Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Redirect Archives/July 2006

< Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion‎ | Redirect Archives
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion/Redirect Archives/July 2006)

July 1 edit

The nominated redirect was Deleted by Freakofnurture. -- JLaTondre 14:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hotshot crew delete me → Hotshot Crew edit

Result of failed attempt at a redirect move, can probably be speedied KleenupKrew 13:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was Deleted, funny but unneeded attack (diving in football could be attributed to Mexico, Arjen Robben, Ronaldo, to name a few) 12:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Italian Diving Team → Italy_national_football_team edit

Makes no sense. Zoz (t) 10:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was Deleted by Freakofnurture. -- JLaTondre 14:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hany Ramzy Actor → Hany Ramzy edit

Hany Ramzy actor shouldn't redirect to Hany Ramzy footballer. Zoz (t) 10:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete While it might be worthwhile to have an article on Hany Ramzy (actor) redirecting to an article on a different guy with the same name just breeds confusion. Dgies 18:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was keep (no consensus) – Gurch 11:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ronaldo Luíz Nazário de Lima → Ronaldo Luiz Nazário de Lima edit

The redirect page mispells the name. The mispelling is unlikely to be used by regular users. HYC 09:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • What about irregular users? There's no harm in having misspelled redirects, and at least one person already made this spelling mistake, which is why they created this redirect in the first place. So keep as redirect to Ronaldo, obviously. — sjorford++ 10:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The two common, acceptable variations for the Portuguese name are Luiz and Luís, but in this case the legal name is the first one, with a "z". The mispelling Ronaldo Luíz was an artifact that happened when a well-intentioned editor tried to correct back Luís to Luiz without paying attention to the accent, but it is itself very unlikely to be used. There is no need to multiply redirects for every possible combination of mispellings for all kinds of irregular users, just keep the mispellings and variants most likely to be used. (Besides, multiplying mispellings also pollutes the Google results with false spellings.) --HYC 13:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was speedy deleted as CSD R3 - implausible typo. Kimchi.sg 00:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World of Starcraft → April 1, 2006 edit

Admittedly a joke. Zoz (t) 09:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Joke or not (and I don't find it at all funny). ViridaeTalk 14:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No information, not a real topic. No such thing exists. It's an April Fool's joke, anyway. --Irayo 21:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Possible confusion with rumored MMORPG under development. Dgies 00:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No-brainer here. -- Scientizzle 23:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

July 2 edit

The nominated redirect was Closing all three as deleted by JoJan, Freakofnurture, & Kilo-Lima respectively. -- JLaTondre 14:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uesr:Waitak/Articles → User:Waitak/Articles edit

Misspelled original name, will never be searched on (cross-namespace?) Fram 12:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The German Solution → Wikipedia:German userbox solution edit

Cross-space redirect, only one use. —Shayltalk 22:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No cross namespace redirects. Netscott 08:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Omniplex 13:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Rumney → Wayne Rooney edit

"Wayne Rumney" turns up a total of 9 google hits, 7 of which are mirrors of the Rooney article from wiki probably based on the redirect. The word "Rumney" is not mentioned in the Rooney article, and the redirect is not used by any other page. Gimmetrow 19:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily deleted as an unlikely redirect. Iolakana|T 13:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

List of channel 13 TV stations in the United States → Category:Channel 13 TV stations in the United States edit

The nominated redirect was Deleted, cross-namespace redirect, and besides, list->category is confusing. --Cyde↔Weys 18:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article was deleted, and it has now been set up to redirect to a category. I was under the impressions that article namespace should not redirect to categories. If this is to go, there are many others of a similar format for different channel numbers. I'm not sure how to list them all at once. GassyGuy 07:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was Redirected to The Walt Disney Company --Cyde↔Weys 17:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disney' → Disney's Blizzard Beach edit

If "Disney'" is entered in the search bar, It's probably a typo and they are probably looking for the The Walt Disney Company article or something. So, delete. Ac1983fan (talk • contribs) 14:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change target to The Walt Disney Company. It's definitely not worth creating these redirects systematically, but, as this one has existed for a while, I don't think that there's a real reason to delete it. On US keyboard layouts, the apostrophe is next to the Enter key, so at least it might save someone the frustration of having to corect a mistake in the search box. — TKD::Talk 15:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
The nominated redirect was speedily deleted by Royboycrashfan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). — TKD::Talk 11:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Toothache → User:Glaze/Irishtoothache edit

This is a cross-space redirect out of article space into user space. Takeel 21:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - R2 (I already changed the tag from {{rfd}} to {{db-r2}}) Timrem 21:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

July 3 edit

The nominated redirect was delete. – Will (message me!) 19:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article size → Wikipedia:Article size edit

Cross namespace redirect. Gimmetrow 23:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Cross-namespace redirects are bad because they result in a person (reader) walking around a building (encyclopedia) and falling into the pipework (project space) because the builders (editors) thought cracks in the walls and floors would be useful for them to get around. Delete as per WP:ASR, as unneeded (numerous WP: style shortcuts) and a minor convenience for a sub set of editors does not outweigh creating a standalone encyclopedia for readers. If people do not specify "wikipedia:" in a search, we should remember that, first, and foremost, we are an encyclopedia, and return encyclopedic results by default. Regards, MartinRe 00:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above and as a crossnamespace redirect. Yanksox 03:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Good explanation, MartinRe. jni 05:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MartinRe. -- JLaTondre 14:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This comment by MartinRe on another page is very instructive: "See Wikipedia:Verbatim copying where the rules for mirrors are laid out. The main text section explains that for a CNR, the mirror has a choice - either leave it in, which will be a red link, or remove it as a link to a non-copied document, which is 'legally questionable'. Putting mirrors in a situation where they need to to choose between those two options is the main difficulty, in my view." --Cyde↔Weys 03:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Cross-namespace redirect. --Zoz (t) 11:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was delete. – Will (message me!) 14:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page titles to be deleted → Wikipedia:Articles for deletion edit

Cross-namespace redirect, and also very unlikely search term (borderline CSD R3) (does not contain any notable history, it's used to be a redirect to the historic Wikipedia utilities/Page titles to be deleted (which would need to be kept, and is fascinating reading!) Regards, MartinRe 23:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Cross-namespace redirect. jni 05:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MartinRe (see above / below). -- JLaTondre 14:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This comment by MartinRe on another page is very instructive: "See Wikipedia:Verbatim copying where the rules for mirrors are laid out. The main text section explains that for a CNR, the mirror has a choice - either leave it in, which will be a red link, or remove it as a link to a non-copied document, which is 'legally questionable'. Putting mirrors in a situation where they need to to choose between those two options is the main difficulty, in my view." --Cyde↔Weys 03:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as cross-namespace redirect. --Zoz (t) 11:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was delete. – Will (message me!) 19:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for page protection → Wikipedia:Requests for page protection edit

I'd rather not delete this redirect because it is a cross-article namespace, but would like to see what other users think of this. Iolakana|T 20:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Cross-namespace redirects are bad because they result in a person (reader) walking around a building (encyclopedia) and falling into the pipework (project space) because the builders (editors) thought cracks in the walls and floors would be useful for them to get around. Delete as per WP:ASR, as a unneeded (numerous WP: style shortcuts) minor convenience for a sub set of editors does not outweigh creating a standalone encyclopedia for readers. If people do not specify "wikipedia:" in a search, we should remember that, first, and foremost, we are an encyclopedia, and return encyclopedic results by default. Regards, MartinRe 22:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Cross-namespace redirect. jni 05:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As an RfPP regular I still feel that this is just search clutter.Voice-of-All 05:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MartinRe. -- JLaTondre 14:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete crossnamespace redirect. Yanksox 19:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This comment by MartinRe on another page is very instructive: "See Wikipedia:Verbatim copying where the rules for mirrors are laid out. The main text section explains that for a CNR, the mirror has a choice - either leave it in, which will be a red link, or remove it as a link to a non-copied document, which is 'legally questionable'. Putting mirrors in a situation where they need to to choose between those two options is the main difficulty, in my view." --Cyde↔Weys 03:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as cross-namespace redirect. --Zoz (t) 11:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was fixed by the nominator, no action necessary – Gurch 22:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fingerprintz → The Silencers (band) edit

The redirect goes to The Silencers the movie instead of The Silencers (band). Maybe there's a redirect from "The Silencers (band)" to "The Silencers" that needs to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessesamuel (talk • contribs)

  • Comment - It appears, but I may be wrong, that the nominator fixed the redirect target. The redirect doesn't even have an RfD tag. Timrem 15:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was All deleted. -- JLaTondre 02:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 6, 2002, July 7, 2002, July 8, 2002, July 9, 2002, July 11, 2002, July 12, 2002, July 13, 2002, July 14, 2002, July 15, 2002, July 16, 2002, July 17, 2002, July 18, 2002, July 19, 2002, July 20, 2002 → July 2002 edit

Do we really want redirects from specific dates in specific years? I mean, we have these but we don't have July 1, 2006, July 2, 2006, July 23, 2006 etc. Why then do we have these? Either we should delete these, or have some bot create all the redirects. Helicoptor 15:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A whole lot easier to delete. Are there any others? Iolakana|T 20:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if there are any others. Voortle 18:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Both July 10, 2002 and July 15, 2006 do not exist, I removed them from the section above. But I changed 2006 to 2002 (after July 15), since there is a redirect link that exists (see the section above). I mean this: July 15, 2002. -- ADNghiem501 05:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
July 12, 2002 added to the header. -- ADNghiem501 05:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Especially entire dates in article title should not redirect to titles including months and years, and seems worthless. -- ADNghiem501 04:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - These purposefully need to be left as redlinks so people realize they've made an error when they try to link everything altogether in an article. --Cyde↔Weys 04:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cyde. --Zoz (t) 11:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cyde. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 21:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was changed to a real article in article namespace. -- ADNghiem501 01:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emma E. Booker Elementary School → September 11, 2001 attacks edit

Subject deserves its own separate article. -- Dissident (Talk) 14:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold! Remove the redirect and create it! Iolakana|T 20:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tadaaa the school website courtesy of a google search. I would add something myself but it's 1:40 in the morning and I really should sleep. Cowman109Talk 05:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was deleted. Kimchi.sg 00:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipe-tan → Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan edit

Cross-namespace redirect created by a move (by me) on notability and self-reference grounds. I'm not blamming it myself because that would amount to unilateral speedy deletion of a mainspace article. The redirect is only in articlespace use once (on OS-tan), where I suggest to simply unlink the word, and the two other links to it should be diverted to the new location. -- grm_wnr Esc 14:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as CSD G7 - author requests deletion. (grm_wnr, feel free to delete it yourself, as you're also the only author, I doubt you'd complain to yourself! :) MartinRe 22:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- JLaTondre 14:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

July 4 edit

The nominated redirect was Both deleted. -- JLaTondre 02:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverend Edward Nelson → Edward Nelson edit

There is no Reverend Edward Nelson that I can find. Superwad 04:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment this is a strange redirect, maybe it could be changed to Edmund Nelson. Yanksox 04:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You mean change the redirect to Edmund Nelson? Having a typo from Edward to Edmund is pretty far-fetched, don't you think? Also, there is a Reverend Edmund Nelson redirect already Superwad 04:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • CommentMaybe a mis-hearing redirect? Ie they misheard the name. That would be possible/proboble. ViridaeTalk 12:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonsensical and useless. The guy's a mathematician. Grandmasterka 23:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Grandmasterka. Cowman109Talk 21:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Nelson (priest) → Edmund Nelson edit

There is no Edward Nelson who is a priest that I can find Superwad 04:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I doubt there are many people whom would use that term in a search or at all. Doesn't connect all that well with the subject. Yanksox 04:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a misleading redirect - Edward != Edmund, pontentially causing confusion. Cowman109Talk 21:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was deleted together with all similar ones. Kimchi.sg 07:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Xiaolin Showdown episodes 101 → The Journey of a Thousand Miles edit

unlikely search term, may cause confusion Jay32183 17:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was keep (no consensus). -- JLaTondre 23:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lost books of the Tanakh → Lost books of the Old Testament edit

The proposition "of" presumes that there were books that went missing from the Jewish canon. Not only is this factually incorrect, it also asserts a POV, namely that any works did get lost. See Talk:Lost books of the Old Testament for a detailed reasoning. Dr Zak 15:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I agree that the article Lost books of the Old Testament is rather dubious, but why not edit that article to make it better (or lobby to delete it if it is hopelessly original research). But as long as the article exists, somebody who types "Lost books of the Tanakh" into the search box ought to be taken to that article, since "Tanakh" and "Old Testament" are both terms referring to the Hebrew Bible. I don't agree that the redirect itself is POV. For example, Wikipedia has an article Life on Mars; the title of the article is not an assertion that there exists life on Mars. Similar for articles like unicorn and centaur. --Mathew5000 22:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was made into an article, [1]. —Centrx→talk • 22:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Analysis → Crystallography edit

Crystal Analysis is an OLAP tool, whilst crystal anaylsis is a description of Crystallography Ratarsed 12:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment if the OLAP tool is notable, perhaps an article could be made instead of it being a redirect? Cowman109Talk 21:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was Retargetted --Cyde↔Weys 05:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roads in Germany → Autobahns of Germany edit

Pretty obvious bad redirect. --SPUI (T - C) 09:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator Dr Zak 15:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forgive me for being dense, but why is this an obviously bad redirect? If I type "Germany Roads" in the search box, this is probably what I want. Gimmetrow 21:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • An Autobahn is a motorway, there are many other types of road in Germany other than autobahns, it does not make sense to redirect a generic term to one possible specific meaning of it (count this as a delete). Thanks/wangi 21:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then this should redirect to Transport in Germany or a better article if it exists. I've made that change. Gimmetrow 02:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was Converted to article by Dhett. -- JLaTondre 02:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KDTP → KTAZ edit

