Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

XFD backlog

V	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	0	9	27	36
TfD	0	0	0	5	5
MfD	0	0	0	2	2
FfD	0	0	0	8	8
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.
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

June 12

Image:CydeWeys userpage.png → User:Cyde/Userpage

First off, I'm not sure whether this should be here, at IfD or at MfD. It's a very strange situation. However, this is a cross-space redirect and a misuse of image space, though I admire Cyde's creativity. —Cuiviénen 23:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

---

June 11

The nominated redirect was Withdrawn by nominator. --Rory096 20:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Keith Richard → Keith Richards

Currently it redirects to Rolling Stones guitarist, while there is a notable footballer with exactly this name. MaxSem 17:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn since it looks like that there were no Keith Richard the footballer. MaxSem 16:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keith Richards was known as Keith Richard in his early days. If there is another Keith Richard, then this should be turned into a disambig page. I would do that except that a quick Google search on Keith Richard or Keith Richard football didn't produce any hits that stood out to me. Can you provide more details? -- JLaTondre 17:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

See 1958 FIFA World Cup (squads). MaxSem 19:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to confuse matters further, FIFA suggests the footballer was actually Richard Keith (which is a redirect to somebody else again :) — sjorford++ 20:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

This site (have to expand next to last arrow) also shows his name as Richard Keith. It looks like 1958 FIFA World Cup (squads) should be changed to Richard Keith and Richard Keith changed to a disambig. If there is no disagreement, I'll do that. -- JLaTondre 22:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. MaxSem 16:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Revise as follows ... If there is a person who is notable enough for an article who goes by the name 'Keith Richard', that article should be entitled 'Keith Richard' and a {{Distinguish}} template used to point at the Keith Richards article (I don't think a reciprocal one would be necessary). If there is not a person who is sufficiently notable for inclusion who is named 'Keith Richard', keep the redirect and tag it with {{R from alternate name}}, as long as the note that 'Richard' was 'Richards' former name is included in the article; if it turns out that this name change did not take place, then tag it with {{R from misspelling}}. In addition, perhaps a {{Distinguish}} template should be added to Keith Richards pointing at Richard Keith, but that might be unnecessary. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Read the top of this page. "Note: If all you want to do is replace a currently existing 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." --Rory096 00:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't going to write an article about him, I simply noticed misleading link while filling this category with existing articles. MaxSem 09:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

---

The nominated redirect was Nominator removed the RfD tag, which is the same thing he did with the one below, so withdrawn. --Rory096 20:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Frank bennett → Frank Bennett

Same as below. Personally I'll be more careful creating articles, but I'm not sure I understand the procedure for capitalization redirects (it seems below that this type of request for deletion is generally denied). I'd imagine that many users don't use any capitalization in searches, and thus an intermediate redirect would be sort of pointless. Inarcadiaego 16:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The first letter is automatically capitalized, so if someone entered 'frank bennett' as a search term, it would give you the first article. Cowman109^Talk 17:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unneeded redirect as "frank benett" will go directly to "Frank Bennett" without this, and with it simply uses a redirect. (Mixed captialasation issues in WP:REDIRECT do not apply for this as they did for the CoES (below) (This redirect was up for afd, which I closed as a speedy close) Regards, MartinRe 21:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I've placed an RFD tag on it as it's still open here. -- JLaTondre 22:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as "frank benett" will not go to "Frank Bennett" when it's typed into the address bar (i.e. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_bennett). Not everyone uses the go button and since it's already created, there's no need to delete. Redirects are cheap. -- JLaTondre 22:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I understand what you're saying, but do enough people search for articles by typing in the address bar that it's worth it to keep a redirect that we all seem to agree is pointless (and unnecessary according to WP:REDIRECT and MartinRe's comment)? I don't think (m)any other similar titles have redirects on here. Inarcadiaego 01:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Some do, some don't. john smith does, for example. Having the redirect allows entry from the title bar, and lower case wiki-links, but also uses a redirct if typed from the go bar. nothing significant either way, I wouldn't create one, but I also wouldn't rfd one if I found one. But as it was rfd'd I lean towards delete, as while redirects are cheap, doing lots of unneeded cheap things can mount up. Regards, MartinRe 11:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and tag with {{R from other capitalisation}}. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Although unlikely, this redirect is not confusing or offensive in any manner, and redirects are cheap. Grandmasterka 05:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

