Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
![]() | Skip to table of contents · Skip to current discussions · · Archives |
Deletion discussions |
---|
|
Articles |
Templates and modules |
Files |
Categories |
Redirects |
Miscellany |
Speedy deletion |
Proposed deletion |
V | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 32 | 32 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 4 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Redirects for discussion (RfD) is the place where potentially problematic redirects are discussed. Items usually stay listed for a week or so, after which they are deleted, kept, or retargeted.
- If you want to replace an unprotected redirect with an article, do not list it here. Turning redirects into articles is wholly encouraged. Be bold!
- If you want to move a page but a redirect is in the way, do not list it here. For non-controversial cases, place a technical request; if a discussion is required, then start a requested move.
- If you think a redirect points to the wrong target article, this is a good place to discuss the proper target.
- Redirects should not be deleted just because they have no incoming links. Please do not use this as the only reason to delete a redirect. However, redirects that do have incoming links are sometimes deleted, so that is not a sufficient condition for keeping. (See § When should we delete a redirect? for more information.)
Please do not unilaterally rename or change the target of a redirect while it is under discussion. This adds unnecessary complication to the discussion for participants and closers.
Before listing a redirect for discussion
Please be aware of these general policies, which apply here as elsewhere:
- Wikipedia:Redirect – what redirects are, why they exist, and how they are used.
- Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion – which pages can be deleted without discussion; in particular the "General" and "Redirects" sections.
- Wikipedia:Deletion policy – how we delete things by consensus.
- Wikipedia:Guide to deletion – guidelines on discussion format and shorthand.
The guiding principles of RfD
- The purpose of a good redirect is to eliminate the possibility that readers will find themselves staring blankly at "Search results 1–10 out of 378" instead of the article they were looking for. If someone could plausibly enter the redirect's name when searching for the target article, it's a good redirect.
- Redirects are cheap. They take up little storage space and use very little bandwidth. It doesn't really hurt things if there are a few of them scattered around. On the flip side, deleting redirects is also cheap because recording the deletion takes up little storage space and uses very little bandwidth. There is no harm in deleting problematic redirects.
- If a good-faith RfD nomination proposes to delete a redirect and has no discussion after at least 7 days, the default result is delete.
- Redirects nominated in contravention of Wikipedia:Redirect will be speedily kept.
- RfD can also serve as a central discussion forum for debates about which page a redirect should target. In cases where retargeting the redirect could be considered controversial, it is advisable to leave a notice on the talk page of the redirect's current target page or the proposed target page to refer readers to the redirect's nomination to allow input and help form consensus for the redirect's target.
- Requests for deletion of redirects from one page's talk page to another's do not need to be listed here. Anyone can remove the redirect by blanking the page. The G6 criterion for speedy deletion may be appropriate.
- In discussions, always ask yourself whether or not a redirect would be helpful to the reader.
When should we delete a redirect?
![]() | This page is transcluded from Wikipedia:Redirect/Deletion reasons. (edit | history) |
The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:
- a redirect may contain non-trivial edit history;
- if a redirect is reasonably old (or is the result of moving a page that has been there for quite some time), then it is possible that its deletion will break incoming links (such links coming from older revisions of Wikipedia pages, from edit summaries, from other Wikimedia projects or from elsewhere on the internet, do not show up in "What links here").
Therefore consider the deletion only of either harmful redirects or of recent ones.
Reasons for deleting
You might want to delete a redirect if one or more of the following conditions is met (but note also the exceptions listed below this list):
- The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. For example, if the user searches for "New Articles", and is redirected to a disambiguation page for "Articles", it would take much longer to get to the newly added articles on Wikipedia.
- The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so the redirect should be deleted.
- The redirect is offensive or abusive, such as redirecting "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs" (unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is legitimately discussed in the article), or "Joe Bloggs" to "Loser". (Speedy deletion criterion G10 and G3 may apply.) See also § Neutrality of redirects.
- The redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam. (Speedy deletion criterion G11 may apply.)
- The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting "Apple" to "Orange". (Speedy deletion criterion G1 may apply.)