KDTP redirects to KTAZ, but should not, as KDTP is a separate station. -- dhett 08:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was delete. – Will (message me!) 14:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information → WP:NOT edit

Double redirect to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, plus cross-namespace. -- ADNghiem501 06:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Cross-namespace redirects are bad because they result in a person (reader) walking around a building (encyclopedia) and falling into the pipework (project space) because the builders (editors) thought cracks in the walls and floors would be useful for them to get around. Also gives mirrors a no-win choice, leaving them in will create redlinks, but mirrors removing them is "legally questionable" as per Wikipedia:Verbatim_copying Delete as per WP:ASR, as unneeded (numerous WP: style shortcuts) and a minor convenience for a sub set of editors does not outweigh creating a standalone encyclopedia for readers. If people do not specify "wikipedia:" in a search, we should remember that, first, and foremost, we are an encyclopedia, and return encyclopedic results by default. Regards, MartinRe 12:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MartinRe. -- JLaTondre 14:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per WP:ASR guideline/wangi 21:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This comment by MartinRe on another page is very instructive: "See Wikipedia:Verbatim copying where the rules for mirrors are laid out. The main text section explains that for a CNR, the mirror has a choice - either leave it in, which will be a red link, or remove it as a link to a non-copied document, which is 'legally questionable'. Putting mirrors in a situation where they need to to choose between those two options is the main difficulty, in my view." --Cyde↔Weys 03:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as cross-namespace redirect. --Zoz (t) 11:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree. Fresheneesz 04:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was redirected to Citation. — Jul. 6, '06 [03:06] <freak|talk>

Citing sources → Wikipedia:Citing sources edit

Cross-namespace redirect. -- ADNghiem501 06:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Cross-namespace redirects are bad because they result in a person (reader) walking around a building (encyclopedia) and falling into the pipework (project space) because the builders (editors) thought cracks in the walls and floors would be useful for them to get around. Also gives mirrors a no-win choice, leaving them in will create redlinks, but mirrors removing them is "legally questionable" as per Wikipedia:Verbatim_copying Delete as per WP:ASR, as unneeded (numerous WP: style shortcuts) and a minor convenience for a sub set of editors does not outweigh creating a standalone encyclopedia for readers. If people do not specify "wikipedia:" in a search, we should remember that, first, and foremost, we are an encyclopedia, and return encyclopedic results by default. Regards, MartinRe 12:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Not specific to Wikipedia Invitatious 13:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete crossnamespace redirect. Yanksox 13:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Invitatious and MartinRe. -- JLaTondre 14:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, this one should be a no-brainer for WP:ASR, given it's a fairly generic term/wangi 21:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change target to citation. --Mathew5000 02:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and then link to citation. This comment by MartinRe on another page is very instructive: "See Wikipedia:Verbatim copying where the rules for mirrors are laid out. The main text section explains that for a CNR, the mirror has a choice - either leave it in, which will be a red link, or remove it as a link to a non-copied document, which is 'legally questionable'. Putting mirrors in a situation where they need to to choose between those two options is the main difficulty, in my view." --Cyde↔Weys 03:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

July 5 edit

The nominated redirect was turned into a talk page by GW_Simulations --Zoz (t) 20:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:STS-51-L → Talk:Space Shuttle Challenger disaster edit

STS-51-L was originally a redirect, but following a desicion to split the Challenger Disaster article, it has become a full article. The talk page is a redirect however, and should be deleted so users can discuss the new article. --GW_Simulations|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail 19:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 23:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SurpriseRoyals → Arizona Royals edit

Some sort of a fork. Not clear if useful. Also Surprise Royals - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Seems useful to me. Someone might look up the team this way.
Oh yeah, I didn't notice the lack of space. Delete.
Rbraunwa 04:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Considering no Google hits for "SurpriseRoyals", the lack of space must not be a common typo, such that even if the other should remain, this one should not. —Centrx→talk • 03:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Leftover from a reverted move. I've redirect the one page that pointed at SurpriseRoyals (without the space). Gimmetrow 16:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was Deleted (db-author). -- JLaTondre 23:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Burmesestatedivision → Template:Infobox Burmesestatedivision edit

The redirect should be deleted because it was created after the template was moved, and is no longer used. Hintha 22:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 23:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patch (emo) → Emo (slang) edit

I merged and redirected Patch (emo) a couple of days ago. Now I find out it was a neologism, created by the author of the article. Since it isn't a real term, delete -- Chuq 07:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - appears to be a confusing redirect (not to mention not a real term as stated above). Cowman109Talk 21:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- nae'blis (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

July 6 edit

The nominated redirect was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 00:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Interstate 95 in Virginia exit list → Interstate 95/Virginia exit list edit

Cross-namespace redirect created when moving a transclusion page improperly created in the Template namespace. Northenglish (talk) -- 19:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why was this improper for template space? Common sections are listed as a use of templates at Help:Template. Gimmetrow 19:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I'm not exactly clear. Wikipedia:Template namespace says, "Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article." My limited understanding is that article C in the Help:Template page you cited is actually meant to be in the article namespace. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 19:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The section compares the advantages of having a common section in either article space or template space. From that, it sounds like either way is OK. The statement from Wikipedia:Template namespace, that "templates should not masquerade as article content", is confusing. It was added in March 2005 but I can find no discussion in talk. Could that refer to purely prose templates? Gimmetrow 19:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, now that it has been subst'ed, it should be deleted, as should Interstate 95/Virginia exit list which is not linked to by anything. Still would like a clarification on the policy point. Gimmetrow 04:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tagged all the Interstate 95/X exit list articles for speedy deletion, and they were deleted. The problem with the Virginia one is that it contains all the page history, which is why I created a redirect. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 04:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was al-Masri converted to disambig and Masri kept. -- JLaTondre 00:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Masri→Abu Hamza al-Masri and Masri→Egyptian Arabic edit

"al-Masri" could equally well apply to Abu Ayyub al-Masri, and "Masri" could equally well apply to either man or the Egyptian arabic language. Can we delete the redirects and do a disambiguation page that includes all three? Jessesamuel 18:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I just saw this nomination after I had already created Masri (disambiguation). Masri should remain a redirect to Egyptian Arabic because it is more commonly a native reference to the language. You may want however to create a disambiguation page for al-Masri since it applies to two different persons. — [zɪʔɾɪdəʰ] · t 19:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the latter per Zerida. Delete the first, possibly converting to a dismabiguation page (also somewhat per Zerida). -- Northenglish (talk) -- 21:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep later per Zerida, convert into a disambiguation page for al-Masri unless one ie much more well-known than the other. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 02:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was kept. —Centrx→talk • 22:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mazda Mazda2 → Mazda Demio edit

Malformed article name. Redirects that don't say Mazda twice already exist. Page has long since moved. 198.103.172.9 17:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 21:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The name of the car is the "Mazda2", the manufacturer's name is "Mazda". It isn't inconceivable to think that someone might type in "Mazda Mazda2". Besides, redirects are dirt cheap. I see no reason to delete this. --Cyde↔Weys 00:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cyde...valid seach term, I think. -- Scientizzle 23:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cyde, for once. -- nae'blis (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was kept. —Centrx→talk • 22:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mazda Mazda3 → Mazda Axela edit

Malformed article name. Redirects that don't say Mazda twice already exist. Page has long since moved. 198.103.172.9 17:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 21:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The name of the car is the "Mazda3", the manufacturer's name is "Mazda". It isn't inconceivable to think that someone might type in "Mazda Mazda3". Besides, redirects are dirt cheap. I see no reason to delete this. --Cyde↔Weys 00:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cyde...valid seach term, I think. -- Scientizzle 23:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cyde, for once twice. -- nae'blis (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was kept. —Centrx→talk • 22:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mazda Mazda5 → Mazda Premacy edit

Malformed article name. Redirects that don't say Mazda twice already exist. Page has long since moved. 198.103.172.9 17:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 21:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The name of the car is the "Mazda5", the manufacturer's name is "Mazda". It isn't inconceivable to think that someone might type in "Mazda Mazda5". Besides, redirects are dirt cheap. I see no reason to delete this. --Cyde↔Weys 00:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cyde...valid seach term, I think. -- Scientizzle 23:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cyde, for once twice thrice. -- nae'blis (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was kept. —Centrx→talk • 22:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mazda Mazda6 → Mazda Atenza edit

Malformed article name. Redirects that don't say Mazda twice already exist. Page has long since moved. 198.103.172.9 17:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 21:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The name of the car is the "Mazda6", the manufacturer's name is "Mazda". It isn't inconceivable to think that someone might type in "Mazda Mazda6". Besides, redirects are dirt cheap. I see no reason to delete this. --Cyde↔Weys 00:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cyde...valid seach term, I think. -- Scientizzle 23:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cyde, for once twice thrice he's just right this time. -- nae'blis (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was deleted. Kimchi.sg 08:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saturn Relay/Buick Terraza → Saturn Relay edit

Malformed article name. Page has long since moved. 198.103.172.9 17:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was Deleted ViridaeTalk 12:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mongolia on Wheels! → Mongolia edit

Patent nonsense -- created as the result of a page move of Mongolia by a vandal. Zonath 08:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of sexual slurs/old → Talk:List of sexual slurs/unverified edit

The nominated redirect was Deleted, articles shouldn't have subpages anyway. --Cyde↔Weys 18:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article survived two AfDs in march and april Then it was moved in June. The resulting redirect is now cross namespace, and particularly odd as a subarticle. I thought subarticles were not allowed in the main namespace? Gimmetrow 23:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, the redirect is unused and redundant now. Its target gets visited periodically, but I reckon that's as a result of a Google hit here and there. Given the very well referenced state of the non /old article, the target of this should not have been met with such weak will by AfD twice, either. Delete. -Splash - tk 02:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The target is linked from various places including the talk page of the article, so it's rather actively edited. This redirect involves a curious conflict between delete reason #5 and keep reason #4 - there are about 15 pages that link to the redirect including the AfDs, a few archives, and WP:Long term abuse. These should all be edited if the redirect is deleted. Gimmetrow 04:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

July 7 edit

The nominated redirect was Deleted by Freakofnurture. -- JLaTondre 01:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Florian Norton (Mondheller) → User:Mondheller edit

Cross-namespace redirect created when article was userfied —C.Fred (talk) 14:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 23:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan (comics) → Morgaine (disambiguation) edit

The redirect is redundant. Morgan (comics) redirects to Morgaine (disambiguation), which includes several non-comics links, plus two comics links, Morgaine le Fey (DC Comics) and Morgan le Fay (Marvel Comics). I have fixed all the former links to Morgan (comics) to point to the correct version of the character, so the Morgan (comics) redirect is no longer necessary. TheronJ 14:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep someone might mess up by not specifying which. Invitatious 18:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, no one is going to type in "Morgan (comics)". L/wangi 18:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is an unlikely spelling, and if anyone were to use "Morgan (comics)", thereby causing the problem specified by Invitatious above, having this redirect would actually lead them astray because they would think the proper article existed with this title. —Centrx→talk • 04:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 23:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National Christian Forensics and Communications Association/Clubs → List of National Christian Forensics and Communications Association clubs edit

List was cut-pasted from main article to a subarticle because article was getting long. Then the subarticle was moved to regular article space "per style guide" No reason the redirect should remain, nothing links to the redirect. I doubt the mover has any objection. Gimmetrow 01:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Sorry, my fault. I moved the page, but didn't think to delete the redirect. - pm_shef 02:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete G7 per pm_shef. Gimmetrow 04:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was Deleted by Pepsidrinka. -- JLaTondre 01:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Dupe → Christopher Hitchens edit

Sophomoric personal attack; see WP:BLP. (No links, BTW) CWC(talk) 09:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete I've tagged it as such (db-attack). -- Scientizzle 22:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was deleted. — Jul. 16, '06 [14:51] <freak|talk>

Wikipedia is not a democracy → Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not edit

Cross namespace redirect Polonium 18:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete cross namespace redirect. Yanksox 23:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Cross-namespace redirects are bad because they result in a person (reader) walking around a building (encyclopedia) and falling into the pipework (project space) because the builders (editors) thought cracks in the walls and floors would be useful for them to get around. Also gives mirrors a no-win choice, leaving them in will create redlinks, but mirrors removing them is "legally questionable" as per Wikipedia:Verbatim_copying Delete as per WP:ASR, as unneeded (numerous WP: style shortcuts) and a minor convenience for a sub set of editors does not outweigh creating a standalone encyclopedia for readers. If people do not specify "wikipedia:" in a search, we should remember that, first, and foremost, we are an encyclopedia, and return encyclopedic results by default. Regards, MartinRe 00:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MartinRe. -- JLaTondre 01:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative keep. Linked by over 50 articles, making it questionable per Keep4 above (is there a better shorthand for this?). Making this a small standalone article would probably use less Wiki resources than fixing the links, and it should be keepable as a significant internet meme. Gimmetrow 04:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MartinRe. --Zoz (t) 11:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is not a significant Internet meme, it's possibly a significant Wikipedia meme. Belongs in projectspace, just fix the links. -- nae'blis (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This comment by MartinRe on another page is very instructive: "See Wikipedia:Verbatim copying where the rules for mirrors are laid out. The main text section explains that for a CNR, the mirror has a choice - either leave it in, which will be a red link, or remove it as a link to a non-copied document, which is 'legally questionable'. Putting mirrors in a situation where they need to to choose between those two options is the main difficulty, in my view." --Cyde↔Weys 20:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a useful redirect as evidenced by the number of links created. The comment about mirrors is irrelevant since this redirect is not used in any articles, only in User and Talk spaces - pages not generally mirrored. Rossami (talk) 06:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except the page itself is an article (an article that consists of a redirect). Pretty much all mirrors mirror redirects in article space, so this will break on mirrors. I don't see how your objection has any merit. --Cyde↔Weys 18:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • A redirect is not an "article" even if it is in the article-space. As to the impact on mirrors, see the comments above. Rossami (talk) 14:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete:It will take only a few minutes to update the links. It's much more important to keep our encyclopedia focused on being just that, an encyclopedia. --Hetar 04:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • While this particular phrase is not "all your base", it is quoted by outside sources that could support a small article on the concept.[2] Gimmetrow 22:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was deleted (ESkog)(Talk) 18:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not → Wikipedia:What wikipedia is not edit

