Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

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

Administrator instructions

Skip to Table of Contents. Skip to table of contents · Skip to current discussions · Purge this page
Shortcut:
Deletion discussions

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

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

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

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 as well, so it's not a necessary condition either. See When should we delete a redirect?

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

Centralized discussion
Proposals Discussions Recurring proposals
Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.

Contents

Before listing a redirect for discussion [edit]

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

The guiding principles of RfD [edit]

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

When should we delete a redirect? [edit]

Shortcut:

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

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

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

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

Shortcut:

Reasons for deleting [edit]

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

  1. The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine.[examples needed]
  2. The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so 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.
  10. If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject. In such a case, it is better that the target article contain a redlink than a redirect back to itself.
Shortcut:

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

Neutrality of redirects [edit]

Shortcut:

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

Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:

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

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

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

Closing notes [edit]

Details at: Administrator instructions for RfD.

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

How to list a redirect for discussion [edit]

Shortcut:

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

I.
Tag the redirect.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Current list [edit]

May 25 [edit]

฿ (disambiguation) [edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was procedural close, page is not a redirect; use {{db-disambig}} for speedy deletion, WP:PROD or WP:AFD for deletion of disambiguation pages. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:05, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Not necessary Your Lord and Master (talk) 02:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Delete At the time this was created (23 Oct 2012), ฿ was a disambiguation page (see here, the page was moved to Baht sign on 31 Oct 2012). As ฿ is a redirect to Thai baht, and not a disambiguation page, this redirect is no longer necessary. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 02:30, 25 May 2013 (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.

May 24 [edit]

The Homestead (Georges Hall, NSW), [edit]

Typo Dicklyon (talk) 23:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

65 million years ago [edit]

Cretaceous period ended 66 million years ago Eyesnore (PC) 19:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Keep it's commonly called 65 million years ago [1] [2] [3] -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 23:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep but follow redirect to the extinction event itself. 65 million = 66 million is absurd. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Human world losses by country after WWII [edit]

Delete. Newly created, misleading, absurd redirect. "Human world" is absurd; "World human" would be plausible but it doesn't read right. And it should be losses during WWII rather than after WWII. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Keep. I haven't been notified of the discussion for deletion of the redirect. Anyway I had in mind to insert it in a {{Further}} template. That is because the code doesn't not accept article sections. BTW have you ever heard of "non-earthlings" at all?   M aurice   Carbonaro  11:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm fairly sure there were no extraterrestrial casualties of WWII.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
      • @Fyre2387: How do you know?
      • @Maurice Carbonaro: I do apologize for not notifying you, but a majority of your edits violate Wikipedia guidelines or fail to make sense in English. Do I need to notify you of each of the edits I revert? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete-Borderline R3. As Arthur Rubin says above, the phrasing is just nonsensical.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Pineapple_face [edit]

Delete, abusive/offensive, not an actual nickname. Relaxing (talk) 16:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Brian Dunning (felon) [edit]

