Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Centralized discussion
Proposals	Discussions	Recurring proposals
RFC on appropriate handling/removal of non-free images that breach WP:NFCC policy #9. RfC on the proposed cessation of selective delete (other than history merge fixes) and resulting changes to deletion policies, including the removal of a Revision Deletion criterion. Invitation to comment on candidates standing for 2012 Audit Subcommittee appointment RfC about whether "new messages" banner hoaxes should be prohibited RfC on how files from non-copyright states should be treated and used on WP Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.
archive · talk · edit · history · watch

Before listing a redirect for discussion

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

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

The guiding principles of RfD

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

When should we delete a redirect?

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

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

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

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

Reasons for deleting

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

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

Reasons for not deleting

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

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

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

Neutrality of redirects

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

Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:

1. Articles that are created using non-neutral titles are routinely moved to a new neutral title, which leaves behind the old non-neutral title as a working redirect (e.g. Dalmatian Kristallnacht → Dalmatian anti-Serb riots of May 1991; Climategate → Climatic Research Unit email controversy).
2. Articles created as POV forks may be deleted and replaced by a redirect pointing towards the article from which the fork originated (e.g. Barack Obama Muslim rumor → deleted and redirected to Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008).
3. The subject matter of articles may be represented by some sources outside Wikipedia in non-neutral terms. Such terms are generally avoided in Wikipedia article titles, per the words to avoid guidelines and the general neutral point of view policy. For instance the non-neutral expression "Attorneygate" is used to redirect to the neutrally titled Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. The article in question has never used that title, but the redirect was created to provide an alternative means of reaching it because a number of press reports use the term.

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

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

Closing notes

Details at: Administrator instructions for RfD.

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

How to list a redirect for discussion

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

I.

Flag the redirect.   Enter {{rfd}} above the #REDIRECT on the redirect page you are listing for discussion. Example: {{rfd}} #REDIRECT [[Foo]] Please do not mark the edit as minor (m). Please include in the edit summary the phrase: Nominated for RFD: see [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]] Save the page.

II.

List the entry on RfD.  Click here to edit the section of RfD for today's entries. Enter this text below the date heading: {{subst:rfd2|redirect=RedirectName|target=TargetArticle|text=The action you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for that action.}} ~~~~ For the template in the previous step: Put the redirect's name in place of "RedirectName", put the target article's name in place of "TargetArticle", and include a reason after text=. Note that, for this step, the "target article" is the current target of the redirect (if you have a suggestion for a better target, include this in the text that you insert after text=). Please use an edit summary such as: Nominating [[RedirectName]] replacing RedirectName with the name of the redirect you are nominating. To list multiple related redirects for discussion, use the following syntax. Repeat line 2 for N number of redirects: {{subst:rfd2|redirect=RedirectName1|target=TargetArticle1}} {{subst:rfd2m|redirect=RedirectName2|target=TargetArticle2}} {{subst:rfd2m|redirect=RedirectNameN|target=TargetArticleN|text=The actions you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for those actions.}} ~~~~

• Please consider using What links here to locate other redirects that may be related to the one you are nominating. After going to the redirect target page and selecting "What links here" in the toolbox on the left side of your computer screen, select both "Hide transclusions" and "Hide links" filters to display the redirects to the redirect target page.
• It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the redirect that you are nominating the redirect. To find the main contributors, look in the page history of the redirect. For convenience, the template

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

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

Current list

February 12

File:The Salamander.jpg

• File:The Salamander.jpg → File:La Salamandre (1971 movie poster).jpg (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Unused? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

File:0207L COPPOLA 15P.jpg

• File:0207L COPPOLA 15P.jpg → File:Sam Coppola.jpg (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Completely unused ? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

February 11

Do Right and Kill Everything

• Do Right and Kill Everything → Drake (entertainer) (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Delete redirect: Per WP:Redirect, "If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful", "The redirect makes no sense". Dan56 (talk) 04:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• According to this entertainer's facebook page, the stage name "DRAKE" is an acronym for exactly this phrase. A google search for marketing materials (t-shirts, etc) matched to this entertainer confirms the link. While I consider this an incivil and nonsensical marketing gimmick, I consider most modern music nonsense. The redirect, however, is plausible in context. Keep. Rossami (talk) 12:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Probably Criticism of American foreign policy would make a better target. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• I think it's originally from the lyrics of his song "Miss Me". But isn't this too trivial to be a redirect to Drake? Or too obscure to make it likely for anyone to actually search it? Dan56 (talk) 23:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

South Texas Plains

• South Texas Plains → Tamaulipan mezquital (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Either redirect or delete. South Texas Plains is a recognized geographical area of the state of Texas. Texas Parks and Wildlife Dept page defining South Texas Plains to specific counties in Texas. The target on this redirect is an area that includes a large part of Mexico.Maile66 (talk) 00:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

February 10

PC vs. Mac

• PC vs. Mac → Get a Mac (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• Mac vs. PC → Get a Mac (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Mac & PC → Get a Mac (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• PC & Mac → Get a Mac (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Added similar redirects to nomination. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The redirect page should be deleted for obvious reasons. Typing in PC vs. Mac redirects a user to the "Get a Mac" commercial page. Wikipedia is no place for "versus" pages, and that includes redirects. Apage titled PC vs. Mac is invalid for Wikipedia, as it is not something you can give information about. It may also confuse people and may lead them to believe Wikipedia is biased. Please delete this redirect page. OwnedU2Fast (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Redirects do not have to comply with the NPOV policy. Having said that, the history behind this redirect shows that the page was originally a screed against the bias in the Mac commercials. It was poorly titled for that purpose. It was nominated for speedy-deletion in 2007 but probably did not fit any of the criteria. The content was overwritten with the redirect when the page should have been sent to AfD. I concur that the current situation creates a redirect that is actively confusing to readers. Delete. Rossami (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Retarget to Comparison of operating systems or Operating system advocacy. The latter may be even better, given that the query like that would be related to some advocacy-related content. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment don't forget Mac vs. PC , Mac & PC , PC & Mac ... the latter two might just retarget to Personal computer instead... 70.24.247.54 (talk) 05:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: The history behind the added redirect names is not as problematic as the first one. I'm not sure that either of the two proposed targets are perfect but I have no strong objection to retargeting either. Rossami (talk) 12:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep People commonly refer to the Get a Mac campaign by Mac vs. PC. Both of them are being heavily used so I don't think it would be wise to delete them because it would likely result in a duplicate article. Tideflat (talk) 00:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "'Comment"' However, if you look at the history for "PC vs. Mac" you will find that the person who created the redirect was indeed a Mac fanboy, with biased intentions. People will criticize Wikipedia for bias. We wouldn't make a "Burger King vs. McDonald's" page redirect to "Burger King" right? We wouldn't even have the "versus" page to begin with because that is opinionated and has no place in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OwnedU2Fast (talk • contribs) 14:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Then retargeting these redirects to Operating system advocacy would be a good choice, as the page links to Get a Mac article but still is neutral regarding OwnedU2Fast's concerns. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Wikicommons

• Template:Wikicommons → Template:Commons (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• Template:Commonscategory → Template:Commons category (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• Template:Wikimedia Commons → Template:Commons (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• Template:Sisterlinkswp → Template:Commons (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• Template:Pic → Template:Commons (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• Template:Commonstiny → Template:Commons (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• Template:Commonspiped → Template:Commons (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• Template:Commonspar → Template:Commons (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• Template:Commonsimages → Template:Commons (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• Template:Commons-gallery → Template:Commons (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• Template:CommonsCat → Template:Commons category (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• Template:Commoncat → Template:Commons category (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Unused redirect to {{Commons category}}. It will make it easier to maintain bots if this and similar redirects are orphaned and deleted. See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_27#Template:Commonsme and 2 next discussions for similar deletion request that was closed as delete. MGA73 (talk) 20:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete: such (template: to template:) redirects end up causing problems for bots and closers of XfD discussions. Now we have a chance to remove several painlessly. Don't see a reason not to use this opportunity. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Joined several similar nominations. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep some "Wikicommons" "Wikimedia Commons" "Commonscategory" "CommonsCat" are all reasonable for editors of Wikipedia to use. Bots can be programmed to take these into account. 70.24.247.54 (talk) 05:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

New editors will most likely copy the template/name from another category or article instead of guessing what the name may be. "Old" editors will either know the name of the template or it will only take them 5 seconds to look up the right name. So I doubt anyone will miss the redirects.

If en-wiki has a category of an article with a redirect and a user copy the category/article to another wiki to translate then there will be a red link on that other wiki or they will need the same redirect on xx-wiki.