Another cross namespace redirect Polonium 18:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Cross-namespace redirects are bad because they result in a person (reader) walking around a building (encyclopedia) and falling into the pipework (project space) because the builders (editors) thought cracks in the walls and floors would be useful for them to get around. Also gives mirrors a no-win choice, leaving them in will create redlinks, but mirrors removing them is "legally questionable" as per Wikipedia:Verbatim_copying Delete as per WP:ASR, as unneeded (numerous WP: style shortcuts) and a minor convenience for a sub set of editors does not outweigh creating a standalone encyclopedia for readers. If people do not specify "wikipedia:" in a search, we should remember that, first, and foremost, we are an encyclopedia, and return encyclopedic results by default. Regards, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MartinRe (talk • contribs) 17:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC-8)
  • Delete per MartinRe. -- JLaTondre 01:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is linked by over 500 articles, see Keep4 above. That quantity also suggests Keep5. Gimmetrow 04:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MartinRe. --Zoz (t) 11:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MartinRe. jni 19:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- nae'blis (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This comment by MartinRe on another page is very instructive: "See Wikipedia:Verbatim copying where the rules for mirrors are laid out. The main text section explains that for a CNR, the mirror has a choice - either leave it in, which will be a red link, or remove it as a link to a non-copied document, which is 'legally questionable'. Putting mirrors in a situation where they need to to choose between those two options is the main difficulty, in my view." --Cyde↔Weys 20:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I looked at what linked there carefully, and I didn't notice a SINGLE wikipedia page that (currently) linked to that page. (Ironicly many of them linked from AfD achives, or the older VfD archives) Unless someone can show me a specific policy saying that cross-namespace rd's should never be used, I'm going to have to vote Obvious keep..... On another note, people against cross-namespace rds truely ignore the likelyhood of newbie wikipedia editors who want to find out how to be a better editor by knowing the policies, but forget that Wikipedia: goes before the title of what they are looking for - I know when I was new, I used cross-namespace rds all of the time. If they were deleted, and had that no-recreate template on them, I would most likely have just not read up on any wikipedia policies, guidelines, etc. at all. --Aknorals 03:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a useful redirect as evidenced by the number of links created. The comment about mirrors is irrelevant since this redirect is not used in any articles, only in User and Talk spaces - pages not generally mirrored. Rossami (talk) 06:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a cross-namespace redirect. WP:NOT is much more useful. --Hetar 16:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was Kept as re-targeted. -- JLaTondre 23:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Free ads paper and Free adds paper → Consumer to consumer edit

No mention of these two items in the target article; redirect makes no sense. —C.Fred (talk) 21:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was originally thinking just for the misspelt Free adds paper to be deleted. Free ads paper is referred to from here, where it has recently been added. Stephen B Streater 21:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have now redirected these to Classified advertising and expanded the article. Free adds paper is a common misspelling, but could go. -- Petri Krohn 05:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both per Petri Krohn's retargeting. -- JLaTondre 13:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after retargeting. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 21:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Free ads paper. I've generally seen misspellings deleted to avoid clutter, but whatever is consistent with WP practice is fine. Stephen B Streater 08:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was Belongs at Wikipedia:Requested moves instead. -- JLaTondre 01:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dahlia Ravikovitch → Dalia Rabikovitch edit

The user who moved the article made a mistake. Dahlia Ravikovitch is the correct spelling, as can be seen in an image of one of her poem books which was translated to English. The Dahlia Ravikovitch article should be deleted, to allow a reversal of the move. --Asbl 22:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're looking for WP:RM I think/wangi 22:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I was unaware of that. I'll remove the RfD tag. --Asbl 23:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

July 8 edit

The nominated redirect was speedy deleted. Roy A.A. 21:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aunt arctica → Antarctica edit

Silly. Possibly confusing. Objectionable to anyone with common sense. Isn't there some way to get rid of this? –RHolton≡– 21:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as nonsense. Roy A.A. 21:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was Kept and tagged with {{R from misspelling}}. -- JLaTondre 23:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ceveceria Nacional → Cerveceria Nacional edit

New Article. Just created redirect after spotting creator had used incorrect spelling and therefore created new article with correct spelling. Richard Harvey 21:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. If they misspelled this, there's probably a good chance somebody will misspell it again. Invitatious 21:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Invitatious. --Mathew5000 12:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Invitatious, misspellings are excellent redirects and prevent this problem in the future. -- nae'blis (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Kids In Satan's Service → KISS (band) edit

The nominated redirect was Deleted, more of an urban rumor than anything verifiable. --Cyde↔Weys 18:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I was looking through a possible list of abbreviations I made and this looks rather odd. Seems like an attack to me. Invitatious 21:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep, it's a popular "guess" to what KISS stands for, often found on music sites and the like, see: [3]. Thanks/wangi 21:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't see the need for this as a redirect - if they are searching for kiss they will search for "KISS" but not that. ViridaeTalk 03:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, though I've usually heard it as Knights In... (referring to the band, not the fans). -- nae'blis (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. (Attack redirect? Could be thought of that way, unless KISS approves.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is an implausible search term, and there are at least 7 hypothesized expansions of KISS (see [4], which then says that all of these expansions are false). No articles link to it, and someone searching would already know it is about KISS, that is if anyone searches for it at all. We shouldn't have every hypothesized alternative name for every band, person, company, etc. —Centrx→talk • 22:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 23:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Christmas special → Doctor Who 2006 Christmas special edit

Not specific enough; dozens of shows will do Christmas Specials. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 18:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete Confusing. Not even worth making a disambig page. Invitatious 21:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Invitatious. --Billpg 11:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Zoz (t) 12:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only a relic left after a move anyway. Tim! 16:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was Kept and target changed to List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita. -- JLaTondre 23:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richest country → Luxembourg edit

Not useful. Destination could change with time (is it even true now?) –RHolton≡– 16:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was Both deleted by Freakofnurture. -- JLaTondre 23:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suffuck university → Suffolk University edit

Pejorative, vulgar alternative name for target without notable mention in the target article. There have been cases where pejorative references are mentioned in the main article and have been upheld as notable; this is unlikely one of those cases. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Community Portal/Redesign/Poll archive → Wikipedia:Community Portal/Redesign/Poll archive edit

Cross namespace redirect. LC@RSDATA 09:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Zoz (t) 11:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible G7 speedy delete as mistakenly created per "oops wrong namespace" edit summary on move by creator. MartinRe 11:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MartinRe. -- JLaTondre 13:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MartinRe. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 21:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was Retargeted --Cyde↔Weys 05:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

End of all life → Republican Party (United States) edit

Not that I don't think it's funny, mind... -- Vary | Talk 05:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was made into a disambiguation page, [5]. —Centrx→talk • 22:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Animal Park → San Diego Wild Animal Park edit

Of no practical use, no incoming links, not a helpful redirection, monopolises an otherwise unused generic term to a specific private purpose Ex nihil 05:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep either as a dab page for places with similar names, or if those are too numerous redirect to Zoo. Redirects are cheap. Gimmetrow 06:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and redirect to zoo. Might create same redirect at wild animal park (nocaps). Luna Santin 10:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep redirected to Zoo as a disambiguation page. --Zoz (t) 11:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to disambig. I have changed it to a disambig that encompasses both articles with Wild Animal Park in their name and also zoo. -- JLaTondre 13:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with JLaTondre's changes. -- nae'blis (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was deleted. (ESkog)(Talk) 18:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlist help → Help:Watching pages edit

Cross-namespace redirect. -- ADNghiem501 04:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Zoz (t) 11:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- JLaTondre 13:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Omniplex 06:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- nae'blis (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This comment by MartinRe on another page is very instructive: "See Wikipedia:Verbatim copying where the rules for mirrors are laid out. The main text section explains that for a CNR, the mirror has a choice - either leave it in, which will be a red link, or remove it as a link to a non-copied document, which is 'legally questionable'. Putting mirrors in a situation where they need to to choose between those two options is the main difficulty, in my view." --Cyde↔Weys 20:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mildly useful and does no harm. The comment about mirrors is irrelevant since this redirect is not used in any articles, only in Talk spaces - pages not generally mirrored. Rossami (talk) 06:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When I saw this, I said to myself "wait, wikipedia has a Help: namespace? oh yeah, it does, doesn't it" ... likewise, new uses who have heard of a watchlist, but didn't know how they worked, etc would likely be unaware of how and where wikipedia puts its help pages and would most likely search for "watchlist help" (and if wikipedia's search feature is as unkind to others as it is to me when I use it, they probably would have a difficult time finding anything relevent in the search results.) --Aknorals 04:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Watchlist → Help:Watching pages edit

The nominated redirect was No longer under the purview of RFD as it is now a valid encyclopedic article. --Cyde↔Weys 18:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cross namespace redirect. -- ADNghiem501 02:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I'm in favor of certain cross-namespace redirects and neutral on most, but this one is definitely unnecessary. I'm sure that there are non-Wikipedia meanings of "watchlist" that don't refer to watching pages. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 03:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Redirect it to appropriate article content. (Not sure what yet) Gimmetrow 04:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Northenglish. --Zoz (t) 11:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Watch List (disambiguation). -- JLaTondre 13:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or retarget, the latter makes more sense, doesn't it? -- Omniplex 06:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Watch List (disambiguation) contains only 1 non-selfref link: "No-fly list, sometimes called a watchlist". --Zoz (t) 12:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change target to No-fly list, with a selfref hatnote about ours. -- nae'blis (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This comment by MartinRe on another page is very instructive: "See Wikipedia:Verbatim copying where the rules for mirrors are laid out. The main text section explains that for a CNR, the mirror has a choice - either leave it in, which will be a red link, or remove it as a link to a non-copied document, which is 'legally questionable'. Putting mirrors in a situation where they need to to choose between those two options is the main difficulty, in my view." --Cyde↔Weys 20:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It has useful history. This article is where the current page started and pre-dates the creation of the special name-spaces. By the way, the comment about mirrors is irrelevant since this redirect is not used in any articles, only in user and talk spaces - pages not generally mirrored. Rossami (talk) 06:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or retarget: there are obvious usues for this term in a real encyclopedia article, it should not be redirecting to non-encyclopedic content. --Hetar 04:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You'd never heard the term "watchlist" before you started using Wikipedia? I have, and I bet a fair number of other people have two. It's common enough in physical security (e.g. you have a watchlist of suspected terrorists you don't want to let on airplanes). Ultimately this should end up as an article or a redirect to something relevant. It shouldn't be a cross-namespace redirect; I'm glad you agree with me here, at least. --Cyde↔Weys 18:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; retarget possible. Per Rossami. Septentrionalis 21:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to no-fly list, with selfref note at the top -Aknorals 03:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was deleted. (ESkog)(Talk) 18:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for page protection → Wikipedia:Requests for page protection edit

Cross-namespace redirect. -- ADNghiem501 02:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Zoz (t) 11:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- JLaTondre 13:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per practically identical recently deleted Request for page protection MartinRe 13:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Omniplex 07:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- nae'blis (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This comment by MartinRe on another page is very instructive: "See Wikipedia:Verbatim copying where the rules for mirrors are laid out. The main text section explains that for a CNR, the mirror has a choice - either leave it in, which will be a red link, or remove it as a link to a non-copied document, which is 'legally questionable'. Putting mirrors in a situation where they need to to choose between those two options is the main difficulty, in my view." --Cyde↔Weys 20:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The history of the target page is too long for me to easily prove the point but I believe that this is another where the page pre-dates the creation of the Wikipedia-space and was the original location of the page. The redirect is mildly useful and does no harm. The comment about mirrors is irrelevant since this redirect is not used in any articles, only in User and Talk spaces - pages not generally mirrored. Rossami (talk) 06:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and stop pointless crusade against harmless redirects; mirrors are welcome, but they should not control our policy. Septentrionalis 21:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a cross-namespace redirect. WP:RFP is much more useful. --Hetar 16:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was speedy deleted per author request. Roy A.A. 21:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Composite video sync → Component video sync edit

My mistake in creating a new article. Misleading redirect to the correct title (I moved it). Redirect could probably be speedied. Invitatious 02:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Delete The phrase is used on the target page. Seems plausible to me. Gimmetrow 04:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Composite video and component video are not the same thing. Invitatious 18:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, you're correct. I read the redirect as "Composite sync" - the phrase the page actually uses. My mistake. Gimmetrow 19:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was Deleted by Freakofnurture. -- JLaTondre 23:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"shared read lock" → Shared read lock edit

Unused, implausable redirect. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 01:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

9 July edit

The nominated redirect was deleted by Freakofnurture – Gurch 20:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"a non smoking generation" → A non-smoking generation edit

Implausible typo. Invitatious 23:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Giant raccoon → Raccoon edit

