Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

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

Administrator instructions

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

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

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

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

Centralized discussion
Proposals Discussions Recurring proposals
  • An RfC on the capitalization of bird names.
  • An RfC about whether or not the opt-in requirement should be removed from the enwiki edit counter.
  • A proposal to reimplement the Main Page with an alternative framework.
  • An RfC regarding changing the username policy to allow role accounts.
  • A discussion on ways to improve the "Today's featured article requests" system.

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


Before listing a redirect for discussion[edit]

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

The guiding principles of RfD[edit]

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

When should we delete a redirect?[edit]


The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

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

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

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


Reasons for deleting[edit]

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

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

Reasons for not deleting[edit]

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

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

Neutrality of redirects[edit]


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

Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:

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

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

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

Closing notes[edit]

Details at: Administrator instructions for RfD.

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

How to list a redirect for discussion[edit]

Tag the redirect.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Current list[edit]

April 20[edit]


This is otherwise speedy-deletable under WP:CSD#R3. However, what happened was, this page was nominated for deletion at this title, then moved to Sunny Hills Elementary school one minute later. The article was ultimately redirected at AfD. The CSD was declined due to this technicality. Propose deletion as an implausible redirect. Mz7 (talk) 02:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC), revised 02:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete per Mz7. WP:COMMONSENSE comes in to play here and I don't understand why the CSD was declined. We're not in the business of being jobsworths but of making a better encyclopaedia. Si Trew (talk) 04:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

April 19[edit]

Wikipedia talk:SHC[edit]

Both of these shortcuts are six years old today. Happy birthday. Unfortunately for them, in that time nobody has found them worth using. If nobody on the project has used a shortcut years after its creation, it demonstrably serves no point in existing. Shortcuts are editors' tools, and the degree to which editors use them is the measure of their utility. Shortcuts to talk pages are also barely ever of value except on high-traffic or important talk pages.

Now, I know for a fact that someone is going to say "redirects are cheap" and also "no benefit is offered by deleting these". Well there is a benefit - not cluttering our namespace (and visually cluttering the start of a page) with unnecessary items. My opinion on this matter is that the RfD criteria are choking us under a smothering blanket of bureaucracy that muffles the voice of any contributor who believes in keeping a clean shop. I'm one of those users, and I'm dog-tired of seeing the same hackneyed old comments on nomination after nomination, as if the RfD criteria are the Ten Commandments. They're not, they're based in consensus, just as every rule on this site is. And I know I'm not the only one who feels this way.

It's high time that we collectively accept that people have a tendency to get excited and make shortcuts, and that sometimes time shows it to have been unnecessary; and when that does happen, we smile, clean it up and move on. It's basic housekeeping. That's why I'm nominating these. — Scott talk 02:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep "SHORT" Seems a reasonable shortcut, unless some other use appears to contest that. Further, you haven't nominated WP:SHORT or WP:SHC for deletion, so I fail to see why the talk equivalent shouldn't exist. -- (talk) 05:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Firstly, "seems reasonable" has been demonstrated to be pointless. Or you would have preferred that I'd waited until these redirects had lain around unused for a full decade before nominating them? Secondly, that's an other stuff exists argument. We're not in a hurry, we can deal with one thing at a time. And thirdly, WP:SHORT is being used, which is completely the opposite of this nomination. — Scott talk 10:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
      • The subject-side pages are not being deleted, so I don't really see why the talk-side pages can't exist. If you want to delete the subject-side redirect WP:SHC then that will also delete the talk-side redirect WT:SHC. -- (talk) 22:46, 19 April 2014 (UTC) (Moved up to keep the conversation together - S)
        • First point, see above. Second point, no it won't. I don't know what you're trying to say there. — Scott talk 00:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep both. Firstly WT:SHC is actually used, so the nomination is factually incorrect there. Secondly, both WP:SHORT and WP:SHC are very well used, so there is every reason for people to assume that the equivalent talk page shortcuts will also exist. Finally, there really is no benefit to deletion - the visual "clutter" is entirely independent of the redirect's existence, if you want to remove what you perceive at clutter then do so: WP:BRD applies. If you want to change the RfD criteria then you need to propose that at Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion and get consensus to change them before you can apply different ones to individual redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 09:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
    • No, the nomination is not "factually incorrect". WT:SHC was linked to once in an automatically-generated list of pages with shortcuts. It has never been used. Perhaps you meant WT:SHORT, which was mentioned precisely once, by its author, and then forgotten about forever after. So that's that.
    • Secondly, directly removing redirect clutter is a complete waste of time because it only leads to one-on-one arguments with indiscriminate collectors such as yourself those who persistently call for the retention of redirects on the basis of entirely unproven claims of utility. This is the place to discuss it.
    • Thirdly, policy follows practice, which takes place on the ground in venues such as this one. That's why there are now ongoing discussions about interlingual redirects and WikiProject template redirects. — Scott talk 10:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
      • When I say the redirect is used, I was looking at usage figures not counting links. I am not an "indiscriminate collector" of redirects (and I would prefer it if you could avoid further ad hominems) - I base my recommendations on an assessment of the costs and benefits of keeping and deleting the redirects under discussion, placing high value on those redirects that have demonstrated utility and no value on irrelevant arguments like lack of necessity. Thryduulf (talk) 13:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
        • I note you have rephrased your comment, but it still mischaracterises the rationales of those who hold different opinions to yourself - firstly the burden of evidence is on those wanting to change the status quo, so you would need to demonstrate non-utility yet in many cases (such as this one) utility is demonstrated. When there is no evidence either way, then we fall back to the standard required of redirects - namely "plausibly useful" and in every case that a redirect is plausibly useful then it should be kept in the absence of evidence that it is somehow either harmful or that deletion would benefit the encyclopaedia more (e.g. because we want an article at that title). In this case, "SHC" and "SHORT" are both plausible abbreviations for "shortcut", there has been no proposal to retarget them elsewhere, and no evidence presented that they are harmful. This means that there is no reason to delete them, and we should not delete any page from Wikipedia without there being a reason for doing so. Thryduulf (talk) 16:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
          • If a thing is useful, it will be used. These aren't used. Not sure why you find that hard to understand. The rest of your comments are the exact same bureaucratic hoarder's responses that I was anticipating from the moment I made this nomination. — Scott talk 16:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
            • If something is used it is useful, but just because something is not used does not automatically mean it is not useful - how do you know that someone will not need it tomorrow or next week for example? I'm not at all sure why you feel the need to use more ad hominem arguments, but as you clearly have nothing else to bring to the table I do not see that explaining again why unnecessary deletions are harmful is a productive use of my time. Thryduulf (talk) 16:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
              • "How do you know that someone will not need it tomorrow or next week"? Because that "tomorrow or next week" has spent six years failing to arrive so far. It's called common sense. And as regards "explaining again why unnecessary deletions are harmful", that's because you can't. Not unless you resort to your stock argument of the theoretical needs of imaginary people, in exactly the same fashion that you just did. — Scott talk 17:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
If WT:SHORT is being used and Wikipedia talk:Shortcut isn't (I mean, if people always use the abbreviation rather than the longer name to find the article) that's an argument for keeping it. As for WT:SHC that seems to me like a bit of insider knowledge, nobody who is not an editor would search that way, and the purpose of redirects is solely to help people to find what they are looking for. It could go to Washington Technological School of High Columns or Willesden and Teddington Private Socratic/Hippocratic Club for all I know, it seems a particularly obscure abbreviation. Si Trew (talk) 11:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
"WT:" is a namespace alias for "Wikipedia talk" so all redirects should go to pages in that namespace (Wikipedia talk:SHC redirecting to an article would be very bizarre), and almost all should go to the talk page of the page the corresponding WP: redirect points at. Thryduulf (talk) 13:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I realise that. The point I am making is that "SHC" is not a particularly obvious redirect through that namespace alias (and we have a lot of cross-namespace redirects). I was not suggesting to create those articles, as far as I know those places don't actually exist, though it would not surprise me one of those horrible scamming private school people now sets one up and uses Wikipedia as a reference. Si Trew (talk) 05:11, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep both. The right place for a discussion of the RfD criteria would be WT:RFD. I can't help but feel you're going about this backwards: policy may follow practice,[citation needed] but a consensus to delete these redirects wouldn't constitute a consensus to change the criteria. A consensus to change the criteria, on the other hand, could reasonably be expected to constitute a consensus to delete these redirects. Aside from the procedure though, I'm afraid I'm firmly in the WP:CHEAP camp. I tend to take the view that if someone went to the trouble of creating it, it's probably useful to at least enough people for the potential harm caused by deleting to oughtweigh the benefits; in this case I also think it's probably reasonable to expect a "WP:" redirect to be accompanied by a matching "WT:". – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:46, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Any attempt to change the critera through discussion there will be met with "this does not reflect longstanding consensus" by the people who want to maintain the status quo. On the other hand, if the community shows itself willing to do away with pointless redirects, there will clearly be an evidence-based argument for an update to the criteria.
    • Regarding "potential harm", would you mind setting out what that is for two shortcuts that nobody is using or has been using in the last six years? Even their creator only linked to one of them, once. These were speculative creations, made on a hypothesis of necessity that has been comprehensively disproven by time. — Scott talk 12:04, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
      • The potential harm would be if, for example, someone who's used these shortcuts before were to use them again but find them no longer functional. Or if someone were to use WP:SHORT and then reasonably assume that an associated "WT:" shortcut exists for the talk page, but find that it doesn't. Or if an incoming link to one of these shortcuts from another site, which we can't track, was broken. That sort of thing. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 01:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
        • All of that is pure conjecture. That these redirects have lain unlinked-to for six years is fact, as is their mean daily traffic level of less than one hit, which is the level of random noise caused by bots. By the way, we are also not beholden to other websites to maintain redirects, especially not without evidence that they even exist in the first place. That's a common misapprehension at RfD. — Scott talk 01:47, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


  • Comment. Scott, if I may summarise: you are complaining (it seems to me) that we never change policy (or guidelines). But we do. The place to discuss changes of policy is at the discussion page of RfD itself, not at a particular redirect's entry. In any case, WP:BOLD still applies. I am not myself in the WP:CHEAP camp, not because of the appalling waste of terribly expensive bytes but because I think many redirects make it harder not easier for people to find things via the search engine: however, I also often gnomely create redirects myself (especially with {{R from title without diacritics}} and {{R to section}} and things like that): the only question is does it make it easier or harder for people to find the information they are looking for? Now, that requires some second-guessing about what people are looking for, which is why we come here to find consensus. Si Trew (talk) 05:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

April 18[edit]


This page should not redirect to Game Grumps, as it is only a small part of his life and career and Jon has expressed the same thing here. I say that we just delete the page outright and topic ban any article for a year, or until someone can make a properly sourced article. Redirecting him to Game Grumps permanently with the indef full protection will tie him to Game Grumps when he has nothing to do with it anymore, and is only a small part of his career. TheMesquito (talk) 14:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC) –Copied here from Talk:JonTron. 22:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

  • This page should redirect to Normal Boots instead, since he is both the co-founder and member of the site, and he is most known for his work at Normal Boots with the JonTron show and whatnot. RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 17:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC) –Copied here from Talk:JonTron. 22:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • A quarter of his career isn't small by any stretch of the imagination. Game Grumps is what most people know JonTron for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC) –Copied here from Talk:JonTron. 22:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm in favor of removing all redirects since JonTron is a person and not a character. Hirohiigo (talk) 00:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC) –Copied here from Talk:JonTron. 22:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I have struck out the text that was here prior to the discussion happening on Talk:JonTron being copied over here. I have done this since the last two comments have not added any new information for the discussion, and it was essentially stating that the RFD tag could not be placed on JonTron, which has now been resolved. TheMesquito, I hope you don't mind. Steel1943 (talk) 22:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't mind at all, I'll just remove the striked text TheMesquito (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Manmohan Tiwari[edit]

Non-notable person. Contestant of a reality TV show. Redtigerxyz Talk 19:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. What next, people on phone-in shows? Si Trew (talk) 08:01, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. The nomination is probably an accurate description of Manmohan Tiwari, but it's not an argument for deleting a redirect. Topics of redirects aren't required to be notable; in fact redirecting to a broader topic is a common outcome of deletion discussions relating to non-notable topics, and serves to discourage editors from creating articles on such topics. In this case the redirect is a plausible search term and mentioned in the target article. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

360 Pensacola Beach[edit]

Delete. Was listed, but now removed as it has become apparent that it does not meet the list criterea. No alternative target, which is unlikely to change as the installation no longer exists. (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom and WP:R#DELETE #10. News articles on the first page of Google results indicate the topic is likely notable. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


Procedural nomination on behalf of Chricho (talk), who misnominated this at AfD with the following rationale:

Why the page should be deleted“Commonism” is a distinct term not identically with “communism” and frequently used by commons-activists. This is a source explicitly stating that these are distinct concepts. But it should not be my duty to prove that: The word “commonism” is not even mentioned in the article communism, this redirect is an unsourced claim that these two things are identical. Sideways713 (talk) 16:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment. This redirect was created in 2005 as a redirect to communism without any explanation by a user who last edited in 2007. In August 2011 UltraMagnus retargetted it to The Commons (which has since been moved to Commons), again without explicit explanation. In June 2012 the target was changed back to Communism by Neelix with the edit summary "The word "commonism" does not appear on Commons, but "commonism" is a common alternate spelling of communism.". If that claim of being an alternate spelling is correct (I haven't looked) then the redirect is not inappropriate, as would be the case if it were a plausible typo/thinko for Communism (which is what I expected it to be). If Commonism is a topic about which we should have an article, then a deletion per WP:REDLINK is probably the way to go, a disambiguation page or hatnote is another possibility. Thryduulf (talk) 00:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - Thanks for the breakdown, Thryduulf! If you type "Commonism" into the Google search bar, it asks, "Did you mean: Communism", so "commonism" is clearly a common misspelling of "communism". Unless someone finds enough significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources to demonstrate the notability of a concept that is actually called "commonism" and creates an article about it, the redirect should remain as it is. Neelix (talk) 03:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Plausible typo and surely "commune" and "common" are cognates anyway? Si Trew (talk) 07:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. defines it ( here) as J. Edgar Hoover's pronunciation of "communism", although it is easy for a stenographer just to miss when typing up shorthand notes. I don't think that is RS, but does tend to indicate that it means the same thing. There are a couple of references such as [this one at] and [this one at] to a lecture/paper by Nick Dyer-Witheford (who he?) but that seems rather a neologism and neither is WP:RS in my opinion. (He wrote Cyber-Mar: Cycles and Circuits of Struggle in High Technology Captialism. University of Illinois. 1999. ISBN 978-0252067952.  and I would guess is an academic there for which the the others quoted are from his pupils, that is just a guess). According to those papers, Witheford defines commonism as different from communism (but then what is communism?) and in one in the lead attributes to him "a number of articles [in which he] has sought to promote the concept of commonism as a way to avoid the bad history of authoritarian state communism, while, at the same time, providing an antidote to centralised planning and the restrictions of private property through new forms of collective ownership. However, we don't have an article, if we did it would seem to be sourced to one person, and this obviously is not widespread. THere is a paper here by Witheford himself but it seems to be a neologism on his part and has not become widespread. It should stay where it is. Si Trew (talk) 10:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure there's a way to check this now, but if Commonism were red, would a reader searching for this term get a suggestion from Wikipedia (ex.)? If so, I would support deletion. I understand the nominator's concern that there is a concept called "commonism" that differs from communism, so I'm torn on whether we should treat this as a typo or delete to encourage creation and/or prevent confusion. Certainly it's one letter off, and U and O are very close on a QWERTY keyboard, so it's a plausible typo. But keeping this also seems to conflate two separate ideologies. --BDD (talk) 19:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
No, I don't think they are two separate ideologies. I think it is just a neologism from one professor at one univeristy who has made a nice living out of it but obvously hasn't caught on, and the redirect should stand. We might as well redirect it to Luddite or Socialism or Common land or Commons or House of Commons or anywhere else. As for the typo, if you touch type you shouldn't miss like that because you rest your index fingers on the F and the J (which have indents for the purpose of you finding them without looking) and use different fingers for U (index finger) and O (ring finger) but on small devices that people use these days, it is very easy to miss. Si Trew (talk) 08:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually here's a test. I don't use that awful predictive typing thing on mobile phones, I just make loads of my own mistakes instead, but if you type "commonism" into your mobile phone what do you get? Si Trew (talk) 08:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't have an appropriate device to test that on, but remember that is not only touch typists but two-finger typists, people with non-qwerty keyboards and non-native speakers as well. I guess it's also a plausible mistake for someone using speech input. Thryduulf (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting that it was implausible: quite the opposite. I was saying if you touch-type on a QWERTY (or AZERTY) it would be hard t miss like that: BDD said the U and the O are are close together, but they are not adjacent and one shouldn't miss in that manner if touch-typing properly. (Incidentally it's hard to touch-type properly for Wikipedia editing because of all the special symbols one has to insert.)
But all the various other input methods make it a plausible typo. Certainly yes with speech input it would seem to be very easy to miss, either that the speaker's dialect makes it "wrong" or the limitations of speech detection software. If either Hoover or his stenographer managed to say or record "communism" as "commonism" then the current redirect seems more likely than an idea by a professor that does not seem to have been widely repeated. Si Trew (talk) 08:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete as this is a term used in academic books and journal articles to describe various models that have some of the benefits of Communism. user:BDD, yes search DYM will suggest Communism. See fr.wp search results. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
If you know of academic books and journal articles that use the term "commonism" to describe variations on communism, why not add them to the Communism article? I see no benefit to making users who have misspelled the word go through the additional step of DYM before arriving at the intended article. Neelix (talk) 15:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
It would be WP:UNDUE to mention Commonism in the Communism article. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete Let the software help those who made a typo. As a redirect, it appears that we're saying "commonism" is a form of communism. I'm not convinced that that's accurate. --BDD (talk) 16:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment. From what I read in the professor's paper, commonism is a form of communism (or socialism) and right in the abstract it says so – but the intent is to remove the more authoritarian aspects. That being said, Marx would not have recognised the "communism" of the USSR as communism at all but as totalitarianism, probably. This is just down to how people use words. What about "democracy". As Orwell points out, every state calls itself democratic without defining what it means by democracy, because the word is seen to be inherently "good". As far as I see it, I am just repeating what I said above, this particular model is by one professor at one university and has not been widely reported: he and his paper are not WP:N. A typo for communism, in my opinion, would be far more common. But as I think Thryduulf said above, how can we find out while this redirect is here? And particularly, while this discussion is here, since the redirect of course then no longer takes them automatically to the article. That's the bind. Si Trew (talk) 08:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

World's Largest Artificial Pysanka[edit]

Delete. It's the "artificial" that makes this an unlikely search term. Si Trew (talk) 10:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete We don't have a naturally-occurring Pysanka. In addition, this looks like a mean of disseminating unreferenced information and getting away with giving the source. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep it is sourced in the target, and IMO 'artificial' is an possible/reasonable search term, but I agree it is not a likely search term. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:19, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • n.b. I created World's largest pysanka the other day, probably figuring that if a pysanka isn't artificial, you'd just call it an egg. --BDD (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment. Well I was wondering whether pysanka was at all a likely search term for an English-speaking audience in the first place. I don't want to pat myself on the back but I have a fairly good vocabulary and I had never heard of it. You might as well have Hungarian: tojas or French: oeuf or whatever. There is an article at pysanka but wouldn't this maybe be better targeted from World's largest Easter egg? What about Fabergé egg or Ostrich egg? What is someone likely to want to find, I don't know. Si Trew (talk) 22:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

World's largest port[edit]

Delete. I am not simply trucking through proposing deletion of every article, list etc that has "world's largest" in it. That is valuable for a search. But this is misleading, because the largest port and the busiest port are different things. Si Trew (talk) 10:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete - simply not the same thing. No reason one should redirect to the other. Stalwart111 12:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. This would make a good redirect to List of ports by area, but as we don't yet have that article or anything similar that doesn't help us now. I've revamped and expanded Lists of ports, but there is nothing there or in category:Lists of ports that would make a good target either unfortunately. Thryduulf (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete a smaller well managed pory could esaily be busyier that a larger point so therfore the redirect is misleading.-- (talk) 03:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete Not the same thing. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Viable search term, WP itself should sort out a good target. It is an encyclopedic search term right? Though it may not have a precise hit target, any reader actually searching, typing and finding this would be helped out. Target page may be improved, but deletion is not needed. Just this week the BBC reported that "Heathrow is not the biggest airport by passenger count any more". I mean to illustrate, it is common in RL. (btw, DXB now is, I heard. How would you find that in WP). -DePiep (talk) 07:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - the term 'largest' is equivalent to 'busiest' within the industry, and the overlap between ports that largest by activity and largest by 'land' area size is quite close. Also, land area size is not really comparable or relevant, as the way ships are managed through the waters in and outside the port are equally important, and technology is constantly being employed to reduce the amount of space wasted to achieve the same result. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Weak keep per John Vandenberg. I can imagine a fair amount of readers searching for this are looking for the busiest port. If there were a convenient way to fit in their physical size at the target article, that would be even better. --BDD (talk) 16:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per John Vandenberg and BDD. I am the nominator and I leave the original nomination but strike out my delete; but I know this is redirects for discussion which is why I brought it here. I'm convinced by the arguments above (including Thryduulf's that said delete) that people might search for this, and in the absense of a list of ports by area or some such, this is the best target. Si Trew (talk) 11:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete world's largest port does not mean busiest. It is more likely to mean the number of docking locations, area of the port (landside or seaside or both); further value of goods transshipped versus volume of goods transshipped versus mass of goods transshipped are all different matters. And the largest size of ship that can be handled, the volume of water in the port control zone, the tonnage of shipping processed, can also meant. So redirecting to busiest is not a very good use. -- (talk) 22:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Conciseness razor[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete. G7 cuts like a knife—but it feels so right. --BDD (talk) 16:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Unacceptable mainspace -> projectspace redirect. There is no such real world term, let alone an expectation to find such a thing in mainspace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. This is unacceptable. — Scott talk 14:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete! I created it by mistake, and did not realize it until now. --B2C 15:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
There's a problem with the lede there as well in that the title says "Occam's Razor", Occam's Razor is actually a redirect to Ockham's Razor (this is because William of Ockham spelt it both ways as was common at the time) but the title of the article and the lede don't match. I don't know what to do about that. There is of course Occam (programming language) and so on, so I would tend to prefer the OCC spelling but I presume this has been argued about long and hard before: but the lede and title should match. I daredn't touch it. Si Trew (talk) 23:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Is there any evidence of anyone anywhere ever looking for Occam's razor with the phrase "conciseness razor"? As the inventor of the latter, intended for internal WP use only, I would be very surprised if there is such evidence. --B2C 22:09, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Everyone's entitled to make a mistake and it is rare that an editor will admit to it. Delete per creator Born2cycle. I don't understand why an article in mainspace would be created for "internal Wikipedia use only", though. Si Trew (talk) 23:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Lista di laghi e dighe della Svizzera[edit]

Unnescceary, per WP:NOTDIC. TheChampionMan1234 05:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete no need for Italian in this instance per WP:FORRED. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Italian is one of the official languages of Switzerland, so this is not as implausible as some we see here. Thryduulf (talk) 12:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Those needing this topic in Italian can find it, unsurprisingly, at it:Lista di laghi e dighe della Svizzera. — Scott talk 15:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep, actually. I doubt it's going to be very useful, but there is a connection between the language and the topic. I wouldn't really want to see German, French, Italian, and Romansh redirects to every Swiss topic, but that's an example of what I call RfD zen: this redirect shouldn't've been created, but now that it has been, it shouldn't be deleted either. --BDD (talk) 17:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. We are not the Italian-lanugage Wikipedia. It is already at Italian Wikipedia, it:Lista_di_laghi_e_dighe_della_Svizzera there. The problem I see with BDD's "RfD zen" is that if you're not careful you set a precedent and soon we have it in two hundred and fifty different languages. I am an inclusionist by nature but there are lines to be drawn, and for me, foreign language terms where articles exist in the appropriate encyclopaedia is over the line: someone searching externally will then come up at an English-language article for an Italian term, what help is that to them? Si Trew (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


I was looking for help on the nowiki syntax, not no.wp. Plus, there is some vandalism right now on the page [1], which I will clean up in a sec. TheChampionMan1234 05:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep "nowiki" is the code for the Norwegian Wikipedia in the same way that "enwiki" is the code for the English Wikipedia, and the mainspace article about the Norwegian Wikipedia is better than a cross-namespace redirect to information about the nowiki syntax, especially since there is a hatnote at the article pointing people there already. The vandalism is not relevant to which is the best target. Thryduulf (talk) 12:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Whose code? At least at WP:PNT, unless I have been mistaken all these years, people just say EN:WP or IT:WP or NO:WP and so on. Since there are two Norwegian Wikipedias, for different variants of the language, that is just misleading (to an English audience) anyway. Si Trew (talk) 08:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
If it is just two topics then that can go per hatnotes with WP:TWODABS. The thing is, to encourage readers to turn into editors. This, I feel, discourages that, QED nom. Si Trew (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I'd be very surprised if there were an article that discussed the nowiki function. However, we could use a {{selfref}}, similar to that at AGF, if the redirect is kept: "Nowiki" redirects here. On the English Wikipedia, nowiki is an element of Help:Wiki markup. --BDD (talk) 23:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Good point. I think that might serve a better purpose, especially since Parsing currently fails MOS:DABMENTION for the purpose behind my disambiguation page idea. On a related note, I'm changing my vote to "keep". Steel1943 (talk) 23:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @SimonTrew: To use a hatnote means that a primary topic has been established for the term "Nowiki", and I don't see either one of these terms proven to be the primary topic for the term. So thus, the reason I say "Convert to a DAB". Steel1943 (talk) 23:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete "no" is an English word, and "nowiki" is a tag on MediaWiki, so this is highly confusing. -- (talk) 05:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. There is actually Wikipedia:NOWIKI but I know some other editors are against cross-namespace redirects like that. The current hatnote at the target redirects through that, though at least to me it would seem more obvious if. assuming this is kept, it is used at the target explicitly in the hatnote, rather than "Help:Wiki markup" which while correct seems less helpful. Si Trew (talk) 08:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Keleti pályaudvar[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was wrong forum - see WP:RM if you want to move the location of an article. From personal experience I know that discussions about the name of foreign railway stations are sometimes controversial, so it's best to use the correct procedure for them. Thryduulf (talk) 12:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

This redirect should be reversed. It simply means "Eastern terminus". We do not have "Gare du Nord" redirecting to Northern station or Station of the North, we have it at what it calls itself. Si Trew (talk) 04:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Lista de codigos telefonicos[edit]

WP:NOTDIC TheChampionMan1234 04:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:FORRED and this Portuguese title should point at List of telephone codes, if anywhere, not a Mexico list. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I think this is also Spanish, isn't it? It would be "Lista de códigos telefónicos." That's still not a good reason to keep, though. There are many Spanish-speaking countries. --BDD (talk) 16:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
It's cognate with Spanish, yes, but you are out: in Spanish it is es:Prefijos_telefónicos_mundiales here, through the Interwiki links. The English, through the Interwiki, is at List of country calling codes. But we might as well redirect it to Yellow Pages or Telephone directory, the first of which if memory serves me right (it seldom does these days) was published in New York at about the turn of the last century and listed 112 numbers. It is already in Portuguese Wikipedia pt:Lista_de_códigos_telefónicos here Si Trew (talk) 23:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:User TFBH2[edit]