So I still think it would make things much easier if we delete the redirects and use the correct template and one or tro well known redirect names. --MGA73 (talk) 08:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I would also note, that target names are more intuitive then those of redirects'. Though any name is OK to use for template, I just fail to see a rationale to have several for one template. (With rare exceptions of shortcuts to maintenance tags like {{cn}} for {{citation needed}}, {{primary}} for {{primary sources}} and several similar.) — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete some "Pic" "Sisterlinkswp " are highly misleading. 70.24.247.54 (talk) 05:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

February 9

American Medical Association Alliance

• American Medical Association Alliance → American Medical Association (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

delete; no justification in the article for this formulation of the organization's name - seems to be a wholly separate organization per the below discussion in any event Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete as misleading. My rationale is stated in discussion about AMAA below. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

AMAA

• AMAA → American Medical Association (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

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

• Delete: clearly misleading redirect. The name used to stand for a DAB for American Medical Association Alliance and Armenian Missionary Association of America. Then someone created American Medical Association Alliance mistaking it for alternative name for American Medical Association (which was probably the intent of the naming and branding of AMAA), and this redirect replaced the DAB. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete and also delete American Medical Association Alliance as unjustified by its target as well. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete, although as far as I'm concerned it could simply be retargeted to African Movie Academy Award. A separate disambiguation page could perhaps be created to including Association Mauricienne d'Athlétisme Amateur (see Mauritian records in athletics), Atlantic Messianic Alliance of America (see List of Messianic Jewish organizations), Armenian Missionary Association of America (see Armenian Evangelical Church). older ≠ wiser 20:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

February 8

Human consumption

• Human consumption → Anthropophagy (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

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

• Disambiguate This is a tricky one, but I was able to make a dab of sorts. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Weak retarget to Consumption (sociology), or just delete - The idea to disambiguate was a good one, but there doesn't seem to be enough material to disambiguate; for instance, it's a bit of a strecth to include Consumer (food chain) since that article makes only a passing mention of consumption of other organisms by humans. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

  Disambiguate as suggested by Mr. Czarkoff Retarget to Consumption. The disambiguation page suggested by the comments above and below would largely duplicate the one that already exists at Consumption, with only the modifier "as it applies to humans" added. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

  I would disambiguate between anthropophagy and Consumption then, as the former is a logical choice for Human consumption but clearly not for Consumption. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

  That's a valid point. I wasn't aware that we disambiguated disambiguation pages, but it make senses in this circumstance. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Disambiguate: I would actually read the title exactly as consumption of human, and I believe that there could be some more people reading it the same way. Still it is pretty evident that the other viewpoint is also present. BTW, the search term is actually a good one, so I wouldn't consider deletion as a viable option at all. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Disambiguate seems like it could refer to TB in humans as well... 70.24.247.54 (talk) 06:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

List of awesome dinosaurs

• List of awesome dinosaurs → List of dinosaurs (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

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

• Weak keep: useless but funny; harmless. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  I would agree if this was part of Category:Wikipedia humor, but why keep a useless page in mainspace? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

  It is harmless and its hit count is a little above noise level. Just no reason to delete. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

  I always thought the other way – that there must be a use/reason in order to keep – but perhaps it's different with redirects. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment WP:Redirects are cheap and it does have a few hits. A412 (Talk * C) 00:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

  Most of the hits in January are from me, I think, as I had added the redirect to my favorites and used it to navigate to en.wiki; before then, hits averaged about one every three days. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Philly.com

• Philly.com → The Philadelphia Inquirer (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

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

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

Pussy stank

• Pussy stank → Vaginitis (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

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

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

File:Trans-Asia ship.JPG

• File:Trans-Asia ship.JPG → File:Trans-Asia ship — MV Trans-Asia 3.jpg (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• File:Asia Malaysia.JPG → File:Trans-Asia ship — MV Asia Malaysia.jpg (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• File:Asia Pacific.jpg → File:Trans-Asia ship — MV Asia Pacific.jpg (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

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

• Delete per nom, highly misleading names. Salt "Asia Pacific" and "Asia Malaysia" as overly generic 70.24.247.54 (talk) 07:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete all, snow close. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

February 7

Lakoda Rayne members

• Dani Knights → Lakoda Rayne (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Cari Fletcher → Lakoda Rayne (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Paige Ogle → Lakoda Rayne (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Hayley Orrantia → Lakoda Rayne (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

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

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

Paul Ellwood, Jr.

• Paul Ellwood, Jr. → Paul M. Ellwood, Jr. (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Paul Ellwood, M.D. → Paul M. Ellwood, Jr. (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Paul M. Ellwood, Jr., M.D. → Paul M. Ellwood, Jr. (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Paul M. Ellwood, M.D. → Paul M. Ellwood, Jr. (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Paul Ellwood, Jr., M.D. → Paul M. Ellwood, Jr. (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Paul M Ellwood → Paul M. Ellwood, Jr. (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Paul M Ellwood Jr → Paul M. Ellwood, Jr. (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Paul M Ellwood MD → Paul M. Ellwood, Jr. (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Paul M Ellwood Jr MD → Paul M. Ellwood, Jr. (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Paul Ellwood Jr → Paul M. Ellwood, Jr. (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Paul Ellwood Jr MD → Paul M. Ellwood, Jr. (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Paul Ellwood MD → Paul M. Ellwood, Jr. (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Ellwood, Paul → Paul M. Ellwood, Jr. (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Ellwood, Paul M. → Paul M. Ellwood, Jr. (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Dr. Paul Ellwood → Paul M. Ellwood, Jr. (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Dr. Paul M. Ellwood → Paul M. Ellwood, Jr. (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Dr Paul Ellwood → Paul M. Ellwood, Jr. (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Dr Paul M Ellwood → Paul M. Ellwood, Jr. (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Dr. Ellwood → Paul M. Ellwood, Jr. (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Ellwood, Paul M → Paul M. Ellwood, Jr. (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• P. Ellwood → Paul M. Ellwood, Jr. (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• P. Ellwood, Jr. → Paul M. Ellwood, Jr. (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• P. Ellwood, Jr., M.D. → Paul M. Ellwood, Jr. (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• P.M. Ellwood → Paul M. Ellwood, Jr. (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• P.M. Ellwood, Jr. → Paul M. Ellwood, Jr. (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• P.M. Ellwood, Jr., M.D. → Paul M. Ellwood, Jr. (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• P Ellwood → Paul M. Ellwood, Jr. (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• P Ellwood, Jr → Paul M. Ellwood, Jr. (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• P Ellwood, Jr MD → Paul M. Ellwood, Jr. (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• PM Ellwood → Paul M. Ellwood, Jr. (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• PM Ellwood Jr → Paul M. Ellwood, Jr. (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• PM Ellwood Jr MD → Paul M. Ellwood, Jr. (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• P M Ellwood Jr → Paul M. Ellwood, Jr. (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• P M Ellwood Jr MD → Paul M. Ellwood, Jr. (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Paul Ellwood, Jr → Paul M. Ellwood, Jr. (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Paul Ellwood, Jr, MD → Paul M. Ellwood, Jr. (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Paul M Ellwood, Jr → Paul M. Ellwood, Jr. (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Paul M Ellwood, Jr, MD → Paul M. Ellwood, Jr. (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Dr Paul Ellwood, Jr → Paul M. Ellwood, Jr. (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Dr Paul Ellwood, Jr, MD → Paul M. Ellwood, Jr. (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Dr Paul M Ellwood, Jr → Paul M. Ellwood, Jr. (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Dr Paul M Ellwood, Jr, MD → Paul M. Ellwood, Jr. (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Dr. Paul M. Ellwood, Jr. → Paul M. Ellwood, Jr. (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Dr. Paul M. Ellwood, Jr., M.D. → Paul M. Ellwood, Jr. (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Dr. P. Ellwood → Paul M. Ellwood, Jr. (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Dr. P. Ellwood, Jr. → Paul M. Ellwood, Jr. (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Dr. P. Ellwood, Jr., M.D → Paul M. Ellwood, Jr. (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Dr. P.M. Ellwood → Paul M. Ellwood, Jr. (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Dr. P.M. Ellwood, Jr. → Paul M. Ellwood, Jr. (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Dr. P.M. Ellwood, Jr., M.D. → Paul M. Ellwood, Jr. (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Dr P Ellwood → Paul M. Ellwood, Jr. (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Dr P Ellwood, Jr → Paul M. Ellwood, Jr. (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Dr P Ellwood, Jr MD → Paul M. Ellwood, Jr. (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Dr PM Ellwood → Paul M. Ellwood, Jr. (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Dr PM Ellwood Jr → Paul M. Ellwood, Jr. (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Dr PM Ellwood Jr MD → Paul M. Ellwood, Jr. (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Dr P M Ellwood → Paul M. Ellwood, Jr. (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Dr P M Ellwood Jr → Paul M. Ellwood, Jr. (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Dr P M Ellwood Jr MD → Paul M. Ellwood, Jr. (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Ellwood, P. M. → Paul M. Ellwood, Jr. (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Ellwood, P M → Paul M. Ellwood, Jr. (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Ellwood, P. → Paul M. Ellwood, Jr. (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Ellwood, P → Paul M. Ellwood, Jr. (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Ellwood, Paul M. Jr. → Paul M. Ellwood, Jr. (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Ellwood, Paul M Jr → Paul M. Ellwood, Jr. (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Ellwood, Paul Jr. → Paul M. Ellwood, Jr. (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Ellwood, Paul Jr → Paul M. Ellwood, Jr. (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