The nominated redirect was No consensus to really change anything --Cyde↔Weys 13:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Listing for deletion on behalf of Lou Sander. Reason: There is no such thing as a giant raccoon (thank god!) Artw 16:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. (cannot imagine a giant raccoon - sounds horrifying) ViridaeTalk 03:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this might be a plausible search term and the target is the best result. -- nae'blis (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If someone were to search for it, and understood basic English, he/she would know that Raccoon is the place to look. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If someone thought this existed, the redir would set them straight. Redirects are cheap. Dgies 03:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Perhaps, but is there any reason to think someone believes these exist? That seems implausible to me. Rbraunwa 17:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Run away! It's a Giant raccoon!!!1 71.132.132.147 18:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Giant Racoons? They have those in D&D, don't they =P --Aknorals 10:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Funny animal (no, not really). BigNate37T·C 03:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I seem to remember that 'giant raccoon' is a literal translation of a foreign name for panda bears. Pandas are genetically related to racoons. The red panda is arguably a giant raccoon. I suggest redirecting to panda. - Richardcavell 04:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was deleted. (ESkog)(Talk) 18:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maps on Wikipedia → Category:Maps edit

Article-space redirect to a category that is unlikely to be used. Invitatious 15:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. We have {{R to list entry}}, could that help, considering the category as list? -- Omniplex 21:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This comment by MartinRe on another page is very instructive: "See Wikipedia:Verbatim copying where the rules for mirrors are laid out. The main text section explains that for a CNR, the mirror has a choice - either leave it in, which will be a red link, or remove it as a link to a non-copied document, which is 'legally questionable'. Putting mirrors in a situation where they need to to choose between those two options is the main difficulty, in my view." --Cyde↔Weys 20:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The page has useful history. The contents previously at this page were moved (several times, in fact). The redirect serves to preserve the attribution history and to direct the original contributors to the new location for their continued contributions. By the way, the comment about mirrors is irrelevant since this redirect is not used in any articles, only in project- and Talk-spaces - pages not generally mirrored. Rossami (talk) 06:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uh, do you know how mirrors work? They mirror everything in the article namespace. Maps on Wikipedia is patently in the article namespace. It doesn't have to be linked to. --Cyde↔Weys 13:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I know how they work. I also know that it doesn't make any difference to their readers. Since the redirect isn't used in any actual text in the article space in Wikipedia, there will be no inbound links to the redirect in the mirror. No reader of the mirror will ever find it unless they start randomly typing in URLs.
        Think of it as a dead-end street. Sure, it can be frustrating if you think you're going somewhere then find that there's nothing at the end of the road. But in this case, all the roads leading to the dead-end street have been ripped up (or more accurately, were never laid down). This is a chunk of pavement in the wilderness. You simply can't get to it in order to be frustrated by it. Rossami (talk) 02:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think you do. Mirrors have search functions just like Wikipedia. We've already discussed some search terms that bring up cross-namespace redirects in the first few hits. These come up even when the user is searching the encyclopedic namespace only. That is, simply, unacceptable. Your argument also works against you - if it's really just a dead-end piece of pavement out in the wilderness with no way of reaching it, shouldn't we just get rid of it? I don't really understand why you are fighting so hard to preserve these things that, according to you, nobody will ever find. --Cyde↔Weys 18:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh, I understand the search-engine argument - I just don't think that it is very strong. With very few exceptions, the people making that argument are having to build very tortured examples to make that case. In actual practice, I don't see it creating that confusion. Especially not when most of the search engines are already set to ignore all redirects.
            As to the dead-end pavement analogy, you mis-read my argument. It's a dead-end in the mirror because the mirror does not copy our user- and talk-spaces. It is not a dead-end in Wikipedia. It continues to serve a useful purpose here. Rossami (talk) 14:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only edit history is changes to the redirect target. The attribution history was moved along with the article. Deleting this will not affect GFDL requirements at all. -- JLaTondre 11:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move somewhere (Category talk:Maps/old?) and delete the redirect CSRs are harmful IMO and tend to get deleted at RfD, but if the history is useful, it should be preserved somewhere. --ais523 10:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a CSR. Previous vote changed based on JLaTondre's info. --ais523 12:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a cross-namespace redirect and a self-reference. We don't want a redirect with "on Wikipedia" for every article. -- User:Docu
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 23:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-liberal → authoritarianism edit

Inappropriate redirect - I think anti-liberal doesn't necessarily mean authoritarian Zoz (t) 14:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was Speedy kept after withdrawal by nom. --Zoz (t) 13:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki → Wikipedia:Transwiki log edit

Cross namespace redirect. Zoz (t) 13:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep, see edit history, one of Angela's redirects, apparently supposed to work in the same way on all projects. Admittedly it doesn't on Meta, but an article with that name exists also there. It's related to the Transwiki process, I've no idea what breaks if we simply delete it. -- Omniplex 21:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Angela created the redirect at 00:01, 21 November 2003. In fact, I was searching for an article about the Transwiki process (what wikis are involved, when was it created, etc) and I didn't expect to be redirected to the WP namespace let alone to a log. Maybe searching for a transwiki article is a stupid idea, but then having nothing at Transwiki is better than having a cross-namespace redirect imo. --Zoz (t) 10:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy unconditional keep. This is a keep without exception and without discussion. There is a policy across all Wikimedia projects that, whatver the project and whatever the language the Transwiki space can always be found by typing 'Transwiki', in English, in the search box. The precise arrangment of a project's transiwki pages is a matter for them, but it ensures that it can always be found the same way. It is vital for the process to work. Also, there is nothing harmful in a non-word cross-namepsace redirect on which no valid article could ever sit, could ever have sat, could ever get searched for by anyone not actively wanting information about Transwiki or the Transwiki log (which you got) and there is no value in robotic deletion of all such redirects (which the nomination verbless sentence is). See [6] and m:Transwiki for further information. -Splash - tk 13:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I didn't know about this policy. --Zoz (t) 13:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was deleted. (ESkog)(Talk) 18:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball → Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball edit

Cross-namespace redirect Zoz (t) 12:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, besides redirects to fragments (right hand side starting with "#") cannot work. -- Omniplex 13:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: So they don't. Is this by design, or is it a bug? It seems this would be useful in some situations – Gurch 11:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    By design, affecting all URLs, not only HTTP. In short browsers are supposed to deal with these so-called fragments locally, they are never sent in e.g. HTTP GET requests or "location" replies (= redirects). If you want A#B your browser asks for A. If it's redirected to C it asks for C. And so on finally arriving at an existing page P (or an error). If it got P it then applies the original "#B" locally finding P#B (maybe, if fragment B exists). The servers for A, C, ..., P never knew that what you really want is A#B. Very old browsers like mine actually ask for A#B and (probably) would accept a redirect to C#D, but that's incorrect. Servers are expected to ignore an incorrect "#" in requests. 149.225.70.221 16:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Help:Redirect#A redirect to an anchor. ~ PseudoSudo 11:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Fix the help page if you like, it's not difficult to implement, it's verboten by design of URLs, RFC 3986 and predecessors. 149.225.70.221 16:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ~ PseudoSudo 11:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No article could ever exist at this title, and anyone typing that in the search box would expect to get taken to the target. It cannot turn up on Special:Randompage being a redirect. Deletion is pointless; redirect are cheap and fun, not to mention actively useful in such cases as this. -Splash - tk 13:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment this redirect is one of the top results for "A crystal ball", which is not a wikipedia term, so is potentially harmful, and I doubt its usefulness in searches when there exsit so many shorter WP:NOT style links instead. MartinRe 12:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- nae'blis (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This comment by MartinRe on another page is very instructive: "See Wikipedia:Verbatim copying where the rules for mirrors are laid out. The main text section explains that for a CNR, the mirror has a choice - either leave it in, which will be a red link, or remove it as a link to a non-copied document, which is 'legally questionable'. Putting mirrors in a situation where they need to to choose between those two options is the main difficulty, in my view." --Cyde↔Weys 20:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agree with Splash. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Cyde. Thanks/wangi 16:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Splash's arguments. It's a useful redirect with no reasonable possiblity of confusion. The comment about mirrors is irrelevant since this redirect is not used in any articles, only in Talk spaces - pages not generally mirrored. Rossami (talk) 06:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see anything legally questionable about mirrors removing CNRs unless there are pages in article space which link to them - which is something we should not do in any case. And I think that the "legally questionable" issues raised at Wikipedia:Verbatim_copying are absolute side issues. The really legally questionable thing for mirrors to do is to remove the contribution history - and they all (?) do that anyway. Bring me a scraper who's worried about the legal implications of cross-namespace redirect cleanup and then I will start worrying about them. Haukur 10:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a cross-namespace redirect. There is lots of precedent here, and there are obvious reasons why we keep the article and wikipedia spaces separate. --Hetar 04:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as can be confusing (redirect is returned as search result for "A crystal ball", and its hardly useful as I doubt anyone searching for the wikipedia page would type the long version when WP:NOT is so much shorter. CNR's in general are problematic as they result in a reader receiving non-encyclopedic results when explicitly searching for encyclopedic ones, and we shouldn't have to ask the readers to sift through wikipedia internals to get to the encyclopedia. Regards, MartinRe 12:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It has about 150 inbound links so apparently a significant number of people type this in rather than WP:NOT. Rossami (talk) 02:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Exactly, so getting rid of this will force people to do it the correct way and prevent contaminating the encyclopedic namespace with non-encyclopedic topics. --Cyde↔Weys 03:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a cross-namespace redirect. --Ezeu 02:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 23:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WPJ → Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan edit

Cross namespace redirect incorrectly tagged as "shortcut", we have WP:JA. (In reply to an earlier comment / question: Polluting the main namespace with "meta" data is evil, no policy, but a guideline, makes sense for various reasons). -- Omniplex 06:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Zoz (t) 12:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- nae'blis (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This comment by MartinRe on another page is very instructive: "See Wikipedia:Verbatim copying where the rules for mirrors are laid out. The main text section explains that for a CNR, the mirror has a choice - either leave it in, which will be a red link, or remove it as a link to a non-copied document, which is 'legally questionable'. Putting mirrors in a situation where they need to to choose between those two options is the main difficulty, in my view." --Cyde↔Weys 20:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 23:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not biting newcomers → Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers edit

  • Delete as a cross-namespace redirect. --Hetar 06:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Omniplex 06:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above – Gurch 11:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a cross-namespace redirect. --Zoz (t) 12:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If there is a strict rule against such redirects, fair enough, but some might find it helpful so is it justifiable under WP:IAR?--Brownlee 12:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- nae'blis (talk), implausible search term to boot (note that I support redirects for articlespace searches).
  • Delete. This comment by MartinRe on another page is very instructive: "See Wikipedia:Verbatim copying where the rules for mirrors are laid out. The main text section explains that for a CNR, the mirror has a choice - either leave it in, which will be a red link, or remove it as a link to a non-copied document, which is 'legally questionable'. Putting mirrors in a situation where they need to to choose between those two options is the main difficulty, in my view." --Cyde↔Weys 20:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was deleted by Freakofnurture – Gurch 20:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The 13-carat Diamond" → 13 Carat Diamond and Other Stories edit

Is it really an implausible typo? It really is in quotes.Invitatious 03:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was deleted. (ESkog)(Talk) 18:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template messages → Wikipedia:Template messages edit

Cross namespace redirect incorrectly tagged as "shortcut". We have WP:TM and WP:TEMP. -- Omniplex 02:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I originally created this. Is it against policy? I was just tired of not being able to remember the shortcut for the template messages page, so I would always just type in "template messages" into the search bar. --Liface 03:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can somebody please explain in plain English why this is against policy? The reason for deletion proposed above seems cryptic.

68.50.203.109 04:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It isn't against policy, as our policies currently stand, and nor should it be (it should be a guideline). That doesn't mean it can't be deleted if there is a consensus to do so. If you don't want it to be deleted, simply say so – Gurch 11:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a cross-namespace redirect. --Zoz (t) 12:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- nae'blis (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This comment by MartinRe on another page is very instructive: "See Wikipedia:Verbatim copying where the rules for mirrors are laid out. The main text section explains that for a CNR, the mirror has a choice - either leave it in, which will be a red link, or remove it as a link to a non-copied document, which is 'legally questionable'. Putting mirrors in a situation where they need to to choose between those two options is the main difficulty, in my view." --Cyde↔Weys 20:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and make it into a soft redirect like Deletion log. -- Ned Scott 06:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's mildly useful and creates no confusion to readers. Rossami (talk) 06:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No confusion to readers? Really? This is a valid encyclopedic topic on its own right (it is not specific to Wikipedia, or even wikis), but you think it's not confusing to readers at all? How about when someone is searching JUST the main namespace and this comes up as a search result, bypassing the search restriction on just encyclopedic content? --Cyde↔Weys 13:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • As an addendum, here's one non-Wikipedia-related use of template message (in email clients). I'm trying to think of the best encyclopedia article to redirect this to; obviously it shouldn't be deleted, as it is an important term in its own right, but it sure as hell shouldn't be redirecting into project space. --Cyde↔Weys 13:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a cross-namespace redirect. The separation between article and Wikipedia spaces is important. A soft redirect would be an acceptable compromise, as it lets the reader know they are crossing into the maintenance area. --Hetar 04:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete returning non-encyclopediac content for an encyclopedic search should be avoided, and this can cause confusion for users as it is can be returned as a result for probable enclyopedic terms (e.g. "message template"). We should not require our readers to sift though wikipedia internals in order to receive enclyopedic content. If editors want to find a wikipedia section quickly, they can easily use their browser bookmarks, which won't affect anyone else. Regards, MartinRe 13:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, doesn't seem to be against policy, so I'm voting keep. It's useful for people using the search command. I would also be fine with a soft redirect, if I'm understanding correctly what a soft redirect is. --Liface 23:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 23:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mathbb → Help:Displaying a formula edit

Cross namespace redirect incorrectly tagged as "shortcut". There's a new WP:FORMULA. -- Omniplex 02:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 23:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template substitution → Wikipedia:Template substitution edit