This template was never a userbox template which using the 'User x' naming convention required by {{Babel}}. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


The subject is not mentioned on the page. Also, Wikipedia is not the Urban Dictionary. I recommend either delete, or retarget to Murcia and tag it with {{R from misspelling}}. Steel1943 (talk) 03:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

  • retarget as a plausible typo for Murcia. Thryduulf (talk) 12:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget per nom.--Lenticel (talk) 13:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget as above. I never make a tpyo myself, of course. Si Trew (talk) 08:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment. I believe another stalwart at RfD used this term the other day about himself, knowing that I was British, but I had never heard the term. I think the term he used was Murica, Florida and I assumed it was an actual placename and tried to look it up but couldn't find it – I knew the editor was joking but didn't quite get the joke, sorry, because I didn't realise the meaning. So this is genuinely misleading. The editor was in entirely good faith and probably assumed I knew the term, but perhaps it is not WP:WORLDWIDE, I have never heard it. Having kinda spoken it in my head I can see how it is formed now, but when written if one has not seen it before one doesn't think automatically that "murica" is a slurring way of saying "America". It's not mentioned at the target. Si Trew (talk) 11:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I think this is used frequently enough to (1) be a plausible search term (to the point where somebody searching for this is more likely looking for the neologism than they are to be mispelling the name of the Spanish city; see the Know Your Meme page for examples) and (2) meet Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion. As such I think a soft redirect to Wiktionary would be the best option, but I'm not going to put that in bold because at present there's no such Wiktionary entry for it to point to. The term is also mentioned at Apheresis (linguistics), which might be a plausible target; and there's also apparently a biological use of the term, which comes up in this 1979 book about Globigerinida and might merit a mention somewhere. Finally, I'd like to note that 'Murica also exists and points to the same target (where it isn't mentioned), but is much less likely to be entered as a typo of Murcia. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 02:37, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


No obvious reason for this to exist. — This, that and the other (talk) 01:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete - per nominator, I don't see why anyone would type that --TheChampionMan1234 04:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • keep or retarget these are the first two symbols obtained by pressing the number keys while holding shift when using a US QWERTY keyboard, and as such it has a history of test edits, which I suspect was the reason for the redirect in the first place (it has existed harmlessly since 2010). It gets a lot of traffic (78 hits last month for example), probably also from the curious so there is definite benefit in keeping something at this title. I can't find scope for an article, so we should redirect it somewhere, the current target is not bad but perhaps QWERTY, Punctuation or Template:Punctuation marks would be better? Thryduulf (talk) 12:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Indeed, the section is actually called "#Computer programming". Thryduulf (talk) 15:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
My cock-up entirely. Si Trew (talk) 22:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. This is a great example of why getting hits isn't always a reason to keep a redirect. — Scott talk 15:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Why? The redirect is preventing unwanted test edits, and while we could salt the title a redirect is very significantly preferable. Thryduulf (talk) 23:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete, the current target is erroneous and arbitrary. So are the other targets suggested, unless this two character combination can be shown to be used for some purpose. Anti-vandalism isnt a good reason to create junk redirects. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete a bit vague to be useful as a redirect to any pages.--Lenticel (talk) 00:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to 12. I was thinking about this for a while to try to figure out what possible keys could be pressed to get this combination of characters, and on the QWERTY keyboard, this key combination would equate to "12" if the "shift" key is held at the same time. (In fact, looking at the comments above, it seems as though Thryduulf said something similar.) Steel1943 (talk) 08:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to section to At sign#In computer languages, where this string would be well-formed syntax in many languages (I originally suggested Forth (programming language) but am changing my own because no-one has replied/is awake yet so it is not helpful for me to strike my own out). "12" is only a typo in the way Steel1943 suggests if you have a US keyboard layout (and perhaps others): on my UK one (which is QWERTY) you would get !" and on my Hungarian one (which is QWERTZ) you would get '". The "QWERTiness" is irrelevant since these are the number keys. Si Trew (talk) 08:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment. When you come to think of it, the history of the at sign is quite interesting. It was used forever in accountancy until computers were invented and tills became automated by National Cash Register and all that, when it became almost redundant. Then someone kinda repurposed it to be used as the separator in email addresses and it got a new lease of life. I remember when there were battles whether email addresses should be big-endian or little-endian (both terms of course from Gulliver's travels and how to write them. The British held out for a while that it should be called e-post instead of email and that in itself is curious since the Americans have the US Postal Service to deliver the mail while the British have the Royal Mail to deliver the post. "NEITHER RAIN NOR HAIL NOR SNOW NOR GLOOM OF NIGHT CAN STAY THE COURIER FROM THE SPEEDY EXECUTION OF HIS APPOINTED ROUNDS". Well, what is it then? Si Trew (talk) 09:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Probably. I did check the section but I got distracted and put in the wrong retarget. There's no specific mention of that symbol in that section either, but it would be valid in various computer languages. Si Trew (talk) 22:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

April 17[edit]


Delete. Not especially Greek. Gorobay (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment. Not sure. Epicentre actually is Greek. Still it seems an unlikely term for an English-speaking audience. There is an article [here at] although I typed into My Favourite Search Engine in the Greek alphabet (by copying it from the title) but the URL is in the Latin alphabet (but the article in Greek). I am not sure this helps people to search or not. Si Trew (talk) 11:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


Delete. Not especially Greek. Gorobay (talk) 16:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Weak keep on this premiss only: that there is no article for it in Hellenic Wikipedia and a Greek speaker (Grecian?) will probably have English as a second language if he has any second language, and for that reason only it would be useful. If that premiss is false, I change my opinion. Si Trew (talk) 12:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


Delete. Not especially Greek. Gorobay (talk) 16:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom Gorobay. The target is a DAB, there is no Hellenic Interwiki, and this is not helpful. Si Trew (talk) 12:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


Delete. It is not a Greek subject and it is not a real Greek word. Gorobay (talk) 16:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete. There's an article at el:Δεοντολογία and looks fuller than the one at EN:WP, they are properly linked via Interwiki, so there is no need to subvert a search in this way. Si Trew (talk) 12:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


The subject of the redirect is not mentioned anywhere in the target page. In addition, it seems that back in 2005, there was an article at Bloomingpedia and it was deleted per an Articles for deletion discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 14:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per Steel1943. Si Trew (talk) 12:01, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Robin Geffen[edit]

Not mentioned on target page. PamD 07:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete. As the redirect and target were created by the same user minutes apart, I would be amazed if there was not a connection, and indeed Google suggests there is a fund manager of this name, but the redirect does not assist readers looking for information about him. Thryduulf (talk) 13:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Thryduulf. Si Trew (talk) 12:09, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I hate you[edit]

There seems to be many musical albums (among other things) with this title, so I think its better to create a disambiguation page, if not delete it TheChampionMan1234 07:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, a disambig page seems to be the best bet. Percivl (talk) 10:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

  • disambiguate per the above. Note I have added the differently capitalised I Hate You to this nomination, and the dab should probably go at that title with the lowercase version redirecting to it. Thryduulf (talk) 13:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I have just noticed that I Hate You was AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Hate You, which closed as delete but it was instead redirected to I Hate U, which should appear on a disambiguation page. Thryduulf (talk) 15:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Aniliidae (synonym) et alia[edit]

These "synonym" redirects do not serve any useful purpose. They appear to be an idiosyncratic attempt by one editor to "fill" a category - see Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_10#Acontias_.28synonym.29. DexDor (talk) 05:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete all per nom DexDor. We might as well have "antonym" or "homonym" or whatever. Now, there may be a technical anatomical sense for "synonym", but if they need disambiguating, that is what a DAB page or hatnote is for. These are not even consistent: Tisiphone (synonym) goes to a DAB whereas Echidne (synonym) redirects to the article Echidne and is patently unnecessary. Halys (synonym) redirects to Halys which is a DAB. Si Trew (talk) 05:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. I note many if not all of these are not tagged as being under discussion here. Si Trew (talk) 06:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
    perhaps I was mistaken but now Echidne (synonym) redirects to the DAB at Echidne which has two entries and should go per WP:TWODABS, either one is primary or the other. Echidna (synonym) redirects to the DAB at Echidna (disambiguation) for which the lede links to Echidna which is presumably primary. Cenchrus (synonym) redirects to Cenchrus (disambiguation). Mesopteryx is an R to an article, Eastern Moa. Taking Occam's Razor I am not going to needlessly multiply examples, but the whole point of taxonomy is to give something a name so people can find it, and a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. But this is foolishly inconsistent. Si Trew (talk) 11:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
    In matters zoological/ it all seems quite rhetorical/ the question is not stated/ whether these get kept or slated./ But since it seems quite clear to me/ to say "echidna" or "echidne"/ are likely searched for those not knowing/ we should sort out where they are going. Si Trew (talk) 11:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
    and what is constrictor (synonym) doing there? The boa constrictor is the one species for which its common and taxonomical name are the same. You might as well direct it to bottleneck or pinch point, which we just discussed the other day. Si Trew (talk) 21:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
    Si, I've indented your comments above to form a group, as the presence of one bolded line start per user aids at-a-glance assessment of discussions. I hope you don't mind. — Scott talk 14:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I do mind a bit. I don't change yours. I looked up every single one of these redirects and only didn't list where they went to because I thought it was needlessly multplying examples per Occam's Razor. Most of them are not tagged for being at RfD, which doesn't help other editors. But I don't change your comments. Don't worry, I'll get over it by breakfast time, and am very happy because I got my permanent residency card for Hungary today. Despite seventeen pieces of paperwork they managed to put the wrong address on it so that means whoever lives at number 34 has to pay my taxes. Si Trew (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment from someone else: I have went ahead and fixed all of the malformed entries on this page. Also, I have stuck out Tortricidae (synonym) since it is not a redirect, but a disambiguation page, and thus does not belong on this forum (I may do something with that page myself). Also, I have placed RfD templates on the rest of the nominations on this page (since only the first nominated redirect had an RfD template placed on it. Steel1943 (talk) 03:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I have added Tortricidae (synonym) back to this discussion, now that it is now a redirect, and seems to have the same issue as discussed here. Steel1943 (talk) 03:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: I am not a zoologist or taxonomist, and I wonder whether there are any such specialists contributing to this discussion? While the redirects as listed above don't seem useful, the situation seems to be:
  • Some biological taxonomic groups have recognised synonyms, earlier names now no longer used butlisted in the taxobox under "Synonyms", and presumably used in older literature.
  • Wikipedia ought to have a way for a reader to get from any of these older names to its current equivalent.
  • Consider the first item listed above: the page for the family Cylindrophiidae shows that "Aniliidae" is a synonym. We should therefore (as far as I can see) provide an access to that article from that term.
  • But Aniliidae does not offer a link to Cylindrophiidae.
  • Aniliidae (synonym) is a redirect to Cylindrophiidae, but not likely to be found by a reader looking for the older term.
  • So I suggest that there needs to be a hatnote at Aniliidae or (if there are multiple potential targets) then a dab page at Aniliidae (disambiguation), to help such a reader.
  • There are several different scenarios among the list of redirects above. I suggest that these unlikely-to-be-useful redirects should be deleted, but that we must ensure that there are links from the undisambiguated names of all those synonyms through to the articles to which those redirects were linking.
  • We really need a taxonomic expert to comment here! Me, I'm just a retired librarian with O-level Biology and a passion for helping readers to find the articles they need by making sure we have all the right redirects, hatnotes and dab pages. PamD 14:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Pinging Faendalimas, who's a taxonomist and works in the area of reptiles. He may also be able to suggest some other people worth consulting. — Scott talk 14:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
ok got the message give me a day I am chatting to a colleague who works on these species, but it is Easter so may not see her for a day or two. Faendalimas talk 15:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
No hurry, thanks for your help. That's even better than I had hoped for. Have a good Easter. — Scott talk 21:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

April 16[edit]

Xylocopa appendiculata[edit]

No need for a xwiki soft redirect. This article will eventually be created. GZWDer (talk) 13:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep. Seems like a useful search term, why would someone search for the longer one? Xylocopa redirects to Carpenter Bee. A very useful bee indeed unless you are a carpenter and the sodding things ruin a bit of two by four. Si Trew (talk) 20:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
    Retarget to Carpenter Bee. Although perhaps slightly inaccurate, we can't have redirects escaping EN:WP. That is just misleading. Si Trew (talk) 21:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete Species names can redirect to their genus (which itself redirects to Carpenter bee in this case), but this isn't going to be very helpful. Better to leave it red to encourage creation. Almost any reader using this search term will be familiar with Binomial nomenclature and know to check Xylocopa next. In fact, Carpenter bee is likely to be the first hit on a search for the species name anyway. --BDD (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per BDD. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Brachydiplax chalybea[edit]

No need for a xwiki soft redirect. This article exists in 7 wikis, so it's very unlikely that this article would never be created. GZWDer (talk) 13:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

*Delete per nom. I don't know why there are all these cross-wiki redirects about, that is what Interwiki is for. It's not hard to create a stub and add an interwiki link. Since it has not been, delete it, it is probably some idiot biology student who can't be arsed to do his homework. Si Trew (talk) 21:22, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Brachydiplax. There is already a genus at Brachydiplax. Just redirect it there. Sure it is not so specific but you can't go diverting EN:WP out to other places with redirects, that is not just misleading but positively harmful to WP as readers would then think that content came from EN:WP. Si Trew (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete Species names can redirect to their genus, but this isn't going to be very helpful. Better to leave it red to encourage creation. Almost any reader using this search term will be familiar with Binomial nomenclature and know to check Brachydiplax next. In fact, it's likely to be the first hit on a search for the species name anyway. --BDD (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and BDD. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Yeah, Delete per BDD. Si Trew (talk) 07:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Insurgent attack on Fort Hood[edit]

While redirects are allowed to be non-neutral, this phrase is completely unattested outside of Wikipedia; see "Insurgent attack on Fort Hood" -wikipedia. You can call Nidal Hasan an Islamist, a terrorist, whatever, but he wasn't an "insurgent" in any meaningful sense. This title implies some Afghan or Iraqi militants attacked Fort Hood. BDD (talk) 20:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. — Scott talk 13:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. For some reason the BBC always call these people "insurgents" now, I suppose they are not allowed to call them "terrorists" or "freedom fighters" or whatever, so that is what they call them. So, Keep as likely search term. Si Trew (talk) 01:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per Si Trew. The redirect gets uses above background noise, and there is no other article this could be referring to (that I know of anyway) so there is no reason to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 12:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

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

List of colloquialisms[edit]

There is no list of colloquialisms at Colloquialism. Wiktionary has wikt:Appendix:Australian English colloquial proper nouns and wikt:Appendix:Glossary of Hiberno-English slang and jargon, but no list for other varieties of English. I would suggest deleting the redirect. Cnilep (talk) 03:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment I suppose this could be converted to a list of lists, there being lists of colloquialisms on Wikipedia [2] -- (talk) 07:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete We don't have such a list, and I'm not seeing many good suggestions in those search results either. --BDD (talk) 17:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep 9 years old and harmless. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 20:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC).
  • Delete per BDD; this is a surprising redirect. — Scott talk 18:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete even in 2005, when the redirect was created, the target didnt contain a list of colloquialisms. If someone wants to create a list of lists, have at it, but it is a wasted effort as word/phrase lists tend to be deleted as they are migrated to Wiktionary, unless the list has lots of prose and/or purpose to rise above WP:NOTDIC/WP:NOTDIR/etc. John Vandenberg (chat) 19:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 11:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete per various above. This is WP:ASTONISH, it is not a list of colloquiallisms, and if it were, it would be WP:DICDEF probably. Si Trew (talk) 07:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
While a list of colloquialisms may or may not be appropriate for Wikipedia, one would not necessarily be just dictionary definitions - one which contained links to articles about notable individual or groups of colloquialisms for example. Thryduulf (talk) 13:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
That's true, but this isn't a list: so to call it a list is misleading. We might as well make a list of articles with paraphrase and slang and backslang and Eric Partridge and Cockney rhyming slang and patois and pig latin and so on, then. But I am not suggesting that is worthwhile to do: that is what the search engine is for. Si Trew (talk) 21:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)list

Some Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion section/subpage redirects[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was withdrawn/resolved. Thank you David Biddulph for correcting what was wrong with their redirect, which turned out to be the issue with the other redirects: replacing "#"s with "/"s. Then, I realized that ".2F" means "/", and fixed that as well. Steel1943 (talk) 05:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm assuming that these redirects served a purpose to refer to a discussion on the Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion page, but as it stands, without proper up-to-date targets (as well as no incoming links), it is difficult to understand the point of the redirects. I'm thinking that there is probably a valid "retarget" option for each of these redirects, but as they are redirects of subpages/sections that currently do not exist (each of these redirects have only one edit [other than the RfD notice I put on them]), I originally thought that CSD G6 may apply to these redirects. At this time, these redirects seem to be unnecessary redirect clutter. Steel1943 (talk) 04:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

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

April 15[edit]


As below, another redirect to a redirect by Jax 0677. — Scott talk 18:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Yes, it's silly of Jax to create double redirects, but I don't think it makes much sense to discuss them as such. I assume the RfD tag will prevent bots from fixing them. Why not just fix them and discuss accordingly? --BDD (talk) 20:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • speedy keep until the discussion about these sorts of redirects concludes. Thryduulf (talk) 20:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete FK is a country code for the Falkland Islands, which has its own taskforce. -- (talk) 20:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
    • FK has many possible meanings and there is no reason why a country code should automatically have precedence, and you have not given any reasons why this country code should get precedence over any other use. Thryduulf (talk) 11:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
      • FK is not a recognized abbreviation for funk, so is a novel creation. As there are uses for recognized uses for FK having wikipedia content, the use of this for funk is inappropriate in all cases. -- (talk) 04:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - See my response at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_14#Template:Wprg. Also, "FK has many possible meanings and there is no reason why a country code should automatically have precedence, and [no reason is given] why this country code should get precedence over any other use." --Jax 0677 (talk) 04:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)÷


Two more misnamed templates by Jax 0677. PK is the country code for Pakistan, and WP:PK is the shortcut for Wikipedia talk:Notice board for Pakistan-related topics. See also the RfDs of Template:Pk and Template:Wpk, both also by the same author.

Note: the target shown above of the first template is not a listing error. This is what Jax 0677 has been doing: creating variant-cased redirects that redirect to each other, in other words nonfunctional double redirects. In each case his error has subsequently been corrected by a bot, as I expect the one above will be.

At this point I'm going to take an unusual step. Jax 0677's apparently endless stream of malformed template redirects is now wasting a significant amount of effort at RfD. I ask the community: is there consensus for the imposition of a moratorium on any further creations by Jax 0677 of music WikiProject template redirects? — Scott talk 18:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Note: it appears that Jax 0677 is currently blocked from editing and will not be able to participate in this discussion until his block expires at 14:00, 16 April 2014. — Scott talk 18:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, it's silly of Jax to create double redirects, but I don't think it makes much sense to discuss them as such. I assume the RfD tag will prevent bots from fixing them. Why not just fix them and discuss accordingly? --BDD (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
    • My point here is that not only are these redirects poorly conceived and in conflict with existing shortcuts, they're also nonfunctional as created. Which is starting to make me wonder if competence is an issue. — Scott talk 20:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep per my comment below. I would support a moratorium on creation of redirects iff it was accompanied by a moratorium on the nomination of all redirects to WikiProject templates until the discussion about them concludes. Thryduulf (talk) 20:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
    • One user wasting the community's time by creating a blunderbuss blast of redirects of questionable value is a discrete issue from how redirects should be named. Certainly Jax 0677 should stop creating redirects until that discussion has been resolved, regardless of the whether the RfDs open on his creations are resolved or on hold. These most recent ones were all created yesterday. — Scott talk 20:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete PK is the country code for Pakistan, which has its own WikiProject -- (talk) 20:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
    • PK has many possible meanings and there is no reason why a country code should automatically have precedence, and you have not given any reasons why this country code should get precedence over any other use. Thryduulf (talk) 11:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
      • PK is not a recognized abbreviation for Punk, so it is inappropriate for punk to misappropriate this term in all cases, with other uses that are recognized present and having wikiprojects. -- (talk) 04:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - See my response at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_14#Template:Wprg. Also, PK "has many possible meanings and there is no reason why a country code should automatically have precedence, and [no reason is given] why this country code should get precedence over any other use." --Jax 0677 (talk) 04:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete No one is going to interpret PK as a shortcut for punk rock. Can we escalate a ban on all such creations by the author? --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


Another Jax 0677 redirect (see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 14). WP:CL is the shortcut for Wikipedia:WikiProject Constructed languages. That project may be moribund, but it doesn't change the fact that they got the initials. — Scott talk 18:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep until the ongoing discussion at WT:SHORTCUT concludes. This nomination is disruptive to that discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 18:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Take your accusations of bad faith somewhere else. — Scott talk 18:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
      • That I find that these nominations are disruptive to an ongoing discussion is a simple factual statement, and this is an appropriate place to make such observations. Thryduulf (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete CL is a country code for Chile, which has its own {{WikiProject Chile}} -- (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
    • If you think that country codes should be respected in redirect titles, you'll need to raise that opinion at the WT:SHORTCUT discussion, as it's not an accepted practice at present. P.S. Are you the person who was editing from 70.50.*? — Scott talk 21:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Yes, I hadn't noticed my IP jumping to the 65... range from the 70... range. At any rate, this deletion opinion is based on being a misleading redirect, which is an accepted deletion criterion, because CL and WP are accepted abbreviations either (A) worldwide [CL] or (B) on wikipedia [WP]; "CL" is not an accepted abbreviation for classical music worldwide. -- (talk) 05:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
        • "CL" is also an internationally accepted abbreviation/code for "chlorine", "Shilluk language", "Lufthansa CityLine", "Centilitre" and other uses, why should the country code automatically take precedence? Thryduulf (talk) 11:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
          • There's no WikiProject Centilitre and unlikely to be one. There is no wikiproject for Shilluk or CityLine or Chlorine. But you've just stated my case as to why this is misleading. -- (talk) 04:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - See my response at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_14#Template:Wprg. Also, CL "has many possible meanings and there is no reason why a country code should automatically have precedence, and [no reason is given] why this country code should get precedence over any other use." --Jax 0677 (talk) 04:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Air France Flight 107[edit]

Delete the redirect, because the flight number (and year) used was incorrect and will lead to (further) confusion. Frank Geerlings (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe the latter 2 are OK if I change them to point them to the 178 article instead. The first link should probably still go. Sorry for the confusion. —Frank Geerlings (talk) 17:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, those were double redirects. It looks like you've fixed them, though. --BDD (talk) 17:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • delete "Air France Flight 107" - I can find no information (that didn't originate on Wikipedia) that AF178 was in any way connected with a flight number of "107". Thryduulf (talk) 17:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete it was created in error and has no connection and an unlikely search term for Flight 178. MilborneOne (talk) 18:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Airlines do change flight numbers, either for operational reasons or when a flight crashes.But not very often. AF107 according to is currently in flight (as I write) from Guangzhou to Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport so these are simply not the same thing. Si Trew (talk) 21:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure some aviation buffs can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe flight numbers get regularly reused. My guess is that they might "retire" some that end in tragedy, but perhaps not. --BDD (talk) 22:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not an aviation buff, but you don't need correcting. Unless a number becomes particularly associated with a specific route or specific event in the public consciousness (most often due to tragedy) then numbers chop and change whenever required or desired by the airline. Even ending in tragedy is no guarantee that the number will be forever retired - strong association of flight number and accident is primarily a US media thing (although as in many things UK usage is increasingly following American) and memories fade over time. e.g. British Airways flight 9 is presently en route from London to Bangkok, in 1982 it was a stopping flight from London to Aukland. Thryduulf (talk) 23:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Flight numbers actually are incredibly stable. Obviously airlines change routes and so on, introduce new ones and remove unprofitable things, but e.g. BA152/153 from London Heathrow to Cairo and back has had the same flight number for at least thirty years (when I travelled on it) simply because it is the law of least resistance there is no need to change it. So they tend to get changed only when a flight crashes (the airlines somehow think that people will be put off by booking a flight with the same number as the Miracle on the Hudson or whatever) or for operational reasons when routes are changed. Bus numbers are the same, they last forever. I think the 19 in London has been going for about 100 years now. They are incredibly stable. Si Trew (talk) 12:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
To correct or augment myself: British Airways used 001 and 002 always for Concorde (there and back) but have never reused those numbers, I think. I never travelled on Concorde myself – I don't use public transport. Si Trew (talk) 12:39, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Unsimulated real sex[edit]

Implausible search term, mostly because of redundancy. Created within the last six months. BDD (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

  • strong keep or retarget this is getting nearly 400 hits every month, so it's clearly not an implausible thing to look for. The only question is whether the current target is the best - sexual intercourse is not inappropriate by any means, but my gut feeling is that this is a term more related to pornography so either pornography or reality pornography are worth considering as targets too. The former may be too general and the latter is quite stubby, so I'm very open to other suggestions too. Thryduulf (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
That is more hits than I expected, but a lot of readers are probably searching for Unsimulated sex, see this suggested, and get curious. --BDD (talk) 17:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
That is an argument for possibly retargetting to Unsimulated sex, not one for deletion. People following the link out of curiosity are being educated - educating people is Wikipedia's core mission. Thryduulf (talk) 20:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
More titillation than curiosity, I'd think. I could create George Washington's clown career, and it might get some hits from curious readers. How are we "educating" these readers? By letting them know that... sex exists? But as a good friend of mine is fond of saying, "You can't just make things up." --BDD (talk) 20:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh yes you can. That is why there is a redirect for Beethoven's liver, which I made up, the content was correct but the article went to AfD and I incorporated into Death of Beethoven quite rightly since it is more about his offal more generally than his liver (which according to pathologist J S Madden was "twice the normal size and covered in pea-sized nodules" and if that ain't poetry I don't know what is) – but I created the article and the content has stayed there. The fact an R is incorrect does not make it an unlikely search term, in fact one of the points of Rs I would have thought was to help people who search things wrongly to find the right article, and if it gets that many hits (I haven't checked I am taking it on trust) then all to the good. Si Trew (talk) 04:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Implausible search term. "Unsimulated real sex" is not only redundant but also implies the nonsensical existence of "unsimulated false sex". Removing this redirect won't impede anyone's searching: if you type "unsimulated" in the search box you get unsimulated sex, and searching Google for "unsimulated sex" unsurprisingly returns unsimulated sex as the first result. — Scott talk 20:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)ld be.
    • People use many different methods to search and browse Wikipedia, most of them don't get search suggestions - even those using the main search bar only get them if they have javascript enabled. Google results vary by many factors, including location, version of google and personal search history, so cannot be relied upon - indeed the presence of a redirect aids google to direct users to the right place. Not that Google results for "unsimulated sex" are that relevant to the "unsimulated real sex" redirect in the first place... Thryduulf (talk) 11:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Unsimulated sex. I don't know what real artificial sex or real simulated sex would be, but if it gets that many hits it should stay. Si Trew (talk) 04:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia[edit]