---

The nominated redirect was Withdrawn by nominator. --Rory096 04:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Council for european studies → Council for European Studies

Simple capitalization error in creating the article. Searches for "council for european studies" should go directly to the correctly capitalized article; the original redirect doesn't need to exist. Inarcadiaego 15:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - useful redirect as for mixed captialisation issues as per WP:REDIRECT. (This redirect was up for afd, which I closed as a speedy close) Regards, MartinRe 21:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I've placed an RFD tag on it as it's still open here. -- JLaTondre 22:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - as I understand it, it's only when every word in the target article name has an initial cap that searching with no initial caps would take you directly to the article. For example, searching on "battle of frankenhausen" takes you to a search page, not to the article "Battle of Frankenhausen". --Mathew5000 21:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Close. it's when every word (after the first) has the same captialisation that "Go" works., it's only when captialisation is mixed that a redirect is needed. Regards, MartinRe 21:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as {{R from other capitalisation}}. -- JLaTondre 22:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• After reading the capitalization policy for redirects I agree with your comments and took off the RFD - thanks. Inarcadiaego 01:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

---

Shelving filter → Band-stop filter

Shelving filters or Shelf filters are not band-stop filters. someone should create a good Shelving filter article (and someone started to, but it wasn't very good) but, until they do, it's misinformation to equate to BSF. no information is better than wrong information. r b-j 02:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Why not change target to Electronic filter in the mean time? --KJ 04:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Or Equalization filter. --KJ 04:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The nominated redirect was Speedy deleted by Academic Challenger (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves)

And tag with {{R with possibilities}}. --Rory096 20:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Ckatz/Workspace/Templates → User:Ckatz/Workspace/Templates

Created by mistake in the main space; thanks to Dancter for catching this. Ckatz 05:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete R2. --Rory096 05:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

---

Copper High School → Robbinsdale Cooper High School

RFD1 tag applied by Schulte on 08-June, but not listed here. Rationale of typo -- incorrect name provided in edit summary.

• Delete. While we normally keep misspelling redirects, Copper is a word itself and it possible there is a Copper High School which means this redirect would actually create confusion. -- JLaTondre 13:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. My apologies for not listing it here. When Gephart was creating the redirect, he simply made a typo with the name. --Schulte 18:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Rabah Zobeir → Zobeir

RFD1 tag applied by Ori Redler on 04-June, but not listed here as RFD2 tag was mistakenly added to article. Rationale of It's not the right person. Rabah Zobeir should direct to "RABAH ZOBEIR" which was actually a slave of Zobeir Pasha.

• Delete. Google search returns copies of 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica (ex. [1]) that verify the two are not the same. -- JLaTondre 13:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per JLaTondre. Cowman109^Talk 22:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

June 10

RAID Admin → RAID

was tagged for speedy as "implausible typo. RAID Admin is Mac OS X software and is different from RAID". I don't know if it should rather be re-redirected elsewhere, so I bring this here. Kusma (討論) 20:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Change target to Xserve RAID which mentions the software (as it is for managing that device). -- JLaTondre 21:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• 'Change target per JLaTondre. -- Usgnus 18:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The nominated redirect was Deleted by Enochlau. -- JLaTondre 12:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

"Wall of Shame" → Wall of shame

don't use quotes for emphasis, per wikipedia:naming conventions#Avoid non alpha-numeric characters used only for emphasis Francis Schonken 15:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, R3. --Rory096 01:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment apologies, I don't usually deal with these, however, I think the quotes were not a result of using characters for emphasis, but rather using them as modifiers for a specific search (i.e. the person was searching for the specific phrase, rather than the included words in any order). This is a result of the search tool on here being somewhat lame. I think this is a larger problem, including in terms of redirects. Mak (talk) 04:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

---

The nominated redirect was speedied. Johnleemk | Talk 16:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Dek 10 → Dek 9

Someone tried to make a humorous countdown where Dek 2 redirected to Flatulence. I think he wanted to make a continuous redirect but it doesn't work. He originally redirected Farting to Dek 10 but I changed the redirect to Flatulence. Anyway, this is a silly idea and all redirects should be deleted. SCHZMO ✍ 11:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Dek 9 → Dek 8

Same reason as above. SCHZMO ✍ 11:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Dek 8 → Dek 6