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

• Delete all per nom. – ukexpat (talk) 01:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom, this is bordering SEO level.--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete most. I'd save Paul Ellwood, Jr., Paul M Ellwood, Paul M Ellwood Jr, Paul Ellwood Jr, Paul Ellwood, Jr, and Paul M Ellwood, Jr. This particular name has more variants than most so a few more redirects than most is justified, but there's obviously no need to go into initials and qualifications and reversed forms. (I'd also recommend creation of Paul Ellwood Jr., which is conspicuous in its absence from the above list.) – hysteria18 (talk) 03:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

February 6

Template:Bookrationale

• Template:Bookrationale → Template:Book rationale (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

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

• Speedy delete per WP:SPEEDY#g6 (uncontroversial maintenance). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Blue-ray Disc rationale

• Template:Blue-ray Disc rationale → Template:Video rationale (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

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

• Speedy delete per WP:SPEEDY#g6 (uncontroversial maintenance). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

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

• Billy Cundiff's missed kick at end of 2012 AFC Championship game → 2011–12 NFL playoffs (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

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

• Delete as an entirely implausible redirect, and a blatant attempt at evasion. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 18:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - Jesus tapdancing Christ let it go already, no one is going to use that awkwardly verbose line to as a search term. Plausibility is out the window, as well as patience; this user goes to WP:ANI for tendentious behavior if another variation of this craps up again anywhere. Tarc (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep This is not an implausible redirect term. This actually describes what that section of the article is about. This falls under WP:R#KEEP provisions 1, 3, and 5. #1 says "They have a potentially useful page history" which this does. The edit history is fully verifiable too. #3 says "They aid searches on certain terms" which this does. #5 says "Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways," and this is an example of that too. Those calling for deletion may not find it useful, but I might. Redirect are cheap, and no one has shown any demonstrated Harm this redirect causes to Wikipedia at all. This fits none of the criteria listed under WP:R#DELETE, so therefore, there is no actual policy that says this can be deleted.

So far, as the first "keep" here, I have cited actually policies and guidelines favoring a keep of this. None of the deletes so far have cited any policies and guidelines favoring deletion, just the fact that they are "impatient" or that they view this as "evasion." If all the remaining deletes take that route, no matter how many deletes there are, policy trumps vote count, which means this would have to be a keep. Hellno2 (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Hellno, no one, and I mean no one, is ever going to search for this exact phrase without some prior knowledge that it exists. Nobody. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 23:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: See WP:MAD. CallawayRox (talk) 20:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: Eagles 24/7 made a unilateral decision to delete the edit history without a discussion to do so. I don't know where to bring this up, but this does warrant some discussion. I don't want to make the situation more chaotic while these and a discussion for wide left are going on simultaneously, but this may be something that has to be brought up in a deletion review or something. Hellno2 (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Without a discussion"? It was discussed at length here. Good luck with a DRV. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• As Eagles says, that point was discussed ad nauseam at the AfD, and the consensus was clear to the admin: delete. Yes, he restored the history for you, but he has also been online for minimal periods as of late and probably a) didn't remember the exact situation (you didn't refer to the closing decision in your request) b) didn't have time to do a full, or even brief research. I'm sure he explain when he gets online. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 23:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Articles to merge

• Articles to merge → Category:Articles to be merged (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

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

• Delete - Pointless redir to maint cat Bazj (talk) 19:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per WP:SPEEDY#g6 (uncontroversial maintenance). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

So random! season 3

• So random! season 3 → List of So Random! episodes (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

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

• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

February 5

Wide left

• Wide left → 2011–12 NFL playoffs (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

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

• Keep Notably, the term is used in reference to this event, very notably in these and other articles: [1], [2], [3]. It is used in many more; these are just the first few examples, and it is impractical to list them all. Redirects are cheap, and there should not be such a fuss over this. There is no battle over using this for other articles or redirects. There are reasons for keeping under WP:R#KEEP nos. 1, 3, and 5. It has a potentially useful history (1), would aid in searches (3), and some people find this useful (5). Hellno2 (talk) 01:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• No, these articles are using the way the ball went as creative titles, they are not outright saying "the play shall be called 'Wide left.'" There are many, many other missed kicks that went wide left, and this one is not particularly notable. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• An article title describing something (or a redirect for that matter, which is not held to the same standards as an article) does not necessarily identify something in the same way as its official name. WP:TITLE goes into that. It is quite complex. But in this case, it is not the title of something; it is a targeted redirect. It is a name that, though it may not be the official name, has been shown in numerous sources to be associated with the event, which is a valid reason for a redirect. This redirect has not been shown to meet any of the criteria for deleting. Hellno2 (talk) 05:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Here are some links for you: "Pats' playoff chances go wide left" (1988), "SEAHAWKS 24, GIANTS 21, OT, Wide left, short and shorter, Feely misses FG at end of regulation, two more in overtime as comeback is wasted" (2005), "WIDE LEFT IS JUST RIGHT FOR FSU OB'S FRANTIC FG FINISH ENDS AT 18-16 BOWDEN CLAIMS 1ST NATIONAL TITLE" (1994), "Narrow leads, wide left" (2010), "'Wide left' hurts like never before" (2003). Maybe this should redirect to every single instance in which a field goal is missed wide left? Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Lots of things can go wide left, for example, a member of the Democratic Party who eats a lot of cheeseburgers, or Dianna Ross' opening ceremony kick at the 1994 FIFA World Cup. I think this is a case where a redirect not existing is better than one linking to a single instance of a widely used term. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 06:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete, as this is clearly not the most notable 'wide left' in sports, or really any, history. Eagles shows a few of them. This is common sense, and I really don't understand why Hellno is pushing this so hard after a very specific AfD. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 13:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - Not a useful redirect as the term was not widely used in regards to this event. The editor primarily fighting this, Hellno2, in fact conceded the point in the AfD that "wide left" was not a good title, as he tried to get the AfD either restarted or relisted with a name change. People just need to stop clinging to their articles as if they were their own children, honestly. Tarc (talk) 14:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: The redirect has been moved to Billy Cundiff's missed kick at end of 2012 AFC Championship game. This is blatant evasion by Hellno. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 18:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Note: I have deleted the edit history of Billy Cundiff's missed kick at end of 2012 AFC Championship game per the closure of the original AfD and the consensus there. Furthermore, I have nominated the redirect for discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_February_6#Billy_Cundiff.27s_missed_kick_at_end_of_2012_AFC_Championship_game. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. Not enough reason to redirect to this one. Eagles, thanks for stepping in--I don't know what happened to PhantomSteve. Drmies (talk) 19:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: See WP:MAD. CallawayRox (talk) 20:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

  MAD not applicable, as the user Hellno2 had already extensively edited the target article with material from the now-deleted one, thus there are essentially no attributions to preserve. Tarc (talk) 20:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

  Merge and delete is incompatible with the licensing. CallawayRox (talk) 20:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

  Did you not understand what I said above? No information was actually merged, as it was already present. Tarc (talk) 21:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

  What's this [4] then? CallawayRox (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Natty J

• Natty J → National Journal (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

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

• Delete while no search hits hit it, the sooner the better. Si Trew (talk) 22:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete as unlikely synonym.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• While it is a nickname used in the offices of National Journal, it probably isn't one meant for public consumption. So I have no objection to its deletion. hare j 04:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Wall Street Putsch

• Wall Street Putsch → Business Plot (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