Should this go to Wikipedia:Welcome instead? I think so. TheChampionMan1234 05:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete WP:XNR that seems a very unlikely thing for someone to type in. Redirect from content-space to something to do with the functioning of Wikipedia should not be stumbled upon by readers who will never edit. Any links to those pages should come though the substitution welcome templates; for readers, we already have the article Wikipedia. -- (talk) 07:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - hundreds of incoming links. Harmless and not new. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 20:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC).
  • Keep That's quite a lot of incoming links. I don't like to keep CNRs, but it's clear that this one used to be part of a formalized welcoming process. Would breaking those links cause massive harm? No, probably not, but it would probably cause some. --BDD (talk) 21:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Retarget per John Vandenberg below. This could be fixed with a bot run so no historic links would be broken (and talk page notifications not triggered). However, it's questionable whether altering the historic record in such a fashion in order to tidy the namespace would present much of a benefit. The term is unlikely to be searched for, so I don't envisage it causing any problems by continuing to exist. — Scott talk 18:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC) Changed to retarget. — Scott talk 20:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Wikipedia, which is a great introduction and has a selfref at the top to Wikipedia:About which is a good entry point for new readers and editors alike. fwiw, the majority of the incoming links are substed versions of {{Welcome}} from pre 2006. The intended recipient has long since visited the link if they wished to do so. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Retarget per John Vandenberg, Scott, and Rich Farmbrough (who didn't !vote retarget but from his valid argument I would say retarget and it was useful for him to say it). Anything that helps readers to find information is useful. Si Trew (talk) 02:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Нас Не Нагонят[edit]

Delete. This is not the title of the song. Gorobay (talk) 16:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep it is the title of the song from which it is translated, unless we have a separate article about the widely listened too Russian version, this is a good redirect. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 17:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC).
    • We do have a separate article on "Nas Ne Dogonyat". Is that what you are referring to? Gorobay (talk) 18:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
      • Yes, better perhaps to redirect there then. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 20:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC).
  • Keep It's a few characters off from the Cyrillic form given in the article, but it is a language related to the subject. No problem here. --BDD (talk) 17:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Retarget to Nas Ne Dogonyat. --BDD (talk) 15:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete With Gorobay on this one too Nedgreiner (talk) 18:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC) 18:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Nas Ne Dogonyat as a {{R from typo}} and {{R from alternate language}} -- (talk) 08:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - directs readers to the content they're looking for. No argument has been presented for deletion, nor can I imagine any. WilyD 09:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep, now THIS is an "extraordinary case" as I refer to above. LazyBastardGuy 15:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Nas Ne Dogonyat. — Scott talk 17:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC) Wait, what, it's not even spelled correctly? I missed that. Delete. Not plausible, Nyttend is right. — Scott talk 22:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete, redirects for alternative Cyrillic representations of the title is insane - one Cyrillic redirect is enough. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

  • retarget per People are far more likely to make typo or c&p errors in foreign languages than their own, so we should be more accommodating where we can be so, such as this case. Thryduulf (talk) 17:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not a plausible typo. Most people who will be able to type this title are those who have a Cyrillic keyboard, so they'll know that two letters are wrong and that there should be just one capital letter, not three. People without a Cyrillic keyboard and without a knowledge of Russian are going to be copy/pasting the title from somewhere else, and copy/paste errors won't be responsible for several different letters being incorrect in this way. Nyttend (talk) 22:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not a plausible typo. I just bought a keyboard with Hungarian layout, because I know all the accented letters are on the right hand side but I don't touch-type in Hungarian. the missus can because she taught touch-typing in Hungarian but I have to look at the keys to find the letters with the diacritical marks. The idea an English-speaking audience will type in Cyrillic is absurd. They will go to RU:WP or wherever Their Favourite Search Engine takes them. If it is also wrong, that is compounding the felony. Si Trew (talk) 02:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


Delete. This does not seem to mean ‘euro’ in any language. It does mean ‘Évreux’ in Belarusian, but that is not a Belarusian topic. Gorobay (talk) 16:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep - redirected and categorised as per your research. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 17:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC).
  • Delete per nom. And not so fast, Rich. We can retarget if there's consensus here, but for now, that would just muddle the discussion. And anyway, a Russian-language redirect to a French commune with no apparent connection to Russian should be deleted anyway. --BDD (talk) 17:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I am on your side, people changing things under your feet. I was away for a day and hadn't even a chance to see what the original was before sticking my oar in. Although there are no hard and fast rules, changing something while it is under discussion seems harmful to me. Happy Easter everyone, and thank you all for your contributions to Wikipedia to make it better. It doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be better. Si Trew (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep This is actually related to the language Nedgreiner (talk) 18:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC) 18:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
    • What language? Gorobay (talk) 19:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Évreux then, yes. We want readers to find the content they're looking for. WilyD 09:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
    • What he said Actually, not sure. Again, I don't see the value in linking something in Russian or whatever language uses Cyrillic to something that has no connection to such a language whatsoever. But pending possible cultural connections I'll abstain from further participation here. LazyBastardGuy 15:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
    • If people are searching for Évreux in Belarusian, what they want is be:Эўро, which doesn't currently exist. I'm sure the Belarusian Wikipedia has their own equivalent of WP:FORRED, and we shouldn't be hijacking their search terms. — Scott talk 21:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:FORRED. No strong cultural ties have been provided. John Vandenberg (chat) 21:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
    What is the benefit in deleting it? Genereally we only delete very new or harmful redirects. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 03:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC).
I think it's harmful to imply to non-English speaking readers that searching in their language is an effective way of navigating the English Wikipedia. --BDD (talk) 18:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
This is what I've been trying to point out on similar recent listings. Since my use of the word "random" seemed to cause some confusion then, I'll pick another: these redirects are completely arbitrary. As you say, this is not an effective way of navigating. That would only happen if these redirects were created systematically everywhere, which of course they aren't. We already work very conscientiously to remove ambiguity in article titles; redirects like these introduce a much more subtle, insidious and difficult-to-resolve kind. It also makes us look bad if we willingly tolerate a completely haphazard and ineffective undocumented subsystem. Any foreign reader who has the bad luck to encounter and try relying on it is going to be far from impressed. — Scott talk 19:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep. I don't have a Euro note on me, but Greek is on the Euro notes although only one country of the 28 Euro nations uses the Greek alphabet has it on the notes: so that is a useful redirect. (I've often wondered how Greeks write a micrometre, since on road sings at least in Crete they use Greek letter mu to mean metre.) This is not Greek but Cyrillic, but it seems a useful incoming link. Let's assume its Belarussian: it's not that far away from the Eurozone and Euros are traded widely there. Si Trew (talk) 02:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
    And I wish people would stop changing things while they are under discussion. Si Trew (talk) 02:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. See uk:Євро, ru:Евро, bg:Евро, and be:Еўра — Ukrainian, Russian, Bulgarian, and Belarussian all call this currency something other than "Эўро". If any language calls the currency "Эўро", it's not a language in common use anywhere near the Eurozone. Nyttend (talk) 16:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I found a few links on YouTube e.g. [[3]] with that name but I am having trouble discerning which language it is. I'll ask at WP:PNT. Si Trew (talk) 21:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I've listed this at the talk for WP:PNT although that project is very active the discussion doesn't seem to be, so I am not sure we will get anywhere. My searches, I cannot distinguish what language it is and it is too short a term for the automated language finders to distinguish.
May I just restate also: it is not helpful to change things while they are being discussed. I don't know why people keep doing that, I know it is good faith but is harmful to other editors until consensus is reached, it is a fait accompli that is very difficult then to discuss. Si Trew (talk) 21:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
It's Belarusian, as mentioned above. Google Translate is pretty good at identifying languages. — Scott talk 21:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
“Эўро” does not refer the euro in that video; it refers to Euro 2012. Gorobay (talk) 22:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Oops, yes, I meant to note that as well and totally forgot to. — Scott talk 22:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Nyttend. — Scott talk 21:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Gorobay. It's Gorobay who called it as Belarussian in the first place; but other languages also use the phrase, so I wasn't sure and did a search. I thought also it was Belarussian but since it is such a short word I guess it is used elsewhere so that is why I searched. Gorobay I think has found the best target: Euro 2012. Si Trew (talk) 12:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
But it doesn’t mean ‘Euro 2012’. It also doesn’t mean ‘euro’. It only means ‘Évreux’. However, Belarusian has nothing to do with a French town, so it should not redirect there either. If other languages use the word, please elaborate. Gorobay (talk) 20:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
It certainly doesn't. In fact, the author of that video seems to be the only person using the word "Эўро" in conjunction with "2012". Who knows why, but it's clearly a completely idiosyncratic usage and should be ignored. — Scott talk 21:10, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Contact (1997 film)[edit]

Redirect created from page move to Contact (1997 US film), allegedly to disambiguate from The Contact (1997 South Korean film). Titles are different, so no disambig needed ("Contact" vs "The Contact"). uKER (talk) 15:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


Delete. Not especially Greek. Gorobay (talk) 15:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per Gorobay. Si Trew (talk) 03:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


Delete. This does not appear to be a real Greek word, and even if it were, antinomianism is not particularly Greek. Gorobay (talk) 15:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete. My Favourite Search Engine brought up a couple of Greek songs on YouTube, this article at third, and then oddlyh a translation site that (not My Favourite Search Engine dot translate) that thought it was Hebrew, very oddly since patently it is not Hebrew. If anything we could redirect it to Antimony but I don't see the point, that would be misleading. Si Trew (talk) 03:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius[edit]

Two redirects that are virtually the same but are targeted to different places. Later chroniclers reported that something akin to this phrase was uttered by Arnaud Amalric before the Massacre at Béziers, and this is mentioned in both articles. With that in mind, both redirects are good, but they really ought to be targeted to the same place. Should both go to Amalric's article, or both to the massacre article, or both to somewhere else? I don't particularly care which choice we pick. Nyttend (talk) 12:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

  • It doesn't really matter which to me, but they should point to the same place. Good find. --BDD (talk) 16:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. For way of comparison I found Let's Bring Em Home which doesn't have the apos, and in Bruce Springsteen with The Seeger Sessions Band Tour and We Shall Overcome: The Seeger Sessions is "Bring 'Em Home now" with the apos, and I often abbreviate "them" to "'em" which in speech is quicker but in typing come to think of it doesn't actually even save me a keystrike so I don't know why I do it. A quick Wiikipedia search (not external search engine search) for me shows it is about half and half so they are better deleted to let the search engine deal with it. Si Trew (talk) 03:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC):: A quick Wiikipedia search (not external search engine search) for me shows it is about half and half so they are better deleted to let the search engine deal with it. I have no idea why this was listed under Latin: Kill them, the Lord God knows who are the faithful (or "his own") which for me brings up on My Favourite Search Engine Massacre at Béziers at the first, and Joshua verses 1–12 here in the New International Version. Declaration of non-interest: I am not a Christian. Si Trew (talk) 03:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
    Why would we delete them? They're different forms of a well-known phrase often (mistakenly) associated with the incident, and both of them are good redirects. And what does the beginning of Joshua have to do with it? The only reason I came here was to get input on where they should be redirected, since both targets are good and it's silly to have them go different places. The Latin title is the original phrase, FYI. Nyttend (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
    I realise what the Latin phrase is. The thing is I find it obscure to bring rtwo edirects and list them under a different title from either of the redirects themselves. Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius doesn't exist, neither does kill them all, let God sort it out or kill 'em all, let God sort it out. So either they should be added or these deleted. I agree with you, though, if they stay they should go to the same target. Si Trew (talk) 07:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
As for Joshua, look at verse 24. This is what comes up on My Favourite Search Engine, as I said. I never said it was "right", I said what I got on a search. Si Trew (talk) 07:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I think this phrase is notable enough for its own article, so create a stub at one location, and redirect all variants to it. -- (talk) 05:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Sprint finish[edit]

Confusing redirect. "Sprint finish" usually refers to sprinting at the end of a long-distance race, whereas this redirects to an article on short-distance running. LukeSurl t c 10:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Interesting case. "Spring (running)" could just as easily refer to sprinting (i.e., the act) as "the" sprint (i.e., the type of competition), but the article is on the latter. If we had an article on the former, it would be a good place to target, and a logical place to discuss sprint finishes. But they aren't only used in running either. It seems like we should be able to find a place to retarget, but I'm leaning delete. --BDD (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • This is my fault. I intended to re-frame the sprint (running) article as one covering not just sprint races, but sprint running in general. I've started this change now. Still, sprint finishes are present in sprint cycling, speed skating etc. I think this should be redirected to sprint (disambiguation). SFB 19:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • CommentDelete. Seems a good call from Sillyfolkboy. I have been grumbling lately about things changing fast under your feet, but I didn't expect it to get this literal. Si Trew (talk) 03:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. "sprint finish" is frequently used to refer to the end of a cycling stage, or the end of a cross-country skiing race. -- (talk) 05:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Given the use in different contexts I suspect there is the potential for an article about this, and nowhere I can find to sensibly redirect to in the meanwhile. Thryduulf (talk) 13:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Sillyfolkboy. — This, that and the other (talk) 02:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Sillyfolkboy. John Maynard Keynes once said when challenged over some point said "When the facts change I change my mind. What do you do?" [4] Si Trew (talk) 21:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

April 14[edit]

Bus routes in Hertfordshire[edit]

Unneeded redirect, Nothing about bus routes are in the Hertfordshire article, And to be honest other than bus enthusiasts no one would even search for the above search term. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 21:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per Davey2010. My elder brother was actually a bus driver in Hertfordshire and I grew up there but this is not notable. My brother drove buses for about I dunno fifteen years in Herts and sometimes I would go out on a Sunday doing route learning with him on a new route, me navigating with him driving. But I think even he, who bought and restored a old one off the company, restored Almex machines, collected roller blinds and changed his numberplate to be that of a scrapped Leyland Atlantean, would find this redirect ridiculous. The 304 from Hitchin to St Albans is a nice route to see the countryside, I used to like taking that each morning to work, but the 734 is a pain, theoretically shorter but practically longer. Neither is mentioned at the target, and if it redirects anywhere, it is probably best to take it to London Country Bus Services or Sovereign Bus or Arriva The Shires, but it is better to delete it, I think. Si Trew (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to leave it as it stands but Almex machines are the old-fashioned manual bus conductor's machines. Si Trew (talk) 22:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per previous consensus to delete redirects with similar names. @Davey2010: Do you recall what dates (I think it was in 2013) that these discussions happened? I know that you had participated in them; I was the one who grouped them all together. Steel1943 (talk) 21:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
@Steel1943: - Yep it was definitely 2013, I think between March-June, I can't recall the grouping as the AFD'ing went slightly mad but yeah was definitely 2013, -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 21:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
@Davey2010: I found the discussion: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 April 4#List of bus routes in Cambridgeshire. Okay, they're not named completely the same, but the reasoning is the same for why the nominated redirect should be deleted: this redirect's name is very misleading. Steel1943 (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Bloody hell good find!, All in all imo a useless, misleading and most definiately unneeded redirect. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Agree. There is an article (not redirect) for Stagecoach bus route X5, which is at the DAB at X5, but I add this here not to disagree but to show the pattern. This runs through four counties, and has a substantial article (it is essentially a replacement for the old Varsity line) and has won trade awards etc and is notable. But any old bus route is not notable. If anything it should be called "List of bus routes in Xshire" anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talkcontribs) 04:56, 17 April 2014

Template:WikiProject Public Policy[edit]

This is a misleading redirect; fortunately, it has no uses. Education and Public policy are very distinct topics, even if they may have some overlap. Also, there's never been a Wikipedia:WikiProject Public Policy as far as I can tell. No objections to retargeting to Template:WikiProject United States Public Policy, but that's not the course I'd recommend. BDD (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Do not redirect to the US project, as it does not deal with non-US topics. (As an unrecommeded option, it could redirect to WikiProject Politics) -- (talk) 21:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Public policy is far broader than just the policy on education. Si Trew (talk) 22:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete, or Redirect to Template:WikiProject United States Public Policy and hope that the WikiProject expands to include non-U.S. public policy. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment it should be expanded first. If it isn't expanded prior to retargeting, then it is misleading. I see no notice on the project talk page asking the project to expand its scope, so this "hope" is misplaced, as there's not even an indication that the project should expand. -- (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete, though I could see a retarget to either the Politics or US Public Policy projects. Since it is ambiguous in that sense, perhaps deletion is the best option. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 06:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Thomas K. Turnage[edit]

Delete. WP:RFD#DELETE. "If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject, it is better that the target article contain a redlink than a redirect back to itself." This is a notable person, one of the last Administrator of Veterans Affairs in the U.S. government, but it's a redirect to his wife, an actress. Until I figured out that Turnage was married to Adams, I thought it was vandalism or a completely different person with the same name. (talk) 18:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete: 149' is right on the money with the policy here. Turnage is best left a redlink until someone creates an article about him. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 06:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Involuntary health consequences[edit]

While I'm not aware of a specific policy regarding such cross-namespace redirects, the case of the Yogurt Rule (see RfDs 1 and 2) suggests that they're misleading in that they imply stronger community consensus for an idea than actually exists. Like the Yogurt Rule, this one was created in W-space but returned to userspace since it was considered too much of a minority view. And for what it's worth, this userspace essay seems largely abandoned, its author inactive. --BDD (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The redirect is unnecessary. You have accurately described the situation. I am in the minority, but years later, the issue continues to receive mention by people other than me. I still maintain that the mission of Wikipedia is not served by compromising the usefulness of information. The first encyclopedist, Denis Diderot, would not approve of an encyclopedia that does not preserve USEFUL information for the next generation. Sadly, it would appear that this point of view was impossible to understand or acknowledge 4 years ago by people in the Open Source / Open Content Community. Anyway, thank you for your consideration. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 18:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment. As apposition, what would "voluntary health consequences" be? If we have one, we should have the other.
I smoke, for example, because I enjoy it, although I know it harms my health and I know it in six different languages: Rauchen gefardhat das gesundheit, fumer tue, roken is dodelik, a donhányzás halaált okzalt, Smoking kills, and so on. I know what it says on the back of the packet and I know that it costs me money – to deliberately ruin my health is a voluntary health conseuquence. Actually smokers tend to overestimate their risk of shortened life expectancy from smoking (it is about seven years and in surveys they guess about eleven) and insurance companies actually pay more to smokers when paying out on endowments or annuities on their life assurance on the assumption they'll die earlier (it is called the Smokers' Premium in the UK, I don't know about elsewhere, but a case was brought to court in the UK with the claimant, an habitual smoker, being refused his smoker's premium because he gave up for a couple of years: the claimant won. It was reported in the legal reports in The Times but I doubt I could find it). Si Trew (talk) 23:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete very failed policy proposal; doesnt need a WP: shortcut. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • No objection to deletion. –xenotalk 01:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete all; redirect creator agreed above anyway. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 06:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

C: category shortcuts[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was moot. Recommendations taken forward before C: implementation makes it impossible. — Scott talk 18:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

These category shortcuts were discussed here in February, and that discussion closed with a lack of consensus for any change, due to the unresolved status of the RfC on Meta about making c: an interwiki prefix for Commons. As that has now concluded with a demonstrable consensus for implementation, which will add titles beginning with "C:" to the list of unusable titles, these redirects can be discussed with clarity. I'll open a separate discussion for "C:" redirects to articles. — Scott talk 10:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

C: shortcuts where matching CAT: shortcuts exist

Recommend deleting all.

C: shortcuts without matching CAT: shortcuts

Recommend renaming each to CAT:x.

Obviously, CAT:OMMONS doesn't exist. However, CAT:COMMONS does. Recommend deleting.

Inconsistent cases

CAT:FUR exists already, but redirects to Category:Non-free content review requested. Recommend renaming to CAT:NFT or something more appropriate.

Content categories

No evidence of on-project usage, so recommend deleting.

  • Keep C:CSD - which gets a lot of use, and probably C:ATT, which is important, unless there's any evidence they actually conflict with something. I have no real opinion about the rest, I think, as they seem no more valuable to me than interwiki links to Commons. WilyD 10:42, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I think you've misunderstood - once the c: interwiki prefix goes live, all titles beginning with "C:" will become unusable. This RfD is a formality - either we dispose of these shortcuts now, or they get scooped up by cleanupTitles.php and moved to "Broken/whatever" first, which is more of a pain to deal with. There's no real option of keeping any of them. — Scott talk 12:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Concur with the recommended implementation plan. IMO Category:Non-free use rationale templates should start with the shortcut CAT:NFURT, and CAT:FUR should also be renamed to CAT:NFCR (non free content review), but that is a separate issue. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
    • That was actually my first thought as well. If no other suggestions demonstrate consensus, could the closer of this debate please take this as support for CAT:NFURT. — Scott talk 15:37, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Formatting request: Can someone remove the quotes? Makes it illegible for me. There are better ways to show a copypaste. -DePiep (talk) 09:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
    • What do you mean "illegible"? And it's not a copy and paste, by the way, at all. — Scott talk 11:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Ornamental not descriptional. Big font takes more rows (while being a list). If it's not a quote/cp, that's a very good reason not to use {{quote}} :-) -DePiep (talk) 11:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • About alternatives (C: and CAT:). As was listed in February, all C:X-to-Category:X redirects already have a parallel redirect named CAT:X.
One exception: C:OMMONS. For me, that one can be deleted without alternavtive. (In other words, deserves Deletion anyway without creating CAT:COMMON Red XN). -DePiep (talk) 09:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Actually there are a number of exceptions, and they're all detailed above. — Scott talk 11:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
That's the layout effect. -DePiep (talk) 11:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I struck. Did not/could not follow the details enough. -DePiep (talk) 12:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Given the comment from This, that and the other here - I suggest to just go ahead and add c: to the interwiki map for now. - will anyone object if I get on with deleting/moving these shortcuts in the fashion I proposed above? Where there are incoming links, I'll fix them as appropriate. — Scott talk 19:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Okay, I'm just going to get on with it. — Scott talk 17:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.


Also redirect Wikipedia:PSEUDONYM and Wikipedia:Nickname to Wikipedia:NICKNAME. The terms "pseudonym" and "nickname" are more likely to be used in contexts where names in biographical articles are discussed, rather than the Wikipedia username policy. Anonimski (talk) 09:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Confused. What you want to happen here? Wikipedia:Pseudonym redirects to Wikipedia:Why create an account?#Reputation and privacy. Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Nicknames, pen names, stage names, cognomens and Wikipedia:PSEUDONYM is a redlink. Since none of these discuss a biological common name (or a common chemical name, which is hatnoted there) or go to WP:COMMONNAME (a redirect to Wikipedia:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names). Si Trew (talk) 04:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I meant that is a more suitable target for both "WP:Pseudonym" and "WP:Nickname", regardless if they're all-caps, or if any already links to "Why create an account". - Anonimski (talk) 21:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Still confused. WP:PSEUDONYM doesn't exist, so there is no redirect for discussion. If you want it, create it. Si Trew (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Requests for adminship[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retargeted to Administrators (Wikipedia)#Requests for adminship. The Bushranger One ping only 02:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:CNR: "Currently, the general consensus seems to be that newly created cross-namespace redirects from the main (article) namespace to the Wikipedia (project) namespace should be deleted." 6an6sh6 03:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I noticed after nominating that it used to point to Administrator (Wikipedia)#Requests for adminship, but was recently changed by someone else. 6an6sh6 04:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - confusion is possible. My opinion is that we should not have any links for Wikipedia administration articles.Lighthouse01 (talk) 17:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per 70.50. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - confusion is possible, yes that is true but people who are looking for the requests for adminship page (for instance, to see what it is) it is a much better redirect than Administrator (Wikipedia)#Requests for adminship. Fremantle99 (talk) 06:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Administrator (Wikipedia)#Requests for adminship. I don't see the need for deletion when we have a viable target; I don't see the need for a CNR when we have a viable mainspace target. --BDD (talk) 18:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per 70.50. — Scott talk 10:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget per BDD; viable target, and while adminship is not a purely Wikipedia pursuit, the primary use of the phrase "request for adminship" appears to be in reference to the Wikipedia process. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 05:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

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

BBC English[edit]

It redirects to Received Pronunciation yet in the lead of that article it specifically says, not to be confused with "BBC English" Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 15:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It also says Received Pronunciation (RP) is the standard accent of Standard English in England... It is important not to confuse the notion of Received Pronunciation – a standard accent – with the standard variety of the English language used in England that is given names such as "Standard English", "the Queen's English", "Oxford English" or "BBC English". That suggests that Standard English ought to contain some discussion of "BBC English" (it doesn't at present) and that this redirect should point there instead. So there's a content issue that needs to be fixed first. — Scott talk 15:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment. Orwell called it "BBC English" in an essay about how to not sound so stifled on the radio. I can't remember the name of the essay offhand, it might be Poetry and the English Language, but he realised that the limitations of technology at that time (microphones, speakers and so on) meant one had to speak very clearly and in a rather stilted fashion were it to come across at all. (And remember Orwell worked for the BBC from 1942 to 1944). I can dig this out from the Essays which I have here now but surely that would be RS? He specifically compared against Received Pronuniation. Si Trew (talk) 23:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate Convert to disambiguation page. Apparently, there are at least two topics that can be referred to as "BBC English", considering that there is currently a hatnote on Received Pronunciation that directs the reader to BBC English Regions, and even with the current target of the redirect being in question, there are at least two topics and I don't see any of them (or any others that are being questioned as part of this discussion) being the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. However, if it is decided that the current target is bad, and there are no other options (besides BBC English Regions), then my vote would be (weak) retarget to BBC English Regions solely on technicalities. Steel1943 (talk) 23:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Upon further investigation, it seems that the "BBC English" in Received Pronunciation refers to the topic BBC Learning English. After finding that out, I can am state with 100% certainty that the wording in Received Pronunciation that the explanation of "BBC English" in the lead is very misleading and confusing. In fact, at this point, I have struck out my "weak" vote; I'm fully endorsing disambiguation, but not including any redirects to Received Pronunciation on the page at all. Steel1943 (talk) 00:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
You want to apply WP:DAB to a redirect? What new title for this redirect do you suggest? -DePiep (talk) 02:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
No new title. The title would still be "BBC English", and would have at least BBC Learning English and BBC English Regions listed. Having Received Pronunciation added to list would be determined by this discussion. But, then again, I don't know if BBC English Regions is ever specifically referred to as "BBC English", so it may not work due to being a partial title match (however, BBC Learning English is referred to as "BBC English" as stated in its article.) So, if not turning this title into a disambiguation page would not be an option, BBC English may just simply need to be retargeted to BBC Learning English. Steel1943 (talk) 03:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Got it. Turn this redirect page (content) into a full dab page, with two or three targets listed there. No need to change the name into BBC English (disambiguation). Including the third page (as you question) can be done and changed outside of this TfD. -DePiep (talk) 09:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • ...and now, I'm even more confused. I found this line in The Noose (TV series)#B. B. See: ...And speaks with a received pronunciation accent (better known as BBC English). Thanks to this sentence, I am now beyond baffled, and at this point, trying to figure out where the bad information started, what is the bad information, and how to fix it. Steel1943 (talk) 00:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Convert to dab page: I don't think there's a primary topic for this phrase. It could be someone talking about Received pronunciation, BBC Learning English, BBC English Regions, or a number of other topics. I don't support a delete because it's pretty clear that this is a plausible redirect for BBC Learning English. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 04:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Convert to dab page, same name. Per Scott Steel1943. Steel's confusion can be solved after that (including article improvements), not part of RfD. -DePiep (talk) 10:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC) corrected editors name -DePiep (talk) 06:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Convert to DAB per DePiep. BBC English used to be used as a synonym for Received Pronunciation, and was used in the thirties and forties partly because everyone working at the BBC was upper-middle-class and partly because it was the best way to convey English over primitive microphones and loudspeakers (see for example Orwell's essay "Poetry and the Microphone"). . Then, in the seventies, the BBC put in a deliberate policy of using regional accents – which means that "BBC English" doesn't really mean anything except as a historical term. For god's sake, the BBC just moved their whole central TV production from BBC Television Centre to Salford Quays and I studied in Manchester and my accent is a variant of Mancunian and Cockney. On the BBC World Service the presenters, I am not sure if they literally have a metronome but pace themselves slower than on the British radio channels so that firstly those who do not speak English as a first language can understand them, and secondly so that if the radio reception is very poor it can still be understood. But that does not come from Bush House any more, that is now from Broadasting House, and people like Neil Sleat who has a quite deep voice but extremely clear, which had many complaints when he first started but has grown to be loved, broadcast both on Radio 4 and on the World Service as announcers. So there is no such thing as BBC English any more. Si Trew (talk) 14:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


