Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

XFD backlog

V	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	0	9	15	24
TfD	0	0	0	2	2
MfD	0	0	0	2	2
FfD	0	0	0	3	3
RfD	0	0	0	0	0
AfD	0	0	0	32	32

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

20 July

American identity → Who Are We? The Challenges to America's National Identity

This is only part of the books title, and it implies to anyone searching for "American identity" that this is an authoritative opinion. AdamBiswanger1 18:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Move source to American Identity, leaving no re-redirect? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Decani → Dečani

Article on Decani cannot be seen as the redirect goes to Dečani —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 157.203.43.103 (talk • contribs) .

• I've fixed your nomination for you. The RFD tag goes on the redirect and not the target article. Also, you listed the redirect as the target above. I'm not positive about what your nomination is actually saying. If you believe an article should be at Decani, then you can simply make one. However, it would probably be best to use a disambiguation page as the titles are too similiar. -- JLaTondre 14:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • It appears to be a bit more complicated than that. Decani was originally created as a redirect over a year ago. Ealier this monthsomeone changed it to reflect the musical usage (opposite to cantoris) and it was then changed back to the redirect. Probably best to convert Decani to a disambiguation page, pointing to Dečani and new article Decani (music), but this has the disadvantage that the naming convention for Cantoris and Decani would not be the same. Or alternatively put the music article at Decani with the appropriate "for the town in Kosovo, see Dečani" boilerplate text at the top. Difficult to say which "most" users of English wikipedia would expect to see. I'm much more familiar with musical usage, but would accept that in the greater scheme of things it's a fairly niche usage. David Underdown 14:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    • The article should have priority over the redirect; that's why we have dab headers. If somebody wants to argue that the city should be at Decani for some reason, then we can discuss where the musical article should be moved. I'm taking out the redirect; deleting this would lose the history of the musical article. Septentrionalis 16:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Community Portal/October 2005 Redesign → Wikipedia:Community Portal/Redesign/October 2005

redirect not neccessary Lcarsdata (Talk) 17:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, harmless and has incoming links. Kusma (討論) 07:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The nominated redirect was All kept, nominations show a misunderstanding of what redirects are for. --Cyde↔Weys 15:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Showtime Too → Showtime

Incorporated into main Showtime article, not enough info to justify a seperate article HeMan5 (Talk) 17:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Showtime Beyond → Showtime

Incorporated into main Showtime article, not enough info to justify a seperate article HeMan5 (Talk) 17:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Showtime Extreme → Showtime

Incorporated into main Showtime article, not enough info to justify a seperate article HeMan5 (Talk) 17:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Showtime Family Zone → Showtime

Incorporated into main Showtime article, not enough info to justify a seperate article HeMan5 (Talk) 17:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Showtime Next → Showtime

Incorporated into main Showtime article, not enough info to justify a seperate article HeMan5 (Talk) 17:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Showtime Showcase → Showtime

Incorporated into main Showtime article, not enough info to justify a seperate article HeMan5 (Talk) 17:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Showtime Women → Showtime

Incorporated into main Showtime article, not enough info to justify a seperate article HeMan5 (Talk) 17:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Encore WAM → Encore (Premium TV)

Incorporated into main Encore TV article, not enough info to justify a seperate article HeMan5 (Talk) 16:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Starz Cinema → Starz!

Incorporated into main Starz! article, not enough info to justify a seperate article HeMan5 (Talk) 16:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Starz Comedy → Starz!

Incorporated into main Starz! article, not enough info to justify a seperate article HeMan5 (Talk) 16:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Starz Edge → Starz!

Incorporated into main Starz! article, not enough info to justify a seperate article HeMan5 (Talk) 16:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Starz InBlack → Starz!

Incorporated into main Starz! article, not enough info to justify a seperate article HeMan5 (Talk) 16:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Starz Kids & Family → Starz!

Incorporated into main Starz! article, not enough info to justify a seperate article HeMan5 (Talk) 16:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Showtime Beyond → Showtime

Incorporated into main Starz! article, not enough info to justify a seperate article HeMan5 (Talk) 16:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Showtime Extreme → Showtime

Incorporated into main Starz! article, not enough info to justify a seperate article HeMan5 (Talk) 16:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Showtime Family Zone → Showtime

Incorporated into main Starz! article, not enough info to justify a seperate article HeMan5 (Talk) 16:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Showtime Next → Showtime

Incorporated into main Starz! article, not enough info to justify a seperate article HeMan5 (Talk) 16:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Showtime Showcase → Showtime

Incorporated into main Starz! article, not enough info to justify a seperate article HeMan5 (Talk) 16:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Showtime Women → Showtime