Same reason as above. SCHZMO ✍ 11:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Dek 6 → Dek 5

Same reason as above. SCHZMO ✍ 11:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Dek 5 → Dek 4

Same reason as above. SCHZMO ✍ 11:56 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Dek 4 → Dek 3

Same reason as above. SCHZMO ✍ 11:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Dek 3 → Dek 2

Same reason as above. SCHZMO ✍ 11:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Dek 2 → Flatulence

Same reason as above. SCHZMO ✍ 11:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

---

The nominated redirect was speedy deleted --cesarb 21:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Three-revert rule/Archive01 → Wikipedia talk:Three-revert rule/Archive 1

unneeded, housekeeping --Facto 04:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, G6. In the future, though, please don't move archives for no reason. There is no standard naming, and it really doesn't matter. --Rory096 04:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Well the {{archive-nav}} template only works with archives with a single space between "Archive" and the "#" ex: "Archive 1" not "Archive1" or "Archive01"--Facto 05:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

---

Continouos → Zero and First Order Holds

misspelling that is non sequitur of redirect topic. target article should go, too. r b-j 05:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

boy, i sure thought i filled out the template correctly, but it reversed the articles. i fixed it here. r b-j 14:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Change target to Continuity which is where Continuous point. As a misspelling of continuous, it should match that one. -- JLaTondre 15:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

should every misspelling of every word have a WP article or redirect? perhaps the common misspellings of noteworthy topic names, but not every misspelling. r b-j 18:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• If one person made the mistake, another will probably make it also. We shouldn't purposely create redirects based upon spelling mistakes, but once made, there is no need to delete them. We actually have a template ({{R from misspelling}}) and category for them (Category:Redirects from misspellings). -- JLaTondre 19:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

do to it want you want. i think it should disappear. it dumbs down WP. r b-j 02:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• I've changed the target. (I vote Keep-directed to Continuity if it matters.) Eluchil404 21:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

BJAODN → Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense

Cross-namespace redirect; a self reference. Also nominating Bjaodn. Invitatious 17:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Many pages currently link here, and the only reason anyone would type "BJAODN", as far as I can think of, is to get to Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense. As such, I wouldn't consider this self-reference. IMO, it would only be self-reference if the search term were something in real life, such as if Sandbox redirected to Wikipedia:Sandbox (which it doesn't). Timrem 18:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Delete - I thought I had read WP:ASR thouroughly, but I must have missed that redirects from articlespace to Wikipedia namespace are considered self-reference. Timrem 22:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It's in articlespace, making it a self-reference. --Rory096 00:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: I dislike cross-namespace redirects, but there would appear to be very little possibility for confusion being foisted on the user in this case. However, the argument (paraphrased) 'keep because lots of pages link here' isn't a valid one, in my opinion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Between 250 and 500 pages link to this page. The reasoning behind 'keep because lots of pages link here' is because that depending on circumstances, it may take much more system load to orphan a redirect with many links than to simply keep the redirect. Cowman109^Talk 19:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I have a bot to orphan redirects, I'll be glad to do this. System load doesn't have anything to do with it and is a moot point (300 edits in about 2 hours out of tens of thousands of hits per second doesn't have any effect), it's a self-reference. --Rory096 00:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strongest possible delete ever of both. Needless self-reference, see WP:ASR. --Rory096 00:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Rory. — TKD::Talk 04:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Rory —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Makemi (talk • contribs) .
• Is BJAODN notable? If so, write an article, have it reference WP:BJAODN in the usual fashion for articles wherein Wikipedia is the subject. Otherwise, replace the automatic redirect with a short stub/dab page which provides a link the user can click, but which informs them that they are leaving the encyclopedia. (Oh, and fix up all links to BJAODN to WP:BJAODN, making sure that it is obvious one is leaving article space, should a link to BJAODN be found there. --EngineerScotty 05:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I like to check BJAODN regularly (as a lot of the stuff on there is really funny), and i don't want to have to type the whole name into the bar every time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.23.169.138 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 11 Jun 2006 (UTC)
  • You don't, that's why we have shortcuts. For BJAODN, you can use WP:BJ, WP:), WP:-), WP:BJAODN, etc etc. --Rory096 00:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Try WP:BJ. That's even shorter. Invitatious 19:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The WP shortcut is much simpler, and there are not too many links here that would cause unneeded server load. Cowman109^Talk 22:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I don't see anyone arriving at the page without the aim of being directed to Bad Jokes, so I don't see it as really being self-referential. Nobody who wishes to see an encyclopedia page will get here. On the other hand, a lot of people who can't remember the full name of what they're looking for will be lost. But maybe all this falls by the wayside next to the server load. Skittle 23:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep No compelling reason to remove this popular redirect. --71.36.251.182 17:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: its a useless cross-namespace redirect. At the very most this could could changed to a soft redirect, but I really don't see the need, WP:BJ is much simpler. --Hetar 18:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

