Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

XFD backlog

V	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Total
CfD	0	0	18	0	18
TfD	0	0	6	2	8
MfD	0	0	1	0	1
FfD	0	0	1	0	1
RfD	0	0	0	0	0
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

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.

• If you want to replace an unprotected redirect with an article, do not list it here. Turning redirects into articles is wholly encouraged. Be bold!
• If you want to move a page but a redirect is in the way, do not list it here. For non-controversial cases, place a technical request; if a discussion is required, then start a requested move.
• If you think a redirect points to the wrong target article, this is a good place to discuss what should be the proper target.
• Redirects should not be deleted just because they have no incoming links. Please do not use this as the only reason to delete a redirect. However, redirects that do have incoming links are sometimes deleted, so that is not a sufficient condition for keeping. (See § When should we delete a redirect? for more information.)

Please do not unilaterally rename or change the target of a redirect while it is under discussion. This adds unnecessary complication to the discussion for participants and closers.

Before listing a redirect for discussion

Please be aware of these general policies, which apply here as elsewhere:

• Wikipedia:Redirect – what redirects are, why they exist, and how they are used.
• Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion – which pages can be deleted without discussion; in particular the "General" and "Redirects" sections.
• Wikipedia:Deletion policy – how we delete things by consensus.
• Wikipedia:Guide to deletion – guidelines on discussion format and shorthand.

The guiding principles of RfD

• The purpose of a good redirect is to eliminate the possibility that readers will find themselves staring blankly at "Search results 1–10 out of 378" 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. They take up little storage space and use very little bandwidth. It doesn't really hurt things if there are a few of them scattered around. On the flip side, deleting redirects is also cheap because recording the deletion takes up little storage space and uses very little bandwidth. There is no harm in deleting problematic redirects.
• If a good-faith RfD nomination proposes to delete a redirect and has no discussion after at least 7 days, the default result is delete.
• Redirects nominated in contravention of Wikipedia:Redirect will be speedily kept.
• RfD can also serve as a central discussion forum for debates about which page a redirect should target. In cases where retargeting the redirect could be considered controversial, it is advisable to leave a notice on the talk page of the redirect's current target page or the proposed target page to refer readers to the redirect's nomination to allow input and help form consensus for the redirect's target.
• Requests for deletion of redirects from one page's talk page to another's do not need to be listed here. Anyone can remove the redirect by blanking the page. The G6 criterion for speedy deletion may be appropriate.
• In discussions, always ask yourself whether or not a redirect would be helpful to the reader.

When should we delete a redirect?

Further information: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Common outcomes and Wikipedia:Moving a page § Moving over a redirect

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

• a redirect may contain non-trivial edit history;
• if a redirect is reasonably old (or is the result of moving a page that has been there for quite some time), then it is possible that its deletion will break incoming links (such links coming from older revisions of Wikipedia pages, from edit summaries, from other Wikimedia projects or from elsewhere on the internet, do not show up in "What links here").

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

Reasons for deleting

See also: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion § Redirects

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 legitimately discussed in the article), or "Joe Bloggs" to "Loser". (Speedy deletion criterion G10 and G3 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 also the existence of namespace aliases such as WP:. Speedy deletion criterion R2 may apply if the target namespace is something other than Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help:, or Portal:.)
7. If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to an article that does not exist, it can be immediately deleted under speedy deletion criterion G8. You should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first and that it has not become broken through vandalism.
8. If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful. In particular, redirects in a language other than English to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. (Implausible typos or misnomers are candidates for speedy deletion criterion R3, 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 the title needs to be freed up to make way for the move. If the move is uncontroversial, tag the redirect for G6 speedy deletion, or alternatively (with the suppressredirect user right; available to page movers and admins), perform a round-robin move. 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.

Reasons for not deleting

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

1. They have a potentially useful page history, or an 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; consider tagging the redirect with the {{R from misspelling}} template to assist editors in monitoring these misspellings.
3. They aid searches on certain terms. For example, users who might see the "Keystone State" mentioned somewhere but do not know what that refers to will be able to find out at the Pennsylvania (target) article.
4. Deleting redirects runs the risk of breaking incoming or internal links. For example, redirects resulting from page moves should not normally be deleted without good reason. Links that have existed for a significant length of time, including CamelCase links (e.g. WolVes) and old subpage links, should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them. See also Wikipedia:Link rot § Link rot on non-Wikimedia sites.
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. Evidence of usage can be gauged by using the wikishark or pageviews tool on the redirect to see the number of views it gets.
6. The redirect is to a closely related word form, such as a plural form to a singular form.

