Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Administrator instructions

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

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

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

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

Centralized discussion
Proposals Discussions Recurring proposals

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


Before listing a redirect for discussion[edit]

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

The guiding principles of RfD[edit]

  • The purpose of a good redirect is to eliminate the possibility that an average user will wind up staring blankly at a "Search results 1-10 out of 378" search page instead of the article they were looking for. If someone could plausibly enter the redirect's name when searching for the target article, it's a good redirect.
  • Redirects are cheap. Redirects take up minimal disk space and use very little bandwidth. Thus, it doesn't really hurt things much if there are a few of them scattered around. On the flip side, deleting redirects is cheap since the deletion coding takes up minimal disk space and use very little bandwidth. There is no harm in deleting problematic redirects.
  • The default result of any RfD nomination which receives no other discussion is delete. Thus, a redirect nominated in good faith and in accordance with RfD policy will be deleted, even if there is no discussion surrounding that nomination.
  • Redirects nominated in contravention of Wikipedia:Redirect will be speedily kept.
  • RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes. If you think a redirect should be targeted at a different article, discuss it on the talk pages of the current target article and/or the proposed target article. However, for more difficult cases, this page can be a centralized discussion place for resolving tough debates about where redirects point.
  • Requests for deletion of redirects from one page's talk page to another page's talk page don't need to be listed here, as anyone can simply remove the redirect by blanking the page. G6 speedy deletion may be appropriate in such cases.
  • Try to consider whether or not a redirect would be helpful to the reader when discussing.

When should we delete a redirect?[edit]


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 "" anywhere on the internet. If so, then those links might not show up by checking for (clicking on) "WhatLinksHere" for "Attorneygate"—since those links might come from somewhere outside Wikipedia.

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


Reasons for deleting[edit]

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

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

Reasons for not deleting[edit]

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

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

Neutrality of redirects[edit]


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

Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:

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

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

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

Closing notes[edit]

Details at: Administrator instructions for RfD.

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

How to list a redirect for discussion[edit]

Tag the redirect.

  Enter {{subst:rfd|content= at the very beginning of the redirect page you are listing for discussion, and enter }} at the very end. Example:

{{subst:rfd|content=#REDIRECT [[Foo]]{{R from move}}}}
  • Please do not mark the edit as minor (m).
  • Please include in the edit summary the phrase:
    Nominated for RFD: see [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]].
  • Save the page.
  • If you are unable to edit the redirect page because of protection, this step can be omitted, and after step 2 is completed, a request to add the RFD template can be put on the redirect's talk page.
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:rfd2m|redirect=RedirectNameN|target=TargetArticleN|text=The actions you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for those actions.}} ~~~~
  • Please consider using What links here to locate other redirects that may be related to the one you are nominating. After going to the redirect target page and selecting "What links here" in the toolbox on the left side of your computer screen, select both "Hide transclusions" and "Hide links" filters to display the redirects to the redirect target page.
  • It is generally considered good practice to notify the creator and main contributors to the redirect that you are nominating the redirect. To find the main contributors, look in the page history of the redirect. For convenience, the template

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

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

Current list[edit]

October 23[edit]

October 22[edit]

Moron Church[edit]

Delete - Delete per WP:RFD#DELETE #3 "The redirect is offensive or abusive, such as redirecting "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs"...". While I understand that an argument could be made that these could be considered a "Bad Spelling" type redirect, the fact that they have never been needed until now and are still unused, makes be suspect that it was only created as an attempt to be abusive, thereby making them candidates for deletion anyway and even possible a candidates under Criteria for speedy deletion:R3. Implausible typos.--- ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 20:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. There could be a legitimate instance of someone spelling "Mormon" incorrectly in this way, but I think the issues identified by the nominator outweigh this slight risk. From what I have seen, people are far more like to misspell the word as "Morman" than anything else. I have never seen a printed reference to "Moron Church" that wasn't meant to be derogatory. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - I guess I should have pointed out that they were created on 10 October 2014‎, so they are recently created. So I think that since they have never been needed until now, they still aren't needed.--- ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 21:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per Good Olfactory. The last time I looked into it, the stats for redlinks were not completely reliable, but in this case given no visits after the day of creation and none in any of the months I randomly checked when combined with GO's comments about printed media mean that I am comfortable this is solely an redirect intended as an insult. Thryduulf (talk) 21:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete I think I misspelled "Mormon" like this myself when I was looking for the article, which is why I created the redirect. I haven't given second thought to any negative impact it might have and I don't think it's important to keep it, so please do go through with the deletion.--MASHAUNIX 23:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--Lenticel (talk) 01:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete basically an attack page against an entire religion. Will be nominating shortly. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Deleted as CSD#G10 I deleted this as an attack page. Chillum 02:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Golf 3[edit]

Per a Wikipedia search of the term "Golf 3", I'm not sure why this topic should have precedence over the others in this search. Also, I'm leaning more towards this redirect being deleted rather than retargeted due to all results found in my referenced search being partial title matches. (I'm not opposed to the redirect being "disambiguated" due to the results.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Disambiguate, because "Golf 3" indeed could refer to Actua Golf 3 or Everybody's Golf 3. For example, if you're talking in an Actua context, "Golf 3" indeed would be sufficient for Actua Golf 3. Nyttend (talk) 20:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Windows NT 7.0[edit]

These redirects should point to the same place. Decide. Personally, i would like to see them deleted because they suggest the existence of such a thing. (At least pointing it to Windows NT#Releases brings the reader out of the error.) � (talk) 12:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

{{R from incorrect name}} would be better. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

South Park (El Paso County, Colorado)[edit]

Useless redirect, not mentioned in the redirect target Parks in Colorado Springs, Colorado or at List of parks in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Linked only from South Park (disambiguation), which describes it as a city park but it's not listed under any designation at, nor does Google Maps identify it at the location described. Likely OR. postdlf (talk) 15:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment The caption of the picture in the infobox at History of Colorado Springs, Colorado implies that it is former name for "Alamo" Park, and the phrase "South Park" is mentioned in the article in a couple of other places. This is supported by [1] The List of parks in Colorado Springs, Colorado doesn't have an "Alamo Park" but does have an "Alamo Square", whose description correlates with the infobox picture caption so I'm comfortable they are the same place, We don't have an article on that Alamo Square to redirect it to (Alamo Square is about an area in San Francisco), but if it is a former name then redirecting to the list and mentioning the former name there would be sensible I think. Note also the description of this 1873 USGS photograph, but whether that is the same South Park I don't know (it may be what is now the South Park National Heritage Area?). Thryduulf (talk) 17:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Even if it's meant to refer to Alamo Square, I don't know that that would justify "South Park (El Paso County, Colorado)" as a redirect, as it's not the disambiguator we'd choose if we had an article on a Colorado Springs city park of that name, and not a likely search term. The simplest solution would be to just list it as an alternate, historic name of Alamo Square at South Park (disambiguation), as is done with the entry there for Fairplay, CO. postdlf (talk) 19:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
      • While it would not be our preferred disambiguator, but it is neither incorrect nor illogical and with over 200 hits in each of the last three months it demonstrabily is a useful search term and so shouldn't be deleted if there is somewhere relevant to point it. Thryduulf (talk) 19:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


Not a valid spelling in any language. - TheChampionMan1234 02:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Keep You don't supply a reference for this claim. A simple Google will show that the spelling (derived directly from the original Cyrillic) is in frequent use, notably in French and Dutch: This book, this and this news report, this informational page, this blog entry all use this spelling. There are many more. Yes, it's not mainstream; that's why it's a redirect. What's your objection? Groogle (talk) 03:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete on present evidence. There's no strong connection between the French or Dutch languages and Ukraine. --BDD (talk) 16:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. While English-language uses of this spelling are less common than French or Dutch sources, they do exist and cover a wide variety of topic areas (including airliners, maritime law, dermatology, urban exploration, holidays and political history) so there is no reason to suspect this is only a couple of users. So as the redirect is correct and I can find no evidence that it is harmful, deletion will bring no benefits to Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 09:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Keep per User:Thryduulf. I can't find much English RS online, but that's my naïvety. Without attempting to jump the gun, I've marked it as {{R from title with diacritics}}. Si Trew (talk) 18:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


This name is exclusively Chinese. Not hanja or Japanese. - TheChampionMan1234 23:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Provisional keep, but I'm quite open to being proven wrong. Korean has been written in Chinese characters well into living memory, and I'm wondering whether these characters might have been used in the not-so-distant-past to refer to the northern regions of the Choson Kingdom and/or the northern regions of Korea under Japanese rule. If you can demonstrate that these characters were not used by Koreans to refer to Korea's northern regions, I'll change my mind. Nyttend (talk) 12:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 15:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment. @Nyttend: wouldn't that be like ignoring the distinction between Southern America and South America, or Southern Africa and South Africa, though? Si Trew (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
The big difference is that those are all English-language terms; this is a kind of thing that typically doesn't translate consistently, so the non-parity in English isn't a reason to object. I'm looking for someone to say "no, these mean different things in Korean" or "you're right, they can both be used". Nyttend (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete; the hanja would be 北韓, so this is not a valid Korean search term. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


Not particularly Icelandic. - TheChampionMan1234 03:36, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete WP:NOT a translation dictionary. No particular affinity for Icelandic from the US -- (talk) 06:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep as per the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 March 22#Verenigde State van Amerika. Olivier (talk) 00:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Consensus has changed since that discussion. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - Per Olivier's link, and the redirect does meet any reason for deletion. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  02:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Incorrect. It should be deleted because Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary. We don't want to give editors the incorrect idea that we will have a foreign language redirect for every possible topic. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
      • "Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary" has nothing to do with keeping or not a redirect. We are not talking article space here. Olivier (talk) 19:21, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete The US is not an Icelandic topic. I'm not convinced that a discussion from three years ago should be given more weight than the dozens of WP:FORRED-backed deletions that have taken place more recently. Foreign-language redirects can be harmful, as I've opined at WT:FORRED. --BDD (talk) 16:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Three against two now, so probably goes as no consensus. Si Trew (talk) 11:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Four, counting the nominator, though numbers won't necessarily make the decision. --BDD (talk) 14:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: I nearly closed this as both "delete" and as "no consensus" but while composing my rationale I realised that there hasn't been enough discussion, from either 'side' about whether this redirect is or is not a useful search term for the target. Simply stating that it is or is not doesn't really help.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 15:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

  • I'll address that, Thryduulf. The English Wikipedia is, of course, written in English, so it's normally not appropriate to have redirects in Icelandic. Icelandic terms would be implausible search terms for most article titles on the English Wikipedia. The exception would be topics related to Iceland (e.g., Ísland). Such redirects as Bandarikin can mislead readers into believing the English Wikipedia can be navigated with Icelandic search terms, which is plainly untrue. And in that sense, this redirect is harmful. (This is the short version of my arguments at WT:FORRED I referenced above.) --BDD (talk) 16:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • For this specific redirect, one concern is that it is not mentioned at the target. More generally, wot BDD writ. Si Trew (talk) 18:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I should perhaps elaborate on why I think "not mentioned at the target" is a good reason. For many redirects, e.g. misspellings, we would not expect it to be mentioned at the target – the redirect is obvious. For a foreign word like "Bandarikin" that resembles English morphology, I may not even realise that it is a foreign word. If I found it elsewhere without explanation, I might type it in to see what a bandarikin was. I would be surprised to find that it redirects to United States with no understanding why. Searching the page is no help (even "Bandaríkin" is only a tooltip in the language links and not picked up on a search). That's why it should be left to Wiktionary, which provides definitions as a reason debtor. Si Trew (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Names of the United States. That page gives the Icelandic name as "Bandaríki Norður-Ameríku", not "Bandarikin", but the Icelandic article is is:Bandaríkin. We ought to have "Bandaríkin", and the diacritic-less version ought also to be presented. Nyttend (talk) 19:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Seconded. Si Trew (talk) 20:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

FiveFour calendar dates[edit]

Delete. These are the only fourfive dates in the calendar (either in [m]m-dd or dd-[m]m format) for which the target is the date article rather than a specific event, or something else entirely (gliders, musical notation, TV series, ten-code, etc). (Yes, barring mistakes, I checked every one: the vast majority are redlinks; even 2-29 and 29-2 are redlinks.) I've tried to notify creators but one creator (of two) is blocked, and the others seem inactive. Si Trew (talk) 11:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, five. I forgot 7-6, which started me off in the first place (from discussion at #7-1). Si Trew (talk) 12:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Most of these are getting significant numbers of hits, indicating that people are visiting them. However not one of them has a spike corresponding to the date they target (4-30 was only viewed once on 30 April for example) (for comparison, look at the stats for any date article around that date, e.g. December 2013 stats for December 20) suggesting to me that the current targets are not what people are searching for. That doesn't though help working out what they are wanting to read. Thryduulf (talk) 18:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
It's very subjective of course, but none of the stats for the redirects themselves seemed particularly high to me (never maxed 10 and usually average of less than 3). I agree, the "spikes" (sometimes as high as 10/day) seem to be at random. Although December 20 may be high, 12-20 was actually the lowest on the graph I looked at.
I realise that we can't kinda draw too many conclusions, but since the vast majority of potential redirects of the form "[m]m-dd" or "dd-[m]m" are redlinks, we can surmise that the few that point at the general day articles aren't doing so because that day is particularly special. Even what might be "special" days such as a leap day (2-29, 29-2, 2/29 and 29/2) or St. Andrew's Day (30-11, 11-30, 30/11 and 11/30) are all redlinks, so I don't see what's so special about these.
I'm always wary with the argument "but they do no harm" because
  1. As you say, they may interfere with helping readers find what they were looking for. The Search boxes on the sidebar and topbar seem not to do a Special:Search any more, at least for me, but just jump straight through any redirect that matches.
  2. They may encourage the impression that creating similar redirects is encouraged. (This is BDD's argument at WP:FORRED, mutatis mutandis.
  3. They may discourage timid editors from retargeting the redirect or creating an article over it.
That's why, although an inclusionist, I have become a little more likely to suggest deletion of Rs. I still try to consider good alternatives first, of course. Si Trew (talk) 19:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean about the stats not being high - averaging three hits a day over a month is significant use. An unused redirect will have no hits most days and more than two on a day (other than immediately after creation or when being discussed) is extremely exceptional. At least one of these got over 100 hits in September - two orders of magnitude (literally) above what low use redirects get!
As for the the comments about the date, you've sort of missed my point I think. If people were using these redirects (primarily) to look for the dates then the traffic graph would be the same shape as the target articles which have a massive spike on the day they are about with lesser spikes 1-3 days either side.
I don't buy (and never have) the argument that creating redirects is encouraged simply by the existence of similar ones - I've certainly never seen any evidence for it in all the years I've been a regular at RfD. Indeed many times it has been explicitly stated and widely agreed that not deleting a redirect is not the same as encouraging their creation. Thryduulf (talk) 19:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
100 hits/month is significant (over 3/day), but I think less than 2/day is noise: I know you differ in this opinion. I'm not saying "2 a day will just be spiders and bots", as some do, but that (as you imply) they may simply be Rs that are at best useless because the search engine would do an equally good job, if not a better one.
I may have missed the points about the date – I thought we were kinda agreed that the fact there isn't a spike meant that the Rs aren't being used as the primary way to access the date.
It may have been "explicitly stated and widely agreed that not deleting a redirect is not the same as encouraging their creation" here at RfD, but not everyone looks at Rfd. Even I occasionally have a break. What I tend to do whenever considering an article title (R or otherwise) is to try to find analogies to fit into, not necessarily to look at "deletion discussion" pages. In that sense, these "analogies" would encourage me in the belief such a systematic naming was approved of. Si Trew (talk) 20:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete all I would say we shouldn't have redirects like this unless they point to a specific event on that day. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


Delete. Not mentioned at target or talk. Si Trew (talk) 11:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep. I hear "Nine twenty-four" in the commercial and don't know what it means.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 14:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
What commercial? Si Trew (talk) 15:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Keep. It seems to be a commercial on heavy rotation on US radio [2][3]. The second link (search for "nine") and the edit summary when this was created ("Created redirect; I thought I was hearing "9-24"") both indicate that this is a mishearing of "non-24". I haven't been able to find the audio online after a brief search, so I can't personally speak to the plausibility, but with multiple independent reports I'd say this should be considered equivalent to a common typo. September's stats were higher than average, but there was no spike around the 24th (cf stats for September 24 and [4]) suggesting that people are not using this to look for the article on the date. Thryduulf (talk) 18:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Comment. This link may be helpful.—Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
and it is Thryduulf (talk) 21:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've heard the same radio commercial numerous times; it was the first context in which I'd heard of this disorder, and until looking up the disorder, I thought it was "9-24 disorder" because of the announcer's enunciation. Nyttend (talk) 20:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Isn't this all a bit WP:NOTNEWS, though? (Let alone not WP:WORLDWIDE?) Si Trew (talk) 21:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
    • No. What matters is the target article is encyclopaedic (which it seems to be), and that this redirect is a way people use to find it (per WP:RFD#KEEP point 5, this is the case). It is completely irrelevant whether people use this redirect because of news coverage, or whether the people using it are only from a certain geographical area. Thryduulf (talk) 21:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


Delete. Why this should redirect to May 5 (5-5) is beyond me. Not mentioned at target or talk. 22-5, 5/22 and 22/5 do not exist. Si Trew (talk) 11:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete other than a birth and two deaths related to 1922 "22" does not appear in the article text, so this has me baffled! I could understand a redirect to May 22, but this target wouldn't help anyone expecting that article. Thryduulf (talk) 15:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

یوسف خیل[edit]

This name is not related to the topic, it means "Yousef Khel" according to GTranslate, but we don't have an article about any person by this name. - TheChampionMan1234 09:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Yusaf Khel (In Urdu, یوسف خیل) is a sub-tribe of the Kakazai Pashtuns and there used to be an article just stating that but someone removed the content and redirected that page to Kakazai. I hope that helps. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 10:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


Delete. Not mentioned at target or talk. Why not 6-2, 7-3, 9-5, 8-3 or 1234-1230? URL of [javascript:5-1] can be used in most browsers if one is struggling to find the answer. Si Trew (talk) 08:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC) Si Trew (talk) 08:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


Delete. Not mentioned at talk, the target, or the target's talk. Si Trew (talk) 08:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

  • weak keep. The lead of the target notes it is also known as the "June 4th incident" which will be the origin of this redirect. Referring to events like this is something I've seen a few times in relation to the ongoing protests in Hong Kong (and Chinese often uses Roman numerals in horizontal writing) so it doesn't seem implausible. It is potentially very ambiguous though, so I wouldn't object to disambiguation, but I don't see a reason to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 10:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
    • I'd missed that in the lede (I did look). 6/4 is s DAB page with the target as one of its four entries, June 4, April 6 and 6/4 (time signature) being the others. Perhaps retarget to there? (4-6 and 4/6 do not exist; I didn't do a search of dates with slashes instead of hyphens.) Si Trew (talk) 15:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Yes, I'd be equally happy with a retarget to the 6/4 dab. Thryduulf (talk) 15:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The idea is well understandable, but not necessary in this form. 六四 (six-four) is still widely in use to talk about the June 4 incident (and the Chinese government blocks it from time to time so there's that). Support retarget to 6/4, where this and many other reasonable targets is given. 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 15:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

London Buses routes 1-20[edit]

Delete. Not used in article space, not very useful. This was mentioned in an AfD of September 2005 for London Buses route 11 but has not been nom'd for deletion itself. Could be {{R to section}} at List of bus routes in London#1-99, an anchor for which I have created. Si Trew (talk) 07:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

  • refine target per the nomination statement. We can't expect people to know the divisions we use in lists like this, or that they will always remain the same. The target is unambiguously what people using this redirect will be looking for, so there is no reason why we shouldn't just take them there. Thryduulf (talk) 10:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Fair enough, Refine target per Thryduulf. Actually, I'd like to R to section for all the London Buses route n links, but that's a BIG job with an easy spec.
I just feel it's not as helpful as it could be to have these hundreds of redirects go to the top of a rather long article. Si Trew (talk) 15:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Anchors are useful, yes but if the list is all we have (and there is significant resistance to even lists of bus routes, let alone articles) then that's where we should point people. If this is kept or retargetted, I suggest you take that pseudocode over to WP:BOTREQ (giving a link to this discussion for consensus) and ask a bot operator (or AWB user?) to do it for you. Thryduulf (talk) 18:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

London Buses routes 1-10[edit]

Delete. Not used in article space, not very useful. Could be {{R to section}} at List of bus routes in London#1-99, for which I have created an anchor. Si Trew (talk) 07:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

ओसामा बिन मुह्म्मद बिन लादिन[edit]