Incorporated into main Starz! article, not enough info to justify a seperate article HeMan5 (Talk) 16:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

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

---

Wikipedia:Community Portal/Draft0 → Wikipedia:Community Portal/Redesign/Draft1a

Unused and not neccessary Lcarsdata (Talk) 15:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Community Portal/Draft1 → Wikipedia:Community Portal/Redesign/Draft1b

Unused and not neccessary Lcarsdata (Talk) 15:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Community Portal/Redesign/DraftA → Wikipedia:Community Portal/Redesign/Draft1a

Unused and not neccessary Lcarsdata (Talk) 15:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Community Portal/Redesign/DraftB → Wikipedia:Community Portal/Redesign/Draft1b

Unused and not neccessary Lcarsdata (Talk) 15:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Community Portal/Redesign/Draft2b → Wikipedia:Community Portal/Draft

Unused and not neccessary Lcarsdata (Talk) 15:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Community Portal/Draft1b → Wikipedia:Community Portal/Redesign/Draft1b

Unused and not neccessary Lcarsdata (Talk) 15:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Community Portal/Draft1a → Wikipedia:Community Portal/Redesign/Draft1a

Unused and not neccessary Lcarsdata (Talk) 15:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Community Portal/New featured content → Wikipedia talk:Community Portal

Redirect to talk page, unused and not neccessary Lcarsdata (Talk) 15:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Community Portal/Policies and guidelines → Wikipedia talk:Community Portal

Redirect to talk page, unused and not neccessary Lcarsdata (Talk) 15:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Community Portal/Wikipedia by department → Wikipedia talk:Community Portal

Redirect to talk page, unused and not neccessary Lcarsdata (Talk) 15:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Community Portal/Collaborations → Wikipedia talk:Community Portal

Redirect to talk page, unused and not neccessary Lcarsdata (Talk) 15:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Community Portal/New featured content → Wikipedia talk:Community Portal

Redirect to talk page, unused and not neccessary Lcarsdata (Talk) 15:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:MENU → Wikipedia:Community Portal/Menu

Unused and not neccessary Lcarsdata (Talk) 15:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:MENU2 → Wikipedia:Community Portal/Menu2

Unused and not neccessary Lcarsdata (Talk) 15:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:TTD → Wikipedia:Community Portal/Things to do

Unused and not neccessary Lcarsdata (Talk) 15:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all of the above. These were all components of a redesign by user:Go for it! who has since abandoned his account. The design never came to fruition, and these redirects serve no useful purpose being kept. --Quiddity 20:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Mallgoth → Mansonite

Whilst I have no huge objections to redirect to Mansonite, I still consider the term to be non-notable or a neologism (e.g., 548 Google hits). In particular, Mall goth was recently deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mall_goth). Note that the result was delete, not redirect. Furthermore, all the "mall goth" variation pages (different cases, spacing - e.g., Mall Goth) were then speedy deleted as a result [1]. This redirect has been recreated just 2 days later. I don't see any fundamental difference between "Mall goth" and "Mallgoth" (if anything, I'd say Mallgoth is less common) - so should we stick by the AfD, or recreate all these pages as redirects? Mdwh 10:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The nominated redirect was speedy deleted; slam dunk. Thanks for pointing this out. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 10:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

St. Michelle Malkin → Michelle Malkin

Move of article to "St. Michelle Malkin" and back (too much July 4 spirits?) left this relic. Not a likely search string, no edits other than moves. CWC(talk) 10:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

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

---

Jews did 9/11 → 9/11 conspiracy theories

See also WP:DRV with regards to the similar Jews did WTC. This is an inflammatory redirect and not anything anyone would likely search for. BigDT 01:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete What I said in the DRV: POV masquerading as a redirect. Any user can easily search for 9/11 conspiracy or any variation of it and find the article. Fan-1967 02:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Fan-1967. CWC(talk) 10:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Obviously a useful redirect. --SPUI (T - C) 12:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. per nom and Fan-1967. There are thousands of ways to name that conspiracy theory, this is far from one of the obvious ones, and being very inflammatory it should just go. Shanes 23:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

19 July

Tackleball → American football

Apparent neologism. Google search finds mostly tongue-in-cheeck suggestions that (American) football be renamed "tackleball." -- Mwalcoff 23:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC) Mwalcoff 23:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Concur; apparent neologism or retrologism from Touch football. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Cotw → Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week