Delete. Not especially Greek. Gorobay (talk) 14:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


Delete. Not especially Greek. Gorobay (talk) 14:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


Delete. Allo- is found in many English words derived from Greek. There is no reason to redirect it here over the many other words incorporating that morpheme. Gorobay (talk) 13:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Αρκτικός Κύκλος[edit]

Delete. Neither Deception Point nor the Arctic circle is especially related to Greek. Gorobay (talk) 13:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete. If this Greek phrase were to be redirected anywhere it would have to be Arctic circle (per WP:ASTONISH), but per WP:FORRED this is not really useful. It might be different if the Greek phrase were somehow prominent within the novel but our article indicates no connection at all. Thryduulf (talk) 14:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete per nom. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Law 18[edit]

Incorrect redirect. While association football has numbered Laws, there are only 17 of them. It is law 16 that covers Goal kicks. LukeSurl t c 11:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete per LukeSurl. Though not a great follower of football (though the match between Barcelona and Atletico Madrid last week was great to watch) soccer/association football is notable for having very few laws compared to other sports. This is simply incorrect (assuming LukeSurl is correct, I don't have a rule book on me) and it could just as well go to many other sports that do have a Rule 18. Delete it. Si Trew (talk) 12:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete. I almost certainly watch even less football than Si Trew, but the laws of the game are available on the FIFA website at [5], and LukeSurl's nomination is correct in both its points. Google seems to show that there are only three significant uses: (1) in the context of Association Football it seems to be used to mean "referees should use common sense", but this is an informal, specific usage that should not be in the common sense article as too specialised; it wouldn't be implausible pointed at Laws of the Game (association football) if there was anything there specifically referencing a "Law 18" but the single sentence presently there, "Referees are expected to use their judgement and common sense in applying the laws." is not sufficient to support a redirect though. (2) Title 18 of the United States Code (18 USC), but that is not a single law and is not referred to as "Law 18" (the uses are of the form "xxx law (18 USC...)" and so I wouldn't support that as a redirect. (3) Cricket does have a Law 18, "Scoring runs" and so I wouldn't object to retargetting this to Laws of cricket#Scoring and winning or Run (cricket)#Rules but I don't see it as really necessary. Thryduulf (talk) 15:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I think it would be unwise to retarget it to cricket. Cricket has a very complicated rule book built up over the years by the Marylebone Cricket Club (Lord's). Because I am very bad at sports I was left to do the scoring, and it's the hardest job you have to do double-entry bookkeeping essentially on the fly from a hundred yards away with an umpire who sends tiny hand signals and can't count and puts seven runs in an over. On the wireless when someone gets out for a duck (dismissed without without scoring any runs) they say "that's made it easy for the scorer" when it is actually a right sod for the scorer cos you have to wait until you know who's coming in for the next innings so you can put it in the book and so on, who went off and mark that out and where are we, it is far harder than sitting in the pavilion and coming out once in a blue moon to play the game. Same with soccer really because I am so useless at sports "we'll put you in goal". Yeah thanks then you can blame me for every one I let through, can't I be left back: especially, left back in the changing room. Si Trew (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't even know what I was thinking all those years ago when I made this. Law 16 is what covers goal kicks. Sorry for the inconvenience. --Aristeo (talk) 20:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Looks like the creator is okay with deletion as well.--Lenticel (talk) 05:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Law 1-15 do not exist either. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - these kind of redirects are so vague, and can apply to so many different things, that they serve no purpose. GiantSnowman 11:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


The name of the ship is AMc-2, not AMC-2. There is another article at AMC-2 (satellite) with the same name so if this could be deleted, the article could be moved to this name. No use of a dab page as because of just two links. A hatnote could be used instead . Zince34' 09:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment. This is a question of whether the satellite or ship is the primary topic for "AMC-2" (with that capitalisation). If it is the ship, then the current situation is correct and a hatnote at the ship's article should be added. If it is the satellite then that article should be moved over this redirect. The satellite's article should retain it's hatnote in either scenario. The question though should I think be asked at WP:RM rather than here. Thryduulf (talk) 11:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Add both at DAB. There's a DAB at AMC that lists AMC 34 and AMC 35 and AMC-3 and AMC-18 and of course lots of other things. AMC-2 (satellite) is not listed there, neither is AMC-2 nor USS Magpie (AMc-2). I am not suggesting that is not the correct title for the ship, but what will an intelligent but ignorant reader search for? In my opinion, to disambiguate by literally one bit, the smallest possible amount of change one could possibly make in information theory, is unlikely for most people coming to Wikipedia: the search engine does not distinguish on case. AMc-2 is also a redirect to the same target, USS Magpie (AMc-2). Si Trew (talk) 13:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm a liar, it hasn't: as you see from the redlink. But that is the point: since the search engine doesn't distinguish, it took me straight to the R anyway which is why I thought it had. Si Trew (talk) 13:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete, and move AMC-2 (satellite) there. Nothing wrong with its current hatnote referring to the ship, though. --BDD (talk) 17:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete to make way for a move of AMC-2 (satellite), which is a clear case of WP:NATURAL/WP:DIFFCAPS and as such should be handled under G6. The current redirect is based on an incorrect capitalisation of an obscure alternative designation of a ship which is fairly obscure anyway. While I appreciate Simon's point that it may be difficult to differentiate AMC-2 and AMc-2 in a search, a) the search was only redirected because AMc-2 does not exist, b) it is at odds with wider consensus on the issue and c) I would contend that anyone looking for the ship is far, far more likely to search for "USS Magpie" than "AM(C/c)-2". --W. D. Graham 20:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Apology There is already a hatnote at the AMC-2 Satellite, which I did not notice. Sorry for the misinformation. Zince34' 08:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


'WP:CM' is the abbreviation of Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music, and has been since 2005. The standard convention, and common sense, is for the WikiProject talk template to use the same abbreviation. I recommend this template shortcut is retargeted to Template:WikiProject Classical music. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Weak keep - Please note that WP:WPCM redirects to Wikipedia:Christian music, and that {{wpcm}} was closed as keep on April 5, 2014. Also, see my response at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_14#Template:Wprg. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
    Sadly nobody in that discussion raised conflicts with other wikiprojects. Thank you for finding another conflict 'WPCM'. Note that their project tag template has the shortcut is {{CCM}} which lines up with their other project shortcut WP:CCM. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Point to {{WikiProject Classical music}} for now, which has the WP:CM shortcut, and is active (whereas the Christian Music project is noted to be semi-active). However, I believe there needs to be a broader discussion of where the WP:CM/CM/WPCM shortcuts need to point. Also oppose deletion on the grounds that once the tangle of shortcuts is resolved, there will be no real risk of confusion. Finally, I renew my request that a community-wide discussion be started addressing the propriety of short, possibly ambiguous template redirects for WikiProject templates (i.e., whether there need to be naming/capitalization standards, to what standard ambiguity in WikiProject template redirects need conform, and moreover which WikiProject should prevail in conflicts over long-extant shortcuts). The fact that the discussion over {{Wpcm}} closed as keep when there was this conflict waiting in the wings is exactly why we shouldn't be deciding these one-by-one. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 03:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
    I've started that conversation over at Wikipedia talk:Shortcut#Template shortcuts. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Note - I have just notified several individuals who have taken part in previous RfDs. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

  • delete as confusing, with multiple meanings for CM (Classical, Country, or Christian). Frietjes (talk) 22:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment "CM" is a country code for Cameroon .cm[6] -- (talk) 21:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm going to maintain my stance that this should point to the Classical Music project banner either way to maintain consistency with WP:CM. If, however, that shortcut should point to Wikipedia:WikiProject Cameroon, then I would support changing the target of this redirect to the Cameroon project's banner (presently {{AfricaProject|Cameroon=yes}}). —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 21:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
    • That WikiProject has yet to become active - if it was active, and I hope it does soon, I would recommend that they take over any relevant shortcuts currently using 'CM'. However by then we might have a very different technology layer to play with. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete, too many meanings for CM, including Cameroon. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • 'Delete per Plastikspork. Let the search engine deal with it. It has got slightly better. Si Trew (talk) 13:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


And again. See also ongoing discussion of the redirects Template:R&B and Template:R&b. — Scott talk 00:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep - See my response at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_14#Template:Wprg. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Leaning delete there is already {{WPRB}} pointing at this target. I much prefer that we keep shortcuts as only upper case, unless there is some context that means people will naturally presume they should use lower case. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep as a lowercase shortcut variant of {{WPRB}}. I respectfully disagree with John that we should have one or the other; templates are case sensitive, and I think we should err on the side of convenience for our editors (someone created this to save time, and I'm fine with erring on the side of believing that person) unless and until the MediaWiki software allows otherwise (as it has for caps variants entered in the search bar). I'll note that we don't go out deleting our caps variant redirects that preexisted that change. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 03:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Procedural close please for as long as the other discussion is open. -08:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DePiep (talkcontribs)
  • Delete per JV, the SHORTCUT should be allcaps. -- (talk) 09:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • delete per 70.24 and JV. Frietjes (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete, better to just keep the uppercase version. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


And again. Apparently created to replace Template:C&W/Template:C&w, both of which were likewise deleted here two weeks ago. — Scott talk 00:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep - See my response at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_14#Template:Wprg. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. The main difference between this and the now-deleted C&W templates is that the consensus in the prior RfD was more aimed at the lack of any signifier that it was a WikiProject banner versus an articlespace template. I see no chance of confusion here, and "CW" in this context fairly clearly refers to "country & western music", which is under the umbrella of the Country Music project. Interestingly, keeping this and retargeting {{WPCM}} (per my recommendation in its own RfD above) may serve to resolve the WP:CM/CM/WPCM shortcut conflict that has been identified. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 03:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete {{WPCW}} exists and is allcaps, as SHORTCUTs should be, this being a shortcut to a template. -- (talk) 09:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:CHEAP, but Jax 0677, please consider not creating so many redirects of this type. Sideways713 (talk) 10:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Contradiction, Sideways. -DePiep (talk) 18:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


And again; apparently created to replace Template:Jz which was deleted here two weeks ago. Note that the author of this template also created {{Wpjazz}}. — Scott talk 00:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Why the strong? And how do your links #2, 3, 4 and 5 (out off 5) apply to this nomination? -DePiep (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Reply - Whichever parts of the statement make sense with "wpjz" apply, and I am not sure how to make that any clearer. --Jax 0677 (talk) 04:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Reply - Template {{WPJAZZ}} is good, but {{wpjz}} is better, as it is shorter. If there is a better use, I'd love to hear it, otherwise, my position stands. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: It's not a matter of one or the other. There is nothing wrong with both. The redirect is there, it exists. Performance arguments are not relevant (see also: here). In short, there is literally zero benefit to deleting this particular redirect. As I state above in the {{WPCW}} RfD, the main difference between this and the now-deleted Jz template is that the consensus in the prior RfD was more aimed at the lack of any signifier that it was a WikiProject banner versus an articlespace template. I see no chance of confusion here either. Jz is an uncommon combination of letters (at least in English). I simply see no reason to believe that there is confusion with some other WikiProject (unless maybe Jay-Z has a project, but even then I would disagree that deletion is the preferred outcome). —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 03:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete {{WPJZ}} already exists, and SHORTCUTs should use allcaps. This is a shortcut to a tempalte. -- (talk) 09:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per 70.24 finding {{WPJZ}}, where I didnt, because it was a double redirect. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • delete per 70.24. Frietjes (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete I find these kind of redirects not useful. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete, too many meanings for JZ. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per Plastikspork and nom Scott. Could just as well be a search for Jersey or Jizz or Juventas or javelin or whatever; it is too vague and on a QWERTY the Z is right next to the shift key and easy to mistype. Our task here at RfD is to direct people to the information they want to find, and this gets in the way. Si Trew (talk) 13:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


Yet again. "Wpfk", what even is that? — Scott talk 00:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Reply - Apologies, that is my mistake. I tried to correct my comment, but my internet has been going haywire tonight. I was going to say that maybe {{wpfk}} should redirect to {{WPRB}}, just like {{wprk}} redirects to {{WPROCK}}. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Wpcl, Retarget Wpfk to {{WikiProject R&B and Soul Music}} (funk is within that project's scope). Delete neither. The nominator makes no cogent argument for deletion here (unless the intent is to incorporate some other deletion rationale by reference). If so, I argue that the "WP" signifier makes it clear that this points to a WikiProject banner; thus many if not most of the prior RfDs that closed in delete referenced by Scott above are not relevant (as most of those had to do with shortcuts lacking the "WP" signifier). In short, there is no chance of confusion. Moreover, keeping Wpfk rather than replacing it with WPRB may be preferable in case funk music spins out into its own project or task force within the R&B project. It would make reassigning the affected articles virtually instantaneous. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 03:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Retarget Wpcl to {{WikiProject Chile}} per the discovery of 70' below. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 16:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Retarget Wpfk to {{WikiProject South America|Falkland Islands=1}} per Frietjes' point below, which I think can be done (i.e., it works as the South America project but with the Falkland Islands workgroup flag automatically tripped). This would be useful in case the South America project ever spins off the Falkland Islands workgroup into its own project (makes for rapid retagging). —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 02:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. "CL" is a country-code for Chile, which has its own {{WikiProject Chile}} -- (talk) 09:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • delete, confusing since CL is Chile, and FK is the Falkland Islands. Frietjes (talk) 22:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • delete or retarget both. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete all and not retarget. I do not understand why are we trying to create more and more redirects with name that are difficult to remember. WikiProject Classical music exists for years and till now I have not seen anyone complaining of having to type too much to add a banner. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete as clutter and confusing. Jax seems just to be creating such redirects for any two letter combination that he can come up with which may or may not make sense, going beyond the point of usefulness. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


As below. Note, there's already a {{WPRock}} shortcut, and even {{wprk}} and even even {{wpr}}, which latter both survived an RfD in February. There's a long name and two varieties of abbreviated shortcut; this is unnecessary badly-named clutter. — Scott talk 00:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Further note. {{Wrok}} added to nomination following suggestion by Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars below. — Scott talk 14:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - See my response at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_14#Template:Wprg. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong delete ROK is South Korea, and ROC is Republic of a lot of other counties. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget Wprok to {{WikiProject Korea}}, Delete Wproc (hopelessly ambiguous), Retarget Rok to {{Korea topics}}. Fairly straightforward. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 03:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
    • And delete Wrok; I'm becoming more and more convinced that WikiProject banner templates should generally have the "WP" prefix. "Wrok" is just an uncased variant of WROK, which itself more sensibly refers to a radio station with those call letters (though I don't think any of the WROK stations are big enough to merit their own nav templates). Anyway, while I don't think banner redirects (or project shortcuts for that matter) need to intrinsically have meaning, I think there's enough of a consensus emerging at Wikipedia talk:Shortcut#Template shortcuts that we should generally have the WP prefix with template shortcuts of this length. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 15:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per JV. South Korea (ROK) and Taiwan (ROC). Further All Wikiprojects should use "WP"/"WPP" prefixes instead of usurping content-space usability. -- (talk) 09:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • delete as confusing per John Vandenberg, since ROK is South Korea and ROC is Taiwan. Frietjes (talk) 22:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete all per above. I guess {{WP Rock}}, {{wprk}}, {{wpr}}, among others, aren't enough. Each project tagging template doesn't need 100 redirects created by a single user without verification that each one will actually be useful. Another one that should be nominated is {{Wrok}}. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
    Added. — Scott talk 14:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete all I do not understand why are we trying to create more and more redirects with name that are difficult to remember. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete all of them, simply confusing with multiple meanings for these abbreviations. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete all as too confusing!. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


Another inconsistently-named musical template redirect made by Jax 0677. This should be deleted for the same reasons as the numerous ones at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 27 were. — Scott talk 00:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep - "Rg" are two letters in the word "reggae". This RfD is extremely similar to the 2013 RfD about Template:Cop and the 2014 RfD about Template:wprk ("R" and "K" are two letters in the word "rock"), which I am incorporating by reference for the sake of brevity. There are several templates like this, such as {{Tb}} which is not about tuburculosis, {{pot}} which is not about cannabis, {{hat}} which is not about headwear, etc. WP:R#D8 does not apply as this is not an article space redirect. WP:R#D2 does not apply as confusion is less likely to occur in other name spaces.
  1. "Unless a WikiProject [or anyone else, for that matter] has actually expressed interest in usurping [these redirects], I don't see [them] doing any harm." To date, no other use for {{wprg}} has been suggested at all. Per WP:R#KEEP, "If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do".
  2. Alleged confusion is not very plausible at all. So absent evidence of any harm there is no reason to delete.
  3. "There seems to be no evidence of confusion, just conjecture on the part of nominator, and no argument grounded in WP:R. Laziness is the exact purpose of redirects, to be perfectly honest, and the creator of a useful redirect that saves one or two characters should be commended. We don't delete redirects based merely on conjecture. Someone obviously found these useful given they were created."
  4. "One of the lowest things one can do is steal another mans tools. So you have no use for it. That it's being used on [talk pages] is good enough, and there is zero reason to take away something that has no higher use. Such Nominators should be required to be the one to hand edit and remove any deleted tags."
  5. "Redirects are not only cheap but this is a redirect from and to template namespace. That would tend to indicate to me that anyone using it is an editor rather than a general reader and they are hardly likely to get it [confused]. There are lots of little abbreviated things pulled up over the years such as {{tlc}} or {{tlx}} or whatever as useful shorthand for editors." --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep The main difference between this and the now-deleted templates is that the consensus in the prior RfDs was more aimed at the lack of any signifier that they were WikiProject banners versus articlespace templates (with the exception of a few that genuinely were unintuitive, a consensus with which I disagree). I see no chance of confusion here. Give me another WikiProject to which "RG" could apply and I think we could consider retargeting. Otherwise there's just zero point to deleting. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 04:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete {{WPRG}} already exists, and SHORTCUTs should use allcaps, this is a shortcut to a template. -- (talk) 09:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment "RG" is a country code for Guinea [7] -- (talk) 20:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete this redirect, and as {{WPRG}} is new I would vote to have that pre-allocated to the closed WikiProject to Guinea, which I am guessing is the Africa WikiProject. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • delete or retarget to Template:WikiProject Africa. Frietjes (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete I do not understand why are we trying to create more and more redirects with name that are difficult to remember. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete, too many meanings for RG, including Roleplaying Game and others. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per above - Too many meanings which all becomes confusing!. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

April 13[edit]

World Market[edit]

The primary use of "world market" is as an economic concept. The uncapitalised version world market redirects to Market (economics), and the capitalised version should also do so. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Retarget per BrownHairdGirl. Si Trew (talk) 22:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget per nom.--Lenticel (talk) 03:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget for the sake of constancy, but with a hatnote pointing to Cost Plus, Inc because Cost Plus's stores could reasonably be called this. Tideflat (talk) 04:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Meat and two veg[edit]

Delete or write article. The target article describes a style of American restaurant. Meat and two veg is a traditional British style of meal [8][9] – a wholly different concept on multiple levels. Somebody searching for "Meat and two veg" is likely to be looking for the style of meal, not the American "meat and three" restaurant format. If somebody is able to write an article to replace the redirect then go ahead, otherwise I argue that the redirect should be deleted. — Smjg (talk) 21:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom or 'redirect to Wiktionary'. It's also British/Irish slang to mean the male genitals, and is described thus at wikt:meat and two veg at sense 2 (of 2), but unfortunately that entry has no references. It's completely different from a meat and three. I don't know how one could write an article since it is not something for which I imagine one could find much WP:RS: all my search links are to dictionary definitions or used as newspaper headlines and not to e.g. a public house offering meals or whatever, it is very much slang. Nothing wrong with slang I use it a lot but I think it would be hard to create an RS article out of it, thus I say delete.
The nearest I got for RS were these articles in British newspapers:
but it's not mentioned in the body of any of the articles themselves just used in the headline. There are loads of recipe sites etc but they are not RS.
Those citations are worth adding as dictionary references to Wiktionary, I think, but I can't see we can make an article out of it. Si Trew (talk) 22:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Lisa Walker[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was withdrawn by nominator. Steel1943 (talk) 03:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Suggest deletion This was created as a redirect to the Elizabeth Walker disambiguation page. However, it has incoming links - there appears to be one notable Lisa Walker, and all her redlinks have now turned blue, meaning an article on her is far less likely to be created. Rather than change her name to add a disambiguator (seeing as she is the only one), she should remain a redlink. The same goes for the reirects created at the same time, Beth Walker and Elisabeth Walker. They can then be added to the disambiguation page as redlinks. Boleyn (talk) 13:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

  • 'Delete' per WP:REDLINK. I might get different search results from you because I live in a landlocked language island, but the first thing from My Favourite Search Engine that comes up for me is Lisa Walker Jewellery in Germany. There is also Lisa Walker - Author but that appears to be self-published although her book "Sex lies and Bonsai" was reviewed in a short in the Sydney Morning Herald. Which Lisa Walker did you mean to be the only one to be notable? It's a fairly common name. Si Trew (talk) 15:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I worded it poorly, I meant that all WP redlinks were to the one Lisa Walker. With a bit of digging, I've managed to make a disambiguation page out of Lisa Walker (I've retained the redirect and redirect notice because, after starting a discussion, I didn't want to act unilaterally). However, Beth Walker and Elisabeth Walker aren't suitable for their own disambiguation pages, and so should be deleted and left as redlinks open for creation, as per WP:REDLINK. Boleyn (talk) 16:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • DAB it per Boleyn. Nicely done. Si Trew (talk) 21:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Elisabeth Walker clearly usable as a {{R from typo}} if nothing else. DAB Lisa per nom (or just merge Lisa into Elizabeth as a variant dab) Weak Keep Beth, considering what Elizabeth is used for, with variant spellings. -- (talk) 09:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. Wasn't Betty Walker the landlady of the Rovers Return in Coronation Street for many years? Although that article is for a Jewish-American comedian. I've never really followed that soap so no idea and maybe have the surname wrong. I can see both sides of both sides with this one: was going to suggest spelling it "Elisabeth" instead of "Elizabeth" was misleading but likely typo; but then where do we stop do we have Bet, Beth, Betty, Libby, Lilabet (Queen Elizabeth II's childhood moniker), Lila, Lilly, Lisa came up the other day for the name of a space program(me) (it never occurred to me before then that it is a contraction). It seems "Elizabeth" is a name that attracts an enormous number of epithets and surely we can't do all of them. Si Trew (talk) 13:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I feel the comments haven't (yet) addressed the issue of misleading redirects, i.e. bluelinks to the swimmer Elisabeth Walker when they should be blue, same issue for Beth. Boleyn (talk) 15:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment WP:DLR -- a disambiguation page is not misleading. If the person has no page on Wikipedia, then that does not indicate that the bluelink has no other uses, as clearly this does, so, turn the linkages into (Elisa)Beth Walker (xyz) etc for every case. -- (talk) 21:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep 1. It would be unproductive to users who, upon searching for Elizabeth Walker, accidentally typed "Elisabeth Walker" and, instead of being redirected to Elizabeth Walker, were confronted with: "There were no results matching the query. You may create the page "Elisabeth Walker", but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered." The same reasoning applies to Lisa Walker and Beth Walker as well as to Lizbeth Walker, Lisbeth Walker, Bess Walker, Liz Walker, Elisa Walker, Lizzy Walker or Lizzie Walker. None of these names currently has a Wikipedia article and, if an article highlighting one of these names were to be created, the already-existing redirect can then be converted.
2. At this point, it would seem counterintuitive to leave the three name variations submitted here for deletion as redlinks, while retaining all the others. The topic thus naturally segues to the redlinks themselves. The single Wikipedia use of "Elisabeth Walker" is for a Canadian paralympian whose name appears as a redlink in ten articles. Anyone typing her name into Wikipedia would be redirected to the Elizabeth Walker disambiguation page, where one of the entries states: Elisabeth Walker (born 1977), Canadian Paralympic swimmer who, at age 15, competed in Barcelona's 1992 Summer Paralympics and continued in 1996 Atlanta, 2000 Sydney and represented Canada at the 2004 Summer Paralympics in Athens; named Canada’s Assistant Chef de Mission for London 2012 Paralympic Games, instead of being confronted with a user-unfriendly redlink.
3. The same reasoning applies to redlinks (now seen as bluelinks) flowing towards Lisa Walker, Beth Walker or Liz Walker. The most reasonable solution is not to delete these names, thus leaving them as redlinks until the creation, if ever, of articles using these names as main headers, but simply to unlink the redlinks (now seen as bluelinks) within the articles themselves and negate the links which flow to these names. To take the paralympian as example, the ten articles also feature scores of unlinked names for various paralympians, while someone decided to add links only to Elizabeth Walker's name, without bothering to create a biographical entry for her. The overabundance of such redlinks in various articles is distracting to the eye and unlikely to spur creation of articles. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 22:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment If you unlink redlinks to notable people, anyone looking to create an article would not have an easy opportunity to do so. We don't unlink notable people. I've spent hours creating articles on Eliza Walkers and Elizabeth Walkers to negate this. Boleyn (talk) 10:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment The only way to keep to WP:REDLINK and WP:DISAMBIGUATION was to resolve all the misdirected links here, in many cases creating the articles so they could be hatnoted. In the end, it's better, but it took me two days, and yes, I resent spending my holidays cleaning up this. Withdraw nomination as through hard work I've sorted it all. Now I'm off to take a wikibreak to consider why on earth I bother. Boleyn (talk) 11:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Commment. I wonder why you bother when firstly you should have a proper break and secondly it hadn't, as far as I see it, achieved consensus, so now we are trying to hit a moving target. Si Trew (talk) 01:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Zero1 Australian National Championship[edit]

The title no longer belongs to Zero1 so the re-direct is no longer correct. The title is now owned by non notable promotion Wrestle Rampage. This change is mentioned in the Zero1 article. (talk) 08:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete. Then by your own reasoning it should stay, if it is mentioned in the article and is a useful redirect then it should stay. It's not a question of it being right but being useful. But looking at the stats this was very very rarely hit (most days zero, max days 2 in the last ninety days, mostly zero: it's gone up a bit the last few days to a whopping 12 but that is I imagine just cos it is brought here for discussion) so if it is incorrect and rarely hit, might as well let the search engine do the work. Si Trew (talk) 11:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Well then it needs to be fully protected because there's an IP hopper about who will try and re-create the article in it's own right thinking that it's still a Zero1 title when it's not. That's the point - it's NOT a Zero1 title and belongs to someone else. (talk) 12:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment. Are you suggesting it would be WP:COPYVIO? I don't know anything about this, but if someone owns the copyright and it is going to the wrong place, at least in Engish law and I imagine in Australian law that would be passing off and should be remedied very quickly indeed. Si Trew (talk) 15:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't think applying that IRL will happen. The issue here is preventing the IP hopper from doing it, which is much harder to police in the sense you're speaking of it - except by deleting this redirect. It's the most that can be done. (talk) 00:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, you're right. And really I meant trademark not copyright. WP doesn't generally use trademark signs (in the sense we don't put "®" or "TM" or "SM" per WP:TRADEMARK, but we do of course acknowledge the trademark holder's rights, so if this is passing off – or simply wrong – it should be deleted. Si Trew (talk) 09:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

April 12[edit]


Obvious typo (Cl=>C1). Delete or retarget to sodium chloride. GZWDer (talk) 11:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Retarget to sodium chloride. This is an obvious, plausible typo that gets about one hit a day, but it's true that the actual sodium chloride article is a better target. (talk) 15:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to NAC Freelance as the NAC NAC-1 Freelance actually uses the "1" -- (talk) 05:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment NaCl isn't the only potential mispelling, there's the NACC1 gene for encooding BTBD14B — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate - As above, there are multiple meanings for the misspelling TheChampionMan1234 05:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete this is no good, it should be nac1 (as an exponent)Nedgreiner (talk) 19:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment why wouldn't the NAC-1 airplane be the proper target? -- (talk) 05:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate Seems sensible, though I've not seen it done for typos before, that I recall. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 21:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC).
  • Retarget to NAC Freelance. The idea of a dab with one legitimate use and two potential typos is just bizarre. --BDD (talk) 16:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 13:11, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Touch typing on a Remington.JPG
  • Retarget. In some typefaces, probably most notably Microsoft Courier, on small screens ell and one are rendered identically. I think I mistyped a name of a respondent earlier becaus I couldn't see a difference and assumed it was Welsh ell ell whereas it was probably Russian Ilyich. So NaCl is a likely search term for this if you are on a screen that renders fonts where lowercase ell and digit one are almost indistinguishable. I have my aunt's baby 1950s E. Remington and Sons typewriter – the pic is on the article at touch typing – this typewriter doesn't have a "one" and you use lowercase ell to type a one). I am not sure what the default font is on WP (I use Mozilla firefox) but caps eye and lowercase ell are rendered identically on my 1024 × 768 screen.
However Sodium chloride has its own article and should probably be retargeted there rather than to salt, although it is mentioned in the lede there so I doubt people will get confused either way. Si Trew (talk)
  • Delete, I agree with BDD that a dab page listing only mispellings is very wrong, but I consider 'Nac1' -> 'NAC-1' to also be a mispelling. The search engine already shows NAC Freelance and BTBD14B in the search results; it doesnt list sodium chloride, so that should be raised as a bug in the MediaWiki search algorithm. Interestingly, googling 'nac1' doesnt list sodium chloride either, but 'nac1' does include the same page from other languages. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
    To work around the MediaWiki search engine not matching (1=l) as a possible mispelling, I recommend that we create a redirect NaC1 -> sodium chloride. That way the search results for nac1 will include all existing articles which are discussed above. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Would it match NaCI? (That is an uppercase eye at the last character). Si Trew (talk) 04:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Reliable Sources use "NAC1" to refer to the Freelance, so it is a variant spelling, not a mispelling. [10][11][12] assuming that you allow for all lowercase nac1 to mean NAC1 -- (talk) 05:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Marcus Aemilius Lepidus (49 BC)[edit]

While this was the article title almost ten years ago, it's misleading because the significance of 49 BC to Lepidus is unclear. It's not a year of birth or death—not even close. Looking over the dab Marcus Aemilius Lepidus, many are disambiguated by the year in which they held an important position, but again, no special significance of 49 BC is indicated. A user searching for this term would expect someone born that year, or perhaps holding a consulship that year. BDD (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete This is true, BDD is right this time. 49 BC has no significance with this topic Ned1230|Whine|Stalk

Delete. Unlikely search term. Si Trew (talk) 05:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep - did nobody do even a cursory examination, or are they just out and out lying? The article lists 49 BC as the year Lepidus was placed in charge of Rome (albeit temporarily), but this kind of formatting is what you'd use quite commonly for kings and other rulers. This is seemingly the most important thing that happened to him, and thus probably the context in which readers are going to be searching for him. Although formatting like this is possibly a mistake, it's a very likely search term (and even the assertion that it's a mistake is dubious - probably there are house styles that would so format it). WilyD 06:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
I did more than a cursory examination. But surely the (49 BC) at the back is hardly a likely search term. Even the (triumvir) is a bit dodgy but that's another matter but surely the (49 BC) is out of whack. Otherwise we have Elizabeth Barrett-Brown (1752 AD)] or whatever, and we don't. (She probably wasn't born that early I just made it up for the example, I imagine about 1810). Si Trew (talk) 19:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Ok, so the year does have some significance, but I still don't see it as a likely search term. It's still likely to be read "person named Marcus Aemilius Lepidus born in 49 BC." What's next, Bill Clinton (1993–2001)? Ah yes, the boy president, RIP. --BDD (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
For historical people, whose birth and death dates are often unknown, this kind of formatting is common. For people from the last ~200 years, when birth and death dates are usually known, it's far more uncommon. But this is clearly a case of the former. WilyD 09:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 13:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment Bill Clinton (1993–2001) actually sounds to me like a good redirect for the Clinton Administration, yes. Tenures of office are sometimes associated with names of leaders, whether they are ancient or modern. I don't feel compelled to go around creating these redirects, but they aren't completely unreasonable. That is assuredly how this one began. I'm indifferent to the survival of this redirect because I do believe it could mislead one into believing it represents a birth or death date. In this sense, Bill Clinton (1993–2001) is a more reasonable redirect, because the chances of anyone being confused about a modern figure are substantially less. Xoloz (talk) 17:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
But why bother? Bill Clinton is already the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Why do you want to add the dates on a redirect? The search engine will find it if someone had the temerity to put in "Bill Clinton (1993–2001)". I just tried it and my first link was to Bill Clinton, section 5, "Presidency, 1993–2001". Oddly enough if you search with a straight hyphen instead of a an en dash your first result is Al_Gore#Vice_Presidency_and_second_presidential_run but Bill is still in third place and easy to find. Si Trew (talk) 21:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep per Xoloz's reasoning. -- (talk) 09:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, strictly this should be "Marcus Aemilius Lepidus (fl. 49 BC)", but it is close enough, and there is no other 'Marcus Aemilius Lepidus' for that year so it isnt misleading. However extra redirects add results to the autocomplete options for a search of 'Marcus Aemilius Lepidus', potentially confusing readers efforts to guess which one they want. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't know exactly how this works, but doesn't the search box suppress redirects to a certain extent? I can't think of a specific example offhand, but sometimes I'll type, for example, four letters and there will be two suggestions popped down. I write another couple of letters, and there's one suggestion that wasn't present before. I believe proper titles are favored; it may also have to do with popularity. --BDD (talk) 03:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
@BDD:, I'm not familiar with the new search engine wrt selection from large lists of partial matching results, so I cant comment on general principles it uses. However if you put 'Marcus Aemilius Lepidus' into the search box, you see everything in special:prefixindex/Marcus Aemilius Lepidus (including this redirect). John Vandenberg (chat) 04:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

April 31[edit]

Cannot find a use for this, I don't know why anyone would type this. TheChampionMan1234 12:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment. I mentioned this at the RfD for February 30 but can't find it (BDD will when he wakes up). I went through all the other months as well. It's exactlyt half-and-half: six have "overdates" if we can call them that for brevity and six don't. Si Trew (talk) 13:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
And we have or have not: January 32, February 30, February 31, March 32, April 31, May 32, June 31, July 32, August 32, September 31, October 32, November 31, December 32. Messieurs et dames, faites vos jeux. Si Trew (talk) 20:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh yeah, it was March 32 not February 30, no wonder I couldn't find it. I dunno how others do it but I never seem to be able to pull up past discussions in a search. Si Trew (talk) 08:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Outlook Web Access[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 12:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

All redirects have been fixed now! Microsoft has rebranded Outlook Web Access as Outlook Web App. So this page has been moved successfully. Compfreak7 (talk) 06:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

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

JB-2 Loon[edit]

This is an erronious title, as there was never any such thing as a "JB-2 Loon". "Loon" referred only to the Navy variant of the V-1 copy, which was (at various times) "KGW-1 Loon", "KUW-1 Loon", and "LTV-N-2 Loon"; the JB-2 was never given the name Loon. Wikipedia shouldn't be promulgating an erroneous, never-existed designation. The Bushranger One ping only 03:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

See User_talk:Andy_Dingley#JB-2_Loon This seems to be more about an attempt to hide the name 'Loon' from the categorization. Once again the aircraft project goes its own sweet way, in this case inventing a new pseudo-policy that redirects (and redirects from valid and distinct alternate names) can't appear in the same categories as their article targets. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Please assume good faith instead of making unsubstantiated (and, in fact, entirely untrue) allegations. Thank you. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Then cite the WP:POLICY that states redirects aren't permitted in the same category as their target articles, rather than merely hand-waving to rely on it when removing such categorisation. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
It's called WP:CONSENSUS. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. A Loon is an aquatic bird, and is on the back of the Canadian one dollar coin (they are known colloquially as loonies and the two dollar coins as twonies) (although the article for loonies is a stub for a Dutch film and there is no article for twonies). A "Loony" is in U.K. English slang for a lunatic, although of course medical professionals do not call people that these days, instead using the term NFN ("Normal for Norfolk"). Stats show that this gets 20–30 hits per day. It's not a question of it being right, it's a question of whether it helps people to find the information they are looking for; and I think it does. Si Trew (talk) 12:36, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment. Actually I might change my mind. Although the redirect gets that many hits, the article itself gets far fewer (a max of five in the last ninety days). Which is a bit odd, has it been moved or something or was it just that fell a few weeks ago? It seems odd that the R has more hits than the target since surely you are usually taken through the R to the target. I can understand the stats go up when something is under discussion but there have been consistent hits on the R for ages, but not on the article itself, which seems odd. Si Trew (talk) 12:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Readers already browsing the cruise missiles category are unlikely to be looking for birds, but 'Loon' was the common name for this missile. We should present this through that categorization. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Which is why LTV-N-2 Loon, a designation that actually existed, is in the category now. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Agree. As always you have hit the nail on the thumb. That is exactly what we should do. Si Trew (talk) 04:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


Non standard WP:CNR which uses prefix TEMP: (only one member) not listed on the WP:SHORTCUT guideline. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-intuitive abbreviation for shortcut. Mainspace pollution. Non-existatnt pseudo-namespace. -DePiep (talk) 07:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per DePiep. Si Trew (talk) 12:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Template:INFOSINGL doesn't exist, and neither should this redirect: it's rather confusing. Steel1943 (talk) 12:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

April 11[edit]


This template redirect is too vague to be very helpful, and has no current transclusions. It was initially created as a redirect to Template:Fancruft (now Template:Overly detailed) before being deleted at the request of its author. It could still plausibly refer to excessive detail, or to other issues, such as excessive images of any sort (Template:Too many photos), excessive references to popular culture (Template:In popular culture), etc. BDD (talk) 23:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Keep I think it's usefull. --Unknown contributers (talk) 09:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC) Unknown contributers (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep --Unknown wiki editors (talk) 09:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC) Unknown wiki editors (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep --Unknown userz (talk) 09:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC) Unknown userz (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Struck out those sock votes. Steel1943 (talk) 12:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment. There is Template:NFIO which redirects to here. The documentation page is present but empty. It doesn't seem used much. I think it is intended to mark pages as those with images that are non-free use (I get pulled up with this a lot if you look at my talk page but usually after explanation they are accepted, but occasionally deleted, that is quite right if it is WP:COPYVIO but I don't do it deliberately but I don't know the whole law of the State of Florida). Most of the incoming links are from user's pages, not articles, although there is a WP:ANI incident linked from that article to here but I can find nothing about it. If it is about non-free images, surely we have a better target somewhere, Wikipedia:Non-free content has redirects at WP:F and WP:FAIRUSE and several others, so I am not sure this is necessary. Si Trew (talk) 14:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with Template:NFIO (non-free image overload?). --BDD (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Well this is just the Shaming of the Trew. My mistake in being brief and vague rather than carrying on forever like I usually do. Nothing wrong with Template:NFIO. I was more suggesting that if that exists, there's no need for Template:Excessive, which seems an attempt at the same purpose. Si Trew (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Matthew Gaudreau[edit]

Delete as an unnecessary redirect. Matthew is simply the non-notable brother of Johnny, and certainly is not a plausible search target for the notable sibling. The fact that Matthew also plays hockey does not make this redirect any more appropriate than one for their parents - Jane Gaudreau and Guy Gaudreau - would be. In fact, it would only create confusion if the younger Gaudreau were to ever gain notability of his own. Resolute 22:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Weak keep as {{R from relative}}. If he never becomes more notable, this is fine; I qualify my vote because it seems likely the younger brother could become notable as well at some point. Should that happen, I would be in agreement that the redirect should be deleted. --BDD (talk) 23:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't really see how the existence of a template that applies an administrative category counts as a keep rationale. In fact, following this argument to a logical conclusion would validate creating redirects for every non-notable family member of a BLP. Resolute 23:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I mean only to say that it's not unusual to redirect a person to a notable relative of theirs (i.e., we wouldn't have such a category if such redirects were necessarily a bad idea). That doesn't mean any such relative should be a redirect—probably only those that would be plausible search terms. You know more about hockey than I do, but I would think a Boston College hockey player has at least enough exposure to meet that threshold. --BDD (talk) 00:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
There is something of a logical disconnect here then. Nobody looking for Johnny Gaudreau is going to search "Matthew Gaudreau", and I don't think that a single sentence stating that Matthew exists qualifies as warranting a redirect. Otherwise, we come back to the problem of a simple mention of a BLP's parents and other siblings also warranting such redirects. This is really only a case of creating a redirect simply because one can - or because one wants the ego hit of being the "creator" of an article should the younger brother ever actually become notable. It's digital litter. Resolute 05:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Assuming it is the same person, Matthew Gaudreau has a bio at It says he was born in Carneys Point, New Jersey on 5 December 1994. Maybe it is WP:NHOCKEY, I don't know as I don't follow that sport and it is not big on this side of the pond. Maybe take it to WP:WikiProject Ice Hockey? Si Trew (talk) 09:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
    • There are literally thousands of completely non-notable players on Hockeydb. It is a great site that has stats for most players who have played junior hockey or above. But no, simply playing college hockey doesn't pass NHOCKEY (if it did, he'd warrant an article rather than a redirect). And I am more than happy to ask for input from my fellow WP Hockey members. Resolute 14:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete Resolute sums it up as good as I could. -DJSasso (talk) 16:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep as a useful redirect. The individual above is discussed in the article and there is no more appropriate place for the link to point. The redirect can always be expanded in the event that “Matthew Gaudreau” achieves the notability required for a stand-alone article. Dolovis (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The fact that there is no more appropriate place to link at this point is the reason it should be left as a red link. Red links are preferable for subjects that may become notable in the future as it signals to editors that the article may need creating in the future, when you redirect it to a random page then you obscure the fact that the article may need creating which is undesirable. -DJSasso (talk) 13:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • WP:ITSUSEFUL. Resolute 14:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually, usefulness is explicitly mentioned as a reason to keep a redirect. See WP:RFD#KEEP #5. WP:AADD is more geared towards AfD, though some of its points are generalizable. --BDD (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I know. Of course, I don't find it useful, and I don't find Dolovis' claim that it is to be persuasive relative to the fact that it is simply not a plausible search term. That is ultimately the disconnect here. Resolute 16:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
As Resolute says that is assuming you think its a useful redirect, throwing in a line saying the person has a sibling and then linking that siblings name to the article is simply not useful for a redirect. It is potentially more harmful than helpful thus it should be a redlink. -DJSasso (talk) 17:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm with Resolute on this one. It is not useful, and perhaps harmful, to link one person's name to another person's biography. I am not sure if WP:BLP comes into play but let's say for argument I was notable and Simon Trew was my biography, to redirect Verner von Lebensraum to me would be in a sense a BLP violation because it connotes on to me something that I am not. I realise that is exaggerated but only in degree, not in kind. Si Trew (talk) 06:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Fair majority voting[edit]

  • Delete This redirect is misleading. The "Biproportional apportionment" article is not about what makes an election "fair". Rather, this article is about a concrete election method. Markus Schulze 10:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Comment'. Hmmm. The reference is there but not inline. (it's immediately below it as it happens to be the last section before the references, of which that is the only one for the entire article and is not inline referenced). It's not the place for RfD to debate improving references etc but where to target things: I still feel although the journal article is called "Fair Majority Voting (or How to Eliminate Gerrymandering)" that this is far too specific a target. Si Trew (talk) 17:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
The paper by the way is available online at the American Mathematical Society, and should be added to the reference: I don't like to do that while things are under discussion. It seems from here, the Mathematical Association of America, that it was awarded the Lester R. Ford Prize, whatever that is, in 2009. I still think it is over-specific. I have written stuff published in learned journals but they are not on Wikipedia because they are far too technical and boring for even this encyclopaedia. Si Trew (talk) 17:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Was it not John Milton who said "There are more things in heaven and earth/Than are dreamed of in divine philosophy"? Bertrand Russell then went on to prove, with class theory, that there are actually far fewer things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in divine philosophy. It is still too specific a target. It is better it was just included at the article on gerrymandering, this is a one-trick pony. Si Trew (talk) 17:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep... This is a name for a voting system that's published in the academic literature. It's not our place to decide whether it's a good name or not. (Personally, I think it's a bad name for a good system, but that doesn't matter.) Homunq () 10:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
(Note, I don't exactly understand what happened here, but I'm voting to turn it back into a normal redirect, not to keep it as a separate page.) Homunq () 10:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Let's say that a Nobel laureate decided to promote instant-runoff voting. Let's say that he decided to use the term "strategyproof voting" for instant-runoff voting. How should Wikipedia take this fact into consideration? Markus Schulze 17:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME would come into play. The article wouldn't be moved or anything, but it would be appropriate for Strategyproof voting to redirect there. We could explain that specific terminology in the article to help allay confusion, but generally, no, it wouldn't be our place to judge the accuracy of the phrase if it's used in reliable sources. --BDD (talk) 18:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment. What got my dander up is that the two original correspondents, who seem to have a bit of a spat about this, one of them is called User:VoteFair. Now, call yourself what you like, I have no problem with that, but when you come to an RfD arguing about the VoteFair process and your username is [[User::VoteFair]] it seems a little suspicious, so I did my homework. As it happens I think VoteFair is actually being entirely WP:NPOV and trying simply to improve the encyclopaedia, which I hope we all do. I think we should add the references I gave (at least the one to the AMS, which is freely available) when consensus is reached. Si Trew (talk) 13:57, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Political status of Crimea[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was procedural close. It looks like RfD got bypassed a while ago. There's now a Political status of Crimea and Sevastopol article, with an ongoing RM to move it to this title. While it still exists as a redirect, essentially all of this discussion has been superseded. --BDD (talk) 23:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Should redirect to Crimean Peninsula or to 2014 Crimean crisis. The current redirection is a huge violation of WP:NPOV, because it essentially says "Current political status of Crimea? It's Russia now.", while this is quite obviously in dispute internationally. CodeCat (talk) 14:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete, Redirect to Russia, or Redirect to Republic of Crimea#Government and Politics. per nomen, but I think these are better solutions than Crimean Peninsula or 2014 Crimean Crisis because it focuses on Politics. Mr. Guye (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Don't retarget to 2014 Crimean crisis. I think that would be recentism. --BDD (talk) 16:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
    • but a title like "political status of Crimea" in itself implies the current political status. All the other examples of Wikipedia using the "political status of ..." formulation pertain to currently active international disputes. I doubt anyone would type this if they wanted to know about the political status of Crimea in the 1850s, they'd look at History of Crimea. (talk) 06:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  • We can't redirect to Republic of Crimea#Government and Politics for WP:NPOV reasons. The Republic of Crimea is not the only party to claim Crimea, and redirecting there would imply that Wikipedia prefers/validates their claim in favour of others. CodeCat (talk) 18:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Crimea#Politics. Mr. Guye and CodeCat, can you take a second look at this? Some of the involved articles have moved since this nomination. Crimea is now about the peninsula, so I think retargeted to the Politics section of that article is the best, most neutral way of handling this. --BDD (talk) 16:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment. Crimea#Politics doesn't exist (I presume it did when BDD suggested it). Trying to discuss this is like walking on quicksand. Just close it with no consensus. Si Trew (talk) 00:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Pratapgarh (princely state)[edit]

Pratapgarh was never a princely state.. google book result [13] are zero. I have moved page to Pratapgarh Estate as it was a zamindari. So request deletion of this redirect created due to move page Jethwarp (talk) 14:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC) Jethwarp (talk) 14:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep - a plausible mistake for a person to make who isn't very familiar with the Estate; thus, directing them to the content they're looking for is doubly important, so they don't keep making the same mistake. WilyD 16:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC).
  • Keep per WilyD. Si Trew (talk) 22:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment - why would someone make a plasuible mistake to search for a place/or princely state, which did not exist this is a clear case of WP:HOAX. Further one must be aware that princely state were defined differently in British India and were considered as an Independent nation and were given right to choose to remain independent or merge into Pakistan or India. Please go thru link [14], which is considered as a WP:SPS also mentions it as a Taluq. I would request you to please reconsider your votes. The article was created with an intention of puffery, vanity and misguiding users of wiki - that is why I moved the page to Estate but the redirect remains - I strongly feel it should not, other wise people will be encouraged to create things. Jethwarp (talk) 03:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Add at DAB What's the difference (for an ignorant reader like myself) between Pratapgarh and Pratapgarh Estate? And now we have Pratapgarh (princely state) because of the move. Now, Pratapgarh is a DAB and neither the estate nor the princely state is listed on that DAB, which at least one of them should be, but I don't like to change things while they are under discussion. The thing is what are people likely to search for, and how can they best find it? It doesn't matter if the name is technically incorrect, just in the opinion of Wikipedia editors would a reader try to search for it? To my mind, they would whack in Pratapgarh and then find neither the old nor new title there (unless my eyes deceive me which they often do). Si Trew (talk) 09:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak retarget to the dab Pratapgarh. A reader searching for this might be looking for one of the districts, perhaps. Delete as misleading if it isn't retargeted. --BDD (talk) 18:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Pratapgarh, Rajasthan. I just found out that in fact there was a princely state named Pratapgarh in Rajasthan but not in Uttar Pradesh, where this estate existed till 1947 - [15]. If I had known this earlier I would not have asked for a discussion here. Another similar named redirect Pratapgarh State redirects to Pratapgarh, Rajasthan - so I suggest we redirect this one also to same article. Jethwarp (talk) 13:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Ddisambiguate that too, at the DAB Pratapgarh. The point of redirects or hatnotes is not whether things are "correct" but whether people can find the information they are looking for. You have found it for them – thank you – so let them have a chance to find it. 21:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talkcontribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


This specific form of culture jamming isn't mentioned on the target page in any form. Delete to encourage creation, or just to avoid misleading readers. --BDD (talk) 20:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete all per BDD and perhaps WP:WORLDWIDE as well. I have never heard of any of these terms so perhaps they are US-specific? Or perhaps I am just getting old. It's my birthday today, and I just found out from my mum (whose birthday is the day before) that I will be 42. I thought I was 42 last year so for a whole year I have been telling people I was a year older than I was, you would think I could count. You shouldn't really trust me on anything if I can't even remember how old I am. Si Trew (talk) 00:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete all, I say again (I am allowed two !votes because it is my birthday). None of these is mentioned at the target. There's a reference here to "reverse shoplifting (shopdropping)". There are others as well but this is the closest to being WP:RS and at least gives a definition. Personally what I like to do is either take something out of someone's shopping cart/trolley so they get home and find they haven't got any cat food or whatever (it's not stealing because they have not paid for it until they get out of the store/shop), take something I like out to save me walking the whole store to find it and put it in me own trolley, or put some inappropriate thing in that they won't notice: condoms into an old lady's or whatever. But that is just because I hate supermarkets, not the individuals nor the companies but the stores, I just hate shopping in big stores generally so I have my bit of fun while I am in them. Si Trew (talk) 01:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could revert Droplifting to its pre-redirect state, which while extremely short, is probably better than a redlink. The other titles could be retargeted there. - Eureka Lott — Preceding undated comment added 22:20, 15 April 2014‎

Haas Racing Developments[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Withdrawn, as the redirect has been converted to an article. Nice work! - 06:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC) The Bushranger One ping only 06:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Haas Racing Developments is unrelated to Stewart-Haas Racing except through common partial ownership of the latter; HRD's Truck Series team is distinct, and HRD's F1 bid is wholly seperate from SHR. This is a misleading redirect; the subject is notable, but it requires its own article. The Bushranger One ping only 04:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

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

April 10[edit]

Srpsko Sarajevo[edit]

  • Delete I would like deletion because this redirect contains hate/nacionalistic elements (Srpsko means Serbish instead of Istočno which means Eastern, 2nd name is in use by government). Used during serbian attack on Bosnian and Croat civilians, after that they made this name for small part of town. Anyway, redirect isn't needed because name is not in use for a long time and it is unlikely term for search. As a proove to this, Bosnian wikipedia already deleted this redirect, so I doubt it's relevant to stay in English also. Lighthouse01 (talk) 04:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete as offensive or abusive redirect.--Lenticel (talk) 07:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep; according to the article, it was actually known as that, even if now considered offensive[according to whom?]. If you want to, and can justify, excision of this name from the article, then it might be appropriate to remove the redirect. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The nationalism in and of itself doesn't warrant deletion. See WP:RNEUTRAL. And I'm skeptical that "Serb Sarajevo" is really inherently hateful. It still may be wise to delete for other reasons, such as if it's obscure or an unlikely search term. --BDD (talk) 20:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Comment. I agree with that wholeheartedly. Something is only offensive if it meant to be, and anyway WP:NOTCENSORED. There are terms I don't like to hear used but I have to put up with them. Si Trew (talk) 21:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete (the redirect, that is), as this is the English Wikipedia and we don't generally have foreign-language redirects (I got told off for creating one a couple of weeks ago!). If the article has problems, that has to be sorted out elsewhere, but the redirect is not (at least to my eyes) English and so is an unlikely search term for an English reader. These Central European articles tend to be rather contentious but that is another matter: we are discussing the redirect not the article. Patrick Campbell I think it as who said when he was starting in journalism his editor told him to "prehensilise some Bosnian peasants" and for some reason that phrase has always stuck with me, whenever I am doing a bit of blue pencil (editing). Si Trew (talk) 09:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
If people reading the English-language Wikipedia use this term it should stay, if not, it should go: my stats show it was viewed a maximum 8-10 times a week which is a bit borderline (I have written articles that have had far fewer) but that the stats since this discussion opened, when you'd expect them to increase by this discussion itself, are actually about 2-4 a week. The reason I recommended Delete, below, which I posted before this reply, is simply that I think it is an unlikely search term.
If it helps people find the article it should stay. If it hinders them, it should go. That's all there is to it. Si Trew (talk) 21:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Actually, Si Trew, I was checking that link (possibly more than you mentioned). I really doubt someone is getting to this link to read actually about real article. That's my opinion anyway, but I was checking link. There are big numbers because of me :D --Lighthouse01 (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Generally, we only delete foreign-language redirects when the language is unrelated to the subject. That's not the case here. Compare to Deutschland, Москва, etc. --BDD (talk) 18:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per Arthur Rubin. --BDD (talk) 18:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep according the the article, "It was previously known as Srpsko Sarajevo" That means it is a valid redirect. People might have heard of Srpsko Sarajevo and want to know more about it and if we remove the redirect it will make it harder to find. GB fan 14:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't think so. People will find, entering new name, relevant article with old name in its text and we won't have any trouble regards finding info. Anyway, article with this name has not good popularity, Istočno Sarajevo is more likely search term. But even more East Sarajevo because of English public. --Lighthouse01 (talk) 22:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
They will find the article entering the new name if they know the new name. If all they have heard if the old name they won't find it. How can having a redirect be hateful but having the same name in the article not? GB fan 23:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Well there was a reason to change name: you can read it here. But I have nothing against mentioning old name in new article because people should know its' history. And they can easily find the article entering old name in Google. Right? --Lighthouse01 (talk) 08:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
And just to say, If I was able to remove Srpsko prefix, I'd remove that from all the world. Why? Because, imagine this: Russia attacks America, takes about 50% territory, and rename Eastern Part of Town (i.e. Washington): Russian Washington. Or any other country. But using the worst crimes against civilians. How about that? --Lighthouse01 (talk) 09:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
The situation would be the same, I'm sure. Compare to, say, redirect Nazi Croatia or Vichy France itself. I'm sure many Croatian and French people are ashamed of those periods in their countries' histories, but a redirect isn't an endorsement of such things. It's merely reflecting a historical reality. --BDD (talk) 20:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. And try looking at the edit history of Pressburg or Poszony or Pozsony (a misspelling) or Bratislava. Are those supposed to go? Historical names have their place. Si Trew (talk) 21:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
What about Leningrad, Stalingrad, Petrograd? Si Trew (talk) 07:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete as this name was not officially used and it's not likely search term. -WikiLite91 (talk) 20:21, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
It is a likely search term, the article says "It was previously known as Srpsko Sarajevo" GB fan 20:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Well maybe we could keep "Serb Sarajevo", but "Srpsko" for English native speakers is uncommon. --WikiLite91 (talk) 20:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 23:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep There are more than 7,000 results for Srpsko, and over 500 for only English Wikipedia. The actual number of pages will be lower due to search engine issues, but it isnt isolated to this page. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment. Nobody on an English keyboard will be able to type the thing above the C (I forget what they are called, but the diacritical mark above the C) so in that sense the redirect is helpful. But Istocno Sarajevo exists as a redirect and is rightly tagged as {{R from title without diacritics}}. The article itself could use some cleanup since the English grammar is a bit out of whack, but that's a separate matter (and I am happy to do that after we reach consensus). A very good friend of mine who is Serbian and I think born in Sarajevo can possibly help me find the facts, do a bit of translation and so forth, and we can scrub the article up a bit: but here we are discussing not the article but the redirect. "Srpsko" would seem very uncommon for an English speaker to type.
However, I also note there are no Interwiki links, so my pure guess is the majority of searches are by English-speaking Serbians/Serbs. Si Trew (talk) 08:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Subfamily Velociraptorinae[edit]

Redundant title: Velociraptorinae is a subfamily. It is arbitrary and potentially confusing to have Subfamily Velociraptorinae appear as a search topic out of the untold number of biological subfamilies. --Animalparty-- (talk) 08:38, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete per nom. There is a well-established criterion for the names of biological articles, so that for example daffodil and asphodel and narcissus are properly differentiated. So there is no need for this. Si Trew (talk) 21:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep - this is not an article, but a redirect. Although Wikipedia uses a convention, readers are likely to be unfamiliar with it, and this is going to be a comparatively common search term. The assertion that the title is arbitrary is patently false - biological groupings are often referred to this way. The idea that this will cause problems with searching is both unexplained and inexplicable - only people searching for subfamily X are going to see it, and giving them nothing is no more helpful than giving them several possibilities - indeed, it's transparently more helpful. Since all the premises suggest to support deletion are patently false under even a cursory examination, this redirect needs to be kept, to direct readers to the content they're looking for. WilyD 19:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
This page is entitled Redirects for discussion, not articles for deletion, so we are discussing redirects. It is fallacious and unrealistic to think that somebody searching for "Subfamily" will be necessarily looking for anything relating to Velociraptors (why not "Subfamily Ponerinae", "Subfamily Apocynoideae", etc...?). Yet when typing Subfamily into the search bar, Velociraptors come up twice as matching terms, which, whether an intentional way to increase page views, or simply the result of an over-enthusiastic bout of redirect creation, is arbitrarily spotlighting one group out of the countless numbers of biological subfamilies. A search for articles containing "Subfamily Velociraptorinae" yields the intended article as the first hit, so there is no hindering location of the article. Unless someone proposes to create a "Subfamily X" for every subfamily (again, redundant, superfluous, and not recommended), there is no need to have this one.--Animalparty-- (talk) 20:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Commment I get from Special:Search ust for the term "Subfamily" as well as the one listed:
And others of course which are not so relevant. But since those articles call it a subfamily, perhaps in the end it should stay. It might be wrong if you were Carolus Linnaeus who after all had a rather odd naming scheme and was a bit sex-obsessed so that orchids mean testes and so on, but is it a likely search term? To me it would seem unlikely someone would go to the trouble of typing in "subfamily", but I am no expert. Si Trew (talk) 21:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Reply. I'm not arguing that Velociraptorinae is not the name of a subfamily (indeed it is), and Linnaeus has nothing to do with the point of the Rfd. I am saying this is a singularly redundant and unlikely search term that gives the impression this one subfamily is somehow unique and distinct from every other biological subfamily, when all are subfamilies are simply names (N.b, over 31,000 articles mention "subfamily"). Should there be a redirect for Country Uganda?, Person Elton John? Name John Smith? Species Homo sapiens? If someone were to search for the subfamily that humans belong to (Homininae, arguably a more likely search than a dinosaur group), by the search term "Subfamily Homininae" the intended target is first in the results without the need for a redirect. And the same is true for Subfamily Velociraptorinae. (Subfamily Velociraptorini, on the other hand, is incorrect in nomenclature, and its Rfd is dealt with here.) --Animalparty-- (talk) 17:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Oh I entirely agree. Just throwing in "subfamily" for me the first that came up were these, and exactly by your argument I am not sure someone would want to have a subfamily of velociraptors instead of a subfamily of bears (Ursa minor ) or example or a subfamily of caterpillers or whatever. I entirely agree with you just saying what I found at the top of my search. Surely Subfamily Velociraptorini should ho as well then? Si Trew (talk) 05:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Plausible search term that takes readers where they want to go. I don't see the problem. --BDD (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. A similar redirect was deleted with the same reasoning. — Scott talk 08:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 23:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete, this adds nothing. There is only one decent result for 'Velociraptorinae', so it does not enhance search results to add more words. It is arbitrary in that there are lots of possible words before or after which could be a redirect. In this case, adding subfamily is weird - subfamily of what?? If it was 'Dromaeosauridae subfamily Velociraptorinae', it would at least be descriptive. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unneeded, unlikely redirect. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • It's not an uncommon way of referring to a taxon, though. See, for example, "kingdom animalia", "phylum cnidaria", or "genus hydra". "Subfamily Velociraptorinae" itself has usage on and off Wikipedia. --BDD (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:R from character[edit]

This is misleading, because there are character names that will be used as redirects to places other than actual character lists (i.e., an article on the work itself). There are some current uses, which will need to be updated; some may be erroneous usages stemming from this confusion. BDD (talk) 23:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment: I created this template in 2009 with the following instruction: "This is a redirect from a television, movie, or book character to a more general, relevant article. Most characters do not rise to the level of individual notability, but can be covered as part of a list of characters from the book/book series, television show, or movie/movie series from which they originate." Then someone complained it was redundant to the (terribly named - what the heck is a "CharR") "Template: CharR to list entry". At the previous TfD, I in fact argued that it was not redundant precisely for the reasons BDD cites. Others did not agree. My preference would be to keep "R from character" as a distinct redirect categorization template or rename "CharR to list entry" to something more sensible that allows for broader use. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: Link to the previous discussion: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 August 24#Template:R from characterWbm1058 (talk) 03:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I think the other template name is shorthand for Character R to list entry or Character redirect to list entry, and it's bad form for a "R from" template to redirect to a "R to" template. "Froms" should redirect to other Froms and "Tos" to to other Tos. Perhaps based on that thinking—I don't recall exactly—I boldly redirected this template to {{R from member}} on 2 March 2013, and that stood for over five months before User: Paine Ellsworth reverted me 19 August 2013. A character is a member of a group, organization, ensemble or team, so my redirect was a redirect from a specific type of member–a character–to the more general category that includes other kinds of members, e.g., sports team members, political party members, etc., as well as cast members and fictional story members. In contrast, {{CharR to list entry}} is not all-inclusive of redirects from characters. As well as a character list, a character could redirect to the book or movie in which they appeared, or the real person who played the character, or another character whom they were related to. As there are at least two distinct cats that this could redirect to, perhaps it should be turned into a disambiguation page. Wbm1058 (talk) 04:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps it is meant to mean R from character to list entry ([from] Char[acter] R to list entry) which would be both from and to... and nonstandard. —PC-XT+ 06:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for linking to the previous discussion. The only part of its conclusion I disagree with is the direction of the redirect. Can we have CharR redirect here? This title will be more useful if it can cover all characters, not just those which are list entries. There are other redirect categories, especially {{R to section}} and {{R to list entry}}, which can express that. --BDD (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
That would be my preferred solution too. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I counted only 28 pages in mainspace using this template, so making any changes shouldn't be a lot of work. But, can you believe it—in our television obsessed culture—over five thousand redirects use {{CharR to list entry}}. Seems every minor character in any TV series has to have their own redirect. It would be a lot of work to confirm that they all go to lists, if the task couldn't be automated, but the few I checked at random all did redirect to lists. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:13, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I remember now why I made that change. It was because of Warren (Porridge), one of the 28 pages using this template. That redirects to Porridge (TV series)#Cast, which while technically not a list article, is a list section of the article about the TV series. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warren (Porridge) is one of the few deletion discussions that I've participated in. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
  • It makes sense to either redirect to the more general template, or merge to the more used template. This was redirected to the more used template, which wasn't entirely redundant. The more used template should be made more general, or redirected to this one, as it was before being redirected. —PC-XT+ 06:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
CharR is redundant to this template (before it was a redirect) and {{R to list entry}}, but is used so much as a specialized template, it was retained and one of the general ones redirected to it. That doesn't make sense to me. —PC-XT+ 07:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Perhaps I should clarify what I want here. I would also be fine with {{R from character}} being restored as its own tag. {{CharR to list entry}} would be a more specific version of the tag. The former could populate a Category:Fictional character redirects. Is that doable? This would preserve the granularity of CharR. Or we could just reverse the redirect, as previously suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 23:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment No no, the templates are hard enough for a gnome to find in the first place, and {{R from}} and {{R to}} at least give some chance. BDD, you seem a dab hand at searching stuff, or rather finding it, but I find it an eternal struggle, don't make it harder please! Si Trew (talk) 23:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Hm? I want {{R from character}} to exist one way or another. And I'll probably propose an RM to move CharR to {{R to character list entry}} for clarity and consistency. Best to let this resolve first, though, in case the latter becomes a redirect itself. --BDD (talk) 00:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that all makes sense. Perhaps I misinterpreted what you wrote above. Sorry about that, fully support that proposition. Si Trew (talk) 08:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Acontias (synonym)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 04:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

What is the point of a redirect like this? The background to this (and many other "Foo (synonym)" redirects) can be found at Category:Set indices on snakes which includes "Category tags are no longer allowed on disambiguation pages, so these ... "(synonym)" redirects have been created to carry them instead.". DexDor (talk) 21:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

These, and the explanation quoted above, appear to be the idiosyncratic creations of Jwinius (note: stopped editing the project in 2011) for his own use. In a discussion at his talk page in 2008, he wrote that, following some interminable discussion that I can't find (probably at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles) that didn't go his way, he came up with a way to keep track those disambiguation pages that are not only about snakes by creating a whole series of new redirects for them that I can track. I've pinged the project to see if someone can offer an opinion on whether they're useful. — Scott talk 22:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Most of these "(synonym)" redirects I've looked aren't synonyms at all. They're homonyms. I don't think there's much value in creating redirects for homonyms, but it's not appropriate at all to have them as "(synonym)" redirects, and having them redirect to a dab is useless. The best way to disambiguate the homonyms from a taxonomic perspective would be with author citation, e.g. Acontias Troost, 1836 (which would redirect to Agkistrodon). I don't think there's a lot of value in the associated DABs either, but I took a stab at making sense of Acontias (disambiguation) (with this diff), which I hope might clarify what Jwinius seems to have been attempting. Obscure homonyms can be handled just fine in the taxobox of the relevant article, making dabs and redirects isn't very useful. Plantdrew (talk) 02:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
The discussion that Scott's looking for may be this[16] which ended with "[Jwinius]'s objections about people futzing with pages constructed according to practices that are rather persnickety and completely undocumented and so far as I can tell idiosyncratic to [Jwinius] seem rather unrealistic.". For the record, I don't agree with the suggestion in that discussion that SIAs be used to get round the rules on dab pages as (now) dabs have the advantage that inlinks get flagged up and fixed. DexDor (talk) 05:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for finding that. Also - "idiosyncratic"! Aw yeah, I totally called it. — Scott talk 13:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I think I can see the utility of a category like Category:Crotalinae by taxonomic synonyms, though I don't see why this page is necessary to have one. The Category:Set indices on snakes is just misleading here, since this isn't a set index. --BDD (talk) 22:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete, if there is a community supported need to add a category to disambiguation pages, the categories belong on the disambiguation page, not a redirect. If it is only one person needing to track these pages, use a userspace page to list them. If it is a bot-related task that needs them, or similar, add the metadata to the wikidata page for the dab page (e.g. [17]). John Vandenberg (chat) 01:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete, essentially per John Vandenberg. I am not sure why Plantdrew piped Homonym (biology) in the discusion. But since I thought we just have a DAB page at the simple name of the subject (if there's no clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) or at a page called "topic (disambiguation)", then to introduce "topic (synonym)" or "topic (homonym)" or "topic (antonym)" or "topic (neologism)" or whatever is silly: that is what DABs are for. Si Trew (talk) 08:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

CAT:File mover[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete. --BDD (talk) 18:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:CNR that isnt using uppercase per WP:Shortcut. The target already has two shortcuts: CAT:RF and CAT:RENAME. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't say, but if it was created less than a year ago, there appears to be some interest in it. --BDD (talk) 23:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Ok. --BDD (talk) 18:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.


The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 04:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:CNR with less than 10 hits per month. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete - unnecessary CNR clutter. — Scott talk 20:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. Si Trew (talk) 20:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Rather misleading. Also, Template:N redirects to Template:Nay, a completely different template. Steel1943 (talk) 18:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete, harmfully wrong as Steel1943 writes. -DePiep (talk) 07:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.


The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 04:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:FAUNA was repurposed by user:SMcCandlish to be about something about the real fauna. Likewise this template redirect should IMO point to something about the real fauna, or be deleted. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, unless it can be repurposed, again per nom. — Scott talk 20:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. A navbox template to humor pages isn't exactly a TfD candidate itself, but surely doesn't merit shortcut redirects like this. [And if the name Template:Animal is needed for something in mainspace about animals, it should be usurped. It's been SOP for several years now to use the real template names of wikiproject talk page tags, not shortcut redirects.]  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  22:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Target has prefix "Wiki", so unclear if a R merits a non-WP shortcut name. When in doubt, remove it. Mainspace pollution, and confusing any editor who meets this one (non-intuitive abbreviation). -DePiep (talk) 07:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.


The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 04:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

(1) Target article (Gornisht Yiddish Yinglish) makes no mention of the term "gornisht". (2) "Gornisht"/"garnisht" (גאָרנישט) is standard Yiddish, an adverb meaning "(not) at all" (see Weinreich, Uriel (1977) [1968]. Modern English-Yiddish Yiddish-English Dictionary (First Schocken ed.). New York: Schocken Books. p. 682. ISBN 0-8052-0575-6. ) Peter Chastain [habla, por favor] 17:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. — Scott talk 20:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, scott. Not mentioned at target. Oy vey, that is just WP:NOTFINISHED. Si Trew (talk) 08:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: As with many Yiddish expressions, there possibly exists enough material for a Gornisht helfen article, which would include, e.g., information on its origins, some famous instances of its use, and a discussion of how that usage departs from standard Yiddish, if it indeed it does. If gornisht [helfen] were a primarily American usage, I could see having an entry and redirect for it in Yinglish. At this point, this is all ignorant speculation on my part: thus the deletion nomination. Peter Chastain [habla, por favor] 04:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.


The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 04:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:CNR that receives < 10 pageviews per month - often 0 or 1 pageviews per month. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete - unnecessary CNR clutter. — Scott talk 20:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Any editor (admin) working in page protection should avoid this "shortcut" (but not really, as it does not transclude). Any editor new to PP (asking for a PP) should not be mislead by this disfunctional template suggestion. Nobody is helped with this one. Mainspace pollution. -DePiep (talk) 07:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.


Recently created cross namespace redirect, and using a name "WPMA" which conflicts with another wikiproject: WP:MA. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I created the redirect, and I might be the only one using it so far ... but it's a heavily edited page with an awkward name, so I think it would be a good idea to have a shortcut of some kind. What do you suggest, John? - Dank (push to talk) 18:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. WP:MILHIST is a very conscientious and very active project. Although a CNR, this does not conflict with anything (which is ironic when most of the subjects are things about conflicts) and so should stay. If it helps editors to improve Wikipedia, and there is no confusion, it should stay. Si Trew (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • As the name conflicts with WP:MA, move to {{WPMH/A}}, first creating {{WPMH}} as a shortcut for {{WikiProject Military history}}, which I'm genuinely surprised to find doesn't already exist. How about that? — Scott talk 20:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I bow to your better knowledge. On a search, it didn't seem to conflict to me. But that seems a reasonable way to do it. I am happy to create the template and docs once consensus is reached. Si Trew (talk) 20:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
@Scott: There is a WP:WPMH which points to Milhist. For one extra character, I would prefer WP:WPMH/A pointing at this redirect, to avoid a 'T:' redirect. If this announcements page flourishes, and most milhist stuff does, it will become bigger than one template soon enough, and the T: prefix will be silly. I see T: prefixes as being for templates people use frequently that have documentation which needs to be consulted to get the invocation parameters right. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Might be a slight misunderstanding here, John - I'm suggesting Template:WPMH, not T:WPMH. I don't see the point of "T:" at all; it only applies to mentioning a template, rather than using it, which is not a particularly useful saving. — Scott talk 00:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Ah, a 'template redirect' to the template. gotcha, and I agree that would be useful to some, but I doubt it would be listed as an official shortcut, whereas something like WP:WPMH/A or WP:MILHIST/ANN might become a stable and useful shortcut. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I still have a disconnect here. What would WP:WPMH/A point to? I thought we were talking about a template. — Scott talk 01:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry I have been a bit obtuse. I am suggesting that 'T:WPMA' be moved to WP:WPMH/A, which would point to Template:WPMILHIST Announcements. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Right, okay, so you are in fact suggesting a CNR as template shortcut. I can't see what particular advantage that would offer? — Scott talk 13:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
@Scott: Yes. We have a lot of similar CNR at Category:Redirects to template from non-template namespace (btw, ignore the characters in that cat due to the RfD of Template:R_from_character and a bug in a template somewhere). My thinking is that it is better to have a CNR from a WP: alias than a CNR in mainspace like T: . T: shortcuts should be limited to cases where a large segment of the community needs to refer to the template documentation in order to invoke it correctly, or established and widespread uses like the DYK T: exceptions. This Announcements page has 389 viewers in the last month, 229 watchers and 177 transclusions. It is too early to guess what percentage are going to use the T: shortcut, the redirect having only been created recently. However it has two shortcuts already, created long ago, being Template:WPMHA and WP:MHREQ, and combined they receive about 10 hits per month. I dont see sufficient justification for using the disputed T: prefix. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I still really don't follow why there would need to be a CNR at all for this! But I didn't know there was already a {{WPMHA}}, otherwise I wouldn't have suggested {{WPMH/A}}. Well then, I can now say delete. This redirect is obviously superfluous. — Scott talk 13:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
7900 edits by 155 authors, 229 watchers ... seems like it's "flourishing" to me. - Dank (push to talk) 00:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not opposed to Scott's intended move but I don't think there's an audience at WikiProject Middle Ages that needs the existing shortcut. I think it could be left, as is. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
    Hi Chris troutman, while the Middle Ages project may not be very active, reusing their shortcut creates confusion. Ideally all milhist shortcuts use one of a few 'base' shortcuts, so they can be easily remembered. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
    It doesn't matter much to me, as long as there's a shortcut that's actually short. Otherwise it's a longcut. - Dank (push to talk) 02:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
    I've notified MILHIST project; hopefully we get some input on which shortcut they prefer. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Dr. Qamar Tabish[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 04:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Not mentioned in Sialkot Elassint Hi 16:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Mark Pauly[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete as G7 (IIO was creator). --BDD (talk) 18:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

As a Wharton School professor and well-known figure in health care economics, Pauly probably deserves his own article. He's been called "father of the individual mandate" and is quoted once at the target page, but it's misleading to suggest the ACA is his primary claim to notability. Indeed, he had no direct role in its creation. BDD (talk) 16:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

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


The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 04:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete. See #Άνθρωποςκέντρον. Also, it is transliterated. Wikipedia doesn’t need transliterations of random foreign words. Gorobay (talk) 14:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per below, per Gorobay. No need for a transliterated Greek word, a very unlikely search term for an English-speaking audience. Si Trew (talk) 14:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. — Scott talk 20:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOT a transliteration dictionary. Not English, and Not Greek either. The topic has no pariticular affinity for Greek. -- (talk) 06:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.


The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 04:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete. Not especially Greek, and this isn’t even a real Greek word. Greek doesn’t form compounds by shoving two roots together like that. Gorobay (talk) 14:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete per Gorobay. The target word is 19th Century New Latin neologism (if you can call a two hundred year old word a neologism), according to Merriam-Webster. We don't usually have Rs from foreign languages unless they are related. If this is not used in either modern Greek or classical Greek there is no point in having it. I can't see it on the Hellenic/Greek WP via the Interwiki links. On the other hand, I did find this about Greek declensions, written in Spanish, which mentions how this is formed and my Spanish is not great but I think it says it would be the genitive. There's also a link here at to it but I am guessing that is just a copy from Wikipedia or Wiktionary? Looking at their "about" stuff it says first "It's like Wikipedia, but we use short facts instead of extended articles, all our facts are referenced". But that doesn't help if someone has in fact inserted the thing by copying it from Wikipedia and deleting context (I am not sure they have, it could be the other way around, but the argument runs in circles either clockwise or widdershins). Si Trew (talk) 14:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
It’s not genitive. It’s two lemmas concatenated by someone who doesn’t know Greek. Gorobay (talk) 15:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I never said it was genitive. I said what I thought that Spanish article said it was. Either I have not read that article properly (my Spanish is not brilliant, as I said) or that article is wrong. Either way, there is no point using it in support. Si Trew (talk) 04:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Delete per nom. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. — Scott talk 20:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOT a translation dictionary. The topic has no particular affinity for Greek. -- (talk) 07:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.


The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. As potent as it may be for ants, the average human would need to drink copious amounts of ant rum to become intoxicated. --BDD (talk) 04:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete. Not especially Greek. Gorobay (talk) 14:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete. It's Latin. Si Trew (talk) 14:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. — Scott talk 20:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOT a translation dictionary. The topic has no particular affinity for Greek. -- (talk) 07:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • αντρο is greek word — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andromeas (talkcontribs) 08:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
    Hi @Andromeas: when the nominator (user:Gorobay) says "Not especially Greek", they mean that "Antrum is not a Greek language concept, so there is no reason for English Wikipedia to have a redirect from a Greek language title (i.e. Άντρο) to the page Antrum." This deletion rationale is explained in more detail in the essay WP:FORRED. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

April 9[edit]

No Way! I Can't Believe This![edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I really cannot believe this either! But, in all seriousness, I believe this is a non-notable phrase stated by the game's main antagonist at some random point in the game; the phrase is not mentioned in the article. I'm not completely sure what I would be looking for if I looked for this redirect's title, but it certainly isn't this. I say delete for now. Steel1943 (talk) 23:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete - No Way! I Can't Believe a redirect!.... As per nom I'm unsure as to what purpose this actually serves, Ofcourse If it were a famous well known quote I might understand but it isn't, Seems pretty useless IMO. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment. I'm trying to recall, because I am hopeless at looking up histories, but didn't this come up for discussion at RfD a few days ago and got deleted? But it was not to the same target I think but to a pop song or album. I'm probably thinking of something else. Si Trew (talk) 00:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I must be mistaken. It was only created in the middle of Feb and has only sat where it now is, according to its history. There was something pretty similar though. I can't remember the outcome. Si Trew (talk) 00:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Is this your card? --BDD (talk) 00:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
It is indeed. Wouldn't this be deleted by the same reasoning? Si Trew (talk) 08:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Not quite the same case, IMO. If that phrase was a specific catchphrase, we didn't identify it as such. It seemed to be a generalized expression of denial. I was somewhat surprised to see the creators of this redirect and that one weren't the same, though. --BDD (talk) 16:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • That's right, it was Doctor Eggman who said it, not Sonic. Even though I can recite most of the dialogue from this game, I definitely forgot about this line. It's a line that Doctor Eggman almost makes his catchphrase in the game by the way he says it. But, yeah, it's not in the Doctor Eggman article, and it's probably not the first topic people are trying to find when looking up this phrase. Steel1943 (talk) 02:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Class numbber (group theory)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Unlikely search term with the typo and parentheses. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 22:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete. Too bad that it's FAR too old (about 8 years old, in fact) to be eligible for speedy deletion per criterion R3. Steel1943 (talk) 23:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom - Unlikely search term. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Davey. A typo is fine but this is a rather unlikely one, far more likely to miss the parens or whatever. In any case, the search engine has got a little better in eight years, and will find it. Si Trew (talk) 00:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and everyone else. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:58, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Rule following[edit]

I think this could work as a standalone article, but in the meantime, redirecting a concept to one philosophical work that discusses it doesn't seem to make much sense. BDD (talk) 22:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

:Retarget. I have this book (the one at the target) but not on me right now. In itself the title is misleading (I don't mean Wikipedia's article title but the book title), since it is a bit of meta-philosophy by one philosopher about another. That's by the by, "Rule following" would seem to be better to go to Law or something like that. Regimentation? Si Trew (talk) 23:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah, Regimentation does not have an article but came up blue for me because there is a Wiktionary link for it. We have rule of law but that is not what this is about, it is more about private family rules. Family law is a DAB and the entries are just about the legal aspects (reasonably enough). Norm (social) might do (I got that from the DAB at custom). Si Trew (talk) 23:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete not about the AI or computer science concept. -- (talk) 03:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete for now, this is better off as an article.--Lenticel (talk) 08:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't know what "rule following" means in computer science: is it meant as some apposition to e.g. genetic programming or stochastics in that one builds 'intelligence' into a computer program via a set of rules? That's just computer programming, then, since all computer languages are necessarily rule-based (except a few quirky obscure ones that are deliberately random for the fun of it). e.g. for about thirty years machine translation programs such as SYSTRAN used grammatical rules whereas Google Translate uses purely statistical translation and has no grammatical rules? I don't know the term at all: where would it go? Bayesian probability? I agree, it is better off deleted. I was just trying to throw out some half-sensible options. Si Trew (talk) 09:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Surrender Dorothy (Oz film)[edit]

This (potentially) upcoming film isn't mentioned at the target page, and the only reference cited before being the page was redirected dated to 2010, and even that source was just speculation. BDD (talk) 21:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete. I probably misunderstand, but there is already an article at Surrender Dorothy. IMDB has [this film from 2006] but we don't have Surrender Dorothy (2006). It also has [this film from 2008] but we don't have Surrender Dorothy (2008). It is a bit WP:CRYSTAL and perhaps not notable, these seem to be "straight to trashcan video" titles. But the general format of titles for films, for disambiguation purposes, is the year of production, not the parenthetical (Oz film) like that. Si Trew (talk) 22:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
The article is about the phrase/scene from the original movie, though it's also a bit of a coatrack for a piece of graffiti. You're right, though; even if we did have an article, it would properly be dabbed (upcoming film) or (2015 film), i.e., an educated guess. --BDD (talk) 00:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Several redirects to Laser Interferometer Space Antenna[edit]

None of these redirects are mentioned in the article, or even mentioned as an alternate name of the target article's subject. Steel1943 (talk) 21:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think a general term like "gravitational observatory" should link to a specific project. As for the others, they are variants of the previous name for the European Space Agency's eLISA. When it was gong through the process of selection it was known, variously according different documents, under these names; E.g., ngo science objectives. The whole LISA article needs looking at because LISA was just a long-running proposal; now that a modified form of it has been "selected" by ESA, eLISA, this should probably be spun off into a separate article. It doesn't make sense for both concepts to be in the same article; eLISA is descended from LISA, but it is not LISA. In that case the last three redirects should point to the eLISA article. I have mentioned this on the Spaceflight project to get more opinions. ChiZeroOne (talk) 22:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
@ChiZeroOne: it took me a moment to figure out the name of the "eLISA" article you are referring to: are you referring to the article currently named "LIGO"? Steel1943 (talk) 23:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
@ChiZeroOne: specifically section LIGO#NGO (New Gravitational Wave Observatory)? Steel1943 (talk) 23:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
There is no dedicated article on eLISA at present. The main article for both LISA and eLISA is the LISA article. This is bizarre as eLISA is the mission that is moving forward, whereas the LISA concept is dead. That's why I said eLISA should be spun-off from the LISA article. Yes the NGO listed in the LIGO article is what later became the eLISA project. To be fair, as Mangoe notes below, the alternative names for eLISA are relatively generic even if factually correct. ChiZeroOne (talk) 23:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
For clarity, NGO was the name of the space-based gravitational-wave mission that was proposed for ESA's L1 mission selection. The acronym stood for either the Next Gravitational-wave Observatory or the New Gravitational-wave Observatory at various points in its development, with the official title being New. The name was universally regarded as terrible, hence the name was changed to eLISA for the L2/L3 selection. The eLISA concept has the same deign as NGO, therefore, the redirect should go to eLISA. I would encourage them to be kept, since there is potential for these names to be confusing and thus be something that people wish to look up. Whether eLISA has its own page or is kept as part of the LISA page is a different question. eLISa is currently only a concept and may change to something resembling LISA in the future. The set of designs based upon LISA are known as LISA-like or the LISA family, or similar. Hence it might be worth having just one page. This would prevent there being many pages for slight permutations of the design for missions that are never launched. LISA is not dead, it has just evolved (hence the name of eLISA). The references on the LIGO page are irrelevant and should be removed. The links at the bottom of the page to other detectors should be sufficient. — BobQQ (talk) 09:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
This seems good to me (the redirect, not the deletion). The only difference between an observatory and a detector, is that the main goal of the former is to do astronomy using gravitational waves, while the latter is to just detect them (not that that is easy) and measure their properties. No-one makes this distinction in general and the terms can be safely used interchangeably. — BobQQ (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. It's too technical a term. I know what Laser stands for and I know what an interferometer is, and indeed have used both, and indeed have used a laser interferometer to detect a fault in a mile of fibre optic cable I just payed out and a stoat chewed through, but the thing is to assume readers are intelligent but ignorant (in the nicest sense), which is why they come to an encyclopaeddia. I no expert on these matters but please keep in mind, what are people likely to search for? It is not a question of whether it is "right" it is a question of whether it is a likely search term. Si Trew (talk) 21:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
In this case, NGO and LISA are proper nouns, so the technical level is irrelevant. People shall search for the terms as they are the names of missions (or mission concepts). — BobQQ (talk) 12:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete. They are not proper nouns they are abbreviations (one is an acronym, which most people these days seem to use to mean abbrevation and it drives me nuts). But there is LISA (disambiguation) – and it is mentioned there. NGO is a redirect to non-governmental organisation, a quango (quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisation) although those two are not hatnoted between the two. There is NGO (disambiguation) and that is hatnoted from NGO; Next Gravitational-Wave Observatory is not listed there yet. LISA redirects to the DAB page at Lisa. It's already at that DAB (although oddly LISA (programming language) isn't, unless I missed, and should be added after we get consensus). The fact that one space agency uses NGO to mean a certain abbreviation is not very useful; I worked on an experimental missile project called NLAW but that is not here (although checking that, it is also WP:TWODABS and could just as well be served with hatnoting). I am quite happy to do the gnoming but we need consensus first. Si Trew (talk) 22:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant New Gravitational-wave Observatory and Laser Interferometer Space Antenna are proper nouns. I was being lazy in not typing them out, but I can see how confusion arises. They are the names of missions. Those names may or may not be simple or descriptive or good by some other criterion, but that is what they are called, what they are referred to in the literature and what people will search for. — BobQQ (talk) 09:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I think I must have completely missed your point. Those are proper nouns, sure, and defence/defense and government do seem to have this habit of coming up with totally longwinded names for things, but my name is not dropped in literary circles when someone says "brevity", either.
I'm with you, Redirect Gravitational observatory to Gravitational-wave detector and delete the rest, although even then it might be best to list it with its full name at the DAB for NGO (disambiguation) and Lisa so that a search will bring it up for people searching that way. Si Trew (talk) 10:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I think we must have some means of tracing what happened to NGO. The mission was called that for about a year for the L1 mission selection. Therefore, there will be references from that period to a mission that seems to have disappeared. That's the sort of thing that people often want to look up. What ever happened to NGO? The mission was just renamed to eLISA. That only takes two seconds to explain. It only requires a sentence (or two) to be included on the page, but can clear up lots of confusion. eLISA is NGO, they just changed the name following the unsuccessful L1 mission selection. All science written specifically for NGO is immediately applicable to eLISA (well, it's current design), with no modification. — BobQQ (talk) 10:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • ngo "The New Gravitational wave Observatory (NGO) is a space mission {... [that] was the result of the reformulation, in 2011, of the LISA mission. In May 2012, NGO was not selected by the SPC to continue into the definition phase.
  • lisa "During the reformulation exercise LISA became NGO."
But that seems a bit WP:PRIMARY.
There is paper published by NASA (and various other science sites):
That states that "NGO" was "Formerly LISA" in the abstract on the first page. However that PDF is just the first page abstract and does not have more details. Si Trew (talk) 11:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
That is all correct. I think I've explained that all above, let me know if anything is not clear. If we need references, I'm sure I could find as many as required (if someone could tell me where citations are needed). I guess I might as well get around to updating the page while I'm at it, there's never enough time... For now, the eLISA white paper should answer most things [18]. That was submitted for the ESA L2/3 mission selection and so was written before the science case was accepted. — BobQQ (talk) 21:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
This is not peer-reviewed (yet), but fortuitously appeared today and so should be completely up-to-date: Space-borne Gravitational Wave Observatories; arXiv:1404.3136. — BobQQ (talk) 08:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually that is already peer-reviewed as it was accepted to published in GRG. (The doi is not live yet though)TR 21:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment and ELISA already has an article and several redirects for some genetic research, which eLISA redirects to. Elisa is a DAB at which ELISA (satellite) is an entry. Si Trew (talk) 11:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Redirect Gravitational observatory to Gravitational-wave detector. Speedy Keep the other redirects to Laser Interferometer Space Antenna, since they are names that have at some point been used for the LISA/NGO/eLISA project as can be readily support by references. (e.g. [19] [20]). Hence they are plausible redirects, which is all that is need.TR 20:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Seconded. Redirect Gravitational observatory to Gravitational-wave detector. Keep the others. Ideally, they should redirect to evolved Laser Interferometer Space Antenna, but there is no point in having a separate page for LISA and eLISA at the moment. The strongest case for deletion is Next Gravitational wave Observatory, since that was never the official name of NGO. — BobQQ (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Not opposed, but action needed. If the discussion is closed per the votes above, the lede of Laser Interferometer Space Antenna would need to be updated to explain the alternate name "Next Gravitational Wave Observatory" in one way or another, possibly with a reference, such as TimothyRias states above (due to the fact that this discussion is currently happening). Anyways, thanks TimothyRias, BobQQ, and SimonTrew for essentially sorting out the confusion behind those redirects. @Mangoe: since you had opted for deletion, do you have any input about the aforementioned suggestion? Steel1943 (talk) 22:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Note that since this discussion started, a rudimentary history section has been added to the article that at least explains some of the names that have been used for the project. At some point something may be added to the lede as well.TR 22:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I've quickly added a mention of NGO to the second paragraph. I'l try to get around to expanding things soon. — BobQQ (talk) 08:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Crimean Anschluss[edit]

Per WP:RFD#D3 and WP:RNEUTRAL for using a very unlikely term with the intention of equating Russia with Nazi Germany.--Kathovo talk 08:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep. WP:RNEUTRAL permits non-neutral terms for re-directs if they are established. According to this article[21], "this word has now entered the Russian political vocabulary as “Putsch” did in August 1991", indicating that it has become established at least in Russian political discourse (note that August Putsch is also a re-direct). Indeed other sources have used the term, for example:
Therefore it is not unreasonable to have the term as a redirect, per WP:RFD#KEEP it aid searches on certain terms, for example, if someone sees "Crimean Anschluss" mentioned somewhere but does not know what that refers to, then he or she will be able to find out at the 2014 Crimean crisis article. --Nug (talk) 08:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep perfectly acceptable as a redirect. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 22:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep per Nug and above. It's not a question of neutrality (that is for articles, not redirects) but simply whether it is a likely search term. If it is widely reported as such, it should have the redirect. If not, not. Si Trew (talk) 21:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete The more I think about it, the less comfortable I am with this redirect. Compare to the outcome at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 August 30#Europe's last dictatorship where similar and (IMO) more common terms were deleted. This term is sensationalistic and probably just the product of an active news cycle. It's too inflammatory, and its likely usefulness in the future too little, to justify keeping. --BDD (talk) 17:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
The main problem with "Europe's last dictatorship", though it wasn't articulated, is that it was too ambiguous, since it is not really certain whether the target of that redirect is really in fact Europe's last (there could be others in the future), if in fact really is a "dictatorship" at all. On the other hand a source states that this term "Crimean Anschluss" has now entered the Russian political vocabulary as “Putsch” did in August 1991, hence it has moved beyond the news cycle. And certainly there is no denying that comparisons have been made between the Austrian Anshluss and what occurred in Crimea[22]. In fact a Moscow university professor was fired over making an academic comparison[23]. Heck, even Google Images returns a result for "Crimean Anschluss", so it is not an unreasonable search term in Wikiepdia. --Nug (talk) 22:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment and that's why I'm with you (Nug). It's reliably sourced and Nug has brought plenty of WP:RS here to prove the point. The fact is might be objectionable to some does not matter, we are WP:NOTCENSORED. Is it a likely search term? If it is, it stays, if not, it goes. That's all there is to it. Si Trew (talk) 10:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per Nug and Rich Farmbrough. Thryduulf (talk) 13:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Next Hungarian parliamentary election[edit]

It's after election and nobody will create an article for prospective election. maybe it's too early but it's easy to forget to remove this redirect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aight 2009 (talkcontribs) 10:07, 9 April 2014

Keep. I live in Hungary but don't have a vote here. The national elections were held on 6 April, but there is a second round in a couple of weeks to then sort out the actual seating arrangements and so on. This is exactly the right target. Si Trew (talk) 11:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Well what about that, a campaigning van just went straight past my front door with its tannoy on asking "Vote for Me". This is obviously the right target. Si Trew (talk) 12:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't live in Hungary but I learned that after constitution was replaced in 2012 ther is no two round system. Aight_2009 — Preceding undated comment added 17:21, 9 April 2014‎

I'm not sure, they might be campaigning for the European elections if there are any? Usually in the UK they are held at the start of May. I did look at the article and it says that it is the first time they have done it in a single round, but my hungarian wife who does have a vote but couldn't cast it said there were two rounds. My wife and I always vote, when we can: that is what gives you the right to complain about things. I'll double check this at some time tomorrow. 21:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think you are right it was one round, e.g. here:
"To Viktor, the spoils". The Economist. 7 April 2014. Retrieved 9 April 2014. 
So I don't know what they were campaigning for this afternoon, I can never understand Tannoy announcements in any language. Perhaps we were being warned of nuclear war for all I know. Normally I just hear the ice-cream van. Si Trew (talk) 22:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment. I added a pic of campaign posters from different parties to the article. So at least a little good has come out of this. I didn't want to take the posters down until the election finished: that is something called democracy. Si Trew (talk) 23:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

March 32[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

No use, except as a joke TheChampionMan1234 09:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per TheChampionMan1234. WP:DYK for example tends to store things for April Fool's Day, but although intially misleading in the way of a cryptic crossword ("I may not say what I mean, but I always mean what I say", an early compiler wrote) they always actually lead to an article that is factual and well-referenced, it is only the DYK hook that is misleading but even the hook is accurate, just deliberately obscure or wrongfooting. This redirect, in the alternate, is just simply wrong: there is no March 32 in any calendar I know of: Julian, Gregorian, Roman, Jewish, Arabic or otherwise there is no March 32. In any case, we are past April 1 now so how long do you want this to last? Si Trew (talk) 11:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to April 1 and place a {{R from incorrect name}} template on the redirect. This could serve as a useful redirect for those who are not familiar with either the months or the amount of days on the Gregorian calendar. Steel1943 (talk) 23:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Note to closer: Even though I have voted "retarget" on this RFD, I would rather this RFD be closed as delete rather than no consensus, given the fact that this is this redirect's 2nd nomination. Steel1943 (talk) 00:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment. I checked, for comparison. Here you go: January 32, February 30, March 32, April 31, May 32, June 31, July 32, August 32, September 31, October 32, November 31, December 32. It seems about half-and-half. Of those, February 30 has its own article saying it occurs in some calendars but not the Gregorin; the others that are blue redirect to the articles for the months. Si Trew (talk) 23:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment. There's also an article at February 31. But I am not going to make an exhaustive search because I am exhausted myself. There was a time when people always linked dates (it still happens in e.g. FR:WP and HU:WP ) but that is now strongly discouraged at EN:WP. So these might be vestiges of those days. The articles of course should stand, but the redirects seem a bit useless. Si Trew (talk) 00:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment: I might as well add that this is actually the 2nd time this redirect has been nominated for RFD: the first nomination can be found at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 October 26#March 32. Steel1943 (talk) 00:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Im not so sure about some of them, but the '<month> 32' redirects should IMO be deleted. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Just to tie these together, there is a similar discusion here at RfD for April 12, for the redirect for April 31. There, Steel1943 has already tied it the other way back. Si Trew (talk) 10:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

April 8[edit]

Some redirects to Super Mario All-Stars[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was withdrawn/retarget all to Super Mario All-Stars#Super Mario All-Stars 25th Anniversary Edition. The IP and John Vandenberg have discovered some information that I had not found previously: "Super Mario All Stars Limited Edition" seems to be an alternate name for the 25th anniversary edition on English sites, and I found that "Super Mario Collection Special Package" seems to be an alternate name for the 25th anniversary edition on Japanese sites that have been translated to English. I'm not sure the reasoning behind this, but upon finding this information, I must determine that these are useful redirects. As I am the one who opened up this discussion, I'm closing it as a retarget. If there are any concerns about this, please feel free to open another discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 04:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

There do not seem to be any applicable sections or subjects on its target article that can be disambiguated with these titles: in the article, there is no version that is referred to as a "limited edition", and the term "Super Mario Collection" is very ambiguous and could refer to any number of subjects collectively that are mentioned on Mario (series). However, since there are no games or collections that have been referenced in any media (that I can find) specifically by these titles, or titled as so by their developer/publisher Nintendo, it is probably best to delete these redirects for now. Steel1943 (talk) 22:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: each of these redirects currently point towards a "25th anniversary edition" on the page: that section has since been retitled. However, with these redirects having these titles, it is difficult to believe the usefulness of these titles due to their ambiguity and/or inaccuracy. Steel1943 (talk) 22:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment [24][25] Seems like Amazon sells this, and it is the 25th Anniversary version of the game. So... a good reason why redirects should have documentation. -- (talk) 04:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I totally agree with being able to add a bit of documentation/reasoning to redirect pages and have said so before: if nothing else, it allows other editors to work out why something that looks odd is actually there by being able to say "This was someone's maiden name" or "they've paved paradise and put up a parking lot" or whatever, which is useful to then go ahhh.... I see the point of the redirect now. Si Trew (talk) 07:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:PROMO. The article, fine, but these redirects are just to encourage searches to people to buy the thing, and to my mind that is PROMO. Si Trew (talk) 07:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep all per 70.24. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
@John Vandenberg: I was thinking that at first, but the fact that the "25th Anniversary" wording is not in these redirects make each of these titles rather ambiguous. If you see the redirects that currently point to this section right now, they all have the "25th anniversary" wording in them:
...I spent a bit of time trying to fix quite a few "Mario"-related redirects so that they redirect to their proper targets/sections. However, due to the lack of specific wording, the 3 specifically nominated redirects seem too ambiguous to be helpful. Steel1943 (talk) 02:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
If there is no other 'Special Package', 'Special Pack' or 'Limited Edition', they are all reasonable search terms for the '25th Anniversary Edition', which does use the subtitle 'Limited Edition'. If these redirects are ambiguous (there are other Limited/Special sets), then I would vote delete. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Vertebral border[edit]

As with 'superior border', this page is too generic to be used as a redirect, and too broad to be used as a disambig. I cannot think of any user who would search for 'inferior border' expecting to be taken to an article about the medial border of the scapula (even less than the superior margin of pancreas!). Therefore I propose deletion of this redirect LT910001 (talk) 22:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Keep per my argument on inferior border, immediately below. Seems a likely search term for a medical student. Si Trew (talk) 07:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete As per argument below. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 22:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Inferior border[edit]

This page is too generic to be used as a redirect, and too broad to be used as a disambig. I cannot think of any user who would search for 'inferior border' expecting to be taken to an article about the inferior margin on the pancreas. Therefore I propose deletion of this redirect. LT910001 (talk) 22:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Keep. I am not a medical man, but I can imagine a medical student searching for this. It's not as if someone wanting to know about the extent of countries etc would search for "inferior border" so this is obviously a medical term: I am not saying there aren't other exterior or interior borders in the body (I have no clue, I am quite glad that God put most of the disgusting bits on the inside where you can't see 'em) but in the absence of a better target it might as well stay. Si Trew (talk) 07:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

In order to provide some explanation, 'Inferior' means below in anatomical terminology, so every organ (not to mention bone and every other structure) has an inferior border. Hence the statement is too general to redirect to pancreas, and too general also to be used as a diambiguation--LT910001 (talk) 07:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I can imagine that. But either then we have to delete it and let the search engine take care of it, or redirect it somewhere more general, or leave it where it stands. Since moving it can break incoming links and there is no proposal to retarget it anywhere better. I note that Superior border is a DAB page with two entries Superior margin of pancreas and Superior border of scapula: It doesn't need to be a DAB since they can just be hatnoted (assuming in anatomocial terminology that "margin" and "border" are used pretty much synonymously?) Your expert knowledge is a great help and I thank you for it sincerely. Si Trew (talk) 07:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguate this and the one above at inferior border in the same way it is done at superior border. I appreciate that is not perfect, but it is better. We don't have vasa cava inferior and vasa cava superior for example, nor even vasa cava which is what I was taught was part of the arterial route from the heart to the lungs: now I may have mispelled, I did my biology lessons thirty years ago, but if I can't find it they would be useful redirects. We do have hepatic portal vein which is my favourite shortcut, saves a lot of time. This is a case of WP:NOTFINISHED. If medical/anatomical experts are taking these out because they are "wrong" then they have misunderstood the point of redirects, which is to enable people to find the information they are looking for, whether it is technically wrong or not. Si Trew (talk) 08:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Presuming you mean vena cava, vena cava superior, vena cava inferior, they do exist on Wikipedia CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 22:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • comment The whole pattern of these very stubby articles on elements of the geometry of these body parts strikes me as a great deal of padding, especially since they appear, nearly in their entirety, in the main articles on these bones and organs. Gray's Anatomy, for example, deals with the superior border of the scapula in four sentences and a caption on a diagram (which picture appears in our article on the scapula). There's something to be said, in light of @LT910001:'s comments above, to getting rid of these general names entirely and redirecting the specific names back into the corresponding main articles. Mangoe (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete This article is far too broad to form a disambiguation page. Nearly each and every feature of the human body has an inferior border, and as in an earlier example having this article would be like having an article Southern border and have it disambiguate to all articles of countries, cities, villages, forests, etc. etc.
Its just rediculous. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 22:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Disagree. We have lots of articles on borders (for example Berlin Wall or North-South divide or Khyber Pass or whatever), but apparently only two on the superior margin/border of internal organs and two on the interior margin/border of internal organs. It doesn't matter that every organ etc. may have them, the question is what would an intelligent but unknowledgable reader expect to find in an encyclopaedia? Now, you can argue that it's worthless because they want to find I dunno the inferior border of the fibula or something and that article doesn't exist, that's just tough luck. What would a reader expect to find if he typed in "inferior border". I doubt he is looking for geographical articles, or finishing off wallpapering, because he would just type in "border": countries don't really have inferior or superior borders. He is obviously looking for this technical, medical sense of the word "border" and lo and behold he finds a couple of articles on inferior borders. It would be wonderful if every anterior or exterior margin or border, superior or interior or whatever border, was described in great detail: it isn't, that is just WP:NOTFINISHED. Either these go somewhere or nowhere, that is basically the choice.
I note by the way that interior border does not exist, even though it is used a lot in British English to mean, well, roughly, the Schengen Agreement or Common Travel Area. If that doesn't exist then perhaps this should not exist, but you can't argue "all or nothing". We have what we have. Si Trew (talk) 01:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Those arguments are completely beside the point, I feel you are intentionally misunderstanding. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 14:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
No, I am not: I am stating my case. I gave the example that Superior border is a DAB with two entries (which it doesn't really need to be, but it is). It's not my fault that nobody writes articles about the inferior border of the liver or the inferior border of the heart or whatever: we have what we have. It's not the job of RfD to create those articles but to discuss where the existing things go, to help readers to find them. Now you have expert knowledge and I know nothing about it: that is the point, one must assume a reader comes to an encyclopaedia with maximum intelligence but minimum knowledge. The decision then is how can they best find what they are looking for? That is all there is to it. Si Trew (talk) 21:25, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
We also have Inferior border of lung, Posterior inferior iliac spine, Costal groove mentions an inferior border, Inferior sagittal sinus similarly, redirect at Inferior fascia of the urogenital diaphragm to Perineal membrane which also mentions it, and plenty plenty more brought up by a Special:Search. I fail to see your argument either: it's not right that that this one particular target has the sole rights to "inferior border", but what to do about it? Just delete it and let the search engine take care of it, or DAB it? Si Trew (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Dabify per Si Trew. Then, if desired, bring this and Superior border up at AfD. It's not an everyday occurrence, but dabs are discussed there from time to time. If there's consensus to delete both, so be it. I just don't see any benefit to inconsistency here. --BDD (talk) 16:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Healthcare overhaul[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget. --BDD (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Seems like a vague term that shouldn't redirect to a specific policy, and it's kind of USA-centric to assume it means the PPACA. Propose changing it to redirect to Health care reform. Brainy J ~~ (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

:Delete. It could just as well refer to the Beveridge Report or a hundred and one other things. That is what the search engine is for. Si Trew (talk) 07:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Health care reform. This is essentially just a synonym, even if it connotates a somewhat strong case thereof. WilyD 09:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Redirect per nom and WilyD. That article is a bit vague but has all the appropriate links. Si Trew (talk) 11:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Coney island disco palace[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The redirect's subject is not mentioned at the target article. I looked for alternate articles to retarget this redirect (both on Wikipedia and search engines), and the only other target I found is a business in Brooklyn, New York that seems to not have a Wikipedia article. For the time being, it might be best to delete this redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete per Steel. Si Trew (talk) 07:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom.--Lenticel (talk) 02:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Virtual Boy Mario Land[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The subject is not mentioned at the target article. From the minor research I did, it looks like this was a cancelled project due to the commercial failure of the Virtual Boy. Probably best to delete to either promote article creation, or create an applicable section for this topic in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 19:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete per Steel. Si Trew (talk) 08:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Sentence fragment[edit]

Delete per WP:REDLINK. Strangely enough, it's not discussed at the target article. BDD (talk) 17:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

  • @BDD: I find it odd that this redirect doesn't have a good candidate for a "Retarget". I may find a possible option here in a moment, but I still find it odd. Are there any other articles/article sections you have found that made you come to this conclusion that it should just be deleted altogether, or do no other options truly exist (currently)? Steel1943 (talk) 17:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not seeing anything. It looks like it was sent to Wiktionary once upon a time, but soft redirects are supposed to used sparingly. I do think we could have an encyclopedic article about sentence fragments. --BDD (talk) 17:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
@BDD: I saw the fact in the edit history that the redirect was previously a soft redirect to the Wiktionary entry. However, what you said about Wiktionary redirects: when I looked at the first page of Special:Shortpages the other day, I thought the exact opposite; looks like there are quite a few soft redirects to Wiktionary. Steel1943 (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to clause. A sentence fragment is esssentially a well-formed grammatical part of a sentence. There is no point sending it to Sentence (linguistics)] because that discusses what a sentence is, whereas the redirect discusses a sentence fragment, which the closest I think we have is clause. It is a linguistic term so I am not sure it is a likely search term anyway. Si Trew (talk) 18:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
To declare an interest: I speak about six or seven languages extremely badly (one day I might get the hang of English) and studied computational linguistics as part of my bachelor's degree. Si Trew (talk) 18:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
It's not discussed there either, though, nor is it an absolute synonym. I think that would still cause confusion. --BDD (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what to do with the redirect, but it is a likely search term as computer grammar checkers frequently complain about sentence fragments (or at least they do for my writing). Thryduulf (talk) 21:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Right, I think I see what you mean. When computer grammar checkers (a particular one springs to mind from one of the most popular word processing applications) complain about a "sentence fragment" then what they mean is that somehow you haven't formed a complete sentence according to their own grammar rules. Like this. That last sentence would probably be marked as a sentence fragment since it has no verb. I agree, the trouble is where to put it. There are teaching examples such as here if you throw "sentence fragment" into Google, and that one starts "an incomplete sentence is called a sentence fragment", but incomplete sentence is also a redirect to sentence (linguistics). Perhaps the best is after consensus to add a short section at the target? I'm quite willing to do it, but don't like to do so while things are being discussed. Si Trew (talk) 07:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I suppose there is a plausible article on the grammar of sentences that would be a good place to put that content if not Sentence (linguistics). Incomplete sentence should point to the same place as Sentence fragment, wherever that is. Thryduulf (talk) 14:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
There are plenty of articles on the grammar of sentences, in particular things like SVO word order and OSV word order and VSO word order and so on. But there doesn't seem to be a good target for this, if my suggestion of clause is ruled out. Si Trew (talk) 15:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
With an extra sentence or two added to Dependent clause#Dependent clauses and sentence structure, that would be a decent target, i think, but I am not an expert in this field so I could have it all terribly wrong. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I think you have it terribly wrong. A dependent clause is one that requires context from an independent clause, often in the form of a pronoun that is used to refer to an antecedent (grammar). A sentence fragment is simply a fragment that in some sense is "ungrammatical" according to prescriptive grammarians such as H. W. Fowler because it does not follow the grammatical rules they laid down, which were mostly derived from the rules of Latin and classical Greek and have little to do with how people actually speak or write English (a descriptive grammarian would argue): in particular, so-called grammar checkers pick it up because there is no verb in the sentence. (Like this.) I don't think "Dependent clause" would be any better than "clause". Almost by definition a sentence fragment, or incomplete sentence, is an independent clause (or simple sentence, which that article mentions in the first line of the lede, and is a redirect to sentence clause structure). That might be a better target and we could stuff a bit in there? I am quite willing to stuff it in and do my homework etc. to make it all tight, but we have to know where we want it to go first.
While I am at it I have paid a hitman to go out and find whoever came up with the word "spellchecker". It doesn't check spells, it checks spelling. Si Trew (talk) 21:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Sentence clause structure looks like a much better target! I'm glad my terrible wrongness was the cause of a great rightness from you ;-) John Vandenberg (chat) 06:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
It's how it works, isn't it? I think you're right, no point going through the R to get to that. That's how we get consensus. But I will put a decent section in there if we get consensus in and I think you are right that is the best target. So should we then retarget the R at (nearly) the same time? Si Trew (talk) 18:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Noob combo[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The subject is not mentioned in the article. Also, upon reviewing the redirect's edit history, this article that was here before looks like some sort of failure to comply to a neutral point-of-view, and has no references. Steel1943 (talk) 05:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete per Steel1943. Si Trew (talk) 08:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete could refer to thousands of different things, such as a move combination for a hidden character in Mortal Kombat. -- (talk) 04:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Junk. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.


The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

This redirect is not mentioned in the article. Also, a search for "Tool.exe" on the English Wikipedia comes up with no results in any pages; the only definite results are at the top, referencing this redirect's existence. Steel1943 (talk) 05:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete per Steel. I have often knocked up small computer programs called "Tool.exe" but they tend to just be one-offs to serve a very specific purpose then get deleted. The same should happen with this redirect. Si Trew (talk) 07:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per SiTrew -- (talk) 04:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete; it looks like there is a tool.exe that helps create custom maps for this game. It might be part of the package, or a mod/hack, but it doesnt really matter as there are lots of tool.exe and no reason this one should be given prominence with a redirect. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Leader of Government Business[edit]

The destination doesn't make sense. Leader of Government Business is a position in many governments. Recommend turning into a disambig page. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete or disambiguate per nom. Misleading redirect. -- (talk) 03:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate. In the UK, the Leader of the House of Commons or Leader of the House of Lords is the MP or Lord who basically organises the business of the day, and both are Cabinet posts but not the Premier (Prime Minister). This redirects to the Premier. If the Premier of the Cayman Islands is also the Leader of Government Business then there are obviously different meanings. There is also the Father of the House (or Mother of Parliament) who is the longest sitting MP, and perhaps that should go at the DAB too, although it is purely an honorary title. Si Trew (talk) 08:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • make an article This seems to be a standard position in parliamentary governments. Rather that make links to the countries where such a position exists, it makes more sense to explain what the position is. Mangoe (talk) 00:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
But if it means different things in different countries, then the article would essentially be no more than a disambiguation page. Anyway, who's going to make the article? Are you offering? Si Trew (talk) 07:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - delete, as it stands. Could be disambiguated, or made into an article? If someone has an idea of how to do that. WilyD 09:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate or Keep; 'Leader of Government Business' was a previous name of 'Premier of the Cayman Islands'. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep for now. Most instances of the phrase on Wikipedia do refer to the Caymanian usage, but I have no objection to overwriting with an article or a dab. It's just unclear to me right now what else would go on that dab. --BDD (talk) 16:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I think it is clear that Leader of the House of Commons, Leader of the House of Lords, and Leader of Government Business would go to that DAB. Si Trew (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bishop Simon Bruté College Seminary[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete as WP:CSD#G6. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 04:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

left over from some kind of accidental move it looks like Sailsbystars (talk) 00:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete G6, accidental misnaming. -- (talk) 03:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

April 5[edit]

User:The Herald/Nirmala (novel)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted at sole author's request. — Scott talk 13:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Article is made The Herald 13:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

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


I don't see any connections to Graphical Environment Manager, should rather redirect to Application bundle. Rezonansowy (talkcontribs) 10:58, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

:Retarget, to Mobile application software where "app" is right in the definition in the lede ("A mobile app, short for mobile application, or just app") rather than what seems to me also a bit overspecific. I remember GEM! Si Trew (talk) 14:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Change to disambiguation page. GEM applications traditionally use the file extension .APP, that's why ".app" redirects to the GEM article. However, as I already mentioned in the edit summary when I created the redirect originally, there are a few other (more modern) uses of the .APP file extension as well (on Macs and on NeXT machines), so ".app" might need to become a disambiguation page in the future. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 14:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I see your point, I change my !vote. But I would Move Mobile application software to app and then disambiguate at App (disambiguation) for the other senses. Surely "app" to mean mobile application software is now the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? Si Trew (talk) 14:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Sure, but this discussion isn't about app (which is already a disambiguation page), but about the file extension .app. Since we have found at least three different environments using the .app file extension, I think, we should make this a disambiguation page without primary topic, and then cross link the app and .app disambiguation pages through See Also links. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 15:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
To say "it might need to become so in the future" is a bit WP:CRYSTAL, but there is a bit of vermicelli here that could do with sorting out. I don't see the need for a separate "dot app" DAB, just add entries at app, move that over to app (disambiguation) and then hatnote that mobile application software (when it moves) with an R to DAB at app (disambiguation). I started my career doing software for Sinclair QLs and Atari 8-bits and the original IBM PCs and VAX/VMS and I can't remember that file extension being used on any of those, but I am trying to rack my brains in case they were.Si Trew (talk) 15:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
For example Mobile app at the DAB at App is a redirect through to mobile application software. Assuming (and I am assuming, I haven't checked) that the consensus was to call the article "Mobile application software" then at least that is what it should be called at the DAB rather than a DAB through a redirect. But I don't like to change things while they are under discussion. Si Trew (talk) 15:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
According to], Symbian OS also uses the ".app" file extension, I am not sure if that was one of the three you were discussing. It also says there it is used by Microsoft Visual FoxPro as part of its build process. It also seems to have been used by MicroFocus COBOL (here at which I wrote my second year thesis in many years ago, blimey I feel old! In fact that second link has (if I counted correctly) 46 different applications where it is/was used. The words "worms" and "can" spring to mind :) Si Trew (talk) 16:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 ;-) By "in the future" I was referring to the time when I created the redirect. That future is now. ;-)
Regarding having a separate disambiguation page for .app as a file extension, I guess, it makes even more sense, the more uses we find (even if we don't list them all). My rationale for having this sub-disambiguated on a different page named .app was that someone (possibly in the context of an article about file extensions or something similar) might semantically want to link to a file extension .app in general (for deliberate disambiguation by the reader, not the editor) rather than to a specific .app file association in a particular environment or various other meanings of app(s). Obviously, we can't do this, if we combine app and .app into a single disambiguation page and let .app redirect to app. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose just point it to the disambiguation page for "app". I don't see a need for a separate disambiguation page for ".app". -- (talk) 06:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't want to hinder the discussion by just multiplying examples, but EXE and .exe would seem to be a good one. The first redirects to the second, but exe is a DAB. At .exe it says has hatnote "for other uses see EXE (disambiguation)", which with Exe (disambiguation) are not actually DABs but redirects back to the DAB at Exe). The article itself discusses all three uses of the file extension and doesn't seem to want to split off into separate articles (I am sure there are many more uses but that is just WP:NOTFINISHED). To my mind those two R to DABs are unnecessary but that's a separate point – it's more that adding these R to DABs etc and separate DABs kind of things creates rather than reduces confusion, "let's have a DAB that is in itself ambiguous" Of course it's taken as read they would be hatnoted one to the other etc, I just don't see the need for two separate DAB pages. Si Trew (talk) 07:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to App per IP. --BDD (talk) 16:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. We have no information in Wikipedia about ".app"; deleting this redirect would expose this fact. Retargetting to app is not allowed per WP:PTM. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to application bundle, per my comment above. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 10:14, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused. Bundled software is a DAB. What has it to do with .app or app? Si Trew (talk) 12:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Me too. But the way Wikipedia searches has changed a bit. Right now, I typed "Pacific Rim" in the search box and was taken to Pacific Rim but was informed: "(Redirected from Pacific rim)". Something has gone wrong somewhere. But I am not sure. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Serb Sarajevo[edit]

I'd like deletion for same reasons as this article. All history about name used before is explained in Target article so I think it's not needed to stay here (talking about redirect). Lighthouse01 (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Weak Delete per Lighthouse01. A quick search shows this term is not used widely, if at all, in English. Most searches I tried bring up Wikipedia as the main articles for the various battles of the mid-1990s etc but not with this specific term in any of them. This term in a sense is not racist, at least to an ignorant English speaking audience, unless "Serb" itself you would consider racist (in which case Brit is racist, just because a term is incorect doesn't make it racist). But it's just an unlikely search term. Serb points at Serbs although Serbian is a DAB and perhaps Serb should be redirected to there. Language can be a very powerful tool for racism so I shouldn't like WP to encourage racism: but as an encyclopaedia we must acknowledge it exists. Si Trew (talk) 09:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

By the way I just meant "ignorant" in the sense of "not knowing about something and wanting to find out", not in the sense of "the entire English audience are just plain stupid". Si Trew (talk) 09:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep as a former name addressed and bolded (in alternate form) on the target page. --BDD (talk) 17:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 08:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Redirects to Zoophilia[edit]

Not very useful or neutral redirects. Conti| 14:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)it

Comment. Deliberately without looking at the target (I tend to do that to kinda be impartial) "Zoophilia" etymologically from the Greek and I imagine in any dictionary means "love of animals" in the sense of caring for them, and does not mean "bestiality". Either redirect these to Bestiality or delete them. Si Trew (talk) 14:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Keep. OK after saying that comment, deliberately not looing, I looked at the target. Bestiality redirects to Zoophilia and that is a reasonable redirect. The others, which all redirect to Zoophilia], would seem to be reasonable redirects to that target as well, although they could go via bestiality but I don't see the point of doing that jump through. It may be that Zoophilia and bestiality should be separated out into distinct articles, one expressing a liking of animals and one expressing a sexual desire for them, but it's a well-established article and I can't see the harm in these being where they stand. Si Trew (talk) 14:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per SiTrew. These would be better pointed at Bestiality if that were a separate article, but it isn't and double redirects automatically get corrected by bots so the target is reasonable, especially since there is a section in the article about terminology. The article does not have specific sections dealing with horses and/or dogs, and so there is no more specific target available, so the top of the page is the best place to send people. That said I would add a hatnote, Animal rape redirects here, for rape among non-human animals see Sexual coercion, like the one at Rape. I'd also note at Talk:Zoophilia and on the redirect talk pages that if bestiality is ever split off as a separate article that the redirects should be retargeted there. Thryduulf (talk) 15:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
That makes a lot of sense. I hadn't found Sexual coercion and that is a bit of an odd lede don't you think, since it starts "Sexual coercion in animals" and is specifically about animals but the title is just "Sexual coercion" which I would have thought would mean Rape or indecent assault etc in the more general sense, should that article be moved to Sexual coercion in animals (or Sexual coercion of animals or somesuch)? 15:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
But isn't a hatnote that reads "animal rape redirects here" entirely and utterly in violation of WP:NPOV? If the article itself would state "Zoophilia is the rape of animals" or whatever, I'd be fine with that. But as it stands, this seems like a serious violation of WP:NPOV to me, hence the nomination here. --Conti| 16:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
No. There are two things that people might be looking for when searching "animal rape" - rape of animals by humans, which is covered (as well as interactions that not everybody considers rape) in the Zoophilia article, and rape of one non-human animal by another which is covered by the Sexual coercion article. I think the former is the primary topic for the term, hence it should be the target with a hatnote to the lesser term. The hatnote does not say that Zoophilia is animal rape, only that the concept is covered in that article. See also WP:RNEUTRAL. Thryduulf (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I disagree that the hatnote does not say or imply anything. I know that it is not intended by anyone to mean or imply anything, but it very clearly does. Perhaps the hatnote could be reworded somehow to make it neutral, but as it stands I consider it unacceptable per WP:NPOV. I suppose a disambiguation page would solve that problem, but I'm not sure if that wouldn't be overkill. Redirecting the term to Sexual coercion would also be an alternative (I truly have no idea what kind of article anyone searching for "animal rape" would expect). --Conti| 18:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
A disambiguation page would not be appropriate per WP:TWODABS if there is a primary topic. The majority of the google hits on a search for "animal rape" -Wikipedia are about bestiality and so that is clearly the primary topic. As for the NPOV comment, I don't understand how a simple factual statement that a term with two meanings, one of which is covered in this article and one of which isn't, redirects here is expressing any point of view at all. Thryduulf (talk) 16:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
You can imply non-neutral connotations with a simple factual statement, which is exactly what is happening here. Would you be okay with a hatnot on Pedophilia that would read "Childlove redirects here, for other meanings of the term see X"? --Conti| 17:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Assuming that there are multiple uses of term "childlove", the paedophilia article deals with the primary use, and the other uses are dealt with in other articles, then yes such a hatnote would be absolutely correct. Our reporting that a term exists and refers to a topic covered in this article does not imply anything about the legitimacy, neutrality, appropriateness, etc. of the term. Exactly what connotations are you seeing in these hatnotes? Thryduulf (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
You open up the article on Zoophilia on Wikipedia, and the very first thing that greets you are the words "Animal rape redirects here". Thus we are giving the impression that Zoophilia is an article about animal rape. That is not neutral, no matter how you look at it. Yes, I know that the statement is factual and that we in no way intend to imply anything along those lines, but we do imply that all the same, and the average reader will be influenced by that notice, whether we want it or not. --Conti| 20:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
What you see is a statement that this article covers one meaning of the term "animal rape", which it does. What the article is about comes with the bolded statement in the first sentence "Zoophilia is...". I'm not sure where you're getting the impression otherwise, but if we were to go down the lines you seem to be encouraging we would need to review every singe hatnote on the project ({{redirect}} alone has over 26,000 transclusions), and the result would make it significantly harder for people to find the article they are looking for. Go ahead and propose doing that if you wish, but I still don't understand your point of view. Thryduulf (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
And I don't understand yours, so I suppose we have that in common. Do you at least agree that - in theory - it is possible that hatnotes can have a WP:NPOV problem, or are they all inherently neutral to you? What I'm saying is that not everybody has the same knowledge of Wikipedia as you and I have, and that "animal rape redirects here" is not as straightforward to everyone as you might think. You and I know that it means that the topic is covered in the article in some capability, but many others will equate that hatnote with "This is the article about animal rape, ergo Wikipedia says that Zoophilia is animal rape", regardless of what the actual article says. If you do not think that a good portion of our readers will interpret the hatnote like that, then I cannot help you. --Conti| 22:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
If it said something like "This article promotes the raping of animals" then it would be biased, so it is possible. However, when worded neutrally they are by definition neutral. I have been working with redirects and hatnotes for years, and I don't recall anyone taking the line you are doing - and I've definitely never seen any evidence that hatnotes are interpreted in the way you seem to be assuming people do. If you have any evidence that everybody has been wrong all these years then please do share it. Thryduulf (talk) 23:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
This is the first time I've seen a non-neutral redirect being used like that, so I have no prior experience with similar cases, either. Since you have more experience than me in this field, I would be curious to hear if there are indeed similar cases without anyone ever having complained about it. I hope I did not come across as having a problem with hatnotes in general, as you seem to imply. They are perfectly fine in all cases I have seen so far, except this one. This is the first hatnote I've come across that can be interpreted in such a non-neutral way. --Conti| 23:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Non-neutral redirects exist by the thousand. Ones where there is also a hatnote are fewer. I can't bring to mind specifically to mind right now but I'll see what I can do (I'm about go to bed and don't know how much time I'll have on Wikipedia before Monday so it might take a few days, sorry). Thryduulf (talk) 01:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Maybe I'm just overly sensitive and the only one thinking this should not be done, but as I said, this is the first time I've ever come across a non-neutral redirect being explicitly mentioned in a hatnote like that. --Conti| 14:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
If there were then presumably the greek for Horse Rape would be "Hippophilia" and the Greek for "Dogfuck", I am not sure, but would be kanaphilia? Since these don't exist the redirect is the best solution, and I am not suggesting to create more redirects. Si Trew (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I was expecting Hippophilia, love of horses, to be a redlink but it actually redirects to -phil-, so that should somehow be sorted too, if "Horse rape" goes to "Zoophilia" then so should Hippophilia, at least if it means a sexual desire for horses (which it doesn't it generally means just people liking horses, equestrians or something like that). Oh what a tangled web we unweave. Canaphilia doesn't exist. Si Trew (talk) 16:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
All these -philia words are neologisms and do not seem to be used in any kind of serious journals or articles in regard to this topic. I was tempted to just nominate them along with these redirects. --Conti| 16:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, they are neologisms and back formations I imagine from someone who went to a public school and learned three words of classical Greek and wasn't paying attention, unlike me who went to a comprehensive school and paid attention and learned the rule of three from doing carpentry (or got caned if he didn't). But that is not the point, since the redirect exists, it has to point somewhere or be deleted, and Thryduulf is quite right it should be a separate nomination. Si Trew (talk) 16:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: "Cynophilia" is not a neologism, and this word appears to be present in several publications. Jarble (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I meant it neologism in the sense of the Latin (which is itself a portmanteau word or mot-valise being half-Latin and half-Greek, like "television") that the meaning has changed from a love of animals (dogs) to a sexual desire for them; in that sense yes it is not a new word but a new meaning for it. Si Trew (talk) 19:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: It does exist, but it's spelled "cynophilia", not "canaphilia". Jarble (talk) 01:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Did you actually look at the page you linked? All but one result seem to have nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand. This just shows that it is indeed a neologism that's practically unused. --Conti| 19:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I found Sexual coercion from the hatnote at Rape. The two terms are overlapping concepts, and there seemingly isn't felt the need for separate articles on them in either humans or other animals, and I think the hatnotes and leads serve as adequate explanation of the topics, but feel free to discuss a page move if you think "in animals" is needed - this is not the right venue for such a discussion. Any discussion of the Hippophilia redirect should be in a separate nomination as it is independent of these three redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget Animal rape and Horse rape to Sexual coercion. I agree that that's somewhat of an odd title, but best to treat these search terms as legitimate queries about rape in (other) animals. Delete Dogfuck as an unlikely search term, probably intended as a joke. --BDD (talk) 17:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree: these links should be retargeted in this way. This is the most reasonable suggestion I've seen so far. Jarble (talk) 02:40, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Looking back on this, I wouldn't mind Horse rape being deleted as well, since horses aren't mentioned at Sexual coercion. --BDD (talk) 17:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment if one animal forces non-consensual sex onto another animal (all non-humans), wouldn't this also be "animal rape"? (and is so termed in atleast some material I've read) Or is the term "rape" on Wikipedia reserved for humans? -- (talk) 13:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
    • As I note above "animal rape" can mean "rape of a non-human animal by a human" or "rape of one non-human animal by another". The former topic is dealt with in the Zoophilia article, the latter in the Sexual coercion article. This is why I am recommending a hatnote at the present target. Thryduulf (talk) 16:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: I added a hatnote to the article before, but it was removed by the editor who nominated this redirect for deletion. Jarble (talk) 21:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
So I now see, so this is the discussion part of the BRD cycle. Above Conti is continuing to argue that a hatnote would be an NPOV violation, I am arguing it would be nothing of the sort. More opinions are needed. Thryduulf (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
And if it is just WP:BRD, which is fine, then that should be discussed on its talk page before coming here – but nobody ever does that any more. Si Trew (talk) 00:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
No, this is the correct venue as the redirect has been nominated for deletion in good faith by the nominator. If the redirect doesn't point to Zoophilia then the argument about a hatnote there is moot. I have left a message on the Zoophilia article talk page noting this discussion also includes the possibility of a hatnote there. Thinking about it now it would make sense to put a note at talk:Sexual coercion too, but I'm not awake enough to craft a message that is both concise and neutral, but anyone is of course free to add one before I get chance (See above re availability). Thryduulf (talk) 01:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Well what about say artificial insemination in animals, that bulls etc are essentially masturbated for their sperm and then that is injected into cows, as part of animal breeding? Or the same with horses on a stud farm? Some might consider that animal rape or sexual coercion, some wouldn't. To me the hatnote was perfectly NPOV. Personally I should like to have the titles changed and Zoophilia since it basically discusses Bestiality is probably best to reverse the redirect, but that is not under discussion here. The hatnoting is fine and as Thryduulf says there is no point making a DAB, it would be WP:TWODABS but since Bestiality redirects anyway back to Zoophilia that is just running around the houses and pointless. Yes, I would split the two meanings out, but they aren't at the moment and the purpose here is to decide where the redirects should go: and they should go to zoophilia. I don't know why someone would come here looking for animal pornography or so on when there are plenty of good porn sites on the internet for that (unless unlike me you never put in "dog muck" or "hippodrome" or whatever into Google and get interesting results) but what is our job here is to tie up and decide what is the best target for these redirects. I cannot see how a hatnote that just says "x or y redirects here" is NPOV, it is just a statement of fact. Si Trew (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete This is very inappropriate and should be deleted, especially the 'Dogfuck' one. Ned1230|Whine|Stalk 15:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete "horse rape" and "dogfuck" outright (why the hell do we have those?) and redirect "animal rape" to sexual coercion ("in animals" seems like a very useful addition, but this isn't that conversation), adding a hatnote which directs users who want to know about human rape of animals to zoophilia. The question seems to be "is a user searching 'animal rape' trying to find out about rape among animals or by humans," and the former seems, at a guess, to be more likely. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 21:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I think they could be searching for anything. Some could be searching for animal rape, some for bestiality, some for rape of animals by humans (I not Thryduulf's use of the term non-human animals and I respect it but refuse to use it myself) and some of animals against other animals. I think this redirect is very contentious. I have no idea what a "dogfuck" even is, does it mean a dog being in heat and wanting to have sex with another dog, or does it mean something else entirely? The point is, that this redirect has to go somewhere or be deleted. Since three were proposed, do you want them all deleted or just one? Si Trew (talk) 12:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 07:32, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Retarget animal rape to sexual coercion. Jarble (talk) 17:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

T. L. Handy Middle School[edit]

deletion, I don't think anyone might enter the middle school name when searching for the town; others might disagree Ymerhav (talk) 16:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete. It is linked but not described at the target (as one of three middle schools in Bay City, Michigan) but then that's just going in circles. Delete per WP:REDLINK to encourage the creation of the article. Si Trew (talk) 17:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment schools without articles are traditionally redirected to the educational district/authority responsible for them, or to an "Education" or similar section of the locality article if one exists. Thryduulf (talk) 13:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I take that back. My school The Heathcote School which I am glad to hear has finally been bulldozed does have an article. It does seem a bit patchy since British International School Cairo doesn't have an article, so I think there is quite a patchiness around school articles and just whoever once went to one makes an article. in my view the policy needs tightening, but this is not the place to do it. Si Trew (talk) 09:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
But only American schools apparently. Other schools are not notable, or at least that is what it seems de facto. Si Trew (talk) 09:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 07:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep per BDD. The existence of this redirect is partly meant to discourage the creation of an article, which in this case is a good thing. Nyttend (talk) 03:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


Why is {{R&B}} not at RFD? writes Jax 0677. Well, be careful what you wish for. This shortcut, which nobody else is using, should be named starting with "WP" for consistency with other WikiProject template shortcuts. As the template in question already has the correctly-titled shortcuts {{WPRB}} and {{WPRNB}}, this shortcut would be far more appropriate if retargeted to {{rhythm and blues}}. — Scott talk 00:10, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. WP:REDLINK content uses should trump in-Wikipedia pipeworking ; Wikiprojects are indicated using "WP" or "WPP" and this uses neither. -- (talk) 04:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  • keep. The only question here is whether people looking for or transcluding template:R&B are expecting to find the WikiProject template or the article space template, as "R&B" can in no way be described as an uncommon or misleading abbreviation for "rhythm and blues" and no relevant arguments for deletion have been presented (despite repeated attempts to claim otherwise, there is no consensus that all redirects to WikiProject templates (as distinct from the templates themselves) must start with "WP"). What links here shows that this template is actively used to transclude the WikiProject template, and there is no evidence presented that people are attempting to use this for any other purpose (and I shall preemptively remind people that the burden of evidence is always on those who wish to change the status