As with the other discussion, a Google search for this term only returns Wikipedia mirrors. - TheChampionMan1234 04:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment. I've marked it as Hindi. Google Translate returns for me "Osama bin Ladin bin Muhmmd"); I don't know why it has changed the "bin" order or the spelling – so is this just a bad spelling? "Muhmmd" is not mentioned at Muhammad (name), although there are a few instances on Facebook etc.
The shorter ओसामा बिन लादिन ("Osama bin Ladin") and ओसामा बिन लादेन ("Osama bin Laden") are redlinks, which the search engine handles perfectly well.
HI:WP has its version at hi:ओसामा बिन लादेन (दि, not दे). With the full form at HI:WP, ওসামা বিন মুহাম্মদ বিন আওয়াদ বিন লাদেন Google Translate returns "Osama bin Muhammad bin Awad bin Laden", identical to how it is written in EN:WP – but that may be no coincidence. Si Trew (talk) 09:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: I think we need someone from Category:User hi-N to help us. I will try and find somebody to notify. - TheChampionMan1234 10:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: I have notified @Anshuman.jrt: to come to the discussion. - TheChampionMan1234 10:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Great. I thought so too, but thought worth putting down what I had found so far. A pity we haven't a reg here who is knowledgeable on Devanagari script. (Do we?) Si Trew (talk) 10:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • It says Osāmā bin Muhmmad bin Lādin. Muhmmad seems like a typo. Gorobay (talk) 18:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

कलिन्ग युध्धम्[edit]

According to ja:カリンガ戦争 this is Sanskrit, but I highly doubt it, as a Google search for this term mainly returns WP mirrors - TheChampionMan1234 04:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

gu:કલિંગનુ યુધ્ધ (Gujarati) says "कलिन्ग युध्धम्" is Sanskrit.(I note different last character in first word: inflexion?) According to [5], "युध्धम्" is Sanskrit for "war" or "great fight". Is it a mix of Marathi and Sanskrit? Kalinga (India) says the "Devanagari" for Kalinga is "कलिङ्ग", slightly differently, but anyway Devanagari is a script not a language. War has IW to sk:युद्धम्, and mr:युद्ध. Si Trew (talk) 10:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


Redirecting scores to games just seems like a terrible idea. There have been thousands of games that ended with this score. As far as I can tell, 7-1 doesn't really refer to anything, unless you really stretch and use Bible verses. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete. Cannot possibly be primary; DAB would be ridiculous. For if not, retarget to 6 (number). (Although 5-1 retargets to 4 (number), so there is precedent for that.) Si Trew (talk) 07:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Check table to 0 to 9:
0-0, 1-0, 2-0, 3-0, 4-0, 5-0, 6-0, 7-0, 8-0, 9-0
0-1, 1-1, 2-1, 3-1, 4-1, 5-1, 6-1, 7-1, 8-1, 9-1
0-2, 1-2, 2-2, 3-2, 4-2, 5-2, 6-2, 7-2, 8-2, 9-2
0-3, 1-3, 2-3, 3-3, 4-3, 5-3, 6-3, 7-3, 8-3, 9-3
0-4, 1-4, 2-4, 3-4, 4-4, 5-4, 6-4, 7-4, 8-4, 9-4
0-5, 1-5, 2-5, 3-5, 4-5, 5-5, 6-5, 7-5, 8-5, 9-5
0-6, 1-6, 2-6, 3-6, 4-6, 5-6, 6-6, 7-6, 8-6, 9-6
0-7, 1-7, 2-7, 3-7, 4-7, 5-7, 6-7, 7-7, 8-7, 9-7
0-8, 1-8, 2-8, 3-8, 4-8, 5-8, 6-8, 7-8, 8-8, 9-8
0-9, 1-9, 2-9, 3-9, 4-9, 5-9, 6-9, 7-9, 8-9, 9-9
Currently blue (from table, going left to right, top to bottom):
0-0 is a DAB page with 6 entries
1-0Chess#Notation_for_recording_moves (I added anchor and R to section)
5-0 → DAB page at 5O (letter O) with 15 entries
0-1Chess#Notation_for_recording_moves (I added anchor and R to section)
1-1 is a DAB page with 2 entries
5-14 (number)
7-1Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup) (this nom)
0-3 is an article about an emergency telephone number in several ex-Soviet states
1-3 is an article about a musical album
4-34-3 defense (American football)
3-43-4 defense (American football)
6-4Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 (why? not mentioned at target or talk)
3-5Viennese trichord, in music
1-6Schweizer SGU 1-6, a glider
7-6July 6
1-7Schweizer SGU 1-7, a glider
2-7Lowball_(poker)#Deuce-to-seven (I added anchor and R to section)
5-7FN Five-seven, a pistol
7-77 July 2005 London bombings
2-8Schweizer SGS 2-8, a glider
0-9Numeral system
1-9 is a DAB page with 4 entries
I could, of course, go on. I think that the point is made, none of these links to a specific event that finished with that score; the most prevalent "pattern" is to use it for gliders! (Three Rs.) Si Trew (talk) 08:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • For those with en dashes instead of hyphens, I copied and previewed the above table and found only these:
0–1Lactobacillus sakei. I made it R to Lactobacillus sakei#Exopolysaccharide biosynthesis (trips off the tongue)
4–34-3 defense, as 4-3. (Why not 3–4 like 3-4, then?)
0–9Numeral system, as 0-9.

There are none with em dashes instead. I haven't checked for those with variant spacing. Si Trew (talk) 08:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting any of the others should be deleted.(I have nominated a couple separately.) I was just providing the tables etc. for comparison. Si Trew (talk) 10:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Great Masterwort[edit]

Up until recently [6], one of these pointed to Astrantia (which also says it is called "great masterword"), but Astrantia maxima is also called "great masterword", so where should these be targetted? -- (talk) 01:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

October 21[edit]

Graceful failure[edit]

The target article discusses graceful degradation, but not failure. Since it's not mentioned there, I recommend deletion. BDD (talk) 20:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

(Fail gracefully) Grammatical variant. Si Trew (talk) 06:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Retarget', but not sure where DABify. We also have fail-safe and graceful exit. While none is perfect, I think the concept is common enough that we could retargetDABify this.
Wiktionary doesn't have it. GSearch gives me enough RS examples: here at Safari Books Online and here at O'Reilly books, also here in an article at The Guardian. I don't want to synthesise information, but we could perhaps add the term to the target graceful exit, with those sources? e.g. the lede "Graceful exit or Graceful failure[1][2][3]..."? Si Trew (talk) 04:28, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Adding "fail gracefully" to nom. Fault-tolerant computer system, to which both R's redirect, has that term. WP:RFD#KEEP says differing grammatical forms do not form a reason to delete, and taken pedantically that could mean neither should be deleted because the other exists, but it seems better to treat them the same. Si Trew (talk) 06:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Other examples of articles that use variants of the term (without stretching too far) are DF-224, Assertion (software development) (R at Assertion failure), Babbitt (metal), Bailout, Browser sniffing, Gizzard (Scala framework), IBM System z10, Kerckhoffs's principle (piped to graceful exit), Stress testing (software) all use some form of the term. "gracefully fail" does not exist.
We are not WP:DICDEF of course, but it seems a reasonably widely used term. With the exceptions of Babbitt (metal) and Bailout, the uses are all for software. (I'm a bit surprised we don't have "Bailout (software)" to mean error handling code, but perhaps that is just my personal jargon.) Si Trew (talk) 05:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • disambig per Si Trew. Something "failing gracefully" is a term I am familiar with in computing, and I've also heard it used in the context of railway signalling to mean a right-side failure (i.e. fail safe) mode that permits degraded working (some trains operating is preferable to none). Thryduulf (talk) 11:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


A rather ridiculous redirect. Yes, an example of this dialect, but there's really very little connection between these titles and the target Oiyarbepsy (talk) 14:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

  • retarget Norf london to North London - it probably shouldn't have been created, but now it does that is the best place for it to point. Thryduulf (talk) 16:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
    • ...but now it does that is the best place for it to point Um, can you elaborate on that? Tandrum (talk) 08:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Agree with reasoning, but not concusion. All my family are from Norf London. I am not sure I would agree with it not being created, but in Cockney or as it is called these days Estuary English (totally different things) the "th" would be sounded "f". It may be a bit of a Private Eyeism though? (There was a strip in that called "It's grim up North London"), my subcrition lapsed but by Knife and Packer I think, which was deliberately posh types – presumably gay – who earned far too much money and were constantly doing up their place. I am not sure if that is relevant. Alan Bennett had the same theme thirty years ago about Knocking through i.e. conjoining two properties to make one large one, in Camden (Norf London). So I think this is sort of relevant, although more precision than North London would be better. London south of the Thames was technically Surrey until well into the twentieth century; so what is "North London"? Watford Gap]? Si Trew (talk) 20:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete Mouf. I don't see value in retargetting to mouth (but I am open to persuasion otherwise). Word of Mouf is the only other vaguely realistic target, but I think that is too vague. Thryduulf (talk) 16:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Londoners do know how to spell (except for greengrocers' apostrophes) but we are not a pronunciation guide any more than we are a translation service (which are perhaps the same thing!) rouf I give as a parallel, which should go to four, as it is bookmakers' slang for 4/1 against. I keep meaning to do the article for tic-tac. Si Trew (talk) 20:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Part of the whole reason slang is created and circulated is people want to be under a guise of exclusiveness. In other words, be a douchebag. Wikipedia prides itself on being in the know, so when typing in slang someone thinks no one will know, imagine being displayed the scholarly study on the subculture the word plays in. This user created the redirects because I assumed no one would debate this, but since it is, it should be noted that th-fronting is used in Ebonic culture as well. Thanks Tandrum (talk) 08:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I disagree.
  1. We use enough slang or jargon here for example WP:RFD instead of Wikipedia:Redirects for Discussion and that is for brevity, not exclusivity. It's fine as long as everyone knows the same jargon.
  2. This is not slang or jargon, but an approximation of a particular way to pronounce something, in particular Th-fronting. While that, as a linguistic article, is fine, to add these redirects is not fine. It is, essentially, being disrespectful to my accent – which I regard as valid as any other. We don't have Way aye directing to Liverpudlian or Geordie, or indeed anywhere else.
  3. For if not, we add "fink positive" and "fird league" and so on ad infinitum. English is especially divergent in its spoken and written forms compared to most languages. Si Trew (talk) 13:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
But I don't think Wikipedia is meant to be a comedy. A tragedy sometimes, certainly. Si Trew (talk) 06:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Weak retarget both to Mockney. Si Trew (talk) 07:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Although I was just thinking, the P. G. Wodehouse "Jeeves" character Gussie Fink-Nottle presumably is some kind of suggestion of "think not at all" (he being good natured but a bit dim), but neither the author not Gussie is remotely "common". Si Trew (talk) 09:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


Appears to be Indonesian for "mango", weak retarget to manga as typo - TheChampionMan1234 07:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm with you either way. manga as typo was the first thing that came to my I note we have 漫画, as a DAB which lists two topics: Manhua for Chinese comics and Manga for Japanese comics. That falls under WP:TWODABS I think, but that's another can of worms. I don't know about you, but I always felt that Rs and DABs are kinda siamese twins so I don't mind discussing them here. Si Trew (talk) 08:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. Where do you suggest the DAB be, mangga? Si Trew (talk) 17:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Well I originally though yes, but then I found Mangga Buang language listing "Mangga" exactly as a name. Maybe make the language the primary topic and start Mangga (disambiguation)? 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 07:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Comment. What a tangled web we unweave. We have also Mangga language and Buang language and Buang languages. The first is a redirect to Mangga Buang language, the others redirect to South Huon Gulf languages (where Mangga Buang language is linked). I would be inclined at first to reverse the redirect at Mangga language as the shorter title, as there don't seem to be any other Mangga language, but I note the official ISO name is "Mangga Buang Language" (code MMO). an evangelical bible study site here kinda implies that "Buang" is a geographical, rather than linguistic, adjective ("British English" springs to mind as a parallel) – but I'm not entirely convinced of that. We don't have plain Buang, for example.
To complicate things, we also have Manga language, which is a DAB with two entries Mangga Buang language and Manga language (Tibeto-Burman) which is of course not closely related. But the existence of the DAB surprised me, as I was expecting it to be something about the graphical and narrative "language" of Manga comics, although I couldn't think of a good word for that - "Style" I suppose I mean, but a bit more than that: the readers expect certain conventions to be held, just as they do with a whodunnit.
Most of these language articles are stubs with very little real useful info.
Si Trew (talk) 08:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
There also exists Manga (disambiguation) that didn't mention Manga language but I've just boldly merged Manga language there. Thryduulf (talk) 12:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Gosh, how dare you be bold? I guess you get away with it because you are an admin. It is just one piece of hay we have found in an enormous stack of needles, though. Si Trew (talk) 15:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC) Struck I meant it jokingly but it might seem otherwise. SiTrew.
  • Weak retarget per nom, or delete. Disambiguation would not be a good option, as all those candidates mentioned are partial title matches. --BDD (talk) 15:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


I just fixed a whole bunch of redirects that were redirected to Fujiwara no Kintō a few months before a better target article was created. But I noticed these three odd ones in the process. The correct romanized spelling of the Japanese name is "Sanjūrokkasen" (two ks, one s, no b). One most QWERTY keyboards, "Sanjubrokkasen" is a pretty unlikely misprint. "Sanjū rokkasen" is an acceptable spelling, but does anyone aim for the space bar and hit "b" by mistake? "Sanjurokassen" is a bit more likely, but a quick Googling indicated that it is actually the name of an almost-unrelated series of images whose name translates to "Thirty-six Honourable Battles". The name of that series is probably a pun on the currently-redirected article, but I guess until the Thirty-six Honourable Battles gets its own article I guess the current redirect status is best for a pretty likely misspelling of a foreign name. On the other hand "Immortals of poetry japanese" is ambiguous, since we also have an article on the "Six Immortals of Poetry". I'm pretty sure the word "japanese" at the end makes this a pretty useless redirect either way, though. I'm not sure what to make of these, but at the moment I would say delete "Sanjubrokkasen" and "Immortals of poetry japanese", but keep "Sanjurokassen" for the time being. What does everyone else think? Hijiri 88 (やや) 01:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Definitely delete the one with the "b". Being very lenient, none of the four surrounding letters are even close to "b" on Qwerty. No comment on the 1k, 2s form, especially with the lack of an article on those battles. For the last one, I am thinking of creating a dab on Immortals of poetry between 6IoP and 36IoP (and maybe also include Li Bai who is named 詩仙/poem-immortal in Chinese literature) and then retarget to that? 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 13:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per proposer. @Hisashiyarouin:, can you add your thoughts to the RfD today (17th) on mangga? Si Trew (talk) 09:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I probably hould have done this more justice. The "-kk-" is not romaji is it (one K is enough), although I note Nikkei and Nikkai have it. I agree the one ending "japanese" without initial cap seems pointless (English caps language names; I know many other languages that don't, I would think it natural an English speaker to type in the cap, unless they are REALLY lazy). The others I have no opinion on –I don't know who the thirty-six immortals are, which is revealing my ignorance even more than usual. Si Trew (talk) 03:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Sanjurokassen because missing a "k" is a very plausible misspelling. The paintings appear to be called "Meiyo sanjurokassen" not just "sanjurokassen" so that's a partial title match and doesn't need attention, but in any case a hatnote to Utagawa Kuniyoshi would be sufficient. Siuenti (talk) 21:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Sanjurokassen is both missing a "k" and includes an extra "s". I'm inclined to agree that it's still a possible misspelling. I'm worried that hatnoting the article when there are apparently so few sources discussing the Honourable Battles would violate WP:WEIGHT, though. Do you think we should just leave it until someone(theoretically?) creates the article? Hijiri 88 (やや) 06:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps until it gets discussed somewhere in Wikipedia. Siuenti (talk) 21:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Apep (disambiguation)[edit]

There's no two pages named Apep. Disambig not necessary. Redirects to differently named disambig. uKER (talk) 12:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Apophis (a DAB page), and add phrase "or Apep" to the lede there.
I'm not sure what's gone on here Apophis (disambiguation) is an R to DAB at Apophis; the first is currently marked as CSD G6 (Housekeeping) as holding up a page from the second. Which it isn't, since it's perfectly standard for a DAB page not to need "(disambiguation)" but to have an R of that form. So, Apep (disambiguation) is an R to Apophis, but the first two entries there are to Apep, an ancient Egyptian and presumably WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and Apepi (pharaoh). (I don't accept that "Apep" and "Apepi" are different names.) My suggested retarget ties it all together more symetrically. Si Trew (talk) 13:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • (I thought I added a comment here but it seems to have got lost.) The articles indicate that "Apep", "Apepi" (R to Apophis) and "Apophis" are the same name (in Egyptian or Greek). Nothing is listed at Apophis (disambiguation); that is an R to the DAB at Apophis. The article at 'Apepi (note leading apostrophe) also says there is speculation from inscriptions on coinage that he was the "King's son Apophis". I don't see how any of this can be resolved until the CSD at Apophis (disambiguation) is resolved. There is some discussion of this naming difficulty at Talk:Apepi (pharaoh). Si Trew (talk) 14:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I've removed the CSD tag at Apophis (disambiguation), added today by User:UKER, since it is being discussed here (albeit indirectly). Si Trew (talk) 16:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

London Buses routes 612 and 685[edit]

Implausible search term. Launchballer 12:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Move to London Buses route 612. London Buses route 685 already has its own. However this and many many others all redirect back to List of bus routes in London, where only those routes with a real article seem to be linked. That's not bad since at least they link the approximate route, I suppose. The navbox at {{London bus routes}} uses and I am going to change it to be London Buses route 612, not to pre-empt the result of this discussion but so we can see where it is really used in articles outside the navbox. Si Trew (talk) 14:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. The only thing I could find that actually used it was Wallington,_London#Bus, where it was piped to "612" anyway. I can't find from the history why this was combined, most edits at the template have no ec. Si Trew (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. I went WP:BOLD and moved it, leaving behind this redirect. I can't see this contravenes any even unwritten rules, since I had changed the pages that referred to it (which both piped to 612 anyway) so the only other option really was to create a new redirect at 612, and if we did that we'd lose the history (or have to do a move over redirect). So really it was a fait accompli from the moment I checked WhatLinksHere, so it might as well be done now. Si Trew (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

*Delete the L and G are quite far on a keyboard so I don't see why a person would misspell the word in this manor.-- (talk) 21:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I guess when you submitted this you got an ec and it went into the wrong section (immediately below)... I've copied it there, hope that's OK. Si Trew (talk) 05:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
No problem, that was where it was meant to go.-- (talk) 02:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

LGlossary of baseball (O)[edit]

Unlikely typo, created during a double page move. Fram (talk) 10:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Really don't care - policy says this should be kept since it is four years old. However it really doesn't matter. If you understood what was involved you would not nominate this for deletion, since nothing is gained by deleting it. Of course since you claim to be a programmer one would expect that you do actually understand that. If you didn't you could have read the explanations I have provided previously. Of course there is the possibility that you are not RfDing this because it is harmful, but for other reasons. If so, you should find a new hobby. All the best: Rich Farmbrough15:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC).
Where have I ever claimed to be a programmer? Fram (talk) 17:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and which policy says that a four year old redirect should be kept? It shouldn't be speedy deleted, that's why I nominated it for discussion instead. But no policy I'm aware of states that old redirects should be kept. Fram (talk) 17:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
@Rich Farmbrough: If there's something we should know about a redirect that would stop someone from nominating it, you put a note on its talk page, because that's what talk pages are for. A good example, Wikipedia talk:8 which tells us exactly why that redirect exists, and notice how it has never been nominated for deletion. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 18:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete Nonsensical, unless I hear a good reason to keep it. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 18:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete the L and G are quite far on a keyboard so I don't see why a person would misspell the word in this manor.-- (talk) 21:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. All the indications are this was a typo made when moving the page (even unlikely ones happen sometimes!) that was immediately corrected. I would have no qaulms about speedying this as G6 (created in error). That said, Rich is right that we shouldn't be wasting time discussing harmless redirects like this - it is harmless and we gain nothing by deleting them. However, as this is clearly an error we lose nothing either, so as we're here... Thryduulf (talk) 11:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Global Jihad[edit]