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

• Keep for now as harmless. Not sure. I am sure I have heard the term but am not sure where, but I think "Wall Street Putsch" was used by an author at the time, perhaps in the New York Times. I shall try to look it up and find a reference. Si Trew (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Only used by Sally Denton in a brand-new book. One single use in the 30s using archive search, but that is it. She is currently promoting her book as being relevant to the anti-Wall Street sentiment in vogue, as the folks accused were with the American Legion! Collect (talk) 22:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep for now. Article mentions several times various putsches, by Teddy Roosevelt and so on. Does not mention specifically Wall Street. But I think a likely search term for now. I will try to find better for Wall Street Putsch in particular. Si Trew (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Indented as second !vote Collect (talk) 13:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• • Second thoughts Not to delete the article or anything, but perhaps it is really sitting under the wrong title and should be moved? But I can't think right now where to. Si Trew (talk) 23:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep There is plenty of documented evidence that powerful figures on Wall Street were behind a plot to overthrow the White House and FDR. If you allow 'White House Putsch'; it should also be permissible to title it the 'Wall Street Putsch' for obvious reasons. why don't u go over the Dickstein-McCormack Hearings and see the Wall Street names for yourself? duPont, Morgan and the American Liberty League...made up of the biggest names on Wall Street. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/McCormack-Dickstein_Committee#Testimony_of_Maj._Gen._S._D._Butler_.28Retired.29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.217.238 (talk) 03:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Addendum to Keep just rec'd this message from Sally Denton, Wall Street Journal journalist who wrote "The Plots Against the President: FDR, a nation in crisis. and the rise of the American right". She wrote: "The phrase was used repeatedly in contemporaneous news accounts. Which is where I first saw it. Probably also in Nicholas Fox Weber's "The Clarks of Cooperstown" and in Archer and Spivak." If you would like further citations, let me know and I shall dig further. (or perhaps we should call it the "American Liberty League putsch"?...since that apparently was the key group behind this event at this point in our history.

This honor's thesis seems very well documented and the term "Wall Street Putsch" is used 5 times. http://wesscholar.wesleyan.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1058&context=etd_hon_theses — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.217.238 (talk) 05:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Per the nomination. Additionally I think it is inappropriate to have multiple votes by one editor and a series of unsigned votes. What the heck?Capitalismojo (talk) 00:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

UKCOUNTRYREFS

• UKCOUNTRYREFS → Countries of the United Kingdom (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

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

• Delete as cross namespace redirect. Serves no useful purpose. Probably a very innocent mistake. Si Trew (talk) 17:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete I guess this is more of a housekeeping procedure.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't assume it's trivial tho. The redirect relates to a heated subject for UK-based editors. I am involved in the matter (which is how I came across the redirect). I agree it is a simple housekeeping tasks, and was created innocently, however, it could blow up. I suggest the closing admin does so with consensus. --RA (talk) 12:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Noted, hope this would pass quietly though.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice - yes I do have something to say. You are more than involved RA - so why do it? The designed-to-be-quick 'UKCOUNTRYREFS' has been useful on many occasions in the past - despite your occasional attempts to physically hide from view the information it links to (and all the work done to prove to a painfully small group of committed people that Wales, Northern Ireland etc are indeed called "countries" as a matter of daily fact - whether you personally like the non-sovereign usage or not). It's helped save hours of endlessly repeating the same debate to the various types of trolls that pop up every now and again (you know, in your 'middle' period when you were just an IP of ambiguous interest - so I guess you may not remember it, despite it being well in your singular topic area until you became an admin). And the same goes for British Isles - keep out the politics. Wikipedia has NO PLACE in controlling the use of such common-use terminology. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hindu temples in Cuddalore district

• Hindu temples in Cuddalore district → Category:Hindu temples in Cuddalore district (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

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

• Delete as a cross-namespace redirect out of article space. --RA (talk) 12:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - wrongly created page.Ssriram mt (talk) 13:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)ssriram_mt

• Delete as above. Si Trew (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Please see also talk page before making decision, at talk, he is working very hard on a series of articles about Hindu temples. A very good Wikipedian. I have never known him before but a pleasure to see another contributor to Wikipedia trying to do his (?) best to make Wikipedia better. Si Trew (talk) 17:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

February 3

Wp;drv

• Wp;drv → Wikipedia:Deletion review (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

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

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

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

• CNRs are bad because they result in a person (reader) walking around a building (encyclopedia) and falling into the pipework (project space) because the builders (editors) thought cracks in the walls and floors would be useful for them to get around.

This applies precisely in this case, as the uncanny and hackish "Wp;" is best described as a crack from the main namespace to the other namespaces. That some editors prefer to go through this crack does not outweigh the harm done by obfuscating the main namespace (see part 3 below).

• Namespaces were created for a reason, so that the encyclopedic content would be separate. CNRs work against this.

Again, see part 3 below.

• The filters exist for a reason, to fine-tune search results. And some encyclopedic searches return a majority of Wikipedia pages because of all of the cross-namespace redirects; the user shouldn't have to filter through manually, that's what the filters are for.

This is one of the crux of my argument; that users should not have to filter through CNRs in the main namespace. From this search result, this one, etc., we see that this redirect is indeed listed in a main namespace search, which in principle must return only articles that are considered useful to the general audience. As Project pages are of interest only to editors, and readers far outnumber editors here, I believe that the nuisance caused to the readers may far outweigh any potential convenience the editors may receive. (And, of course, readers don't participate in RfD discussions, so we are necessarily going to have a non-neutral viewpoint here.)

• Some mirrors duplicate the main article namespace but not the project namespace. Thus, cross-namespace redirects end up creating thousands of broken links on mirrors.

Once again, this hits the point home. On Wikipedia mirrors, readers using the search function will be presented with confusing pages that link to nowhere, which is most certainly unhelpful.

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

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

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

• Keep. As the nominator notes, we have been over this territory before: here. The verbose nomination statement can be countered with a few brief observations. (1) The colon/semi-colon is a very likely typo, as can be seen from the number of times these redirects are hit.[8] (2) Some editors have disabilities (eg amputated digits or diabetic neuropathy) that make it hard to navigate using the shift key in the middle of a string of letters. (3) The strings of characters behind this and similar redirects bear no relationship to likely article titles. There is no chance that a reader looking for an article will stumble upon them. And that's pretty much the only real danger of cross-namespace redirects. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Once again, I am not at all doubting that some user may find this redirect helpful. Nevertheless, this does not trump the fact that it is very bad style and satisfies precisely the criteria on WP:CROSS. I object to the redirect creator's characterization that "there is no chance that a reader looking for an article will stumble upon them", as the search results clearly indicated otherwise; furthermore, that's not the only real danger of CNRs. I invite the redirect creator to actually read my nomination statement and present an argument against it, instead of citing arguments that has been refuted in the statement. Also, accessibility is a good point, but that warrants other forms of action that do not break the article/project namespace separation, such as actually making Wp; a pseudo-namespace. ZZArch ^{talk to me} 23:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I also object to the characterization of this nomination statement as verbose. When the RfD nominator is concise, we call it insufficient and claim that it does not prove how WP:CROSS supports the deletion (see [9]). When the RfD nominator does that, we call the statement verbose? That is not healthy debate and not conductive to reaching a consensus on this matter. ZZArch ^{talk to me} 23:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
      • All right, fair call on that one. Struck. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Per WP:R#DELETE #6 and WP:CROSS. These CNRs clutter the main namespace and their advocates are defending their own laziness with far-fetched excuses about hypothetical people with disabilities (who would have bigger accessibility troubles). As the nom mentions this should be implemented as a namespace alias instead of in an ad hoc fashion, but I'll doubt there will ever be a consensus for that. —Ruud 00:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep again. They are demonstrably useful, they represent plausible typos, they do not create any apparent confusion that would get in the way of an actual article name and they can be easily suppressed from the search results by adding the appropriate tags. (Note that even without those tags, the two example searches above return only one and two redirects respectively. The redirect target is obvious from the search snippet. This hardly represents an undue burden for manual filtering in my opinion.)
  The arguments for deletion per WP:CROSS are weak and for me do not overcome the potential value articulated in WP:R#Keep.
  Finally and most explicitly, redirect do not "clutter" the mainspace - they don't clutter anything. Bad style is a good reason to teach new users not to create new redirects in this pattern, not a sufficient reason to delete existing ones. Redirects really are this cheap. Rossami (talk) 00:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

  How have we demonstrated these links are used by anyone but User:Mkativerata (not as a typo, but because he's too lazy to press the shift key)? They are demonstrably harmful however. Apart from inappropriately showing up to human readers, their presence needs to be accounted for in bots and tools used to generate statistics.

