Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion: Difference between revisions
Redirects: Nicknames |
|||
Line 171: | Line 171: | ||
*[[Slick Willy]] ---> [[Bill Clinton]]. See above. [[User:Meelar|Meelar]] [[User talk:Meelar|(talk)]] 23:19, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC) |
*[[Slick Willy]] ---> [[Bill Clinton]]. See above. [[User:Meelar|Meelar]] [[User talk:Meelar|(talk)]] 23:19, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC) |
||
**While I do appreciate your political evenhandedness on these matters, I don't think deletion is really viable. [[Wikipedia:Redirects]] states: "redirecting Dubya to George W. Bush might be considered offensive, but the redirect aids accidental linking, makes the creation of duplicate articles less likely, and is useful to some people, so it should not be deleted." Searching for [[Dumbya]] returns thousands of Google hits, so why should it be removed? I would have no objection if this (and other nicknames) redirected to a page stating that these are derogatory nicknames. They don't have to direct to the main article, but they should not return empty search results. By the way, [[Butcher of Baghdad]] redirects to [[Saddam Hussein]]. No doubt he deserves that epithet, but under NPOV that can't be a consideration. And surely it cannot be Wikipedia policy that only derogatory nicknames for U.S. Presidents may not be redirected. Logically, if [[Dumbya]] and [[Slick Willy]] are removed, hundreds, possibly thousands, of redirects someone finds offensive to other names must be removed as well. We'd best not start down this slippery slope. [[User:63.173.114.137|63.173.114.137]] 23:41, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:41, 8 April 2005
Skip to table of contents · Skip to current discussions · · Archives |
Deletion discussions |
---|
|
Articles |
Templates and modules |
Files |
Categories |
Redirects |
Miscellany |
Speedy deletion |
Proposed deletion |
V | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 7 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
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 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?
This page is transcluded from Wikipedia:Redirect/Deletion reasons. (edit | history) |
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
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):
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- The redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam. (Speedy deletion criterion G11 may apply.)
- The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting "Apple" to "Orange". (Speedy deletion criterion G1 may apply.)
- 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, were an exception to this rule until they became their own namespace in 2024. (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:.)
- 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.
- 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.)
- 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. - 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:
- 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.
- 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 article text 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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:
- 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).
- 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).
- 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
| ||
STEP II. | List the entry on RfD.
Click here to edit the section of RfD for today's entries.
| ||
STEP III. | Notify users.
It is generally considered good practice to notify the creator and main contributors of the redirect(s) that you nominate. 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.
Holding pen
Some redirects cannot be deleted because of a temporary software limitation. They are listed here until the limitation is removed and they can be finally deleted.
- Bush regeneration DELETE
- Find or fix a stub DELETE
- Assault rifle/bans DELETE
- Gaspé Peninsula DELETE
- A.M. Daniels DELETE
- Fun with headlines DELETE
- AICT DELETE
- Bare Hearties DELETE
- Basque (in the Philippines) DELETE
- LULUX DELETE
December 12
- Cornell Hangovers : Target of Redirect does not exist : Target is: Cornell University Glee Club
- Cornell University Hangovers : Target of Redirect does not exist : Target is: Cornell University Glee Club
- (Offstage cursing and gnashing of teeth.) The first use to redirect to the second, which used to have content. The second was later turned into a redirect to a third article, one that was later deleted for copyvio. I'd just restore the content on the second, except... that one was VfD'd, but I can't find any record of the discussion on Wikipedia:Archived delete debates/May to Jun 2004, which is the relevant time period. Bah. Maybe I'll just restore the content, and let someone VfD it properly this time. Noel (talk) 00:18, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete Masterhomer 21:51, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete both. Unlikely that the historical revisions would survive VfD and no one has done anything to this well over a month. jni 15:21, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Been busy with WP:AN; I'll try and get to these soon. Noel (talk) 18:54, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Current list
Older unfinished requests are at Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion/Old.
