Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion)
Jump to: navigation, search
This page has a backlog that requires the attention of one or more administrators.
Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared.
Skip to Table of Contents. Skip to table of contents · Skip to current discussions · Purge this page
Shortcut:
Deletion discussions

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
  • Invitation to comment on candidates standing for 2012 Audit Subcommittee appointment
  • RfC about whether "new messages" banner hoaxes should be prohibited
  • RfC on how files from non-copyright states should be treated and used on WP
  • RfC on aspects of the leadership of the featured article process
Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.
archive · talk · edit · history · watch

Contents

[edit] Before listing a redirect for discussion

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

[edit] 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.

[edit] When should we delete a redirect?

Shortcut:

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

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

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

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

Shortcut:

[edit] 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.[examples needed]
  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, 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.
Shortcut:

[edit] 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.

[edit] Neutrality of redirects

Shortcut:

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

Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:

  1. Articles that are created using non-neutral titles are routinely moved to a new neutral title, which leaves behind the old non-neutral title as a working redirect (e.g. 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.

[edit] 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).

[edit] How to list a redirect for discussion

Shortcut:

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

I.
Flag the redirect.

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

{{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]]

Administrator instructions

[edit] Current list

[edit] February 9

[edit] AMAA

Deletion proposed, as it seems unnecessary and confusing. Unnecessary because the acronym doesn't expand to the target page's name, nor does the acronym or anything that it could plausibly stand for appear anywhere on the target page. Confusing because it gives undue prominence to this supposed meaning of the acronym over other meanings: I encountered this page when searching the web to find out what ‘AMAA’ means. The meaning I was searching for was harder to find because of Wikipedia's dominance in giving this meaning for it; that would be reasonable if this were indeed the most common meaning, but I can't find any evidence of that, and given it's so obscure as to not even appear on the target page it seems unlikely. Smylers (talk) 10:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] February 8

[edit] Human consumption

Delete. The most common use of the phrase "human consumption" is to refer to things consumed by humans; but anthropophagy refers to the consumption of humans. This redirect is very unlikely to reflect the actual intent of any article linking to it. R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Disambiguate This is a tricky one, but I was able to make a dab of sorts. --Lenticel (talk) 01:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak retarget to Consumption (sociology), or just delete - The idea to disambiguate was a good one, but there doesn't seem to be enough material to disambiguate; for instance, it's a bit of a strecth to include Consumer (food chain) since that article makes only a passing mention of consumption of other organisms by humans. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate: I would actually read the title exactly as consumption of human, and I believe that there could be some more people reading it the same way. Still it is pretty evident that the other viewpoint is also present. BTW, the search term is actually a good one, so I wouldn't consider deletion as a viable option at all. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Gluten intolerance

I am rather unhappy that typing in gluten intolerance, one gets redirected to coeliac disease. As mentioned on the Radio Four programme "Inside Health", presented by Mark Porter, the term "gluten intolerance" is a synonym for gluten sensitivity; the programme was careful to explain that this is NOT coeliac disease. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACEOREVIVED (talk • contribs) 15:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Wrong forum: no admin action required. DIY. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
    I think the user above may want to retarget the redirect to gluten sensitivity.--70.24.208.34 (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
    Yes, that is exactly the redirect which I would be a lot happier with! Many thanks for your comment, ACEOREVIVED (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
    That's how I got it. And this action indeed doesn't require administrator's intervention. That's why DIY. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Retarget per nom. The article Gluten sensitivity makes reference to "non-celiac gluten intolerance", meaning that the current target is misleading. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: Per the above comments, I have gone ahead and changed the redirect and removed the RFD tag. I'm unfamiliar with closing procedures or if regular editors are even supposed to, so please feel free to close this unless there's some issue with my actions. – RobinHood70 talk 05:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


Thank you for every one's help on this one. It seems we now have settled (and corrected) this one. Many thanks again every one, ACEOREVIVED (talk) 09:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] List of awesome dinosaurs

This redirect was created on the idea that "dinosaurs are inherently awesome", which I won't dispute (except to say that paleontologists have ruined Jurassic Park's velociraptors for me), but that's not really the function of redirects (although it's good for a laugh). The redirect itself is neither a likely search term, having registered an average of c. 12 hits per month in the 24 months since its creation, nor an accurate one as 'awesomeness' is, sadly, not a criterion used at the target article. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Philly.com

Not sure about this. Philly.com isn't just the website of the Enquirer but also of its sister paper the Philadelphia Daily News. This might be best retargeted to Philadelphia Media Network, the entity which publishes all both papers and the website. – hysteria18 (talk) 03:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Speedy close as retarget per nomination: no admin action required, DIY. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I think this is a slight misunderstanding of the role of RFD. This is redirects for discussion, not for deletion, and I think a discussion here would be useful. If I thought retargeting was indisputably the best course of action, rest assured I would have done so myself. – hysteria18 (talk) 02:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
      • I see no sense in this course of action: the proposed target is clearly better then the current one, and, provided that you would leave a reasonable edit summary, the subsequent refining of target can be done easier by less heavy-weight procedure then RfD. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
        • As I said above, if I thought the proposed target was clearly better than the current one I would have retargeted it myself. But I wasn't sure, so I created an RFD instead. Obviously you're free to !vote to retarget, and I'm inclined to agree, and the RFD will likely be closed to that effect in due time. But discussion is valuable, and a speedy close would be unwise. – hysteria18 (talk) 12:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Pussy stank

Useless redirect. Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary. – Confession0791 talk 01:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Ew. Also delete per nom. – hysteria18 (talk) 03:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom as unlikely synonym.--Lenticel (talk) 04:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Trans-Asia ship.JPG

Bringing to RfD as a contested speedy. Redirect contains no inbound file links, highly ambiguous search term which has little relevance to the image it redirects to. -FASTILY (TALK) 00:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] February 7

[edit] Lakoda Rayne members

Numerous members of non-notable group who lost the American version of The X Factor was recently created few days ago, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lakoda Rayne. ApprenticeFan work 11:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

  • I think this nomination is premature. If the target article is deleted by the AfD discussion, all the inbound redirects will be deleted at the same time. (Or at least, they should be.) If the article is kept (unlikely in my opinion but possible), then these redirects would be allowable by whatever reasoning keeps the target page. Rossami (talk) 14:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Follow the target's fate. Please keep open unless AfD is closed. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Ellwood, Jr.

Delete all. Numerous redirects made by article creator. I have omitted Paul Ellwood, P M Ellwood and Paul M. Ellwood from the nomination. Redirects are cheap but this is excessive. Without a redirect the article would still be the first search hit for a lot of them. I haven't tagged the redirects. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] February 6

[edit] Template:Bookrationale

Unused? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Blue-ray Disc rationale

Unused . Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Billy Cundiff's missed kick at end of 2012 AFC Championship game

Implausible redirect. See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012_February_5#Wide left in which the creator attempted to compromise the discussion by moving Wide left to this title. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete as an entirely implausible redirect, and a blatant attempt at evasion. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 18:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete - Jesus tapdancing Christ let it go already, no one is going to use that awkwardly verbose line to as a search term. Plausibility is out the window, as well as patience; this user goes to WP:ANI for tendentious behavior if another variation of this craps up again anywhere. Tarc (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep This is not an implausible redirect term. This actually describes what that section of the article is about. This falls under WP:R#KEEP provisions 1, 3, and 5. #1 says "They have a potentially useful page history" which this does. The edit history is fully verifiable too. #3 says "They aid searches on certain terms" which this does. #5 says "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," and this is an example of that too. Those calling for deletion may not find it useful, but I might. Redirect are cheap, and no one has shown any demonstrated Harm this redirect causes to Wikipedia at all. This fits none of the criteria listed under WP:R#DELETE, so therefore, there is no actual policy that says this can be deleted.
So far, as the first "keep" here, I have cited actually policies and guidelines favoring a keep of this. None of the deletes so far have cited any policies and guidelines favoring deletion, just the fact that they are "impatient" or that they view this as "evasion." If all the remaining deletes take that route, no matter how many deletes there are, policy trumps vote count, which means this would have to be a keep. Hellno2 (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Hellno, no one, and I mean no one, is ever going to search for this exact phrase without some prior knowledge that it exists. Nobody. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 23:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: See WP:MAD. CallawayRox (talk) 20:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: Eagles 24/7 made a unilateral decision to delete the edit history without a discussion to do so. I don't know where to bring this up, but this does warrant some discussion. I don't want to make the situation more chaotic while these and a discussion for wide left are going on simultaneously, but this may be something that has to be brought up in a deletion review or something. Hellno2 (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "Without a discussion"? It was discussed at length here. Good luck with a DRV. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • As Eagles says, that point was discussed ad nauseam at the AfD, and the consensus was clear to the admin: delete. Yes, he restored the history for you, but he has also been online for minimal periods as of late and probably a) didn't remember the exact situation (you didn't refer to the closing decision in your request) b) didn't have time to do a full, or even brief research. I'm sure he explain when he gets online. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 23:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Articles to merge

Cross-namespace redirect, not even a shortcut. No reader will be interested in our maintenance category, and editors can use one of the actual shortcuts such as CAT:MERGE. Unfortunately, WP:CSD#R2 doesn't apply to main→Category redirects. Anomie⚔ 16:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Dəmi Lovato

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedily deleted G7 by User:Fastily. (Non-admin closure). ApprenticeFan work 06:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Very unlikely search term as most people would just search 'Demi Lovato' not 'Dəmi Lovato' JayJayTalk to me 02:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

[edit] So random! season 3

So Random does not even have a second season so there would be no reason to suggest this redirect would be needed. JayJayTalk to me 01:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] February 5

