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
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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

February 27

CAMRA

• CAMRA → Campaign for Real Ale (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

This redirect has for 7 years pointed to Campaign for Real Ale, but there is now a suggestion that there should be a dab page at CAMRA. PamD 18:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep redirect pointing to Campaign for Real Ale: this substantial organisation is the primary usage, over a marginally-notable community arts organisation. (I brought the discussion to RfD because other editors were scrapping about it, not because I believe that the status quo needs to be changed.) PamD 18:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Millitary History

• Millitary History → Chamar (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

I believe 'Military History' does not solely mean chamar or chamar regiment and I think its misleading as well. Shriram (talk) 14:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• This redirect is a typo, with two "L"s: have redirected it to the correct spelling. PamD 18:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse PamD's retargetting. Good catch. Rossami (talk) 22:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse PamD's retargetting as well.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
• Retarget to Military history. 72.161.241.241 (talk) 23:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Allizom

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

AFAIK "allizom", "mozilla" in reverse, is used today as a name for Mozilla's testing website for early staging versions of its websites. Now it redirects to SeaMonkey. Maybe it had something to do with SeaMonkey in the past, but it's not clear what it was and the article doesn't say it. It should better be deleted. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete can't find reliable sources that links it to the Mozilla project. Most that I found are blog entries with allizom user names and a link to an SEO company.--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

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: [1]. 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)" [2]. 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)

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)

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 22

Bajingo

• Bajingo → List of Scrubs characters (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

There is no Scrubs character named "Bajingo" listed on List of Scrubs characters, therefore this redirect should be deleted. Neelix (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete This was apparently a one-off joke in the show, but it's an unlikely search term. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete: as of now this redirect received 91 hits (including today's 23, which is normal for RfD) for the last 90 days, which is less then 1 hit/day. This is below the noise level, so, if there is indeed no such character in Scrubs, the redirect may be safely deleted. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Gatekeeper (application)

• Gatekeeper (application) → Gatekeeper (software) (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Unused and inaccurate. It's not an application with a significant user interface of its own like an anti-virus. It's just a background program or mere feature(s) of other programs. Cybercobra (talk) 03:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep pending the outcome of the AfD of the target page. Assuming that page is kept, this redirect is entirely reasonable. The distinction between an "application" and "software" is highly technical (and the distinction offered here is not universal). Readers could reasonably use either term when looking for this topic. The redirect is not overtly harmful or confusing to readers. Rossami (talk) 04:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
  • You assert that people include parentheses in their searches? I could see "Gatekeeper application" but not "Gatekeeper (application)". --Cybercobra (talk) 00:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I quite frequently use parens in my searches. For example, when searching for an album, I will frequently write "Help (album)" (which happens to be a redirect to Help! (album)) not just Help, since it would seem to me obvious that will end me up at either a DAB or at the "wrong" topic, whereas using the parens will likely end me up either at the right topic or with the right topic being top of search results. Si Trew (talk) 17:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep, per Rossami. --SF007 (talk) 07:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete: there are two other Gatekeeper applications listed under Gatekeeper (disambiguation) and I know another one which might get its article once, so per Rossami's rationale this should be either disambiguated or redirected to Gatekeeper (disambiguation). The fact that no one created this redirect since June 19, 2005‎ (initial revision of H.323 Gatekeeper article) shows that the need of this redirect is at least questionable. Another fact – that the target article lived under the redirect's name for less then 24 hours – shows that keeping it for historical reasons also doesn't make much sense. So, given the implausibility of this redirect, documented for the last 6,5 years, and lack of reasons to keep it, I choose the "delete" position. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I'd not seen that page. Good catch. A retarget to the disambiguation page might work but not with the current content. "Actio Gatekeeper" is a redlink and has been so since 2010 when that page was deleted as spam. (It should not be in the disambiguation list any more.) "H.323 Gatekeeper" is, I believe, a VOIP protocol - a conceptual component more than a stand-alone application or piece of software. It's a bit beyond my expertise, though. It does appear that the current target (if kept at AfD) should be added to that disambiguation page regardless of the fate of this redirect. Rossami (talk) 02:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

February 21

Walk away Renée !

• Walk away Renée ! → Walk away Renée (film) (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Incorrect punctuation. Redirect leftover after page-move to MOS compliant title. Unlikely search term. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 18:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep because it's a left-over from a valid pagemove. The new title is better but the original title was neither confusing nor obviously harmful to our readers. The redirect points the original readers/editors to the place where their content can be found and preempts the problem of editors who re-create content (inadvertantly forking the article) because they think that the first version was somehow eaten by the server rather than simply moved. Redirects are cheap and do more than merely support the search engine. Rossami (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• Speedy close as keep: this redirect [arguably] could be deleted if it was useless. Still, we can't be sure that nobody already bookmarked this, as we don't have usable usage stats. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• Strong delete as malplaced redirect. The apostrophe exclamation mark is not commonly used. ApprenticeFan ^work 11:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
  • If you refer to U+00E9 LATIN SMALL LETTER E WITH ACUTE as "apostrophe", then I strongly disagree: it is used at least as wide as the French language. And my keyboard layout ("us(hbs)" xkb symbol set) is capable of it. Actually, as of xkeyboard-config 2.5.1 48% (318 of 657) layouts are capable of this letter, which is nowhere close to "not common". — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Здравко Георгиев Здравков

