedia Robot Framework, so someone else may be faster. Superm401 - Talk 02:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep per Superm401. We should try to have many redirects so that editors can easily find the templates they're looking for, even if they don't remember the exact name. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep per all the reasons already mentioned, and I support having a bot actively orphan them. Redirects are cheap, and properly coded bots shouldn't have any problems no matter how many redirects are created. As for these potentially causing problems for other wikis, that's not really a valid reason as we have no control over those wikis. If they decide to copy a bunch of templates and redirects, I don't see a problem. That's something for them to work it out. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Gumby's pizza

• Gumby's pizza → Pizza (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Delete. This is vaguely spammy, as there are a few pizzerias so named, and there's no meaningful reason to redirect to pizza. (No disrespect to the Great Green Being.) Clarityfiend (talk) 02:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: This redirect was added in 2006 to preempt the re-creation of blatantly spammy (and mildly derogatory) content that had previously been at the page. That would be a legitimate use of redirects, though usually only after multiple deletions. I abstain for now. Rossami (talk) 04:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete and salt: this redirect is a tricky one: its stats show that it is employed somehow, still it is clearly misleading. I believe that it should be deleted to avoid making false impression that Wikipedia has something about "Gumby's pizza" and salted to address the concerns that its creation was based on (as reported by Rossami). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep maybe change target to "Pizzaria" - if someone could write that - not new or harmful. Rich Farmbrough, 19:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC).
  
• Delete and salt as I don't think salting was around back then. Keeping the redirect to prevent recreation is not a good thing. Salting it is the way to go. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete and salt per Nihonjoe. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete and salt Per User:Nihonjoe. TucsonDavidU.S.A. 11:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

February 25

Southern Border (disambiguation)

• Southern Border (disambiguation) → Southern Border Region (California) (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Misleading, this page does not redirect to a disambiguation; Southern Border is now a redirect. TimBentley (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The Southern Border redirect is also misleading and unused; delete that, too. Dicklyon (talk) 22:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment  Already back at RfD?  Why are these redirects attracting so much attention?  Unscintillating (talk) 02:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment  Talk:Southern Border remains hidden, can someone restore that?  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 02:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep "Southern Border" because it is part of a complicated series of content mergers and page moves and helps to document the history of the current content. "Southern Border (disambiguation)" is neither harmful nor especially confusing to readers. There are a number of disambig redirects in the system - usually because the page was once a true disambiguation but the other uses were eventually removed, sometimes because of an overzealous bot. Repointing them to the only remaining target is normal. It does seem to me, however, that there should be at least some alternate uses to turn that title into a true disambiguation page. Rossami (talk) 04:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• reinstate disambiguation page which existed until the 25th at Southern Border (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), and then retarget the disambiguation redirect there. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 06:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep: As it currently is, I don't have a problem with it. As long as the current version of all the many artifacts from this long, strange trip just redirect to the surviving version, I think it's fine. I initiated the PROD and the first RfD, just trying to help simplify and clean up some of the mess, but if the more usual way is to just point all the elements to what's current, then that's fine too. But BTW, there is still some history I can't find in any of the "artifact" articles' histories-- namely the "huge mass of unrelated information copy-pasted from the San Diego County and Imperial County articles" and the version "trimmed of all the fat... attempting to prove that San Diego-Imperial is actually a real concept or real entity" mentioned by MelanieN in her "Delete" vote here: [4]. If we're trying to "document the history of the current content", as mentioned by Rossami above, then we should probably try and find those. I don't see them listed in "History" for Southern Border, Southern Border (disambiguation), San Diego-Imperial, or San Diego-Imperial, California. If we're really trying to keep the history of what happened with this whole area of subject matter, then that is the relevant history. All these other articles mentioned are just playing bit parts in the whole drama. -- Rnickel (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is one of the versions that characterizes "Southern Border" as a populated place: here.  What happened is that the current article was written from scratch during an AfD that redirected the "populated place" article to the new article.  I'd slightly prefer the half-baked disambiguation page at Southern Border that could be improved, but to me the important thing is to keep the edit history, because just the still-missing Talk:Southern Border makes it difficult to impossible to know what is missing.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah! Yes, that is the history I was looking for. My mistake was trying "California" with a comma instead of parens. Good on ya', Unscintillating. -- Rnickel (talk) 16:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Comment If "keep and redirect" is the usual procedure for DAB pages that don't disambiguate anything any more, as Rossami says, I suppose that's OK; as the saying goes, WP:Redirects are cheap. Personally I don't really see any point to this page, since anyone trying to search for "Southern Border" is already redirected to Southern Border Region (California) - which was the title everyone finally agreed on after half-a-dozen attempts. I would have preferred the PROD deletion, which happened earlier this month and was then reversed. IMO this article's history is trivial. The actual history of this "long strange trip" as RNickel said - starting with the original article composed of cut-and-pastes from San Diego County and Imperial County - can be found at the redirect page "San Diego–Imperial (California)" [5]. That was the page which began as "Southern Border" and was moved to "Southern Border (California)" and then to "San Diego-Imperial, California" and finally to "San Diego-Imperial (California)". That article was AfD'ed, and the result was a redirect to "Southern Border Region (California) which is where it stands now. Whew! I suppose all the intermediate steps in the chain are now also redirects - again probably not needed, but redirects are cheap. --MelanieN (talk) 16:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment  This redirect was nominated because of an edit to an article page (an edit that changed a dab page to a redirect page) that occurred shortly after the article page was dePRODed, but the dePROD for the talk page of the article is still not complete.  Would it be possible to get the dePROD completed to enable the discussion here?  This RfD was posted before I knew that the article had been dePRODded, so I had no chance to discuss this issue with the admin before the issue came here.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject:Ravidassia