Cross namespace redirect. Could potentially be a disambig page, though, (see [2] and it also appears to be short for Children of the World Cowman109^Talk 17:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as cross-namespace redirect, possible encyclopedic redirect target of The Call of the Wild. --Cyde↔Weys 18:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- Renesis13 21:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as below. Making it a dab page, with link, is not unreasonable. Septentrionalis 16:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or make disambiguation per Septentrionalis. Novice users might not know the difference between the Wikipedia: and main namespaces. NeonMerlin 04:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Cross namespace redirects are bad and there are lots of things Cotw could stand for. David | Talk 11:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. COTW is not an unique Wikipedia term. Wikipedia should not be monopolizing its use. This redirect can actively discourage the creation of article content. New users have a difficult enough time figuring out how to edit redirects. -- JLaTondre 13:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per JLaTondre or turn it into a damb page. --Zoz (t) 18:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Cyde, David and JLaTondre Rbraunwa 18:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Pokemon test → Wikipedia:Pokemon test

Cross namespace redirect, could potentially be confusing in search terms. Cowman109^Talk 17:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and re-target to Pokémon, this is actually a term that makes some sense within the Pokémon universe. It certainly shouldn't be returning non-encyclopedic content, anyway! --Cyde↔Weys 18:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- Renesis13 21:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Retarget to Pokémon per Cyde. Cowman109^Talk 22:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC) Actually, BigDT is right. It would be an iffy redirect that could potentially make it more confusing. I'll change to delete then. Cowman109^Talk 02:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - unless I'm missing something, I don't see the use of retargeting. WP:PTEST is a test that people invoke in WP:AFD discussions saying, "hey, my cruft is at least as notable as some Pokemon". I can't imagine that anyone wanting to learn about Pokemon would ever search for Pokemon test. In fact, having the redirect would only prompt someone to add a dab link to the top of the Pokemon article. So I suggest delete. BigDT 02:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Retarget to Pokémon contest, since cross-namespace is bad, that project space article already has four shortcuts (at least two of which should point to the Pokémon Wikiproject instead), and contest is close enough to test for redir-from-misspelling. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as cross name-space redirect. Rbraunwa 18:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

---

---

Barry Turner UK → Barry Turner (journalist)

not Wikipedia style and unlikely to be used Shantavira 07:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Various cross-name space redirects

N.B. This listing is the result of a Deletion Review Review. This listing is procedural only. Note to closing admin: A signigiant issue raised in DRV was that prior deletion discussions regarding these deletes were closed excessively early, please allow this discussion to run the full time. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Requests for Adminship --> Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship
2. Request for adminship --> Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
3. Categories for deletion --> Wikipedia:Categories for deletion
4. Wikignome --> Wikipedia:WikiGnome
5. Wiki fairy --> Wikipedia:WikiFairy
6. Speedy delete --> Wikipedia:Speedy deletions
7. Speedy deletions --> Wikipedia:speedy deletions

