Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut:
WP:RFD
Deletion Debates
Articles (by category)

Templates

Images & media

Categories

User categories

Stub types

Redirects

Miscellaneous

Deletion review
policy - log - tools

Redirects for discussion (RfD) is the place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic redirects. Items sent here usually stay listed for a week or so, after which they are deleted by an administrator, kept, or retargeted.

Note: If all you want to do is replace a currently existing redirect with an actual article, you do not need to list it here. Turning redirects into fleshed-out encyclopedic articles is wholly encouraged at Wikipedia. Be bold.

Note: Redirects should not be deleted simply because they do not have any incoming links. Please do not list this as a reason to delete a redirect. Redirects that do have incoming links are sometimes deleted as well, so it's not a necessary condition either. See When should we delete a redirect?

Archives from before 2006-07-21 are listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion/Redirect Archives; redirects from 2006-07-21 on are listed as per-day archives at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log.

Contents

[edit] Before you list a redirect for deletion...

...please familiarize yourself with the following:

[edit] The guiding principles of RfD

  • The purpose of a good redirect is to eliminate the possibility that an average user will wind up staring blankly at a "Search results 1-10 out of 378" search page instead of the article they were looking for. If someone could plausibly type in the redirect's name when searching for the target article, it's a good redirect.
  • Redirects are cheap. Redirects take up minimal disk space and use very little bandwidth. Thus, it doesn't really hurt things much if there are a few of them scattered around.
  • The default result of any RFD nomination which receives no other discussion is delete. This makes RFD different from all the other various deletion discussion pages aside from Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Thus, a redirect nominated in good faith and in accordance with RfD policy will be deleted, even if there is no discussion surrounding that nomination.
  • Redirects nominated in contravention of Wikipedia:Redirect will be speedily kept.
  • RfD is not the place to resolve editorial disputes. If you think a redirect should be targeted at a different article, discuss it on the talk pages of the current target article and/or the proposed target article.
  • Requests for deletion of redirects from one page's talk page to another page's talk page don't need to be listed here, as anyone can simply remove the redirect by blanking the page.

[edit] When should we delete a redirect?

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

  • a redirect may contain nontrivial edit history;
  • if a redirect is reasonably old, then it is quite possible that its deletion will break links in old, historical versions of some other articles — such an event is very difficult to envision and even detect.

Therefore consider the deletion only of either really harmful redirects or of very recent ones.

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. (see m:Redirects in search results — proposed software changes 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, 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 redirecting [[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. The major exceptions to this rule are the "WP:" shortcut redirects (like WP:RFD), which technically are in the main article space but in practice form their own "pseudo-namespace". All "articles" beginning with "WP:" are in fact redirects.
  6. If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to an article that does not exist or itself, it can be deleted immediately, though you should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first.

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, 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.
  3. They aid searches on certain terms.
  4. You risk breaking external or internal links by deleting the redirect. Old CamelCase links and old subpage links should be left alone in case there are any existing external links pointing to them.
  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 a liar, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways.
  6. The redirect is to a plural form or to a singular form.

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.

[edit] Closing notes

Details at: Wikipedia:Deletion process#Redirects for Discussion page

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 deletion requests (e.g. are actually move requests).

[edit] How to list a redirect for deletion

To list a redirect for deletion, follow this two-step process:

I.
Flag the redirect.

  Enter {{rfd}} above the #REDIRECT on the redirect page you are listing for deletion. Example:

{{rfd}}
#REDIRECT [[Foo]]

If the redirect is to a category or image, make sure there is a colon ( : ) before "Category:" or "Image:".
II.
List the entry on RfD.

 Click on THIS LINK to edit the section of RFD for today's entries.

Enter this text

{{subst:rfd2|redirect=RedirectName|target=TargetArticle|text=Reason the redirect should be deleted}} ~~~~

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=.
If the redirect or its target is a category or an image, make sure there is a colon ( : ) before "Category:" or "Image:".

It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the redirect that you are nominating the redirect. To find the main contributors, look in the page history of the redirect.