Cross namespace redirect incorrectly tagged as "shortcut". We have WP:SUBST. -- Omniplex 02:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Zoz (t) 12:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- nae'blis (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This comment by MartinRe on another page is very instructive: "See Wikipedia:Verbatim copying where the rules for mirrors are laid out. The main text section explains that for a CNR, the mirror has a choice - either leave it in, which will be a red link, or remove it as a link to a non-copied document, which is 'legally questionable'. Putting mirrors in a situation where they need to to choose between those two options is the main difficulty, in my view." --Cyde↔Weys 20:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's mildly useful and does no harm. (The incorrect tagging as a shortcut should be fixed, though.) The comment about mirrors is irrelevant since this redirect is not used in any articles, only in Talk spaces - pages not generally mirrored. Rossami (talk) 06:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It's plausible that we could have an enyclopedic article at this name, rather than a redirect to the inner workings of Wikipedia. --Hetar 16:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 23:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template syntax → Wikipedia:Template namespace edit

Cross namespace redirect incorrectly tagged as "shortcut". -- Omniplex 02:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Zoz (t) 12:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- nae'blis (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This comment by MartinRe on another page is very instructive: "See Wikipedia:Verbatim copying where the rules for mirrors are laid out. The main text section explains that for a CNR, the mirror has a choice - either leave it in, which will be a red link, or remove it as a link to a non-copied document, which is 'legally questionable'. Putting mirrors in a situation where they need to to choose between those two options is the main difficulty, in my view." --Cyde↔Weys 20:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was Speedy delete ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks → Wikipedia:No personal attacks edit

Redundant cross namespace redirect, WP:NPA is shorter following a common pattern -- Omniplex 02:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was Kept. -- JLaTondre 23:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tu’i_Tonga_Empire → Tu'i Tonga Empire edit

serious misspelling Tauʻolunga 23:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Possible misspelling; harmless redirect. Spacepotato 01:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Common misspellings can make good redirects.--Cúchullain t/c 02:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Possible typo, redirects are cheap. --Zoz (t) 12:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. -- nae'blis (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was speedy deleted under CSD R1. David | Talk 09:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Coyle - Raid → Andy Coyle edit

Target page deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Coyle. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 02:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was speedy delete by Freakofnurture. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew J. Coyle → Andy Coyle edit

Target page deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Coyle. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 02:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was speedy deleted under CSD R1. David | Talk 09:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Coyle → Andy Coyle edit

Target page deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Coyle. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 02:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was deleted. — Jul. 11, '06 [09:44] <freak|talk>

Can history be truly NPOV? → Wikipedia:WikiProject History edit

Cross namespace redirect Polonium 21:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – Gurch 22:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Omniplex 22:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No it can't. So delete. --Zoz (t) 22:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Yanksox 04:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- nae'blis (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This comment by MartinRe on another page is very instructive: "See Wikipedia:Verbatim copying where the rules for mirrors are laid out. The main text section explains that for a CNR, the mirror has a choice - either leave it in, which will be a red link, or remove it as a link to a non-copied document, which is 'legally questionable'. Putting mirrors in a situation where they need to to choose between those two options is the main difficulty, in my view." --Cyde↔Weys 20:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, cross-namespace redirect, potential WP:POINT violation. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

10 July edit

The nominated redirect was Kept as re-targeted. -- JLaTondre 00:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TL;DR → List of Internet slang phrases#T edit

It redirects to a list of acronyms and this acronym isn't even in there or has any definition at all (I think I saw this 6 months ago and it wasn't in there, either) so I think the redir should get deleted DyslexicEditor 01:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Five-pointed star → Pentagram edit

The nominated redirect was Redirected to Star (symbol) --Cyde↔Weys 13:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A pentagram is a very specific type of five-pointed star containing interior lines and an interior pentagon. Redirecting all of the superset to this subset is confusing to readers, and editors at Pentagram are having to repeatedly revert additions of material relating to five-pointed stars (but unrelated to pentagrams). Fuzzypeg☻ 00:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or articlefy (is that a word? it is now). In other words, either create a full article on five-pointed star or leave the redirect alone. jgp (T|C) 00:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or articlefy: Nowhere in any of the articles, or REFERENCES to articles, to which current attempts to link pentagram are going (Islam or Ottoman Empire) is there any reference to a pentagram. A five pointed star is NOT the same as a pentagram, or, if it were, just for the sake of WP:Point i would have to link the flag of the USA to pentagram.--Vidkun 02:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change target to Star polygon. --Mathew5000 03:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and redirect to Star polygon. I don't understand what Vidkun is trying to convey. Jkelly 03:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Articlefy: Star polygon isn't much better than Pentagram and can be nearly as confusing with respect to a genuine five pointed star. The star in the flag of the USA would not fit either, so I would not think the references from Islam or the Ottoman Empire would, either. --PhilHoward 03:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose First we should figure out the differences between a pentacle, Unicursal star, Star polygon, Pentagon, Pentalpha, Pentangle , and Arabic "five-pointed" star. "...a five pointed star is a very particular type of pentagram" --South Philly 03:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The differences are: pentagram, pentangle and pentalpha are synonyms, although pentagram is the most common current usage. Pentalpha was the term as used by the Pythagoreans for this symbol. A clear description and a picture are given in the article. A pentacle is a kind of talisman that can have any design, such as a magic square, a name of god or a demonic signature, and is used in magical evocation. Its etymology is actually unrelated to the concept of "five", sharing its root with the words "pendant", "depend", etc, presumably because it was generally hung about the neck. A unicursal star is a star that can be drawn with a Eulerian path (i.e. in a single stroke without lifting the pen from the paper and without visiting any vertex twice). There are many examples of these, including the pentagram and the rather odder "unicursal hexagram" (see Thelema). A star polygon is probably synonymous with a unicursal star, however I don't know whether irregular figures like the unicursal hexagram qualify as star polygons. The Arabic star I am not so familiar with, however the article informs me that it is the typographical mark "*" and can be displayed with varying numbers of points (and may at times not even be "star" shaped, but be made of disconnected blobs). Support for my info regarding pentagon, pentagram, pentacle, pentalpha and pentangle can be found in the discussion pages of Pentacle and Pentagram, and should also be clear from reading the articles. Fuzzypeg☻ 01:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, your strikeout and addition of quote came just as I was trying to submit my comment, so my comment addresses the struck section. Who are you quoting, because they're wrong. If this is in support of your stance, please cite. Fuzzypeg☻ 01:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Star polygon. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I quote the article "More common is a five-pointed star obtained by filling in a pentagram, i.e. not showing any separation between the inner pentagon and the five isosceles triangles." --evrik 18:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The text you're quoting is indicating that this five-pointed star is not a pentagram, but is more common than the pentagram. I actually just reworded it (before I read this comment) because it had been shifted from its original location in the article and was (rather confusedly) being used to support the inclusion of solid five-pointed star material into the article. Fuzzypeg☻ 01:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There have been several suggestions to redirect instead to Star polygon, however this kind of misses the point. A pentagram is both a five-pointed star and a star polygon, however a five-pointed star is neither a pentagram nor a star polygon unless it is drawn as a unicursal star, with sections of line passing through the internal part of the figure. For instance the star   is neither a pentagram nor a star polygon - it is in geometric terms a concave decagon. To be a pentagram (and thereby a star polygon) it would need to look like this  . My suggestion is that Five-pointed star should eventually be articleified, as the most appropriate place for stars like this. I just didn't want to articlefy it myself. Fuzzypeg☻ 04:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes from the Pocket Oxford Dictionary 1978: "a 5-pointed star formed by producing sides of pentagon both ways until they meet, formerly used as a mystic symbol" and Merriam-Webster Online: "a figure of a 5-pointed star usually made with alternate points connected by a continuous line and used as a magic or occult symbol; also : a similar 6-pointed star (as a Solomon's seal)". Unfortunately these are both a little confusing, the Oxford because the explanation is so cryptic (it's describing the straight lines of a pentagon being extended at both ends until they meet other similarly extended lines) and the M-W because it includes the possibility of a 6-pointed star! I'm at work at the moment and don't have access to the full OED. Fuzzypeg☻ 05:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compromise? I say we leave it as it is until someone wriets the article, here. --evrik 16:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable, especially since this is starting to seem like an editorial dispute, though I can't figure out what the dispute is about. But while this discussion has been up we've had a couple of reverts and counter-reverts of five-point star material added to Pentagram. I'll construct a stub, looking at some other symbol page such as Cross for guidance. The page here has good starting info. Fuzzypeg☻ 21:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't know the protocol on this. Should I wait for this debate to be judged, or just forge ahead? Unless someone says go, I'll wait. Fuzzypeg☻ 00:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Be WP:BOLD! Stubbing a redirect is usually a good idea, unless said redirect is speediable. BigNate37T·C 10:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been bold and created Star (symbol), which I think is more useful than Five-pointed star. This could eventually be split into separate articles for five-pointed, six-pointed, etc., however I suggest we wait and see how the material organises itself in that article before we try to split it. The stub is still quite imperfect (as stubs tend to be), however I have limited time this evening... Fuzzypeg☻ 07:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Star (symbol) per Fuzzypeg. BigNate37T·C
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was deleted. Perhaps this is due to somebody pressing "\" instead of "←Backspace" on the keyboard, due to close proximity of the keys. — Jul. 11, '06 [09:43] <freak|talk>

Joh\n Stewart → Jon Stewart edit

  • The redirect page name is dreadfully spelt wrong.
  • Who searches Joh\n Stewart?
  • Subject doesnt appear to be that notable anyway.
Created by Marudubshinki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) don't know if the users bot malfuctioned or something:S.
Could it be speedied? Andeh 21:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • dele/te incredibly implausible typo. ViridaeTalk 23:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Implausible, mayhap, but an anon did in fact make it, which is why I created a redirect. --maru (talk) contribs 01:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was deleted by Freakofnurture --Zoz (t) 22:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia strategy → Wikipedia:Wikipedia strategy edit

Cross-namespace redirect--Daduzi talk 16:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -- nae'blis (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TomTheHand 19:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This comment by MartinRe on another page is very instructive: "See Wikipedia:Verbatim copying where the rules for mirrors are laid out. The main text section explains that for a CNR, the mirror has a choice - either leave it in, which will be a red link, or remove it as a link to a non-copied document, which is 'legally questionable'. Putting mirrors in a situation where they need to to choose between those two options is the main difficulty, in my view." --Cyde↔Weys 20:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but wait until the AfD closes first The original page is an AfD nominee (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia strategy); the redirect should be kept until the debate closes. --ais523 10:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    • We don't have to wait. If this RFD decides the redirect should be deleted, it will be deleted. If this RFD says keep but the MFD says delete, then it will be deleted anyway as a broken redirect. --Cyde↔Weys 12:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cyde. --Zoz (t) 15:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 00:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of unpopular tactics on Wikipedia → Wikipedia strategy edit

Redirect to a cross-namespace redirect--Daduzi talk 16:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -- nae'blis (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TomTheHand 19:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This comment by MartinRe on another page is very instructive: "See Wikipedia:Verbatim copying where the rules for mirrors are laid out. The main text section explains that for a CNR, the mirror has a choice - either leave it in, which will be a red link, or remove it as a link to a non-copied document, which is 'legally questionable'. Putting mirrors in a situation where they need to to choose between those two options is the main difficulty, in my view." --Cyde↔Weys 20:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete double redirect anyways. Invitatious 02:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC) Self reference; cross-space redirect. Invitatious (talk) 00:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a double redirect. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey you two, double redirect isn't a deletion criteria. The correct action to take on a double redirect is to fix it, not delete it. That said, there's other perfectly valid reasons to delete this, including that it is a cross-namespace redirect. --Cyde↔Weys 12:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cyde. --Zoz (t) 15:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was deleted. (ESkog)(Talk) 18:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold in updating pages → Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages edit