- It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exception to this rule are the pseudo-namespace shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space. Some long-standing cross-namespace redirects are also kept because of their long-standing history and potential usefulness. "MOS:" redirects, for example, 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:.)
- If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to an article that does not exist, it can be immediately deleted under speedy deletion criterion G8. You should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first and that it has not become broken through vandalism.
- If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful. In particular, redirects in a language other than English to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. (Implausible typos or misnomers are candidates for speedy deletion criterion R3, if recently created.)
- If the target article needs to be moved to the redirect title, but the redirect has been edited before and has a history of its own, then the title needs to be freed up to make way for the move. If the move is uncontroversial, tag the redirect for G6 speedy deletion, or alternatively (with the
suppressredirect
user right; available to page movers and admins), perform a round-robin move. If not, take the article to Requested moves. - If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject.
Reasons for not deleting
However, avoid deleting such redirects if:
- They have a potentially useful page history, or an edit history that should be kept to comply with the licensing requirements for a merge (see Wikipedia:Merge and delete). On the other hand, if the redirect was created by renaming a page with that name, and the page history just mentions the renaming, and for one of the reasons above you want to delete the page, copy the page history to the Talk page of the article it redirects to. The act of renaming is useful page history, and even more so if there has been discussion on the page name.
- They would aid accidental linking and make the creation of duplicate articles less likely, whether by redirecting a plural to a singular, by redirecting a frequent misspelling to a correct spelling, by redirecting a misnomer to a correct term, by redirecting to a synonym, etc. In other words, redirects with no incoming links are not candidates for deletion on those grounds because they are of benefit to the browsing user. Some extra vigilance by editors will be required to minimize the occurrence of those frequent misspellings in article text because the linkified misspellings will not appear as broken links; consider tagging the redirect with the {{R from misspelling}} template to assist editors in monitoring these misspellings.
- They aid searches on certain terms. For example, users who might see the "Keystone State" mentioned somewhere but do not know what that refers to will be able to find out at the Pennsylvania (target) article.
- Deleting redirects runs the risk of breaking incoming or internal links. For example, redirects resulting from page moves should not normally be deleted without good reason. Links that have existed for a significant length of time, including CamelCase links (e.g. WolVes) and old subpage links, should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them. See also Wikipedia:Link rot § Link rot on non-Wikimedia sites.
- Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways. Evidence of usage can be gauged by using the wikishark or pageviews tool on the redirect to see the number of views it gets.
- The redirect is to a closely related word form, such as a plural form to a singular form.
Neutrality of redirects
Just as article titles using non-neutral language are permitted in some circumstances, so are such redirects. Because redirects are less visible to readers, more latitude is allowed in their names, therefore perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is not a sufficient reason for their deletion. In most cases, non-neutral but verifiable redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term. Non-neutral redirects may be tagged with {{R from non-neutral name}}
.
Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:
- Articles that are created using non-neutral titles are routinely moved to a new neutral title, which leaves behind the old non-neutral title as a working redirect (e.g. Climategate → Climatic Research Unit email controversy).
- Articles created as POV forks may be deleted and replaced by a redirect pointing towards the article from which the fork originated (e.g. Barack Obama Muslim rumor → deleted and now redirected to Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories).
- The subject matter of articles may be represented by some sources outside Wikipedia in non-neutral terms. Such terms are generally avoided in Wikipedia article titles, per the words to avoid guidelines and the general neutral point of view policy. For instance the non-neutral expression "Attorneygate" is used to redirect to the neutrally titled Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. The article in question has never used that title, but the redirect was created to provide an alternative means of reaching it because a number of press reports use the term.
The exceptions to this rule would be redirects that are not established terms and are unlikely to be useful, and therefore may be nominated for deletion, perhaps under deletion reason #3. However, if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources, it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms. Please keep in mind that RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes.
Closing notes
- Details at Administrator instructions for RfD
Nominations should remain open, per policy, about a week before they are closed, unless they meet the general criteria for speedy deletion, the criteria for speedy deletion of a redirect, or are not valid redirect discussion requests (e.g. are actually move requests).
How to list a redirect for discussion
STEP I. | Tag the redirect(s).
Enter
| ||
STEP II. | List the entry on RfD.