Severe BLP violation. No source calls Dunning a felon, and the final judgement is not publicly available. His case, where he entered into a plea deal is still ongoing as far as I can make out. His wire fraud case is a not the sole contributor to his notability, and this smacks of grave dancing. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Wrong: In pleading guilty, Dunning admitted that, between approximately May 2006 and June 2007, he engaged in a scheme to defraud eBay through so-called “cookie stuffing.” According to the plea agreement, commissions paid to Dunning’s company, Kessler’s Flying Circus (KFC), which Dunning owned jointly with his brother, totaled approximately $5.2 million during that period from eBay’s domestic Affiliate Program.Brian's page at FBI.GOV Zaphraud (talk) 04:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree that any use of the word "felon" in the title is unnecessary. The subject is well-established as primarily an author and businessman. His court case, once complete, merits a mention in the article but not in the title. I made a quick check and did not find any other BLPs that have that word in the descriptor. Allecher (talk) 13:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Maybe felony convictions for CEOs are regarded as just cutting the teeth in some circles, but for most of the world, pleading guilty to felony fraud does not go along with being a well-established anything, except a well-established felon. It certainly removes any chance anyone would mistake him as a well-established businessman - in many states, he can't even qualify for welfare anymore, let alone a business loan.Zaphraud (talk) 04:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete – I looked at the FBI most wanted list and other articles and could not find such descriptors. WP:NDESC is the guidance. The parens description is needed only because we have another Brian Dunning. "(author)" serves quite well. (Thanks) – S. Rich (talk) 13:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC) – S. Rich (talk) 16:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Well OF COURSE he's not on the FBI's most wanted list. He pled guilty and is awaiting sentencing. I think you have a very flawed idea of what the most wanted list is - that's a list of fugitives from the law, not a list of felons. You can find his page on the FBI's website here: [4] Zaphraud (talk) 04:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
It wouldn't be necessary at all, except for the fact there is more than one guy with that name. As a result, his most notable act - ripping off millions of dollars - should distinguish him. The use of felon here is actually quite kind, as it is merely a legal term, backed by both facts and admission of guilt. It's not like I moved the page to Brian Dunning (mega-thief). Zaphraud (talk) 04:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete pbp 20:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep I had no idea who this Internet personality was until I read of his crimes in the news, which involved several million dollars. Definitely several orders of magnitude more significant than any influence his podcast series has ever had. Dunning is certainly no Richard Dawkins by any stretch of the imagination, but when it comes to electronic fraud, Brian Dunning is The Man. Well, almost - he's still #2 to Shawn Hogan. Zaphraud (talk) 04:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
It is not for you to go around calling living people felons when no source does and when you connect the dots. That is WP:BLP violation, and a particularly nasty one. There was a plea deal and you don't know the substance of that deal. If you are unable to see why calling someone a felon is a bad idea, then you should not be editing BLPs. If you perform more BLP violations on other biographies I will seek a sanction on the topic area at arbitration enforcement. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Comment Per the FBI press release on this matter, an "evidentiary hearing to determine the loss amount will be held on August 8, 2013." (The reference is on the Dunning talk page, #4.) With this in mind, we do not know how much was taken. Depends upon what the prove-up. In any event, the parens "(author)" serves quite well to distinguish him from the other Dunning. – S. Rich (talk) 05:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Matter logo.png [edit]

Re-titled non-free image, all uses updated making this redirect redundant. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 06:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

  • don't speedy delete. I don't know whether there is a value to having these long term, but it's best to keep them around for at least a short while to help people find the new location. Thryduulf (talk) 09:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

File:MATTER logo.png [edit]

Non-free image redirect, re-titled owing to duplicative file names. Relevant uses updated, so redirect is redundant. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 06:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Don't speedy delete per above. Thryduulf (talk) 09:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

May 23 [edit]

Aurolac [edit]

Originally tagged as speedy, but declined. Aurolac is (or was) a commercial brand name for an industrial product manufactured in Romania. As shown in the film Children Underground, it was frequently abused as an inhalant. However, I still believe creating a redirect from a commercial brand name to the article about inhalant abuse violates NPOV, as it seems to negatively state that that's the only use it ever has/had. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 17:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Aurolac was a synthetic paint thinner used in Romania; I believe it is no longer manufactured. It was so popular with huffers that the name became the Romanian word for someone who huffs inhalants (usually in the plural, aurolaci). We could have a disambiguation page at Aurolac also providing an article about the synthetic paint thinner itself or about synthetic paint thinners in general (I don't know enough about it to write it), but people reading about the problems of Romanian youth are very likely to run into the term aurolaci (it often fails to be translated to an equivalent English-language colloquialism), and I think the link is entirely appropriate, certainly not amounting to anything like an attack. - Jmabel | Talk 19:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep The redirect doesn't "state that that's the only use it ever has/had". It simply links to an article where there is some information about Aurolac, and so is likely to be useful to people looking for that information. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Blurred Lines [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 process, being handled at WP:RM. Thryduulf (talk) 09:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

It is now not possible to access the Blurred Lines by Robin Thicke featuring T.I. and Pharrell because it redirects to Robin Thicke's page. This is why am I requesting for it to be removed!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucifer1998 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 23 May 2013‎ (UTC)

  • Speedy close already being discussed at the move request at Talk:Blurred Lines (song) ; and inaccessibility of the article can be fixed with a hatnote at the target. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 04:35, 24 May 2013 (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.