Neutrality of redirects

Just as article titles using non-neutral language are permitted in some circumstances, so are such redirects. Because redirects are less visible to readers, more latitude is allowed in their names, therefore perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is 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 may be tagged with {{R from non-neutral name}}.

Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:

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

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

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

STEP I.	Tag the redirect(s).   Enter {{subst:rfd|content= at the very beginning of the redirect page you are listing for discussion and enter }} at the very end of the page. 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 ("Publish changes"). 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. If the redirect you are nominating is in template namespace, consider adding |showontransclusion=1 to the RfD tag so that people using the template redirect are aware of the nomination. If you are nominating multiple redirects as a group, repeat all the above steps for each redirect being nominated.
STEP 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 this template: 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:Rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectName2|target=TargetArticle2}} {{subst:Rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectNameN|target=TargetArticleN|text=The actions you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for those actions.}} ~~~~ If the redirect has had previous RfDs, you can add {{Oldrfdlist|previous RfD without brackets|result of previous RfD}} directly after the rfd2 template. If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "deletion sorting lists". Then add a {{subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}} template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done.
STEP III.	Notify users.   It is generally considered good practice to notify the creator and main contributors of the redirect(s) that you nominate. To find the main contributors, look in the page history of the respective redirect(s). For convenience, the template {{subst:Rfd notice|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 respective creator/main contributors' redirect and use an edit summary such as: Notice of redirect discussion at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]] Notices about the RfD discussion may also be left on relevant talk pages.

• 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.

Current list

December 13

• William Callowhill Penn → William Penn -- I can find no evidence that Callowhill was William Penn's middle name other than sources that appear to be copied from Honorary Citizen of the United States. I believe this redirect comes from a misinterpretation of the phrase "William and Hannah Callowhill Penn" (which was a summary of a US public law that was referring to "William Penn" and "Hannah Callowhill Penn") by the original author of Honorary Citizen of the United States. -- Dbaron 05:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Elizaeth I (Blackadder character) → Queenie -- Typo (the "b" is missing). I am not sure if there is a speedy for redirects. Anyone care to enlighten me? -- Fplay 14:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • There is a speedy, Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion#Redirects no. 3 is "Redirects as a result of an implausible typo that were recently created. However, redirects from common misspellings or misnomers are generally useful." Unfortunately, this one is not recently created. Oh, while I'm at it, delete. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 15:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Template:Infobox radio → Template:Infobox Radio station: Infobox radio was replaced by the newer infobox some time ago (two infoboxes merged). Template:Infobox radio is not referenced by any other page (except for its own talk page), so it may as well be deleted. --Marknew 20:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep; no reason to delete, and it's a conceivable alternate form. --SPUI (talk) 16:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Memfrica → Memphis,_Tennessee is a portmanteau combining the words Memphis and Africa that that is used locally to highlight and in observed cases exaggerate African-American citizens who demographically make up a majority of the population. From my own person observation, this term is used as a disparing remark against African-american citizens and the city, it's users attempt to blend what they perceive as negative(Africa and African-Americans) onto a city. A google search of the term provides examples of such usage. It is also commonly used in offensive jokes. Offensiveness not withstanding, does this term really need to redirect to Memphis? Is this Wiki quality? * Memphrica → Memphis,_Tennessee same as above --Kaoticvibe 23:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Note that the Memfrica redirect replaced an article deleted as a result of this deletion debate. --rbrwr^± 00:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • ---oops didn't see that Kaoticvibe 11:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Changed to point to List of city nicknames as per the suggestion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stab City. Hope that's OK. Pilatus 05:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The problem is, neither target mentions this "nickname" making it a misleading redirect whichever the target. Delete. Demi ^T/_C 16:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete both, per Demi. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