• Здравко Георгиев Здравков → HIV trial in Libya (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

The original version of this redirect was an autobiographical article that should have been speedily deleted per A7; compare it to User:Zzdravkov. It should be deleted because the title (Zdravko Georgiev Zdravkov) is the name of a non-notable Wikipedian, not the name of the doctor (whose name is Zdravko Georgiev). Gorobay (talk) 16:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per WP:CSD § A7: criterion applies and no good target exists. I see no other options, actually. Note: in Slavic languages the name which comes after the first name is the father's name, so written in short form the subject of the article is Zdravko Zdravkov, and the doctor is Zdravko Georgiev. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Like spinning plates

• Like spinning plates → Amnesiac (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Should be deleted as Like Spinning Plates already redirects to Amnesiac. What a pro (talk) is on fire. 13:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep as long as Like Spinning Plates points to the same place. Redirects for capitalization variants are routine. While the Wikipedia search engine is (now) case-insensitive, several of the other techniques that our readers use to navigate the wiki remain case-sensitive. It should probably be tagged with {{R from capitalization}}, though. Rossami (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Why do you always suggest redirected versions of these templates? Is there any benefit to use {{R from capitalization}} over {{R from other capitalisation}}? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Why? I guess because I'm old and "R from capitalization" was the one I first learned. I am also a native American-English speaker and the s instead of z is not intuitive. Since it's redirected, the issue is moot. Whether I am mistaken, forgetful or merely lazy, the redirect insulates the project from my choice. By the way, that makes this a terrific case study for the value of redirects generally. Rossami (talk)
      • Indeed it is a terrific case study for use of redirects. Though I don't think we should mark pages with redirected tags in Redirects for discussion... — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep per Rossami. Actually, my means of navigation are not case-inensitive. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Macadoshis (rapper)

• Macadoshis (rapper) → Tupac Shakur (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Only a one-sentence mention in target. Macadoshis and Tupac only collaborated once, so redirecting him to Tupac's article is coatracking. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per nom 70.24.251.71 (talk) 08:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete and salt: a leftover after move to Macadoshis (the article back then), which was then redirected to Tupac Shakur. The Macadoshis (rapper) had quite a lot of hits until recently; given the quirky name it seems to be linked from somewhere off-wiki, and thus deleting this redirect would do a good job of avoiding confusion. I propose salting, as the source of traffic may bring some people willing to re-create the article when facing an empty page, and the WP:AFC would be a better place for this activity. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:21, 21 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)

CALM, Campaign Against Living Miserably

• CALM, Campaign Against Living Miserably → Campaign Against Living Miserably (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Delete. Unlikely search term. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. This was the title for the content for over 2 years prior to the pagemove. Again, the pagemove was to a name more in keeping with the Manual of Style but the original title is neither confusing nor harmful to readers. Tag with {{unprintworthy}} and leave it per WP:CHEAP. Rossami (talk) 21:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per standard practice. It is covered by the CALM disambig page. We do not need the compound title. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep neither new nor harmful. Rich Farmbrough, 22:25, 26 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)

Erinacine

• Erinacine → Hericium erinaceus (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

No reference to "Erinacine" in target article, doesn't seem like a likely search term. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: This redirect was created by the admin who closed this AfD discussion. If the last comment in the AfD can be substantiated, then the redirect is reasonable regardless of the term's existence on the target page. Rossami (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
• Change my opinion to a solid keep per this medical publication substantiating erinacines as a family of chemicals with medical properties and derived from the Hericium erinaceum. It does seem that a stand-alone article could be made about the chemical family but until someone does that, the redirect is allowable. Rossami (talk) 17:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep per Rossami's findings. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

February 13

Sam Smythe

• Sam Smythe → Max Hardcore (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Apparently malicious redirect that has stood for 8 years. No link between the name and the redirected article. Little Professor (talk) 02:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep and tag {{R from alternative name}} (per IMDb). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete seems to be well down the list of his aliases, as far as I can tell only used once in the film Orgazmo and quite a minor part. There are other with the same name with similar notability levels.[3][4]--Salix (talk): 12:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Lukáš Přibyl

• Lukáš Přibyl → AC Sparta Prague (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Delete, not mentioned in target article. Recently deceased. Geschichte (talk) 15:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• According to this article, he was the Vice Chairman of the organization until his recent death. To the extent that the redirect preempts an otherwise unnotable biography, it could be tolerated, though as you noted, he hasn't been included in the article yet, much less had a biography attempted. Count that as a very, very weak keep, I guess. Rossami (talk) 02:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)