  These redirects already form a significant portion of the CNRs from mainspace (Wikipedia:Database reports/Cross-namespace redirects/1). If everyone, and not just Mkativerata, started to put their litter in mainspace out of convenience the situation would soon spiral out of control. I'm not particularly impressed by your suggestion that new users shouldn't be creating these kinds of CNRs, but Mkativerata apparently can. —Ruud 10:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

  I didn't just create the redirects for my laziness but (1) for anyone who stumbles on the typo; (2) anyone who just doesn't like the shift key; and (3) those with disabilities and uncomforable keyboard layouts. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

  1. If you make a typo there's no reason to expect to be taken to the right page (as opposed to a common or even just plausible misspelling of the title of an encyclopedic subject). Just try again.
  2. Page view statistics show there are very few "anyone" else. Why is your disliking of the shift-key more important than my disliking of CNRs?
  3. You managed to press the shift-key several times just fine writing the above sentence. Far-fetched excuse. —Ruud 13:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

  I am not disabled in a manner that affects my typing; however, I recognise that other editors may be and the redirect may help them. Your pointy ruud;cs redirect, on the other hand, helps no-one other than yourself and is a lay-down R3 candidate. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Note how you had to use "may" twice. There are not many more users of wp;drv (primarily you) than there are of ruud;cs. I can't possibly imagine what you find objectionable about ruud;cs. It's useful, not a candidate for an article title and redirects are this cheap. —Ruud 20:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep- I agree with Rossami. I've made these kinds of typos before and found the rediercts useful. Reyk _YO! 23:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I think ruud;cs is a pretty useful redirect. —Ruud 15:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Really bad example. There is a big difference between adding part of your own user name to a Wikiporject as is ruud;cs and someone trying to go to WP:RFD but not hitting the shift key fast enough and accidentally typing ; instead of :. I don't think anyone opposing deletion is suggesting that they should be able to make any kind of redirect that they want (the fact that you created ruud;cs after this RFD strongly implies that you are claiming that) but that we that we should not delete a redirect which is a plausible typo something that can't be said for the ruud;cs redirect.--70.24.208.34 (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

What does this have to with whether ruud;cs is useful or not? Clearly "usefulness" is the only criteria we are considering here. I think ruud;cs is useful. —Ruud 21:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Considering that other users have suggested that the ; is a plasuable typo and have given examples on how the typo could reasonably occur I can't see how you can claim that it is not a consideration. The suggestion that people are only saying that the redirect is useful and nothing else is simply false.--70.24.208.34 (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I was merely replying to Reyk here, not to other users.

In reply to you argument, the criteria for redirects are misspellings not typos (a possibly uncorrectable confusion about how something should be spelled versus how you actually manage to type something at some particular instance and which can generally be easily corrected by trying again). Barrack Obama is a plausible misspelling, hence we have a redirect, Varack Obama is a plausible typo, which quite properly is a redlink. —Ruud 21:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. Completely agree with Mkativerata and Rossami. I make these typos occasionally and it useful to have these redirects, while seeing no benefit in deleting them. Jenks24 (talk) 14:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete While a semicolon in place of a colon is a plausible typo, anyone who actually makes that typo in attempting to enter "wp:drv" or the like is overwhelmingly likely to already familiar enough with Wikipedia to immediately realize that they used a semicolon where a colon was required. Typo redirects should exist for very common typos that help readers, not for any uncommon typo that might occasionally be helpful only to editors or to some very small group. Anomie⚔ 12:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per Kurt Vonnegut: "I have never used semicolons. They don't do anything, don't suggest anything. They are transvestite hermaphrodites." (Timequake, Ch. 49) But seriously, the mistake is so obvious that the drawbacks of cluttering the main namespace outweigh the inconvenience on an occasional D'oh! moment. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete: redirects are motivated by technical pseudo-limitations, which is really a bad idea. Given the amount of keyboard layouts out there, we'll end up with all sorts of odd redirects with a couple of lazy editors being all the redirect users. Sorry if I missed one's valuable rationale, tl;dr. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Note - There is a proposal at the village pump which could remove the need for these redirects, Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Allow semicolons in place of colons for wikilinks. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 04:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, page unavailable

• Oops, sorry, page unavailable → HTTP 404 (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

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

Previous nom: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_20#Oops.2C_sorry.2C_page_unavailable

• Speedy close this was recently nominated and kept 2 days ago.--70.24.208.34 (talk) 23:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• What browser/system uses this message? If something does, then may be it could be kept. But I don't see anything using it. We aren't going to make a redirect for every possible wording for a 404. Previous discussion doesn't indicate any clear keep outcome. In fact, arguments are more convincing for deletion. The keep !vote didn't address why this is useful (who searches for this?). —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• I am disturbed that this is being renominated so soon after a "Keep" decision with no new information being presented to indicate why the previous decision was wrong.
  Being new to this debate, I'll add my two cents.
  1. This is not an error message from any browser I know. It is, however, an error presented by some websites.
  2. Readers often do hunt for articles by copy-pasting error messages into a search engine. I'm not sure how useful this one is but the argument that readers don't use the encyclopedia this way is simply incorrect.
  3. The history behind this page is problematic. This page was first created as a vanity page for user:Ojwang in April 2006. The user apparently realized the mistake later the same day and blanked the page. When page-blanking didn't do what he/she expected, the user moved the page to Deleted, then to Oops then to the current title. User:Curps then moved the page and its history back to the user's Talk page and deleted the redirect to the userspace. I suspect but can not prove that the current redirect was created (in Dec 2011) to resolve some overlooked redlink.

  I am going to abstain from the decision pending better information or other opinions on whether the use by a few websites is sufficient to overcome the troubling history of the page. Rossami (talk) 03:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete: search reveals that this is not at least a somehow common message. As such it is a misleading (probably even hoax) wording with no relevance to the target. Please also note the history (another part here, note the changes of April 3, 2006 by Ojwang) of the page: initially created as an attempt to react on WP:PA. Don't think we want to tribute such events. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete, reiterating my delete vote as implausible synonym.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Salalah incicent

• Salalah incicent → 2011 NATO attack in Pakistan (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• Salalah Incicent → 2011 NATO attack in Pakistan (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

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

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

February 2

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

• Diffuse palmoplantar keratoderma with woolly hair and arrythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy of Naxos → Naxos syndrome (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

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

• Delete as implausible synonym.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Otto Fried

• Otto Fried → Otto Fries (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

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

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

February 1

Lois and Clark

• Lois and Clark → Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Clark and Lois → Relationship of Clark Kent and Lois Lane (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

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

• Keep as is This conversation is based on George's request to rename at Talk:Relationship_of_Clark_Kent_and_Lois_Lane#Move.3F, although having multiple conversations about the same topic in different places seems to be muddying the waters a bit. Perhaps the fault is mine, but I fail to see the confusion with the way the redirect (as well as the current) articles are currently done. In general, "Lois and Clark" (putting her name first) appears to only be in reference to the TV show, because of its name, whereas when referring to the two characters, Clark Kent's name would normally come first in natural speech. Again, not sure where the confusion is coming from. While surely in good faith, I think the nom is overestimating the amount of confusion that the current redirects are causing. Without clear justification, or a clear sign of a problem we are fixing, I would always default to keep as is. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment If you wanted to make a disambig page, Clark Kent and Lois Lane makes more sense to me, and is currently unused anyway. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Well... I don't know how to explain this: these two redirects are a little confusing to me because even referring "Clark and Lois" may refer to "Lois & Clark" TV show and, as well, love affair of Lois and Clark. I don't know what readers want. However, L&C makes the article of the TV show popular, and C&L makes the article of the relationship popular, according to statistics. Nevertheless, I could not tell what readers want a show or relationship as referred. For instance, which topic do you intend to know when you type either "Lois and Clark" or "Clark and Lois"? --George Ho (talk) 04:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• There is a discussion already ongoing at Talk:Relationship of Clark Kent and Lois Lane. I don't think an rfd was/is necessary at this point. But regardless, Relationship of Clark Kent and Lois Lane is not a merged page of Clark Kent and Lois Lane, but rather merely about their relationship. The goal is obviously clarity in naming. And I would presume that most who get to the page do so by linking from another associated article. All that aside, if the Lois and Clark, and Clark and Lois redirects are really of such concern, then I would presume hatnotes would be the more appropriate action per WP:DAB. (Noting that they are already in place : ) - jc37 10:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

  There are already "hatnotes" in targeted articles. Well, have I well convinced you that I propose a disambiguation page? If not, then how can I convince you that I intended to turn each redirect into one disambiguation page? --George Ho (talk) 10:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

  No. My point was that current guidelines are that a dab page isn't to be created for 2 pages/redirects. Instead we are to use hatnotes. And since they are already in place (as I also already noted), that pretty much makes the rest of this moot. - jc37 11:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

  Per WP:TWODABS, a disambiguation page may not be necessary if there are only two topics — and only one is primary. However, possibly, these two topics, TV series and a "Relationship of...", may be themselves primary, unless otherwise. It doesn't matter what "Lois and Clark" or "Clark and Lois" currently refer. The matter is: per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which topic you intend to research if you type "Lois and Clark," "Lois and Superman," "Superman and Lois," or anything else related. On the other hand, if you want to research either a relationship of the pair or the TV show, what term do you type and enter and why?