[edit] Current list

[edit] April 9

[edit] Pokeyman → Bill Cosby

This redirect links because of something that Bill 'said' on the Simpson's, when he was never actually on the show. Danlock2 04:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Multiple Road Redirects

Confusing as there is no UK wide road numbering scheme. There is one for Great Britain and one for Northern Ireland which both use similar numbers. See Great Britain road numbering scheme Regan123 12:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hacking in the Philippines → BAO Team

It is not a plausible redirect, hackings in the Philippines are not limited to the BAO Team Berserkerz Crit 12:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] April 8

[edit] Redirects to List of Justice League episodes

The Doomsday Sanction → List of Justice League episodes
The Savage Time → List of Justice League episodes
In Blackest Night → List of Justice League episodes
The Terror Beyond → List of Justice League episodes
Injustice For All → List of Justice League episodes
A Knight of Shadows → List of Justice League episodes
The Once and Future Thing, Part 1: Weird Western Tales → List of Justice League episodes
The Once and Future Thing, Part 2: Time Warped → List of Justice League episodes

I think the above eight redicets going to List of Justice League episodes should be deleted because they have nothing to do with the episode list and the two Once and Future thing redirects are too long and there is no way that anyone would search thatGman124 17:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete all doesn't belong there UDHSS 17:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep all - redirects are cheap and since they are now created, and not adversely affecting anything else, they should be kept. Bridgeplayer 21:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • deleteDCboy 23:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, as it will point to existing content in another article. Besides, it's easy enough to change from a redirect to a regular article page. bibliomaniac15 02:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of songs containing covert reference to real musicians → List of songs containing covert references to real musicians

The result of the debate was speedily deleted R1, the redirect had no existing target. In future, you can delete such redirects using {{db-redirnone}} rather than having to go through RfD. --ais523 15:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete - the target article was deleted through AFD. Otto4711 15:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Three non-standard XNRs to Special:Watchlist and Special:Upload

Special upload → Special:Upload
Specialwatchlist → Special:Watchlist
Special Watchlist → Special:Watchlist
SpecialUpload → Special:Watchlist --05:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

No links except from CNR database pages, completely redundant to the "Upload file" and "Watchlist" link on the sidebar and the top of the page in the Monobook skin, non-standard XNR. --Iamunknown 05:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Gah! One more: SpecialUpload. --05:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all - Use of the "Special" prefix negates the benefit of XNRs, saving typing. These are basically typo redirects in such a way that makes them XNRs. —dgiestc 14:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all; the comments above are sufficient reason anyway, but also because redirects to Special: pages are disabled. --ais523 15:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all per above. RookwoodDept. of Mysteries 16:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • DELETE ALL UDHSS 17:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • deleteDCboy 23:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all per above. —dima/talk/ 02:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hereafter (Justice League episode) → List of Justice League episodes

Delete Just because it's the name of a Justice League episode doesn't mean it should redirect here Gman124 01:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete to insure eventual creation of article. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 14:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Aid to searching to searching and insures existing links point to the existing content. Anyone who wants to make an article can replace the redirect. —dgiestc 14:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Dgies. Ensures that search results will come up with the existing content, and it's easy enough to replace the redirect with an article if anyone wants to do so. Walton Vivat Regina! 14:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Agree that it will aid in searching, and it follows naming conventions closely so it might be directly typed as well. RookwoodDept. of Mysteries 16:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete redundant. UDHSS 17:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • deleteDCboy 23:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Twilight (Justice League episode) → List of Justice League episodes

Delete, Just because it's the name of a Justice League episode doesn't mean it should redirect here Gman124 01:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete to insure eventual creation of article. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 14:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Aid to searching to searching and insures existing links point to the existing content. Anyone who wants to make an article can replace the redirect. —dgiestc 14:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Agree that it will aid in searching, and it follows naming conventions closely so it might be directly typed as well. RookwoodDept. of Mysteries 16:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete non neededUDHSS 17:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • deleteDCboy 23:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ludicrous → Ludacris

While the rapper's name is certainly a pun on the word, the one does not "mean" the other, and nothing in the main space links there. Until something encyclopedic can be said about ludicrousness, it will have to remain empty. (I don't think it would be right for the former to be considered a "common mispelling" of the latter, either.) 66.195.211.27 02:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete Agree the ludicrous will often not mean the rapper Ludacris. --Shirahadasha 07:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep - Aid to searching for a likely misspelling. If someone wants to make an encyclopedia arcticle on ludicrousness they can replace the redirect. —dgiestc 14:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
    Disambiguate - Could be looking for the rapper and not know the spelling, could be looking for a dicdef at wiktionary. —dgiestc 04:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - someone who looks up "ludicrous" is more likely to be looking for a dictdef of the word (which would be found on Wiktionary and would not be encyclopedic), so this redirect could be confusing and unhelpful. Walton Vivat Regina! 14:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate to wiktionary and Ludacris. or alternatively Keep and add a disambiguation header to Ludacris. I would assume there would be a fair number searching for both. RookwoodDept. of Mysteries 16:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • delete should not redirect thereUDHSS 17:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • deleteDCboy 23:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Disambig or dablink on the target article per Rookwood. --- RockMFR 03:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] F-119D Stealth Fighter → Air Diver