Retarget to Global jihad (disambiguation). When this redirect was first created by User:OrangesRyellow there is a an edit summary "redirect. this topic probably needs it's own comprehensive article, there is also a section in the Abdullah Yusuf Azzam article, but this seems to be the most appropriate". While is could become its own article, the current redirect to al-Qaeda is no longer appropriate. The concept of global jihad is part of the theology of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (no longer associated with al-Qaeda) and other groups. Disambiguation to the various uses of the term is preferred. ~Technophant (talk) 07:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment. Why retarget it to a non-existent DAB page? Just be WP:BOLD and overwrite the page with what you want at the DAB. You say "[DAB of] the term is preferred" – by whom? If you, just do it. I note Global jihad doesdid not exist. Si Trew (talk) 08:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Yes. I think that is a good suggestion.OrangesRyellow (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
P.S. @Technophant. Thanks for pinging me. OrangesRyellow (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome! ~Technophant (talk) 00:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • To be technical, Technophant, what you're proposing is to disambiguate the term, not retarget it. Given WP:NCCAPS, what you'd want would be a disambiguation page at Global jihad, with this capitalization variant and Global jihad (disambiguation) redirecting there. I wonder if a WP:CONCEPTDAB article is possible, though. I have my own suggestion, though. See below. --BDD (talk) 17:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Jihadism, which already includes this term bolded in the lede. These appear to be mostly, if not entirely, overlapping concepts. --BDD (talk) 17:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support retarget to Jihadism as proposed by BDD. This seems like the simplest solution. Also RD Global jihad there (Yes check.svg Done).~Technophant (talk) 23:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment at Jihadism it says that "the term is clumsy and controversial." I agree. That's why I started this RfD. It's hard to figure out how to handle this term. Another thing, only one article links to "Global Jihad", South Thailand insurgency, and the way it does it is by using [[Global Jihad|foreign Islamic]].~Technophant (talk) 00:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I can see that. I had thought to suggest just to R it to jihad, since I thought jihad is by implication global (in the same sense that, e.g., The gospel#Christian mission is, though that section uses the word "worldwide", and even then in [square brackets] as an insertion.)
  • A few more suggestions for DAB:
Si Trew (talk) 05:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm Adding Global jihad to this discussion, with much doubt. WP:NCCAPS specifically allows article titles to differ only by caps, but says that such articles should be hatnoted: which is not possible (well, not useful) for R's. Their targets should be hatnoted, but we can't do that until we get consensus on which targets they are. Creating Global jihad was premature. Si Trew (talk) 06:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC) Yes check.svg Done Si Trew (talk) 06:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Land Sea Lion[edit]

This is based on a joke from Futurama, the episode The Deep South. Obviously this shouldn't target lion, but I'm not sure it should target the Futurama episode either, and it maybe should just be deleted. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

October 20[edit]

Tom cruise kills oprah[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Speedy Delete, R3 by User:CactusWriter Lenticel (talk) 00:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The section which this redirect targets is no longer existent, and with the way that the redirect is titled, it sounds like a WP:BLP violation. Steel1943 (talk) 15:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete per WP:CSD G10 (attack page) - TheChampionMan1234 23:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete as a potential personal attack redirect. --Lenticel (talk) 02:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • (Speedy?) Delete as above. Are we allowed to do Speedy now that it's up for discussion? Si Trew (talk) 04:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete G10 per above. BLP that is never suitable without sourced mention at target. 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 12:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Sophie Hunter (theatre director)[edit]

I don't find this disamb. name for Hunter necessary seeing as how she's the only Sophie Hunter on Wikipedia. If there were multiples, of course keep it up but there is no point LADY LOTUSTALK 15:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me to the point of having an unnecessary disambiguation, even a template for it? I genuinely don't understand that. LADY LOTUSTALK 11:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Simply put it's because people search for these terms. If you don't know whether the article you are looking for is the primary topic or not, putting a dismabig in the search term guarantees you will get where you want to. The template also exists for cases where the primary topic has changed and disambiguation is no longer needed for the now-primary article (e.g. if Georgia (country) was renamed, then the US State would become the primary topic for "Georgia" and Georgia (U.S. state) would be a redirect from unnecessary disambiguation (and also a {{R from move}}). Thryduulf (talk) 11:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:U.S. Secretary box[edit]

Delete. All of the transclusions of these redirects have been replaced by direct calls to the target templates. This will reduce the number of templates (and redirects within template space) still needing work as part of the long-running house-keeping effort at WP:SBS/T. Bazj (talk) 12:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as WP:G6 housekeeping. Si Trew (talk) 02:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


Delete. Neither Template:Succesion nor Template:Succession are still transcluded, Template:Succession is awaiting WP:CSD#T3. They've long been deprecated in favour of the standard {{s-ttl}} series of templates. This is part of the long-running house-keeping effort at WP:SBS/T. Bazj (talk) 11:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Provisional keep wait until the target is deleted first. If the target is deleted, this will automatically follow, if it has not been nominated for separate deletion (or as a cleanup procedure, if it wasn't automatically deleted). If the target is not deleted, then this should not be deleted either. -- (talk) 20:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. I added {{R from misspelling}} as that does not affect the outcome of this discussion. Si Trew (talk) 04:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Algebraic algebra[edit]

Such redirect does not make sense, algebraic algebra is a particular algebraic structure (see, but algebra is a branch of mathematics. If an article about particular algebraic structure still does not exists, it is not a reason to create redirect to branch of mathematics in which the structure is studies (only abstract algebra studies thousands of different structures and most of them still does not have articles). Bezik (talk) 07:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


Google translate says this means "Tait", ([7] but I'm not sure what its supposed to mean (if anything) - TheChampionMan1234 04:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment. has a botanical dictionary entry here with it being Marathi language for "tayitu" or "tetu", the Indian trumpet flower (oroxylum indicum). We could (and perhaps should) add that at the target. Whether that means we should keep this R, I don't know. The DAB at tetu has O. indicum as one of its two entries (as being in "marathi language", not "Marathi"); tayitu is an R to O. indicum but is not marked as {{R from other language}}. Si Trew (talk) 03:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep and add entry regarding Si Trew's findings to the article. It seems that the plant is native to the Indian subcontinent so this is probably one of its native names. --Lenticel (talk) 03:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per my comments and persuasion by @Lenticel: as a likely native name. Not to pre-empt the discussion, but I've done the minor changes at the R and DAB, and added it to the target, since those don't seem to affect what consensus we may reach on what to do with the R itself. I imagine a good biological dictionary would be a more reliable source than flickr, but that's better than nothing. Si Trew (talk) 03:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I've added a notice at Wikipedia:Noticeboard for India-related topics to see if they can weigh in on the Rfd. --Lenticel (talk) 05:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
At WT:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Name_of_Oroxylum_indicum to be precise. Si Trew (talk) 09:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Taking my cue from the list at target, we have these alternate languages listed, and I've checked out the redirects for them (they are rightly not linked in the article itself):
R for native name native marked
with R from
alt. lang?
language R for transliteration trans marked
with R from
alt. lang?
ভাতঘীলা as Assamese Bhatghila not tagged
সোনা bn Bengali DAB page at sona not at DAB page
ၾကာင္လွ်ာသီး redlink Burmese not given
भूत वृक्ष hi Hindi bhut-vriksha not tagged
दीर्घवृन्त hi Hindi dirghavrinta not tagged
कुटन्नट hi Hindi kutannat not tagged
मण्डूक hi Hindi DAB page at manduk at DAB page
पत्रोर्ण hi Hindi patrorna not tagged
पूतिवृक्ष hi Hindi putivriksha not tagged
शल्लक hi Hindi shallaka not tagged
शूरण hi Hindi article at shuran hatnoted
सोन redlink Hindi son
शोण hi Hindi DAB page at
son (disambiguation)
not at DAB page
वटुक hi Hindi vatuk not tagged
ತಟ್ಟುನ kn Kannada Tattuna not tagged
ಆನೆಮುಂಗು redlink Kannada redlink at
Kannada and
kok Konkani davamadak not tagged
टेटु mr Marathi tayitu
DAB page at tetu
R tagged
at DAB page
अरलु sa Sanskrit DAB page at aralu at DAB page
श्योनक sa Sanskrit shyonaka
Redlink at dunduka
not tagged
Totila (si) "Singhala"
article at Totila no hatnote
Thotila (si) "Singhala"
சொரிகொன்றை ta Tamil cori-konnai not tagged
பாலையுடைச்சி ta Tamil palai-y-utaicci not tagged
பூதபுஷ்பம் ta Tamil puta-puspam not tagged
మండూకపర్ణము te Telugu manduka-parnamu not tagged
పంపెన te Telugu pampena not tagged
శూకనాసము te Telugu suka-nasamu not tagged
తుందిలము te Telugu not given
Whether all of these redirects are necessary, I don't know. It might be somewhat overkill. The transliteration redirects should, I believe, be tagged as {{R from alternative language}}; they are in an alternative language (but the Latin alphabet). I'm going to check the Interwiki links next, but save this first. Si Trew (talk) 06:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I've checked the Interlanguage links and nothing is profitable, although bn:সোনা (Bengali) is "Gold" so that's a bit puzzling. Si Trew (talk) 08:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - In the table above the two Kannada names and their transliterations have been transposed. Imc (talk) 16:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Oops, sorry. Fixed it, I think. Si Trew (talk) 18:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

दिनेश परभा शंकर कन[edit]

Not a valid alternative name in any language, unless this is a typo. - TheChampionMan1234 04:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment. gtrans gave me for the first word "Dinesh", not "Danish", I guess this is just a variant. has it, and my German is not very good but considering the name has been Germanized to "Dänisch Kaneria", I presume that is (mostly) a machine translation from the target here at EN:WP. ("leg spin" is translated as "bein spin" for example, but not in its article at "leg spin"). We don't have an article for him at DE:WP. Si Trew (talk) 03:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

October 19[edit]


No particular affinity for Czech. - TheChampionMan1234 23:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC) *Delete per Champ. Si Trew (talk) 09:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep - direct readers to the content they're looking for. No rationale has been presented for deletion. WilyD 09:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak retarget to Bohemian Switzerland, which does have an affinity to Czech, and to which Czech: České Švýcarsko redirects. As for a rationale for deletion: not mentioned at existing target. Czech users can find an article at cz:Švýcarsko if they want it. WP:NOT a (translation) dictionary. Si Trew (talk) 13:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

List Of Persib Bandung Former Foreign Players[edit]

Delete. Same as this and this. MbahGondrong (talk) 09:52, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment. I'm trying to figure out why this isn't just a normal redirect due to capitalization - something that we routinely allow and maintain. It seems to match the target in all but capitalization, so if there is some flaw beyond that, we will need to move the target as well. No recommendation as such, since I closed the AFD, but that doesn't mean I understand why this is here at all. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment. Sorry, I seem to not know that capitalization is not a problem for redirects. I think the RFD for both redirects can be closed. Cheers!! MbahGondrong (talk) 22:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Wiinslow (crater)[edit]

Probably should be quick deleted, but wanted to be sure. Corrected misspelling by moving to Winslow crater (moon). Erroneous spellings should not be retained. Student7 (talk) 01:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment do you want the talk page deleted, or the subject page Wiinslow (crater) ? -- (talk) 01:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep (both article and talk page redirects, that is). This misspelling was the title for five years. Yikes. Tagged as {{R from misspelling}}. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 18:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. The intent was to change the name on both talk and article. Student7 (talk) 19:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Question. Didn't understand your answer @Oiyarbepsy. Are you saying that Wii... (double i) is correct? Student7 (talk) 19:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - plausible enough typo, sends readers to what they're looking for. WilyD 09:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

October 18[edit]

Jalan Asahan[edit]

Name of some randon, non-notable road which is nowhere near the target, see [8] - TheChampionMan1234 23:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

This is the road being referred to. I don't know how notable it is, but a stub formerly existed, and it's signed as M125 (a state highway?). This is probably enough to restore the article and bring it to AFD. --NE2 01:54, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

St. Mary's School, Kuching[edit]

This is linked at St. Mary's School, so its better to be a redlink. - TheChampionMan1234 23:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per Champ. Not at target. There are no other internal links (except for those relating to this discussion), so I wonder why it was created in the first place. It was turned from an (extremely short ) stub, with a comment for padding to avoid listing at short pages, with this edit, citing non-notablity per WP:SCHOOL; it should probably have been deleted instead, but wasn't.
I'm not a great fan of redlinks as headwords in DABs, though, and am inclined to delete its entry altogether (nothing to DAB). I'll try to have a look with DABsolver at fixing some other links to that DAB. Si Trew (talk) 09:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Kuching North[edit]

No plausible target can be found. - TheChampionMan1234 22:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose and possibly change to point at Kuching#Local authority and city definition, which explains these two phrases. --NE2 01:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per NE2, the nomination is wrong, it already has the plausible target targetted. -- (talk) 21:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep, refined as an R to section per NE2. Si Trew (talk) 09:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - discussed at target. No argument has been presented for deletion. WilyD 09:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Gate Panic! (video game)[edit]

The user Natsume96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has added the following to the list of platforms in Popeye (video game):

Sega Master System (unofficial, known as "Gate Panic! (ゲート·パニック!))

However, there are no reliable sources that confirm existence (leave alone notability) of this version; actually, I tried to google for it and couldn't find any sources at all. DmitTrix (talk) 20:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

P. S.: Please also check NATSUME 3 by the same user. DmitTrix (talk) 20:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I Am Bread[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was withdrawn. The issue presented in the nomination has been resolved. Steel1943 (talk) 21:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The subject of the redirect's title is not mentioned in the target article; thus, the association is not clear. Steel1943 (talk) 18:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

  • ... it would have taken less time to actually check the connection than it would have to send this to RfD. Anyway, it's there and sourced now. czar  18:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I can't admit that I had the time to search the web for a source when I nominated this redirect as I was looking at the new pages feed. Anyways, I'll withdraw this. Steel1943 (talk) 20:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.


Not a space � (talk) 18:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Probably retarget, pending the answer to my following question: Then, what is it? Steel1943 (talk) 18:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Maybe retarget to whitespace character (which discusses it briefly) or Control Pictures (the Unicode block to which it belongs)? (talk) 18:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Another comment If whitespace character, should probably add a new {{anchor}} at the appropriate point in the table there, since the section is long and there's no good place to add a section break. (talk) 01:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • retarget per All Unicode characters should lead to an article, either directly or via a redirect because people do come to Wikipedia to find out about them. Given that it is discussed at Whitespace character that seems the best target for this character. Thryduulf (talk) 21:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Android L[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep (non-admin closure)} NickGibson3900 Talk 01:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

As now Google has already confirmed that the next version of Android will be codenamed as Android Lollipop. So why there will be article of Android L, it was a working title not permanent. Moreover it may create a confusion among people that Android L is original name of the OS version, Google search also shows this article when searched as "android l". Lastly, there is no article named "Android K" or "Android J", so why there will be "Android L"?  HPD   talk  17:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)  HPD   talk  17:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep an {{R from former name}} which is actually discussed at the target page (so anyone who reads the article will be cured of whatever misconceptions they may have about the name "Android L") and which does not seem to refer to any other notable topic. (talk) 18:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: "Android L" has been around long enough to become notable, and Android Lollipop article is there to describe naming history of the actual Android release. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 21:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep {{R from previous name}} -- viable search term, valid former name -- (talk) 01:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Invalid reason for deletion. ViperSnake151  Talk  05:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - sends readers to what they're looking for. WilyD 09:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Enrique Peña[edit]

Currently redirects to Enrique Peña Sánchez. My proposal is to redirect it instead to Enrique Peña Nieto's page. This seems more like a WP:TWODAB situation, and Peña Nieto seems to be the primary topic here. Note that "Enrique Peña Nieto" is the common name for him, so if you think to ask a move from "Enrique Peña Nieto" to simply "Enrique Peña", it would require a RM discussion. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 11:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC) © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 11:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Nieto per proposer as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. According to stats, Peña Nieto gets 500–2500hits/day, Peña Sánchez gets 4–10.
Minor points that may influence consensus:
  1. Enrique Nieto (architect) (15–20 hits/day), is hatnoted at Enrique Peña Nieto but there is also (I would say unnecessarily) a DAB at Enrique Nieto with only those two mentioned, which seems over-egging the pudding. The DAB gets 4–10 hits/day. I could reason that we should follow that precedent, then, and make Enrique Peña also a DAB, but I argue that would just over-egg a second pudding.
  2. Peña Nieto has {{Spanish name}} but Peña Sánchez doesn't. Not sure if he should, is this name form used by Cubans?
Anyway, those can easily be fixed when we have consensus on the main point. Si Trew (talk) 09:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Virginia State Route 638[edit]

Delete all. These redirected to a section of the list that listed seven different routes as if they were one continuous route (and which I spent several minutes trying to locate before I realized they were discontinuous). I removed the section because all but the one in Scott County are very minor roads (in Virginia, practically every public road has a state route number, and numbers over 600 are only unique within a county). So now these redirect to nowhere. (I wrote a better description for the one in Scott County, so did not list those redirects here.) NE2 04:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Retarget Virginia State Route 638 to List_of_secondary_state_highways_in_Virginia#SR_638 (Scott_County); Delete the rest. Add courtesy comment and anchor at target per WP:SPECIFICLINK. Si Trew (talk) 06:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
    • There are other potentially important ones in Clarke, Fairfax, Hanover, and Westmoreland Counties, some of which might not end up redirecting to this list. The best solution would be a disambiguation, but some do-gooder would probably redirect it because it only has one blue link. --NE2 19:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Question is the a scope for a Virginia State route 638 list or set-index article? This is the sort of information that Wikipedia can provide well. I'll drop a note for the folks at the US Roads Wikiproject about this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 21:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - List of secondary state highways in Virginia is currently a sloppy mess incomplete RCS list of secondary roads in Virginia. These secondary routes are generally not notable enough for individual articles in the same vein as most county routes. What should be done, however, is to create by-county lists for secondary routes as these routes are notable enough to be covered in a list. List of county routes in Camden County, New Jersey can serve as a model for how the lists can look like, as the notability and numbering pattern of the Virginia secondary routes is very similar to New Jersey county routes. For the record, some CRs in New Jersey cross county lines but are covered in the seperate county lists per county as opposed to being lumped together. Dough4872 00:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment - splitting multi-county routes by county is a silly practice that should not be done here (and actually isn't in New Jersey for the 5xx routes). --NE2 01:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
      • The difference between the 500 and 600 routes in New Jersey is that the 500 routes are a statewide system while the 600 routes are only unique to a specific county. It just happens that some counties coordinate their numbering to have like-numbered routes meet at county lines. Virginia appears the same way with secondary routes. Dough4872 02:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
        • Not exactly. Virginia deliberately made the secondary numbers match at county lines, to the point of renumbering routes when they were extended (over a former primary) into another county. --NE2 02:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
          1. The notability of secondary state highways in Virginia should be discussed in its own thread at WT:USRD instead of piggybacking here.
          2. The List of secondary state highways in Virginia has a lot of non-notable routes because I did not take the time to think about the notability of these routes when I merged them into the list a few years ago; my goal was only to get rid of stubs. I suspect most of these secondary state highways are not notable, but we can discuss more elsewhere.  V 00:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
            • ?? The whole point of merging into lists like this is to avoid questions of notability. --NE2 00:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Oakey Creek[edit]

Watercourse with broader pastoral significance that's been randomly redirected to a town. The town article contains nothing of use on the watercourse, and there is no way someone looking for information on Oakey Creek (which I was) would think "this helps me in any way" by getting redirected to an article on a town somewhere along it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Change to Disambiguation page. Because virtually every creek east of the Great Divide is lined with creek oaks, Queensland is full of Oakey Creeks and Oaky Creeks. The one at Oakey isn't special. The only Oakey Creek that is broadly notable in Queensland, and the only one that could generally referred to as "Oaky Creek" and understood outside the local area, would be the coal mine at Middlemount. Even that isn't exactly famous but at least people living more than 50km might understand that as "the" Oaky Creek. So this redirect needs to be changed to a dimanbiguation page for the dozens of Oakey/Oaky creeks in the country.Mark Marathon (talk) 03:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Dabbify or convert to set index per Mark -- (talk) 04:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Myall Creek[edit]