[edit] Wide left

The AfD clearly had consensus to delete the entire history and not leave a redirect, as this play has never been called "Wide left" in the media. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep Notably, the term is used in reference to this event, very notably in these and other articles: [1], [2], [3]. It is used in many more; these are just the first few examples, and it is impractical to list them all. Redirects are cheap, and there should not be such a fuss over this. There is no battle over using this for other articles or redirects. There are reasons for keeping under WP:R#KEEP nos. 1, 3, and 5. It has a potentially useful history (1), would aid in searches (3), and some people find this useful (5). Hellno2 (talk) 01:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • No, these articles are using the way the ball went as creative titles, they are not outright saying "the play shall be called 'Wide left.'" There are many, many other missed kicks that went wide left, and this one is not particularly notable. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • An article title describing something (or a redirect for that matter, which is not held to the same standards as an article) does not necessarily identify something in the same way as its official name. WP:TITLE goes into that. It is quite complex. But in this case, it is not the title of something; it is a targeted redirect. It is a name that, though it may not be the official name, has been shown in numerous sources to be associated with the event, which is a valid reason for a redirect. This redirect has not been shown to meet any of the criteria for deleting. Hellno2 (talk) 05:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Natty J

Nothing in the article, no google hits and very few pageviews to suggest this is an actual abbreviation, let alone a commonly-used one. – hysteria18 (talk) 22:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete while no search hits hit it, the sooner the better. Si Trew (talk) 22:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete as unlikely synonym.--Lenticel (talk) 01:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Wall Street Putsch

Deletion - the term was never in any common usage, and the redirect is being used as a reason for adding this implausible name to the article lede. One newspaper article in 1934 used it, other than that it is only used by a single author (Sally Denton) with a book just issued in 2012 and an article promoting her book. Redirects used for book promotion are non-good Collect (talk) 20:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep for now as harmless. Not sure. I am sure I have heard the term but am not sure where, but I think "Wall Street Putsch" was used by an author at the time, perhaps in the New York Times. I shall try to look it up and find a reference. Si Trew (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Only used by Sally Denton in a brand-new book. One single use in the 30s using archive search, but that is it. She is currently promoting her book as being relevant to the anti-Wall Street sentiment in vogue, as the folks accused were with the American Legion! Collect (talk) 22:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep for now. Article mentions several times various putsches, by Teddy Roosevelt and so on. Does not mention specifically Wall Street. But I think a likely search term for now. I will try to find better for Wall Street Putsch in particular. Si Trew (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Indented as second !vote Collect (talk) 13:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Second thoughts Not to delete the article or anything, but perhaps it is really sitting under the wrong title and should be moved? But I can't think right now where to. Si Trew (talk) 23:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] UKCOUNTRYREFS

The redirect was originally created as WP:UKCOUNTRYREFS. It was then moved to the main space. It's purpose is to emulate a Wikipedia project namespace short link (for use in talk page discussions etc. as [[UKCOUNTRYREFS]]) but it appears in the main space. Consequently it is an impossibly implausible search term that should not be in the encyclopedia. RA (talk) 12:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete as cross namespace redirect. Serves no useful purpose. Probably a very innocent mistake. Si Trew (talk) 17:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete I guess this is more of a housekeeping procedure.--Lenticel (talk) 01:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Don't assume it's trivial tho. The redirect relates to a heated subject for UK-based editors. I am involved in the matter (which is how I came across the redirect). I agree it is a simple housekeeping tasks, and was created innocently, however, it could blow up. I suggest the closing admin does so with consensus. --RA (talk) 12:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Noted, hope this would pass quietly though.--Lenticel (talk) 01:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Hindu temples in Cuddalore district

Unnecessary page. the page redirects to Category:Hindu temples in Cuddalore district RaviMy Tea Kadai 05:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete as a cross-namespace redirect out of article space. --RA (talk) 12:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete - wrongly created page.Ssriram mt (talk) 13:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)ssriram_mt
  • Delete as above. Si Trew (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Please see also talk page before making decision, at talk, he is working very hard on a series of articles about Hindu temples. A very good Wikipedian. I have never known him before but a pleasure to see another contributor to Wikipedia trying to do his (?) best to make Wikipedia better. Si Trew (talk) 17:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] February 4

[edit] Wikipedia:OTHERCRAPEXISTS

should be deleted because its insulting to the work of others to call their articles crap. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST and WP:OTHERSTUFF can be used instead. A bot can change places that said othercrap to otherstuff to not mess up links, or even without a link you can tell what they mean when they post that. We need to eliminate though so people will stop using it. Dream Focus 23:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment: This was previously discussed in June 2008 and Aug 2010 and kept both times. Rossami (talk)
  • Keep- This attempt to dictate which words people can and cannot use appears to be motived by a desire to push an extreme inclusionist agenda in future discussions. I consider that kind of thing to be doubleplusungood. Previous XfDs along these lines (eg. Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Fancruft_(second_nomination), Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Delete_the_junk) have rightly been rejected. Reyk YO! 23:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
    • What? How does this help push "an extreme inclusionist agenda"? They can still link to the same spot, just use the word "stuff" instead "crap". This came about when a girl editing Wikipedia stated she felt that crap was a curse word, and politely asked Eagle247 to "Please don't swear". I noticed he followed me here. Dream Focus 00:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Note: the user who originally was offended by the word "crap" in this shortcut was also offended by the dead horse pictured in WP:STICK. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Girls think differently than guys do, and some people are more sensitive than others. We need to find a lot of female editors, show them that picture, and ask their opinions. That issue has nothing to do with this one here though. Dream Focus 01:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
        • I hate to break out the censorship argument, but that rationale is largly "Someone is offended, so it should go."Removed per Unscintillating below--v/r - TP 01:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleting the redirect will change nothing. Editors who want to call articles crap can still do [[WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS|WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS]]. See: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.--v/r - TP 00:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep Useful, widely used redirect. Besides some articles actually are crap. And people will fake it by piping it as TParis points out. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
    • The more I think about it, the sillier this nomination is. The nominator says we should delete it because the redirect allows people to be insulting about other people's articles. But consider: when used, it is used as a counterargument against people saying we ought to keep X because there exists some article Y and that X is just as crap as Y, therefore we ought to keep X. The person responding with OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't necessarily agreeing with the contention that either X or Y is crap or that X is crappier than Y or vice versa. They may only be pointing out the crappiness of the argument while taking no position on the articles in question: that is the whole point of WP:ATA. We also have WP:OTHERCRAP, and the ATA page gives examples of when people !voting to delete use this argument: namely, that since we've deleted X, we should also delete Y. That's an "other crap no longer exists" argument. And other than those trying to make a point, nobody really gets too hung up on the word "crap". Nor should they. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
    • We have some silly and fruity shortcuts... because people remember them and they are funny. See, for instance, WP:NOFRIENDS, WP:ANISUCKSTHELIFEOUTOFYOU, WP:HAPPYPLACE, WP:BORING ("OMG, that's calling the article boring!"), WP:RUBBISH (same). Oh, wait, I just committed an OTHERCRAPEXISTS fallacy. Thank god WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS exists! —Tom Morris (talk) 12:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete Consider Wikipedia:Civility, one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, and then this particular redirect should be deleted to promote civility. Yes, some contributions are poorly done, but there are plenty of other mechanisms and procedures for asking for improvements without aspersions. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep, WP is not censored just because some editors find a word offensive no reason to stop others using it. Will not stop editors using the term as TParis points out. Mtking (edits) 01:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete  Allowing redirects like this to go undeleted is contrary to our civility policy, as well as contrary to our overall goal of building an encyclopedia.  When words are used so as to be offensive, the issue is not censorship.  Since editors often reference this essay while being seemingly unaware of what it says, it does not help to have an added layer of incivility to work through to get to the core of reason.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep again for the same reasons as were explained in the previous two debates. While the redirects are marginally incivil, we tolerate far more pejorative language in piped links. Wikipedia is not bowlderized. Deleting these redirects will not significantly affect the debate. On the other hand, deleting these redirects will break a great many archived discussions, making it harder for future reader/editors to understand the context of the discussion. And while a bot could be run to orphan all the currently-active links, that does nothing for the links buried in pagehistories across the project. The costs of deleting this incivil redirect far outweigh the benefits of deleting it. Rossami (talk) 02:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
    • We could solve that problem by instead of just deleting it, we replace it with a message asking people to use WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS instead, to be more civil. Thus the links would still bring you someplace, which would tell you where to correctly link to, and the reason why. Dream Focus 10:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
      • So you effectively want to change it from a hard-redirect to a soft-redirect? That proposal still leaves a redirect and will be unlikely to change behavior the way you intend. Rossami (talk) 10:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
        • It wouldn't be a redirect. It would be a page that said that it was uncivil to use that, and ask them to instead use WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS instead. They could then click on the new link to get to where they were intended to go. Thus problem solved. People would stop using it, and no past links of it would be broken in a way people couldn't easily figure out where it once linked to. Dream Focus 10:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
          • But it isn't uncivil. It's the word "crap". —Tom Morris (talk) 12:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
            • Which is defined [5] as 1a. usually vulgar: feces. 1b. usually vulgar : the act of defecating. 2. sometimes vulgar : nonsense, rubbish; Many do find the word vulgar and uncivil. Why wouldn't you just use the word stuff instead? Dream Focus 18:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
              • Even given that there are articles which are equivalent to faeces, have probably been produced using a process broadly equivalent to the act of defecating, and are nonsense and rubbish, the fact that a word is defined in a particular way doesn't change whether it is offensive or not. And it really isn't very offensive unless you are hypersensitive. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Oppose such a soft redirect, it makes the assumption that every time WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS has been used there is a civility issue, I can think of lots of cases where its use is neither uncivil or directed against a specific contributors work. Mtking (edits) 10:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  • KeepI'm sure my daughter would not be upset with it (oh wait, that's not a guideline or policy based arguement). Isn't Wikipedia not censored? I don't see it as uncivil. Dougweller (talk) 16:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep the name cuts to the point, that arguing to include something because there are other things like it doesn't make sense if that other stuff is not also worthy of inclusion. If the other stuff is just stuff, that doesn't make the point, because of course we want stuff in Wikipedia. This is not the sort of argument that needs to be or should be censored. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep harsh, but the Wiki is not censored.--Lenticel (talk) 00:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete. I lean towards the more deletionist end of the spectrum, but I've always hated this shortcut. Yes, of course Wikipedia is 'not censored' - that's why we're discussing this redirect rather than just deleting it - but we shouldn't encourage people to be pointlessly incivil. That's what this redirect does, when WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a perfectly good alternative. For what it's worth, if it were up to me, I'd delete WP:DICK and WP:FUCK for the same reason: they all just make for a slightly more fractious editing environment for little benefit. Robofish (talk) 02:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:DICK and WP:POINT all quite readily come to mind... Most definate WP:IDONTLIKEIT deletion nom and should be procedurally speedy kept as such. Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 04:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep - If crap is offensive, then it is an extremely small minority, and WP is obviously not censored. Should we hold the entire site to that standard, a heck (bet some are offended at that too) of a lot of editors wouldn't be around. Furthermore, if there's any doubt that there is crap on Wikipedia, I invite editors to take a minute and look at the newest submissions to AfC. The redirect is justified, and entirely in bounds of our rules. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 18:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete per Robofish. The other redirects work fine, no reason to offend people unnecessarily. (There are sufficient necessary reasons... :-) ) --GRuban (talk) 19:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep it's short, it's to the point, and it's been used many thousands of times over the last FIVE YEARS. If you don't like it, don't use it. Rklawton (talk) 01:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - putting these two long-standing redirects here for discussion deletion a second time is disruptive. These links have been in use for years, they've been discussed previously, these links are active in many places, and editors such as myself who are accustomed to using them are finding themselves unable to do so when they least expect it. Given the comments above, I move for a speedy keep - and slap the editor who nominated this redirect for deletion with a trout for disruption. Rklawton (talk) 01:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. Can you imagine how many links would be rendered useless (and thus incomprehensible to newbies) by deletion? WP:IAR is by itself a sufficient reason for keeping here. Nyttend (talk) 02:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep - This nomination is just plain silly, really. Anyone who's insulted by "crap" needs to get out in the world a bit more. On the Universal Scale of Obnoxiousness, "crap" barely even registers, even on the most sensitive settings. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep and snow close - I personally use the more neutral WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I have no problem with this one, and I agree with BMK - if "crap" is found offensive, then the offendee has to have been more sheltered than I was (which is pretty hard to do!). - The Bushranger One ping only 08:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: Oh crap. This will be kept until Wikipedia outgrows its puerile adolescent stage, which will be a while because it is only eleven years old. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep and create WP:FUCKINGCUNT to apply to the situation where editors misuse WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, not as a personal attack, but to describe the behaviour. No one has any reason to be offended by such terms.--Milowent • hasspoken 16:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. The nominator fails to understand the underlying idea: this redirect is supposed to be used against deletion rationale insulting the parent topic and keep rationales for inappropriate (forbidden) content. The ability to abuse the title doesn't mean the title should be deleted. Furthermore, there are numerous occurrences, which were reacted upon, so both redlinking and auto-replacing the occurrences would harm Wikipedia from the historical point of view. The proper way would to deprecate this would be bringing the redirects to the essay's talk page, and upon reaching consensus converting redirects to the softlinks with {{historical}} tag. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Draft Ron Paul Movement