Indirect self-link. Air Diver is the only article that links to F-119D Stealth Fighter, which is a redirect back to Air Diver. Pettifogger 07:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Shirahadasha 07:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Removed self-link. Redirects are cheap. RookwoodDept. of Mysteries 16:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete agree with nominator UDHSS 17:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • deleteDCboy 23:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] April 7

[edit] SID Metal → MOS Technology SID

Retarget to Machinae Supremacy or Chiptune. The current target article gives no idea what SID Metal is, but Machinae Supremacy is the article that defines it, and Chiptune is the parent genre. Alternatively, if SID Metal bands other than MS with articles can be found, create a "SID Metal" section under either Chiptune or MOS Technology SID and redirect to this section. NeonMerlin 21:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CNRs to Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups

The three pages above are cross-namespace redirects to Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups that lack useful edit histories and have no incoming links. I should note that there are 19 other redirects to Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups that are in the WP: or [[Wikipedia:]] namespaces. The lack of use of these redirects suggests that they are unnecessary, so I propose that they be deleted. -- Black Falcon 05:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete I dont even see why they redirect to these pages, I can see no actual relevance between the two.Tellyaddict 10:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pediophilia → Pedophilia

I came across this while editing the Paraphilia entry. Someone thought this was a misspelling of pedophilia, but it is not. Pediophilia (for which there is no article) is a sexual attraction to dolls, not children. This redirect probably made a few Barbie fetishists feel really bad. Timocrates 15:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment Why not replace the redirect with a page for Pediophilia? Suncloud 17:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree with above — a simple stub should be enough for now. BTW, might the term also be used for a "leg fetish", or am I thinking of something else? 66.195.211.27 02:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree redirect is improper, without prejudice to creating an article on the subject. --Shirahadasha 07:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete for now until someone steps up to create the article. There is debate over the amount and triviality of articles in {{Paraphilia}}. –Pomte 11:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. The definition of the term in Paraphilia is enough. No need for a stub. -Etafly 05:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alvin B. Kernan → Pale Fire

Redirect makes no sense. darkskyz 15:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment It doesn't make a lot of sense, but there one of the references in Pale Fire is attributed to Alvin B. Kernan. Perhaps the best action long term is to create content for the Alvin B. Kernan page. Suncloud 17:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete without prejudice to creating an article on Alvin B. Kernan. An individual who wrote an article on a novel should not be redirected to the article on the novel. --Shirahadasha 08:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is America Ready for A Pro Life Democratic Presidential Candidate, named Henry Hewes? → Henry Hewes

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as blatant adveritising. Non-admin close. Black Falcon 19:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I moved original article to Henry Hewes. The articles original title and content I consider to be advertising. As the subject seems to be suitable for inclusion I have moved it to the more appropriate title where content can thence be edited. I don't feel it is appropriate for this page title to remain. Suncloud 16:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete and protect page. This appears to be a continued campaign against this person. Gwernol 18:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bianca Burke → Kelly Ripa

Redirect makes no sense. "Bianca Burke" gets very limited Google hits and none when you include the word Ripa with it. I think this is subtle vandalism, see a discussion to delete this same page from yesterday. Last time it redirected to Godzilla, now, Kelly Ripa. Also, the person who created the Godzilla redirect? An indef blocked vandal account Misteroonova (talk • contribs) who just happens to be the apparent brother of Mewtwowimmer (talk • contribs) who created it today. Metros232 19:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete and Salt, btw when searchng for Bianca Burke on Yahoo, this RFD page is the 2nd hit. --After Midnight 0001 13:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • delete' UDHSS 17:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Nuff said. Mewtwowimmer 18:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