It's a watercourse that's been completely randomly redirected to a town. I would normally associate the name Myall Creek with the Myall Creek Massacre, which wasn't even in the same state, but with a random redirect to a town in Queensland I'm not even sure if it's the same creek. Either way, it needs its own article or disambiguation page and shouldn't have an incredibly unhelpful redirect. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I think we need disambiguation rather than redirect. There are two Myall Creeks (possibly more for all I know). Myall Creek is the former name of the town of Dalby and the creek that flows through that town. If you live in SE Queensland, that's probably what Myall Creek means to you. It's also a creek in NSW at which there was a massacre. I don't think it's worth arguing over which is "primary", let's just disambiguate. Kerry (talk) 04:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Dabbify or convert to set index per Mark -- (talk) 04:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep It doesn't become a disambiguation page until the two articles exist, and right now the number is zero. Since Myall Creek is a former name for the town, this redirect is going to exactly the right place. On a side note, are creeks considered notable in Australia, since they most aren't elsewhere. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment does "creek" have a greater significance in Australia than elsewhere? lists the meaning for it as Aus, NZ and US ( also includes Canada) as being "a stream of water smaller than a river"; and that is the sense that I would use it in British English, although both those dictionaries specifically exclude Br. Eng. from that definition but say in Br. Eng. it is used to mean a bay or estuary, impling "brook" would be the right word in the Br. Eng. I dunno, I've used both in the UK. Si Trew (talk) 06:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • It isn't widely known as an old name for Dalby, whereas the Myall Creek massacre is taught in schools nowadays. I'm not sure how you arrive at the conclusion that that's the "right place". The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Myall Creek massacre. It's not mentioned that Myall Creek is a former name for Dalby, Queensland (in that article). Si Trew (talk) 06:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
    • I still don't feel like this is very helpful, because the context I found this in was about the actual watercourse Dalby used to be named after, and there's clearly some notability there as well. At the bare minimum it should be a disambiguation between Myall Creek Massacre and Dalby. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
      • I think it is a WP:SURPRISE to redirect it to Dalby, Queensland when there is no mention of that being its name at that target. I am not sure it is better to DABify it with an entry, for the same reason: sure, the DAB entry could be "Until 1854, the name of Dalby, Queensland, Australia" or some such wording, but it would still be better if it is mentioned at target. I could be bold and do that now, but I'd probably better not until we have consensus. If "Myall Creek" is the former name, it is better I think to add the info saying so and then R it Dalby, and then hatnote there to the massacre, rather than have a DAB with two entries. Si Trew (talk) 12:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment IIRC, there is some consensus for creating set index articles even when none or only one of the individual entries have articles. The best-developed examples can probably be found in Category:Set indices on Greek mythology. For the life of me I can't remember where this was discussed for placenames, but there's some examples in Category:Lists of places sharing the same name, e.g. Cherkaske and Fabrichny. I'm inclined to think that this would be a better solution than the current target. (talk) 13:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Comment: In Australia, creek is the term used for watercourses smaller than a river, but some creeks are actually significant watercourses, while some of our rivers are actually unimpressive. Because of our drought/flood cycle, our watercourses can vary quite a lot and so the title Creek or River may depend on whether they were named during a flood or a drought. The Myall Creek that flows through Dalby Qld is around 70km long (by my rough measurement). It drains an area of 1375 square kilometres. It is listed in the Queensland Globe (which is the Qld Govt authoritative resource on Qld geography) as a "major watercourse". It might not have an article yet, but it's certainly not a "brook". The town name changed from Myall Creek to Dalby in 1854 according to this 1936 newspaper article which is consistent with the Dalby article that mentions the renaming of the post office at that time. Kerry (talk) 21:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

List of cities in Somaliland[edit]

WP:REDLINK While the target does indeed cover cities in the Somaliland region, there is no article restricted to Somaliland. - TheChampionMan1234 02:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete. This is an obviously incorrect redirect that would be better off as a redlink. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:56, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Tadsch Mahal[edit]

No connections with German. - TheChampionMan1234 01:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per Champ. Si Trew (talk) 06:56, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - directs readers to the content they're looking for. No argument has been presented for deletion. WilyD 09:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
The argument is that there is no affinity with German, and I think it's consensus now that WP is not a (translation) dictionary.
Additionally, it is not mentioned at the target. So anyone using this redirect unexpectedly (e.g. if hidden under a pipe) wonders how they got there. Those using it expectedly might be surprised, too. Even the German :de:Tadsch Mahal is an R to de:Taj Mahal, so presumably the correct German term is indeed "Taj Mahal".
Which readers? Stats show a mean average of three hits a week. The redirect de:Tadsch Mahal exists with a mean average of 4 13 hits/day. The article de:Taj Mahal has a mean average of 385 35 hits/day. Si Trew (talk) 13:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Plowback retained earnings[edit]

This recently created redirect is an implausible search term—given its length—that consists of two legitimate names of the target put together for no apparent purpose and should be deleted. It has no history worth preserving, no incoming links, and even if someone were to type "plowback retained earnings" into the search box after the redirect is deleted, what they were looking for would come up at the very top of the list. The redirect fails to satisfy any of the reasons for creating and maintaining redirects (an editing guideline) and it also violates WP:POVNAME (a policy) which states that "[a]rticle titles and redirects should anticipate what readers will type as a first guess" and the first guess in this case would clearly be either Plowback, or Retained earnings, both of which already exist.

The above may not be immediately clear if you're unfamiliar with the term retained earnings, so allow me to put forth the following analogous examples of hypothetical redirects: Fridge refrigerator, Tap faucet, Water dihydrogen monoxide, Dictionary lexicon. Plowback retained earnings is no different than these four, and allowing it to stay would set a bad precedent.

I think I should mention that I had a short dialogue with the creator of this redirect that you may want to read to better inform your judgment before commenting. Iaritmioawp (talk) 09:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

October 17[edit]


The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Unicorn (non-admin closure) NickGibson3900 Talk 00:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Retarget to Unicorn per WP:PLURALPT. No topic on the disambiguation page comes close to the primary topic, Unicorn, either in interest or in historical importance. Also, very few of them are even able to be referred to in the plural. bd2412 T 19:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Support. Unicorn has the for-other-use hatnote so that option to disambiguation is not removed.野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 00:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget per nominator. Unicorn is clearly the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT for "unicorns"; no other topic called "unicorns" even reaches the level of usage/long-term significance of, e.g. Cars (film) (which is not the target of Cars), let alone of Windows. (talk) 00:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget per all above. Si Trew (talk) 00:56, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget per nom --Lenticel (talk) 02:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget - very likely a reader searching for Unicorns does indeed mean the animal. Well, "animal". WilyD 09:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.


This is an exclusively Chinese title, note that the is never used in Japanese. - TheChampionMan1234 04:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


This is a Chinese term for patriotism and it certainly isn't restricted to Chinese nationalism. - TheChampionMan1234 04:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator. Same characters could be hanja for Korean nationalism or pre-WWII writing for Japanese nationalism, or whatever. And "patriotism" or "nationalism" are general topics which aren't associated with a particular language, so this title isn't appropriate for a CJK disambiguation page. (talk) 01:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate to the CJK articles, as the only valid topics on Wikipedia for this script, targets for which there is no native use of this script are not valid targets, so only the Japanese, Korean, and Chinese articles are valid targets. -- (talk) 21:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Andruksen, Indiana[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete as vandalism. Thryduulf (talk) 08:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know why this redirect exists, and it might be a hoax. It was created by a new editor and this is their only edit. The disambiguation page Andruksen, was created by a new editor and it's that editor's only edit. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Now that I've patrolled a couple more pages, it appears to be part of a vandalism spree, all consisting of single use accounts who make a single Andruksen page. So, based on that, speedy delete as hoax or vandalism. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

October 16[edit]

Android porn[edit]

Nonsensical redirect name. Redirects to an article in which Android has only a passing mention and certainly mentions no such thing as Android porn. uKER (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

  • comment We don't have Robot porn at present (which would make a good target if it existed), but we do have Robot fetishism - would that make a good target? Thryduulf (talk) 21:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Pornography and fetishes are certainly related, though that article doesn't specifically mention pornography. And people with a fetish don't necessarily need actual pornography to indulge that fetish. Balloon fetishists, for example. --BDD (talk) 13:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, maybe, but this was about Android as in the mobile operating system. There is nothing linking to this redirect so there will be no issues if its semantics change. --uKER (talk) 16:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


Seems like an implausible typo to me. Launchballer 17:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep, maybe even a speedy keep, there are hundreds of links to this shortcut, and you've broken all of them with this discussion. If it was so implausible, you wouldn't see hundreds of links. BTW, it probably is Guidance for Young Adults. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 18:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
One would wonder why the phrase "young adults" does not appear in the entire body of the text, because I couldn't tell that. (I'm technically a young adult myself - I turned 19 less than a month ago.) If we're being picky, the discussion didn't break the redirect - I have a policy of moving redirects from perceived implausible typos should I intend to RfD them because it helps keep attribution in the 'right place' should the implausible typo be deleted, and we have a bot for dealing with double redirects.--Launchballer 19:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, but people are gonna keep making new ones, even after this is deleted, people will enter this shortcut and some won't check to see if it's redlinked. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - reasonable as an acronym for Guidelines For Young Authors, if nothing else. No one else appears to need the redirect, and no reason has been suggested for deletion. WilyD 08:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


Note that the tone mark (pinyin) for the second syllable is missing, the correct form is Táiwān - TheChampionMan1234 05:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment - Why keep? It is an unlikely typo, see Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_8#Shànghai - TheChampionMan1234 11:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Dropping an accent is a highly common type of typo. Just look at languages with accents on the internet, and see how people spell accented words on internet forums. There's quite a lot of typos of this sort. As this is a transcription with accents, it would be even more likely as no one writes this in everyday speech as their primary form of communication, so even more likley to drop accents -- (talk) 05:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • keep. An English speaker missing a diacritic, particularly one they wont be familiar with from French or Spanish words and borrowings, is a likely typo or thinko. Thryduulf (talk) 12:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
    Comment @Thryduulf: @} You obivously haven't read the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_8#Shànghai , people unfarmilar with the original language will type the title without the tone marks in the first place, and note that the target's title is the same if you remove the tone marks, this redirect is not getting a lot of hits, so deletion won't hurt. - TheChampionMan1234 23:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
    I've explained above why I believe this is plausible, and stand by that - just because most people will enter both or no tone marks does not mean that all will. This does not get many page views but it looks to me like it is above the level of just bot visits, and so deletion will harm the encyclopaedia by making it harder for people to find the content they are looking for (seeing search results is not guaranteed, some methods of navigation will result in an invitation to start the page or just a note that there is nothing and would you like to search?). As deletion will harm the project while bringing no benefits, this is a clear keep. WP:WAX arguments are irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 23:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per Thry. It is not just a case of being an unfamiliar diacritic, but English people might know it but not be able to find it easily on their keyboard; this is why we have {{R from title without diacritics}} and so on, and it's standard to create those Rs when one creates an article with diacritical marks in it. I have to switch between a couple of keyboard layouts, neither of which has a cedillafor example, so although I know better I just bung in the C without the cedilla. That is not stupidity; that is expedience. Si Trew (talk) 14:24, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Redirects from typos are no longer appropriate because the Wikipedia search function does a better job. These redirects disable the default search function behaviour and can provide misleading text and hover text. Stop embedding misinformation, leave it to the search engine. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
    • The Wikipedia search function is only one of many ways that people use to locate Wikipedia content (and even then search suggestions only work for people with javascript enabled) - bookmarks, links (internal and external), external search engines, browser plugis, directly typing the URL, are just some of the others. If a page does not exist you are only sometimes shown search results (which are not guaranteed to be relevant) other times you are invited to search, invited to create the page, or just told that there isn't a page with this title. Redirects from typos are still very much needed. Thryduulf (talk) 07:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
      • But in my testing, a logged out Wikipedia search (actually a "go") for "Táiwan" produces a single page, someone's manual best guess, that today is a pretty ugly page. If it weren't for the redirect existing, the default search would be the proper search, which gives a page full of useful links, automagically ranked in order of likelihood, as best determined continuously by the AI. I don't think javascript or pluggins are relevant to this. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
        • Javascript is not relevant to that method of searching, correct. However you are forgetting that that is not the only method of finding Wikipedia articles. Other methods include, but are not limited to: typing in the search box and selecting from the drop-down list of suggestions (requires javascript), directly entering the URI (e.g. or ), using an external search engine (Google, Bing, etc, etc), using a browser search plugin (some are listed at [9], there are others), scrolling through a list of article titles, following a link on an external website, following a link from another Wikipedia page, opening a previously bookmarked page and searching from the URL bar of your browser. Depending which method you use, if the title you are searching for does not exist you will either be taken to the search page (as you desire to be) and either shown search results or (as I just was shown a red error message saying "An error has occurred while searching: HTTP request timed out.", told "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. Please search for Like this one in Wikipedia to check for alternative titles or spellings. " and invited to start the page directly or using the article wizard, or taken to the edit window to start creating a new article. If a search term has a single most likely term, then it should redirect to that page; if it has multiple equally likely targets it should either be a disambiguation page or a redirect to a disambiguation page at a different title. Thryduulf (talk) 16:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
          • Javascript producing suggestions while I am typing, or just before I press enter with it having captured the cursor, and the javascript functionality significantly slowing my device response time are things I really don't like. Can javascript be disabled without breaking other things? I'm sure that excessive number of useless suggestions, such as produced by this redirect, do more annoyance than help. Why would someone typing perfectly accented but unusal forms want to see this mis-typed version suggested while they type? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
            • Javascript can be disabled, but as far as I am aware unless you are using third-party tools (like adblockers or noscript plugins) this is a binary operation with all javascript or all javascript off. It may be possible to add something to your custom js that disables the search suggestions, but if so I haven't a clue how to do it.
            It used to be that redirects tagged as "unprintworthy" (including misspellings) did not appear in the search suggestions list, but this functionality quietly disappeared some time ago (1-2 years I'd guess) and a request to re-enable it has been met with silence from what I remember. All printworthy titles, which include valid alternative spellings, should be displayed as suggestions though so people who are looking for those spellings are not mislead into thinking the article does not exist.
            Ultimately though we do not have the ability to discriminate between search methods and we must determine whether this is a useful redirect in either 0 or >0 environments. Extra search suggestions are an inconvenience to some users, but actually harmful for none, so the utility of this redirect for others is the important factor.
            If you want the ability to discriminate between search methods, you will need to raise a bug at bugzilla asking for it, ideally with at least an idea for how it could be implemented. Thryduulf (talk) 22:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete Simply too unlikely a typo. I doubt many readers are going to try writing "Táiwān" at all, as opposed to just plain "Taiwan". --BDD (talk) 16:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep - plausible typo, sends readers to what they're clearly looking for. No argument for deletion has been advanced, nor do any seem to exist. WilyD 08:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

David Salzberg[edit]

Deletion. David Salzberg is a filmmaker, on The Hornet's Nest. Moreover, IMDb lists rather extensive credits. This redirect, to a differently named person, causes confusion. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep/Replace: This redirect was likely put there to catch misspellings of an article title already present. Simply deleting the redirect does not improve Wikipedia. If David Salzberg the filmmaker is notable enough, replace this redirect with an article about that person. Otherwise, leave the redirect until Salzberg can meet notability guidelines--RadioFan (talk) 17:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Note to closing admin: RadioFan (talkcontribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. ~~~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawn in Montreal (talkcontribs) 17:52, 6 September 2014
  • Keep, very plausible misspelling. It's unfortunate that the filmmaker is also a possible search target, it would be great if someone could make a stub to prove he's notable, then both articles could be hatnoted. Siuenti (talk) 19:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:SURPRISE. There is a high possibility that this is not a misspelling. � (talk) 15:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete to clear the space for a plausible new article.--Lenticel (talk) 00:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per Siuenti. Nothing stops an article being created over a redirect at any time, and I did a quick search in case I could make a stub, but could not find any RS. (The nearest to it was at The Huffington Post, which is often considered RS, but this is on a blog part of the site.) Si Trew (talk) 07:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. If this redirect is gone, the MediaWiki search will offer the target as a result. See Italian Wikipedia search results. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Li Holokauste[edit]

Not related to any of these languages. - TheChampionMan1234 00:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

See the talk page of that article; it's been discussed a few times. --BDD (talk) 15:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete the first two, keep the other three. An auxiliary language hardly has a logical connection to any topic, and Swahili seems mostly irrelevant, though it wouldn't surprise me if there were a few Swahili speakers among the total victims of the Holocaust (cf. Holocaust in Italy). The others, as languages used by populations that were victims of the Holocaust, seem relevant enough for me to be comfortable with keeping them, though I wouldn't necessarily oppose deleting them all. --BDD (talk) 15:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep Judeo-spanish one, as this is a Jewish language. Delete the rest. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 17:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - sends readers to the content they're looking for. No reason for deletion has been advanced, nor do any seem to exist. This appears to be at best a nonsense request, since it can only serve to damage the usability of the encyclopaedia. WilyD 09:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Basket sodomy[edit]

Just a joke? Deli nk (talk) 12:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete probably vandalism. For what it's worth, Basket Sodomy appears to be a comedy music group. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 17:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete unless creator provides a good explanation for the redirect. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per John Vandenberg. ---Lenticel (talk) 14:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


Citibank owns this company, but this redirect isn't helpful - it's not mentioned at the article, and almost certainly shouldn't be. Best to red link - it might be worth an article but probably not. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


This is only a Chinese name, not a Korean one. - TheChampionMan1234 03:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep it seems to be Hanja for Hanseong, the Baekje era name of the city, according to the article. -- (talk) 04:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Hanseong (Korean pronunciation of 漢城) was an actual former name for the city, as stated at Seoul#Etymology and confirmed in academic sources [10]. Could also retarget to names of Seoul where this is explained better, but since Hanseong points to Seoul I think it's better to be consistent. (talk) 04:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep or Retarget per "Hanseong" arguments above. Optional disambiguation with Hansung University. 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 11:25, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Some people still write Korean language using Hanja, and 漢城 is tha Hanja form of Hanseong.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per 67.--Lenticel (talk) 00:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - directs readers to the content they're looking for, no argument has been presented for deletion. WilyD 09:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


Irrelevant language. - TheChampionMan1234 02:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

  • 'Keep - directs readers to the content they're looking for; no reason for deletion has been presented. WilyD 09:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


Irrelevant language. - TheChampionMan1234 02:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep - directs readers to the content they're looking for. No reason has been suggested for deletion, nor do any exist. WilyD 09:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


Irrelevant language. - TheChampionMan1234 02:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep - I think that topics relating to elements of languages are a reasonable exception to the rule against other-language redirects. Many English-speaking people studying Chinese, especially beginners, know what a syllable onset is called in Chinese but don't know the English term for it. Neelix (talk) 03:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete No, Neelix, this isn't helpful. This is a generic concept seen in every language on Earth. Nearly everyone knows what a syllable is, there is no reason you need to understand a syllable onset specifically for any language. Also, we have wiktionary, which is where you go for translations. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I recommend the exception because of my personal experience; having learned English as a first language and French as a second language, there are several linguistic terms that I have only learned in French, such as Accent aigu. It just seems to me to be a detriment to the project to delete a redirect that users are likely to find useful. Neelix (talk) 13:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
But why can't you look it up on Wiktionary? Accent aigu is a somewhat different case since English doesn't use it, and it's actually a character used in the language, and not merely a linguistic concept. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 14:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
You can look it up on Wiktionary. It just makes it easier for our users if they don't have to. Redirects are cheap. Neelix (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - directs readers to the content they're looking for. No reasons have been presented for deletion. WilyD 09:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


Irrelevant language. - TheChampionMan1234 02:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Seems to be a Chinese short name, similar to how 加州 = "Ca" syllable + "state" comes to mean California. But nothing I find supports using the 企 character to transcribe Cleveland (克利夫蘭). Delete 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 11:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Y0-Y0 Ma[edit]

Too implausible typo, it has to be deliberate if someone does type this. - TheChampionMan1234 02:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep the zero key is near the o-key, and I've made such typos before (but usually not twice in the same sentence). -- (talk) 04:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, but with a capital Y? Wouldn't the typo be Y)? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
That would be a different typo. (or a stuck shift-key) -- (talk) 05:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - "typo" is not a synonym for plausible typo. Close proximity & natural language confusion mean people make this typo regularly. WilyD 09:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


Either retarget the first one to India or the second one to Rossiya, I don't know which would be better. I mean they are both the native name for a country and have their respective DAB's - TheChampionMan1234 02:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Chong Il[edit]

No need to be disambiguated, it can refer to Chung Il-kwon, Jang Jung-il, etc, just like how we don't have a list at John_(given_name), etc. - TheChampionMan1234 02:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


Unused, and would typically be incorrect if it was used. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


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 deleted by user:CambridgeBayWeather with the summary "G3: Blatant hoax. Thryduulf (talk) 13:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Unnecessarily sacrilegious for project space. Other redirects exist and are not hard to use. Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:Role of Jimmy Wales John Vandenberg (chat) 02:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep as per this, which currently isn't a policy but should be, if for no other reason than it supports me, and because I just created the redirect. It's been a long time since anybody posted a suitable red link to ANI that I could turn into a redirect and I just had to do it. I fully expected it to be speedily deleted by the time I got back. That's happened before to some of these. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 03:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete Biased title, useless (cause it's so long), and if Jimbo really thinks he's God, then he's not really on-board with his own consensus-building concept. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that Jimbo doesn't think he's a god. It came from here. Anyway it isn't a problem as the redirect has now reverted to a red link. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 04:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