June 9

Acucullophallia → Circumcision

Made-up term does not exist in any dictionary, save dubious 'web dictionaries' Jakew 13:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• After looking at websites I never want to see again, it's a slang term meaning sexual arousal by circumcison. :\ It probably should be deleted'. And if notable, gain a page. Yanksox 05:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above - not a sensible redirect. PJM 05:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Lose the extra weight, it's not needed... Shenme 19:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per User:Dabljuh/teusp and discussion at Talk:Circumcision. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 20:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The nominated redirect was redirected to boldness. — Jun. 12, '06 [15:08] <freak|talk>

Be bold → Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages

Article to project (interwiki) redirect. Polonium 23:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - No harm in having this redirect. I frequently find myself wondering the exact WP: link to a WP page, and redirects are useful. EuroSong ^talk 23:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • That's why we have the WP: pseudo-namespace. WP:Be bold would be fine, but this is in articlespace. --Rory096 07:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Change target to boldness while cross-namespace redirects are generally deleted, this one a) Has 1000-1500 wikilinks, likely meaning more serverload to change each of these than to keep the redirect, b) It is definitely useful, a very common term. I mean, it says 'Be Bold' at the top of this page. See the precedents for cross-namespace redirects that were kept. There is no set in stone policy that declares all cross-namespace redirects should be deleted. Specifically, one exception to the list of reasons to delete a redirect is if it is deemed useful. While there are many arguments that cross-namespace redirects are harmful, there have clearly been precedents and this may just as well be a similar case. Cowman109^Talk 23:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The redirect is a self-reference and that is not good. This is an encyclopaedia, and we shouldn't be talking about the encyclopaedia in the space that is part of the encyclopaedia. --Rory096 07:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The boldness link did not occur to me. Because it dablinks to Wikipedia:Be bold, as JLaTondre stated, it will still ultimately have the same effect for those wanting it. Cowman109^Talk 16:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Normally the procedure is to include a disambig header on the article that would normally show up for the term, but I can't imagine the term "Be Bold" being the title of any legitimate article. Deathawk 23:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • There is a {{self ref}} template pointing there on boldness. --Rory096 07:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Change target to boldness, to avoid a self reference. --Rory096 04:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Which I already did, but was reverted... --Rory096 04:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Boldy keep, per Cowman109. PJM 05:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm fairly new and was looking for the target article, and searched for "Be Bold", and there it was. I'm marking this "Comment", not "Keep", since I don't think I fully understand Rory096's comment above about articlespace. Would my search have found a WP:Be bold article? Change target per Rory096. Mike Christie 10:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Change target to boldness which already has a dablink to Wikipedia:Be bold. This term is not limited to Wikipedia (it's a common phrase in self-help publications, it's the name of blog, etc, etc.) and Wikipedia shouldn't be claiming sole use of it. This is not the same as Wikipedia specific terms which are cross namespace redirects. -- JLaTondre 13:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It's a redirect so there's no content cross. Be bold has no encyclopedic usage and is good shorthand for those who do not bookmark or commit user manual page names to memory. AjaxSmack 18:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Change target → Boldness in agreement with others above. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