---

• Delete #4,5 not very useful, cross namespace redirects. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per the previous run, these are cross-namespace redirects and cause confusion between the encyclopedic content and the non-encyclopedic content because a user who is searching for something as innocuous as "request" with search restricted only to the encyclopedia could end up falling through a hole and down into the dank underbelly of esoteric Wikipedia process. The namespaces were created (and with good reason) to separate the encyclopedic content from everything else, but cross-namespace redirects violate that separation. --Cyde↔Weys 04:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • You're telling me that someone who searches for "Wikignome" will fall through a hole and into a dank underbelly if they end up at the page that explains what a wikignome is? What 'encyclopedic content' could they be looking for with that search term? - Richardcavell 00:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
    • If someone is searching only the encyclopedia they should not get a Wikipedia namespace result, period. If they expand their search to other namespaces it will of course find Wikipedia:Wikignome. But if there isn't an article on it, an article-space-only search shouldn't return anything. --Cyde↔Weys 01:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Just to be absolutely clear, someone who searches for WikiGnome is going to find it. They don't need a cross-namespace redirect polluting the encyclopedic content to do so. --Cyde↔Weys 01:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Just to be absolutely clear, Cyde, you're supporting them finding the Wikipedia:Wikignome article through the search engine as okay? Doesn't that just put a neon sign on the pipes and fittings of the encyclopedia? I'm not sure what the solution is, short of a stub at wikignome that sends you to Wiktionary, but I'm not sure I follow your logic. -- nae'blis _(talk) 15:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Have you used the search engine recently? It allows you to filter by namespace. You can choose to search only the encyclopedia, in which case you shouldn't find anything on Wikignomes (which are not a notable enough topic to have an entry in an encyclopedia of general knowledge), or you can search in a variety of other namespaces, and searching everything (which is the default) will find Wikipedia:Wikignome. Having that cross-namespace redirect in article space is simply unnecessary. --Cyde↔Weys 15:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Cyde has just reduced his own argument to absurdity. Yes, if a user knows Wikipedia's tools intimately, he doesn't need these redirects; such a user knows the names of Wikipedia;space articles too. But we are here to serve other users as well.
          • On a deeper level, Cyde's argument would imply not having any redirects at all, because the search engine will do it. It won't. Even when the search engine is up, it gets you a clumsy list of links; and it often isn't. (It wasn't when I tried to test Cyde's claim, for example.) Septentrionalis 16:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
            • You're right, users are too stupid to know how filters work, so the filters should always be broken and should return results from all namespaces no matter what options the user inputs. As for wanting to delete all redirects ... lmao. --Cyde↔Weys 16:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
              • We should not require that all users search WP in the manner that Cyde would, and with the background knowledge he has. What's hard about this? Septentrionalis 16:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
            • I agree with Cyde. In the list of all articles in the encyclopedia, all the titles should refer to topics that belong in the encyclopedia. There are other ways to access other content, and those are not difficult. And even if that weren't true, a small inconvenience is not too large a price to pay for a clean, clear distinction between what our project is (the encyclopedia) and how it is made (the rest). Rbraunwa 18:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - any redirect that helps the user get to what they're searching for is beneficial to wikipedia. - Richardcavell 00:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per Cyde. -- Renesis13 05:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all. I agree with Cyde. Rbraunwa 22:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep everything but #4 and #5, delete #4 and #5. Speaking from my own experience, when I was a newbie, I frequently used the "speedy deletions" redirect because I could never remember WP:CSD. Personally, I think any cross-namespace redirects should be soft redirects. That way, it helps newbies to learn the proper names, but at the same time doesn't make them hunt forever to find what they are looking for. BigDT 01:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • You'd really put a small editor convenience over making sure that all encyclopedic search results are relevant? Remember, for every editor there's at least ten times as many readers. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and an encyclopedia search should return only encyclopedic results. --Cyde↔Weys 01:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Two points: (1) Consider these main namespace search results [3]. Every single WP: link shows up in the article namespace and is a potential search result. There are hundreds of those. Unless that oversight is corrected, I don't see how a few redirects to critical WP processes are causing a great problem. (2) I don't think it's a small editor convenience. I think it's huge for newbies to have a way to find basic functions. That doesn't mean that every single crufty essay needs cross-namespace redirects ... but a few of the most basic processes are helpful. I will say, though, that the worst thing by far is when they get WP:SALTed. Now, not only does the user not get taken to the WP policy they were looking for, they don't even get a search result - they just get a useless page. BigDT 02:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
      • WP: can easily be turned into a shortcut namespace (it doesn't even require changing any code, just a config file). That would take care of those. But all of the cross-namespace redirects with no unifying namespace, like "Be bold", "Watchlist", etc. ... those are permanently stuck in article space. --Cyde↔Weys 03:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
        • If it can easily be done, is there some reason it hasn't been? BigDT 03:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
          • I actually don't think anyone's ever asked. Want to ping a dev? --Cyde↔Weys 13:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
            • Dear gods yes, someone make this into a shortcut space. Unfortunately it doesn't answer what to do with CAT:CSD, WT:*, or any of those other oddball shortcuts (only the first one do I find really really useful). -- nae'blis _(talk) 15:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
              • I'm sure you know this, but "other people got away with it" is a fallacy. Just because there's some other crappy stuff out there doesn't mean that it gives a free pass to the crappy stuff we are currently discussing. --Cyde↔Weys 15:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all Useful to some people; and #4 and #5 are perhaps more useful than the others. One purpose of WP is to explain obscure references. The only reason to delete them worth discussing is to be nice to our mirrors. I would have no objection to Category:redirects from main namespace (which will cover things a shortcut namespace won't) to make it easier for the mirrors to find and remove them, but deleting them for that reason is making WP less useful to save other people work. Septentrionalis 15:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Less useful? Keeping the unencyclopedic content separate from the encyclopedic content is "less useful"? Can you give me one good reason why someone who has specifically filtered the search options so that they are only searching encyclopedic content should find a bunch of Wikipedia: namespace pages in the results? --Cyde↔Weys 15:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