Cross-namespace redirect. Kotepho 16:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Cross-namespace redirect" is inadequate a reason for deletion on its own there being nothing better than a style guideline suggesting against them. There should be a few tests that people apply before using Ctrl+V to make a nomination:
    1. Is the redirect sitting on a title that could ever be a valid article about some encyclopedia topic?
    2. Is it likely that a reader has ever typed the name in the search box expecting to be taken to an encyclopedia article?
    3. Is the redirect an obvious mistaken creation with other intent, or vandalism or similar?
    4. Is it likely that, when typing the name in the search box or clicking the link, the reader was expecting to be taken to its other-namespace target (i.e. has the redirect ever helped a clueless newbie?)
    5. Is it reasonable to suppose that, given the length of existence of such a redirect, the mirrors have worked out either not to include it or found some other technical solution of their own?
  • Note that redirects are never returned on Special:Random and anyone clicking Special:Randomredirect deserves what they get, having asked for it. The nominator here fails to deal with any part of any of these reasons, as do the other nominators who suppose that a robotic "CNR del" nomination is in any way adequate. Keep, per failing tests 1, 2 and 3 and passing tests 4 and 5. -Splash - tk 16:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This nom is actually close to a violation of POINT. I only brought it here so it has a higher chance of not getting speedied again. However, since *FD isn't a vote the adequacy of the nomination is quite irrelevant. We aren't discussing (well, we are, but it is rather a meta-discussion) the nomination, but if the redirect should be deleted. Personally, I don't think "CNR del" is much reasoning, but it is a reason for deletion. Kotepho 18:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    We can discuss the nom in just the same way as we can any other comment; any comment that amounts to what your nomination does is inadequate, and it's important to be clear on the point. I do not agree that it is a reason for deletion. It is a two- or three-word reason that some people think is enough to delete such redirects (despite the controversy surrounding many of them). It is not, by itself, or by common consent, a sufficient reason for deletion. -Splash - tk 19:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Some people think "cross-namespace redirect" is ipso facto a reason for deletion, others disagree. I did not try to imply that we cannot discuss the nomination, just that we do not have a nomination and then everyone votes on it. As such, badgering people that think that such a nomination or statement is not meaningless is not productive. Your tests are generally good ones, but I would include "Does this redirect have incoming external links?" (per http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI, Link rot). Google finds at least one example, and I know I've seen a citation in an academic paper that used a CNR (but I'm not sure if it was this or one of the other permutations, or even about "be bold"). Kotepho 19:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, after fixing all references to it. -- nae'blis (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The nomination is inadequate, insubstantial and what there is of it is little more than rhetoric. Why would one want to rely solely on that to inform one's own thinking? -Splash - tk 18:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This comment by MartinRe on another page is very instructive: "See Wikipedia:Verbatim copying where the rules for mirrors are laid out. The main text section explains that for a CNR, the mirror has a choice - either leave it in, which will be a red link, or remove it as a link to a non-copied document, which is 'legally questionable'. Putting mirrors in a situation where they need to to choose between those two options is the main difficulty, in my view." --Cyde↔Weys 20:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is incorrect in interpretation. That document (apart from being a little speculative in style) deals with the Wikipedia as a "Collection of Documents". It invalidates itself in terms if the pedia is to be viewed as a single, whole work. It describes that "Each Document comprises...". The page describes what people must do with a single article, not with the whole project. A mirror remains free to not include the cross-namespace redirect page in its entirety without having any trouble with the page you mention. -Splash - tk 22:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • And how much extra work do you want to push off onto the mirrors? Do you really want each one of them to have to go in and remove all of the cross-namespace redirects? That's so inefficient. We should just get rid of all of them at the source, to save effort and prevent problems. There's no legitimate reason to have a redirect for every Wikipedia:XXXX page at XXXX. Namespaces were created in the first place to separate out the encyclopedic content from the non-encyclopedic content. Why short-circuit this division? --Cyde↔Weys 23:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Because it is useful to the discussions that lie behind the construction of the content that the readers and the mirrors use. What the mirrors need to do is up to them, really. It's not a cause for saying to people trying simply to have an efficient discussion that no, they must reach around their heads to touch their noses in case a mirror finds it easier that way. I do not think I have said that each one of them should have such a cross-namespace redirect, and there are some example further up today's page of such that are not useful, being targetted at 'minority sports'. I don't see what problems deleting all of them is supposed to prevent. -Splash - tk 23:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Now you're just being unreasonable. Deleting cross-namespace redirects is not remotely comparable to asking you to reach around your head to touch your nose. --Cyde↔Weys 02:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment One problem that CNR's cause that deleting will help prevent is that CNR's make encyclopedia searchs return non-encyclopedic results, potentially confusing readers. For example, searching the encyclopedia for a term "page update" (which is hardly a wikipedia specific term) will return CNR's as the first four results, and we should not be requiring readers to sift through non-encyclopedic background noise when they were explicitly searching the encyclopedia. So, in that sense, CNR's fail your test 2 above, as a reader can be offered that page when searching for encyclopedic content. Regards, MartinRe 11:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • The real problem is when newbies type a Wikipedia specific term into that little box on the left used for searching, yes, Wikipedia - and come upon not the redirect they were searching for but the extremely unhelpful "deletedpage" template. That's still metadata in the article space except that now it is useless metadata. I don't care so much whether userbox is a redirect or a redlink - but it does bother me that it's a bluelink to a completely useless article-space page. Haukur 12:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Indeed, {{deletedpage}} is worse than a CNR (which I believe is worse than a redlink), but as you can see from the deletion log, without {{deletedpage}} it gets recreated again and again, so it seems to need an explicit "this pages has been deleted, do not re-create message". So, uness there is a way to both remove the {{deletedpage}} and also ensure the page won't be re-created, that's the situation we're stuck with. (btw, yes, the little box on the left can be used to search wikipedia as well as the encyclopedia, the problem is what with CNR's, when searching just the encyclopedia, it also returns wikipedia results, which is not good) Regards, MartinRe 12:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • We only have this bunch of {deletedpage}s because some people decided they were the best way of enforcing their view of this topic. -Splash - tk 15:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Indeed, get rid of the deletedpage nonsense that is a worse selfreference than any CNR. If you want to prevent the redirect from coming back, put it on your watchlist. -- nae'blis (talk) 16:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Splash, for Userbox, I'd agree with you, as there has been no rfd for that redirect (so G4 doesn't apply), but other CNR's have been rfd'd, yet still recreated more than once. Yes, it can be added to watchlists, but how many times should something be deleted before a {{deletedpage}} is needed? MartinRe 18:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Anyone searching for that page will know it is in the wikipedia namespace and needs to be have "Wikipedia:" tacked onto the front. As someone else said in one of these debates (paraphrasing) "cross namespace redirects are like people coming into a building then accidentally falling into the pipework under the floor because the engineers thought cracks in the floor would be a good idea". For those arguing that "cross namespace redirect" is not a sufficient reason for deletion. When should we delete a redirect? #5 "It is a cross-space redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. Note that while "WP:" shortcut redirects (like WP:RFD) are technically in the main article space, they are typically treated as their own "pseudo-namespace". All "articles" beginning with "WP:" are in fact redirects.". I see no reason why an argument should be fleshed out when there is already sufficient argument in the policy. ViridaeTalk 23:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The thing-that-is-not-a-policy does not argue the point, it merely states it unadorned. WP:ASR argues the case, but is nothing more substantive than a style guideline, despite protestations to the contrary. Further, in cases such as this (and not in all cases) the peculiar analogy to a collapsing building site is misguided because of the tests 2 and 4 I suggested further up. -Splash - tk 23:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is first and formemost an encyclopedia, and therefore if people enter a search term without the "wikipedia" prefix, we should return encyclopedic content by default. Making it easier for a subset of editors does not outweigh creating a standalone encyclopedia for the readers. In my view, this also applies for terms such as these, as the creation of articles in the main space that discuss or point to wikipedia internals should be disouraged, regardless of the likelyhood (or not) of being an encyclopedic term (at the moment). Regards, MartinRe 09:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Also, this does failpass test 2 in so far as that when searching for terms such as "page update" (which is not a wikipedia specific term, it could be memory related, for example) the first four search results are redirects to project space, of which the top one is the very redirect we're discussing now. Regards, MartinRe 10:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unambiguous keep. This is where the article existed before the creation of the Wikipedia-space. It has useful history. Any external links to this policy page (and there are likely to be some by researchers of social software) will risk being broken unnecessarily.
    By the way, the comment above about the effect on mirrors is irrelevant since this redirect is not used in any articles, only in Talk spaces - pages not generally mirrored. Rossami (talk) 06:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No-one will ever stumble on that one unless she's looking for the project page. Haukur 12:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment *cough*, see my point above, where searching for "page update" (not a wikipedia specific term) in this case will get this as the top result (and another three cross space redirect afterwards). If the top results when explicitly searching an enclyopedia are not enclyopedic results, there is something a little wrong, in my view. Regards, MartinRe 13:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good point. Our internal search is annoyingly braindead. But if you turn a CNR into a "deleted page" it will still show up in the internal search, like "userboxes" does, so you haven't gained anything. Haukur 14:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is not a good example, however (and there may be some mileage in your argument, too). It doesn't matter how you use e.g. Google to search en.wikipedia.org for "page update" [8] or [9], you get not much of use. Whether this applies to all such redirects I obviously don't know, but it doesn't seem to apply usefully to this one. -Splash - tk 15:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, not the best example, but it was intended to show that these pages do affect people other than those who type in the full page title. I'd agree that anyone who types in the full title is looking for a WP: page, but since a) the WP:link is shorter, and b) it can negativily affect normal encyclopedia readers, I believe that the cons of CNR's outweight the pros, for this, and above reasons. Regards, MartinRe 18:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • PS Another thought comes to mind, that just because I can't think of a "good" search term that returns these redirects, does not mean that they don't exist (absence of proof is not proof of absence) so I don't think we should limit deletion to those that someone manages to think of a good search term for. ("bold page", "updating in bold" are other terms that return this redirect, for example). In general, though, I think the fact that a search that explicitly specified encyclopedia content can return non-encyclopedic results is a bad thing and should be avoided. Regards, MartinRe 19:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

&Delete: Its a cross namespace redirect. We keep the article space separate for a reason, and despite the attempts of a limited number of users to change this precedent, lots of these are deleted every week. --Hetar 03:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Be bold in updating pages is clearly not the name of any possible encyclopedia article, and for that reason it shouldn't appear even as a redirect. Rbraunwa 19:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to keep the article and the Wikipedia namespace separated. I think Splash made some good points, but the cons mentioned above by MartinRe and Cyde still outweigh the pros. --Zoz (t) 15:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wikipedia. The Wikipedia article has a section on that. Invitatious (talk) 22:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was deleted. — Jul. 11, '06 [09:46] <freak|talk>

Avoid statements that will date quickly talk → Wikipedia talk:Avoid statements that will date quickly edit

Cross-namespace redirect. --Zoz (t) 12:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -- nae'blis (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This comment by MartinRe on another page is very instructive: "See Wikipedia:Verbatim copying where the rules for mirrors are laid out. The main text section explains that for a CNR, the mirror has a choice - either leave it in, which will be a red link, or remove it as a link to a non-copied document, which is 'legally questionable'. Putting mirrors in a situation where they need to to choose between those two options is the main difficulty, in my view." --Cyde↔Weys 20:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Implausible search and CNR. Invitatious 02:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was Kept. -- JLaTondre 00:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mongolian mare milk → Kumis edit

Very recent redirect with complicated name unlikely to get type-ins or accidental links; Grammatically incorrect title; Factually incorrect and potentially confusing name (it's a processed beverage, not just milk); --Latebird 08:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It's entirely plausible that someone might not remember the name for the Mongolian drink made from fermented mare's milk, and therefore type "Mongolian mare milk" into the search box. It's made clear at the beginning of the article that kumis is not the milk itself, but a product made by processing the milk, so there is no chance for confusion. --Mathew5000 12:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Matthew5000 - I make plenty of redirects when single-topic searches fail to get me directly to an article (the search results page on WP is NOT user-friendly). -- nae'blis (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep fine redir - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Matthew5000. --Zoz (t) 15:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per nae'blis and mathew5000.... the wikipeida search results are HORRIFIC, and I think that's the reason that redirects that may appear to be obscure or unlikely are created on a daily basis. --Aknorals 04:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was keep. This is simply a case of Party X says "this is implausible" and Party Y saying, "no it isn't". Now, when we consider that: a) redirects are cheap b) Someone made the spelling error, so it's not so implausible as to be speediable; and particularly c) ties go to the runner. By the way, nobody needs to slap Cyde for his "slippery slope" argument; I'll do that myself later, so save yourselves the bother. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Politicial parties and poliiticians in Canada → Wikipedia:WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada edit

Redirect was initially created to address spelling error ("poliiticians") during creation of project page, redirecting to Wikipedia:WikiProject Politicial parties and politicians in Canada. Correcting the 2nd error ("Politicial") created double redirects from two pages, which have since been addressed. There are no pages linking to the nominated redirect page. --Ckatz 05:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 05:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Redirects are cheap; this spelling error may be unlikely but it is not implausible.--Mathew5000 06:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The redirect addresses a double spelling error ("Politicial" and "politiicians") so the odds of someone landing there are pretty slim. --Ckatz 07:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I realize that, but the criterion for deletion is implausibility, not improbability. --Mathew5000 11:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If we allow bizarrely improbable misspellings like this one to stick around we could have over a billion redirect pages. --Cyde↔Weys 20:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: How many redirects does RfD delete per week, on average? Twenty? Thirty? At that rate, it will be many lifetimes before RfD spares Wikipedia "over a billion" redirect pages. I am not suggesting that somebody sit down and create, for every article, redirects for every combination of two plausible typos. But when we already have a redirect for one such combination, as here, why should we delete it? What harm is it doing if we just leave it be? --Mathew5000 03:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete when they don't get the page they were looking for they will look back at the search term, realised they made a typo and correct it. I really doubt this quallifies as a common misspelling. ViridaeTalk 23:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plausible typo. jgp (T|C) 03:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Really? You realize there are two typos in the given link? I'm not going to make a point, but if I wanted to, I could go make thousands of redirects to Wikipedia:WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada, each with exactly two misspellings. --Cyde↔Weys 12:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you did that, you would be spending quite a lot of your time in order to create a minuscule benefit for the usability of Wikipedia. However, although minuscule, it would still be a benefit. What is the purpose of deleting those thousands of hypothetical redirects (or this one actual redirect)? --Mathew5000 19:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I disagree, having a ratio of misspelled redirects to articles of a million to one would be a terrible idea and would be of very real detriment to the encyclopedia. Search results very much depend on what kind of pages exist, and if you have a thousand different variations on "WikiProject Political Parties" and you're trying to do a site search on "political", you're going to get hundreds of listings of pure, redundant garbage. If you're so worried about misspellings the correct solution would be to change the Wikipedia search function so that it's fuzzy and takes into account possible misspellings (like Google). But creating, en masse, thousands of redirects from misspellings from each page would be the absolute worst way to go about it. --Cyde↔Weys 02:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Implausibile typo. --Zoz (t) 15:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. In a purely policy-based way, it meets -none- of the reasons on this RfD page for deletion or keeping it however it passes CSD R3 (depending on your definition of recent) which states Redirects as a result of an implausible typo that were recently created. To address Mathew5000's comment that "the criterion for deletion is implausibility, not improbability", check wikt:implausible and you'll see it lists it as unlikely, dubious, not plausible. Well, it definately is unlikely, and it is definately wikt:dubious (defined as uncertain, doubtful, questionable). BigNate37T·C 19:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: With all due respect to Wiktionary, that is a poor definition of "implausible". The concept of plausibility/implausibility has to do with whether an explanation being offered for an event or situation is believable. For example, suppose the tax authorities ask me where I got the million dollars in my bank account. If I say "I saved it up from three years working as a schoolteacher" that is implausible because schoolteachers just don't make that much money. But if I say "I won it in the lottery", that's quite plausible as an explanation for why I have a million dollars, even though winning the lottery in general is an improbable event. --Mathew5000 10:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Well, your logic makes sense but I don't feel good about accepting a definition for a term that can't be verified with a reference—if that is how implausible is to be interpreted regarding RfD nominations, then it should be written down somewhere. Also, did you mean to say that is a poor definition of implausible, rather than saying it is not? BigNate37T·C 21:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes I did. Thanks; I've corrected it now.--Mathew5000 01:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per BigNate37. googl t 17:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was Kept. -- JLaTondre 00:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Taqfiq Nasim Pasha → Muhammad Tawfiq Nasim Pasha edit