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Procedural Close, non-RfD nomination. Lenticel (talk) 06:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

This article has twice been nominated for deletion. It was recommended for improvement twice. It is still full of unsourced opinions, dubious statements and an incorrect use of the term "draft" when used in a political context. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_politics)

As shown in the article, A few people have gone on record saying that they would like Ron Paul to run for office. That does not equal a broad grassroots movement.

We are now well into the 2012 race and the article is still trying to make a point that just is not there.

The time to improve this article has passed.

Delete.

DFS (talk) 04:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

  • I am confused by this nomination. First, there is no article at the exact title cited above. The content appears to be at Draft Ron Paul movement (note the lower case m). But that page is not (and from what I could tell of history, has never been) a redirect. It is inappropriate to discuss here. I believe this must be administratively closed and renominated to AfD. Rossami (talk) 05:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Oops. Thanks. I had a feeling I was doing this wrong. DFS (talk) 06:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

[edit] February 3

[edit] Wp;drv

Also Wp;aiv; Wp;afd; Wp;ani; Wp;fac; WP;AN, and probably Wp AIV too. These redirects were previously listed for RfD at [7], but I believe that the debate in that case was not comprehensive, and in accordance to WP:CROSS (along with other reasons) I advocate deleting these pages.

First of all, I raise your attention to the general consensus cited on WP:CROSS, which "seems to be that newly created cross-namespace redirects ... should be deleted, that very old ones might be retained value for extra-Wikipedia links." Although this redirect has been around for some time, it is (1) in fact younger than the consensus laid out over there, and (2) certainly not old enough to have a lot of extra-Wikipedia links pointing to it, unless other editors can raise counter-examples.

The previous deletion debate closed as keep mainly because editors voiced concern that WP:CROSS's reasons for deletion are not satisfied. This is not true. According to WP:CROSS:

  • CNRs are bad because they result in a person (reader) walking around a building (encyclopedia) and falling into the pipework (project space) because the builders (editors) thought cracks in the walls and floors would be useful for them to get around.
This applies precisely in this case, as the uncanny and hackish "Wp;" is best described as a crack from the main namespace to the other namespaces. That some editors prefer to go through this crack does not outweigh the harm done by obfuscating the main namespace (see part 3 below).
  • Namespaces were created for a reason, so that the encyclopedic content would be separate. CNRs work against this.
Again, see part 3 below.
  • The filters exist for a reason, to fine-tune search results. And some encyclopedic searches return a majority of Wikipedia pages because of all of the cross-namespace redirects; the user shouldn't have to filter through manually, that's what the filters are for.
This is one of the crux of my argument; that users should not have to filter through CNRs in the main namespace. From this search result, this one, etc., we see that this redirect is indeed listed in a main namespace search, which in principle must return only articles that are considered useful to the general audience. As Project pages are of interest only to editors, and readers far outnumber editors here, I believe that the nuisance caused to the readers may far outweigh any potential convenience the editors may receive. (And, of course, readers don't participate in RfD discussions, so we are necessarily going to have a non-neutral viewpoint here.)
  • Some mirrors duplicate the main article namespace but not the project namespace. Thus, cross-namespace redirects end up creating thousands of broken links on mirrors.
Once again, this hits the point home. On Wikipedia mirrors, readers using the search function will be presented with confusing pages that link to nowhere, which is most certainly unhelpful.

In addition to these reasons enumerated on WP:CROSS, here are two additional suggestions:

  1. I highly doubt that this redirect is "helpful" enough to override all sensible guidelines on naming style and conventions. "WP:DRV" is an appropriate and concise shotcut for "Wikipedia:Deletion review"; "Wp;drv" is an ugly hack that confuses and does not conform to the style set by every other page. Really, if one really wants to save time by not pressing the Shift key, why not create a bookmark for this page?
  2. Even if we are to reach a community consensus that redirects of this kind should be maintained, the stylistically appropriate way to do it is probably making "Wp;" or "WP;" a namespace identifier identical to "Wikipedia:", as I fail to see why these particular few redirects have merits to exist, but not similar redirects for every Wikipedia project page. If we are to reach a consensus that these pages should be kept, I will propose this idea for consideration as an alternative, since I believe that there is a need to address the aforementioned issues, whether the page is kept or deleted.