• Wikipedia:WikiProject:Ravidassia → Wikipedia:WikiProject Ravidassia (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Unlikely typo. Apparently a copy-paste move to Wikipedia:WikiProject Ravidassia with the editing history, so not a CSD case. I'm not even sure if this is MfD or RfD case, but since it's currently a redirect placing it here. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete after merging edit history. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep WP:CHEAP, and I don't see the problem since WikiProjects can easily be accidentally assumed to be a subnamespace. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 10:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

February 24

Neuralgia-inducing cavitational osteonecrosis (NICO)

• Neuralgia-inducing cavitational osteonecrosis (NICO) → Neuralgia-inducing cavitational osteonecrosis (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

• Delete unnecessary. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. Another artifact of a pagemove. Content was at this site for almost 3 years prior to the move. Link rot is bad and redirects are cheap. The redirect is neither confusing nor harmful to readers. Rossami (talk) 04:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep per Rossami and the lack of valid deletion rationale. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

February 23

Waffleist

• Waffleist → Life stance (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• Waffleism → Life_stance#Example_lifestances (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Life stance does not say anything about Waffleist Chealer (talk) 21:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Whatever the decision is, the redirect Waffleism should share the same fate. Rossami (talk) 23:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
• Interesting. "Waffelism" was in the article back in 2008 as a non-denominational (and theoretically more neutral) example which the reader could then compare to the other '-isms'. It appears to have been taken out after a good-faith debate about the flow of the article. In the meantime, however, a number of websites have popped up using Waffelism as a parody religion similar to Flying Spaghetti Monsterism. I could see either retargetting to parody religion or deleting in the hope that, if notable and sourcable, the redlink might encourage someone to write the article. Rossami (talk) 00:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• It's true that I created the Waffleism entry and redirect as a theoretically more neutral example, but if I had known better, I would probably have redirected it to parody religion directly. As for now, I think any additional entries on this subject has more chance of survival in a subsection of that article than as an individual article, so I'm leaning towards a redirect to parody religion. Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Added Waffleism to nomination. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete: there is no sense in neither keeoing it nor redirecting it to parody religion, as these targets say nothing about the essence of Waffleism. I think that the red link entry for Waffleism should be actually created at parody religion, so that people knowledgeable about the normal sources on topic could consider creating an article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• I also nominated Wafflesim for speedy deletion per WP:CSD § R3. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