[edit] Teh PlayStation 2 sucks! → PlayStation 2

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as pure vandalism. Non-admin close. -- Seed 2.0 20:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense/prank redirect (possibly offensive even though I think that's saying a bit much). Fairly recent #R (created March 4 2007). Nothing links there, no editing history. Seed 2.0 20:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the history it was created after reverting moving the PS2 page to that name. For that reason I tagged it for Speedy Deletion as G3 (pure vandalism). --69.156.207.227 20:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. -- Seed 2.0 20:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] April 6

[edit] Bunch of XNRs

[edit] Retargeted to article namespace


All XNRs that aren't necessary. >Radiant< 11:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Most of these are questions. The search feature is not "Ask Jeeves", "How-to remove pages" shouldn't revert to anything at all. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, questions shouldn't redirect to anything unless it's a movie/song title. I find this pointless. "How to edit a page", common, "How to edit a page" isn't something particulary on Wikipedia, it can also revert to edit, but that would also be silly. Oh and by the way, can someone quote a text from the policy that says why something like "redirects for discussion" can't be redirected to "Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion"? TheBlazikenMaster 18:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep all and renominate separately if needed. A number of these redirects, like How to edit a page, may be useful for new users. Many others date back to 2001 and contain useful edit histories of merges and pagemoves. Please do not direct me to {{sofixit}}; there is just too much here to fix in one place without creating a mess. I think it's better to close this RFD and renominate them in smaller groups or individually following more detailed research into the page histories. -- Black Falcon 05:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep all and renominate separately if needed. Agree with Black Falcon. --Melanochromis 02:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep all. Have you seen some of the history behind some of them (e.g. [1]); this is needed for GFDL reasons (and is an interesting insight into Wikipedia's history, with revisions going back to 2001, and edits before Conversion Script's). Each of the histories has to be checked seperately. At least move to Wikipedia:Archive subpages rather than deleting on the ones with sensible history. (Note: the CamelCase names are the ones used before the [[link]] syntax became available, so they're quite likely to hold old history.) --ais523 14:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep the camelcase ones, move them somewhere, or history merge them - the ones I looked at all have meaningful history. A few of the others like Why Wikipedia is not so great should be history merged. I agree that these all need to be considered separately. --BigDT 21:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as attack/nonsense. Newyorkbrad 01:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • deleteDCboy 23:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bianca Burke → Godzilla

Created by this fellow, who responded to my complaints about his recent acts of apparent vandalism with "I'm sorry. You are a total retard." No Google hits, so it's presumably an attack on someone the user knows. Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 05:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom (maybe even speedy as attack page?). This note supports intentional creation as attack or joke. Creator Misteroonova is indef-blocked vandal account. DMacks 16:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete NRV. Dfrg.msc 00:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: Given that the only comment on the talkpage was "Happy 11th Birthday Bianca" I have gone ahead and speedied the page as attack/nonsense. Newyorkbrad 01:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Angry mob → Ochlocracy

Rather contentious. I ran across this because it was used in article to link the expression "angry mob" to Ochlocracy without piping. While I think the redirect from mob rule is appropriate, this is no more appropriate than "angry" anything else. Jmabel | Talk 17:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I see that there are substantive pre-merge edits that may need preserving for GFDL reasons. I'm open to pretty much any way of complying with GFDL on this (e.g. move it out of article space); I still am very uncomfortable with "angry mob" being used as a link term. - Jmabel | Talk 18:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment My own confusion on the issue is outlined in detail on Talk:Angry mob, where I was having trouble with circular redirects. My own personal opinion would probably be a disambiguation page between Riot, Ochlocracy and Crowd, but in re-instating the redirect I was trying to avoid the circular redirects already in place and also I wanted to uphold the concensus reached previously by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angry mob. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 20:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:Oh I say, what are you doing? Come down from there at once! Really, you're making a frightful exhibition of yourself. ⇒ Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man

unusable redirect. Stifle (talk) 23:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