    • The convenience of a user who has used a mechanical filter and is too lazy to look through the resulting list to avoid a single cross-namespace redirect is not high on my list of priorities. Such a user is getting other false positives anyway. In any case, this problem can be solved for him by putting these in a cat and permitting him to avoid the cat. Septentrionalis 16:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks for displaying your utter disdain for users. The filters exist for a reason, to fine-tun search results; you brush them off as though it doesn't even matter if they work or not. And some encyclopedic searches return a majority of Wikipedia pages because of all of the cross-namespace redirects; the user shouldn't have to filter through manually, that's what the filters are for. How in the hell does putting cross-namespace redirects help a user avoid cross-namespace redirects? He opens up the search results, views all of them, and ignores all of the ones in the category? Ohh wait ... he already wasted his time opening up those pages when they should've just been omitted from the search results per the filters in the first place. Nothing you're saying is making any sense. Tell me, how would you like it if Google's domain-type filtering (e.g. ".edu" only) didn't actually limit it to .edu, and when you were searching for something only on educational sites, you had to filter out all of the .com crap by hand because the filter wasn't working as intended? --Cyde↔Weys 16:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Calm down, Cyde; just because you have another uniformity to impose on WP is no reason for personal attacks. Your hypothetical user can either include (minus) Category:cross-namespace redirects, or we can supply a button to do it for him. In Cyde's proposal, the newbie users for whom these redirects are useful will be left up the creek. This approaches WP:BITE. Septentrionalis 16:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
          • There's no search option to not include categories in the search results. I don't see why they should have to go through the extra trouble of specifying a special category not to search through just to avoid non-encyclopedia search results when setting the "articles only" filter should do it in the first place. Again, citing BITE here is another straw man, and thanks for confirming my suspicions that you have been following me around for months, being contrarian whenever you perceive me to be "imposing another uniformity on WP". We first met many months ago in a mediation that was going poorly for you. Ever since then you've been following me around giving poorly-reasoned contrary positions to everything I've been involved in, whether it's been userboxes, RFAs, cross-namespace redirects, category naming, bots, etc. It ends now. Cease and desist at once. --Cyde↔Weys 16:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
            • This is hysteria. I have been visiting this page off and on for a year now; it's on my watchlist; this talk page edit is the oldest a cursory search can find. I visited again about the redirects to Regular number, below, and looked around while I was here; that's a good editor's responsibility. I have no idea what mediation Cyde is talking about; all the mediations I recall have either resolved the problem or been aborted by another party's withdrawal - in neither case anything to do with Cyde. Septentrionalis 16:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all cross-namespace redirects. (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, harmless. Kusma (討論) 16:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Care to add any explanation as to why you think it's "harmless"? I've already explained why it's actually harmful, because someone searching for just encyclopedic content can "fall through a hole in the encyclopedia" (as MartinRe calls it) and end up at some esoteric project page. --Cyde↔Weys 16:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Slight potential harm, maybe, which is more than compensated by real and proven usefulness when aiding accidental linking. I find the pro-deletion arguments all pretty weak, and explained that on your talk page at User_talk:Cyde/Archive008#Be_Bold, to which you never answered. Kusma (討論) 08:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm sorry for putting you through all this trouble with my cross-namespace redirects. I wish I had read the policy on that beforehand. --Gray Porpoise 20:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • There isn't a policy. If there were, this wouldn't be an issue. There is a guideline Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. Guidelines should be followed, but there are times that the benefits of a self-reference outweigh the problems. BigDT 01:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    • What benefits would that be? All I'm seeing are negatives. --Cyde↔Weys 02:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Shouldn't some account be taken of the previous RfD discussions? You can see some of them here, FYI. (Just scroll up and down some. :-)) Should someone make an attempt at contacting those that commented last time? I'm sure they may be interested to know their opinoins were not discounted last time. Just a thought. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 00:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Sigh, I'll go it. Normally I wouldn't endorse this as it's close to talk page spamming, but I know how personally annoyed I am when I voice my opinion in a matter, think it's settled, and then a while later I learned the decision changed behind my back with no further input from me. --Cyde↔Weys 13:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I hate talk page spam, but like you, I would hate to think I voiced my opinion on the matter, thought it dealt with, only to realise later that it was discarded. In this case, and very few others, it seems appropriate. If only there were a way to just repost their comments and opinions when relisting, and have them count as part of the new discussion and decision. Oh well... Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• delete all, per Cyde and earlier comments on these RfDs/wangi 13:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all There is no benefit in having a ban on cross-namespace redirects. New users who want to find out how to do things will rarely think to add "Wikipedia:" before their search term. Chicheley 13:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Did you read my comments above? The default search options are to search all namespaces, so if they type in "Articles for deletion" but that page doesn't exist, it will simply turn into a search, and the first search result is going to be ... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. This is actually better for new users because it still gets them where they want to go while also teaching them about namespaces. As for no benefit in having a ban on cross-namespace redirects ... why oh why, when I limit my search filter to just the encyclopedic content, would the search return results in Wikipedia space? Remember, we are first and foremost an encyclopedia, and it doesn't make sense to not even make it possible to only return encyclopedic results. --Cyde↔Weys 13:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I've just created a test account to check and the default search option is to search only the mainspace. --Zoz (t) 17:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per Cyde and others above. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I used to use cross namespace redirects all the time, so that I could figure out how to correctly make edits, etc. It took me a while, however to notice that the convention was 'Wikipedia:Whatever' instead of 'Wikipedia Whatever' or 'Wikipedia: Whatever' so i would often searched for 'whatever' and, the built in search featured sucking as it does, it took me a while to find the convention/MoS/whatever I was looking for. However I now realise that this kind of behavior should be corrected, while still allowing new users to be able to find what they are looking for. Thus soft redirect these and all cross-namespace redirects as they allow users/newbie editors etc to find what they are looking for while still correcting the user and saying "you should link to this next time". --Aknorals 13:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all. In my opinion, only when something is a likely article search term is it an inherently bad cross-namespace redirect. (For example, Spoil redirected to Wikipedia:Spoiler warning until I changed it to redirect to Decomposition.) Cyde's concern is valid, but this is the wrong way to address it. Cyde mentioned that we could ask the developers to create a "WP" namespace. I suggest that we ask them to automatically exclude redirects to non-article namespaces from article searches. Problem solved. —David Levy 13:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• This seems like a "solution" that's more trouble than just not doing the bad thing in the first place. Namespaces were created for a reason, so that the encyclopedic content would be separate. Changing the search makes search results different, but the content is still not fundamentally separate as it is in namespaces. Also, I seriously question whether it's a good idea that every page in a Wikipedia: namespace have a corresponding redirect in article space (but without the Wikipedia: part). It seems really silly to me. I've deleted cross-namespace redirects to various WikiProjects, personal essays, and other stuff. If you're going to say that this is all fine because we could theoretically ask the developers to remove cross-namespace redirects from search results ... what's to stop a really notable user from having a redirect in article space? I'm a lot more notable than some random Wikipedia essay, why can't I have Cyde redirect to User:Cyde? And ditto for lots of other users? I just don't think we should go down the road of allowing thousands of cross-namespace redirects for each little Wikipedia: page and possibly lots of other stuff. The namespaces exist, use them. If something is in namespace zero it should be encyclopedic content, period.