藤村 新一[edit]

The redirect page's name is problematic. It contains a redundant half-width space RekishiEJ (talk) 11:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

October 15[edit]

Internet Explorer 0[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. --BDD (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

There was no IE0, not even 0.1 - TheChampionMan1234 23:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Weak keep it is part of a series, so can exist as a series entry. It can also be used to refer to prototype pre-release MSIEs prior to the rollout of version 1's -- (talk) 00:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Alternately, it could be retargetted to Spyglass Mosaic, as the progenitor of MSIE, but I think the current target works well enough if we keep this -- (talk) 00:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per Many software versions start with 0 or 0.1 so this is a likely search term for people who know that but don't know that IE didn't. The target educates them that the first version was numbered 1, whereas search results (if they are seen, and they are not always) do not and a redlink would invite the creation of an incorrect article. Thryduulf (talk) 12:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - directs readers to the information they're looking for; no argument has been presented for deletion. WilyD 15:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

New York Times Best Selling Author[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. While I doubt a list of all such authors could be really tenable, this will serve readers who want to know just what this commonly-deployed phrase refers to. --BDD (talk) 19:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete. This redirect is too ambiguous to be helpful. For it to be useful, it would have to target the actual current best-selling author, which would be a difficult task to upkeep. Steel1943 (talk) 21:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep: This doesn't make sense to me at all. When a page refers to a "New York Times Best Selling author," it's common sense (and in line with WP:LINK) to provide a link to inform the reader what that means. There is no suggestion that the link would lead to a page about that particular author. Certainly that could be done with a piped link, but that's clunky and should be unnecessary. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Also note that New York Times Bestseller redirects to The New York Times Best Seller list. My understanding is that by Steel's logic, it should redirect somewhere else. (Maybe The New York Times Fiction Best Sellers of 2014 or The New York Times Non-Fiction Best Sellers of 2014? Not sure.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
@DrFleischman: Your second paragraph regarding New York Times Bestseller is not the point of my nomination. I actually agree with that redirect; I don't agree with the one I nominated because it contains the word "author", which the article doesn't specifically mention as a subject, but rather best-selling books. Steel1943 (talk) 23:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I understand your beef a bit better. I personally don't see any trouble with this as every best-selling author has written a best-selling book, the relationship is clear to the reader. I reader asks the question, "What is a New York Times Best Selling author?" and answer is of course, "A person who wrote a New York Times Best Seller." In any case, how do you propose we handle this? Piped link? That wouldn't appear to solve your problem and it would be clunky to boot. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep or create a list. Per Dr. Fleischman this is the best target we currently have for this search. An alternative would be to create one or more lists (fiction, non-fiction, etc) of authors who have had a best-selling book (If we have one I can't find it) and redirect this to there. The introduction to such a list would explain what a New York Times Best Selling Author is and list people who it applies to. Thryduulf (talk) 13:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - there's no reason I can see to think the redirect is ambiguous, and directs the reader to what they're looking for. WilyD 15:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.


The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 19:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete. Chess is not a specifically Korean game. Note that this redirect is from cheseu, i.e. Western chess, not janggi. Gorobay (talk) 15:17, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. WP:NOT a translation dictionary, Western chess has little affinity for Korean, there being a native Korean chess, and major East Asian chess versions Shogi and Xiangqi -- (talk) 00:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Lenticel (talk) 00:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.


The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete. Anarchy is not a specifically Ancient Greek concept. Gorobay (talk) 15:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. WP:NOT a translation dictionary. Little affinity for Greek, anarchy existing outside of Greece as well as in Greece, so a general topic. -- (talk) 00:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.


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 deletion. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Unneeded redirect. Draft finished. Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 14:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete per speedy deletion criterion G7. Since the nominator is the creator of the draft, and since it was all merged to the target article with attribution, deletion should be uncontroversial and speedy. Steel1943 (talk) 21:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

List of Persib Bandung Former Foreign Players[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. --BDD (talk) 18:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete, since the target page have a correct use of title spelling, no red-links and uses codes for country codes. MbahGondrong (talk) 14:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

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


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 ScREC. --BDD (talk) 18:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete "screc" isn't a logical misspelling of "scree". Computergeeksjw (talk) 13:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

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

User talk:[edit]

Rollback @SkyLined: deleted the content of this talk page and redirected the talk page to his account. Then recently he requested the deletion of the user page at RFD Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_October_13#User: This should not redirect to his talk page, as this is not related to him, and the old talk should be reinstated, as it should not have been overwritten with a redirect in the first place. (talk) 04:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

OmniTech Support[edit]

This company apparently often poses as Microsoft tech support to charge outrageous service fees - but, not mentioned in the article, and the connection won't be obvious. A red link is better in case it actually is decided worth an article some day. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Weak keep If anyone knows that that company is a scam, and looks that up, they will know more about the scam. Anyway @Oiyarbepsy:, why didn't you nominate a lot of the other redirects I created, they are all in common use on the internet. - TheChampionMan1234 04:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
The other ones I found made a lot more sense to me and the connection was more clear - for example, Microsoft scam's connection to tech support scam seems a lot more logical to me. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • @Oiyarbepsy:What about YooCare and AMMYY, I don't mind AT ALL if you go ahead and add any of the others to the nomination. Anyway, thank you for reviewing all those redirects that I've created. - TheChampionMan1234 04:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Good point - I've added those two. Maybe I should have looked a little more carefully. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Substantive and properly sourced articles about these companies and their purported "scams" might be appropriate — but simply redirecting them to an overview article about technical support scams in general, which contains no sourced content about these companies at all, is not the way to go about this. In fact, in the absence of reliable sourcing to actually support the characterization, it actually qualifies as libel to simply assert it without properly backing that up. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per Bearcat --Lenticel (talk) 01:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Unlikely search term, no one would combine both simplified and traditional Chinese, I have created the corresponding separate redirects. - TheChampionMan1234 01:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

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

October 14[edit]


The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Please delete this made-up word which somebody came up with one day, and which never caught on or made it into use outside its Creator's little world. There is not a single reputably published book I can find containing this word, and nothing at all connecting it with the limited and fringy concept which it now directs to. DeistCosmos (talk) 22:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

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


Japanese shinjitai isn't relevant. - TheChampionMan1234 22:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

@John123521: No, because Chinese speakers type using an input method editor and they are more likely to make typos like 民主金怒當, if they press the wrong pinyin key. --- TheChampionMan1234 09:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
That's for the pronounciation-based IMEs. There are also a sizable population that uses shape-based IMEs like the Cangjie input method, which gives different sets of possible typos. Again, 歩 qualifies here (same Cangjie code 卜中一竹), but 党 is still too far-fetched. 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 11:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete I see where Thryduulf is coming from, but I just don't feel comfortable with typos in foreign-language redirects. In many cases, it's going to be very difficult to tell what something is a typo for, and a typo in one language may actually mean something in another language. This is also a problem with foreign-language redirects generally. --BDD (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


I believe that this can refer to several players, the other most notable being Shaquille O'Neal. Hoops gza (talk) 21:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

  • (Uninitiated !vote) Disambiguate then if it notably refers to multiple people, as Hoops says. 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 03:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate. Yes, this is a classic case where disambiguation is needed. Thryduulf (talk) 08:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete This is apparently not a common enough nickname for either James or O'Neal to be mentioned in their articles, and the latter has a bunch of nicknames listed ("The Big Aristotle and Hobo Master"? "The Big Galactus"?). The usage appears too trivial, at least for these two, and thus an unlikely search term. --BDD (talk) 15:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

DOS 30[edit]

What is this supposed to mean? huh, a Google search does not find anything relating this term to WinNT - TheChampionMan1234 10:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete. There certainly is a bit of history that might interest Windows enthusiasts, but certainly not enough to warrant a redirect. There is the lack of info and negligible visit stats. (134 in 90 days is not even enough to account for bots and spiders that I know of.) Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Visit stats are irrelevant. What's relevant is if it can be a search term, and since "DOS 30" is a historical fact, it is also a valid term for a redirect. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Yes, yes, basically, you describe everything that disagrees with you as irrelevant. If you are replying to persuade me to change my opinion, I am afraid I am not convinced: It still does not lead to any info. I have said "Delete" to things that had galactic view stats per day before and some times, they are deleted. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak retarget to DOS 3 as a {{R from typo}} for DOS 3.0 -- (talk) 04:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
    • No, this isn't a typo for "DOS 3.0". DOS 30 is the DOS version reported by Windows NT originally. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't know that the present target is the best, or whether DOS 3.0 would be better, but in May, June and July this redirect had 36, 64 and 44 views respectively which is an order of magnitude more than can be expected from just bots and spiders alone (low single digits per month). Thryduulf (talk) 13:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
    • No, not really. You see, the daily visit of July stats are small (one or two) and suggest daily spider traversal. On four occasions, there has been more visits, which may suggest human activity. August have been particularly calm, with the exception of the end of the month, which I attribute to the start of this discussion. June is a little bit more busy but the average visits have been 2.13 per day. For stats to have actual impact on a deletion discussion, they must be four digits, which is not much, given that 1000 ÷ 30 = 33.3, indicating actual human interest.
      Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Where on earth do you get the ridiculous notion that viewing figures need to be four digits to indicate human activity!? We can't be certain which views are human and which are not, but years of experience at looking at the viewing figures of redirects means I have seen countless graphs that show 3-4 uses per month (sometimes even less) which would not be possible if spiders looked at articles daily. The vast majority of spiders feed search engines, those that are programmed well will fetch more often from pages that are changing significantly and those that are frequently being visited from their parent search engine - both activities also push up the viewing stats by humans much more significantly. Redirect pages do not change and so the bots don't need to visit it very frequently at all. Those bots that do not follow that programming strategy end up returning so much useless data they don't last long. Your assertion also raises the question of why you think a redirect needs to be useful for 30 people every day in order to be useful? If a redirect gets 1 person per month to the content they are looking for then it has added significant value to the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 10:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
        • I believe backlinks to this redirect may have something to do with it: based on anecdotal observations, I surmise there are more bot visits for pages which have more backlinks. Keφr 11:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
        • Hi. Please correct me if I am wrong but I see several fallacies in your arguments:
        1. "...viewing figures need to be four digits to indicate human activity!?" Since I didn't say such a thing, this whole question is at fault. What I said was four-digit stats may impact a deletion discussion and 33.3 views per days or 1000 per month does indicate human activity. Apparently, you do agree with this one.
        2. Bots and spiders are not the same things. Bots are Wikipedia objects only. They can visit a page only when it is changed. Spiders need to visit a page first to determine whether it is changed.
        3. Why are you arguing only on the bot and spider aspect as if it is a dealbreaker? For the sake of argument, safely assume that all of these stats are entirely human. Given the nature of DOS 30, I still don't think keeping it is plausible. But, Thryduulf, do you know what DOS 30 is?
        Best regards,
        Codename Lisa (talk) 06:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
          1. Indeed four-digit stats may impact a deletion discussion, but the implication of your argument was that 1, 2 and 3-digit stats do not - this is incorrect. Human activity can be indicated by as little as 5-6 views per month.
          2. However they work, the hard evidence is that redirects that do not change and are not visited by lots of humans get 0 or low single digit views per month. If they were being visited by spiders regularly they would get much more than that.
          3. My argument is based on the fact that the viewings stats for this redirect very strongly indicate that it is being used by humans (10s of hits per month would also very strongly indicate this). Redirects that are used by humans should not be changed or deleted without good reason, because it harms the encyclopaedia when readers cannot find the content they are looking for. Indeed the very high viewing figures for this redirect suggests that is likely linked from somewhere, and as you can see from the whatlinkshere it is linked on DOS 20, DOS 0 and List of DOS operating systems.
          4. There is no such thing as "DOS 30", therefore people using this redirect must be looking for something else, and the most plausible thing is DOS 3.0 (which in spoken contexts will often be referred to as "DOS three zero"), which is why we redirect it to that content. Thryduulf (talk) 08:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
              • No, this isn't a typo for "DOS 3.0". DOS 30 is the DOS version reported by Windows NT originally. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep and retarget to Virtual DOS machine#NTDOS. Just like OS/2 version 1.x reported a DOS version of 10.x0 and OS/2 version 2.x reported a DOS version of 20.x, Windows NT originally reported a DOS version of 30 (INT 21h/AH=30h). It was later changed to 5.00, then 5.50. People familiar with the history of the operating system should know these facts. For some time, compatible DOS programs were designed to cope with these unusually high DOS versions in order to invoke special support for OS/2 and NT features (or lack thereof). Therefore, "DOS 30" is a valid and fully sourceable term people might find in publications around the time when Windows NT was released and consequently might use as input into the search box or refer to it in other articles about DOS versions. Although redirects don't require this, I can, of course, provide references if necessary. One of the purposes of redirects is to redirect a search term to the corresponding article, which is "Windows NT". Of course, the term is rarely used today, but this does not change its historical validity and therefore necessity to include it in a reference project like this. After all, this is an encyclopedia, not a life style magazine only discussing current stuff. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I have expanded the NTVDM/NTDOS section in the Virtual DOS machine article somewhat (fully referenced) so that it also discusses the DOS 30.00 issue now. Therefore I propose to retarget the redirect there. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment. Since this might not be obvious to new readers, I changed my original proposal above from Keep (letting it point to Windows NT) to Retarget to Virtual DOS machine#NTDOS after I added some information (including WP:RS) about "DOS 30" there. I think this would be a good if not the best target for the redirect. Further, I continue to assume that actual subjects take precedence over potential typos in an encyclopedia (which would rule out a retarget to "DOS 3.0" as plausible typo). --Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan Election Eve Speech "A Vision For America"[edit]

Unlikely search term and a lot of typing. - TheChampionMan1234 03:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep Redirects are not just for search terms. This was an article, and text may have been re-used. Moreover Cool URIs Don't Change. All the best: Rich Farmbrough17:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC).
    17:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per Rich Farmbrough, who also didn't remind you that typing the exact page name is far from the only way to get to a page - it is the top search result for "A Vision for America" for example. That said, if the target can be refined to the relevant section of the article that would be an improvement. Thryduulf (talk) 00:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete This speech isn't mentioned at all at the target article. (Thryduulf, does that change your opinion?) It's also not mentioned at Ronald Reagan presidential campaign, 1980, which might be the more logical place to discuss the speech. So on one hand, any readers using this term will be mislead and disappointed. On the other hand, it's a pretty unlikely search term. But two wrongs don't make a right. Is Wikipedia better off than it was four years ago, when this didn't exist? Well, yes, but not because of this. --BDD (talk) 13:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Array Technologies Incorporated Technologies Incorporated[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Implausible reduplication � (talk) 12:28, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Jin Sanpang[edit]

I know that this is a derogatory Chinese name, but its an unlikely search term on the English Wikipedia, and most English speakers would not know this name. - TheChampionMan1234 04:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep. "Unlikely" is not the same as "incorrect", "implausible" or "unused" and this redirect is none of those three. The monthly stats are very variable, ranging from 2 to 15 hits in the months I checked (April-September) but there is a rough correlation between low and high hit-count months for Kim Jong-un, suggesting this is human activity. Thryduulf (talk) 08:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - likely search term in the aggregate. There are probably ten million English speakers who're likely to be familiar with the name (far more than most articles), and there's no cause to treat them in a bigotted fashion merely because of their first language. WilyD 10:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

October 13[edit]

Kim jong 2[edit]

No problem with Kim Two as a redirect, or Kim The Second, as he has occasionally been refered to as that. (as can be seen here) This redirect is confusing as the "Jong" is not equivalent of a middle name in most Western languages. - TheChampionMan1234 23:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Weak keep Turn into dab(per discussion below) This seems to come from the typographical confusion between II and Il , which look similar to the point of being indistinguishable in many sans serif fonts: John Paul II vs. Kim Jong Il. {{r from typo}} seems appropriate. Paradoctor (talk) 01:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep The "il" in "Jong-il" looks like Roman Numeral "II" when spelled as "Jong Il", therefore a possible typo. -- (talk) 03:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Crazy thought Since there is a Kim Jong-Un, should Kim Jong 2 refer to him? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete Oiyarbepsy's comment & my facetious response point to the problem: this title is ambiguous for multiple different errors. And at least in my view, disambiguation pages for misnomers are firmly into the territory of WP:BADIDEAs. (talk) 09:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
WP:DAB "important aspects to disambiguation:" ... "Ensuring that a reader who searches for a topic using a particular term can get to the information on that topic quickly and easily, whichever of the possible topics it might be." So this is actually a good reason for a disambiguation page. Paradoctor (talk) 11:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
While some disambiguation pages with multiple correct entries do include typos & other erroneous entries in the "see also" section, WP:DAB says nothing either way about disambiguation pages consisting entirely of mistakes & misunderstandings. Do you know of any existing examples? (talk) 12:22, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I think you may be confusing something here. All entries in a dab page conforming to WP:DAB are valid entries, evidently. I was reading your comment to mean a dab page with a title that is not a valid article title, but a typo of several valid topics. A hypothetical example would be "iStream" for "EyeStream" and "iStreme". Paradoctor (talk) 13:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Not sure what you think I'm confused about. MOS:DAB#Misspellings says typos/brainos go under "See also", but it (and the rest of WP:DAB) says nothing about a disambiguation page consisting solely of typos/brainos. I asked you for an existing example of a typos/brainos-only disambiguation page not because I don't understand the concept, but because I was wondering if there was previous discussion or consensus on this topic. (talk) 15:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep even if it's technically a mistake, it's a likely mistake. I don't see the need to disambig; I think this is mostly sending readers to what they're looking for, though I could be convinced otherwise. WilyD 10:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Shake It Off (Network News)[edit]

Nonsensical redirect. I don't see why this redirect exists. Natg 19 (talk) 21:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Apex Web Technology[edit]

Since everyone will ask - the target article was vandalized back in February of 2013 to say the TV show was called Apex, instead of Teen Top Rising. Then, a couple weeks later, @Roroke: moved the page without checking its history, resulting in the page having the vandalized title. I undid the vandalism and fixed the page title, but the speedy delete of this redirect was declined. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete Non-encyclopedic company, apparently just a storefront[11] for the services of a single freelancer focusing on SEO.[12] Keeping would only serve to promote the company. Paradoctor (talk) 21:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment that seems like a rationale to delete the article rather than to delete a redirect to it. Notability is not relevant to redirects, nor is promotionalness, all that matters is whether the redirect is useful for people looking for the article. If you think the company is not encyclopaedic you need to nominate it at WP:AFD. Thryduulf (talk) 08:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
That impression seems to stem from a confusion between a topic being encyclopedic and it being notable. I established that the company is not encyclopedic precisely because notability is not at issue here. Furthermore, you apparently do not realize that the redirect's topic has nothing to do with the target article. There is nothing the redirect can point to. Purely promotional content is harmful, so that redirect is neither useful nor harmless. Does that clarify it for you? Paradoctor (talk) 09:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I haven't actually investigated this redirect, I was just commenting that I read your rationale as having little to do with the redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 11:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I trust you have realized your mistake now? Paradoctor (talk) 11:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - not discussed at target. WilyD 10:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


I generally dislike shortcuts of user pages. I appreciate the editor's concerns here, but I do not need this redirect. TitoDutta 15:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete - useless WP:CNR - TheChampionMan1234 04:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP: shortcuts to user essays are permitted as a general rule (so simply being a CNR is irrelevant) but they are not appropriate for every essay. In this case I have no problem with this essay being the target of a WP: shortcut, so other things being equal I would be advocating it being kept. However, we generally allow editors to exercise a limited degree of ownership of pages in their userspace, and this essay's author doesn't want a shortcut pointing to it. As the redirect is barely visited (no hits in August or September for example) and is not linked from any discussions there doesn't seem to be any reason to keep this against the wishes of the essay's author. Thryduulf (talk) 08:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


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. It may be argued whether this meets U1 (is it technically in SkyLined's user space?), but this is rather academic as it fits G7 unquestionably. Thryduulf (talk) 16:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

This was a redirect from an IP address to me, but I no longer use this IP address SkyLined (talk) 07:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Try WP:U1 to speedy delete it, as I can see you created the page, should be non-controversial. --TitoDutta 16:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.