Click here to edit the section of RfD for today's entries.
| ||
STEP III. | Notify users.
It is generally considered good practice to notify the creator and main contributors of the redirect(s) that you nominate. may be placed on the creator/main contributors' user talk page to provide notice of the discussion. Please replace RedirectName with the name of the respective creator/main contributors' redirect and use an edit summary such as: Notice of redirect discussion at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]]
Notices about the RfD discussion may also be left on relevant talk pages. |
- Please consider using What links here to locate other redirects that may be related to the one you are nominating. After going to the redirect target page and selecting "What links here" in the toolbox on the left side of your computer screen, select both "Hide transclusions" and "Hide links" filters to display the redirects to the redirect target page.
Current list
March 19
- Van der Graaf Generator (band) → Van der Graaf Generator -- Not likely that someone would search with term in parentheses. Target page already disambiguates Van de Graaff generator and vice versa. Hriped 06:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Rock Nacional → Argentine rock -- "Rock nacional" means "national rock (music)" in Spanish - which obviously does not only refer to Argentine rock. Besides, it has been previously deleted for the same reason: [1]. --Fibonacci 03:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. PJM 06:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Trting to get free Grants → Grant -- Vandalistic page move Adam
(talk) 04:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. PJM 06:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- .il.us → .us -- No vote. Tagged as speedy by User:Txuspe with the reasoning "Not the same as .us". Since that is not a speedy criterion, and because this redirect could be considered useful, am listing it here. Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 09:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
March 18
- Australia at the 1994 Commonwealth Games → Peter Winter (athlete) -- A general article about a games team pointing to a single athlete just doesnt seem right to me. Remy B 13:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Tv-3 High School -> TV-3 - Formerly a redirect to a vanity page, which itself now redirects to a dab page. Any particular reason to keep this lying around? 00:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. "High School" dosen't make it very useful. PJM 01:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
March 17
- Shadow Land -> Yokai Douchuuki - This redirect was set up by me, but I don't know why I did it as there is already a redirect to Yokai Douchuuki under the name of Shadowland (arcade game). Gingerfield rocks 09:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- (I moved this from afd.) Technically speedyable as an author request, but I think it'd help searches. Weak keep. —Cryptic (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. It seems feasible. PJM 01:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Poker/Dominating hand → Dominating hand -- Unused redirect on an article subpage. – Doug Bell talk•contrib 11:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — TKD::Talk 01:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- DivX ;-) → DivX -- nonsense AdamJacobMuller 03:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, mentioned in the article. Kusma (討論) 17:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep That was its original name. kotepho 19:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Mentioned in the lead. — TKD::Talk 01:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Wise After The Event → Wise After the Event -- capitalization of "the" was corrected according to WP:Albums policy. No pages link to the old uppercase spelling Hriped 17:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Plausible typo or misconception. — TKD::Talk 01:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Dragonmarked Houses (Dungeons & Dragons) → Dragonmarked Houses -- This was orginally listed in AFD: [2]. PJM 19:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Not likely that someone will search for the term with parentheses. — TKD::Talk 01:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
March 16
- Texas Medical Algorithm Project → Texas Medication Algorithm Project -- This was a literal error to start with, and content later transferred to the substntive page. There is a significant MEDical ALgorithm project, which by coincidence is in Texas, and is referred to in the WP medical algorithm page which I have an obvious (intellectual and practical) interest in. But in any case the potential for confusion and misdirection is likely to be there. I think it is just an extra page that was fixed temporarily rather a long time ago witha redirect, and has no reason to persist. Midgley 18:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Burda → Qasida Burda -- there is more than one meaning for "Burda". Search for Hubert Burda Media or Hubert Burda
- Probably should be converted into a disambiguation page. — TKD::Talk 03:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Daddy’s girl → Electra complex -- Previous AFD discussion (see Wikipedia:Article for deletion/Daddy’s girl (2) ) led to this page becoming a redirect, however the topic it redirects to is significantly and misleadingly different from this term. Ziggurat 00:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- 15 peg → 51 Pegasi b -- This redirect was apparently created as a typo when trying to move the 51 Pegasi b article. 15 peg would presumably refer to the star 15 Pegasi, not 51 Pegasi, so this link is misleading. Chaos syndrome 01:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