How is this RFD not different from the Move request? This RFD discusses these redirects; the other discusses renaming an article. I created this RFD because I would presumes that opposing arguments are stronger and may result no consensus to move in the future. --George Ho (talk) 11:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep them as they are. I don't see as how this would be confusing to anyone. It helps them find their way to the pages they are most certainly looking for when they type those things in. Dream Focus 13:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• In other words, leave "Clark and Lois" as redirect to "Relationship of..." and "Lois and Clark" as TV series? If that is the case, then no objections to the "disambiguation page" as long as two redirects are kept? --George Ho (talk) 21:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Sometimes, I used "Lois and Clark" as intent to search the relationship rather than a TV series; is there anything wrong with that? --George Ho (talk) 21:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment I think you mean well George, but it seems you are the only one confused by the current configuration of the articles. Per the TWODABS above, a disambig page is probably not needed either. A DAB page doesn't bug me personally, but I fail to see the necessity of any of the changes you are proposing, and some of them will make it more confusing for the rest of the users, instead of easier. We have two conversations going on with changes you want to make to a few articles that relate to this topic but you are the only one who sees the problem with the status quo, in either discussion. At some point you might have to ask yourself "is it only me that is confused?" Dennis Brown (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

If DAB page won't work, then I have recently requested redirects in WP:AFC/R. --George Ho (talk) 23:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

This is the 3rd method you currently have going at the same time, the vote on the talk page, this discussion, and now a new discussion as you have linked. Normally, you should try one at a time, lest someone mistake your intentions as being disruptive. At the very least, it isn't conducive to gaining consensus, and borders on bludgeoning the process. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, the proposed redirects have been redirected to Relationship of Clark Kent and Lois Lane, yet I proposed either of two targets there. I didn't mean to "bludgeon," did I? I mean, can you explain to me how and why three I proposed are the same? I just created discussions because... I assumed that the relationship is more popular than the show itself outside Internet, unless it is the other way around. That's why I'm "confused". --George Ho (talk) 23:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I went and did a little research and think I have a better idea of your perspective on issues in general, which are at times, unique. I don't think you were trying to do anything wrong, but you should be aware that when you start a discussion about a topic, such as renaming an article (which was a perfectly valid discussion to start), then after a few days when everyone disagrees but the discussion isn't over, you go to another venue on Wikipedia on a topic that is very, very similar, and get the same result, and then go to a 3rd venue, well.... even when you don't mean it to, it may look like you are shopping for a venue that agrees with you, rather than looking for consensus. I truly believe you did this in good faith, but it is still not the proper way to do it. If you are proposing changes to an article (or new ones with almost the same subject matter), you really should finish what you start before moving on. You did post notice on each forum about what else you were doing, but it scatters the conversation and makes it difficult to judge consensus, and again, it LOOKS like you are shaking a Magic 8 Ball until it gives you the answer you want. Even with the best of intentions, a person's actions can sometimes be more disruptive than beneficial. This is one of those times. If you want to make changes to a "topic area", I would highly suggest keeping it at the talk page until the conversation is fully over. THEN, if you disagree with the consensus, by all means, bump it up to the next level if you feel the group is wrong. This way we can see what the true consensus is, and you don't run the risk of people questioning your good faith attempts. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep both redirected to Relationship of Clark Kent and Lois Lane (as it currently is), a hatnote at the target page will help those searching TV series. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • You mean "Lois and Clart" redirected to the TV series or the relationship? --George Ho (talk) 19:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Georgia (U.S. state

• Georgia (U.S. state → Georgia (U.S. state) (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