May 22 [edit]

Hydrostat [edit]

The humidifier article doesn't even have a Humidistat section - but it doesn't matter, a Humidistat is not a Hydrostat, so this redirect doesn't make sense. We have no other article to redirect this to (although we should). Ariel. (talk) 03:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

New Super Mario Bros. 3 [edit]

Retarget to New Super Mario Bros. 2, because it's is the third New Super Mario Bros. game. Talk page is hoax, and current target is incorrect. Darrman (talk) 15:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

  • In what way is the talk page a "hoax"? It seems to contain legitimate discussion of the subject. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Not to me, it seems more like that it's someone speculating about a game that does not exist. Where's the legitimate discussion? Darrman (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
      • In that case it is the existence of redirect page itself that is the hoax. (I know less than nothing about video games so I couldn't judge the content of the page as such.) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete not sure if WP:CRYSTAL affects redirects as much as articles but this looks like a speculation to me.--Lenticel (talk) 02:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete for now. I don't see any plans at present for a Super Mario Bros 3, at least not as it is currently titled. I think it might be a little misleading to redirect to New Super Mario Bros. 2, as people might mistake it for the actual title. When I looked for any search results, I only found talk of a fan-made game and no official titles, and the fan-made game isn't notable enough to warrant an entry or mention at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

May 21 [edit]

Redirects of Harry Potter characters from post-wedding names [edit]

The characters are never reffered to by these last names in the Harry Potter books; in fact, the last one is reffered to by her old last name after she got married. Even in the real world, some women don't change their last name when they get married; there is no reason to think it's any different in the world of Harry Potter; and with the exception of Ginny, there is no hint in the books that any one of these women did, in fact, change their last names. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Keep all. Redirects are cheap, these are all used, point to the correct targets and aren't in the way of anything else. No reason to delete them. Thryduulf (talk) 15:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep all pbp 20:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Southern nationalism [edit]

Southern nationalism is not the same thing as the Confederacy, or as supporting the Confederacy. In America today, the primary use of the term would probably be to refer to modern-day Southern nationalism, rather then nationalistic support of the Confederacy during the Civil War.

That's just in America, other countries may well have "southern nationalism" of their own. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Delete or disambiguate this is clear US-history bias, not considering more modern US south nationalism, or Bolivarism, etc. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 08:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete/recreate as disambig per 65.94.76.126.-- Brainy J (previously Atlantima) ~✿~ (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Create an article This is definitely a topic with a lot of information on it, both antebellum and postbellum, from the Dukes of Hazzard to the writings of John C. Calhoun pbp 20:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Harry's Wife [edit]

There are so many "Harry"'s this title could be referring to - there is no reason one would expect this title to be used for Harry Potter (character), not the many real and fictional people by this name. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

  • "Harry's Wife" is a song by Eric Bogle, but there seems to be no article that mentions this, so delete. TimBentley (talk) 00:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete per above -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 08:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete this redirect is vague since there are lots of notable Harry's aside from HP that has a wife. A dab would be too unwieldy.--Lenticel (talk) 02:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Revolutionary War [edit]

Would "American Revolutionary War" really be the primary topic? Wouldn't this be better as a disambig or a redirect to Revolution? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 12:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps ARW is not the proper redir, but revolution certainly isn't. People looking for information on revolutionary wars will not be looking for information about the industrial revolution. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC) (ps. thanks for the note on my talk page, I never would have seen this otherwise!)

This should be a disambiguation page, there are plenty of examples that fit the description. Reiftyr (talk) 17:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete or disambiguate this is clear US bias -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 08:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Note Revolutionary war also redirects to American Revolutionary War. Revolutionary wars redirects to Revolution. Revolutionary Wars is an existing dab page (with only two entries, one of them ARW). It seems likely all four should go to the same place... Sideways713 (talk) 13:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Revolution.--Lenticel (talk) 02:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. Google books and scholar results show that the clear primary topic for "Revolutionary War" (singular) is the American war, and that the clear primary topic for "Revolutionary Wars" (plural) are the French wars. The two articles should link to each other with hatnotes and, in the absence of a separate article about the general concept, Revolution and/or List of revolutions and rebellions. Almost every armed revolution is sometimes known as a revolutionary war so a separate dab page would substantially duplicate the list article. Thryduulf (talk) 13:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

May 20 [edit]

MGM [edit]

re-target to MGM (disambiguation) or alternatively, move MGM disambig page over top of this. MetGolMay isn't the only notable use of the initialism. Ranze (talk) 23:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

May 19 [edit]

May 18 [edit]

Gabrielle song [edit]