The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete per #User: above. Thryduulf (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

This was a redirect from an IP address to me, but I no longer use this IP address. SkyLined (talk) 07:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Ebola virus disease cases in the United States[edit]

Listify this should be a list of cases of Ebola in the US, not a redirect to the 2014 Ebola outbreak in the US. There have been other cases in the US besides the 2014 outbreak, so this is misleading and wrong. Particularly, a strain of Ebola was identified from samples found in the US, not Africa, in 1989, Ebola Reston, so the most important cases in the US aren't even related to the 2014 outbreak. (NOTE: I tried converting it to a Set Index WP:BOLDly but it was reverted, so I'm taking it to RFD.) -- (talk) 02:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete. Speedy Listify. IP has a good point. This title suggests a different focus than the article it redirects to. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Keep the redirect. The proposed "list" of cases would have only one entry: the current 2014 outbreak. What the IP user calls a "previous case" was not Ebola virus but Reston virus. Imported lab monkeys were found to be infected with a mutant virus strain non-pathogenic to humans that did not cause a single case of Ebola disease in USA or anywhere in the world for that matter. BatteryIncluded (talk) 04:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Keep the redirect. Reston virus was different and in animals. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Ebola Reston is a filovirus of the Ebola group, it's just not Ebola Zaire virus. And Wikipedia already documents zoonotic virus outbreaks (such as mad cow, CWD, etc; ie. 1967 United Kingdom foot-and-mouth outbreak) The title of this redirect does not restrict it to human cases. That a species of Ebolavirus was discovered from samples obtained in the US from a zoonotic outbreak is significant and important. -- (talk) 03:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment. I wanted to note that while we're having this discussion, a prominent "Wikipedia" link from Google News is pointing nowhere. There are hundreds of thousands of visitors looking up information on Ebola on Wikipedia every day and we're making a huge disservice to these visitors by leaving a redirect broken while this discussion is happening. --DarTar (talk) 04:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The plot thins, this is a one-trick pony. The art Ebola virus outbreak in the United States lists one case in the US (if you do not know other countries that are not the United States, please see my list article List of countries that are not the United States) which hardly constitutes an "outbreak". An article well documented but not an outbreak or pandemic, for one person who got it abroad. Absurd. Delete, and I took the article itself to AfD under WP:NOTNEWS, with little hope of success. Si Trew (talk) 22:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Not proper at all to PROD Ebola virus outbreak in the United States as it has just recently been through an AfD, and closed as Keep, per WP:SNOW. PROD is not allowed for articles that have been through previous AfD's. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep redirect - but put the list at [List of Ebola virus disease cases in the United States]] and hatnote; most readers are likely to be searching for the 2014 outbreak. WilyD 10:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


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. This redirect is 9 years old and harmless. WP:RFD#HARMFUL is applicable. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 22:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Malformed redirect title, left over from move to 36 (film) Paradoctor (talk) 01:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep as a standard {{R from move}} and {{R from typo}}. This has existed uncontroversially and harmlessly since the page was moved in 2005 and gets more hits than background noise in at least some months (others are borderline), so deletion would be harmful while bringing no benefits. Thryduulf (talk) 06:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Mostly harmless, per Thryduulf. Si Trew (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.


Delete - This is an inaccurate redirect, the title "LandmarkForum" and the target are not the same thing at all (one is a course that appears to be derived from works of the other, but there is ample referencing at both main articles to suggest that they are unrelated in time and substance). There is only one article that links to this redirect, Landmark Education litigation, and that article does not reference Mr Erhard at all. Tgeairn (talk) 01:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment this redirect is the result of a page move in 2007 and has been pointing to the current target since then apart from a single day in 2008. Thryduulf (talk) 06:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


Delete. This Ancient Greek verb means ‘to separate’, not ‘horizon’, and neither is a specifically Greek concept. Gorobay (talk) 01:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete Horizons do occur outside of Greek-speaking regions. - TheChampionMan1234 04:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - discussed at target. No argument has been presented for deletion. WilyD 10:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

October 12[edit]


Delete this is apparently a dynamic IP address [13], so there is no support for this as to will permanently be assigned to User:SkyLined. User:SkyLined should just track what IP addresses he uses and watchlist their talk pages. Leaving a note that he started using the IP address on date-X would be better than having a redirect at this location.. (talk) 22:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Overwrite with pages that note edits from this IP between date X and date Y (or between date X and the present) were made by user:SkyLined, with a link to their user page. I agree with the anon that these redirects are inappropriate, but deletion is not required to replace them with useful pages. Thryduulf (talk) 22:31, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment SkyLined (talk · contribs) has also usurped and (talk · contribs) which has been blocked for 2 years -- (talk) 03:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Leave. Please leave a link to Wikipedia policy on which you base your request. In my experience the redirect is helpful to other Wikipedians in case I make changes without logging in (which I frequently do for minor changes). My internet is always on and this has been my IP for at least a year now (even though it is officially dynamic). I have been doing this for previous IP addresses and it has never led to any issues. I have requested the deletion of the older IP address redirects, thank you for reminding me. Btw. did you really mean to imply I forcefully, illegally redirect IP addresses to my user page, are you just unaware of the meaning of "usurped", or just trolling? SkyLined (talk) 07:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
@SkyLined: There isn't a Wiki policy to cite, as we don't make a policy for everything that could possibly happen. The problem with this redirect is that if your ISP changes your IP, even to something completely different like IPv6, they won't tell you and you won't know, which would cause a problem if someone else gets assigned this number. That said, I think 67's idea of placing a note on the IP user page stating that you use it sometimes is a good solution for everybody. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:If it ain't broke, don't fix it. This whole discussion is a waste of time. The old IP addresses for which I had redirects never caused any issues and I don't see how this could ever lead to a problem that is worth any effort to prevent. Please let me know if you can think of any example of a problem that would be mitigated by changing the redirect. Personally, I prefer spending what little time I have editing articles rather than debating non-issues, so I'll leave the decision to you (as well as implementing any changes you decide upon). (talk) 22:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
It is already broken. Or are you saying your ISP will never reassign your old IP addresses to other ISP subscribers, and no one on your ISP will ever access Wikipedia in English? Do you own the IP addresses in question? (are you assigned by ICANN theses IP addresses) If not, then you've already broken Wikipedia. Whenever another user who is not you starts editing Wikipedia from these addresses, they will have improper talk and user pages -- (talk) 03:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Bashar the Messenger[edit]

This is a fairly un-notable term and doesn't need to be a redirect. Jorm (talk) 06:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

  • keep this redirect gets 200+ hits most months, so clearly the term is used. Although the article doesn't use this term verbatim it is clearly the right topic, so it is not misleading or harmful. Notability is not a criterion for redirects - what matters is that they are plausible and correct, and this is both. Thryduulf (talk) 08:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - discussed at target, no rationale presented for deletion. WilyD 10:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

October 11[edit]

Hansuli Banker Upakatha[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy closed as now out of scope following the bold conversion to a disambiguation page. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 21:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Hansuli Banker Upakatha should be a disambiguation page as there is a novel and a film with the same name. Logical1004 (talk) 11:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Jhootha Sach[edit]

Jhootha Sach should be a disambiguation page as there is a novel and a TV series with the same name. The original page has been moved to Jhootha Sach (film). And a new Jhootha Sach (novel) has been created. So delete this page to make it a disambiguation page with links to both these pages. Logical1004 (talk) 11:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment be WP:BOLD and just overwrite the redirect with a disambiguation page -- (talk) 11:53, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • It doesn't look like Jhootha Sach (novel) exists and I can't find anything similar. @Logical1004: can you point to where it is? Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
@ Ajraddatz Sorry, It wasn't in existence before, so created now : Jhootha Sach (novel). But it still need extension. So, I am making a disambiguation page by overwriting the redirect under WP:BOLD as told above. Thanks for all your help. Logical1004 (talk) 08:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

October 10[edit]

George Smith (football coach)[edit]

misleading redirect, as there is also a George Smith active as football coach (Association football, that is.) Better a red link than a wrong redirect. The Banner talk 21:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I might be mistaken, but I think this is a left-over from the moving of the article to its current lemma. The old one sure can be deleted. --bender235 (talk) 21:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to George Smith#Sportsmen (where there are some other football coaches mentioned, e.g. George Smith (footballer, born 1915)) and tag {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. Deletion won't solve the problem as these kinds of redirects get recreated quite frequently to point to one overly-specific target by people who aren't aware of the other potential targets. (talk) 23:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep it should not be a redlink, since we already have a football coach article. If the soccer coach ever gets an article, we can retarget "football coach" to the disambiguation page. But as there does not seem to be such an article, this is the proper target for this redirect. As there is an actual topic for this disambiguaiton, a redlink is wrong because the topic already exists. -- (talk) 02:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
    • As far as I know Wikipedia is neutral, so a plain bias towards an American coach is in my opinion unwanted. The Banner talk 23:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
    • If the soccer coach ever gets an article – as stated above, George Smith (footballer, born 1915) already has an article. It devotes about a third of its length to his coaching & management of professional teams (more than the entire length of George Smith (American football coach)), indicating that he was notable as a coach too regardless of his article title. The disambiguating term "(football coach)" is insufficient to distinguish the two men, and thus this should be a {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. (talk) 02:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


Delete. The city is Crimean, not Korean. Gorobay (talk) 20:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete - Wikipedia:Redirect#Reasons for deleting point 8. Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep - directs readers to the content they're looking for, no argument presented for deletion. WilyD 10:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


Delete. Not specifically a Korean topic. Gorobay (talk) 20:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete - Wikipedia:Redirect#Reasons for deleting point 8. Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep - Directs readers to the content they're looking for. No reason has been presented for deletion. WilyD 11:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


Delete. Nazism is not related to Korean. Gorobay (talk) 19:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete - Wikipedia:Redirect#Reasons for deleting point 8. Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep - directs readers to the topic they're looking for; no rationale has been presented for deletion. It would be a needlessly hostile act to our readers, and our goal of writing an encyclopaedia. WilyD 11:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

남경 영국 국제 학교[edit]

Delete. This is a school in China. It is not Korean. Gorobay (talk) 19:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete - Wikipedia:Redirect#Reasons for deleting point 8. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:00, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep - directs readers to the page they're looking for. No reason has been presented for deletion. Such a deletion would be a needlessly hostile act towards our readership. WilyD 11:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


Delete. This Korean word means ‘word’. Every language has words; they are not specifically Korean. Gorobay (talk) 18:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete - Wikipedia:Redirect#Reasons for deleting point 8. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:00, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete as vague synonym. --Lenticel (talk) 00:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


  • Keep - I've taken political philosophy courses which use the Greek words for concepts such as oligarchies, since a lot of the thought on forms of governance came out of ancient Greece. This doesn't seem to be the ancient Greek word, but at the same time might be worth keeping. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Oligarchia (common typo), delete the other ones. � (talk) 18:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - directs readers to the content they're looking for, no reason has been presented for deletion. WilyD 10:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


Delete. Snowmen are not specifically Korean. Gorobay (talk) 18:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete There seems to be a Korean comedy show with this title, but we currently don't have an article about it. --- TheChampionMan1234 09:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete, or redirect to VisualEditor.. to help the Korean speaking Wikipedians using it...? ;-) John Vandenberg (chat) 11:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

List of breweries in Nebraska[edit]

This list has been repeatedly redirected. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of breweries in Connecticut decided that these brewery lists should be kept. The correct process here would be to take it back to AFD. In the meantime, the redirect should be undone. SpinningSpark 17:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Speedy close The guiding principles of RfD state that this process is not for most content disputes. The page was moved to Brewing in Nebraska because there was no reliable list content that did not fall afoul of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. If there is valid list content, I have no problem speedily moving the page back to List of breweries in Nebraska. The nominator raises Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of breweries in Connecticut, but this was a mass AfD which lumped very different articles together. In nearly every other case there was at least some salvageable material linked to reliable sources that covered the entries in depth. It is also worth noting that this is the only list where a directory-only, unreliable reference seems to be acceptable. It is important to consider the broader norm with regards to these pages as a point of consensus. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
    • I support speedy close. My position is that this should be referred back to AfD. That is the result I am looking for from the closer. Are you willing to go down that path? SpinningSpark 20:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Sentencing guidelines[edit]

Sentencing guidelines exist in places other than the U.S.; presumably they also exist within the U.S. at levels other than the federal. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


I'm not sure why we have scare quotes around a period. I'm guessing this redirect might exist because [[.]] is a bad title, but we typically avoid special characters (incl. ") in titles, and I dont see other bad titles which use quotation marks to bypass the bad title rules. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep I don't see why this is scary in this usage. I do realize we don't generally have inquoted titles, but I think in this case it is reasonable to have one for this. -- (talk) 11:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
    Why is it reasonable? John Vandenberg (chat) 23:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
    You pointed it out yourself, it's a banned title without quotes. And people frequently indicate single grammatical characters with quotes when not using them as their function. -- (talk) 03:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete implausible typo. � (talk) 18:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Indeed it is an implausible typo, but that is not the reason for this redirect's existence. Thryduulf (talk) 21:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per Thryduulf (talk) 21:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)


Redirect (name alias?) not explain in the article, no response on talk page Talk:Russell Peters#!xbile, and even the fans are confused. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

A quick Google search shows that !xbile and xbile are associated with something that he has done (on Facebook at least), so I think there is valid reason to keep the redirects. They are cheap, after all. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. There appears to be no association between the redirect and the target - the Facebook pages exist because of this redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 08:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - So I believe the story behind this can be explained by a specific bit from his standup, where he talks about someone named !xobile. However, I can't see the use of a misspelling of an already rather minor redirect, especially considering the only context one would know the term from is one in which he specifically spells out the term.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Korean copycat product[edit]

Unlikely and rather racist redirect. Was an article, which was unwisely merged (by original author, so no attribution needs to keep this redirect). I have removed the merged section, making the redirect useless as well. Fram (talk) 08:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Fram, It was not in any way meant to be racist (that it was meant to have implied South Korean behavior was inferior to other cultures or be an insult to them.) It was meant to be based on observation of something based on overwhelming representational evidence, and a cultural business phenomenon or practice. A set of decisions. These products do not appear to be inferior to the originals, as would "cheap knockoffs". What is also interesting about it is that South Koreans are expected to dislike Japan because of WW2, and dislike Chinese because of cold war era politics, and yet this happens anyway. When you go into Indian supermarkets there appears to be no attempt whatsoever to imitate directly other products, but in a Korean supermarket such as H Mart (Hanahreum), it really stands out dramatically. If the ultimate consensus is to avoid this topic because people feel uncomfortable with it (as opposed to that there are not a lot of newspaper or magazine articles about the phenomenon, which also appears to be true. Through there are some articles online that appear to be a kind of "fluff" that say Korean car companies used to copy X or Y car company but does not anymore), I will consent to that. I wish there was a way to address it that did not inspire anyone to assume it was racist, and instead helped enrich understanding of history and cultural and business behavior, and in turn affect creative business decisions South Koreans make when they make new products. That is what Wikipedia exists for.--Radical Mallard (talk) 21:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom . John Vandenberg (chat) 09:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • retarget to Counterfeit consumer goods which is what someone using this title is most likely looking for. The general Copycat product doesn't exist yet, but I'll create it to that target if others agree it would be usefull. Thryduulf (talk) 09:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Is there any evidence that "korean copycat product" is especially common as search term, compared to e.g. Japanese, Belgian, Mexican and so on? We could end up with a long list of redirects, adding things like "Chinese rip-off"[14] which is way more common (the term) than "Korean copycat product"[15]. The chance that someone is actively looking for this term is rather small... Excluding Wikipedia, this really is barely in use[16], so adding such a potentially insulting redirect does more harm than it actually helps people, IMO. Fram (talk) 10:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - too ambiguous, and even if there wasn't any racist intent, it comes off that way. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete may be better off as a redlink. It might be a different story if we have articles for counterfeit products for both Koreas.--Lenticel (talk) 05:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


Target unrelated to the redirect title. Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 January 4#!vote John Vandenberg (chat) 08:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

  • refine target. Per my comments in the last discussion this should point to where the !'s use as a negation indicator is discussed. That is the lead section of ! and !#Computers, adding a hatnote to where the Wikipedia jargon is explained. That it has been recreated so soon after the last discussion is an indication that this should not simply be deleted - people are evidently looking for this. Thryduulf (talk) 09:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Per featured article and the like, I will go ahead and add a hatnote to exclamation mark. “For use in Wikipedia jargon, see the [Glossary].” (talk) 15:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
      • I've modified that slightly [18] - references in hatnotes to project space should use the {{self ref}} template. See the template documentation for details. Thryduulf (talk) 22:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
        • Now the hatnote exists, the lead section is the best place to target this so keep as is. Thryduulf (talk) 08:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. This was not previously deleted. What was previously deleted was a redirect to Wikipedia:Glossary, which was a cross-namespace-redirect (CNR). The present redirect is not a CNR. Instead, it redirects to another Wikipedia article which (even in its lead) discusses the use of an exclamation point for negation. (talk) 14:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete not an encyclopedic topic. Wikipedia jargon is not generally notable, and definitely not readership material. WP:!vote is all that would be needed. -- (talk) 11:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia secure server[edit]

Cross namespace redirect from mainspace. See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 October 2#Wikipedia secure server John Vandenberg (chat) 08:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

  • delete. This isn't a topic that needs to be easily accessible for people who do not understand namespaces, and I cannot find an appropriate target in the main namespace (for example if secure servers were discussed in the History of Wikipedia article, I'd point it there but there is no mention). Thryduulf (talk) 09:02, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


Implausible typo. This was created as a redirect in 2001[19], using a subpage-like title, which is no longer acceptable in mainspace. user:Graham87, it looks like this revision hasnt been imported... ;-)

The other redirects in Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia/ are nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 October 2. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Very strong keep per WP:RFD#KEEP point 4 which explicitly mentions old subpage links. Additionally, this has been harmlessly existing for 13 years so there is precisely zero reason to delete it now. Thryduulf (talk) 09:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
    WP:RKEEP refers to encyclopedia articles which previously included '/' in the title, like Australia/People, as that was once the actual (and stable) content page title approved by policy/practise at the time; see the old wording.
    Wikipedia/History was never a wp:subpage (i.e. has content) - it was always a redirect to content. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
    So? This title has been used to access content since 2001 - and given that the earliest edit recorded is by the conversion script my guess is that this didn't actually start life as a redirect (the pre-MediaWiki edit history is not complete). Deletion of the redirect is likely harmful (given the liklihood of incoming links) and brings no benefits (subpages in the mainspace are deprecated and do not function as subpages, and sub page naming is strongly discouraged for new creations, but they are not and have never been unacceptable) so keeping it is the only sane outcome. Thryduulf (talk) 22:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment – I've imported the edit, for what it's worth. I have no opion about the fate of the redirect. Graham87 11:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep for reasons explicated by Thryduulf. The page did *not* start life as a redirect. --The Cunctator (talk) 23:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia-Supported Software[edit]

Cross-namespace redirect from mainspace. See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 October 2#Wikipedia tool John Vandenberg (chat) 06:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

  • weak retarget to MediaWiki which is the software that runs Wikipedia and can be said to be supported by it (as its development is largely driven by Wikipedia's needs). I'm prepared to be convinced that there is a better target though. Thryduulf (talk) 09:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
    That stretches the meaning of suffix '-supported software' beyond the reasonable. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
    I disagree. It is a stretch but it's far from an unreasonable one, and unless there is a better target available this is what will best serve people looking for this term. Thryduulf (talk) 22:36, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
    It is a misuse of the language. The two most common meanings of the redirected term are 'software that Wikipedia has tested and supports if bugs arise' (e.g. wikEd) and 'software which has support for Wikipedia, without any guarantee' (e.g. Kiwix). Your 'software which powers Wikipedia' meaning is very odd, and will be wasting people's time as it does not provide any answers for the common meanings of the term that is being clicked on. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep, because cool URIs don't change, an idea that was once widely accepted here. If a retarget is in order, as suggested above, Wikipedia:Supported Software should probably be changed at the same time. But in fact, I think that Wikipedia:Tools handles quite well the purpose of these redirects (which was software which has support for Wikipedia). —Toby Bartels (talk) 18:40, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
    Cross-namespace redirects are often deleted or replaced with redirects to mainspace, and that is called maintenance - it has been happening since day dot (or when redirects were first able to be created and deleted). Wikipedia software is an example of a 2002 redirect created by User:The Cunctator which was deleted by User:Cyde in 2006. User:Mathiastck recreated it as a redirect to Wikipedia in 2008, and it has lived happily ever after. I would be happy for "Wikipedia-Supported Software" to also redirect to Wikipedia, as I think that article has the most information closest to the typical readers objective. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
    By "day dot", do you mean "day one"? In any case, your history is wrong. Redirects and page deletion are both older than namespaces, so it's not true that cross-namespace redirects were being deleted as soon as redirects could be deleted. On the contrary, cross-namespace redirects were being created as soon as namespaces existed. (Their purpose is to bring people going to an old, pre-namespace page to the new page in the correct namespace.) Later, people got the idea that they were inappropriate and needed to be deleted. (Of course, new cross-namespace redirects are unnecessary and should not be created.) I know that the prevailing policy is now to delete them, but since my opinion was asked, I gave it. —Toby Bartels (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
    I do think that a redirect to Wikipedia (or indeed, a redirect anywhere at all) would be much better than outright deletion. —Toby Bartels (talk) 20:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia main sandbox[edit]

Cross-namespace redirect from mainspace. Sandbox already has a self-ref. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep what else could the 50-100 people using this each month be looking for? We don't want them to create their tests in the main namespace, so it makes sense to take them to the place where both we and they want them to reach. Thryduulf (talk) 09:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
    False dichotomy. This redirect isnt needed for 50-100 people who are currently using it. If they are looking for the sandbox, this hit will turn up in the results, and they will use it, but is it necessary for them to get where they want to go? Will other hits take them to the same spot? As I said in the nom, yes, there are other hits which fill the void by deletion of this redirect. special:search/wikipedia sandbox has lots of hits which will take them to the Wikipedia Sandbox, often via a content page, and google:wikipedia sandbox is even better. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:53, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
    Just because other searches are useful does not mean this one isn't (a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument). If we delete this redirect we make it harder for 50-100 people a month to find what they are looking for without bringing any benefits to Wikipedia - indeed some of them may make their sandbox edits at this title or at another non-sandbox page that the search results may or may not find (remember search results are not predictable and are not shown for all methods that people use to arrive at a non-existing title on Wikipedia). The primary argument against CNRs is that they get in the way of encyclopaedic content and confuse people who fall into pipework when expecting encyclopaedic content. This topic however is unambiguously not an encyclopaedic topic and so people arriving here will not be expecting encyclopaedic content but Wikipedia's main sandbox - precisely what they get with the redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 08:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia bugs[edit]

Cross-namespace redirect from mainspace. One would expect this title to describe web bugs used by Wikipedia, or notable software bugs in the deployed website. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia almanac[edit]

Cross-namespace redirect from mainspace. The target page was recently ripped to shreads by user:James500; see their explanation on Wikipedia talk:Almanac. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:14, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia accountancy[edit]

Not a real term in English. It used to point to this 'Economy' section. Also Economy of wikimedia foundation was created at the same time, and similarly is using the word 'Economy' in a way that is not typical English. Both have very low pageview counts. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

  • comment It could mean "accountancy" in the sense of "holding to account", but while that is one thing that Wikipediocracy claims to be about that is not covered in its article, and I don't think any other organsisations/sites that claim to do that have an article (Wikipedia Watch redirects to a section of the Criticism of Wikipedia article and isn't mentioned by name). Thryduulf (talk) 08:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia chat[edit]

Special:Undelete/Wikipedia_chat shows that this redirect was created by user:Graham87 when moving Wikipedia:Archive/Wikipedia chat into project space, and after the redirect was created it has been recreated several times, before user:JohnnyMrNinja redirected it to Wikipedia.