---

June 8

Software Devlopment Process → Software Development Process

worthless typo MaxEnt 04:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. No chance of being confused with anything else, does not meet any criteria for deletion. Tag with {{R from misspelling}}. Johnleemk | Talk 11:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Typos are are one of the main purposes of redirects. Ydam 11:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Johnleemk and Ydam. — TKD::Talk 00:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per above. PJM 05:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk:X-Men:_The_Last_Stand/Archive2 → Talk:X-Men:_The_Last_Stand/Archive 2

unneeded redirect --Facto 02:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per my comments below (isn't it usually above? Ah well). Cowman109^Talk 22:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk:X-Men:_The_Last_Stand/Archive1 → Talk:X-Men:_The_Last_Stand/Archive 1

unneeded redirect --Facto 02:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: For both of these I have to say that the page titles look similar enough to me that entering the redirect into the search engine could be a forseeable problem. Deathawk 23:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

they are useless redirects to talk page archives. The original archives were improperly named Archive1 and Archive2 (without the spaces) so I had to move them to Archive 1 and Archive 2. --Facto 00:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This would not be a search term. It would likely only be accessible by links. Therefore, an unneeded redirect. Cowman109^Talk 22:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The nominated redirect was speedied. Johnleemk | Talk 15:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Kypchakcha → New Kypchak language

Target article deleted. Amir E. Aharoni 09:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

New Kypchak Language → New Kypchak language

Target article deleted. Amir E. Aharoni 09:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Kipchakia → Kypchakia

Target article deleted. --Amir E. Aharoni 09:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

---

Kepone toxin → Kepone

Kepone is poison, but is not a toxin (see the toxin article why, kepone is synthetic. Unlikely search target. No links. No useful history (only pagemove redirect, fix and rfd. Polonium 23:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep there are a handful of "Kepone toxin" finds on Google...not hurting anything, plausible —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adambiswanger1 (talk • contribs) .
• Keep. If someone made this mistake before, someone will make it again. This redirect prevents the creation of redundant and inaccurate articles. Johnleemk | Talk 11:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

No. Kepone is not a toxin. This redirect is activly harmful, because it claims that kepone is a toxin. The redirect should be deleted and the page protected to prevent recreation. Polonium 23:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the toxin article says people use the word to describe all poisons, whether they be organic or synthetic. If some people think that should be discouraged, I think the redirect (which deletes an occurrence of "toxin") actually helps in this case. --KJ 02:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

So we should delete Dubya to discourage references to Bush as Dubya? Terminological errors like these are the reason we have redirects. Saying this title endorses the categorisation of Kepone as a toxin is like saying the existence of Dubya endorses calling Bush by that nickname or that the existence of misspelling redirects endorse the misspelling of certain names. Johnleemk | Talk 10:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

June 7

Template:O RLY? → Template:Fact

Bad joke, redundant. Consensus at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 June 7 was that it's unencyclopedic. --KJ 17:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, harmless. Redirects are cheap. It's not redundant to anything; it's a redirect! There was no consensus at the TfD (which was closed as speedy keep) --Rory096 17:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what counts as consensus, but do you really want people to add {{O RLY?}} to articles? Most of the people who responed there were against keeping this redirect. --KJ 17:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Besides, it's very easy to mistake the O RLY template (edit: when included in article space as is, that is, --KJ 17:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)) as vandalism. --KJ 17:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep - I'm not sure why Kjoonlee is so vehemently opposed to this redirect. The "encyclopedic" criterion shouldn't necessarily apply to meta-content. Personally, I like the imagery of a horned owl looking down at me critically in warning to verify my facts. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 18:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Silly, useless redirect which will more likely confuse people looking at the wiki source than it will help anybody. --Fastfission 19:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Fastfission. MostTemplate:O RLY? people will be confused by its appearance in wikicode. Kusma (討論) 20:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Fastfission. We are ostensibly editing an encyclopedia, not engaging in sophmoric humor. Redirects are cheap when they don't cheapen the ecnyclopedia itself. -- Avi 20:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per Fastfission. This redirect is both useless and potentially problematic. —David Levy 20:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep - harmless, and possibly used in enough articles by now that removing may cause more harm than alleged good. - Ugliness Man 20:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. FWIW, this template is used in about ten articles at the moment. Isopropyl 20:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
    • All the more reason to nip it in the bud now. -- Avi 20:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
    • And of course, it would be orphaned prior to the deletion. —David Levy 20:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Totally harmless-- Redirects can only very rarely do harm, and this one certainly does not. Redirects are cheap. There is no valid reason to delete this template.--Sean Black 22:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Totally Delete NO WAI! YA RLY. -- Drini 22:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Fastfission. Redirects are cheap but this one is potentially confusing and harmful. --Zoz (t) 23:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Drini said it best. — Nathan ^(talk) 05:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I was amused to see that it exists, but it would have confused the heck out of me if I'd run into it in an article. – Zawersh 05:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; could confuse those who haven't heard of the meme. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 11:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no need to confuse people. feydey 12:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Harmless. People who actually suffer from any confusion probably should be kept away from Wikipedia before they start polluting the site with their mental (in)abilities. --Bobak 19:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. When our critics blast us for using a sophomoric meme to identify failures in the encyclopedia, you'll see that this template is anything but harmless. Titoxd^(?!?) 03:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Mildly amusing, but could appear to be over-the-top. — TKD::Talk 04:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep! good stuff. --Awiseman 17:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Titoxd's incredibly persuasive argument. --Cyde↔Weys 18:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-intuitive, unprofessional, and will just cause confusion. --Elonka 18:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: confusing and unecessary. --Hetar 18:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep: It's longer and less intuitive in meaning than {{fact}}, but I can also appreciate the humor in it (and yes, the vote of keep is correct). Further, I disagree that it can be mistaken as vandalism due to the fact that it is surrounded by {{ }} and therefore easily identified as a template tag. Lastly, as a redirect it is indistinguishable from {{fact}} unless editing the article, so I'm personally not too concerned about it reflecting poorly on Wikipedia's professionalism. --HunterZ 20:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Templates are subject to vandalism too. They're not immune, and *I did* perceive it as vandalism when I first saw it at Octopus. And as a matter of fact, some BSD people have criticised Linux (I'm not sure if it was the kernel or user-space) just because there was a comment in the source that said: "Should this be here?" --KJ 02:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No purpose, appears to have at least a small possibility of breaking some things, so why keep it? -- SCZenz 20:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete as per nominator. Polonium 23:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the childishness. violet/riga (t) 09:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• NO WAI, delete!!!1111 (So much of O RLY...) ;) - Mailer Diablo 16:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. For those that don't underestand this meme, having this on a page can be very confusing.--SomeStranger^(t|c) 15:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per Fastfission and Kusma. Also, it can easily be mistyped as {{O RLY}}. Invitatious 23:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Mixed expressway → RIRO expressway