March 15
- I hate you → hate. Is this redirect really necessary? 64.192.107.242 22:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- No. Delete. Reyk 23:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- If anything, it's more likely that someone typing in this phrase might be looking for the article on Anakin Skywalker or Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith. But it's too generic a phrase to redirect there, so delete. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Definitely unnecessary. — TKD::Talk 00:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete , per above. PJM 19:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Chapter 30 → Chapter 30 (G.I. Bill of Rights), Chapter 31 → Chapter 31 (G.I. Bill of Rights), Chapter 32 → Chapter 32 (G.I. Bill of Rights), Chapter 35 → Chapter 35 (G.I. Bill of Rights), Chapter 1606 → Chapter 1606 (G.I. Bill of Rights)- these are all meaningless residue from Moves. Reyk 21:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I wouldn't expect a generic "Chapter X" to redirect there, nor do I expect that most users would search for such a broad term. — TKD::Talk 00:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Jandarma Istihbarat ve Terorle Mucadete->Jandarma Istihbarat ve Terorle Mucadele - apparently a misspelling. Moved from afd; neutral. —Cryptic (talk) 16:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete definitely a misspell physicistjedi 21:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- GM_3200_engine → GM_60-Degree_V6_engine -- There is no such thing as a GM 3200 engine. There was, in 1978 and 1979, a Buick 3.2L V6 (196 CID), but it was based on the Buick 3.8L V6, and it was never called a 3200. Both are 90 degree V6 engines, not 60 degree. The Buick 3.2L is mentioned on the GM 3800 engine page. King V 16:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Tentative Keep- searching for this sounds like an honest mistake someone might make. Reyk 21:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- But it would still be incorrect, and direct them to the wrong page. The problems are that the Buick 3.2L V6:
- pre-dates the GM_60-Degree_V6_engine
- is a 90-degree design, not a 60-degree design.
- pre-dates GM's use of rounded-off cc designations such as 3300, 3800, etc., in lieu of liter-designations such as 3.0, 4.1 by about 9 to 10 years. GM didn't start the cc designations until 1988.
- That's my take on it, anyway. I might grudgingly concede that the redirect should be left in, and redirect to the LC9 entry on the 3800's page, but given my third point listed above, I don't really think that would be such a good idea, either. --King V 22:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- But it would still be incorrect, and direct them to the wrong page. The problems are that the Buick 3.2L V6:
- Tentative Keep- searching for this sounds like an honest mistake someone might make. Reyk 21:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- List of Super Smash Bros. Melee Characters → List of Super Smash Bros. Melee characters -- "Characters" is generally not capitalized and is an unlikely to be searched Hbdragon88 06:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. PJM 20:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Amateur Athletic Association → English Amateur Athletics Association -- The article was a sub-stub (created Feb 2006) that was converted into a redirect to a non-existent article (Mar 2006). If noteworthy, it will be re-created under the proper title at a future date. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 06:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Premears → Disney Channel Original Movie -- I'm not quite sure why this redirect was created. I believe the creator meant create "Premiers", but even still, why it would redirect to Disney Channel Original Movie isn't made clear. Just because the movies premier on Disney Channel, doesn't mean Premears has to redirect to it. lightdarkness (talk) 03:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- I created this because of the old name of Disney Channel Original movies was premEARS (check [3]), but mostly because there is already a redirect for premEARS (The title is PremEARS on Wiki), and if someone typed this with the wrong spelling, I figured this would direct them where they wanted. Alex43223 04:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- KVX (AM) → KABC (AM) -- User:66.81.149.82 put the RfD tag here back in February. I haven't found anywhere showing the two are the same station, nor anything indicating KVX as a radio station. TimBentley 04:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom -- Arnzy (Talk) 08:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Scummers → [[Portsmouth F.C.]] -- (Note: this redirect has been subject to an edit war since September 2005, and so sometimes the target is Southampton F.C.. The redirect is offensive to whoever the target happens to be at the time. Waggers 09:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete and protect; unstable attack redirect. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 09:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- David Freeman (2) → User:Dcfree8 -- Redirect to user space. User's autobiography was under this name but was userfied. Weregerbil 11:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator Waggers 11:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
March 14