February 4
- Gundam Seed Episode 1 → Cosmic Era episode list - I'm not sure whether to list this here or VfD. It was a very small article, since merged into the redirection, but doesn't seem to warrant its own existence as a redirect. 132.205.15.43 05:50, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- PHASE-01 → Cosmic Era episode list - I'm not sure whether to list this here or VfD. It was a very small article, since merged into the redirection, but doesn't seem to warrant its own existence as a redirect. From appearances, orignally it was a copyedit of Gundam Seed Episode 1. 132.205.15.43 05:56, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
February 7
- Stub → Wikipedia:Find or fix a stub. Self reference as well, and, if deleted, will allow for moving of Stub (disambiguation). — Itai (f&t) 13:05, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I'd recomment redirecting Stub to Stub (disambiguation); see User:Jnc/Disambiguation for my reasoning as to why. Noel (talk) 14:59, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Also, this page has a zillion pages linking to it; some of them undoubtly expect the existing linked meaning. Noel (talk) 15:02, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, I know. Still, Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. — Itai (f&t) 15:12, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Sure, but since you're one moving the deletion, you get to organize fixing them! :-) I already did my bit on the ones above... Noel (talk) 16:59, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I need to do this? Whatever happened to the gnomes? <sigh>. Nice job on the first four. I took care of everything I could regarding stub - of course, I cannot modify text in the Talk: and User: namespaces. — Itai (f&t) 18:08, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, I think it's generally agreed to be OK to edit User: and Talk: pages to fix links that would otherwise be broken. Certainly, when we were deleting all the redirects from the main namespace to User:, we sure edited a lot of User: and Talk: pages! Noel (talk) 18:03, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Still has lots of links to it, most presumably being to the old meaning. Noel (talk) 02:30, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
March 6
- Nelli Kim/Temp → Nelli Kim. Remnant of a copyvio repair. I'm amazed there isn't a csd case for this. —Korath (Talk) 10:48, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
- I think these can be deleted right away as continuation of copyvio process, like orphan talk pages can be deleted if the article they are for has been deleted per VfD. If it was listed 7 days in WP:CP and no one objected to the moving of /Temp over article, then we IMHO already have enough consensus for trivialities like this. jni 12:41, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Be bold and edit CSD to include this case too, and see if it sticks. Personally I think it's a good idea. Noel (talk) 13:40, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
March 9
- Chewing → Mastication --Djanvk 03:55, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- This listing is confused. Chewing is an article, listed to be merged with [Mastication]. So far, so good. However, once the content is merged, we need a redirect at the other one, otherwise someone will just re-create the page. In addition, we need to keep the edit history of the one that was turned into a redirect, for Wikipedia:Copyright reasons. Noel (talk) 21:11, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Random page → Special:Randompage - An especially unpleasant cross-namespace redirect, since it doesn't leave the "Redirect from..." line. See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Random page. —Korath (Talk) 12:06, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Already left a 'delete'-vote to the VfD page. jni 12:48, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I'm curious, why is this 'considered harmful'? The user asks for a random page, and gets exactly that: a random space. It's not really cross-namespace, as special:randompage once more returns to a normal namespace. Radiant! 14:38, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with Radiant. The user gets what he asks for (something random) and it doesn't really cross namespaces. Jonathunder 07:03, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)
- I think the issue with "cross-space redirects" is that we have people who take copies of the database - but only of the main article namespace. So for them, a redirect to Special: wouldn't work. What might work is to make the redirect to a URL for Special:Randompage, like this, which will work from anywhere. Noel (talk) 00:02, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Blast, I forgot, off-site redirects don't work. So it's Special:Randompage or nothoing... Noel (talk) 15:04, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
March 12
- Lincolnshire (unneeded) → Lincolnshire. RJFJR 16:52, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
March 20
- "viola da gamba" → Viol
- "welfare capitalism" → Welfare capitalism
- "world war 2 rationing" → Rationing in Britain during World War II