December 14

• Blood royal → British Royal Family: It previously redirected to Royalty and the Peerage, but when it was merged with British Royal Family, the paragraph on blood royals was left out. The redirect therefore seems inappropriate. Also, I don't think the term blood royal applies exclusively to Britain. -- Kjkolb 08:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that this should redirect somewhere; perhaps to Royal family, as the term seems to be discussed there. sjorford (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Craterus of Macedon → Craterus. User:Wally blanked the redirect with edit summary unredirected; this is the general, not the King, Craterus. Delete. jni 09:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Shants → Three quarter pants. Unattested neologism; all google print hits and nearly all of the google hits are for people named "Shants". —Cryptic (talk) 16:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment this is the result of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shpants - consensus was to create a redirect so no one would re-create the article, and if any other use was desired for the name, then a disambig could be created at that time. Shants was added at that time. Suggest checking the Afd prior to making a decision. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. See also Wikipedia:Deletion review#Shpants. I suggest we wait for the conclusion of that debate. I'm surprised that Cryptic did not mention either the AfD or the undeletion debate. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

December 15

• Rayce car → solar car. I don't see the connection. Thue | talk 00:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, did you Google? 9,330 results, all about solar cars, their development, and racing them (which encourages more powerful solar cars, as that is a major problem with them.) Its a blended word - "ray" as in sun + "race", but has been around far too long and gained too much acceptance to be termed a neologism. Rayce is currently a redirect to Rayces, which explains this (poorly.) KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Propane and propane accessories → Hank Hill -- The article on Hank Hill has nothing to do with "Propane and propane accessories." Further, there is no need for an article on "Propane and propane accessories" since any content would be better off on the Propane page. Also, there are no articles that link to Propane and propane accessories, and it has not been edited since its creation. Alexlockhart 07:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • While I understand the link, it is unlikely to be searched for, and is therefore an unuseful link. Delete. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - potentially confusing redirect for people not familiar with Hank Hill. Courtland 23:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Template:Main2, Template:Main3 and Template:Main4 → Template:Main — Templates not used. Replaced by {{main}} which now can take up to 5 variables. CG 21:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC) [moved from TfD 21:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)]
  • Keep. I don't understand why some people are so eager to delete harmless redirects that are likely to be used by editors unaware that the actual templates have been superseded. —Lifeisunfair 21:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - As suggested, these are likely to be recreated and therefore should be retained to point at the preferred solution. Courtland 23:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

December 16

• John Broome (2) → John Broome (writer) -- (junk left over from a move, original name was nonsensical) Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 12:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Commerce (disambig) → Commerce (disambiguation) -- (junk left over from a move, moved to wrong name by mistake) Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 12:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Commerce (U.S. place) → Commerce (disambiguation) -- (left over from a move, was a disambig with a non-standard name) Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 12:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Polyester's Moment → Polyester -- Caught this one while looking at Special:Newpages. I've merged the text from Polyester's Moment into Polyester, where it more properly belongs. However, deleting the redirect will require merging the page histories. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 15:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Bijan → given name -- Originally Bijan was a one-sentence stub stating it was a given used in Iran. Delete as misleading. Pilatus 17:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

December 17

• X punk band → X (band) -- the target is a disambiguation page that contains references to two punk bands; there are no incoming links to the redirection page nominated; it is unlikely that a new edit would re-create a page entitled "X punk band". Courtland 03:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - aids searches, doesn't hurt - David Gerard 19:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• List of People suggested to have been involved in the Kennedy Assassination → Kennedy assassination theories -- this page was redirected only two or three minutes after was created. Also, the mover somehow erased the original article so that it cannot even be seen in the history. I feel that the original article should be reinstated. Hundreds of books have been written about the Kennedy Assassination and thousands of theories have been propounded as to who did it and why. Therefore, a simple list of the people named seems suitable and appropriate. Sam Sloan 06:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete because the article it redirects to is an obvious target for vandals and kooks engaged in character assassination Fred Bauder 22:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    • The article in general will be, redirect or none. However, we have a non-crazy JFK assassination aficionado who's said on wikien-l that he'll be keeping an eye on it. Keep to discourage recreation - David Gerard 19:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Villains Technology, Pets and Vehicles → Codename: Kids Next Door -- Delete because seems rather general now I've fixed double re-direct. Petros471 13:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• The Alternative Factor → The Alternative Factor (TOS episode) — the bulk of content (consistent with that in all other Star Trek ep articles) is in the former article, but the other article was created afterwards, likely with Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek#Articles naming conventions in mind (and hence this request to move). The latter article is an unnecessary dupe: it has nothing that isn't already in the former. E Pluribus Anthony 14:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - doesn't hurt, doesn't pollute a namespace, and discourages inadvertent recreation - David Gerard 19:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - in fact (said without inspecting for consequences) it would be useful to move the target to the redirect title and delete the target after. Courtland 23:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Midi-clorians → Midi-chlorians — This is a lingering issue for these endosymbionts in the Star Wars universe. An initial spelling, and few other mentions, indicate the former; most others – including the majority of canon and fanon literature in print and online – indicates the latter. The article was recently moved back to the former by a proponent, but a Wp consensus supports the latter ... and I'm unsure how to do it! :) E Pluribus Anthony 14:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and lock the first spelling - David Gerard 19:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - reasonably likely typographical error in search term. Courtland 23:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Moob → Gynecomastia - Afd consensus was to delete, not redirect. —Cryptic (talk) 20:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Lakewood Colorado → Lakewood, Colorado - redirect from a phrase lacking punctuation; unlikely search term ... more likely term for search is Lakewood alone, which is a disambiguation page including the target among other links. Courtland 23:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