ZZArch talk to me 22:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep. As the nominator notes, we have been over this territory before: here. The verbose nomination statement can be countered with a few brief observations. (1) The colon/semi-colon is a very likely typo, as can be seen from the number of times these redirects are hit.[8] (2) Some editors have disabilities (eg amputated digits or diabetic neuropathy) that make it hard to navigate using the shift key in the middle of a string of letters. (3) The strings of characters behind this and similar redirects bear no relationship to likely article titles. There is no chance that a reader looking for an article will stumble upon them. And that's pretty much the only real danger of cross-namespace redirects. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Once again, I am not at all doubting that some user may find this redirect helpful. Nevertheless, this does not trump the fact that it is very bad style and satisfies precisely the criteria on WP:CROSS. I object to the redirect creator's characterization that "there is no chance that a reader looking for an article will stumble upon them", as the search results clearly indicated otherwise; furthermore, that's not the only real danger of CNRs. I invite the redirect creator to actually read my nomination statement and present an argument against it, instead of citing arguments that has been refuted in the statement. Also, accessibility is a good point, but that warrants other forms of action that do not break the article/project namespace separation, such as actually making Wp; a pseudo-namespace. ZZArch talk to me 23:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
      • I also object to the characterization of this nomination statement as verbose. When the RfD nominator is concise, we call it insufficient and claim that it does not prove how WP:CROSS supports the deletion (see [9]). When the RfD nominator does that, we call the statement verbose? That is not healthy debate and not conductive to reaching a consensus on this matter. ZZArch talk to me 23:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
        • All right, fair call on that one. Struck. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete Per WP:R#DELETE #6 and WP:CROSS. These CNRs clutter the main namespace and their advocates are defending their own laziness with far-fetched excuses about hypothetical people with disabilities (who would have bigger accessibility troubles). As the nom mentions this should be implemented as a namespace alias instead of in an ad hoc fashion, but I'll doubt there will ever be a consensus for that. —Ruud 00:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep again. They are demonstrably useful, they represent plausible typos, they do not create any apparent confusion that would get in the way of an actual article name and they can be easily suppressed from the search results by adding the appropriate tags. (Note that even without those tags, the two example searches above return only one and two redirects respectively. The redirect target is obvious from the search snippet. This hardly represents an undue burden for manual filtering in my opinion.)
    The arguments for deletion per WP:CROSS are weak and for me do not overcome the potential value articulated in WP:R#Keep.
    Finally and most explicitly, redirect do not "clutter" the mainspace - they don't clutter anything. Bad style is a good reason to teach new users not to create new redirects in this pattern, not a sufficient reason to delete existing ones. Redirects really are this cheap. Rossami (talk) 00:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
    How have we demonstrated these links are used by anyone but User:Mkativerata (not as a typo, but because he's too lazy to press the shift key)? They are demonstrably harmful however. Apart from inappropriately showing up to human readers, their presence needs to be accounted for in bots and tools used to generate statistics.
    These redirects already form a significant portion of the CNRs from mainspace (Wikipedia:Database reports/Cross-namespace redirects/1). If everyone, and not just Mkativerata, started to put their litter in mainspace out of convenience the situation would soon spiral out of control. I'm not particularly impressed by your suggestion that new users shouldn't be creating these kinds of CNRs, but Mkativerata apparently can. —Ruud 10:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
    I didn't just create the redirects for my laziness but (1) for anyone who stumbles on the typo; (2) anyone who just doesn't like the shift key; and (3) those with disabilities and uncomforable keyboard layouts. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
    1. If you make a typo there's no reason to expect to be taken to the right page (as opposed to a common or even just plausible misspelling of the title of an encyclopedic subject). Just try again.
    2. Page view statistics show there are very few "anyone" else. Why is your disliking of the shift-key more important than my disliking of CNRs?
    3. You managed to press the shift-key several times just fine writing the above sentence. Far-fetched excuse. —Ruud 13:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
    I am not disabled in a manner that affects my typing; however, I recognise that other editors may be and the redirect may help them. Your pointy ruud;cs redirect, on the other hand, helps no-one other than yourself and is a lay-down R3 candidate. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Note how you had to use "may" twice. There are not many more users of wp;drv (primarily you) than there are of ruud;cs. I can't possibly imagine what you find objectionable about ruud;cs. It's useful, not a candidate for an article title and redirects are this cheap. —Ruud 20:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep- I agree with Rossami. I've made these kinds of typos before and found the rediercts useful. Reyk YO! 23:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I think ruud;cs is a pretty useful redirect. —Ruud 15:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Really bad example. There is a big difference between adding part of your own user name to a Wikiporject as is ruud;cs and someone trying to go to WP:RFD but not hitting the shift key fast enough and accidentally typing ; instead of :. I don't think anyone opposing deletion is suggesting that they should be able to make any kind of redirect that they want (the fact that you created ruud;cs after this RFD strongly implies that you are claiming that) but that we that we should not delete a redirect which is a plausible typo something that can't be said for the ruud;cs redirect.--70.24.208.34 (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
What does this have to with whether ruud;cs is useful or not? Clearly "usefulness" is the only criteria we are considering here. I think ruud;cs is useful. —Ruud 21:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Considering that other users have suggested that the ; is a plasuable typo and have given examples on how the typo could reasonably occur I can't see how you can claim that it is not a consideration. The suggestion that people are only saying that the redirect is useful and nothing else is simply false.--70.24.208.34 (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I was merely replying to Reyk here, not to other users.
In reply to you argument, the criteria for redirects are misspellings not typos (a possibly uncorrectable confusion about how something should be spelled versus how you actually manage to type something at some particular instance and which can generally be easily corrected by trying again). Barrack Obama is a plausible misspelling, hence we have a redirect, Varack Obama is a plausible typo, which quite properly is a redlink. —Ruud 21:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. Completely agree with Mkativerata and Rossami. I make these typos occasionally and it useful to have these redirects, while seeing no benefit in deleting them. Jenks24 (talk) 14:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete While a semicolon in place of a colon is a plausible typo, anyone who actually makes that typo in attempting to enter "wp:drv" or the like is overwhelmingly likely to already familiar enough with Wikipedia to immediately realize that they used a semicolon where a colon was required. Typo redirects should exist for very common typos that help readers, not for any uncommon typo that might occasionally be helpful only to editors or to some very small group. Anomie⚔ 12:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete per Kurt Vonnegut: "I have never used semicolons. They don't do anything, don't suggest anything. They are transvestite hermaphrodites." (Timequake, Ch. 49) But seriously, the mistake is so obvious that the drawbacks of cluttering the main namespace outweigh the inconvenience on an occasional D'oh! moment. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete: redirects are motivated by technical pseudo-limitations, which is really a bad idea. Given the amount of keyboard layouts out there, we'll end up with all sorts of odd redirects with a couple of lazy editors being all the redirect users. Sorry if I missed one's valuable rationale, tl;dr. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Oops, sorry, page unavailable

Not necessary at all. People don't generally find articles on Wikipedia by copy-and-pasting error messages into the search box. Yutsi Talk/ Contributions 16:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Previous nom: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_20#Oops.2C_sorry.2C_page_unavailable
  • Speedy close this was recently nominated and kept 2 days ago.--70.24.208.34 (talk) 23:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  • What browser/system uses this message? If something does, then may be it could be kept. But I don't see anything using it. We aren't going to make a redirect for every possible wording for a 404. Previous discussion doesn't indicate any clear keep outcome. In fact, arguments are more convincing for deletion. The keep !vote didn't address why this is useful (who searches for this?). —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I am disturbed that this is being renominated so soon after a "Keep" decision with no new information being presented to indicate why the previous decision was wrong.
    Being new to this debate, I'll add my two cents.
    1. This is not an error message from any browser I know. It is, however, an error presented by some websites.
    2. Readers often do hunt for articles by copy-pasting error messages into a search engine. I'm not sure how useful this one is but the argument that readers don't use the encyclopedia this way is simply incorrect.
    3. The history behind this page is problematic. This page was first created as a vanity page for user:Ojwang in April 2006. The user apparently realized the mistake later the same day and blanked the page. When page-blanking didn't do what he/she expected, the user moved the page to Deleted, then to Oops then to the current title. User:Curps then moved the page and its history back to the user's Talk page and deleted the redirect to the userspace. I suspect but can not prove that the current redirect was created (in Dec 2011) to resolve some overlooked redlink.
    I am going to abstain from the decision pending better information or other opinions on whether the use by a few websites is sufficient to overcome the troubling history of the page. Rossami (talk) 03:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete: search reveals that this is not at least a somehow common message. As such it is a misleading (probably even hoax) wording with no relevance to the target. Please also note the history (another part here, note the changes of April 3, 2006 by Ojwang) of the page: initially created as an attempt to react on WP:PA. Don't think we want to tribute such events. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete, reiterating my delete vote as implausible synonym.--Lenticel (talk) 01:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Pakistan military intelligene

Rationale: Delete because "intelligence" is incorrectly spelled. Lyk4 (talk) 08:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Salalah incicent

Delete because "incident" is incorrectly spelled. Lyk4 (talk) 08:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete. *sigh* Ditto. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep Plausible typo. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete Unlikely typo, not every misspelling needs a redirect. This isn't even a typo of the main page name. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete per H3llkn0wz's second rationale: though this should be kept if the article name was "Salalah Incident", but it isn't. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] February 2

[edit] Diffuse palmoplantar keratoderma with woolly hair and arrythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy of Naxos

Another implausible search term. Again, "arrythmogenic" is misspelt. Please delete it. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete as implausible synonym.--Lenticel (talk) 01:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete Useless redirect, go ahead and delete it. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete implausible, useless. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Otto Fried

Wrong redirection, at Fried a painter and sculptor with this name is listed. Should be deleted. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete as implausible redirect and to encourage creation of an article about the German painter.--Lenticel (talk) 01:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep redirect and remove DAB entry: Otto Fried doesn't seem to be notable, while misspelling is plausible. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] February 1