- More "quoted" to unquoted redirects. – ABCD 19:17, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- The ones that are left have content history, and at least one of them was merged (i.e. the history contains info on the contribution of material used in an article), so it can't be simply ditched; will have to archive, or something. Noel (talk) 12:34, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I have moved the history of "world war 2 rationing" to a new redirect World war 2 rationing. An administrator could move "viola da gamba" over the existing redirect Viola da gamba. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 11:13, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I have implemented your suggestion and deleted the resulting historyless redirects. The last one still needs a history merge or something. jni 15:02, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I have moved the history of "world war 2 rationing" to a new redirect World war 2 rationing. An administrator could move "viola da gamba" over the existing redirect Viola da gamba. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 11:13, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- The ones that are left have content history, and at least one of them was merged (i.e. the history contains info on the contribution of material used in an article), so it can't be simply ditched; will have to archive, or something. Noel (talk) 12:34, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
March 26
- Truth be Told (Alias episode), So it Begins (Alias episode), Parity (Alias episode), A Broken Heart (Alias episode), Doppleganger (Alias episode), Reckoning (Alias episode), Color Blind (Alias episode), Time Will Tell (Alias episode), Mea Culpa (Alias episode), Spirit (Alias episode), The Confession (Alias episode), The Box (Part 1) (Alias episode), The Box (Part 2) (Alias episode), The Coup (Alias episode), Page 47 (Alias episode), The Prophecy (Alias episode), Q&A (Alias episode), Masquerade (Alias episode), Snowman (Alias episode), The Solution (Alias episode), Rendezvous (Alias episode), Almost 30 Years (Alias episode), The Enemy Walks In (Alias episode), Trust Me (Alias episode), Cipher (Alias episode), Dead Drop (Alias episode), The Indicator (Alias episode), Salvation (Alias episode), The Counteragent (Alias episode), Passage Part 1 (Alias episode), Passage Part 2 (Alias episode), The Abduction (Alias episode), A Higher Echelon (Alias episode), The Getaway (Alias episode), Phase One (Alias episode), Double Agent (Alias episode), A Free Agent (Alias episode), Firebomb (Alias episode), A Dark Turn (Alias episode), Truth Takes Time (Alias episode), Endgame (Alias episode), Countdown (Alias episode), Second Double (Alias episode), The Telling (Alias episode), The Two (Alias episode), Succession (Alias episode), Reunion (Alias episode), A Missing Link (Alias episode), Repercussions (Alias episode), The Nemesis (Alias episode), Prelude (Alias episode), Breaking Point (Alias episode), Conscious (Alias episode), Remnants (Alias episode), Full Disclosure (Alias episode), Crossings (Alias episode), After Six (Alias episode), Blowback (Alias episode), Facade (Alias episode), Taken (Alias episode), The Frame (Alias episode), Unveiled (Alias episode), Hourglass (Alias episode), Blood Ties (Alias episode), Legacy (Alias episode), Resurrection (Alias episode). All orphans (or should be); these all redirect to the newly-consolidated Alias episodes (Season 1), Alias episodes (Season 2), Alias episodes (Season 3), and Alias episodes (Season 4). Sorry for the massive listing, but I'd hate to make everyone vote in 66 places. :-) Deco 02:28, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep all - deleting these would destroy the authorship history of the material, thus violating the GFDL. Sorry. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:33, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Oops, you're right. If only there were a way to merge articles, moving the history of all into the new article. Now I'm concerned that someone seeking the original authors might not be able to find these histories — maybe a comment or something should be added to the merged pages. Deco 20:21, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Special:Whatlinkshere/Alias episodes (Season 1), etc will show them, but of course people won't know there's content history in the redirects unless they look. When the content was merged, the edit summary should have indicated that it was a merge, and where from. Noel (talk) 14:29, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- If we want to get rid of these redirects, the usual thing would be to move them to sub-pages of the article's talk: page, and then link to them from the talk: page. I personally don't have any opinion on whether to keep or ditch them, but if we do get rid of them, that would be the way to do it. Noel (talk) 14:29, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Don't understand the motivation for deleting these... fundamental rule of the WWW is not break existing links unless you have to right? Pcb21| Pete 14:57, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep: these make it easier for users to search for the episodes by title. Anyone know what the situation is vis-a-vis including a section specification in a REDIRECT target? --Phil | Talk 13:19, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
- According to Meta:Redirect#A redirect to an anchor, This is not possible. ... This feature will not be implemented in the future. Noel (talk) 16:32, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep all - deleting these would destroy the authorship history of the material, thus violating the GFDL. Sorry. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:33, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
March 27
- MPEG-4 Version 3 → MPEG-4 Layer 3 Delete because the "version 3" page seems to have been created by someone confused about the correct terminology. There really is no such thing as MPEG-4 Version 3, and if there was, it would be something else. Cat5nap 06:41, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- MPEG-4 Layer 3 → MPEG-4 Part 3 Delete because the "layer 3" page seems to have been created by someone confused about the correct terminology. There really is no such thing as MPEG-4 Layer 3, although if there was, it might be something in MPEG-4 Part 3. The root of this problem seems to have been because some "parts" of MPEG standards include "layers" within them. (Most notably, MPEG-1 Part 3 includes a "Layer 3" that is now very widely known as MP3.) Someone got the impression that the "parts" were called "layers", and unfortunately started naming pages accordingly. Cat5nap 06:51, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