This term is not in common use, and there is no obvious target for it. --SPUI (T - C) 16:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, as it is not threatening any other articles, and it may be a localized expression outside of our knowledge Adambiswanger1 03:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I can tell you that it's not such a "localized expression". If this "vote" is somehow interpreted as keep and this is kept, redirect it to expressway. --SPUI (T - C) 20:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The nominated redirect was Deleted by Freakofnurture (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves) --Rory096 20:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Stubs cabal → Category:WikiProject Stub sorting participants

Cross-namespace redirect, made to make fun of stub sorting participants. Not in general use. Nomination for speedy delete got turned down, so listing here. --KJ 16:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Unnecessary. -- Avi 21:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Unfounded derogatory reference. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unnecessary Adambiswanger1 03:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I find the word "cabal" extremely unprofessional and personally offensive, and wish we could just get rid of it everywhere that it's being used in an "official" capacity on Wikipedia. --Elonka 18:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

---

Textpert & Textperts → 82ASK

Neologism, seems to be used solely for advertising by Re5ult, aka 82ASK. ArglebargleIV 04:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Also note that 82ASK redirects to Re5ult. Lbbzman 21:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Extreme Video → Extreme Video

Redirects to itself (loop) WillMak050389 11:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Change target to Rob Zicari. Per Extreme Video history, AxelBoldt did a merge, but looks like he put in the wrong target for the redirect. Per his user contributions page, the edit summaries show AxelBoldt merged to Rob Zicari so it should redirect there. -- JLaTondre 13:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Kady Goldlist → ONE Family Fund

A bit of a mess. The creation of the redirect was a result of an AFD, but in hindsight there seems no benefit (indeed, no rhyme or reason) to the redirect since Ms Goldlist is not mentioned in the article (and seems not notable enough to be added). The redirect has already been blanked once by another contributor (I found it as an empty page). Arguably the AFD's "merge" consensus has been satisfied, because one of the external links on the ONE Family Fund article has a reference to Kady Goldlist as a donor. RobertG ♬ talk 15:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Ehhh...Keep...weakly, if people are searching for "Kady Goldlist," they're probably looking for OFF, so I'm weakily saying keep. Yanksox 05:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