• 1. I don't agree that a cross-namespace redirect is an inherently "bad thing." I believe that some are bad (as noted above), but not all. 2. My proposed solution would cover "WP," "WT," and any other pseudo-namespace created in the future. Even if we delete all of the other cross-namespace redirects, it still would be beneficial. 3. I don't see why it's so essential to keep different types of content 100% separate. We certainly don't want someone searching for the word "spoil" to arrive at Wikipedia:Spoiler warning, but is it even remotely likely that someone who types "categories for deletion" could seek anything other than Wikipedia:Categories for deletion? Your slippery slope argument is unrealistic; the difference between the type of redirect that you describe and the subjects of this deletion discussion is clear. —David Levy 16:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Also, cross-namespace redirects tend to squat on pages and prevent valid encyclopedic content from being written. Until very recently Watchlist was a cross-namespace redirect because no one thought they could overwrite a cross-namespace redirect with valid encyclopedic content. A cross-namespace redirect to Wikipedia policy just looks too official and most users arriving there accidentally expecting an actual article are not going to realize they can write that article. I have a strong feeling that if our policy on cross-namespace redirects had been a lot stricter from the get-go, Watchlist would've been created as an article a long time ago and would be much better article by now. That's just one example, but I've run across a few other examples of cross-namespace redirects squatting on encyclopedic article names. The risk of losing material valuable to the encyclopedia is not worth the dubious editor benefits it provides. --Cyde↔Weys 15:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Do you honestly believe that Requests for Adminship is a likely title for an encyclopedic article? —David Levy 16:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all per Cyde. Kimchi.sg 13:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per Cyde. -- JLaTondre 13:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all non-shortcut cross-namespace redirects... there is some line somewhere that should keep people from creating whatever redirects they want, and I think this is beyond that line. If they really must be kept, hopefully they can be marked with something like {{R from shortcut}}, so they're easier to keep track of (eg. so that sites that don't include Wikipedia: can more easily find and hide them) --Interiot 13:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The oft-cited mirror issue is basically nonexistent. Sites that use our content can automatically exclude redirects to non-article namespaces just as easily as they exclude the non-article namespaces themselves. As I noted above, this is what we should be doing with our search tool. (Let's fix the software bug instead of working around it.) —David Levy 14:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep all per David Levy. - Mailer Diablo 14:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all Wikipedia is a single package and this attempt to fracture it is misguided. Osomec 16:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but that's simply not true, per the terms of the GFDL and official project policy. Wikipedia isn't a single package, it's a whole slew of separate articles, each of which is licensed independently under the GFDL. This isn't an attempt to "fracture" it, it's an attempt to make it as usable as possible. Search filters should work, not return extraneous results. --Cyde↔Weys 18:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all cross-namespace redirects. Modify the default search filter for logged-in users to include the Wikipedia:, Category:, etc namespaces. Create separate shortcut-namespaces for WP:, WT:, CAT:, etc and include those too in the default logged-in searches. This way readers interested only in articles would never see the non-encyclopedic encyclopedia-building process; and newbies would find their non-mainspace pages easily. And everyone would live happily ever after. --Zoz (t) 17:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Shortcuts for Wikipedia:WikiProject North Carolina State Highways