[edit] Lois and Clark

These two redirects are a little too confusing. I may propose a disambiguation page. This may look like a subject to {{db-disambig}}, but I don't know to what "Lois and Clark" must be referred other than the 1993 TV series, and "Clark and Lois"... I don't know either. However, I have checked stats.grok.se of Clark and Lois and of Lois and Clark. "Lois and Clark" is more popular phrase to refer. If disambigation is voted, then I can add "See also" section. George Ho (talk) 23:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep as is This conversation is based on George's request to rename at Talk:Relationship_of_Clark_Kent_and_Lois_Lane#Move.3F, although having multiple conversations about the same topic in different places seems to be muddying the waters a bit. Perhaps the fault is mine, but I fail to see the confusion with the way the redirect (as well as the current) articles are currently done. In general, "Lois and Clark" (putting her name first) appears to only be in reference to the TV show, because of its name, whereas when referring to the two characters, Clark Kent's name would normally come first in natural speech. Again, not sure where the confusion is coming from. While surely in good faith, I think the nom is overestimating the amount of confusion that the current redirects are causing. Without clear justification, or a clear sign of a problem we are fixing, I would always default to keep as is. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment If you wanted to make a disambig page, Clark Kent and Lois Lane makes more sense to me, and is currently unused anyway. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Well... I don't know how to explain this: these two redirects are a little confusing to me because even referring "Clark and Lois" may refer to "Lois & Clark" TV show and, as well, love affair of Lois and Clark. I don't know what readers want. However, L&C makes the article of the TV show popular, and C&L makes the article of the relationship popular, according to statistics. Nevertheless, I could not tell what readers want a show or relationship as referred. For instance, which topic do you intend to know when you type either "Lois and Clark" or "Clark and Lois"? --George Ho (talk) 04:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  • There is a discussion already ongoing at Talk:Relationship of Clark Kent and Lois Lane. I don't think an rfd was/is necessary at this point. But regardless, Relationship of Clark Kent and Lois Lane is not a merged page of Clark Kent and Lois Lane, but rather merely about their relationship. The goal is obviously clarity in naming. And I would presume that most who get to the page do so by linking from another associated article. All that aside, if the Lois and Clark, and Clark and Lois redirects are really of such concern, then I would presume hatnotes would be the more appropriate action per WP:DAB. (Noting that they are already in place : ) - jc37 10:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
    There are already "hatnotes" in targeted articles. Well, have I well convinced you that I propose a disambiguation page? If not, then how can I convince you that I intended to turn each redirect into one disambiguation page? --George Ho (talk) 10:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
    No. My point was that current guidelines are that a dab page isn't to be created for 2 pages/redirects. Instead we are to use hatnotes. And since they are already in place (as I also already noted), that pretty much makes the rest of this moot. - jc37 11:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
    Per WP:TWODABS, a disambiguation page may not be necessary if there are only two topics — and only one is primary. However, possibly, these two topics, TV series and a "Relationship of...", may be themselves primary, unless otherwise. It doesn't matter what "Lois and Clark" or "Clark and Lois" currently refer. The matter is: per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which topic you intend to research if you type "Lois and Clark," "Lois and Superman," "Superman and Lois," or anything else related. On the other hand, if you want to research either a relationship of the pair or the TV show, what term do you type and enter and why?
How is this RFD not different from the Move request? This RFD discusses these redirects; the other discusses renaming an article. I created this RFD because I would presumes that opposing arguments are stronger and may result no consensus to move in the future. --George Ho (talk) 11:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep them as they are. I don't see as how this would be confusing to anyone. It helps them find their way to the pages they are most certainly looking for when they type those things in. Dream Focus 13:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  • In other words, leave "Clark and Lois" as redirect to "Relationship of..." and "Lois and Clark" as TV series? If that is the case, then no objections to the "disambiguation page" as long as two redirects are kept? --George Ho (talk) 21:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Sometimes, I used "Lois and Clark" as intent to search the relationship rather than a TV series; is there anything wrong with that? --George Ho (talk) 21:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment I think you mean well George, but it seems you are the only one confused by the current configuration of the articles. Per the TWODABS above, a disambig page is probably not needed either. A DAB page doesn't bug me personally, but I fail to see the necessity of any of the changes you are proposing, and some of them will make it more confusing for the rest of the users, instead of easier. We have two conversations going on with changes you want to make to a few articles that relate to this topic but you are the only one who sees the problem with the status quo, in either discussion. At some point you might have to ask yourself "is it only me that is confused?" Dennis Brown (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
If DAB page won't work, then I have recently requested redirects in WP:AFC/R. --George Ho (talk) 23:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
This is the 3rd method you currently have going at the same time, the vote on the talk page, this discussion, and now a new discussion as you have linked. Normally, you should try one at a time, lest someone mistake your intentions as being disruptive. At the very least, it isn't conducive to gaining consensus, and borders on bludgeoning the process. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, the proposed redirects have been redirected to Relationship of Clark Kent and Lois Lane, yet I proposed either of two targets there. I didn't mean to "bludgeon," did I? I mean, can you explain to me how and why three I proposed are the same? I just created discussions because... I assumed that the relationship is more popular than the show itself outside Internet, unless it is the other way around. That's why I'm "confused". --George Ho (talk) 23:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I went and did a little research and think I have a better idea of your perspective on issues in general, which are at times, unique. I don't think you were trying to do anything wrong, but you should be aware that when you start a discussion about a topic, such as renaming an article (which was a perfectly valid discussion to start), then after a few days when everyone disagrees but the discussion isn't over, you go to another venue on Wikipedia on a topic that is very, very similar, and get the same result, and then go to a 3rd venue, well.... even when you don't mean it to, it may look like you are shopping for a venue that agrees with you, rather than looking for consensus. I truly believe you did this in good faith, but it is still not the proper way to do it. If you are proposing changes to an article (or new ones with almost the same subject matter), you really should finish what you start before moving on. You did post notice on each forum about what else you were doing, but it scatters the conversation and makes it difficult to judge consensus, and again, it LOOKS like you are shaking a Magic 8 Ball until it gives you the answer you want. Even with the best of intentions, a person's actions can sometimes be more disruptive than beneficial. This is one of those times. If you want to make changes to a "topic area", I would highly suggest keeping it at the talk page until the conversation is fully over. THEN, if you disagree with the consensus, by all means, bump it up to the next level if you feel the group is wrong. This way we can see what the true consensus is, and you don't run the risk of people questioning your good faith attempts. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Georgia (U.S. state

Listing per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 January 25. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep. This redirect basically saves a click on a common typo, hitting enter before entering the last character of Georgia (U.S. state). Yes, it would pop up in the search results page. But when you hit enter, you expect to go to the page you thought you were typing in. This redirect accomplishes that, while preventing the momentary "huh" of going to the search page. It's not a big deal, but it does have some function. Meanwhile, what are the reasons to delete it? In terms of actual, concrete consequences I can't think of a one. It isn't confusing. It isn't in the way of anything. Redirects are cheap. If this ends up actually having a provably deleterious effect on anything, anywhere, I'll be stunned. In the absence of that, it's not worth slightly inconveniencing readers. Meelar (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Who hits enter before finishing their search term? This seems more than implausible to me. —danhash (talk) 21:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep: redirects are cheap, 144 views in December is more than background noise. TimBentley (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete Views show a sudden spike, possibly from DRV; taking it out we have less than 6 hits a day and usually less than 3. Thoroughly implausible typo for ordinary readers (who mostly don't try to type out the parenthetical dabs). --NYKevin @182, i.e. 03:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Where did you get these numbers? Year ago (that is a year before DRV) the stats were higher. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete Are you going to have similar redirects for every page with parentheses in its name?? And what about people who type in Georgia (U.S.), Georgia (U.S.A.), Georgia (America), Georgia (US state), Georgia (state) or Georgia U.S. State? They have a more reasonable right to expect a redirect than someone who's made a punctuation error. What would be more useful would be some consistency on what appears when people make such "errors", partly to prevent them starting new Wikipedia pages. Dadge (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems to provide a useful function as shown by the hits. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. Even discounting the DRV spike in usage history, the history shows enough steady usage to mark this as useful. It is not obviously confusing or in the way of any other article. It's been around since 2005 without causing any problems. Finally, I note that none of the "delete" opinions above match any of the criteria at WP:R#DELETE. When there is not a valid reason to delete a redirect, Wikipedia policy is to keep them. Redirect really are that cheap. Rossami (talk) 03:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
    • You missed reason number 8. --NYKevin @869, i.e. 19:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Nope, it's not a synonym (novel or otherwise), it's a typo. As a typo, it is neither implausible nor especially recent. 8 does not apply. Rossami (talk) 05:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep gets 50-100 views a month which means people are actually using it. The title is therefore not sufficiently obscure to warrant deletion. Redirects are cheap, this one isn't doing any harm. Hut 8.5 00:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep: we have documented plausibility of this pretty ugly typo. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete – There are now no articles that point to this page, which is likely the only reason it had any hits at all; I fixed the links to it in all articles that linked to it. There are no article links to it, there shouldn't ever have been links to it, and there should not ever be links to it. It's a totally useless, worthless page and keeping it just sets the precedent for countless other useless, worthless pages. —danhash (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment: Without discussing the merits of this particular redirect again, from a process point of view that statement is incorrect. Orphaning a redirect is explicitly not a reason to delete it. First, remember that in an ideal world, all redirects would be orphans. Second, the very fact that you had to orphan it is contributing evidence that the mistake was plausible. Not only did the person who first created the redirect find it useful (assuming good faith) but each of the people who used it made the same mistake. Third and perhaps most importantly, orphaning only affects the current links and even then, only the links within Wikipedia. It does nothing for the links that are buried in pagehistory (and which could be restored at any time if a page has to be reset back to fix a particularly bad case of vandalism for example) and it does nothing at all for any external links which point to the Wikipedia page. Just because a redirect is an orphan does not make it useless. Unless a redirect is actively harmful, redirects get kept. Rossami (talk) 02:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. This is a plausible typo of a disambiguated name, and the evidence of the statistics is that it does fulfil a function for readers. My only concern is that it sets a bit of a precedent for the omit-closing-parenthesis typo. Are we going to support creating a similar redirect for any parenthesised typo? For that reason, make it a weak keep. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] 3_Rascals

This redirect has nothing to do with the target article.Hence proposing to delete.--Sandy (talk) 17:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment - Some informal debate has already occurred here on the redirect's talk page. A pro and a con POV are laid out there. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Is it 3 Idiots? If so, retarget there; otherwise keep per rationale on the 3 Rascals. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Js-official-logo.png

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The redirect is not in use anywhere and is misleading/inappropriate given that the logo is anything but official. Cybercobra (talk) 12:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

[edit] Template:Ficha de entidad subnacional

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Useless, unused redirect Bulwersator (talk) 08:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete as dangerously useless. The redirects outside main and Wikipedia namespace frequently end up causing troubles, and now we have a chance to delete one painlessly. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] January 31

[edit] Insidious ( 2011 film)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 18:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Highly improbable spelling. There's a space after the first parentheses. uKER (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete under WP:TITLE, WP:NAME (the extra space). Probably an innocent mistake. Si Trew (talk) 12:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete. Formatting error. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete: leftover from a move from a name with typo. No use case. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