But there is no such thing as a 'Wikipedia chat', so it should be deleted, and probably salted. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. It was actually salted until I accidentally unprotected it in November 2009 while trying to do a history split (which I later decided against). Graham87 07:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete as confusing redirect. --Lenticel (talk) 02:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not finished[edit]

Cross namespace redirect from mainspace. c.f. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 October 2#Wikipedia is not a finished project John Vandenberg (chat) 05:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

  • delete per my comment in the previous discussion, being a CNR is not a reason on its own to delete a redirect. However, we have no relevant content to point this redirect to (although we probably should) so it should be deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 09:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete not for the readership. - TheChampionMan1234 04:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

List of World War I flying aces from the German Empire[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to List of World War I flying aces from Germany (non-admin closure) NickGibson3900 Talk 03:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

This shouldn't redirect to the category. Instead, it should be left a red link to encourage someone to create an actual list. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

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

October 9[edit]

Oldest Higher Education Institution[edit]

Cross-reference exists only as a WP:BOOSTER for college. It is interesting, but does not excuse the creation of a redirect, merely as an almanac or Guiness pointer without any citations within the body to demonstrate this claim. We need to stop this sort of thing early on or we'll have a redirect for everything in Guiness and none of it citable with WP:RS. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


There is a draft article Draft:Tombstoning that I wish to accept at WP:AFC in place of this soft redirect. That draft links to the Wiktionary definition too, so nothing is lost. It is a net win all round. Fiddle Faddle 19:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment I chose the discussion route over the technical route because the redirect is not a simple redirect. It is not precisely clear what to do with a soft redirect that is 'in the way'. Fiddle Faddle 21:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Delete In most cases I would say just be WP:BOLD and overwrite a soft redirect with an article. However in this case the soft redirect is the result of a 2008 AfD and so discussion is appropriate (although I would have no objection to an early close if consensus is clear). I agree that an article is better than the soft redirect we have - the existing talk page should be preserved though (as an archive is fine). Thryduulf (talk) 22:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Request If the outcome is to delete, please would the deleting admin preserve the current talk page as an archive. The AFC script will overwrite the talk page, and it may not be done my my hand, thus archival may be forgotten. Fiddle Faddle 22:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Federal Republic of America[edit]

Invented name. - TheChampionMan1234 23:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

A Madness Shared by Two[edit]

Unlikely search term - the article does not mention this non-notable book. Additionally, page history has a large copyvio in it, so it will need revdelling at the very least. --Mdann52talk to me! 15:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Folie à deux which literally means "madness shared by two" (It's even in the lede). --Lenticel (talk) 00:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Revdel and leave the target as is, or delete. The capitals make it a title. All the best: Rich Farmbrough03:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC).

Balkan bulgars[edit]

Vague synonym. - TheChampionMan1234 07:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Bulgars or delete to encourage article creation. An ethnic group name should point to an ethnic group article rather than a modern state article. There are various sources discussing the migration of Bulgars to the Balkans, e.g. [20]. However the existing Bulgars article has a very broad geographical focus and only touches on the Balkans in a number of scattered paragraphs. I'm not sure whether this topic should be covered in a standalone article or by improving the Bulgars article. (talk) 05:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment sorry, just noticed the lower-case title. Hmm. Balkan Bulgars was deleted in 2010 with a very strange edit summary: Speedy deleted per (CSD G8), Redirect to deleted page "Bulgaria". If Balkan bulgars is kept, Balkan Bulgars should be recreated to point to the same target. (talk) 05:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget per the anon. I find that deletion summary referred to very odd indeed, as there is no record of the Bulgaria article being deleted in 2010 (although the title was deleted in 2008 as part of a repair to page move vandalism). Pinging user:SpacemanSpiff (who performed the deletion) to see if he has any recollection. Thryduulf (talk) 12:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. The hatnoting at Bulgars seems a bit odd, as it does not mention the DAB at Bulgar (for which it is the first entry). It's a bit odd to have a plural title when I thought the standard form was eg. Hungarian people, English people, etc. Perhaps at the DAB, we could also add Burglar (R to Burglary) as a likely mistype. (Burgle, R to same target, is a back-formation: like edit). Si Trew (talk) 10:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

디지털 포트리스[edit]

Delete. This is not a Korean book. Gorobay (talk) 15:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

In fact it seems that many Dan Brown novels have similar redirects; e.g. for Angels and Demons [21]. Regards, (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete all these translated titles. WP:NOT a translation dictionary. Dan Brown writes for the English language marketplace. There's no affinity for any language other than English. -- (talk) 05:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - directs readers to the content they're looking for. No reason for deletion has been presented, and it would needlessly screw over the readership. WilyD 11:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Caudron C.450 Rafale[edit]

Redirect created because target article mistakenly identified the C.450 as the Caudron Rafale. The name is used for a number of Caudron aircraft, but the C.450 is not among them. TheLongTone (talk) 23:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Better still would be an article on the Caidron C.362 as they were all similar, and the C.362 was the progenitor of the series. My original assertion that they were entirely separate may have been incorrect, also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petebutt (talkcontribs) 01:19, 25 August 2014‎ (UTC)

  • Comment. It seems that this is quite an easy mistake to make (either as a typo or thinko of "5" for "6") or as a misunderstanding. Is there an article on the series of aircraft that this could point to, or perhaps as list or disambig? Thryduulf (talk) 11:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


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 as plausible search term and mentioned at the target. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 18:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

General topic with no affinity for any language. - TheChampionMan1234 06:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

  • keep this is explicitly mentioned in the article, and so is a good search term. It is a notable part of Chinese cuisine. Thryduulf (talk) 10:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep it seems that the sign is used by different Asian cultures for this dish. --Lenticel (talk) 05:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep or refine to Congee#China. (Taiwan also use the character but it is only mentioned in China section) (Japan has added honorific). 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 13:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Ὁ ὁρίζων[edit]

Delete. The horizon isn’t particularly related to Ancient Greek. Gorobay (talk) 00:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep - discussed at target, no rationale for deletion. WilyD 11:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


Delete. This topic is not especially related to Korean more than any other language. Gorobay (talk) 00:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete this tactic isn't usually used by Korean forces according to the target article.--Lenticel (talk) 00:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete It may have been used during the Korean War, but that doesn't seem like a strong connection between this topic and modern-day Korea. - TheChampionMan1234 03:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - directs readers to the content they're looking for. No rationale has been presented for deletion. The goal of this project is to write an encyclopaedia, and trying to make the content harder to find is hostile to that goal. WilyD 11:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

October 8[edit]


The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Wrong forum. Discussion moved to Talk:Turner (disambiguation)#Requested move. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 20:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Turner should redirect to Turner (disambiguation). While I agree that J. M. W. Turner is one of the most notable artists of history, this situation differs from cases like Picasso or Beethoven. Turner is an incredibly common name, belonging to notable figures such as Prime Ministers, award winning actors, and one of the most well-known media moguls, among hundreds of others. Additionally, google search, news, and book results to not indicate that the artist dominates in the use of the last name. Yaksar (let's chat) 20:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

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


Per the numerous hatnotes placed on the three different articles Baphomet, Bahamut ‎and Behemoth, either the redirect's creator or other editors believed that this is a plausible misspelling for any of these subjects. However, after doing a search on a search engine for this term, not including the first result (which is a link to its current target), there are no results anywhere proving that this is a plausible misspelling for any of these articles. For that reason, I believe that this redirect should be deleted for being inaccurate and/or ambiguous as it could refer to one of multiple subjects. (I don't believe that creating a disambiguation page would be helpful since I could not find any proof that this is a common misspelling for any of the aforementioned terms.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose deletion. A simple Google search turns up numerous uses of "Bahomet" as a variant or misspelling of "Baphomet", so redirecting is useful. I have no opinion on the utility of disambiguating the other terms. (talk) 23:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Not the case; Google returns results for "Baphomet" instead of "Bahomet" since it thinks that it is a misspelling for it. It even at the top specifically states that it is doing this, and allows the option to search "Bahomet" instead. This just proves the existence of bad search results thanks to Wikipedia mirrors. Steel1943 (talk) 00:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
If you actually search for "Bahomet" directly, though, rather than simply talking about it, you will find that most such results aren't Wikipedia mirrors. Besides, while it's very bad for Wikipedia to propagate careless errors, an established error simply is an established error, regardless of where it originated. I don't think this misspelling originated on Wikipedia, but it doesn't matter; it's in use and we should help people find the accepted spelling by redirecting from the common incorrect one. Besides, doesn't the fact that Google regards this as a plausible typo support the assertion that it is a plausible typo? (talk) 01:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I've seen quite a few cases where a bad redirect in Wikipedia has resulted in several misspelled search results in any search engine, regardless if the redirect is correct or not (spelling, or otherwise). I dealt with an example/redirect recently that had that very issue: Hujk. Thanks to the fact that the redirect targeted an inaccurate target for 7 years, there are some sites that are permanently going to believe that term stands for "Nintendo"; I see this redirect having similar issues. Steel1943 (talk) 13:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Neutral according to my Google Books search, "Bahomet" is a corruption of the word "Mahomet" which in turn refers to the Islamic prophet Muhammad. However, there are writers that do use "Bahomet" to refer to "Baphomet". Um, I think I accidentally summoned a goat demon while doing the search--Lenticel (talk) 01:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak delete Too generic to be disambiguated. - TheChampionMan1234 03:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate we already have multiple topics this is an alternate spelling for listed in this discussion. -- (talk) 05:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The main issue that I see with this option is that I'm not sure how notable of an alternate spelling this is for any of the topics; this seems more like a situation of "Wikipedia has this misspelling set up as a redirect, so it must be an acceptable alternate spelling". As I stated above, the fact that this redirect has existed targeting its current target unchanged for over 7 years probably hasn't helped matters either. Steel1943 (talk) 12:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
    • As pointed out above though, it doesn't matter if the alternative spellings originated with Wikipedia or not (nobody has given any evidence that proves the claim either way), they are now seen as accepted alternative spellings so we do readers a disservice by deleting these redirects. This means we should keep or disambiguate to avoid causing unnecessary harm. Thryduulf (talk) 13:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Ass cancer[edit]

Not a proper name for a redirect. Noone is going to be looking for anal cancer by searching for ass cancer. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 19:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep per WP:NOTCENSORED, and the fact that the two terms "ass" and "anal" are synonymous. Deleting this redirect harms those who may not know one word or the other. Steel1943 (talk) 19:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete (despite my nostalgia for the creator of this redirect). "Ass" is not synonymous with "anus", and it is doubtful that anyone would seriously use "ass cancer" as a search term, even though it may provide some entertainment for sniggering schoolboys. The NotCensored shibboleth has no bearing here. Kablammo (talk) 20:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I could only partially agree with that rationale if the article "Donkey cancer" existed, and it doesn't. Also, I don't understand why "schoolboys" getting a laugh out of the redirect has any impact on whether or not it should be deleted; we don't censor a term just because it may get some laughs ... so WP:NOTCENSORED really does apply. In fact, stating that "schoolboys" may look this this term up proves that it is useful redirect, and thus meets WP:RFD#KEEP reason 5. Steel1943 (talk) 20:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
So we should add new redirects, such as Asshole cancer and Bunghole cancer, and Boob cancer (and perhaps dozens of others) for breast cancer? The Fat Man Who Never Came Back made a career of lampooning the insular ways and occasional sophistries of wikipedians. Years after he created this redirect, Wikipedia finally bit. TFM would be pleased with the commotion his redirect has caused. Kablammo (talk) 13:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • To provide some clarity on my stance, I, more or less, agree with Thryduulf's statement below. Steel1943 (talk) 13:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment a much bigger problem than the possible offensiveness of the slang term "ass" is its imprecision: "ass cancer" might just as well be colorectal cancer, soft-tissue sarcoma around the buttocks, equine cancers (though as mentioned, Wikipedia has no coverage of those right now), or something else I haven't thought of
Anyway, for a medical topic it would be far better to avoid making assumptions about what exactly the reader is trying to find. I don't know whether this should seriously be a disambiguation page, or whether we should delete it (effectively telling searchers that they need to use more precise terminology). (talk) 02:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate. Although this is often used in a juvenile way, it isn't only used in that manner. It's not an easy term to search for (I've been using "ass cancer" -wikipedia -"kick ass" -"dumb ass" -"fat ass" -"bad ass" (which will be removing some results I do want as well as those I don't). My findings are that it is used almost equally to mean colorectal cancer and anal cancer and also occasionally cancer in the buttocks (which can be one of at least two different types of cancer). Thryduulf (talk) 10:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep why do you say no one would look for this? Seems a perfectly reasonable way to look for the topic, per Steel. -- (talk) 05:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


There is no reason that we need a redirect from the Basque-language word for coevolution on the English Wikipedia. Ahecht (TALK
) 16:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete General topic not specific to Basque-language areas. - TheChampionMan1234 03:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - directs readers to the content they're looking for. No rationale presented for deletion. Making content findable is a necessary thing to make an encyclopaedia useful. WilyD 11:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


What does this mean. I am getting Google search results about unrelated islands in Indonesia among other stuff. - TheChampionMan1234 23:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

It probably means ‘canoe’, but in what language I don’t know. A Carib dictionary spells it ⟨kanawa⟩. A Paumarí lexicon spells it ⟨kānāʹwā⟩. Many online dictionaries, which all share a single source, spell it ⟨kana:wa⟩ and claim it is Carib. Gorobay (talk) 21:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment This carries the language code "und" which is for "undetermined" -- (talk) 04:35, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 12:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

  • My IPA is rusty, if that's even what this is, but is this a rendition of Kanawha? If so, retargeting to that dab might work. According to Kanawha River, the name does derive from "Iroquoian dialects meaning 'water way' or 'canoe way'". It would seem quite a coincidence if the Carib word for "canoe" were so similar to an Iroquoian one, though stranger things have happened. Carib seems to have the stronger claim here, though if this is just one indigenous word for canoe, it should probably be deleted. --BDD (talk) 14:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

St. Andrew Parish Church[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy retarget to St. Andrew's Church with the agreement of the nominator and no contrary views. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 14:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I would like to delete the redirect to create future disambugation page for churches named after St. Andrew. Following WP:Commonname, the article Paranaque Cathedral does not need any redirect. Carlojoseph14 (talk) 12:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

  • retarget to the existing disambiguation page at St. Andrew's Church. Even if one didn't exist, you don't need to delete a redirect to replace it with a disambiguation page - you can just overwrite it. Thryduulf (talk) 12:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I did not see that there is an existing disambugation page. I agree with a retarget. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 13:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.


