Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 63.173.114.137 (talk) at 23:41, 8 April 2005 (Redirects: Nicknames). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion
XFD backlog
V Apr May Jun Jul Total
CfD 0 0 37 0 37
TfD 0 0 1 0 1
MfD 0 0 2 0 2
FfD 0 0 0 0 0
RfD 0 0 0 0 0
AfD 0 0 3 0 3

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:

The guiding principles of RfD

Shortcut
  • 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?


Shortcuts

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

Shortcut
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. Shortcut
    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

Shortcut

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

Shortcut

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

Shortcut
STEP I.
Tag the redirect(s).

  Enter {{subst:rfd|content= at the very beginning of the redirect page you are listing for discussion and enter }} at the very end of the page.

  • Please do not mark the edit as minor (m).
  • Please include in the edit summary the phrase:
    Nominated for RfD: see [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]].
  • Save the page ("Publish changes").
  • If you are unable to edit the redirect page because of protection, this step can be omitted, and after step 2 is completed, a request to add the RFD template can be put on the redirect's talk page.
  • If the redirect you are nominating is in template namespace, consider adding |showontransclusion=1 to the RfD tag so that people using the template redirect are aware of the nomination.
  • If you are nominating multiple redirects as a group, repeat all the above steps for each redirect being nominated.
STEP II.
List the entry on RfD.

 Click here to edit the section of RfD for today's entries.

  • Enter this text below the date heading:
{{subst:Rfd2|redirect=RedirectName|target=TargetArticle|text=The action you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for that action.}} ~~~~
  • For this template:
    • Put the redirect's name in place of RedirectName, put the target article's name in place of TargetArticle, and include a reason after text=.
    • Note that, for this step, the "target article" is the current target of the redirect (if you have a suggestion for a better target, include this in the text that you insert after text=).
  • Please use an edit summary such as:
    Nominating [[RedirectName]]
    (replacing RedirectName with the name of the redirect you are nominating).
  • To list multiple related redirects for discussion, use the following syntax. Repeat line 2 for N number of redirects:
{{subst:Rfd2|redirect=RedirectName1|target=TargetArticle1}}
{{subst:Rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectName2|target=TargetArticle2}}
{{subst:Rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectNameN|target=TargetArticleN|text=The actions you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for those actions.}} ~~~~
  • If the redirect has had previous RfDs, you can add {{Oldrfdlist|previous RfD without brackets|result of previous RfD}} directly after the rfd2 template.
  • If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "deletion sorting lists". Then add a {{subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}} template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done.
STEP III.
Notify users.

  It is generally considered good practice to notify the creator and main contributors of the redirect(s) that you nominate.

To find the main contributors, look in the page history of the respective redirect(s). For convenience, the template

{{subst:Rfd notice|RedirectName}} ~~~~

may be placed on the creator/main contributors' user talk page to provide notice of the discussion. Please replace RedirectName with the name of the respective creator/main contributors' redirect and use an edit summary such as:
Notice of redirect discussion at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]]

Notices about the RfD discussion may also be left on relevant talk pages.

  • Please consider using What links here to locate other redirects that may be related to the one you are nominating. After going to the redirect target page and selecting "What links here" in the toolbox on the left side of your computer screen, select both "Hide transclusions" and "Hide links" filters to display the redirects to the redirect target page.

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 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

April 6

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)

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)
  • 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)
    • Agree, delete. Thue | talk 23:38, 8 Apr 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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion&oldid=12058140"