This could refer to songs by Gabrielle, a song called "Gabrielle" or a misspelling of Gabrielle Songe (whether that's plausible or not depends on the pronunciation, which isn't given in the article). The redirect was caused by creation of an article with an incomplete title, a mistake corrected by the same editor three minutes later. Probably better to leave as a red link. Peter James (talk) 18:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

ƀ [edit]

Delete, if technically possible. I am referring here to lower-case ƀ, not upper-case Ƀ. The lower-case form should not exist as a page title distinct from the upper-case form of the same letter, but apparently it does, as evidenced by its listing at Special:DoubleRedirects for the past couple months. Could this redirect be a legacy from a time when MediaWiki was configured differently? It came to light as a double redirect when the target was moved. I have been unable to find any way to edit this redirect, or indeed do anything with it, as all my efforts to access ƀ take me to Ƀ. – Wdchk (talk) 17:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Delete - this appears to be unusable unless a page or revision id is added to the URL, and unnecessary. Fortunately it was created in a page move and I could find a link via Special:Contributions to add the Rfd template. Peter James (talk) 18:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
    Links are ƀ and history. Peter James (talk) 18:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete - For the reasons given by the others above. No need for this entry to exist as the lower case form. EdJohnston (talk) 11:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

May 17 [edit]

Genetic Misconceptions [edit]

Sparsely used, unlikely search term. Page history shows that this was once an OR-laden article not worth keeping. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:EWNB [edit]

Please redirect it to Edit Warring Notice Board! Tito Dutta (contact) 07:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Note the proposed target is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thryduulf (talk) 10:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Neutral. This gets quite a bit of traffic, but it's not possible to say whether they were intending the current target or the proposed one. I'm inclined to think that if the majority of people were ending at the wrong place someone would have added a hatnote by now (whichever target is chosen, the other should be linked from a hatnote). There are only 4 incoming links that are uses, 3 intending the current target and 1 (the most recent) the proposed target - but that's really not enough to base a firm judgement on. Both traffic and link stats weakly favour the current target, but against that is that the English Wikipedians' notice board (where this redirect originally pointed and what it represents) has long since been merged to the UK Wikipedians' notice board and that the proposed target is by far the busier page. To me these completely balance out and so I am really not sure which target I favour! Thryduulf (talk) 10:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Convert to a dab page to Wikipedia:UK Wikipedians' notice board and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring.--Lenticel (talk) 14:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

POKETTO MONSUTAA EMERARUDO CHOUSEN!! BATORU FURONTIA [edit]

The title looks like a vandal page. Of course it's not, but the title is capital screaming, and even uses '!'. I really thought it was a vandal hoax, and that's why I found this page. What are our readers going to say for this? Seonookim (What I've done so far) (I'm busy here) (Tell me your requests) 02:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment: It's common for Japanese titles to have that punctuation. when the reader sees the romaji, he/she will understand. I may have gotten the all caps version from a copyright notice on a web page. I'll have to take a look. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep as harmless, but mark as {{unprintworthy}}. The stats show quite significant usage, but given the activity around the redirect it's not a definitive statement of regular use in recent months, but even looking at the last few months of 2012 (when the history was quiet) it was regularly getting hits above background noise. Thryduulf (talk)
  • Keep as possible romaji translation. I think it is not the best translation but it is a plausible synonym.--Lenticel (talk) 14:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

May 16 [edit]

William P. Potter [edit]

Delete - William P. Potter is not notable and only loosely related to USS Vermont (BB-20) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derekbridges (talk • contribs)

  • Keep-Individual is mentioned in the target's lead. Notability is not a requirement for a redirect; on the contrary, non-notable subjects are often redirected to an article on a related notable subject--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Peroxide blonde [edit]

Peroxide blonde is no longer listed at Blond#Varieties. I don't know what should be done with it. Tideflat (talk) 02:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment I've added a ref for the peroxide blond entry on this new target.--Lenticel (talk) 06:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment though dyed-blond should appear in the list of varieties. Retarget per Lenticel in either case. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 06:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment "Peroxide" is currently listed at Blond#Varieties (second last in the list) and WikiBlame has found no addition or removal in the last 500 revisions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
    Then I suppose we can close this Tideflat (talk) 00:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

May 15 [edit]

Template:Metro St Louis [edit]

Template-to-article namespace redirect. Unused. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Reverse lottery [edit]

This used to be a short page on one aspect of the target television show, but the target page doesn't mention it at all. It was only redirected, not merged, so we can safely delete. It's borderline WP:REDLINK, as even the former article admitted the concept wasn't unique to 8 Out of 10 Cats. But either way, the redirect as it is isn't helpful. BDD (talk) 19:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