March 31
- Ipod halo effect → Ipod - Redirects to a non-existent section of article. rae 21:25, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Section targets don't work in redirects anyway, so the question is "do we keep the redir anyway" (no idea, myself). Noel (talk) 00:23, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Preserve history. There was a stub [1] before it was merged into iPod [2] as a section. Then the section was moved to the introduction [3] and halo effect turned into gateway drug. It is now part of the history section of iPod. GFDL considerations may make deleting it difficult. And (ignoring capital letter errors) it is a common enough phrase [4] with 7,000 hits. My view is that it (the current redirect and history) should be moved to iPod halo effect, and the contents of the old stub should be merged into halo effect. I don't mind whether the redirect points to iPod or halo effect, but I think deletion of the history would be wrong. --Henrygb 00:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
April 2
- Coptic Adj → Coptic (disambiguation). This was {{vfd}}'d and a subpage made on February 15, but never listed on the vfd page, so never resolved. It properly belongs here anyway. —Korath (Talk) 00:51, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC) Original comment: Delete. There's no 'Adj' in the naming convensions. In this particular case, a disamiguation page Coptic exists and is suffecient. --Alif 00:41, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Agree. This redirect was created when I moved the disambiguation page at Coptic Adj to a more reasonable title, and while other Coptic pages were being moved around by various editors. Coptic (disambiguation) could perhaps be kept as a redirect to Coptic. / Tupsharru 04:54, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
April 3
- Jimmy Brown → James Brown. Jimmy Brown was an Irish terrorist, former head of the Irish People's Liberation Organisation. Since he is known as Jimmy and not James, it seems more reasonable that the page for Jimmy Brown be deleted. He can then be added to the redirect list along with the Godfather of Soul. A similar case can be found with Jim Brown, the football player. --Omphaloscope 00:44, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- A few of Jim Brown's early football cards list his name as "Jimmy Brown". This looks like it might be a good place for a disambiguation page. 63.173.114.141 04:39, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- As in, turn Jimmy Brown into a separate dismabig page, listing just the IPLA guy and the football guy? That would be OK. Noel (talk) 16:44, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- CUCCIA → Cucciá. This was a page I wikified some from CUCCIA on dead end pages and it had random capitalization. They also listed the stuff as named cucciá so I moved the page making CUCCIA with all caps useless however Cuccia might be useful. gren 10:35, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Agree/Delete - gren 10:35, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
April 4
- Kylie minogue → Kylie Minogue. It's an orphan, and just typing her name in the search box would work fine without the redirect. I really can't imagine any future links to her being in all lowercase. No need for it. Deco 01:56, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete I don't see any use for it →Vik Reykja 02:09, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Teh Dingo → Final Fantasy X. This was originally an article created by vandal User:203.109.254.40. After being proposed for VfD (it should have been a speedy delete IMO) it was later replaced by a redirect by Admin:Tony Sidaway. Neither the article nor the redirect makes any sense. 63.173.114.136 21:16, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Absolutely nonnotable. Miserable number of google hits. Mikkalai 22:15, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
April 5
- Arthur - Trent University's Student and Community Newspaper → Arthur (Newspaper) The title was created by an anon source, and isn't really appropriate for a Wikipedia title, so I moved the title, and changed all pages that pointed to it. I believe the article itself may be unencyclopedic, but that's for vfd. --Spinboy 00:34, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Addendum: The page it points to is now listed as a copyvio. --Spinboy 06:31, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Shroomery→the Shroomery The latter is a spam page advertising a Web site and is listed on vfd. —msh210 18:06, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
April 6
- St teresas youth group → STYG
- St. Teresa's Youth Group → STYG
- Both were improper redirects (I fixed them) pointing to a nonnotable local group which is now on VfD. I would link to the VfD page from here, but I can't figure out how :-| Sorry! Jonathan Christensen 21:24, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
April 7
- Copperlite → Coprolite. The article at copperlite was created by someone who misspelled coprolite (they may not realize the correct word is coprolite). Google finds 3 uses of copperlite as fossilized feces (coprolite), 3,117 other uses of copperlite and 21,700 hits for coprolite. it doesn't look like many people will type copperlite meaning coprolite (I'm just concerned that leaving the redirect lends unwarranted support to this misspelling). RJFJR 03:12, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