Redirect was created during moving the page. Taqfiq is a totally wrong spelling, probably a typo. --Wedian 04:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Redirects from typos are good. Note that q is next to w on the qwerty keyboard, so this typo is not at all implausible. --Mathew5000 11:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mathew5000. ViridaeTalk 23:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was Kept. -- JLaTondre 00:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Algore → Al Gore edit

"Algore" is Rush Limbaugh's purile and derogatory nickname for the former vice-president, and should not have its own page, currently a simple redirect to Al Gore. There is no purpose for this page other than as a insult against the man. It is not a misspelling, and no similer redirect exists for "Billclinton" or "Georgebush." Kitteneatkitten 03:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong DeleteKitteneatkitten 03:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per nominator's suggestion that this derogative term is used on a long running nationally syndicated radio show. According to Wikipedia:Redirects_for_deletion/Precedents section 1.7, this sort of redirect should be kept if the nickname is widely known. Dgies 03:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per noms own statements that it's a nickname used on a widely available radio show. Just because their neocons doesnt mean they shouldnt be able to get to Al Gore's article. Hell, it may help them learn a thing or two. -Mask   03:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete your precedents section actually runs 7 to 4 against. NPOV is a pillar and should trump other considerations. Thatcher131 04:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:NPOV. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment NPOV isn't at issue here. Calcutta redirects to Kolkata, despite the Indians making it very clear that they dont wish the city to be called that anymore and find it offensive. The issue with redirects is usefulness. Is this a term someone would type in trying to get information? I believe it is, yes, so it should lead them to information. Now, if the article were written from a paticular drug addicts point of view, it would be an issue. NPOV is a strawman argument in this case. -Mask   06:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep UsefulForPeopleSearchingWithABrokenSpacebar Regards, MartinRe 10:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MartinRe. --Billpg 11:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment also per AKMask. --Billpg 14:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, plausible redirect, and not in itself derogatory. Article should mention the nickname briefly in context, if it doesn't already. -- nae'blis (talk) 15:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If it's used as an insult, it is derogatory. The only justification would be if it were also a common typo. But if this is included as a typo for "Al Gore", what about the thousands of other possible typos without spaces for other articles? Rbraunwa 17:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This ignores one of the uses of WP: as popular culture explicator. If a Limbaugh fan is ranting about Algore, and it is impossible to tell by context whether he means Gore, Algol, or Al-jazeera, WP should tell me. Septentrionalis 02:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It looks like a common nickname for Gore. jgp (T|C) 07:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it is perjorative, but it's in common usage. - Richardcavell 06:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dubya clause. --Zoz (t) 15:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even aside from possible pejoratives permitted under redirect policy, this is a plausible typo. —Centrx→talk • 22:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

11 July edit

The nominated redirect was deleted by The Anome – Gurch 16:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sabre-Tooth Pastrami → Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency edit

Haven't read this book in a while, but I don't have any memory of this, and Google doesn't seem to either: [10]. Opabinia regalis 03:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Mangojuicetalk 04:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete to the highest degree. The editor who made it appears to have no use for good faith or useful edits. Ryulong 05:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Youssouf Fofana → Ilan Halimi edit

The nominated redirect was Keep with no prejudice against turning it into a disambiguation page ([[WP:BOLD|be bold and do it). --Cyde↔Weys 13:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing links to this one particular redirect, but the name in question is also the name of a soccer player from the Ivory Coast, and it seems wasteful to target a more specifically-named page just because of a worthless redirect. fuzzy510 03:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fofana was the ringleader in the Halimi kidnapping-murder, so the redirect makes excellent sense. Are you saying that you want to write an article on the soccer player? --JJay 03:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, major figure in the Halimi murder. Do go ahead and make it an article on that soccer player if you want to, but then you should add a disambiguation link to Ilan Halimi at the top. Sandstein 05:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep irrespective of the player - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was Speedy deleted --Cyde↔Weys 13:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What Wikipedia is not → Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not edit

Cross-namespace redirect Renesis13 02:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • But a relatively useful one. Septentrionalis 02:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not only is it useful, but it's where the page was before the Wikipedia-space was created. Any external links to that policy page (and there are some by researchers on the concept of social software) will risk being broken unnecessarily. Rossami (talk) 06:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as with all cross-namespace redirects. It's not an encyclopedia article, so it should stay out of the encyclopedia namespace, which we want to keep clean. If anybody gets a broken external link, the search facility will find it just fine. — sjorford++ 07:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as repost of deleted content as per previous rfd MartinRe 07:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was Speedy deleted -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Culture of the Communist China Culture of the People's Republic of China → Culture of the People's Republic of China edit

Bogus title created during a move war. Culture of the Communist China goes with it. SchmuckyTheCat 23:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Elizabeth Rice → Scripps National Spelling Bee edit

The nominated redirect was Deleted --Cyde↔Weys 13:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Odd Girl Out links to this, because an actress in the movie has that name. If/when somebody wishes to make an article for the 1939 spelling be winner it should be at Elizabeth Ann Rice. This name should be a redlink in Odd Girl Out Rob 22:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps someone should just turn the redirect page into at least a stub page for the actress, instead of just deleting it. Teknomage 14:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone is welcome to do that but, until such time, the redirect ought to be deleted and its presence actually discourages an article from being created there. —Centrx→talk • 05:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:Db-g9 → Template:Db-move edit

The nominated redirect was Deleted --Cyde↔Weys 13:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Db-g9 is Office Actions, not page move (which is G6, which has its own redirect to a different template). Invitatious (talk) 21:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'm fairly sure that anyone with the authority to request deletion per WP:OFFICE is quite likely to have sysop status (or direct access to one) so do not see this template ever being used. Regards, MartinRe 07:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Misleading and unneeded. --Zoz (t) 12:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

'99 → 99 Flake edit

The nominated redirect was Deleted, I've weighed the arguments and redirecting to a year would make the most sense, but as others point out, there's lots of years it could refer to. There's no point in making a disambiguation page listing other possible targets of 1899, 1799, etc.; our readers are smart enough to know how years work. Also, this would be a disturbing precedent to turn ever 'XX page into a disambiguation page with targets of 19XX, 18XX, etc. It's just not worth it. --Cyde↔Weys 13:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1999 is much more plausible, but it's probably better to leave it out entirely, as 1899 and 2099 are also plausible. The 99 Flake article now says it's named "Flake99", so the current redirect is not totally bogus. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to 1999 as the most likely intended result for '99, but leaving it blank isn't a bad idea per Arthur's reasoning. -- Scientizzle 17:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 1999 Its common sense for the next 90 years or so. Kevin_b_er 05:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 1999 as the most common usage of '99.
  • Comment: regardless of the official name (Flake99 or 99 Flake) the majority of people in the UK will simply refer to these as a 99. Users could easily enter "99" into the search box and expect to find the 99 Flake article. Convert to disambig, with links to 99 Flake and 1999 (and 1899?). Thanks/wangi 11:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or perhaps redirect to the awful 99 (number) article come dabpag? /wangi 15:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to disamb. It could refer to 99 Flake, 1899, 1999 or any other date. Even though 1999 is probably what they're looking for, I think having a damb page is probably the best solution. --Zoz (t) 12:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was speedy delete as vandalism / implausible typo. Kimchi.sg 16:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this → Haiducii edit

Haiducii was never on Afd and the redirect looks like vandalism to me—Preceding unsigned comment added by SupaStarGirl (talk • contribs)

  • Delete looks like vandalism to me, too. -- Scientizzle 16:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was kept, clearly a misguided or bad faith nomination. — Jul. 11, '06 [10:17] <freak|talk>

King's Highway (Ontario) → List of Ontario provincial highways edit

  • Delete -- a recent WP:POINT creation by SPUI during a (continuing) Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 8, within minutes after his CfD nomination. The CfD is not going well for him. It's parethetically disambiguated, so an unlikely accidental link. (I've never understood this yearning by some US folks for royalty.) It's for a decades obsolete terminology, and not used anywhere in *pedia, or in official Ontario government, and they took the old signs down long ago (circa 1993). Kill it while it's still young! --William Allen Simpson 04:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion. This is an unnecessary redirect. Though it's true that historically it was the proper name of the system, nobody, but nobody, ever calls them that anymore (not even the Ministry of Transportation), and nobody, but nobody is ever going to type the phrase "King's Highway (Ontario)" into the search box. And no article links to that title; the only direct links to King's Highway (Ontario) are discussions about the necessity of it that have taken place within the two days that the redirect has existed. As part of the same campaign, SPUI also tried to get away with retitling Thousand Islands Parkway with a highway number that was removed from it almost 40 years ago. I really think he'd best step away and let the people who actually know something about the state of Ontario's highway system decide what's best here. (Oh, and further, I should probably also note that SPUI has felt somehow entitled to label anybody who disagreed with his position in this dispute an "idiot".) Bearcat 04:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Really unnecessary. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Bearcat. WP:POINT. David | Talk 09:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Luna Santin 09:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong strong keep, as should be bloody obvious. "However, avoid deleting such redirects if: They would aid accidental linking and make the creation of duplicate articles less likely. 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." --SPUI (T - C) 10:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

12 July edit

Ilia → Elijah (prophet) edit

The nominated redirect was Disambiguated --Cyde↔Weys 18:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ilia is more likely a reference to a province in Greece. If anything it should be turned into a disambiguation page, which I may do anyway. Avi 16:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Be bold and do it, then! Anything we'd expect to have some put into the search engine should be a page, stub, or redirect, not a redlink. -- nae'blis (talk) 21:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep this article has a deep revision history, partially explaining why the redirect goes where it does. Elijah is a variant of Ilia, FYI. BigNate37T·C 23:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, your disambig page is much better than the redirect. I never got around to doing one, but yours is better than I would have put together. Copy the disambig over the redirect, and we're fine, I think. -- Avi 23:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close, disambiguationalised. BigNate37T·C 23:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was deleted, roundhouse kick forthcoming. — Jul. 16, '06 [15:03] <freak|talk>

Deleted articles with freaky titles → Wikipedia:Deleted articles with freaky titles edit

Cross-namespace redirect. Recently created. No incoming links. Delete. – Gurch 16:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Steuby → Steubenville, Ohio edit

The nominated redirect was Kept --Cyde↔Weys 13:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not likely to ever be used. Brian G 14:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was speedy deleted, malformed parenthetical disambiguation. There was some edit history due to a cut-and-paste move to the correct title, but I've merged it together. — Jul. 13, '06 [03:32] <freak|talk>

Tao(disambiguation) → Tao (disambiguation) edit

No one will ever type this (i.e. the missing space), result of error moving an article I guess. Double redirect. Thanks/wangi 09:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Emordnilap → Palindrome edit

The nominated redirect was Redirected to Semordnilap --Cyde↔Weys 13:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Kotepho 04:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, silly. —Keenan Pepper 04:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Semordnilap. --Mathew5000 05:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to semordnilap. jgp (T|C) 11:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since the nom is fine with retargeting, and the retargeting has been performed, can this be speedy closed? jgp (T|C) 15:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Semordnilap as above, I've been bold and made the edit. Thanks/wangi 11:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Don't change this target unless this discussion is closed. Thanks. -- ADNghiem501 09:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Never mind. I changed the target back you did. The nom. hasn't been over yet. -- ADNghiem501 10:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's called commonsense - there's an obvious solution here that's not disputed. What does extend bureaucracy gain? Thanks/wangi 11:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep retargeted to Semordnilap. --Zoz (t) 15:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WTF, we have an article about this made-up crap? In that case, it should obviously be retargeted, but I have half a mind to put Semordnilap up for deletion. —Keenan Pepper 17:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

2 times 2 → 4 (number) edit

The nominated redirect was Deleted, there could be an infinite number of these redirects. Wikipedia is not a calculator. --Cyde↔Weys 02:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a joke. The author has made some other contributions of dubious utility. 24.120.201.174 18:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