[edit] Northwest Coast

I'm not sure about this. This page refers to the "Northwest coast" as a region of California, while this article uses the term to mean the coasts of California, Oregon and Washington. Presumably various other states and nations also have northwest coasts. So shouldn't this be a dab? But perhaps British Columbia's is the only northwest coast which merits an article, in which case I guess this is fine. – hysteria18 (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment. I am not sure either, but would probably go for Delete as a very ambiguous term. You might as well be referring to the north west coast of Scotland or the north west coast of France or the north west coast of Canada. I cannot see that it is a useful search term for someone who wants to find out about north west coasts, but then on the other hand I cannot see how someone would search for that. It just seems odd that the particular one in California takes precedence against all the other north west coasts in the world, and perhaps it should be deleted sooner rather than later. The question is, does it help or hinder a search? California was the 8th biggest economy in the world, I am not sure quite now where it is but will still be somewhere there, but Californians don't rule the planet any more than I do. So I think the question is does it help or hinder searching for things? Si Trew (talk) 12:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Change to disambiguation. The definition used is US-centric. What about North West England's coast? [Disclosure: I am British.] Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Disambiguated I've made a dab for articles related to the redirect term. I'm not that familiar with this geographic term so feel free to add any other landforms that matches this term --Lenticel (talk) 08:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Miles Out

Page (with correct name) has been created for episode. No need for re-direct. Another Believer (Talk) 16:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete misleading incorrect name. 70.24.247.54 (talk) 05:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. Common jargon in British English, to mean completely missing the point, and if no other useful target I see no harm in keeping it. Si Trew (talk) 12:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment that would make it a misleading and incorrect redirect. 70.24.247.54 (talk) 06:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete per Si Trew's findings. I think keeping this would only confuse our British readers who are looking for the jargon itself. --Lenticel (talk) 08:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Magician Ishamudin

Possible misspelling, the name of the magician should be Ishamuddin Khan. From a Google search, Ishamuddin Khan is not known as Magician Ishamuddin. The article did not mention it either. Lakokat (Drop me a line) 14:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Komsomolskaya (Metro)

Unused redirect with no prospect of being useful. Artem Karimov (talk) 13:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Fairuseair/doc

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 18:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Recommend deletion. Redirect was left behind when the author of the template redirected it and then deleted the redirect. Forgot to delete the redirect of the doc page. Routine housekeeping Kumioko (talk) 03:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete. Having checked, nothing links here. Seems very much a stub article. Seems to serve no useful purpose. I am an Inclusionist but we are here to make others searching the encyclopaedia easier to find useful articles, and I can't see that this does. Also probably under self-referencing rules, Wikipedia does not refer to itself. Si Trew (talk) 12:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete (or at least somehow delete since it's more then 7 days here): indeed routine housekeeping. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

[edit] Template:Administrative subdivisions of Quebec/doc

Recommend delete. Redirect appears to have been corrected by an author reverting a page move. Appears to be uneeded. Routine housekeeping. Kumioko (talk) 03:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep as useful redirect to useful template. Si Trew (talk) 12:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

How is it useful? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as routine housekeeping. The only use of this name is to get intercluded into parent template. As the parent doesn't exist, no need in this redirect. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Administrative divisions of Cuba/doc

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was CSD G6, routine house keeping ~Crazytales (talk) 18:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Recommend delete. Redirect appears due to the author self reverting a page move. Uneeded. Routine housekeeping Kumioko (talk) 03:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

[edit] Template:/Ety/Part/doc

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was CSD G6 routine housekeeping ~Crazytales (talk) 18:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Recommend delete. Is a redirect to a documentation page that appears to not be used. Kumioko (talk) 03:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
I am the author of this template. It was created as an attempt to standardise the form for etymologies. If it is a redirect, it should go, as it was probably created mistakenly or moved and I forgot to ask the redirect to be removed. But may I please have a quick look and then give you my opinion. The series of {{ety}} were created by myself and another contributor, in the best Wikipedian fashion of contributing together. Si Trew (talk) 11:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I am sorry I did not mean to modify the discussion. It is right that it is deleted, if it is a redirect. I would have preferred the shorter name but after consensus we went with the longer. There are probably others around there too at {{etymology}} and so on that can also be deleted. Si Trew (talk) 11:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I think by deleting the redirect you have broken the documentation at Template:Etymology/doc. I will check but it would be handy rather than swiftily deleting a redirect to check what links to them. Si Trew (talk) 11:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] January 30

[edit] Fight against Japanese oppression

Delete this redirect. "Fight against Japanese oppression" doesn't seem to be a unique phrase that was written about in English. Nobody would search for this article (or any article) using this string of words. "Japanese oppression" could refer to a lot of things, and has no special link to Japanese Korea, which this redirect currently points to. Shrigley (talk) 00:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep this redirect. "Fight against Japanese oppression" is a direct translation from a common Korean term for the period. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 01:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I did a web search for "Fight against Japanese oppression". Here are the unique results Google gave me:
  • [10] "When the Japanese occupied Manila in 1941, Chinese immigrants joined hands with Filipinos in the fight against Japanese oppression." Refers to the Japanese occupation of the Philippines, not Korea.
  • [11] "Around the year 1919, the tide of the national democratic movement on the mainland hit Taiwan. Progressive organizations and societies emerged everywhere to arouse the people to fight against Japanese oppression." Refers to the Japanese occupation of Taiwan, not Korea.
  • [12] "Chen Zhen and his fight against Japanese oppression in Republican-era China was actually a fictional creation of writer-director Lo Wei". Refers to the Japanese occupation of China, not Korea.
  • [13] "Japan has secretly harbored a superiority complex over the neighbor that it colonized... [in] World War II.... The fight against Japanese oppression instilled a soulful defiance, the [Mainichi Shimbun] article said." Probably refers to Korea during WWII.
  • [14] "A snowy mountain with a lake represents Mount Paektu where Kim Jong Il is said to have been born in a log cabin during the fight against Japanese oppression" Probably refers to Korea during WWII.
  • [15] "Like many martial arts, krav maga was born of warfare. Okinawans developed their brand of karate in their fight against Japanese oppression." Refers to the Japanese annexation of Luchu (Okinawa), not Korea.
So while the equivalent phrase may or may not be popular in Korean, it's not used much in English. When it is, it is used to refer to the Japanese "oppression" of many countries during its imperial expansion, and not just Korea. If the phrase were more common in English, then I would recommend that it become a disambiguation page. Since it isn't, and since the English-language phrase isn't connected to Korea in any unique way, the redirect should just be deleted. Shrigley (talk) 02:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete this has nothing to do with Japanese oppressing the Chinese people. 70.24.249.120 (talk) 07:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep as redirect from POV name placeholder. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete as misleadingly arbitrary. Resistance to the ambitions of imperial Japan was not unique to Korea. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Page blanking

In general, we don't link from the mainspace to the project space. This practice easily could have its own article because Wikipedia is not the only wiki with this happening. Jasper Deng (talk) 06:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] January 29

[edit] Team Lotus (current)

There is no team that is currently called "Team Lotus", the redirect is now unneeded and potentially misleading. QueenCake (talk) 23:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. DH85868993 (talk) 01:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Retarget to the current team named "Lotus", Lotus F1, thus a highly plausible alternate name or misnomer. 70.24.247.54 (talk) 04:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Apart from the strict legal restrictions on the use of the name to prevent that team being known as Team Lotus (it is Lotus F1 team, never the other way around), it is not plausible that anyone would search for a term with Parentheses. QueenCake (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Not really, if you know that wikipedia uses parenthetical disambiguation, then it is quite plausible that someone would try it. 70.24.247.54 (talk) 06:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep or retarget to Team Lotus unless another Team Lotus becomes current. The IP's rationale is pretty valid, so I see no sense in deleting this to get it re-created in, say, 2013. Living redirects are cheaper then those deleted anyway. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
It should definitely not be retargeted to Team Lotus (= the original "Team Lotus") which ceased operation in 1994. The redirect only exists because Team Lotus (2010–11) used to be called Team Lotus (current), that name specifically having been chosen to distinguish it from the original Team Lotus. DH85868993 (talk) 01:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I see that. Still, Team Lotus is likely to be the first place to go for an editor committing information about future Team Lotus, so, while it currently doesn't seem logical, it might make more sense then the other options discussed. See, after redirecting the Team Lotus (current) to any more current location no one would ever remember to fix it if the new Team Lotus would be created, say, in 2014. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] List of software license violations

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy close because the discussion is now ongoing at AfD; the {{rfd}} tag disappeared when the page was restored and it doesn't make sense to have two concurrent discussions. NAC. NYKevin @122, i.e. 01:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

This former article was apparently blanked (rather than deleted) and then turned into a redirect (reason given: Terrible article: unproperly sourced, possibly libelous, based on original reaserch and self-published sources. Sorry, but bold claims require strong sources, and we have none of that [16]). This page to be deleted redirects to Copyright infringement, which is a discussion of that general topic, and not of software violations. SENATOR2029 talk 16:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Unblank and list at AfD. There hasn't been any discussion of the merits of the original article, and RfD is a poor substitute for that. --NYKevin @858, i.e. 19:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  • List at Afd per User:NYKevin. Yeah, extra bureaucracy but I think this should pass through formal channels. I don't want redirecting poor articles to be a precedent against bringing it up to Afd. --Lenticel (talk) 06:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Note: This is now listed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of software license violations --SF007 (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

[edit] Mr. Bean's Christmas Vacation

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Delete. Lenticel (talk) 01:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:CRYSTAL. Non-existent film, probably a hoax. See User talk:TBrandley for comments on similar edits. Logical Cowboy (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:GOOGLE <http://www.google.com/search?q="Mr.+Bean's+Christmas+Vacation"+-site:wikipedia.org> (note that WM doesn't handle the link correctly). If Google has exactly one non-wikipedia result, I think we can safely assume it doesn't exist. --NYKevin @862, i.e. 19:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
WM handles it if it's properly escaped: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Mr.+Bean's+Christmas+Vacation%22+-site:wikipedia.org. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I have tried to find and research about Mr. Bean's Christmas Vacation but I couldn't find anything, so I agree, I think its a hoax. It might be a movie though.--TBrandley (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Then why did you make 6 posts about it on WP? SMH Logical Cowboy (talk) 21:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