NewsCenter [edit]

Yes, Channel 4 News is the successor of NewsCenter 4. The problem is because some of stations have used NewsCenter as newscast name past or present without NBC affiliate. jcnJohn Chen (Talk-Contib.) RA 05:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Stubbify since there are many NewsCenters. A set index article can be created. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 05:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Jetix (Worldwide) [edit]

Needless redirect for a defunct channel. jcnJohn Chen (Talk-Contib.) RA 05:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Keep-I see no compelling reason to delete. Redirects are cheap.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree, I see no solid reason for deletion. - Camyoung54 talk 20:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Note none of the redirects listed have been tagged. Per the instructions this is a requirement of nominating redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 10:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep per Fyre2387 and Camyoung54. Thryduulf (talk) 10:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:NOTTEMPORARY, we don't delete things when they no longer exist. 117Avenue (talk) 04:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

May 14 [edit]

PTV National Award [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. --BDD (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete per WP:REDLINK. Apparently the only article we have relating to the PTV Awards is the 2012 ceremony. I considered tagging these with {{R with possibilities}}, but not having an article on the award ceremony at all seems too great an omission for that. BDD (talk) 23:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how I missed that one! Withdrawn. --BDD (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2013 (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.

SP:BR [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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)}

Soft redirect to a special page. Of no use whatsoever. — This, that and the other (talk) 08:07, 14 May 2013 (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.

Violence against men [edit]

(re-targeting, or turn into disambig) tantamount to redirecting violence to domestic violence. Domestic violence is not the only form of violence that exists so a "violence against X" statement doesn't necessarily refer specifically to "domestic violence against X". Suggest we make a disambiguation page which features DVAM but which also lists other forms of gendered violence, such as penis removal war crimes or related. Consider that there is also a simple violence against women article that this cognate disambig has potential to expand into. First, second and third deletion nominations are relevant to discussion, consensus reached to redirect to DVAM at end, but do not agree with decision. It's worth noting but the phrase is too inclusive to restrict to this specific form of VAM. We should lack of neutrality to only direct browsers to a single form. No indication someone using phrase would necessarily be referring to only domestic types. Ranze (talk) 21:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

May 13 [edit]

WPASK [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 deleted per G2 and because I as a creator, endorse the delete per it's lack of usage, Sadads (talk) 17:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete. This was originally a redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, but following an RfD in January 2011 it was retargetted to WP:ASK which at the same time was converted into a disambiguation page between the WikiProject and it's previous target Wikipedia:Questions (originally Wikipedia:Ask a question). Today it gets between 1 and 4 hits a month, which is precisely the range associated with bot-only visits, meaning it is an essentially unused cross-namespace redirect (CNR). CNRs aren't in themselves necessarily harmful, but they have the potential to be (see WP:CNR) and so this potential for harm needs to be balanced against their usefulness. In this case I don't see a low traffic (20-30 hits/month) project-space disambiguation page as being of much use to users unfamiliar with namespaces (the people who are the primary beneficiaries of CNRs), or indeed anyone else I can think of.
I've had a look for a possible article-space target, and the only thing I can find is that WPA-SK is sometimes used to refer to WPA pre-shared key mode (a type of wifi security) more usually abbreviated WPA-PSK, but that is uncommon, tenuous and not used in the article. Thryduulf (talk) 17:05, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

May 12 [edit]

Schwarzrheindorf/Vilich-Rheindorf [edit]

Implausible typo or misnomer Revolution1221 (talk · email · contributions) 23:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Keep redirect, or create a stub. --Fadesga (talk) 23:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete Unlikely search. - Camyoung54 talk 21:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Ukrainian People's Hromada [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 deleted per G7. Thryduulf (talk) 08:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I just created this redirect, then realised the "Ukranian People's Hromada" (e.g. as linked on the Pavlo Skoropadskyi article) can't be referring to the same thing as Hromada (political party) as that was only founded years later. DexDor (talk) 12:56, 12 May 2013 (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.