December 18

• Charles_Yip → University_of_Sydney -- Delete because article does not mention redirected name at all... Looks like a student of the university trying to make a name for himself. novacatz 03:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

December 19

• Huron Heights Secondary Schooll. This redirect page covers a simple spelling error on my part. There do not appear to be any links. Cafe Nervosa | talk
• Sven → Sven-Göran Eriksson -- This name is way too common to redirect to one person - probalby too common even for a disambig page. SCEhardT 04:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• WP:0RR → Wikipedia:Zero-revert rule → User:Peter McConaughey/Zero-revert rule -- A double redirect created by a user who has tried to foist off his own self-made policy onto Wikipedia as a whole. Relevant discussion can be found here and here. The "policy" has been userfied to the creator's userspace. The Redirects section at WP:CSD informs us that redirects from main article space into userspace may be speedily deleted, but this isn't a redirect from main article space. → Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 12:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

  The fact that User:Carbonite, the creator of the WP:0RR redirect, "tries to foist off his own self-made policy onto Wikipedia as a whole" isn't the main issue.

  Because the redirect was created in order to subvert a guideline that some people follow, the issue is whether or not some people can choose to follow guidelines in addition to those at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. I have found that following a Zero-revert rule creates the atmosphere of cooperation originally intented at Wikipedia. I've noticed that those who get along best at Wikipedia follow the same principles. I would like to write these principles down in a common place so that everyone can see them and decide if they want to adopt them for in their own lives.

  Please note that the WP:0RR isn't any different than the WP:1RR or any of dozens of other guidelines that relatively small groups of people have chosen to adopt for themselves. --Peter McConaughey 14:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

  • The redirect was automatically created as part of the move to user space (it wasn't a separate action). There's no CSD criteria for speedily deleting such a redirect, so that's why this nomination is here. Everyone is free to follow any guidelines they wish and since this is a personal guideline, I think user space is the most appropriate place for it. If it turns out to be a widely accepted guideline, perhaps a move back to Wikipedia namespace would be in order. Carbonite | Talk 15:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

  Allow me translate the above. When Carbonite refers to "the move to user space," that wasn't an act of God or consensus, but a move made by himself as part of an ongoing feud between Carbonite and everyone who doesn't respect his authority. The WP:0RR isn't any different from the WP:1RR or any of dozens of other self-guidelines created around Wikipedia that aren't hurting anyone. Carbonite singled the WP:0RR out because everyone else allows him to come in and change their page without saying anything. I made the apparent mistake of asking what authority someone has to change a guideline when he doesn't even consent to follow the guideline.

  As soon as I did so, Carbonite's wrath was upon me. He first tried to put silly question-mark disclaimers on the top of the page proclaiming that the page was "in development, under discussion, or in the process" of some such nonsense, as if small groups of people can't create guidelines for themselves. When that failed, Carbonite moved the page to my user space as if the principles of not pissing others off with reversions was an idea that only I adopt.

  Who is this guy? Everywhere I go, I see Carbonite spreading seeds of despotism, forcing his extreme POV on articles, restraining people against their will, treating them like dogs, and then witnessing some of them kissing his buttocks and saying "Good call."