[edit] January 28

[edit] Wikiwack

Delete. I think neither Wikiwack nor Wickywhack are a plausible names for Methamphetamine, and neither are mentioned in the target article. I can find no source to support these names. Relevant Google search results all seem to be sites that mirror Wikipedia or use the words to mean something different. (Note: 'Wickywhack' was previously refused speedy deletion under CSD A1.) – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 00:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom's findings. Man, if only this was an WP shortcut...--Lenticel (talk) 02:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep per rationale in Wickywhack's edit summary given upon creation. This is a rather weak keep for Wikiwhack, as it might be simply a reflection on WikiWiki name genesis applied to the Wickywhack. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete virtually no google hits 9,890, 318 respectively indicate these are not popular street names. --Salix (talk): 13:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Scarabiasis

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was formal keep: not a redirect any more. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete, the target article does not mention scarabiasis Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Close I've made it into a stub. It's not something for the faint of heart :).--Lenticel (talk) 02:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

[edit] Wikipedia:FPC/Rainforest walk delist

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Delete--Salix (talk): 13:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Redirect to an old and unimportant discussion. I can't see any reason why it would still be used, but I notice it every time I type "WP:FPC" into the search bar. J Milburn (talk) 21:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

[edit] Daily Consumer Price Index

Delete. Not commonly used for that concept, AND commonly used for other concepts. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

  • (1) Kindly indicate what other concepts the Daily Consumer Price Index term is commonly used for. (2) Would Daily Index Ratio be acceptable? Treasury Direct states Daily Index Ratio. It is clear that Treasury Direct refers to the Daily Consumer Price Index Ratio and when the reference is not actually to the ratio, but, the index, the terminology would be Daily Consumer Price Index. Therefore I think it would be reasonable to accept the term Daily Consumer Price Index since it is actually used as such in the biggest economy in the world.ChangingPrices (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC).
    1. It should be uncapitalized as descriptive (minor).
    2. It could refer to any daily CPI statistic, not necessarily the official one in Chile.
    If you can write an article about the general concept, mentioning the one in Chile, it might be appropriate, although it would probably fail WP:DICTDEF. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
    I agree that it should be uncapitalized. It does refer to any CPI. Do we thus agree that there is a term "daily consumer price index" being used in the US economy and that we can add it to these Wikipedia articles?ChangingPrices (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC).
    May I suggest writing the article, using reliable sources, before adding links. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
    I don´t want to write an article about it. I have given a reliable source: Treasury Direct.ChangingPrices (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
    The source could only be used in the article, not to support the (incorrect) redirect. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Navene Koperweis

Please make way for a new article (clear the reg) Λeternus (talk) 11:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Not quite sure exactly what's being requested here...if you'd like to start an article on Navene Koperweis, just go ahead and do so, deleting the redirect is not necessary.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  • here is your way for a new article. cheers--Der Golem (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep for pagehistory. No objection to an overwrite with article content if sufficient independent notability can be demonstrated through reliable sources. (Note that the current content does not meet that threshold in my opinion. But that will be a matter for a future AfD if the page is not improved in a reasonable period of time.) Rossami (talk) 03:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep: overwriting redirect is a non-admin action, no need for RfD. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Go endgame

The Yose article has been merged and both these redirects have had all their 1 and 0 (not sure which had which) links redirected already. All the Yose links have been redirected to the merge destination as well. I think this is sufficient reason to delete them. PatheticCopyEditor (talk) 07:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Muammar bin Mohammad bin Abdussalam bi Humayd bin Abu Manyar bin Humayd bin Nayil al Fuhsi Gaddafi

Extremely implausible redirect. No one would type that whole thing out in order to try and find him. Jeancey (talk) 02:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete. I had to comment on this as I was actually astonished to read it - I can't believe that's even his full name! I haven't seen anything to suggest his name is any longer than Muammar Muhammad Abu Minyar Gaddafi (or a variant of it), so I wouldn't be surprised if it was thought up by whoever created the redirect. QueenCake (talk) 23:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Delete. Too implausible. The missing "n" from the third "bin" is the cherry on top. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete: Too long to be plausible. And I don't see any evidence he was known under this name. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Shuttle Leadership Model (SLM)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Deleted speedily. Peridon (talk) 15:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Unnecessary redirection (originally created as a copy-and-paste duplicate of Shuttle Leadership Model; changed to redirection) ZZArch talk to me 01:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as redirect pointing at a deleted target, so tagged.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

[edit] Chalnessa Eames

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was formal keep: not a redirect any more. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Find a better target, or delete. I can't find anything about Eames in Wikipedia or http://www.pnb.org/Artists/ Certes (talk) 01:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep, changing my opinion because the page has improved since being listed. Certes (talk) 12:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • delete - There seem to be many of these redirects in the ballet wikipedia world. Besides showing where a dancer once danced or currently dances, I don't think they are very useful (and when dancers move, the redirects sometimes end up going in endless circles, with no desination). It would probably be more useful to simply have an article written for each person if they pass notability. Dkreisst (talk) 05:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete per Dkreisst.--Lenticel (talk) 01:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep - Chalnessa Eames was converted from a redirect to a referenced article and it linked to by three other articles; Pacific Northwest Ballet was also updated and referenced. -- Zyxw (talk) 01:10, 4 February 2012‎ (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

[edit] January 26

[edit] God (musician)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Speedy deleted as an recently created implausible redirect. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

1) Eric Clapton was never named "God" as nickname, and the "musician" in brackets suggest he was 2) The term "Clapton is God" was used on a graffiti (painted by an admirer), and then it was mentioned in the media. However, it is highly a POV argument. 3) less than 1% will search "God (musician)", as no pages links to this page. 4) Overall it is a "[Put a name here] is God" situation, so anyone can say his bias on his star. 5) He was mentioned in the media because of his skills. But that does not mean it is his name ♫GoP♫TCN 13:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

[edit] St Paul's Day

  • St Paul's Day → Feast of Saints Peter and Paul (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] I am not sure whether this is quite the way to do this formally, but I would like to list the fact that if you type "St Paul's Day" into the box on the left, you get redirected to the Feast of St. Peter and St. Paul (a date in June) to be listed here. I have always understood St. Paul's Day to be January 25, as is listed in Patricia Morrell's "Festivals and Customs". ACEOREVIVED (talk) 09:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
    • A difficult one since, contrary to my expectation, St Paul has multiple feast days. At the time I just knew of Peter and Paul having the same feast day. (I used to be part of a St Peter's Church, so we tended to have a special service for the day.) Then, from what I remember, I discovered that there were no articles here for St Peter's Day and St Paul's Day, but then that they were covered by one article to set up the redirects. Still, let's see what other people have to say. — Smjg (talk) 11:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
FWIW, Catholics I know don't use the term "St Paul's Day". There's the feast of his conversion, and the feast he shares with St Peter, but not one of his own; I for one would never refer to either of them as St Paul's day or the feast of St Paul. So I'd say my first preference would be to outright delete St Paul's Day, but otherwise have it be a DAB page pointing to them both. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 18:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete: there is no such day and stats reveal that only bots are interested in this name. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you please give a source for these statistics? I take it that you mean "St. Paul's Day" - I hardly think that only bots could be interested in St. Paul!!!! I would disagree that only bots are interested in the name "St Paul's Day" - it was certainly of interest to Patricia Morrell, or else she would not have included it in her book "Festivals and Customs". ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Disambig Chambers the book of days does indicate that Jan 25th is the "The festival of the Conversion of St. Paul" and June 29th may reflect the day of his martyrdom. So we can either have a disambig page or redirect to Paul_the_Apostle#Church tradition and add details of the two days there.--Salix (talk): 12:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Indeed we have an article about it Feast of the Conversion of Saint Paul.--Salix (talk): 12:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] January 25

[edit] 6th gen

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Retarget to Sixth generation--Salix (talk): 11:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Why would the generic redirect of '6th gen' be tied to the context of video games? I will open this discussion first, but '7th gen' and '8th gen' redirects were also created. I don't believe this is an appropriate redirect and I didn't see a speedy category that would fit. -- ferret (talk) 20:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing else called Sixth generation. I mean sixth generation ALONE.--Gaming&Computing (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Correct. But there's hundreds of articles covering "sixth generation" of other contexts. The 6th generation of a car, or a family line, iPods, the Sixth Generation film movement, etc, etc. Just type "sixth generation" in the search box above to see several articles that come up before the History of Video Gaming. -- ferret (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
One a related note I've dealt with the 7th gen redirect and retargeted to the dab page Seventh Generation but I could not find anything for the 6th or 8th gen pages.--69.159.111.241 (talk) 01:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete - There are an endless number of "6th generations" out there, as Ferret says. There's no reason to automatically link this redirect to video games. Sergecross73 msg me 21:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete there are lots of 6th gen things, like 6th generation of descendents. 70.49.124.157 (talk) 08:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete Too general/vague; doesn't seem to be a good disambiguation page candidate. --Cybercobra (talk) 08:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Sixth generation, which I just created, unaware of this discussion (or this redirect).—Ketil Trout (<><!) 19:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Sixth generation per Ketiltrout.--Lenticel (talk) 02:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Sixth generation with a specific notice on the target's talk page that this one should follow its fate. As the good target already exists, no sense in deleting. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

[edit] Dj aphlatoon

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Speedy Delete, G8 by User:Paul_Erik. Lenticel (talk) 01:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Redirects to deleted page Epeefleche (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I have tagged the page for speedy deletion.--69.159.111.241 (talk) 01:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