2030 FIFA World Cup [edit]

No information about this WC yet. There will presumably in due time be multiple bids to host the event, but there is an implicit favourtism in directing readers to just one Kevin McE (talk) 11:48, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

  • No other potential bids yet. If another bids will appear in future then we will have the new main article instead this redirect. NickSt (talk) 13:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete as partisan or biased redirect.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 14:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Retarget to a new section at FIFA World Cup hosts. We have an article with verifiable content about the 2030 world cup so it should get a mention on the main page for future championships, but at this stage it doesn't really need to be more than a sentence or two to say that this bid is the only one that presently exists (AFAIK anyway) and a link to the article. The present target I agree is wrong. Thryduulf (talk) 08:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Shawn Powell [edit]

There are other Shawn Powell's, including a well-known Newsday columnist, and it is unreasonable BLP emphasis that this not unusual name links to the relatively unimportant criminal in this unsavory scheme . DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Write an article or disambiguate. If there is only one Shawn Powell we have information on then it is right that the name redirects to that information. If there are other notable people by this name then write articles about them and dab the name and/or dab the name to the other articles where they are mentioned. Thryduulf (talk) 08:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate/start an article -- For the record, the columnist is Shaun (which has not been created), but there is another Shawn: a recently professional football player who probably passes notability guidelines on his college career alone. Either way, this redirect does not need to, as DGG says, point directly to the one minor criminal. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 13:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Shaun and Shawn should be linked by redirects or hatnotes (depending on creation status) as they are very likely misspellings of each other as DGG demonstrates above. Thryduulf (talk) 14:08, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Oh yes, I entirely agree. My point simply was that if someone wants to create Shaun Powell, this RfD need not hinder them. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 00:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

May 10 [edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Frané Lessac [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 These redirects fall under the aegis of WP:AfC, and have been kept for ages. No harm. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Was accepted and created in MAIN: 11:53, October 26, 2012‎ Gmt2001 (talk) 23:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Administratively close and defer the general decision to delete or keep leftover redirects from WP:AFC in the hands of that WikiProject. In other words, if there is nothing special about THIS redirect, there is no point in discussing it here. WP:COI disclaimer: I am an active participant in that WikiProject and have a clear bias towards keeping this decision in the hands of that WikiProject. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Let the wikiproject decide and leaning towards keep. There are some stale never-reviewed articles that have been abandoned but are good enough for article space, and in case these editors come back, I'd rather them see that there article is live than see a "this page has been deleted" message. Ego White Tray (talk) 02:57, 11 May 2013 (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.

Benson Gumball Machine [edit]

Overlap with Benson (Regular Show), manual of style Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 17:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

  • We often have multiple different redirects to the same thing, because different people type in different stuff when they're searching - there being an overlap between two redirects isn't a problem. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Then I guess the real issue I'm having is the name, most show characters have their names followed by the show title, this I can't imagine anyone looking for, unlike Benson (Regular Show), which already exists. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 00:21, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Administrator note: I honestly cannot make heads or tails of the above conversation. Grammarxxx, are you saying it should be deleted because there are two redirects to similar but different targets? I don't understand what is being suggested. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Sorry about the confusion but that's exctly what I'm suggesting. The (Regular Show) redirect fill the same purpose as the "Gumball machine" one, but is in line with the manual of style for character redirects by having the show name and not just a description. I can't see the need for multiple redirects, and I feel this one is more appropriate to delete. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 23:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
    Firstly, the two redirects do not "fill the same purpose", as they direct to two different articles (a fact that I missed initially). Secondly, MOS article title standards do not apply to redirects and we are not restricted to any specific formats - in fact, one widespread use of redirects is specifically for non-standard alternatives that people may search for. I really see no valid reason for deletion presented here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The WAV.s [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 Uncontested nomination ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

A page for the artists/producers The WAV.s does NOT exist. Its been redirected the Enrique Iglesias song "I Like How it Feels" yet this seems to be completely arbitrary as The WAV.s are featured on several songs including Kelly Rowland's "Down for Whatever" — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 16:53, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Template:Superior Lalazar Public School and College Thana Malakand [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 deleted' by Jimfbleak under criteria G2 and A10 (although neither apply, G6 does). Thryduulf (talk) 07:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Article was created in template space. Apparently the redirect resulting from moving it cannot be speedied. —teb728 t c 02:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure who told you that, but redirects that result from moving pages created in the wrong namespace are subject to G6 per an explicit talk page consensus a few months back. [[user:Jimfbleak]|] speedied this under incorrect criteria A10 (applies to the article namespace only) and G2 (applies to test pages only). Thryduulf (talk) 07:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion&oldid=556659380"