• NC Routes Wikiproject
• NCSH
• Wikiproject North Carolina State Highways
• WikiProject North Carolina State Highways

Unnecessary cross-namespace redirects that aren't proper Wikipedia shortcuts -- NORTH ^talk 01:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all. -- Renesis13 05:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all, WikiProjects certainly don't need cross-namespace redirects in the main article space. --Cyde↔Weys 17:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all Rbraunwa 22:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per NORTH. --Zoz (t) 17:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

18 July

Bangas → Afro

No reason for it to be here. Probably some sort of vandalism. -Platypus Man | Talk 22:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Lame-o-ramaness → Lame

No reason for it to be here. Probably some sort of vandalism. -Platypus Man | Talk 22:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy WP:CSD#G3. ~ PseudoSudo 02:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Molnar, George (1910-1998) → George Molnar

I moved the page because it was in the wrong format for a person's name the redirect is an unlikely search term DavidHumphreys^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 22:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as Template:Csdref-g6. Invitatious (talk) 22:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC) (changed Invitatious (talk) 16:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC))

Wikipedia cocktail guide → List of cocktails

Doesn't make much sense since the target is not a guide, but a list. Also, it's very unlikely that anyone would enter the prefix "Wikipedia" if they searched for a cocktail guide. Zoz (t) 18:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nonsensical, cocktails really have nothing to do with Wikipedia. This is basically the contrapositive of a cross-namespace redirect, and as such, it should be deleted. --Cyde↔Weys 18:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as promoting Wikipedia as a repository of links. -- Renesis13 21:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not useful. Rbraunwa 22:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as self-reference. Septentrionalis 16:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't → Contraction (grammar)

The original and target aren't related.

• Delete. Article fails to mention don't. Also, it just doesn't make sense. BigNate37_T·C 09:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Change target to Auxiliary verb. That would make more sense. --Zoz (t) 17:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment the article doesn't specifically mention don't in the introduction. Forgive my unfamiliarity—what's it called, principle of least astonishment or something to that effect. It's not until section 2.5 of the Auxiliary verb article when don't appears. BigNate37_T·C 22:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Soft Redirect to wiktionary. --Daduzi ^talk 09:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't particularly see the value of that. I don't think there's any people out there who don't know what don't means. If it were up to me, I'd say, "Don't redirect don't, and especially, don't overuse words." --Cyde↔Weys 22:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm perfectly in favour of it, providing we do it like this; we write something like "Don't is a contraction of do and not; it is used as an auxilliary verb", and next to it we put one of those "Look up don't in Wikitionary, the free dictionary." Or would that be deletable as a violation of WP:NOT a dictionary? --Quentin Smith 19:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I think that would be against WP:NOT dictionary. --Zoz (t) 18:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. On second thought, it's highly unlikely that someone who wants to read about contraction or auxilary verbs would search for "don't". Deleting this redirect is not only the easiest but also the least confusing solution. --Zoz (t) 18:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Cornish toe → Mortons toe

Neologism Pete.Hurd 16:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Suggest delete. Google returns zero hits for the term, term unknown to medical science, see related debate in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celtic toe. Pete.Hurd 16:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

delete; deserves just as much of a toehold as the previous deletion. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