[edit] Aphlatoon

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Deleted per G8 Guerillero | My Talk 03:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Redirects to deleted page Epeefleche (talk) 19:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I have tagged the page for speedy deletion--69.159.111.241 (talk) 01:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

[edit] Internet meme redirects

Internet memes which don't merit enough notability to be mentioned on their target articles. We don't need redirects from internet memes to these articles. If we did, these articles would have hundreds of redirects for no substantial reason. — Moe ε 17:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Notability is not a requirement for mere redirects. Also, redirects are cheap. Keep Forever alone and Troll Dad since they have specific, strongly related targets. --Cybercobra (talk) 08:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Also, retarget U mad to Troll (Internet) as it is a phrase used in trolling. --Cybercobra (talk) 08:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
      • You have to be joking. Forever alone is actually the stupidest of those redirects. Where on the internet is "Forever alone" actually a phrase having to do with Involuntary celibacy? One reliable source to prove that and I'll drop this entire RFD. I say that in full confidence of you not being able to prove anything. This isn't about redirects being cheap, this is about people who have nothing better to do creating unnotable articles about memes then having them all get redirected to these target articles. Like I said, we don't need every meme the internet has redirecting to these articles, that isn't what they are for. — Moe ε 14:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Special - Change Forever alone to redirect to Internet meme, keep Troll Dad and U mad, but delete everything else, as they are uncommon.--Yutsi Talk/ Contributions 16:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete the lot - I'm not convinced any of these are particularly useful redirects, as none of them are mentioned in their target articles in any case. Robofish (talk) 01:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep selectively. Forever alone has 16M google hits and it looks like there would be enough material for an article. Redirecting to internet meme seems a better target as its more about the meme that about the target. IMMA FIRIN MAH LAZOR has 168,000 google hits and there is considerable coverage with a page discussing its history[17] which seems to date back to 2007. I can see that kids will type this sort of thing into a search box, just to see what happens, they may even get some education if they read Internet meme. Its looking like most of these have considerable internet prescence. Less convinced by John McCain and His Vegetable Friends which does not appear to have much online commentary, just a fairly popular youtube video. --Salix (talk): 12:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] January 23

[edit] Sweet bread

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was KEEP. Salix (talk): 10:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I think this redirect causes more confusion than it is worth and should be deleted, as "sweet bread" is not the same thing as "sweetbread". My understanding is that "sweet bread" is bread that is sweet, while "sweetbread" is a culinary term for the thymus or pancreas of an animal. I came across the redirect from sweet bread to sweetbread in the article on raisin bread, and was surprised when clicking on the link to find that it took me to an article that has nothing to do with bread. Having this redirect causes people to mistakenly link to an article on an unrelated topic (e.g. in raisin bread and gata (food)), while having sweet bread be a red link would let people know that no such article exists and that one perhaps should be created. The sweet bread page was previously also a disambiguation page, but I don't think that is appropriate because I don't think "sweet bread" is regularly used to refer to sweetbread and also because there aren't two articles to disambiguate between. Calathan (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep "sweet bread" as a very reasonable {{R from mispelling}} or revert to disambiguation page [18]. Delete the disambiguation redirect, since there's no disambiguation page, if it isn't reverted. 70.24.245.198 (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
    • While I think "sweet bread" is a reasonable mispelling of "sweetbread", I still think this redirect will more often be confusing than useful. I think more people would type "sweet bread" expecting to see an article on bread that is sweet than would type "sweet bread" expecting to see an article on sweetbread. As far as I can tell from using Google, the term "sweet bread" referring to bread is much more common than "sweetbread" or "sweet bread" referring to offal. Perhaps the best solution would be for someone to just write an article on the topic of sweet bread and then put hatnotes on the articles . . . but I still think deleting the redirect would make it easier for people to notice that such an article doesn't already exist. Calathan (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Assuming that the bread that is sweet is worth an article (as opposed to a dicdef), I agree that a hatnote between the pages is the most appropriate. I'm even ok with sweet bread going to a disambiguation page with a red link for the bread. However I think it does a disservice to a reader if accidentally putting in a space causes them to be told there is no such article. Vicarious (talk) 03:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
        • I removed the DAB reference because there was no DAB, but I agree with Calathan that the redirect is confusing because sweet bread and sweetbread are two very different items. I think it would be handiest if some would write an article, even just a stub, for sweet bread, and as suggested place info in the hatnote. Hohenloh + 12:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. "Bread that is sweet" is not a sufficient topic to support an encyclopedia article that will ever become more than an obvious dictionary definition. A google search on the exact phrase "sweet bread" returns no more hits (and no more obvious groupings) than the equally obvious sour bread or salty bread. Sweetbread, on the other hand, is a discrete and noteworthy encyclopedia concept.
    Note: I would not be completely averse to a return to the May 2008 version which disambiguated sweetbread with Category:Sweet breads but that would be an exception to the Manual of Style for DAB pages. Rossami (talk) 01:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
    • My Google search results seem to be completely different than what you claim above. Searching for "sweet bread" I get 1,160,000 hits, while searching for "sweet bread" -sweetbread (i.e. everything with the exact phrase "sweet bread" but without the word "sweetbread") I get 4,640,000 hits (Google assumes you might have meant to not have a space if you just type "sweet bread", though I have no idea why removing a search term results in more hits). For "salty bread" I get 45,100 hits and for "sour bread" I get 130,000 hits. So "sweet bread" gets far more hits than either of those topics. Also, I think sour bread is a notable topic, just that its article is under the name sourdough. Given all the articles in Category:Sweet breads, I would be very surprised if sweet bread is not a notable topic that could support an encyclopedia article. Regardless though, I would be happy with almost any solution that doesn't leave sweet bread as a redirect to sweet bread, including turning it into a non-standard DAB page. Calathan (talk) 02:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
      • My apologies, I was unclear in describing my assessment of the google results. I was not basing my opinion on page counts (yours are similar to what I saw) but on notable clusterings and discussions of the actual topic as opposed to a mere adjective-noun combination. I found no such examples. "Sour bread", by the way, is entirely different from "sourdough". Many breads can be sour (just as many can be sweet). Sourdough is a specific subtype of bread that is based upon lactic acid rather than yeast fermentation. The fact that it is sour is interesting but is not the defining characteristic of the bread. Rossami (talk) 05:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Thinking more about this, I must withdraw my support for a return to the disambiguation layout of the page. The folks who patrol disambiguation pages for compliance with the Manual of Style are unlikely to agree to the non-standard usage (as evidence, the page has been converted away from that layout twice already) and there is not an easy way to ask for their agreement ahead of time. I believe that a more maintainable compromise would be a hard-redirect to sweetbread but add a hatnote to that page referencing Category:Sweet breads. I will attempt to draft that hatnote now. Rossami (talk) 21:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
      • I had actually been thinking of proposing exactly the same thing. After thinking about this more, I think that deleting the sweet bread redirect doesn't really make sense. Instead, I support adding a hatnote like what Rossami describes above. I still think the sweet bread (disambiguation) redirect should be deleted unless there is any use for it that I am missing. Calathan (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
        • History, the possibility of external links and the fact that it's not really harmful would be reasons not to delete the ...disambig page. Redirects are cheap. Rossami (talk) 02:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
          • I don't think it has any real page history considering the only edits to the page (other than me putting an RFD tag on it) were a bot creating it and a bot fixing a double redirect. I would also be surprised if there were external links to a page that never had any actual content and which contains the Wikipedia term "disambiguation" in its title. While it doesn't do any harm to keep it around, it also doesn't seem like it would ever be useful and is incorrect in that it doesn't redirect to a disambiguation page. I know that redirects can be useful while not being a correct term for the target article, but in this case the redirect is both incorrect and not useful, so I don't see any reason to keep it around. Calathan (talk) 04:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep as a reasonable misspelling. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

[edit] File:Cheese.jpg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 16:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Redirect from file move, links are all from deleted photos in the same nameuploaded by hilarious five year olds. Delete and salt, please. Acather96 (talk) 20:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete not an image of cheese. 70.24.245.198 (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete as inaccurate redirect.--Lenticel (talk) 08:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

[edit] Another

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Converted to Disambiguation. Lenticel (talk) 08:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

This redirect of a common English word should be removed or replaced with a DAP. It is no longer useful (it was once a workaround for stopwords} and it makes finding Another (novel) more awkward than it needs to be. Anoyatu (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

[edit] Template:Copyrighted free use

Requesting RFD debate, as to me Copyrighted free-use is NOT the same as 'public domain'. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ruslik_Zero 13:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. Dmitrij Czarkoff is right; already it's causing issue, as I couldn't help but notice that every page this template (redirect) is used on is also 'tagged' for RFD (and since the tag uses {{FULLPAGENAME}}, that was a little confusing). Obviously for normal templates a noinclude would get around that, but that doesn't work for redirects. I'm just mentioning this here so maybe someone who knows what to do about it can maybe do it. Or something. I'unno.
And yeah, PD ain't the same thing as this. Why not just steal the commons template? -— Isarra (talk) 16:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Support stealing the commons template. --NYKevin @865, i.e. 19:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep both to preserve history and because it is in use on a large number of pages. No opinion on whether there is a better target or if the redirect should be overwritten with the commons template. Rossami (talk) 00:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Golden Bay (district)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete after history merge (page was a result from a previous split). Assumed to be uncontroversial, contact me if not. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golden Bay (district). -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

[edit] Feeder bus

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 16:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Misleading redirect, as a "feeder bus" is a generic term used to refer to any bus service that brings people from a rail station or transit hub to their final destination or vice versa. No real place to retarget this. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. generic redirecting to a specific instance. 70.24.245.198 (talk) 05:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion&oldid=475938869"
Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
Interaction
Toolbox
Print/export