War for the thorne(Disney) → The Lion King

A typo'd nonsense article was moved from this page, then the redirect redirected. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 17:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Who would search for this? Adambiswanger1 03:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete A google search shows nothing but... cold war references. Doesn't appear to have anything to do with the Lion King. Cowman109^Talk 21:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Paul Kitchen → Rothesay Netherwood School

Was previously up for deletion as non-notable. It was changed to a redirect instead of deletion. Paul Kitchen is the current head of the school. Up until today, there was link from the school article to the Paul Kitchen article (which of course redirected back to the school article). Usgnus 19:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and just don't link to it. Anyone who searches for Paul Kitchen might benefit from the school's article, so it's good. It also helps prevent recreation of that article. --Rory096 20:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Requested moves → Wikipedia:Requested moves

Cross-namespace redirect. Linked only from talk pages. --Zoz (t) 23:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as a cross-namespace redirect. --Hetar 00:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a cross-namespace redirect. feydey 12:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• So? Keep it. AjaxSmack 19:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • There is a reason that Wikipedia pages start with "Wikipeda:" - it is important to clearly distinguish between encyclopedic content and user manuals. Redirects that cross this space cause confusion and are unprofessional. --Hetar 18:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    • It's a redirect so there's no content cross. And Wikipedia is unprofessional; as far as I know, no one receives monetary compensation for contribution so it's inherently not professional. Requested moves has no encyclopedic usage and is good shorthand for those who do not bookmark or commit user manual page names to memory. AjaxSmack 18:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
      • It is in articlespace, redirecting to a non-articlespace page. Wikipedia may not pay contributors, but it is still an encyclopaedia. WP:RM is way easier to type anyway. --Rory096 01:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete has many potential meanings, only one of which is this cross-namespace redirect; delete as a source of confusion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Ceyockey. — TKD::Talk 04:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per above. --Rory096 01:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

June 6

The nominated redirect was Not a nomination. Further discussion belongs on talk page. -- JLaTondre 13:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Survey - articles for deletion

• AfD and VfD were deleted and then replaced with a redirect to AFD and VFD, whereas before they were directed to WP:AFD, concerning the Manual of Style keeps that have occured here, should not these also be directed to Articles for Deletion ? 132.205.44.134 23:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • No, the MOS: is a specific syntax. These fall into the same category as AN/I (see nomination below) and other Wikipedia acronyms (see the RFD archives) where the result has been to do exactly what was done with these redirects (send to a disambig page with a dablink to the Wikipedia: page). Also, this belongs on the talk page as it's not a nomination. -- JLaTondre 13:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

---

The nominated redirect was Deleted by R. Koot. -- JLaTondre 13:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Exploding Array Function → array

Implausible combination of words; not mentioned in target article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - I cannot find any information concerning this topic, not to mention the capitalization would make it a spelling redirect as well which is also overly unnecessary. I will likely change my opinion to keep if logical reasoning for this redirect is provided. Cowman109^Talk 22:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

---

Guidelines for the spelling of names of Polish rulers → List of Polish monarchs

Creates the confusing impression that a main namespace article is a spelling or naming conventions "guideline" in the project namespace sense. Changing this to an undesirable cross-namespace redirect would even be less of a solution. See also wikipedia:naming conventions (Polish rulers). Francis Schonken 14:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Francis. Seems misleading in my opinion, suggesting a guideline when it is a Wiki article. Cowman109^Talk 21:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

September 31 → September

No such date exists. 64.192.106.146 13:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

A better target would be September 30. Case could also be made for October 1.--Mathew5000 16:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I don't understand why a date that doesn't exist should have an article (or redirect). This may be a confusing redirect as it may lead people to believe that such a date exists in September if it were to somehow be entered as a search term. Cowman109^Talk 22:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Changed my vote to keep per Ceyockey. Cowman109^Talk 21:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP does no harm, and for those less fortunate who do not know 30 days hath September, April, June and November... This could enlighten them. 132.205.44.134 23:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Then perhaps a target like Gregorian calendar#Months of the year might be worthwhile? – Zawersh 13:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Can't redirect to a section. --Rory096 16:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Consider it something like a misspelling, in this case being a misconception of the number of days in the month. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as disambig. NTDOY Fanboy 01:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment/Abstain could create an article that states "30 days hath September"! giggle Royalbroil 15:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, and note we also have redirects for February 31, April 31, June 31 and November 31 (there's also February 30, but that's an article). Actually, there are quite a few incoming links to all of these which are presumably typos or miscalculations. — sjorford++ 20:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Andy mccray & Andy McCray → Football