TGen Drug Development (TD2)

• TGen Drug Development (TD2) → TGen Drug Development (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Implausible redirect - against well established policy. (Why is Rossami (talk · contribs) on a mission to retain these pointless redirects?) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep in accordance with policy and long-established precedent. The content existed at this title for months before being moved. The new title is better but the old title is neither confusing nor controversial. The pagemove process automatically creates these redirects both to capture any inbound links (whether internal or external) AND to help the editors/readers who worked on the page find the new location. When we summarily delete the redirects after pagemoves, new editors frequently think that the server somehow "ate" their content and repost it, forking the article and creating more work for everyone. Redirects are cheap - far cheaper than the rework that comes from deleting them without good cause. Rossami (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. Comes up on a search which creates reader confusion, and it adds to the maintenance burden for editors. Look at it at a reader viewpoint. Editor hand-holding is secondary to the requirements for readers. PLEASE ignore all rules if it gives the reader a satisfying WP experience. And note that there are no incoming links that need to go to the target article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
  • So tag it with {{unprintworthy}} to suppress its inclusion in search results.
    Regarding readers over editors, I strongly agree. Remember that an unknown number of readers also found and maybe linked to the older title while content was there.
    Regarding links, you have recently updated the inbound internal links but links to the old title remain in page histories of several other pages and could be restored if, for example, a page has to be reverted back to clean up overlooked vandalism. Remember also that "what links here" only shows you links from other Wikipedia pages. There are no tools to find links from outside the project. Rossami (talk) 19:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Sure, tagging it with {{unprintworthy}} solves the search problem but here we are still wasting valuable editing time on something that is infinitesimally small compared to the project on the whole. The chance of the redir linked from outside of WP is very small given that the article was created in late 2011. PLEASE, look at the big picture. Don't waste your time keeping these redirs. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry but I believe you have it exactly backwards. The big picture is that 1) the project exists to serve readers, many of whom navigate the wiki differently than you and I, 2) we can't know whether or how many external links exist (though we make assumptions based on age) but link rot is a serious problem and should be minimized whenever possible, 3) new editors tend to over-react when their good-faith contributions disappear and 4) Redirects are cheap. The value of the redirect may be small but the cost of keeping it around is essentially zero. Let me reverse the question. Why are you wasting valuable editing time trying to delete these unharmful redirects? Move the page and be done with it. Leave the redirect alone. Rossami (talk) 23:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
        • So why is deletion inconsistently applied? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep: harmless, leftover after move, no reason to delete. (Why is there so many bogus nominations recently?) — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Rand, Paul

• Rand, Paul → Paul Rand (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

We seem to tend to only do redirects like this for especially prominent people (e.g. Obama, Barack but no Obama, Michelle), perhaps because when you search for the reversed form the top result is invariably the intended target. This one is especially confusing given the existence of Rand Paul, who's probably better known and gets more pageviews – a dab page might be appropriate but I'd favor deletion. – hysteria18 (talk) 17:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• Rand Paul has a hat-note, so does Paul Rand. I'm not sure that someone searching with a comma would be likely to be looking for anyone other than Paul Rand. Rich Farmbrough, 18:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC).
  
• I am inclined to agree with Rich that a reading using this format is most likely to be looking for the current target. I can see the argument for a disambiguation page but better in my mind to keep as is. The hatnotes are sufficient for the few who get misdirected. Rossami (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep: it is fairly common to put comma between last and first names when spelled in this order, and not otherwise. I see no need in DAB, neither good rationale for deletion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Talinn