- I'm dithering about this one. I did a search myself using Yahoo, and found only 347 matched for "copperlite", mostly for a chipset, and also a metallic finish. When I knocked most of these out (using the exclude string "chipset finish DSL 'chip set' cooling neoprene") I was left with about 40 hits, of which only 4 were for the "coprolite" meaning. However, I worry that if we delete this redirect, someone will just re-create the article (not unlikely, it's already happened). So I'd say "keep", to prevent recreation of the erroneous article. Noel (talk) 14:25, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Deletion redirect templates (Template:VfD-1 E16 km2 thru Template:VfD-Über) - All of these templates are redirects to the appropriate /VfD/ page, and using templates for this purpose is deprecated. Yet they clutter up about 8% of the Template namespace. If nobody objects, I propse using a bot to delete the lot of them. (Note that alphabetically, this does not include Template:VfD and Template:VfD bottom and similar, that are actually in use; plainly those should not be deleted). Radiant_* 09:40, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
- See the ongoing project at Wikipedia:VfD votes in the Template namespace. Uncle G 10:02, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
- What exactly does that ongoing project do, other than listing the lot of them? Do you mean that the redirects should all be kept for historical reasons? Or that people are already busy deleting them? Or something? Radiant_* 10:19, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Many of the discussions are still in the templates and not yet moved to Vfd subpages. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 11:54, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- What exactly does that ongoing project do, other than listing the lot of them? Do you mean that the redirects should all be kept for historical reasons? Or that people are already busy deleting them? Or something? Radiant_* 10:19, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete all, also MediaWiki:Vfd- redirects. Correct the links from the Wikipedia:Archived delete debates subpages. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 11:50, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive3#Wikipedia:VfD votes in the Template namespace; and also Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion/Old#January 4 for discussion of the Mediawiki: redirects. Nobody opposed deleting the Mediawiki redirects, but there are so many it's infeasible to do by hand - it would take a bot to do it, and a bot with delete power means it has to be one run by an admin. Volunteers? I expect the bot could also move the discussion pages from Template: to VfD subpages, and delete the redirects left behind in Template:. Any such pages where there is a clash (i.e. a sub-page of that name already exists) probably ought to be moved by hand. Noel (talk) 14:37, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Added to Wikipedia:Bot requests. Radiant_* 10:13, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
- See the ongoing project at Wikipedia:VfD votes in the Template namespace. Uncle G 10:02, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
- 0wnz0red → A Place So Foreign and Eight More → nonsensical redirect. Radiant_* 11:26, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
April 8
- Warsaw/Vote Out of an excess of caution against unnecessary delay, i make this possibly redundant nomination. The article (an illegitimately located, and arguably otherwise illegitimate, poll) was moved to a more appropriate namespace after being VfDed; the voting on its VfD is proceeding nevertheless. It's not clear what the vote therefore means. (Moves are not supposed to be made between nomination and resolution.) In case the VfD vote doesn't cover it, i ask explicitly for deletion of this redirect, which would inappropriately draw users of Random Page to an ugly dispute within WP, rather than to subject matter.--Jerzy (t) 16:04, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
- Del vote by nominator, for the reasons given at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Warsaw/Vote.--Jerzy (t) 16:04, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
- Redundant. Special:Randompage won't ever pick a redirect (as of 1.4beta6; I haven't downloaded anything more recent), there's really no hope that Talk:Warsaw/Vote will survive vfd, and redirects to articles deleted via vfd are pretty much invariably deleted. But just in case the feature's been removed, an inclusionist horde descends on the vfd, or the admin who closes the vote is a bit sloppy, delete anyway. :) —Korath (Talk) 21:14, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Ham House ( Dubuque) -> Ham House, Dubuque - cockup when performing a page move. --Tagishsimon (talk)
- Dumbya goes to George W. Bush. No insulting redirects, this is not a viable misspelling of anything approaching Bush's name. Meelar (talk) 23:12, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Slick Willy ---> Bill Clinton. See above. Meelar (talk) 23:19, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
- While I do appreciate your political evenhandedness on these matters, I don't think deletion is really viable. Wikipedia:Redirects states: "redirecting Dubya to George W. Bush might be considered offensive, but the redirect aids accidental linking, makes the creation of duplicate articles less likely, and is useful to some people, so it should not be deleted." Searching for Dumbya returns thousands of Google hits, so why should it be removed? I would have no objection if this (and other nicknames) redirected to a page stating that these are derogatory nicknames. They don't have to direct to the main article, but they should not return empty search results. By the way, Butcher of Baghdad redirects to Saddam Hussein. No doubt he deserves that epithet, but under NPOV that can't be a consideration. And surely it cannot be Wikipedia policy that only derogatory nicknames for U.S. Presidents may not be redirected. Logically, if Dumbya and Slick Willy are removed, hundreds, possibly thousands, of redirects someone finds offensive to other names must be removed as well. We'd best not start down this slippery slope. 63.173.114.137 23:41, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)