Two probable vanity redirects. Individual not discussed at target. -- JLaTondre 22:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete both per JLaTondre. — TKD::Talk 04:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both per nom. --Zoz (t) 13:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

June 5

The nominated redirect was speedily deleted as WP:CSD#R3: redirect from an implausible typo. AmiDaniel (talk) 08:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ Varya Akulova → Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Varya Akulova

Completely useless. Created because of a page move. Basically should be speedied except that I don't think it meets any criteria. DarthVader 08:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

---

The nominated redirect was Deleted by Cyde. -- JLaTondre 19:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors → Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not

Needless cross-namespace redirect, now orphaned. Rory096 22:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Unlikely search term as well. Thanks for orphaning. Cowman109^Talk 22:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

---

June 4

The nominated redirect was deleted as unneeded redirect under speedy criteria R3: implausible typo. ++Lar: t/c 13:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Piesoelectic → Piesoelectric

I just created it myself by mistake. Delete please. Sorry about that. --Amir E. Aharoni 09:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

---

The nominated redirect was Turned into an article with dablink by Freakofnurture. -- JLaTondre 14:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Bob Crowley → R. T. Crowley

Redirects to R. T. Crowley page, which is irrelevant to the context which Bob Crowley links come from. Bob Crowley is a Broadway Costume Designer, R. T. Crowley a technology innovator. E Man Speaks 06:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: If R.T. Crowley's first name is "Robert" then, presumably some people may refer to him as "Bob". If that is true, this should probably be kept until such time as the costume designer article can be written over top of the redirect, in which case we would want a dablink at the top of the page, saying something like For the [other guy], see R. T. Crowley. — Jun. 4, '06 [08:30] <freak|talk>
• Keep per Freakofnurture. Kukini 13:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

---

The nominated redirect was speedy deleted as broken redirect. — sjorford++ 12:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Kruszewnia → http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kruszewnia_%28wojew%C3%B3dztwo_wielkopolskie%29

The article's content consists only of a redirect to the Polish Wikipedia article about the topic. MeredithParmer 07:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Cross-project redirects haven't worked for some time, so I've speedied this (although it might help to have a specific CSD criterion for this). — sjorford++ 12:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

---

VoteFair ranking → Kemeny-Young method

The term "VoteFair ranking" for the Kemeny-Young method is needlessly POV. Wikipedia's aim is to describe alternative election methods and not to promote them. Furthermore, the term "VoteFair ranking" is used only by User:VoteFair. This term is used for the Kemeny-Young method nowhere else. Markus Schulze 08:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment Comparing [2] with [3] suggests that it is a reasonable redirect. --Henrygb 01:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

There are about 1000 Google hits for "VoteFair" and about 300 Google hits for "Kemeny Young". But when we look more closely at these hits, then we see that the Google hits for "VoteFair" are mainly only posts to Internet forums written only by a single person. However, there is not a single scientific paper or scientific website that uses the term "VoteFair". On the other side, the Google hits for "Kemeny Young" contain a large number of scientific papers and scientific websites. Markus Schulze 09:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I am the person who created the VoteFair ranking page. I am requesting that the VoteFair ranking page be retained as a redirect page. It should redirect to Kemeny-Young method.

As noted above, a Google search returns 1000 matches for VoteFair ranking. I have been using the term "VoteFair ranking" for about a decade, and it is used in many places, including my recently published book titled "Ending The Hidden Unfairness In U.S. Elections", and my website at VoteFair.org (which is visited by thousands of unique/different American Idol fans).

Here are the Wikipedia guidelines that support my request:

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

3. They aid searches on certain terms.

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 a liar, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways.

In case it is relevant regarding deletion, the Kemeny-Young method discussion page now explains why I created the new VoteFair ranking page.

VoteFair 07:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Pablo kleinman → Pablo Kleinman

Original capitalization mistake redirects to correct name. Einzelhaft 07:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as {{R from other capitalisation}}. Capitalization mistakes are generally plausible. — TKD|Talk|WPMachinima 08:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Machinima. Kukini 13:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Definitely a plausible mistake and valid redirect. DarthVader 06:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Cowman109^Talk 22:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)