• Talinn → Tallinn (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Deletion. Implausible typo and that kind of spelling is not common in any language (at least in any major language for sure.) Was nominated for speedy as R3 but was declined due incoming links. All these incoming links are repaired now (except talk pages). Beagel (talk) 05:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• Speedy keep clearly nomination doesn't make sense. If it's implausible, there wouldn't have been any incoming links. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 09:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Completely plausible typo. Pleased to see the current set of incoming links have been fixed but more may arrive at any time. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. And so far when there is a totally normal blue link instead of red one, nobody will even take a care to notice and fix the typo—plausible or not. Beagel (talk) 14:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. This is an entirely plausible typo and the title is not in the way of any other obvious content. Redirects are cheap. Why do you want to make life harder for our readers (who won't know how to follow a redlink) just to browbeat the few editors who make a minor and plausible spelling mistake? Rossami (talk) 19:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep: very plausible misspelling. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities (NCEF)

• National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities (NCEF) → National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Unneeded redir. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per standard policy. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
  • What policy? – hysteria18 (talk) 17:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. The redirect is an artifact of a recent pagemove. The new title is better but the old title is neither confusing nor harmful to readers. The content sat without controversy or confusion at the old title for 3 1/2 years before being moved. While there are currently no internal inbound links to the redirect, we know that internal links remain in the project history of various pages and we can not exclude the possibility of external links still referencing that title.
  Our standard policy and long-standing precedent, by the way, is that redirects such as this are routinely kept. That's why the pagemove process defaults to their creation. Rossami (talk) 18:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Can you give data that supports keeping these redirs? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. Will come up on a search which creates reader confusion, and it adds to the maintenance burden for editors. Look at it at a reader viewpoint. Editor hand-holding is secondary to the requirements for readers. PLEASE ignore all rules if it gives the reader a satisfying WP experience. Note that there are no incoming links that need to go to the target article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep: the article was there for 4 years, and we just don't know yet, whether it was bookmarked/linked externally. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