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

• Keep. This redirect basically saves a click on a common typo, hitting enter before entering the last character of Georgia (U.S. state). Yes, it would pop up in the search results page. But when you hit enter, you expect to go to the page you thought you were typing in. This redirect accomplishes that, while preventing the momentary "huh" of going to the search page. It's not a big deal, but it does have some function. Meanwhile, what are the reasons to delete it? In terms of actual, concrete consequences I can't think of a one. It isn't confusing. It isn't in the way of anything. Redirects are cheap. If this ends up actually having a provably deleterious effect on anything, anywhere, I'll be stunned. In the absence of that, it's not worth slightly inconveniencing readers. Meelar (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Who hits enter before finishing their search term? This seems more than implausible to me. —danhash (talk) 21:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep: redirects are cheap, 144 views in December is more than background noise. TimBentley (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Views show a sudden spike, possibly from DRV; taking it out we have less than 6 hits a day and usually less than 3. Thoroughly implausible typo for ordinary readers (who mostly don't try to type out the parenthetical dabs). --NYKevin @182, i.e. 03:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Where did you get these numbers? Year ago (that is a year before DRV) the stats were higher. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Are you going to have similar redirects for every page with parentheses in its name?? And what about people who type in Georgia (U.S.), Georgia (U.S.A.), Georgia (America), Georgia (US state), Georgia (state) or Georgia U.S. State? They have a more reasonable right to expect a redirect than someone who's made a punctuation error. What would be more useful would be some consistency on what appears when people make such "errors", partly to prevent them starting new Wikipedia pages. Dadge (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Seems to provide a useful function as shown by the hits. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. Even discounting the DRV spike in usage history, the history shows enough steady usage to mark this as useful. It is not obviously confusing or in the way of any other article. It's been around since 2005 without causing any problems. Finally, I note that none of the "delete" opinions above match any of the criteria at WP:R#DELETE. When there is not a valid reason to delete a redirect, Wikipedia policy is to keep them. Redirect really are that cheap. Rossami (talk) 03:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  • You missed reason number 8. --NYKevin @869, i.e. 19:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Nope, it's not a synonym (novel or otherwise), it's a typo. As a typo, it is neither implausible nor especially recent. 8 does not apply. Rossami (talk) 05:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep gets 50-100 views a month which means people are actually using it. The title is therefore not sufficiently obscure to warrant deletion. Redirects are cheap, this one isn't doing any harm. Hut 8.5 00:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep: we have documented plausibility of this pretty ugly typo. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete – There are now no articles that point to this page, which is likely the only reason it had any hits at all; I fixed the links to it in all articles that linked to it. There are no article links to it, there shouldn't ever have been links to it, and there should not ever be links to it. It's a totally useless, worthless page and keeping it just sets the precedent for countless other useless, worthless pages. —danhash (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: Without discussing the merits of this particular redirect again, from a process point of view that statement is incorrect. Orphaning a redirect is explicitly not a reason to delete it. First, remember that in an ideal world, all redirects would be orphans. Second, the very fact that you had to orphan it is contributing evidence that the mistake was plausible. Not only did the person who first created the redirect find it useful (assuming good faith) but each of the people who used it made the same mistake. Third and perhaps most importantly, orphaning only affects the current links and even then, only the links within Wikipedia. It does nothing for the links that are buried in pagehistory (and which could be restored at any time if a page has to be reset back to fix a particularly bad case of vandalism for example) and it does nothing at all for any external links which point to the Wikipedia page. Just because a redirect is an orphan does not make it useless. Unless a redirect is actively harmful, redirects get kept. Rossami (talk) 02:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
    • It is not a plausible typo. That somebody created it is also not any indication of its plausibility. Sometimes mistyped links are added to articles by accident, even by experienced users. It is bound to happen on occasion, which is why it is always good to preview before saving. It's very possible that a link was created to the page by accident (one typo by one user does not have any bearing on plausibility) and that another user, instead of just fixing the link, created a redirect. Anybody who typed in "Georgia (U.S. state" would be capable of figuring out their mistake, and in fact would likely be surprised if their typo was automatically corrected. Anybody who knows the inner workings of Wikipedia enough to know to type "state" in parentheses, especially "U.S. state", knows how to fix their error, and anybody who does not know this would not have typed it to begin with. None of the pages I fixed had "particularly bad cases of vandalism", and any reversion to a prior version should be checked anyway. You could try the argument that the redirect shouldn't have been created, but even so is not worthy of deletion, but that just opens up the door for countless useless redirects that will then have a precedent to not be deleted, even though they are useless. What is much more plausible than this typo is that one person with a broken ")" key on his keyboard added the link to a couple of articles and didn't realize his mistake since the redirect had already been created by somebody who should have just fixed the incorrect link pointing to it in the first place. —danhash (talk) 16:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
      • I disagree. The fact that a mistake was made is, by definition, evidence of the plausibilty of the mistake (assuming good faith).
        Your assumption that "anybody" who knows enough to use the US State suffix will also know enough to get the exact grammar right is based upon how you use the encyclopedia. Not everyone navigates through the system the saw way you or I do.
        Lastly, I (and many others) explicitly do make the argument that even when some redirects probably didn't need to have been created, they ought not to be deleted unless they are actively harmful. That is the very essence of Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap and is a long-standing precedent at Wikipedia. Redirects serve many purposes. Just because you find it useless does not make it so for everyone. Rossami (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
        • "The fact that a mistake was made is...evidence of the plausibility of the mistake": Not necessarily. There are all kinds of mistakes made by people that are not plausible mistakes. Perhaps our definitions of "plausible" differ; to me, "plausible" is similar in definition to likely, reasonable, or justifiable. For a mistake to be a plausible mistake, then, would mean that it is one that more than a few people are likely to make. There have been no substantive arguments to the effect that more than a few people are likely to make the mistake of leaving off the end parenthesis. It is also not an issue of getting the "exact grammar right". Every user of English or indeed of any language where parentheses come in matching pairs (i.e. arguably everybody who uses the English Wikipedia) knows that an opening parenthesis needs a closing parenthesis. If your goal is to avoid unnecessary additional server load by deleting the redirect, your goal would quickest be achieved by not continuing the discussion, since additional discussion takes up more server resources; it also takes up the valuable time of Wikipedia editors, whose time and resources are undoubtedly more important than the servers' (the Wikipedia community is the people). Also keep in mind that, in general, editors don't have to worry about performance. The redirect is useless, not just to me but to the project; it could even be argued that the redirect is less than useless (i.e. harmful) because of the potential that keeping it has to inspire the naive, even if good faith, incremental creation of more useless redirects (which would outweigh WP:CHEAP). —danhash (talk) 18:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
          • We are indeed working from very different definitions. "Plausible" is a much lower standard than "likely". Something is likely if there is a greater than 50% chance that it is true (and depending on context, maybe much greater than 50%). Saying that something is plausible, on the other hand, only means that the statement can not be immediately and obviously declared as false.
            Something can be plausible and yet remain quite unlikely. A plausible typo is one that a reasonable person could look at and say "Yeah, maybe." A plausible typo is one that a reasonable person would believe was created in good faith. Maybe an error but not a malicious error. An implausible typo, on the other hand, would be more like claiming that <insert your favorite profanity here> was really a typo and should redirect to Barack Obama or GW Bush. Saying that an alleged typo is implausible is saying that you believe the "mistake" is so unlikely that it is more probable that the creator is lying and acted in bad faith.
            I agree that only a few people have made this mistake. I see no evidence of bad faith, however, and the bar for redirects really is that low. Rossami (talk) 23:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Weak keep. This is a plausible typo of a disambiguated name, and the evidence of the statistics is that it does fulfil a function for readers. My only concern is that it sets a bit of a precedent for the omit-closing-parenthesis typo. Are we going to support creating a similar redirect for any parenthesised typo? For that reason, make it a weak keep. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: Statistics require interpretation; they mean nothing on their own. The number of hits the redirect has gotten is of negligible importance in this instance. "Keep" arguments should be substantive and not based on statistics alone. —danhash (talk) 16:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Why? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I made 4 statements; to which one is your one word, non-specific inquiry directed? —danhash (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
      • To all of them. The stats show that the redirect is used (as opposed to useful), which is just enough to keep it. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
        • Why...
        1. do statistics require interpretation? Because they are mere numbers, and numbers mean nothing on their own. Numbers need a context in order to be meaningful.
        2. do statistics mean nothing on their own? Ditto.
        3. are the number of hits the redirect has gotten of negligible importance in this instance? Because, in addition to #1 and #2, there are any number of reasons a redirect could have gotten hits. There are lists of page titles all over the place, many in places that are likely not to be bot/crawler-excluded, meaning that the number of hits is not a reliable or definitive indicator of the number of times a human has visited the redirect. Even if a human has visited the redirect, there are numerous reasons why a person would visit a redirect that have nothing to do with the plausibility of the typo in its title. There are lists on WP specifically of redirects that are typos. People generally make lists for a reason, yes? Perhaps there are editors who want to keep up with such redirects and visit them from time to time for any number of reasons.
        4. should "keep" arguments be substantive and not based on statistics alone? Because, in addition to #1, #2, and #3, arguments based on statistics alone are as meaningless as the statistics are by themselves. And arguments on either side should be substantive, because otherwise they are irrelevant (and, hence, a waste of even more resources!!) —danhash (talk) 22:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: WP:Redirects are cheap is not a reasonable rationale for keeping this redirect: it was speedily deleted, then discussed at DRV, then discussed here, which is more than enough time and resources spent by the server and the community to outweigh that essay's view of the "cheapness" of redirects. Take a look at the deletion review entry for this redirect, particularly the votes to endorse the original deletion: there is not one single substantive reason given to keep the redirect (only a couple votes based on the opinion that it shouldn't have been speedily deleted) among several very good reasons to leave the redirect deleted. Remember that it is the weight of the arguments behind the votes that matter, not simply the number of votes on each side. I have not seen one substantive reason to keep this redirect amid a flurry of substantive reasons to delete it. —danhash (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, and this is why it should stay: keeping it is cheaper then going through all of this again. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
    • You ignored just about everything I said. Your comment also does not make much sense, since if the redirect is deleted as a result of this discussion, there would be no reason to recreate it (since an administrator would have deleted it based on the weight of arguments to delete versus the weight of the arguments to keep). —danhash (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Once the redirect will be deleted, it will not free any space. And if it will get re-created by someone, it will take more. And so on. That's why we don't delete harmless redirects like this one. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
        • Freeing server space was never one of my arguments for deletion. Salting would take care of it being recreated in the future. —danhash (talk) 22:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

3_Rascals

• 3_Rascals → Nanban (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

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

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

It's not 3 Idiots,its a remake of 3 Idiots which is remade as Nanban.3 Rascals has not been mentioned in movie page,talk page.Additionally Nanban page had never named as 3 Rascals.--Sandy (talk) 09:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

My question was whether 3 Rascals is an alternative translation of 3 idiots title? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

No its not.--Sandy (talk) 09:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

OK. Then just keep. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Would you please tell me,why?As this name has nothing to do with redirect.--Sandy (talk) 10:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It was the working title of the film. (See [10] or [11]; but those not needed anyway, as this is redirect, not an article.) — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

January 31

Northwest Coast

• Northwest Coast → British Columbia Coast (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

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

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

Miles Out

• Miles Out → List of The Walking Dead episodes (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

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

• Delete misleading incorrect name. 70.24.247.54 (talk) 05:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Magician Ishamudin

• Magician Ishamudin → Ishamuddin Khan (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

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

Komsomolskaya (Metro)

• Komsomolskaya (Metro) → Komsomolsky (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

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

• Delete as redirect to DAB. Serves no useful purpose if redirecting to a DAB. Or redirect to Komsomolskaya (DAB page) directly, but no point to do it as I see, because the DAB is already there so the redirect hinders rather than helps someone searching. Si Trew (talk) 12:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Disambiguate to Komsomolskaya (Sokolnicheskaya Line), Komsomolskaya (Koltsevaya Line), Komsomolskaya (Nizhny Novgorod Metro), Komsomolskaya (Volgograd Metro), Komsomolskaya (Chelyabinsk Metro), Komsomolskaya (Kharkiv Metro), Devyatkino (St. Petersburg Metro), Chernihivska (Kiev Metro), Milliy bog and Komsomolskaya Ploschad (Chelyabinsk Metro). The resulting DAB should replace the corresponding entries in the current target. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep and add {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. TimBentley (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep per TimBentley, this is an WP:INCOMPDAB and should be retained and tagged {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. France3470 (talk) 12:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Administrative subdivisions of Quebec/doc

• Template:Administrative subdivisions of Quebec/doc → Template:Administrative divisions of Quebec/doc (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

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

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

How is it useful? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Template:/Ety/Part/doc