  • The srongest keep of all keeps The day we lose WP:WP:Oh I say, what are you doing? Come down from there at once! Really, you're making a frightful exhibition of yourself is the day we lose our liberty. Who is with me? Culverin? Talk 06:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep AGAIN, some people just can't take a joke. -- Ned Scott 23:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep For the love of.... read the page, read the discussion page. It's a joke. Leave it. Dfrg.msc 00:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. For the same reasons as listed above. --Releeshan 00:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Entirely too funny to delete. John Reaves (talk) 00:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep After an especially hard day in the trenches, it's pages and redirects like this that keep some of us sane. The project will suffer if editors go insane. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong snowed in keep, it is an integral part of the page it redirects to. (→Netscott) 00:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    • What does it accomplish as a WP: link that it wouldn't as a Wikipedia: link? As it is, it is in the namespace and potentially could show up as a search result. --BigDT 18:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - There should be things to lighten the mood here on Wikipedia--$UIT 01:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per $UIT, Netscott, Kathryn NicDhàna, John Reaves, Releeshan, Klassykittychick, and Ned Scott (no known relation to Netscott). In other words, "keep per all above," but I was once told such !votes are discounted, so hopefully I have avoided such a fate as that. What is more, I don't want to insinuate that I would do anything inappropriate if this redirect were deleted, but by a chance coincidence I have an appointment at a German costume shop next week.... Newyorkbrad 01:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Move to Wikipedia:Oh I say, what are you doing? Come down from there at once! Really, you're making a frightful exhibition of yourself., this wouldn't have to be a cross-namespace redirect to get the humor across. — xaosflux Talk 01:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    Wow, nevermind we actually already have a redirect there, it should be useable enough for someone that must type this whole thing out shoudn't it?, Delete. — xaosflux Talk 01:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Not only is it a great joke, but the nominator's rationale is demonstrably false, since lots of folks have actually used this redirect in discussions. It's part of the joke. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - pointless cross-namespace redirect and really should be speedied --BigDT 18:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. As this is prefixed by "WP:", this isn't a cross-namespace redirect. -- Black Falcon 18:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
    • WP: redirects are actually a part of article space. See [2]. This is list of articles that start with WP. We have over 1000 of them and some are so obscure that nobody will ever use them. --BigDT 20:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Technically that's true, but per Wikipedia:Redirects: "WP: shortcut redirects ... in practice form their own 'pseudo-namespace'". So, technically it's cross-namespace, but in practice pages starting with "WP:" are considered a subset of the "Wikipedia:" namespace. I should have been clearer in my comment. Cheers, Black Falcon 02:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep per Josiah Rowe's reasoning. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 02:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] April 5

[edit] ȿ → Combining character

ȿ is called LATIN SMALL LETTER S WITH SWASH TAIL in Unicode. It is not a combining character ✉Hello World! 12:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Change redirect to Question mark. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheBlazikenMaster (talk • contribs) 16:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC).
    • If you see a question mark, you missed the font for display the glyph --✉Hello World! 17:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
      • It's very strange. Wikipedias of every language works fine to me. I can even read Japanese. How come I see question mark? Anyway, I will change my vote to no vote as I didn't know what I was talking about. I hope people won't count my vote with at the end.
  • Note The character listed is %C8%BF, while a question mark is %3F. John Reaves (talk) 17:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Habitation → Habitation at Port-Royal

Delete it, or probably redirect to Wictionary hydkat 10:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Garfield Goes to Waist: His 18th Book → Garfield#compilations

This is a circular redirect linked from the article it redircts back to. Pointless. Jason Palpatine 07:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - Pointless, probably not notable enough for an article anyway. Blast 05.04.07 0857 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CGC → User:PatPeter/Wikiproject:Category Cleanup

Highly misleading redirects that give the impression that the userpages they link to are official Wikipedia pages. Note the changed Wikimedia mark-up on the target pages that reinforces this effect. Redirects to userspace for WP: shortcuts are expressly excluded from CSD R2 so I am listing them here. WjBscribe 07:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - Agree wholeheartedly. Blast 05.04.07 0853 (UTC)
Comment - WikiProjects have not been approved here before creation. Blast 06.04.07 0449 (UTC)
  • Not a bad idea per se, suggest moving the relevant pages to Wikipedia namespace. Has the user been informed? >Radiant< 12:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • It is at this time that I take my prototype WikiProjects out of the closet and would now like to petition them to become real Wikiprojects, where might I do that? -PatPeter 15:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete for now, at least - I've seen repeated misuse of these redirects to allow an editor to perform a unilateral action on another editor's userpage. This is not the purpose of redirects. Changing the titles using css just re-inforces that, which is why I brought this question to WP:AN first yesterday - Alison☺ 16:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete them, db-author them, I do not care just before we do this someone please help me petition my Wikiprojects. Also, I remember making more redirects so just tell me where those are and I will find them to db-author. -PatPeter 16:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • You can find them in your contributions. Also, for WikiProjects, see Wikipedia:WikiProjects as there's lot of help and guidelines on there. I originally set up WP:IMAR so if you need help, just ask :) - Alison☺ 16:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah they were at Template:WP:StS and Template:WP:CGC or Template:WP:CC w/e the point is I will get them. But where is the page where you can petition a Wikiproject for approval? if there is one. (I didn't look at Imar I will do that now and look at Wikipediawikiprojects to read I asked again because I do not know how long this will take to read). -PatPeter 16:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, they now apply to real Wikiprojects, that I hope some of you will help me with. -PatPeter 17:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal: Defining Variables → Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible

This page was originally created as Wikipedia proposal in the article namespace and was subsequently moved. The redirect has no useful edit history and no significant incoming links. It is a cross-namespace redirect and an unlikely search term for anything (please note the space after the colon). -- Black Falcon 06:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - 'Proposal' sounds like an extremely esoteric 'namespace' that no one would search for. Blast 05.04.07 0857 (UTC)
  • Delete per the previous comments. mattbr 14:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hurricane Gaston Predictions → Hurricane Gaston (2004)

I'm not entirely sure this redirect is useful. It's orphaned, and will end up being problematic in 2010 if there is another Hurricane Gaston. The redirect was originally a page of original research that got merged to the target article and refactored over time. I originally speedied it under R3, but undeleted it after rechecking the article histories. This is procedural, but my opinion is delete. Coredesat 02:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, and completely agreed. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Delete per Coredesat. The redirect has no incoming links, does not seem a very likely search term, and may indeed be(come) confusing. -- Black Falcon 06:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Oops, missed the merge. Default keep per GFDL. -- Black Falcon 17:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Merged, no further use. Blast 05.04.07 0857 (UTC)
  • Keep. If its content was merge into the target article we need to keep it for GDFL compliance per WP:MERGE: "Merging — regardless of the amount of information kept — should always leave a redirect ... in place. This is often needed to allow proper attribution through the edit history for the page the merged text came from. Even if it seems rather pointless or obscure, leave it in place." WjBscribe 08:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per WJBscribe. If there is another in 2010, then make it into a disambig page. mattbr 08:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] April 4

[edit] Southern mafia → Dixie Mafia

Article for Southern mafia was deleted at AfD. DRV overturned G4 speedy deletion of the redirect as inappropriate. The matter of the redirect is brought here for full consideration. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 23:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. Dixie Mafia itself is a bit questionable but so long as it remains, Southern mafia is a reasonably similar potential search term to what would appear to be the same topic. Arkyan • (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unholy Alliance → Progressive Party (United States, 1912)

The result of the debate was Convert to disambig. We have two actual articles with Unholy Alliance in the title and many more that refer to the term (titles of books, etc.). This is an obvious case of disambiguation. If there are questions as to whether a link to Progressive Party (United States, 1912) should be on the disambig, that is a content issue that should be resolved on the talk page of the disambig. -- JLaTondre 02:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Article for Unholy Alliance was deleted at AfD. Since reference to the Alliance was written into the Party Platform, DRV overturned G4 speedy deletion of the redirect as inappropriate. The matter of the redirect is brought here for full consideration. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 23:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. At best the Progressive Party used the phrase in their party platform, and in no way was The Unholy Alliance a part of their platform, if such a thing can be said to exist. Anyway, misleading redirect as it can create the impression that the Progressive Party = Unholy Alliance, and the fact they used the phrase hardly creates any connection between them. Arkyan • (talk) 23:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
First sentence: Under the title, THE CONTROL OF CORPORATIONS AND "THE NEW FREEDOM" http://www.bartleby.com/55/15b.html immediately after the Unholy Alliance definition, TR goes on to quote 'This country belongs to the people. Its resources, its business, its laws, its institutions, should be utilized, maintained, or altered in whatever manner will best promote the general interest." This assertion is explicit. ... Mr. Wilson must know that every monopoly in the United States opposes the Progressive party. ... I challenge him ... to name the monopoly that did support the Progressive party, whether ... the Sugar Trust, the Steel Trust, the Harvester Trust, the Standard Oil Trust, the Tobacco Trust, or any other. ... Ours was the only programme to which they objected, and they supported either Mr. Wilson or Mr. Taft...' So it was the Trusts, and their hold over the GOP in particular (as people who remember their high school US history will recall), that were what TR had in mind when he wrote "the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics."
Second sentence: The redirect's not misleading if you go to that page, since the term is bolded and defined near the top. Redirects aren't limited to equivalencies only, but are used to include secondary subjects under a primary heading, as well. The original article mentioned TR's definition of the term, but you killed that. -MBHiii 20:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
JSTOR doesn't think, and you mention only one of many books Google found there with "Unholy Alliance" in the title. The original article mentioned TR's definition of the term and many other uses and shadings of meaning, but not this one. In fact, "unholy alliance" cannot be found on Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact at all. However, a general discussion of the meaning of an unholy alliance, as laid out in the original article, would probably allow for the Pact's inclusion as an example. -MBHiii 20:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep it and allow future expansion to include such instances as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact above, among many others. -MBHiii 20:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] CA? → Category:Asante

  • Delete - It is unclear that anyone would ever search for someone or something named "Asante" by typing "CA?". The redirect simply is not useful and perhaps should be speedy deleted as nonsense. (The redirect CA?, the category Category:Asante, and a few other strange things were recently created by User:Derrty2033. The category is currently nominated for deletion because it simply associates unrelated things with a shared name.) Dr. Submillimeter 22:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete What's the point of this? Besides the fact it shouldn't be redirect to category, it's silly. If I searched for Helicopter, I wouldn't be searching for "Helicopter?" This is freakin' pointless. If it wasn't a category and CA would be short it should be on CA page. However, it's not, it's just pointless. TheBlazikenMaster 20:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Pointless redirect--$UIT 01:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pokeyman → Bill Cosby

Delete. Makes no sense, I got this one off of Reddit, and was fairly surprised. --Danlock2 21:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Since I submitted before, someone has changed this so that it has the apparant quote from the show? Strong Delete :-D --Danlock2 16:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Not mentioned on target page--only thing we have is the creator's edit summary of "he once made this statement on a Simpsons appearance, this quote has become associated with him as an Internet meme". Yeah, The Coz said it, but he says lots of things many places and lots of things are said on the Simpsons. I can't find evidence of it really being a meme of some sort. Redirects are cheap, but this isn't even useful at zero cost IMO. DMacks 21:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete. The association doesn't go any further than an internet meme, and it is not likely a search term on its own - if anything it should redirec to Pokemon as a potential misspelling. Arkyan • (talk) 23:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete. The Simpsons "appearance" was an impersonation; Cosby himself has never actually said this. Not a useful redirect, perhaps even misleading. Krimpet (talk/review) 06:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete?! Delete with the delly and the leet and the words that go out of the server and arrgh arrgh arrgh JuJube 08:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Ridiculous redirect. Cosby never even said this--$UIT 01:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete nonsence. —dima/talk/ 18:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:ISR → Wikipedia:Ignore some rules

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Picaroon 19:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Page redirected to has been deleted -- Marcsin | Talk 18:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete CSD R1 (page redirected to has been deleted). So tagged. Walton Vivat Regina! 19:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Template:WikiProject Launch vehicles/Members → Wikipedia:WikiProject Launch vehicles/Members

Useless cross-namespace redirect. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 18:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. It has no useful edit history and no significant incoming links. It's not even useful as a shorcut as it's just 1 letter shorter than the target. -- Black Falcon 06:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as Wikipedia pages can be transcluded and this isn't going to be used in the mainspace. mattbr 14:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neo-techian → Frank R. Wallace

Also

Neo-Techian (with a capital "T") → Frank R. Wallace

Totally pointless redirects from an obscure term which almost nobody actually uses — a Google search turns up only 5 instances of the use of "Neo-techian". Bi 08:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

  • 'Keep but Rename to Neo-Tech. If Wallace rate an article, the name of his philosophy rates a redirect. Herostratus 15:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment In a way, that's done already. There's a "Neo-Tech" disambiguation page; one of the disambiguation links go to "Frank R. Wallace". Thus in my mind a Rename to "Neo-Tech" will be essentially equivalent to a Delete. Bi 18:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Surprise sex → Rape

The result of the debate was speedy delete by NawlinWiki. WjBscribe 20:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

A term that came out of jokes about rape that are irrelevant. T. Kewl the First 04:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. I personally think that this would be searched for. It's a fairly common term. Abeg92contribs 10:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Surprise sex? Give me a break. Talk about offensive. That's not reason for deleting it, the reason is marginal term per nom. Herostratus 15:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as G4 per here and here. I have tagged it. Gavia immer (talk) 15:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Copper family → Group 11 element

There is already an article called Copper family about the British traditional singers. This cannot be found by searching of it because of this redirect. QuestingVole 15:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete this redirect page. Ordinarily, this would be a perfect situation where one have Copper Family as a disambiguation page (and Copper family redirect to it, or vice versa). The existing Copper Family would be moved to Copper Family (musical group). That way, no matter which meaning one means"when searching, one still finds the "right" page. However, the scientific meaning is rare at best. Maybe better to take a different disambiuguation approach and just have a {{redirect5}}, for example:
"Copper family" redirects here. For the group of chemical elements, see Group 11 element.
at the top of the Copper Family. Copper family would be a #REDIRECT to Copper Family, so the most common meaning is available directly, and the other one is available directly from there. DMacks 17:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Change to disambiguation page per DMacks. Walton Vivat Regina! 19:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Change to disambiguation page - A Google search on '"copper family" -wikipedia -folk' did produce a few pages that actually refer to the chemical elements. In light of these results, a disambiguation page would probably be appropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 22:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment When I first raised this discussion, I had not realised that searches were case dependant and that Copper Family would take me where I wanted to go. However, while the current members of the family may perform under that name, there is a broader meaning. They are a family with the surname Copper who have lived and sung in Sussex for several generations. They are significant as social history and for their influence on the English folk revival. I don't feel that Copper Family (musical group) quite covers that. The term "Copper family" is not used in the Group 11 element article so I agree with DMacks' second suggestion that Copper family should #REDIRECT to Copper Family with a redirect5 to the Group 11 elements.QuestingVole 11:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] April 3

[edit] Wikipedia is not a crystal ball → Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball

Cross-namespace redirect Garrie 23:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, cross-namespace. Herostratus 15:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Besides the fact it's cross-name it's also crazy. Redirects like History of something are good if the history doesn't have its own article, for example: history of Burger King (which I made, because I knew someone would obviously wanna know the history of that restaurant). But this isn't that obvious. This is as silly as if I would redirect Charizard in anime to Charizard#In_the_Pok.C3.A9mon_anime. Most people know that info like what Wikipedia is not is located INSIDE WP:NOT, so why would they search Wikipedia is not a crystal ball? I say, delete, because of this. TheBlazikenMaster 17:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • People don't search it, they link it in deletion debates (look at whatlinkshere). It is useful for those who either don't know or forget that all policy pages are in projectspace. Too bad it's improperly cross-namespace. Delete. –Pomte 11:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • delete UDHSS 17:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Office of Members' Advocates → Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates

Also:
Association of Members' Advocates → Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates
Association of Members Advocates → Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates

Unlikely search term for someone searching for the AMA. My understanding is that most people find links to the AMA not by searching but by various inter-project space links. Furthermore, incorrectly formatted cross-namespace redirect, may unnecessarily show up in legitimate encyclopedic searches. Iamunknown 00:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete all as unneeded CNRs. Gavia immer (talk) 13:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - unneeded CNRs, and also misleading for encyclopedic searches, as it would show up as if it were an article. Walton Vivat Regina! 17:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all, cross-namespace redirects undesirable. Herostratus 15:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
DELETE ALL UDHSS 17:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] April 2

[edit] A8 (UK) → A8 road

Confusing as there is no UK wide road numbering scheme. There is one for Great Britain and one for Northern Ireland which both repeat the numbers. See Great Britain road numbering scheme. Regan123 22:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, the title is misleading and inaccurate as the nom explained, plus it's an unlikely search term: the disambiguation page at A8 already performs this function. Krimpet (talk/review) 06:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • DeleteUDHSS 17:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:Only an idiot posts abusive tirades on the admins' noticeboard → Self-destruct

The result of the debate was speedy delete. John Reaves (talk) 04:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

What the hell is that? Now seriously, it's a sentense, why the hell would anyone be looking for Self-destruct, when they type this and why the hell would ANYONE want to search for a whole sentense anyway? What's the point? TheBlazikenMaster 21:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete for obvious reasons. --JianLi 00:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Wikipedia:Mr. Monkey's Super Fun House → Wikipedia:Sandbox/History

The result of the debate was delete obviously a vandal's work. John Reaves (talk) 04:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Pointless redirect, no relevant incoming. --- RockMFR 15:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/d/Wikipedia%7ERedirects_for_discussion_6c7f.html"