  This User:Carbonite isn't better than the rest of us. When I see him forcing his will upon someone, I stand up for that person as a fellow human being. Now that he is doing the same to me, trying to make it appear that the WP:0RR is something bad that nobody can adopt unless approved by him, I appreciate those who stand for what's right, for a strong Wikipedia enabled by mutual respect. --Peter McConaughey 16:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete redirect. Cross-namespace redirect are to be avoided. The move to user space is not under discussion here, but I do support it. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 16:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: A move artifact. Inasmuch as one's user space is not really supposed to be part of article space, a link from article space to the user page isn't appropriate. The policy may get approved some day. When it does, it can be put in article space, but being half-in/half-out isn't useful for anyone. Geogre 18:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Restore to original article. The move was made without consensus. --Peter McConaughey 20:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Important Note - Please be advised that, after considerable reflection, I have moved User:Peter McConaughey/Zero-revert rule back to its original location at Wikipedia:Zero-revert rule. It has become obvious that a more robust discussion needs to take place regarding this page, and RFD is not really the best place for such discussions. Since RFD current has no logging procedures, I will leave this message up for a minimum of 24 hours, so that interested parties will have a chance to be notified. → Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 21:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Template:Self-rule → User:Peter McConaughey/Self-rule -- A controversial template that has been userfied. Related to the business about Wikipedia:Zero-revert rule above. Again, WP:CSD R2 says that redirects from the main article space into userspace may be speedily deleted, but this is not a redirect from main article space. → Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 12:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Note that this concerns deleting the redirect to the template, not the template itself. The template now exists in Peter's user space. Carbonite | Talk 15:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Cross-namespace redirect, unnecessary. android79 15:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Restore Template:Self-rule to the content of User:Peter McConaughey/Self-rule This template can apply to any set of self-implemented guidelines. Relatively small groups of people can adopt additional rules for themselves. In fact, they do it all the time. When such guidelines are not approved by User:Carbonite, using this template can easily identified them as such. --Peter McConaughey 16:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete redirect. Cross-namespace redirect are to be avoided. The move to user space is not under discussion here, but I do support it. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 16:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Restore Template:Self-rule, the template was unjustly moved to Peter's user page, and now the redirect is proposed for an unjust deletion. If people don't like the contents of a template let's vote directly on keeping it or not, please don't play the harrassement of stuff you don't like games. The self-rule template was being used in the Wikipedia:Zero-revert rule proposal, please give that and Peter's template the benefit of the doubt. zen master T 16:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Restoring the template to the Template namespace would bring it under the tender mercies of Wikipedia:Templates for deletion. As long as it is within the User namespace, it falls under the purview of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, where there is arguably a stronger case for its continued existence. Just sayin'. → Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 17:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Can templates be included into proposals and other pages from user namespace? There is already a very strong case for it being kept as a regular template. zen master T 17:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
        • I'm not certain I understand the question. Can you rephrase? → Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 17:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
          • I believe he's asking if templates that exist in user space can be used outside of user space. The answer to that is "yes". The syntax would be {{User:Example user/Template name}}. Carbonite | Talk 18:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
            • Well, my concern was a user space template may be more likely to be removed from any page that includes it. If editors have problems with a template they should voice them directly against the template, not try to render it ineffectual. zen master T 19:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Per above, a move artifact. Geogre 18:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Whenever an administrator abuses his powers, our top priority must be to undo the damage he did. User:Carbonite moved this article without consensus. In order to avoid the appearance of impropriety, we should restore it before discussing what to do next. --Peter McConaughey 20:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree. What are the chances of being reverted if I move it back? Your point about undoing the damage applies equally to WP:0RR too. zen master T 20:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Important Note - Please be advised that, after considerable reflection, I have moved User:Peter McConaughey/Self-rule back to its original location at Template:Self-rule. It has become obvious that a more robust discussion needs to take place regarding this page, and RFD is not really the best place for such discussions. Since RFD current has no logging procedures, I will leave this message up for a minimum of 24 hours, so that interested parties will have a chance to be notified. → Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 21:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Huge cock → Human penis size -- Offensive. I'm not asserting that that's a good reason to delete it, so hopefully the smart people here can decide. Stevage 21:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Cock_(chicken). My kid got an email advertisement saying that he could get a large cock. It would be nice if he could look up what that means on Wikipedia. --Peter McConaughey 00:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Footer

NOTE: WE DO NOT DELETE REDIRECTS SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY DO NOT HAVE ANY INCOMING LINKS. DO NOT LIST THIS AS A REASON TO DELETE A REDIRECT. We also sometimes delete redirects that do have incoming redirects, so it's not a necessary condition either. See #delete and #keep above for the reasons for deleting or keeping redirects.</nowiki>