I am the author of this template. It was created as an attempt to standardise the form for etymologies. If it is a redirect, it should go, as it was probably created mistakenly or moved and I forgot to ask the redirect to be removed. But may I please have a quick look and then give you my opinion. The series of {{ety}} were created by myself and another contributor, in the best Wikipedian fashion of contributing together. Si Trew (talk) 11:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry I did not mean to modify the discussion. It is right that it is deleted, if it is a redirect. I would have preferred the shorter name but after consensus we went with the longer. There are probably others around there too at {{etymology}} and so on that can also be deleted. Si Trew (talk) 11:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I think by deleting the redirect you have broken the documentation at Template:Etymology/doc. I will check but it would be handy rather than swiftily deleting a redirect to check what links to them. Si Trew (talk) 11:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

January 29

Team Lotus (current)

• Team Lotus (current) → Team Lotus (2010–11) (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

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

• Delete per nom. DH85868993 (talk) 01:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Retarget to the current team named "Lotus", Lotus F1, thus a highly plausible alternate name or misnomer. 70.24.247.54 (talk) 04:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Apart from the strict legal restrictions on the use of the name to prevent that team being known as Team Lotus (it is Lotus F1 team, never the other way around), it is not plausible that anyone would search for a term with Parentheses. QueenCake (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Not really, if you know that wikipedia uses parenthetical disambiguation, then it is quite plausible that someone would try it. 70.24.247.54 (talk) 06:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep or retarget to Team Lotus unless another Team Lotus becomes current. The IP's rationale is pretty valid, so I see no sense in deleting this to get it re-created in, say, 2013. Living redirects are cheaper then those deleted anyway. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

It should definitely not be retargeted to Team Lotus (= the original "Team Lotus") which ceased operation in 1994. The redirect only exists because Team Lotus (2010–11) used to be called Team Lotus (current), that name specifically having been chosen to distinguish it from the original Team Lotus. DH85868993 (talk) 01:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I see that. Still, Team Lotus is likely to be the first place to go for an editor committing information about future Team Lotus, so, while it currently doesn't seem logical, it might make more sense then the other options discussed. See, after redirecting the Team Lotus (current) to any more current location no one would ever remember to fix it if the new Team Lotus would be created, say, in 2014. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand that point. It sounds to me you are arguing that it should be kept on the possibility of a new Team Lotus coming along one day, which is awfully Crystal Bally, especially with the restrictions on using the term. In the event of a new "Team Lotus" it could always be recreated, or not as we would hopefully have a better name next time around. I'm still advocating deletion. QueenCake (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

January 26

St Paul's Day

• St Paul's Day → Feast of Saints Peter and Paul (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] I am not sure whether this is quite the way to do this formally, but I would like to list the fact that if you type "St Paul's Day" into the box on the left, you get redirected to the Feast of St. Peter and St. Paul (a date in June) to be listed here. I have always understood St. Paul's Day to be January 25, as is listed in Patricia Morrell's "Festivals and Customs". ACEOREVIVED (talk) 09:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • A difficult one since, contrary to my expectation, St Paul has multiple feast days. At the time I just knew of Peter and Paul having the same feast day. (I used to be part of a St Peter's Church, so we tended to have a special service for the day.) Then, from what I remember, I discovered that there were no articles here for St Peter's Day and St Paul's Day, but then that they were covered by one article to set up the redirects. Still, let's see what other people have to say. — Smjg (talk) 11:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, Catholics I know don't use the term "St Paul's Day". There's the feast of his conversion, and the feast he shares with St Peter, but not one of his own; I for one would never refer to either of them as St Paul's day or the feast of St Paul. So I'd say my first preference would be to outright delete St Paul's Day, but otherwise have it be a DAB page pointing to them both. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 18:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete: there is no such day and stats reveal that only bots are interested in this name. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Indeed we have an article about it Feast of the Conversion of Saint Paul.--Salix (talk): 12:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep a hat note at top of Feast of Saints Peter and Paul is all we need.--Salix (talk): 23:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The Feast of the Conversion of Saint Paul is actually part of the article on Conversion of Saint Paul; perhaps it would be best if typing in St Paul's Day, one get directed to the appropriate section of this article. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Currently Feast of Saints Peter and Paul has a hatnote with a {{distinguish}} link to Feast of the Conversion of Saint Paul. Thats all we need following WP:DISAMBIG although it could possibly be the other way round.--Salix (talk): 23:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

January 25

Internet meme redirects

• Forever alone → Involuntary celibacy (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• IMMA FIRIN MAH LAZOR → Internet meme (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• IMMA FIRIN MY LAZOR → Internet meme (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Imma Firin Mah Lazor → Internet meme (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• NO U → Internet meme (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Nigrar → Internet meme (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Roflwaffle → Internet meme (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• WTF Boom → Internet meme (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• U mad → Internet meme (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• !!1 → List of Internet phenomena (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• John McCain and His Vegetable Friends → List of Internet phenomena (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• John mccain and his vegetable friends → List of Internet phenomena (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Bad gamer → List of Internet phenomena (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Keyboard Crasher → List of Internet phenomena (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• AlexAndJoan → Troll (Internet) (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• AlexandJoan → Troll (Internet) (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Troll Dad → Troll (Internet) (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

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

• Notability is not a requirement for mere redirects. Also, redirects are cheap. Keep Forever alone and Troll Dad since they have specific, strongly related targets. --Cybercobra (talk) 08:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Also, retarget U mad to Troll (Internet) as it is a phrase used in trolling. --Cybercobra (talk) 08:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
    • You have to be joking. Forever alone is actually the stupidest of those redirects. Where on the internet is "Forever alone" actually a phrase having to do with Involuntary celibacy? One reliable source to prove that and I'll drop this entire RFD. I say that in full confidence of you not being able to prove anything. This isn't about redirects being cheap, this is about people who have nothing better to do creating unnotable articles about memes then having them all get redirected to these target articles. Like I said, we don't need every meme the internet has redirecting to these articles, that isn't what they are for. — Moe ε 14:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
• Special - Change Forever alone to redirect to Internet meme, keep Troll Dad and U mad, but delete everything else, as they are uncommon.--Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 16:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete the lot - I'm not convinced any of these are particularly useful redirects, as none of them are mentioned in their target articles in any case. Robofish (talk) 01:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep selectively. Forever alone has 16M google hits and it looks like there would be enough material for an article. Redirecting to internet meme seems a better target as its more about the meme that about the target. IMMA FIRIN MAH LAZOR has 168,000 google hits and there is considerable coverage with a page discussing its history[13] which seems to date back to 2007. I can see that kids will type this sort of thing into a search box, just to see what happens, they may even get some education if they read Internet meme. Its looking like most of these have considerable internet prescence. Less convinced by John McCain and His Vegetable Friends which does not appear to have much online commentary, just a fairly popular youtube video. --Salix (talk): 12:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

January 23

Template:Copyrighted free use

• Template:Copyrighted free use → Template:PD-release (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

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

• Template:Copyrighted free use provided that/doc lists several templates that would be better targets. Not sure which would be best, though. - Eureka Lott 07:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
• It could be retargeted to Template:Copyrighted free use provided that, I suppose. Jafeluv (talk) 14:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. The redirect is not tagged for discussion. And, I am afraid, this is not an appropriate forum for such discussions, which involve changing licensing of many files. Ruslik_Zero 14:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

  Tagged now. Jafeluv (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete or retarget - when something is released into the public domain, all copyright ceases to exist. When someone releases something for free use while still retaining the copyright, they still have the dang copyright :P — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 19:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• Question What is the English Wikipedia equivalent of commons:Template:Copyrighted free use if this English Wikipedia template means the same as commons:Template:PD-release which is different from commons:Template:Copyrighted free use? --Stefan2 (talk) 23:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete and re-tag all media as {{Template:CopyrightedFreeUse-Link}}: redirects in the "template" name space make only future problems. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ruslik_Zero 13:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. Dmitrij Czarkoff is right; already it's causing issue, as I couldn't help but notice that every page this template (redirect) is used on is also 'tagged' for RFD (and since the tag uses {{FULLPAGENAME}}, that was a little confusing). Obviously for normal templates a noinclude would get around that, but that doesn't work for redirects. I'm just mentioning this here so maybe someone who knows what to do about it can maybe do it. Or something. I'unno.

And yeah, PD ain't the same thing as this. Why not just steal the commons template? -— Isarra (talk) 16:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• • Support stealing the commons template. --NYKevin @865, i.e. 19:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

---

• Keep both to preserve history and because it is in use on a large number of pages. No opinion on whether there is a better target or if the redirect should be overwritten with the commons template. Rossami (talk) 00:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)