Misspelling of XHHMA-TV. See also XHSS-TV, RfD'd August 15. Raymie (tc) 23:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 12:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


No affinity for Romanised Japanese - TheChampionMan1234 07:22, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment According to jawiki (yes, yes, WP:CIRCULAR, but the paragraph cites sources) Japanese stopped using the name Kankoku during the colonial period:
Due to the annexation of Kankoku, the Korean Empire disappeared and Japan went back to using the name Chosen for Kankoku, and people domiciled in Chosen who became Japanese subjects were called "Chosen people" under the law.
Probably it's because Kankoku contained the character koku (country). Anyway, it's yet another reason why redirecting Kankoku to Korea under Japanese rule makes about as much sense as redirecting Repiblik dominikèn to Unification of Hispaniola. (talk) 03:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Do not retarget Better to delete than have a misleading redirect. Native Japanese would not expect to end up at Korea under Japanese rule when they type this in. And an English speaker who is trying to use Wikipedia as a dictionary would be grossly misled by that redirect. This word does not mean "Korea under Japanese rule", it just means "Korea". (talk) 03:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
    • It will need to be retargetted if we keep this. Native Japanese have Japanese Wikipedia, so it only matters if the Japanese term has any affinity for a particular topic in English, not as what a Japanese speaker would now use it for. The topic with affinity for Japanese is the period that Japan ruled Korea. -- (talk) 04:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
      • "It will need to be retargetted if we keep this" ... well then the obvious solution is, delete it. Wikipedia should not be making misleading foreign-language redirects on the basis of vague "affinity" when the actual meaning of the foreign-language word is not the proposed target. The fact that "Native Japanese have Japanese Wikipedia" does not matter; the redirect you propose is misleading to English-speaking readers who do not know what "Kankoku" means and will mistakenly assume it is a valid synonym for "Korea under Japanese rule". No speakers of English or any other language use the word "Kankoku" that way, they bloody well shouldn't, and mercifully they are highly unlikely to do so in the future ... unless Wikipedia insists on creating a misleading redirect and it stupidly gets slurped up into every search engine and web-scraping dictionary in the world. (talk) 04:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: I read the above arguments as having approximately equal weight for retargetting and for deleting. Obviously we cannot do both, so more input would be helpful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 12:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete - I agree with the editor above that the proposed retargeting would imply a misleading meaning of the term.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - appears to direct readers to the content they're looking for. A more specific target would probably not do that. WilyD 11:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Uladzimir Pucin[edit]

Invented spelling. - TheChampionMan1234 04:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep "Wladimir Putin" {{R from typo}} -- (talk) 07:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep last two. These seem like sufficiently plausible redirects. Wladimir is the German translation of Vladimir. I know that it is not standard to have such translations, but we are talking about a prominent head of state here. - Hoops gza (talk) 15:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: This is a procedural relisting as TheChampionMan1234 tagged only the first of these reidrects
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 12:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep Putin - Wladimir is a common spelling. Puttin, is a plausible typo, so I'd keep that. Can't find "pucin" used anywhere, it can go. WilyD 11:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


Not related to any of these languages. - TheChampionMan1234 03:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep the last 7 The Holocaust is certainly related to Russian, Belorussian and Ukrainian. - Hoops gza (talk) 04:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
    • It's also related to Serbia, Macedonia and Rusyn. In other words, the bottom seven should be kept. - Hoops gza (talk) 04:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep the last 7, per Hoops gza.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  05:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • @Hoops gza:, Well, I think retargeting some of these to the articles you mentioned above would be better than keeping them as is. - TheChampionMan1234 05:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Huh? They're the name of the Holocaust in those languages. We don't redirect random words in non-English langauges to our articles on those languages.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  06:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete definitely for the Korean one. For the rest, I guess TCM means to retarget the one in Russian to The Holocaust in Russia, the one in Ukrainian to The Holocaust in Ukraine and so on? Sounds logical but staying neutral for being largely uninitiated in the topic. 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 07:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete all The Holocaust is not specific to any one country, but instead ravaged all of Europe, and several areas outside Europe. Only German and Jewish languages should have such redirects. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: This is a procedural relisting as TheChampionMan1234 did not tag any but the first redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 11:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment@Thryduulf: Funnily enough, I didn't get the notification even though you linked to my user page, hope you will get it, though. - TheChampionMan1234 03:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
I did. I wonder if my doing inside a (subst-ed) template had anything to do with it? Thryduulf (talk) 09:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - directs readers to the target they're looking for, no argument has been presented for deletion. WilyD 12:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


Topic which isn't language-specific. - TheChampionMan1234 06:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete users who type in this string of letters could be looking one of for the various Indian movie characters by this name, or they might have misspelled something else entirely, so the best thing Wikipedia can do for them is to give them a search results page. (talk) 07:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. fr.wp has an article about fr:Mustapha El Aakri, a Moroccan singer. If we had an article on him then I would be proposing this be retargetted to it. However we don't, and my French isn't up to translating what they have. Thryduulf (talk) 10:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • delete for now since we don't have a valid target. I've been getting possibly notable movies and people in my Google search. However, we don't have articles on them yet and the sources aren't in English. -Lenticel (talk) 01:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

October 7[edit]

Bill Casey (baseball)[edit]

Delete, per reason #2: The redirect might cause confusion. No reliable source indicating that "Tommy" was ever called "Bill". Wbm1058 (talk) 16:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


Irrelevant language. - TheChampionMan1234 06:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Weak deletekeep. I'd assumed it was Italian, but actually the Italian for "Indonesia" is "Indonesia". It is at Esperanto WP, though. (eo:Indonezio), and a language article at eo:Indonezia lingvo. Wiktionary also has it, but {{wikt|Indonezia}} and {{wikt|Indonezio}} are separate articles over at Wiktionary. We don't have Indonezia here at EN:WP. Si Trew (talk) 06:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Wiktionary is organised differently to Wikipedia. Here articles are structured by topic, so we have redirects from alternative spellings. There entries are structured by spelling, so each attested spelling gets its own page (even if that just says "misspelling of ..."). Wikipedia has one article about Sulfur with a redirect from Sulphur, wiktionary has separate entries for wikt:sufur and wikt:sulphur. Wikipedia has many articles for Mercury, Wiktionary has just wikt:mercury with entries for all the different words using that spelling (although it does distinguish wikt:Mercury as a separate word). Thryduulf (talk) 10:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I get that, and thanks for saying so. Sulfur might muddy the waters since the IUPAC name is Sulfur not sulphur, on the other hand the IUPAC name is Aluminium not Aluminum, so I am not sure that is a good example. (I am deliberately doing this blind without looking up Wikt somay have one or both the wrong way around). If Wikt does not list the others as alternate spellings, that is simply ridiculous. As I say, I deliberately did not check before posting this; deliberate ignorance. Si Trew (talk) 21:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is no reason for an Esperanto redirect to a non-Esperanto-related topic to exist on the English Wikipedia. Gorobay (talk) 22:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - directs readers to the content they're looking for, no reason for deletion, which would only undermine the goal of creating an encyclopaedia. WilyD 12:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

한채영- Han Chae Yeong[edit]

Another mixed foreign/English name. - TheChampionMan1234 02:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Move to 한채영 without leaving a redirect behind; the appropriate redirect should only contain Korean, not mixed such as this. -- (talk) 04:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
There would not be a need to move this since any registered editor could simply create the suggested redirect right now.-- (talk) 02:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Update this can now be deleted as "한채영" has been created. Unlikely redirect. -- (talk) 05:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Keep. Neither new nor harmful. All the best: Rich Farmbrough20:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC).
  • Keep per Rich Farmbrough. Deletion would bring no benefits and, as there may be links to this title from outside Wikipedia, there is a chance it might break things and unnecessarily harm Wikipedia or another project. Thryduulf (talk) 00:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
    • To make it explicit, my support for this redirect is independent of the existence of "한채영". Thryduulf (talk) 08:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • TheChampionMan1234, "another"? Can you link to some examples of similar redirects, or their RfDs? I do recall that this sort of thing has come up before, but not what we did with them. --BDD (talk) 13:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
We also have Category:Muhammad (صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم) listed on Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_September_28. Not quite the same as that is a cat not an article, but I mention it because it shows that the problem (if it is one) is not exclusive to East Asian alphabets. There've been a few in Cyrillic as well. I think the consensus is generally not to have mixed-language titles, although we've never explicitly said so. Si Trew (talk) 05:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: This entry was relisted by user:TheChampionMan1234 who neglected to add this template
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 10:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete because it causes unhelpful clogging-up of results for anyone (whether Korean-literate or not) who puts 한채영 into the search box and waits for autocomplete, and because the English part is a misspelling (not the WP:COMMONNAME in reliable sources, nor official Revised Romanization of Korean which wouldn't put the space in the middle of the given name and even disapproves of unnecessary hyphens [22]). RFD typically deletes foreign-language misspellings, and in principle I think this case is similar. Taken together I think these two issues cause enough harm to outweigh the problem of breaking hypothetical external links. (talk) 06:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

October 6[edit]

Are You Bidding Yet? Service Mark[edit]

Implausible redirect ViperSnake151  Talk  17:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not at target. Wikipedia does not generally recognize service marks, trademarks etc, per WP:TRADEMARK ("Do not use the ™ and ® symbols, or similar, in either article text or citations"); to have it in the title is absurd. Are you bidding yet? might be all right, I've never heard of them but I presue this is a slogan used on ads in the US or something: but the "Service Mark" bit is too much, I think. My search at Google brought nothing with this phrase. Si Trew (talk) 21:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Before it was made a redirect, the article was literally about the trademark itself, ridiculously enough. ViperSnake151  Talk  04:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Potpoupri (album)[edit]

There seems to be no album of such name. � (talk) 15:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete - Implausible redirect. For the record: previous "discussion". —capmo (talk) 17:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. The previous "Discussion" was RichFarmbrough, who is always wrong. So by default it should be the opposite of the mischief he and his bots do. Si Trew (talk) 21:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
    • @SimonTrew: Please remove or strike that ad hominem. This is the second time today I've had to caution you about inappropriate comments about the same user, any further ones I will simply remove per WP:NPA. Thryduulf (talk) 22:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Struck. I didn't see any warning, by the way, but I do realise that arguing vigorously, when written, can seem a lot harsher than if it were face-to-face. I sincerely apologise that it seemed otherwise. Si Trew (talk) 05:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong keep per my argument in the previous discussion: "when a redirect has existed for years we need evidence of it actually causing harm or a detailed explanation why it will (not may) cause harm in future before we should even consider deleting it and we have neither here. When, as Rich Farmbrough demonstrates, the redirect is plausible the burden for deletion becomes significantly higher. That burden becomes much higher again when, as here, the stats show evidence of use. So to sum up we have evidence of plausibility and of use and no evidence of harm, so deletion would be detrimental to the encyclopaedia". Exactly nothing has changed since August. Thryduulf (talk) 22:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
    Excuse me, sir, but Rich Farmbrough hasn't demonstrated anything, he just affirmed that it was either a plausible typo (which it is not; letters r and p are quite far from each other on a keyboard) or "an alternative spelling/pronunciation for potpourri", again without providing any evidence for this claim. —capmo (talk) 03:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
    I don't think this is a particularly likely typo (although I've made stranger ones myself), but google searches do show that it is a misspelling that is made (including several by Japanese speakers, perhaps it's a phonological thing?). Also I took into account WP:RFD#KEEP point 5 - someone finds it useful - both Rich Farmbrough and the viewing stats show that this is found useful. Thryduulf (talk) 10:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak delete Unlikely, but somewhat plausible typo. - TheChampionMan1234 04:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Apology. I've left an apology at User talk:Rich Farmbrough#Sorry for the ad hom. I didn't mean it as a personal attack, and I'm sorry it came across like that. I can only apologise. Si Trew (talk) 05:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


I know about the Chinese population there, but the reason I am nominating this redirect is that we do not have redirects like 柔佛州新山古晉亞庇檳城莎阿南馬六甲市 and so on. - TheChampionMan1234 06:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete. Unlikely search term at the English language Wikipedia. G Translate gives me 可以的蠕蟲 as the translation for "can of worms", how accurate that is I cannot tell. Si Trew (talk) 08:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
    @SimonTrew:LOL, that literally means "a worm that can" as “可以” means that you can do something as opposed to a can of worms, soup etc. - TheChampionMan1234 09:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
@TheChampionMan1234: Et tu! Even a worm will turn, especially if it is part of a worm drive. Si Trew (talk) 09:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


A google search mainly returns Wikipedia mirrors such as TheFreeDictionary - TheChampionMan1234 06:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete. The circumflex (French: circonflex) on the O indicates a missing S from the Latin (so that Latin: fenestra f'rexample is French: "fênetre" and Spanish: fenestre, and English "defenestration", to throw someone out of a window). It is not an elision from "Hexagosne", and in any case the etymology is of course not Latin but Greek. Hexagon (disambiguation) lists Metropolitan France because of the rough shape of mainland France; it is frequently so-called on weather bulletins. Not Hexagône, though, because it's nonsense. fr:Hexagône does not exist, one gets the search page. Si Trew (talk) 09:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Comment. Even fr:Hexagon is just a two-line stub for a proprietary computer program. The correct French for the six-sided plane shape would be fr:Hexagone, which mirabile dictu is tied up via Wikidata to our Hexagon. Si Trew (talk) 09:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Comment. Hexagone is an R to Hexagon. It was marked as {{R from alternate language}} and {{R from ASCII}} and something else. I've replaced those with these edits to have it as {{R from misspelling}}}, taking WP:BOLD. "ô" is not in ASCII anyway so that is just wrong. I don't think that affects this discussion. Si Trew (talk) 10:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Delete This is a sufficiently out-there spelling that if someone types it in, it's pretty unclear what they're trying to search for. --ais523 14:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Comment. I'm the one who created this redirect. I don't have an opinion on whether or not it should be deleted. I would not be offended if it were. It was so long ago I don't remember the circumstances that led me to create it. Foobaz·o< 08:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

October 5[edit]

Wikipedia:Unicode subscripts and superscripts[edit]

Old misguided move to project space, not really needed � (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Tricky. These are "reader-facing", and I think the consensus here is that CNR should not be taken too literally but whether it is a "reader-facing" or "editor-facing" namespace.
So I would Retarget to Help:Multilingual_support#Unicode, as Wikipedia:Unicode does. (I've just marked that as {{R to section}} and left a courtesy comment at the target.)
But that section does not mention subscript and superscript characters, and I doubt if I inserted a sentence back to the target (as a {{see}} or some such), that it would stick. Si Trew (talk) 08:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Castro (musician)/version 2[edit]

Title not related somehow. →Enock4seth (talk) 11:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment the redirect has history that has to be preserved somewhere for attribution. Whoever handled the content merge chose not to do a histmerge; I suppose their reason was that a strange redirect title is less harmful than the bizarre diffs in the page history that you inevitably get after a histmerge. (talk) 12:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I've essentially resolved this concern: I've moved the attributions from this redirect to Theophilus Tagoe, a new redirect I have tagged with {{R from real name}}. Attributions should no longer play a concern on the outcome of this discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 00:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete, now that the attributions have been moved. The format of the redirect title makes it look like a subpage, which it is not. Redirects with titles such as this do not aid navigation in Wikipedia. Steel1943 (talk) 00:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per Steel1943. Nice work! Si Trew (talk) 08:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Next Bulgarian parliamentary election[edit]

Currently this is outdated. Please delete it or redirect to Elections in Bulgaria Aight 2009 (talk) 07:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and consensus here ad nauseam; for all we know, Bulgaria might convene to hold a referendum next week. Si Trew (talk) 13:19, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Crystal ball policy also says "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place" which is definitely the case here. nOiyarbepsy (talk) 01:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
No, that's no good. I for one am confused, and if you don't want WP:CRYSTAL, take WP:NOTNEWS.You imply that we must update these things as events ravel, but that is not the job of an encyclopaedia. Even the "In the News" section on the main page does not report the news, but reports background articles about stuff in the news. We could provide "FURTHER BULLETINS AS EVENTS WARRANT if you want, but I don't see it as WP's task to be so up-to-date; perhaps we differ there.
The section on Parliamentary election says that members are elected for a four-year term, and with some exceptions (several), the last was in 2013. But there was one in 2014, and unless my calendar is on the blink, that is not four years. It's still WP:CRYSTAL in my opinion: the dates are supposed to be fixed but in practice are not; a vote of no confidence would force an early general election, and a government can vote itself out to force the election, as happened for example in the United Kingdom general election, October 1974). Si Trew (talk) 08:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's my point. We should have a statement somewhere that describes what reliable sources say about the next election - just after the present one that is most likely to be "the next election will happen on or before day month year". People want to know when the next election is, and so they look it up on Wikipedia - our job is to direct them to the best information we have on the topic, even if that information is not much (because there isn't much information out there). Yes, this means we need to keep these redirects up to date, but so what? We successfully keep millions of articles up-to-date. Thryduulf (talk) 12:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Good points well made. I try to be brief in reply:
So, these moving targets belong at WikiNews or Fox News or BBC News or whatever, but not in an encyclopaedia.
I think that is the point really on which we disagree. Can we leave the rest of it aside as agreed, and just argue on the "Next"? Si Trew (talk) 16:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
United Kingdom general election, 2015 (following the form of those I quote) is an R to "Next United"... surely that is wrong. Put the article at 2015, which is permanent, and put the R at "Next", which is variable. That was just lucky because I am a UK citizen who in theory has a vote, if I can afford the postage stamp, but Next United States general election is red; Next United States presidential election is blue(an R to United States presidential election, 2016). I argue that the US presidential election is foreseeable because of fixed terms and past history, leading to lame duck (politics) and so on, but that the UK or Bulgarian ones are not, which is why I have a tenner on at enin a vier with the magic sign that the UK one will be called in January. I might be £12.25 up if it comes in. I note also when I said "The last was in 2013", that was bllue, now it is red. Hence my argument about it being a moving target. Si Trew (talk) 16:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I think I understand what you are talking about, which can be condensed to "next" when referring to something that does not have a defined point in time is not encyclopaedic? IF that is what you are saying then I strongly disagree - the next election in X is an encyclopaedic target regardless of when it happens. There is no such thing as "truth for all time", the closest we can get is "truth as we understand it at the moment" (but see also WP:Verifiability not truth). I see no difference between the encyclopaedicness of "The next Fooian general election will happen on 7 May 2015.", "The next Barian general election must constitutionally happen on or before 29 September 2019", "The next Bazian general election is expected to happen at some point in 2017, but may happen at any time between December 2014 and March 2018." and "Quuxlad last held a general election in 2009, and the following ones were expected to happen in mid-2013. In December 2011 the military government suspended the constitution and indefinitely postponed the elections. As of October 2014 no replacement date has been set, and it is not clear when (or if) then elections will happen." (assuming all are verifiable, etc). Thryduulf (talk) 21:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Pretty much, yeah, "Next" is the trouble. I argue that "Next" is not encyclopaedic, you say it is. Verifiability vs truth I don't think comes into it much, obviously we all make mistakes etc and I don't think that's in question. I am arguing that "Next" is just always going to cause trouble: as is shown here when we have the "Next" Bulgarian election that has already happened. Now, I imagine (I don't want to put words in your mouth) that you would say "Well, just update the link to Bulgarian parliamentary election, 2016 or whatever". That's a fair stance. The sticking point is whether it is a useful search term: I say it ain't and you say it is, and I think that's a bit of an impasse. What would be great is if we could get stats for how long someone stays on a page (are they reading it or did they quickly click away muttering about it being the "wrong" article), but I dunno whether the Wikimedia software could do that sensibly (or any other web service). Si Trew (talk) 07:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
It is possible to track page view times (I don't know how accurately), but if the WMF do it (and I don't think they do) they don't release the data publicly. At Wikimania I attended a talk about reader behaviour, and they tracked the time spent on a page by using a Yahoo Toolbar (only from people who gave explicit consent to use the toolbar and share their data) [23]. The problem is that it isn't possible to distinguish those who moved on quickly because it wasn't what they were looking for, and those who moved on quickly because they quickly found everything they were looking for (e.g. they only wanted to know the date). We can't really cater for those people in the first group - a redlink and the wrong article are equally useless, but an appropriately targetted redirect gives the second group exactly what they were looking for, a redlink makes their search needlessly harder. My contention is that it is much better to help some people and be neutral towards the others than it is to hinder some people and help nobody. This does mean that someone needs to update the redirect when an election occurs, but that is both trivial and unavoidable. Thryduulf (talk) 17:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Comment. That's interesting, the "found it quickly" versus "obviously wrong article" discussion. I can see how that is a difficulty. Marketing people would have a field day with that.
I don't think it is trivial that "someone needs to update the redirect", because I gave examples where "someone" didn't and they were out of date. If it matters, I voted on Sunday. I think it is very important to cdo so, however you vote, whichever way you vote: otherwise you can't complain. Si Trew (talk) 21:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Kim Il-Sung City[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Pyongyang#Names where this name formation is discussed. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 21:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Not a valid name. - TheChampionMan1234 06:04, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Retarget as above. Si Trew (talk) 17:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Retarget per anon.--Lenticel (talk) 01:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Huh? Do you mean 61.10 as the anon? That says "retarget". Si Trew (talk) 04:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
My bad :P --Lenticel (talk) 10:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
A belated :P~~~ to you too! Si Trew (talk) 16:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.[edit]

Local domain name which isnt mentioned at target. - TheChampionMan1234 03:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep. Goes where it should. Website goes where it should. Si Trew (talk) 13:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment: Yes, is the Spanish site for Air China. One trick to remember, in case where the domain name does not go to the expected place, is to look it up in the Wayback Machine ( and check if the site ever went to the expected place in the past WhisperToMe (talk) 14:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - I can't believe this should ever be redlinked to encourage creation. Leaving us sending readers to what they're looking for, even if the information might be more general. WilyD 12:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


It was romanized as Taegu, but never this. - TheChampionMan1234 01:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep. Does no harm. Search results for me are mostly for professor Taeku Lee, who probably is notable but hasn't an article. TAEKU brings up TAEKU, which I am not sure what it is as the website is just a shell ("graphic design", "industrial design", and "architectural design" apparently, but they just seem to make handbills and posters). {{R from misspelling}}. Si Trew (talk) 01:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - Several sources have spelled the city's name this way, including:
    • Schätzl, Ludwig. Regional Development and Decentralization Policy in South Korea. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, January 1, 1997. ISBN 9813055480, 9789813055483. p. 310: "The cities of Pusan, Taeku, Inchon and Kwangju were administratively separated from the provinces of[...]"
    • Rupp, Heinz and Bernard Maisch. Control of Gene Expression by Catecholamines and the Renin-Angiotensin System (Volume 33 of Developments in Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry; Volumes 211-212 of Molecular and cellular biochemistry). Springer Science & Business Media, Nov 30, 2000. ISBN 0792379810, 9780792379812. p. 151. "Department of Animal Science and Biotechnology, College of Agriculture, Kyungbuk National University, Taeku. South Korea"
  • A good way of checking if a romanized term has been used is to enter it into Google Books.
  • WhisperToMe (talk) 02:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
I checked. Since Google knows my geographical address, it targets the results to me, sometimes unwontedly. Google's habit of predicting one's own life and usually getting it wrong. So that is why I said "my search engine brings up..."; I could not get past that. Nice work.Si Trew (talk) 13:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
@Siuenti: is probably the best to judge this one; @Hisashiyarouin:-san a close second. Si Trew (talk) 13:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Similar professor + inexplicable website + WP mirror results, even under incognito. 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 01:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
But following WhisperToMe and trying this ""taeku -lee" search on Google Books finds more mentions: