Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Centralized discussion
Proposals	Discussions	Recurring proposals
Discussion on deleting Template:Lead too short. Discussion about whether Template:Persondata should be deleted, moved to the article talkpage, or kept as it is. RfC about whether "new messages" banner hoaxes should be prohibited RfC on how files from non-copyright states should be treated and used on WP RfC on aspects of the leadership of the featured article process Discussion about improving WP:PORNBIO Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.
archive · talk · edit · history · watch

Before listing a redirect for discussion

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

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

The guiding principles of RfD

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

When should we delete a redirect?

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

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

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

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

Reasons for deleting

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

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

Reasons for not deleting

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

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

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

Neutrality of redirects

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

Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:

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

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

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

Closing notes

Details at: Administrator instructions for RfD.

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

How to list a redirect for discussion

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

I.

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

II.

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

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

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

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

Current list

February 3

Oops, sorry, page unavailable

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

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

Pakistan military intelligene

• Pakistan military intelligene → Inter-Services Intelligence (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

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

• Delete. Misspelling. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Salalah incicent

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

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

• Delete. Another misspelling. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Salalah Incicent

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

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

• Delete. *sigh* Ditto. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

February 2

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

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

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

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

Otto Fried

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

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

• Delete as implausible redirect and to encourage creation of an article about the German painter.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

February 1

Lois and Clark

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Georgia (U.S. state

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

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

• Keep. This redirect basically saves a click on a common typo, hitting enter before entering the last character of Georgia (U.S. state). Yes, it would pop up in the search results page. But when you hit enter, you expect to go to the page you thought you were typing in. This redirect accomplishes that, while preventing the momentary "huh" of going to the search page. It's not a big deal, but it does have some function. Meanwhile, what are the reasons to delete it? In terms of actual, concrete consequences I can't think of a one. It isn't confusing. It isn't in the way of anything. Redirects are cheap. If this ends up actually having a provably deleterious effect on anything, anywhere, I'll be stunned. In the absence of that, it's not worth slightly inconveniencing readers. Meelar (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep: redirects are cheap, 144 views in December is more than background noise. TimBentley (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Views show a sudden spike, possibly from DRV; taking it out we have less than 6 hits a day and usually less than 3. Thoroughly implausible typo for ordinary readers (who mostly don't try to type out the parenthetical dabs). --NYKevin @182, i.e. 03:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

3_Rascals

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

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

• Comment - Some informal debate has already occurred here on the redirect's talk page. A pro and a con POV are laid out there. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Js-official-logo.png

• File:Js-official-logo.png → File:JavaScript-logo.png (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

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

Template:Ficha de entidad subnacional

• Template:Ficha de entidad subnacional → Template:Infobox settlement (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

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

January 31

Insidious ( 2011 film)

• Insidious ( 2011 film) → Insidious (film) (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

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

• Delete under WP:TITLE, WP:NAME (the extra space). Probably an innocent mistake. Si Trew (talk) 12:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. Formatting error. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Northwest Coast

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

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

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

Miles Out

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

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

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

• Keep. Common jargon in British English, to mean completely missing the point, and if no other useful target I see no harm in keeping it. Si Trew (talk) 12:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Magician Ishamudin

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

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

Komsomolskaya (Metro)

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

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

• • Delete as redirect to DAB. Serves no useful purpose if redirecting to a DAB. Or redirect to Komsomolskaya (DAB page) directly, but no point to do it as I see, because the DAB is already there so the redirect hinders rather than helps someone searching. Si Trew (talk) 12:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Fairuseair/doc

• Template:Fairuseair/doc → Template:Non-free aircraft image/doc (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

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

• Delete. Having checked, nothing links here. Seems very much a stub article. Seems to serve no useful purpose. I am an Inclusionist but we are here to make others searching the encyclopaedia easier to find useful articles, and I can't see that this does. Also probably under self-referencing rules, Wikipedia does not refer to itself. Si Trew (talk) 12:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Administrative subdivisions of Quebec/doc

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

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

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

Template:/Ety/Part/doc

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

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

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

January 30

Fight against Japanese oppression

• Fight against Japanese oppression → Korea under Japanese rule (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

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

Keep this redirect. "Fight against Japanese oppression" is a direct translation from a common Korean term for the period. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 01:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I did a web search for "Fight against Japanese oppression". Here are the unique results Google gave me:

• [1] "When the Japanese occupied Manila in 1941, Chinese immigrants joined hands with Filipinos in the fight against Japanese oppression." Refers to the Japanese occupation of the Philippines, not Korea.
• [2] "Around the year 1919, the tide of the national democratic movement on the mainland hit Taiwan. Progressive organizations and societies emerged everywhere to arouse the people to fight against Japanese oppression." Refers to the Japanese occupation of Taiwan, not Korea.
• [3] "Chen Zhen and his fight against Japanese oppression in Republican-era China was actually a fictional creation of writer-director Lo Wei". Refers to the Japanese occupation of China, not Korea.
• [4] "Japan has secretly harbored a superiority complex over the neighbor that it colonized... [in] World War II.... The fight against Japanese oppression instilled a soulful defiance, the [Mainichi Shimbun] article said." Probably refers to Korea during WWII.
• [5] "A snowy mountain with a lake represents Mount Paektu where Kim Jong Il is said to have been born in a log cabin during the fight against Japanese oppression" Probably refers to Korea during WWII.
• [6] "Like many martial arts, krav maga was born of warfare. Okinawans developed their brand of karate in their fight against Japanese oppression." Refers to the Japanese annexation of Luchu (Okinawa), not Korea.

So while the equivalent phrase may or may not be popular in Korean, it's not used much in English. When it is, it is used to refer to the Japanese "oppression" of many countries during its imperial expansion, and not just Korea. If the phrase were more common in English, then I would recommend that it become a disambiguation page. Since it isn't, and since the English-language phrase isn't connected to Korea in any unique way, the redirect should just be deleted. Shrigley (talk) 02:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete this has nothing to do with Japanese oppressing the Chinese people. 70.24.249.120 (talk) 07:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Page blanking

• Page blanking → Wikipedia:Vandalism (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

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

• Vandalism on Wikipedia may be an appropriate target until an article is created. - Eureka Lott 00:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

January 29

Team Lotus (current)

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

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

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

Mr. Bean's Christmas Vacation

• Mr. Bean's Christmas Vacation → Rowan Atkinson (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

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

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

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

Then why did you make 6 posts about it on WP? SMH Logical Cowboy (talk) 21:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

January 28

Wikiwack

• Wikiwack → Methamphetamine (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Wickywhack → Methamphetamine (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

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

• Delete per nom's findings. Man, if only this was an WP shortcut...--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Scarabiasis

• Scarabiasis → Scarabaeidae (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

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

• Close I've made it into a stub. It's not something for the faint of heart :).--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:FPC/Rainforest walk delist

• Wikipedia:FPC/Rainforest walk delist → Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Rainforest walk delist (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

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

Daily Consumer Price Index

• Daily Consumer Price Index → Unidad de Fomento (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

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

• (1) Kindly indicate what other concepts the Daily Consumer Price Index term is commonly used for. (2) Would Daily Index Ratio be acceptable? Treasury Direct states Daily Index Ratio. It is clear that Treasury Direct refers to the Daily Consumer Price Index Ratio and when the reference is not actually to the ratio, but, the index, the terminology would be Daily Consumer Price Index. Therefore I think it would be reasonable to accept the term Daily Consumer Price Index since it is actually used as such in the biggest economy in the world.ChangingPrices (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC).

  1. It should be uncapitalized as descriptive (minor).
  2. It could refer to any daily CPI statistic, not necessarily the official one in Chile.

  If you can write an article about the general concept, mentioning the one in Chile, it might be appropriate, although it would probably fail WP:DICTDEF. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

  I agree that it should be uncapitalized. It does refer to any CPI. Do we thus agree that there is a term "daily consumer price index" being used in the US economy and that we can add it to these Wikipedia articles?ChangingPrices (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC).

  May I suggest writing the article, using reliable sources, before adding links. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

  I don´t want to write an article about it. I have given a reliable source: Treasury Direct.ChangingPrices (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

  The source could only be used in the article, not to support the (incorrect) redirect. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Navene Koperweis

• Navene Koperweis → Animosity (band) (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

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

• Not quite sure exactly what's being requested here...if you'd like to start an article on Navene Koperweis, just go ahead and do so, deleting the redirect is not necessary.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• here is your way for a new article. cheers--Der Golem (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Go endgame

• Go endgame → Yose (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Oyose → Yose (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

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

• Retarget Oyose to Go terms#Yose. Retarget Go endgame to Go strategy and tactics#Endgame (yose). TimBentley (talk) 20:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support Retarget by TimBentley.--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

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

• Muammar bin Mohammad bin Abdussalam bi Humayd bin Abu Manyar bin Humayd bin Nayil al Fuhsi Gaddafi → Muammar Gaddafi (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

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

Delete. I had to comment on this as I was actually astonished to read it - I can't believe that's even his full name! I haven't seen anything to suggest his name is any longer than Muammar Muhammad Abu Minyar Gaddafi (or a variant of it), so I wouldn't be surprised if it was thought up by whoever created the redirect. QueenCake (talk) 23:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Too implausible. The missing "n" from the third "bin" is the cherry on top. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Shuttle Leadership Model (SLM)

• Shuttle Leadership Model (SLM) → Shuttle Leadership Model (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Chalnessa Eames

• Chalnessa Eames → Pacific Northwest Ballet (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

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

• delete - There seem to be many of these redirects in the ballet wikipedia world. Besides showing where a dancer once danced or currently dances, I don't think they are very useful (and when dancers move, the redirects sometimes end up going in endless circles, with no desination). It would probably be more useful to simply have an article written for each person if they pass notability. Dkreisst (talk) 05:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per Dkreisst.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

January 27

Template:Commonsme

• Template:Commonsme → Template:Commons (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Unused redirect to {{Commons}}. Will make it easier and more effective if redirects are orphaned and deleted. MGA73 (talk) 23:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment why? WP:CHEAP no? 70.49.124.157 (talk) 05:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
• Because these templates works like interwiki links to Commons. It makes the development and maintanance of bots harder the more different names and templates we have for the same funcktion. Take interwiki links an exampe. All wikis uses the same syntax. What would happen if wikis started to use 10 different ways of adding interwiki links? You could kiss interwiki bots goodbye. --MGA73 (talk) 11:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Another example. If enwiki has a redirect and someone copy the text to another wiki then the other wiki will either need the same useless redirect or the template will end up red. On ms-wiki they made a redirect and result was hundreds of categories with 2 of the same templates because the bot was not updated with this redirect. If all wikis could agree to use "Commonscat" (when linking to categories) and "Commons" (when linking to galleries) then it would be much easier. --MGA73 (talk) 12:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Template:Gallery-link

• Template:Gallery-link → Template:Commons (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Unused redirect to {{Commons}}. Will make it easier and more effective if redirects are oprhaned and deleted. MGA73 (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment why? WP:CHEAP no? 70.49.124.157 (talk) 05:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
• See #Template:Commonsme above. --MGA73 (talk) 11:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Template:Commons2

• Template:Commons2 → Template:Commons category (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Redirect to {{Commons category}}. Was only used on a few pages. Will make it easier and more effective if redirects are oprhaned and deleted. MGA73 (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment why? WP:CHEAP no? And this used to be a different template 70.49.124.157 (talk) 05:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
• See #Template:Commonsme above. --MGA73 (talk) 11:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

This redirect is an implausible search term, more so given that "arrythmogenic" is misspelt. This redirect should be deleted. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete would've supported for Keep if the spelling was correct.--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Strymon ( theme)

• Strymon ( theme) → Theme (Byzantine district) (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Typo, the article is at Strymon (theme). No one would search for "Strymon ( theme)", so delete. Constantine ✍ 17:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

January 26

St Paul's Day

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

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

January 25

6th gen

• 6th gen → History of video game consoles (sixth generation) (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

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

There's nothing else called Sixth generation. I mean sixth generation ALONE.--Gaming&Computing (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Correct. But there's hundreds of articles covering "sixth generation" of other contexts. The 6th generation of a car, or a family line, iPods, the Sixth Generation film movement, etc, etc. Just type "sixth generation" in the search box above to see several articles that come up before the History of Video Gaming. -- ferret (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

One a related note I've dealt with the 7th gen redirect and retargeted to the dab page Seventh Generation but I could not find anything for the 6th or 8th gen pages.--69.159.111.241 (talk) 01:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - There are an endless number of "6th generations" out there, as Ferret says. There's no reason to automatically link this redirect to video games. Sergecross73 msg me 21:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete there are lots of 6th gen things, like 6th generation of descendents. 70.49.124.157 (talk) 08:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Too general/vague; doesn't seem to be a good disambiguation page candidate. --Cybercobra (talk) 08:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
• Redirect to Sixth generation, which I just created, unaware of this discussion (or this redirect).—Ketil Trout (^<><!) 19:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
• Retarget to Sixth generation per Ketiltrout.--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Internet meme redirects

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

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

• Notability is not a requirement for mere redirects. Also, redirects are cheap. Keep Forever alone and Troll Dad since they have specific, strongly related targets. --Cybercobra (talk) 08:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Also, retarget U mad to Troll (Internet) as it is a phrase used in trolling. --Cybercobra (talk) 08:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
    • You have to be joking. Forever alone is actually the stupidest of those redirects. Where on the internet is "Forever alone" actually a phrase having to do with Involuntary celibacy? One reliable source to prove that and I'll drop this entire RFD. I say that in full confidence of you not being able to prove anything. This isn't about redirects being cheap, this is about people who have nothing better to do creating unnotable articles about memes then having them all get redirected to these target articles. Like I said, we don't need every meme the internet has redirecting to these articles, that isn't what they are for. — Moe ε 14:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
• Special - Change Forever alone to redirect to Internet meme, keep Troll Dad and U mad, but delete everything else, as they are uncommon.--Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 16:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

January 24

Real title: BE TOGETHER

• Real title: BE TOGETHER → Be Together (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Procedural re-nomination for a malformed RfD at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 January 22. Original RfD explanation was "delete, apparantly this is a remainder from a discussion some years ago, not useful as redirect" by User:Dinsdagskind. This was the redirect I was referring to (see above). Dinsdagskind (talk) 13:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Real title: THANK YOU 4 EVERY DAY EVERY BODY

• Real title: THANK YOU 4 EVERY DAY EVERY BODY → Thank You 4 Every Day Every Body (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

I also nominate this one, because of the "real title" part. Dinsdagskind (talk) 13:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

January 23

Sweet bread

• Sweet bread → Sweetbread (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Sweet bread (disambiguation) → Sweetbread (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

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

• Keep "sweet bread" as a very reasonable {{R from mispelling}} or revert to disambiguation page [8]. Delete the disambiguation redirect, since there's no disambiguation page, if it isn't reverted. 70.24.245.198 (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

While I think "sweet bread" is a reasonable mispelling of "sweetbread", I still think this redirect will more often be confusing than useful. I think more people would type "sweet bread" expecting to see an article on bread that is sweet than would type "sweet bread" expecting to see an article on sweetbread. As far as I can tell from using Google, the term "sweet bread" referring to bread is much more common than "sweetbread" or "sweet bread" referring to offal. Perhaps the best solution would be for someone to just write an article on the topic of sweet bread and then put hatnotes on the articles . . . but I still think deleting the redirect would make it easier for people to notice that such an article doesn't already exist. Calathan (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Assuming that the bread that is sweet is worth an article (as opposed to a dicdef), I agree that a hatnote between the pages is the most appropriate. I'm even ok with sweet bread going to a disambiguation page with a red link for the bread. However I think it does a disservice to a reader if accidentally putting in a space causes them to be told there is no such article. Vicarious (talk) 03:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I removed the DAB reference because there was no DAB, but I agree with Calathan that the redirect is confusing because sweet bread and sweetbread are two very different items. I think it would be handiest if some would write an article, even just a stub, for sweet bread, and as suggested place info in the hatnote. Hohenloh ⁺ 12:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Template:Copyrighted free use

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

---

January 1

Lowest common factor

• Lowest common factor → Greatest common divisor (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

When do "lowest" become "greatest"? Quest for Truth (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• Keep: the current target explains how to determine the greatest divisor in a way that makes easy to get, how to determine the lowest common divisor; thus it's useful, unless better target exists. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Are you talking about Lowest common denominator? --Quest for Truth (talk) 20:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
• Keep or dabify: LCF is a confusion between GCF and LCM. It should therefore either be a little dab or a redirect. Rich Farmbrough, 18:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC).
  
  • In Russia LCF is a topic in math schoolbooks. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
    • In Russia LCM and GCD are a topic in of math textbooks. I have heard about LCF. Ruslik_Zero 14:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
• Dabify per User:Rich Farmbrough. --Lenticel ^(talk) 06:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
  • A dab to GCF and LCM is also a good idea. --Quest for Truth (talk) 20:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Made one below the rfd. I think the right wording is LCF may be confused with the following mathematical terms but I guess may refer to seems to be more appropriate.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. It is only creates confusion. There is no such thing as Lowest common factor. The proposed dab page does not satisfy requirements set in WP:DAB. Ruslik_Zero 14:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Could You please be more explicit on assumed failing requirements? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Relisted. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• Dabify or convert to set index. People should be able to find what they are looking for, we do have {{R from mispelling}}. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 05:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
• Retarget to 1 (number) since that's always the smallest factor of any given number (or at least of any number you're likely to ask about). Who said we can't be like WolframAlpha? --NYKevin @073, i.e. 00:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)