- Rock nacional → Argentine rock -- "Rock nacional" means "national rock (music)" in Spanish - which obviously does not only refer to Argentine rock. Besides, it has been previously deleted for the same reason: [4]. Fibonacci 04:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per nomination. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 23:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Adults Only → Sex industry -- This article needs more information, possibly on the Foxtel tv network. bdude 08:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Talk:IFS (disambiguation) → Talk:Ifs, Calvados -- This is confusing, since IFS (disambiguation) is now a disambiguation page, but clicking on "Discussion" will lead an unaware user to the wrong talk page. S.K. 18:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Definite delete. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 23:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Nucleus → Nuclear -- Changes the disambiguation of "nuclear" to "nucleus", which is a seperate topic. 69.63.48.84 21:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- ? Nuclear currently redirects to Nucleus, not the other way around. Are you suggesting that Nuclear be deleted? User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Nuclear should really become a disambiguation page to pages such as Nuclear power and Nuclear bomb. Nucleus has no info on either. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 15:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Up until recently, this was a disambiguation page. It should be so again. Ziggurat 01:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- I reverted the page to the linked version. - EurekaLott 23:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Robert Bakewell, 1725-1790 → Robert Bakewell (farmer) -- Incorrect date of death - page moved & date of death corrected in article. NB: Robert Bakewell is a disambig page. -- MightyWarrior 21:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nominated. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — TKD::Talk 17:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
March 13
- Tika Rainn->Flavor of Love - "Redirects to Flavor of Love page, non-notable person.", per its misplaced and orphaned afd. Neutral. —Cryptic (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
March 12
- WP:ASS → Wikipedia:Administrators -- Assuming it isn't self-evident, I think the connection between WP:ASS and administrators is rather an attack, especially in light of other crude shortcuts like WP:DICK. To be honest, I thought it was going to redirect to something along the lines of WP:DICK, and was rather shocked to find that it went to Administrators. Essjay Talk • Contact 22:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - this redirect seems to have pointed to every page under the sun in its history, and none of them are appropriate. — sjorford (talk) 22:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Not funny. Innapropriate. Offensive. Not helpful. Etc. --TantalumTelluride 03:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- On second thought, the edit history is actually pretty entertaining. But the page's varied history is even more reason to delete it, in order to avoid confusion. --TantalumTelluride 03:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- HAHAHA...you were right. I laughed when I came across this: Wikipedia talk:Kick the ass of anyone who renominates GNAA for deletion before 2007 —This unsigned comment is by Hbdragon88 (talk • contribs) 06:15, 15 March 2006.
- On second thought, the edit history is actually pretty entertaining. But the page's varied history is even more reason to delete it, in order to avoid confusion. --TantalumTelluride 03:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- Change target to some page for ill advised redirects (perhaps a new page like WP:List of ill-advised redirects), and protect it from being edited. Otherwise it will be created anew and pointed somewhere else. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per nomination, at least change the target as per Ceyockey. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 08:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- Censorship in Germany → Censorship in East Germany -- Redirect is misleading as article isn't about current censorship in Germany. -- Dissident (Talk) 03:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. I can kind of see the reasoning as to why it was created, but I would find it confusing myself. — TKD::Talk 21:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- Plug it in, plug it in! → Glade (brand) -- Huh? This redirect is odd. 64.192.107.242 01:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- It's from the advertising jingle for Glade Plug Ins - EurekaLott 03:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- Mild keep It's doing no harm, and could help the occasional insomniac who's hearing the jingle in his/her head. Chris the speller 16:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Chris. Although the target article needs to be cleaned up and expanded to cover that. — TKD::Talk 21:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Chris .. and yes that target article needs some cleaning, definitely. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- Pennsylvania Railroad Bridge (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania) → Philadelphia & Reading Railroad Bridge (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania) -- Name is misleading; the PRR never had anything to do with the bridge. Choess 00:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to Rockville Bridge. List of Susquehanna River bridges does say that the Pennsylvania Railroad built this bridge. However, neither the Pennsylvania Railroad nor Philadelphia & Reading Railroad articles indicate that the Pennsylvania Railroad owned the Philadelphia & Reading Railroad. However, both ended up in Conrail which is now Norfolk Southern Railway. Given that the present redirect doesn't seem verified, I'd redirect it to a definite PRR bridge at Harrisburg and change the List of Susquehanna River bridges to reflect it was built by the Philadelphia & Reading Railroad. -- JLaTondre 02:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)- I just corrected List of Susquehanna River bridges, which was in error. (The original author made at least one other serious mistake on that page, which I'll correct shortly.) But both Rockville Bridge and the Cumberland Valley Railroad Bridge are generally known by those names; the redirect under consideration was just made up for disambiguation and has no currency outside of Wikipedia. I don't see why we need to keep it; no articles link there and it isn't a name someone would choose to link to. Choess 03:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- Sounds reasonable. I've removed my redirect suggestion & concur with delete. -- JLaTondre 13:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Voted off the island → Survivor (TV series) -- I originally placed the re-direct at the time, considering it was related to the popular Survivor reality television show, but looking at the page's history [5]. It has nn information, and furthermore I dont think anyone is going to look for a specific article called Voted off the island -- Arnzy | Talk 04:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as known phrase related to the show. I don't think that the title is so convoluted as to be useless. — TKD::Talk 21:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- Transwiki→Wiktionary: yes, it is associated with the show, but it has entered the popular vernacular and has a meaning that transcends the show. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- Corpse Humping, History and "Art" of → Halo: Combat Evolved -- The material that was here was moved to Corpse Humping, which was eventually merged with Halo: Combat Evolved. I cannot imagine anyone typing in this title, complete with odd quotation marks and archaic index-style phrasing Joyous | Talk 13:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- I am quite reeling at the information that there is a legitimate article Corpse Humping. For my sanity, Delete ~ Veledan • Talk 19:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Though the title would seem to be the stuff of WP:BJAODN. — TKD::Talk 21:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- Directed → Directed set -- the majority of links to it are unrelated to the target. a disambig would do better but I don't have the time. Olleicua 17:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- Situatedness → Situated -- Situatedness is not an actual word, nor is it commonly used. The redirect is completely unnecessary as no one would search for it and only one article links to it...which is probably why the redirect was created in the first place. AmiDaniel 19:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- Faculty of Business and Economics → Alemaya University -- FBE was a stub article that was merged into the Alemaya University article. The title of the article as it stands is too general for this redirect. —C.Fred (talk) 21:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- Ipod True Video → IPod True Video -- Redirect page is a common-typo redirect for a page that was deleted. Peter S. 21:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
March 11
- Downtown Manhattan → Lower Manhattan -- They simply aren't the same thing; "downtown" general includes the Village, SoHo, etc. --Tothebarricades 10:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- Change redirect to point to Manhattan. AmiDaniel 01:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- Milhouse, Paul W. → Paul William Milhouse -- Unused redirect, created by author of target article to resolve two dead links created by the same editor, including a circular link in the target article. BrownHairedGirl 14:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. AmiDaniel 01:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- Universal record album → Gold (Cat Stevens album) -- This redirect is the result of a reverted move and is a silly thing to redirect from RossPatterson 22:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. AmiDaniel 01:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral vote. I had created the original article (Gold (Cat Stevens album)) and mysteriously, someone (a registered user, yet), had moved the article to the "Universal record album" space, whatever the hell that was supposed to be. This move apparently sat for a week without my knowledge until another gentleman reverted it back. So, basically, what I guess I'm trying to say is I don't care whether the dumb-ass "Universal record album" redirect remains or not. LOL. Cjmarsicano 06:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- I'd call that reason to delete myself ~ Veledan • Talk 19:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Footer
NOTE: WE DO NOT DELETE REDIRECTS SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY DO NOT HAVE ANY INCOMING LINKS. DO NOT LIST THIS AS A REASON TO DELETE A REDIRECT. We also sometimes delete redirects that do have incoming links, so it's not a necessary condition either. See When should we delete a redirect? above for the reasons for deleting or keeping redirects.