Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 63.173.114.136 (talk) at 21:16, 4 April 2005 (Teh Dingo). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

For other meanings of rfd see RFD (disambiguation)
Shortcut
Deletion tools
Policy (log)
Articles (howto · log)
Templates (howto · log)
Categories (howto · log)
Mergers
Page moves
Speedy
All speedy templates
Unfree files
Transwiki (howto · log)
All transwiki templates

Sometimes, we want to delete redirects. (If you are here because you want to swap a redirect and an article, but are not able to move the article to the location of the redirect, please use Wikipedia:Requested moves to request help doing that.)

To delete a redirect without replacing it with a new article, list it here. It isn't necessary to delete a redirect if you just want to replace the redirect with an article: see How do I change a redirect? for instructions on how to do that.

If you think a redirect page should simply be deleted, you have to do two things.

First, please insert {{rfd}} at the top of the redirect page. (Note that a bug causes any text in the lines that follow the #REDIRECT line to be discarded, so do not put it there. If the {{rfd}} is on the same line as the #REDIRECT, but after it, the redirect continues to work, so that people clicking on links to it will not see the warning message unless they choose to view the redirect page itself. Only if the {{rfd}} is inserted before the #REDIRECT will people see the message that warns that the page is being considered for deletion.)

Second, list the redirect to be deleted at the bottom of this page, in this format:

Please comment on existing entries as shown above. Also, please make sure to leave a blank line between listings, to make it easier to find the end of the entry, so that comments are easier to add!

Please sign and date all contributions, using the Wikipedia special form "~~~~", which translates into a signature and a time stamp automagically. You can make the → symbol by typing →.

To list multiple redirects in a single request, please use this format:

  • redirect #0 → article #0
  • redirect #1 → article #1
  • .
  • .
  • redirect #N → article #N
  • Delete because... ~~~~
    • Opinion #1 ~~~~
    • Opinion #2 ~~~~

Again, please make sure to leave a blank line between listings, to make it easier to find the end of the entry, so that comments are easier to add!

When should we delete a redirect?

You might want to delete a redirect if one or more of the following conditions is met:

  1. The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. (see meta:searches and redirects for proposals to lessen this impact)
  2. The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so it should be deleted.
  3. The redirect is offensive and/or POV, such as "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs", unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is discussed in the article.
  4. The redirect makes no sense, such as "Pink elephants painting daisies" to love
  5. It is a cross-space redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace.
  6. Certain redirects can be deleted immediately without holding a vote or discussion. Those circumstances are noted here.

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

  1. They have a potentially useful page history. If the redirect was created by renaming a page with that name, and the page history just mentions the renaming, and for one of the reasons above you want to delete the page, copy the page history to the Talk page of the article it redirects to. The act of renaming is useful page history, and even more so if there has been discussion on the page name.
  2. They would aid accidental linking and make the creation of duplicate articles less likely
  3. They aid searches on certain terms.
  4. You risk breaking external or internal links by deleting the redirect. There is rarely a reason to delete historical CamelCase links.
  5. Someone finds them useful. If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful - this is not because the other person is a liar, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways.
  6. The redirect is to a plural form (or to a singular).
  7. The redirect is from an old article subpage which has been moved to a top-level page, particularly the various standard country subpages.

For example, 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.

See also: Policy on which redirects can be deleted immediately, and /Precedents for precedents that are followed with regards to redirects.

Notes for admins doing requests

Note: When you delete an entry from this page, please make sure to put in the edit summary for that deletion a message indicating i) the name of the removed entry, and ii) the date it was placed here (i.e. the header it was listed under). This makes it easy for people looking through the page history to find when a particular request was dealt with; since this page gets so much traffic it can otherwise be a lengthy binary search to track something down.

Per policy, pages need to stay here for at least a week before they are deleted, unless they are one of the five kinds of candidates for speedy deletion (non-existent pages, user pages, move targets, recent uncommon typos, or vandalism). If a request is already somewhat older than a week, it has almost certainly been left for a reason (usually to try and spur further debate, or to try and reach rough consensus), so be cautious about deleting such entries.

Note: Sometimes a redirect has history, and the history is significant - i.e. contains information about the addition of text. (This often happens because someone did a cut-and-paste "move", instead of using the "Move this page" button.) Never simply delete the redirect page, which we need to keep for copyright reasons. There are two ways to deal with such pages.

For cut-and-paste moves, the "right" way to handle them is to merge the history into the appropriate page, using the procedure outlined here. This is a slightly fraught procedure, which on rare occasions doesn't work correctly. Once done, it cannot be undone, so don't pick this option unless it's definitely the right one for the case at hand.

Another option, useful for pages which were merged (for example), is for redirect pages with significant history to be archived into a talk namespace, and a link to them put into an article's talk page.

If you delete a redirect, don't forget to delete any accompanying talk page.

When you remove an entry from this page because people decided to keep it, don't forget to remove the {{RfD}} tag from the page (alas, this has to be done manually). It's worth periodically checking either here and here to see if any pages missed this step. Checking either of these regularly has the side-benefit of finding pages where people added the {{RfD}} tag to the page, but didn't realize they needed to edit WP:RfD as well.

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.

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)
    • This one has history - need to check to see if it was used to prepare an article, if so cannot delete, will have to archive. Noel (talk) 13:52, 6 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)
    • Ditto for this one. Noel (talk) 15:22, 6 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)
      • Much better practice would be to delete Stub and move Stub (disambiguation) to that title. -- Netoholic @ 19:11, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)
      • Why not make it easy to see when someone has linked to what's actually a disambig page? Noel (talk) 20:10, 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)
          • Are you sure I won't be lynched if I edit User: and Talk: pages? If I am, do you promise to continue my legacy? (Never leave edit summaries. Mark all edits as minor.) — Itai (f&t) 23:02, 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)

March 12

March 20

March 26

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 28

  • 9/11/01 → September 11, 2001 attacks. This redirect was created by user:bogusstory as a redirect for 9/11 open questions, a page he created that is now up for deletion. 9/11/01 now redirects to September 11, 2001 attacks. 9/11/01 is too ambiguous for this usage. 9/11/01 to me means 9 November 2001 and could also be interpreted as many other things. Jooler 10:04, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Hmm. I would say keep, to prevent someone creating a duplicate article at 9/11/01. I very much doubt anyone would be confused about the meaning, since I think 9/11 (used as a label, as opposed to say, e.g. a date on a letter) is now widely used as a shorthand name for the September, 11 attacks (see our redirect), and of course the "/01" ending removes any ambiguity. Noel (talk) 14:38, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I must agree with Noel; I don't think it would confuse anyone who'd find their way to that redirect, and while it isn't the most useful redirect, keeping it would discourage re-creation. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:44, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • It is entirely inappropriate to keep this redirect which means 9 November, to every single person outside of the United States. The next thing would be 12/7/41. It is better to not have it at all. Jooler 17:37, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Forget the edit war, this is a useful redirect to the september 11 attacks. Gamaliel 21:34, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • you mean a not very useful redirect (nothing links to it) for 9 November 2001. Jooler 08:54, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Please don't put words in my mouth. Just because nothing links to it doesn't mean someone won't type it in the search box. Gamaliel 18:42, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Definitely keep. For fairness' sake, 11/9/01 could also redirect there. -Sean Curtin 01:28, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
      • ??? I've never heard of "11/9" being used to refer to 9/11. Is this usage seen in places that use day/month order? Noel (talk) 16:48, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

March 29

March 31

  • List of deadly cults → List of purported cults - Article title is inherently POV. A reader searching for a "list of deadly cults" will be presented with a list that includes many groups which are not. The article was on VfD (VfD votes were 3 for merge and delete (that is not possible according to admin), 3 to merge, and 1 to delete.) See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of deadly cults. --Zappaz 19:59, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Disagree. List of deadly cults is not an inherently POV title - some cults have been involved in deadly events, and the List of purported cults includes them. Furthermore, the page has lengthy talk and history sections which helped shape the current articles in the Cult topic, and for that reason they are worth keeping. -Willmcw 21:13, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete, or remove redirect. This is blatant POV. A few cults mat have been involved in deadly events, but my group (and may others) is listed there and we are people of peace. This is blacklisting and inherently POV making peaceful groups guilty by association.. How come you don't see that? Maybe because you want to blacklist groups you disagree with? Is this the purpose of Wikipedia? ≈ jossi ≈ 00:01, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. The list of purported cults need not contain ONLY the ones that are deadly, and should not be condemned in that way not matter what else is wrong with them. Michael Hardy 00:14, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Move to a harmless location like List of purported cults/Merged 1 to keep edit history, then delete the double-redirect at list of deadly cults. -Sean Curtin 01:30, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • Preserve history: move to NPOV title and then delete POV title Agree with Gtrmp/Sean Curtin --Henrygb 00:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • 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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion&oldid=11890076"