February 19

This Year

• This Year → 2012 (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• Present Year → 2012 (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• Current Year → 2012 (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• This century → 21st century (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Per the same reason This decade and This year were deleted. Implausible search term and it would need to be changed every century. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete and salt: these redirects are potentially harmful, as they can be linked from the articles on current events either creating cases for otherwise unneeded cleanup or confusing future by-passers. As these redirects get re-created over time, salting seems to be a right measure. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I don't care what you do with this redirect, I made it years ago. Do whatever you want with it. I'm no longer active on this site anyway. BlazeTheMovieFan (talk) 01:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep current year, present year, this year as per discussion on November 30, excluding "This century" which is unnecessary and should be deleted, Anyone whom uses a non Gregorian calendar system and is not familiar with our use of years may actually find these helpful. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 01:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
  • You think someone aware of Gregorian calendar will find it more useful to probe for This Year instead of looking at Gregorian calendar or Main Page or just scrolling down to see the date at the bottom line? I don't think such users can navigate to Wikipedia at all. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Not everyone is even aware of the name of our calendar system, even those who use it, I'd say a good percentage of Americans know its 2012, but have never heard the term "Gregorian" or even the closley related "Julian". In Armenia its 1461, in Iran its 1390, in Ethiopia its 2004, in China its 4648, in Saudi Arabia its 1433, now lets say someone from one of these places comes into contact with a computer, and has knowledge of the english language, this could be a possible search term for one who may think they know the year but are not entirely sure. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 17:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Don't think that these people will ever watch that on Wikipedia; if not, don't think it'll be English Wikipedia; if not, don't think they would capitalize both words. Together all these issues make such use of these redirects absolutely impossible. And even if I'm wrong, there's no guarantee these redirects will get updated soon enough not to do a bad job for this purpose. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
        • Then we could rename these to be lower case, or delete these and create new lower cased ones, and if you are really worried about a once a year update lets all right it down to check on December 31, we don't need a robot to do everything, do we? What is wrong with updating something so simple, manually? We manually change all the information on the year pages when the year changes, we manually change the articles relating to senators, governors and presidents when elections and inaugurations happen, right? I feel a big deal has made over these little simple search tools. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
          • Will you remember to do that? Will you take care of tracking down and changing all the wrong and misleading uses of this redirect? Each year? I would, but I will forget it in a couple of days. Are you sure you won't? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
            • A fellow wikipedian of ours created this list page around the time of the last discussion, I will do some searching in the What links here for other ones that may be out there, Thryduulf has given us prior permission to add any such time sensitive redirects to the list, this list archives time sensitive redirects for us all, US meaning Me, Thryduulf, the creators of some of these links and anyone else whom wishes to maintain the order of things. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 04:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
              • Thank you for bringing up that list, it could do with being higher profile to help everyone keep such links up to date. I've run out of wiki time to do more to it now, but I never managed to finishing adding all the redirects I found looking at Special:PrefixIndex/Next. Thryduulf (talk) 15:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Previous discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2011_November_30#Current_Year. — This, that, and the other (talk) 02:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep per the recent consensus that these are not harmful. Thryduulf (talk) 10:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
• My views remain unchanged from the previous discussion. It is not clear to me that the fact that someone can speak English to some more than minimal extent necessarily implies that they are both aware of the Gregorian calendar and know what it is called. Whilst the current date is included on the main page, it is not positioned so as to make it strikingly obvious. I had not previously noticed that it was present. James500 (talk) 12:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
  • How do you think, would it happen if you were familiar with Gregorian calendar? I also want to share the observation: all the Wikipedias use Gregorian calendar: I take it as a hint that everybody is familiar with it. And even if I'm wrong, I don't think that anybody unfamiliar with Gregorian calendar would search for This Year with such capitalization on English (not local) Wikipedia. These four points make these redirects very much implausible for such a case. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I am unable to comment on what other editions of Wikipedia do. The article Gregorian calendar does, however, describe it as the "internationally accepted civil calendar". James500 (talk) 16:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
• What about Current decade and Present decade? --84.61.139.62 (talk) 17:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
• Temporal links of this sort are actively harmful. The arguments in favour concerning alleged ignorance of the present calendar by readers are so specious as to be nearly impossible to take seriously. Any consumer with such limited ability to obtain the present date is likely to be reading our articles from some clone of the canonical online source where the redirect is either irrelevant or certain to be out of date. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 00:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Please cite your source for temporal links being "actively harmful". It is unlikely that people are using them to find the current date, but whyever they do so people are using them. Far from being harmful, I'd say that these redirects provide a useful way to find (via whatlinks here) articles such as those you cite which need improvement. Thryduulf (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete and salt per Chris Cunningham. Bringing up the Gregorian calendar argument isn't upholding WP:NPOV, it's being ridiculous. To fight fire with fire, please bring me some WP:RS showing that there exist Internet users who do not know that the current year is 2012. The subset of that group who also consult English Wikipedia is likely to be even smaller and there's a very good chance that both groups are nonexistent. Delete, as harmful. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Regardless of why people do so, all of these redirects are well used - varying from 30 hits/month to 1700 hits/month. No evidence has been presented to show they are misleading or harmful, and history shows that they are kept up to date. Why then do you want to make navigating Wikipedia harder for those people who use these redirects, and how is doing so benefiting Wikipedia? Thryduulf (talk) 17:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

National Association of Credit Management (NACM)

• National Association of Credit Management (NACM) → National Association of Credit Management (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Delete -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - identical rationale as the Credit Managers' Index (CMI) discussion immediately below. Rossami (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per standard practice. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Credit Managers' Index (CMI)

• Credit Managers' Index (CMI) → Credit Managers' Index (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Delete -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. This redirect is an artifact of a pagemove. The pagemove was executed the same day as the article's creation but the title, while inconsistent with the Manual of Style for pagenames, is not confusing or harmful to readers. Tag with {{unprintworthy}} and leave it per WP:CHEAP. Rossami (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per standard practice. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Radiographic Supporting Bone Index (RSBI)

• Radiographic Supporting Bone Index (RSBI) → Radiographic Supporting Bone Index (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Delete. unlikely search term. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. This redirect is an artifact of a pagemove. The content was at this location for 3 months prior to the move. The title, while inconsistent with the Manual of Style for pagenames, is not confusing or harmful to readers. Tag with {{unprintworthy}} but there is no valid reason to delete it. Redirects do more than merely support the search engine. Rossami (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per standard practice. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)