17 July

Template:db-blanked → Template:db-author

See the history of db-blanked. This current redirect is just confusing to use; if the template has been redirected to another (that doesn't fit the name) because it couldn't be made to fit policy, it shouldn't exist at all. When I tried to use this, it placed a db-author message on a page I didn't create, making it look like I was trying to delete a page sneakily; this is sufficient confusion that the redirect should go. (In general, I'm in favour of having lots of db-whatever redirects.) --ais523 14:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Next time, please consider using {{db|whatever reason (in your own words) you are actually trying to convey}}. — Jul. 17, '06 [19:33] <freak|talk>
• Revert to 12 July version and keep as a different template. That version is useful, and not redundant with {{db-author}}. --Zoz (t) 21:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: the CSD G7 (author requests deletion criterion) states that "If the author blanks the page, this can be taken as a deletion request." To me, this means that we ought to assume intent to delete and, acting on behalf of the blanking author, use {{db-author}}. If they were seperate CSD criteria I could see having seperate templates. Perhaps the db-author template should read "and he or she desires it to be deleted" which emcompasses implied and expressed requests for its deletion. At any rate, I believe it should not be reverted. BigNate37_T·C 22:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

  Comment: It's assumed that the author places {{db-author}} to the page they want deleted ("...and he or she requests its deletion"). I think it's sensible to have a different template (the 12 July version) that can be placed by others on pages that have been blanked by their author ("...and he or she has blanked the page"). Merging it into {{db-author}} ("...and he or she desires its deletion") is a possible option, but I think having separate templates for separate cases is better. By the way, there are multiple templates for G6 too, see {{Db-histmerge}}, {{Db-move}} and {{Db-g6}}.--Zoz (t) 22:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep if only because it has meaninful content in its history, assuming we feel that the content is meaningful. I'm willing to go along with a delete if someone can make a strong arguement that the content in the Template:db-blanked history is not meaningful. If it were deleted, there would be a lot of red links (though last I looked, only one from a broken transclusion). BigNate37_T·C 22:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Revert to July 12 version per Zoz. ~ PseudoSudo 02:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment One former use (not necessarily correct) of the template was to restore a speedy-delete notice to pages that had been speedy-tagged and then blanked by their only non-speedying contributor. I've created {{db-blankcsd}} for this purpose; as all revisions are CSDs (A3 for the blanked version) it doesn't violate policy as at least one editor thought the old {{db-blanked}} did. I'm starting to suspect that this discussion should be moved to TfD. --ais523 16:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Revert per Zoz. Mr Stephen 13:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

13 July

---

Horrible → Horror

This newly created redirect was first pointed at George W. Bush and then changed to point at Horror. Since the word horrible does not really bear the same encyclopedic meaning as Horror (which is a disambig page) nor does it seem like a possible misspelling of horror, I don't think it should be there. BigNate37 23:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• Soft redirect to Wiktionary, I agree that Horror (emotion) is not a good target. Invitatious (talk) 01:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Note that of the two articles in What links here, one was the result of a rampant over-linking of all dictionary words by a vandalistic user, and the other is of a filmmaker who has a film named "Horrible". The Horrible redirect was originally created to go to "George W. Bush", by a paradoxical user who was here two days and then put up a note saying "I am ending my time at Wikipedia". Every dictionary word does not need to link to Wiktionary; the soft redirect is not necessary. —Centrx→talk • 01:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. But if it's kept there are numerous other targets that would be better. --Mathew5000 01:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, no retarget necessary. -- NORTH ^talk 21:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Siobhan → Siobhan Meow

There are 500 pages with 'Siobhan' on them, and no evidence that this person is known by their first name more than any of the others. Ziggurat 21:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• Convert to redirect disambiguation page then. No need to bring it here. -- nae'blis _(talk) 21:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, do you mean convert to a disambig? I don't understand. Ziggurat 21:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Errr, yes. Sorry. Please redirect me → coffee.... -- nae'blis _(talk) 18:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I personally dislike lists of people who have a given name, unless there is another logical set of articles that could also be linked to. There doesn't appear to be here, so I think it's better to delete the redirect, in the same way that there's no disambig for Debbie. Ziggurat 06:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Not sure I follow your logic. If I type in "Siobhan" to the search engine because I have no idea how to spell (or don't know) the person's last name, which should I get: a redlink, a confusing search engine page that includes images and user accounts, or a list of articles starting with/using the word Siobhan? I think the latter, but of course I'm biased, as I recently created pages for Uriel (disambiguation) and Blackmore (disambiguation). It could also be combined with the stub at Siobhann. -- nae'blis _(talk) 15:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Ziggurat; no need for a disambiguation page for people named Siobhan. -- NORTH ^talk 01:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

---

---

Regular Number → Decimal

---

Posteral hypotension → Orthostatic hypotension

---

Regular numbers → decimal

---

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World End → Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End

---

Araniella → Araneae taxonomy

---

Regular number → Decimal

---

Template:Db-g10 → Template:Db-attack

---

Nigger music → Hip hop music

---

User:Ayassie world → User:Yassie

---