-112 → 112 BC edit

The nominated redirect was Deleted, too confusing. --Cyde↔Weys 13:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attempt to fix article by the preceding author which was prod'd. Actually, should be 113 BC if anywhere, but seems like a bad idea. See also -113. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: in some languages, -112 refers to 112 BC (e.g. fr:-112. So let us not retarget to 113 BC; that would be a disaster. Somebody entering -112 into the search box might well be looking for 112 BC (especially if a non-native-English-speaker), but might be looking for something else entirely. --Mathew5000 03:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to the International Organization for Standardization (emphasis on International), -112 means 113 BCE. If some French-speakers use something else that's too bad; the official definition is 113 BCE. International standards are important, dammit, and we wouldn't change our article on metre to say it was anything other than 100cm just because some weirdos gave it a different definition. Trying to write encyclopedia articles on scientific topics using definitions other than those given by ISO would be incredibly stupid (and we wisely do adhere to international standards on units of measure), as they are worldwide standards ... why would we do differently for dates? See also ISO 8601. --Cyde↔Weys 17:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, can be just a number too. Invitatious (talk) 01:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to 113 BC, this is the unambiguous, standard, and official meaning of what "year -112" is. --Cyde↔Weys 17:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: First, the redirect in question is not year -112 but simply -112, which could be just a number as Invitatious said. Second, are there any countries in the world that commonly use "-112" to refer to 113 BC? It looks to me like Esperanto, Norwegian, Gallician, and Luxembourgish are all using "-112" to refer to 112 BC. For example, consider the death of Julius Caesar on March 15, 44 BC, and compare: fr:-44, eo:-44, nn:-44, gl:-44, and lb:-44.--Mathew5000 00:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well then those wikis need to be fixed. Esperanto, Gallician, and Luxembourgish though? Together those three don't have one-tenth of the number of articles the English Wikipedia has. It doesn't make sense to use them to set precent here. We should simply be using ISO standardization. And common practice on Wikipedia is that bare numbers are years; if it's actually meant to represent a number you put (number) after it. --Cyde↔Weys 03:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this mess started by a sockpuppet who just loves creating random, non-notable pages. Protect it from recreation. Ifnord 02:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Early historical dates are typically written using the Julian (or proleptic Julian) calendar, but ISO 8601:2004 prescribes the use of the proleptic Gregorian calendar for these dates. Since the calendars are not the same, ISO 8601 has no bearing on where this redirect should point to. Spacepotato 22:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and block Jose and Ricardo for wasting so much time. Kusma (討論) 10:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

13 July edit

Googolplexian → Googolplex edit

The nominated redirect was Redirected to Names of large numbers --Cyde↔Weys 20:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This number isn't mentioned in the googolplex article, so it shouldn't redirect there. Delete. Voortle 17:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • What exactly is a "Googolplexian"? Is it not just the "esque" form of googolplex? --Cyde↔Weys 17:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.googolplexian.com/

  • So it should have its own article then? --Cyde↔Weys 18:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently, a googol is  , a googolplex is  , and this new word googolplexian is supposed to be  . However, even if the others warrant articles, for popular culture references and with comparisons of its size to the universe and mathematics, googolplexian appears to be a rather made-up word or Internet meme, recent, with this website and some Urban Dictionary mentions. googol and googolplex are at least in dictionaries, and the OED has several uses of these words in the literature. googolplexian is, being a neologic dictionary definition, with no substantial article or foreseeable substantial article. It is a redirect to an article that does not mention, and an article that itself does not, or only barely, belongs in an encyclopedia. Delete. —Centrx→talk • 23:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if googolplexian can be verified sufficiently to include in the googolplex article, keep the redirect and add it. If there is not sufficient information to properly verify the addition of the term to the googolplex article, then delete. BigNate37T·C 21:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Names of large numbers, which mentions this number. Spacepotato 21:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Horrible → Horror edit

The nominated redirect was Deleted, I don't see any potential for more than a dictdef or a nonsensical disambiguation page to a bunch of articles that happen to have "Horrible" in the title. --Cyde↔Weys 00:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Soft redirect to Wiktionary, I agree that Horror (emotion) is not a good target. Invitatious (talk) 01:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that of the two articles in What links here, one was the result of a rampant over-linking of all dictionary words by a vandalistic user, and the other is of a filmmaker who has a film named "Horrible". The Horrible redirect was originally created to go to "George W. Bush", by a paradoxical user who was here two days and then put up a note saying "I am ending my time at Wikipedia". Every dictionary word does not need to link to Wiktionary; the soft redirect is not necessary. —Centrx→talk • 01:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. But if it's kept there are numerous other targets that would be better. --Mathew5000 01:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, no retarget necessary. -- NORTH talk 21:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — Reinyday, 19:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Siobhan → Siobhan Meow edit

The nominated redirect was Retargetted to Siobhán --Cyde↔Weys 14:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Convert to redirect disambiguation page then. No need to bring it here. -- nae'blis (talk) 21:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, do you mean convert to a disambig? I don't understand. Ziggurat 21:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Errr, yes. Sorry. Please redirect me → coffee.... -- nae'blis (talk) 18:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I personally dislike lists of people who have a given name, unless there is another logical set of articles that could also be linked to. There doesn't appear to be here, so I think it's better to delete the redirect, in the same way that there's no disambig for Debbie. Ziggurat 06:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I follow your logic. If I type in "Siobhan" to the search engine because I have no idea how to spell (or don't know) the person's last name, which should I get: a redlink, a confusing search engine page that includes images and user accounts, or a list of articles starting with/using the word Siobhan? I think the latter, but of course I'm biased, as I recently created pages for Uriel (disambiguation) and Blackmore (disambiguation). It could also be combined with the stub at Siobhann. -- nae'blis (talk) 15:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those two disambig pages make some sense, as there are articles that use only that term (Uriel, Uriel (poem)). There aren't any real problems with a searcher being sent to a search page (all the Siobhans are mentioned, and I don't see how anyone with even a passing knowledge of the Internet could find it confusing), and disambig pages are intended for cases where a whole title is ambiguous, not just as a replacement for an incomplete search. I'm not about to go on a crusade against lists of people with a common first name, but I think they're completely unnecessary, hence the nom above :) Ziggurat 10:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ziggurat; no need for a disambiguation page for people named Siobhan. -- NORTH talk 01:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per Nae'blis. — Reinyday, 19:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but change the redirect to Siobhán, a popular Irish/Gaelic girl's name. The Siobhann stub should probably be redirected to Siobhán too — it's an unusual version of Siobhán. Alnaschar 07:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but change to Siobhán per Alnaschar, if only to help people figure out how to pronounce the name. --Daduzi talk 11:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Aetherometry → Aether theories edit

The nominated redirect was Deleted. In addition to other arguments, the fact that it's not discussed at target page makes this redirect rather pointless. -- JLaTondre 02:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was put here a few weeks ago, and strangely closed on June 7th with the result of "no consensus", even though there was no user who wanted to keep the redirect. As listed before, the redirect is not appropriate because Aether theories does not contain anything about Aetherometry, and the redirect lends and air of legtimacy to Aetherometry by linking to a page mostly about historical non-pseudoscientific theories. Whether there should be an article about Aetherometry has no relevance to the appropriateness of the redirect. Philosophus T 09:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - note also that Aetherometry as a "theory" has extremely little to do with aether at all, being more related to orgone crackpottery. --Philosophus T 10:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no way that article can be considered neutral. It is written by a major proponent of the pseudotheory, if I recall. It presents it in a purely positive light, and doesn't point out the obvious inconsistencies that make the theory completely bogus. It also does not explain that the theory has been completely ignored by the mainstream scientific community. I don't think the topic has enough notability to be included in Wikipedia, and it has great difficulty satisfying WP:V, since hardly any sources are verifiable or reputable. It is, in my opinion, impossible to create an article about the topic that satisfies NPOV and NOR at the same time, which one of the major reasons it was deleted. However, this has nothing to do with the RfD. The RfD is about the redirect, not the appropriateness of an article --Philosophus T 06:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. Not much to be said really. Byrgenwulf 11:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it seems that there is reason to keep this "article", that of non-criteria #1: "They have a potentially useful page history"—but I agree it should not point at Aether theories. Perhaps stub and add a controverial article tag or something? I don't know. I guess I abstain. BigNate37T·C 22:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and absolutely do not have a stub or any kind of article here. I suggest reading Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aetherometry (second nomination) for background. Just zis Guy you know? 08:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Science Adviser to the President → John H. Marburger, III edit

The nominated redirect was Re-targeted to Office of Science and Technology Policy and kept. -- JLaTondre 02:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a position where the person will change rather frequently. We cannot have redirects for every occupation, "Secretary of Agriculture", "CEO of IBM", etc. —Centrx→talk • 07:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Office of Science and Technology Policy. --Mathew5000 09:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Incidentally, the correct spelling of the position according to ostp.gov is Science Advisor to the President (with -or at the end of advisor). --Mathew5000 18:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is another reason I wish double redirects weren't broken at the software level. Ideally, this would redirect to the correct spelling of the same term, so that any accidental links could be fixed by bot as they appear. The redirect from the correct spelling of the position to the office itself, however, should not be bypassed by piping, because conceivably somebody might write an article about the position itself. — Jul. 16, '06 [14:57] <freak|talk>
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Regular Number → Decimal edit

The nominated redirect was Resolved --Cyde↔Weys 18:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Found another one (see "Regular number" below). How many of these are there, anyway? --Trovatore 06:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changed as below. Septentrionalis 21:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Posteral hypotension → Orthostatic hypotension edit

The nominated redirect was Kept. -- JLaTondre 02:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

redirect based on misspelling Moioci 03:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: plausible misspelling of "postural hypotension", which is a synonym of the target. --Mathew5000 05:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - definitely a likely misspelling of 'postural hypotension'. - Richardcavell 06:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Regular numbers → decimal edit

The nominated redirect was Points to Regular number --Cyde↔Weys 17:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

see nomination of Regular number, below --Trovatore 03:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to point differently, as below. Septentrionalis 21:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The nominated redirect was Retargetted --Cyde↔Weys 03:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finishing incomplete nomination by User:CASE, with no reason given.

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

Araniella → Araneae taxonomy edit

The nominated redirect was Converted to article by Sarefo. -- JLaTondre 02:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finishing incomplete nomination by User:Sarefo, with no reason given. Araniella is a genus in the family Araneidae and the order Araneae. Retarget to List of Araneidae species, which has a section for Araniella. TimBentley (talk) 02:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Regular number → Decimal edit

The nominated redirect was Now a valid article --Cyde↔Weys 13:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article regular number was just deleted at AfD, on the grounds that the phrase has no standard meaning. Thus there is no intelligible reason for it to point to decimal, or anywhere else. --Trovatore 01:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Db-g10 → Template:Db-attack edit

The nominated redirect was Deleted --Cyde↔Weys 13:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a CSD G10, so it's a pretty unlikely typo. The reason given in the template is CSD A6/I8. --ais523 12:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Zoz (t) 12:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This was part of an aborted change to CSD to make an attack page criterion general to all pages, [13]. —Centrx→talk • 23:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- NORTH talk 21:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Nigger music → Hip hop music edit

The nominated redirect was Deleted --Cyde↔Weys 23:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Highly offensive redirect, presumably created as an attack. Delete. bikeable (talk) 14:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Mathew5000 21:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete attack redirect. Ziggurat 22:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the redirect was created to attack its subject. It's speediable, actually. - Richardcavell 23:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

User:Ayassie world → User:Yassie edit

The nominated redirect was Deleted by Utcursch. -- JLaTondre 16:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My user page, User:Yassie has been encountered move vandal by User:Gongbu migok. This redirect page was "created" when I moved it back to revert vandalism. Yassie 14:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, speedy delete G3 (redirect created during cleanup of page-move vandalism) seems to fit perfectly. I tagged it. --ais523 15:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

14 July edit

William Ellsworth → Dummy Hoy edit

The nominated redirect was Converted to a stub on the Governor & moved to William W. Ellsworth. -- JLaTondre 00:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects to wrong person (William Ellsworth Hoy); vestige of someone creating article without realizing they had the name wrong. MisfitToys 23:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't see what you mean by redirecting to the wrong person. This person has that name, and on Google is the most common use of that name. A reason for deletion might be that "William Ellsworth" is the person's first and middle names. —Centrx→talk • 23:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, that's the case; Ellsworth was the middle name of Hoy, a baseball player. There are two articles (both regarding the CT Governor William Ellsworth) which link here. MisfitToys 23:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Redirection → Nicolaus Copernicus edit

The nominated redirect was Redirected to Redirect, you should've just been bold and fixed it, there's no reason this needs to be brought to WP:RFD. --Cyde↔Weys 19:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why it redirects there PhiJ 19:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

15 July edit

Domesticus → Cat edit

The nominated redirect was No longer under the purview of RFD --Cyde↔Weys 18:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Listing on behalf of User:Beerathon: "This article originally redirected to cat. This is misleading, as domesticus is in no way a species descriptor exclusive Cat (see Passer Domesticus)." Zoz (t) 15:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Sativa used to redirect to Cannabis sativa, but now it's a useful disambiguation page. We could do the same for Domesticus. —Keenan Pepper 23:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I decided to be bold and do just that. If anyone objects to such unilateral action while the debate is still open feel free to revert, but a least it shows what can be done and means it'll be relatively trivial to turn it into a disambiguation if that's what's decided. --Daduzi talk 04:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit it, make it a disambiguation page listing various (domesticated) animals with "domesticus" in their species name. — Jul. 16, '06 [14:52] <freak|talk>
  • Speedy keep as a disambig page. --Zoz (t) 21:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close as per Zoz. BigNate37T·C 21:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

16 July edit

Featured article candidates/Yield curve → Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Yield curve/archive1 edit

The nominated redirect was Deleted, we don't have subpages of articles in namespace 0 anyway. --Cyde↔Weys 02:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not used, cross-namespace to an archive page. googl t 16:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Kamali → Xbox edit

The nominated redirect was Redirected to King Kamali --Cyde↔Weys 17:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Makes no sense. –RHolton≡– 04:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Code Breakers (BBC film) → Code Breakers (BBC documentary) edit

The nominated redirect was kept. If somebody originally created this article at the "wrong title", this redirect will prevent somebody else from creating an accidental duplicate at the same "wrong title". Please read the guide above. — Jul. 17, '06 [14:35] <freak|talk>

Redirect page is completely pointless and left over from an article rename. -Etienne 02:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Teeny → Wig Wam edit

The nominated redirect was No longer a redirect --Cyde↔Weys 22:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the nickname of a member of that band. Otherwise, this is just an adjective which would be better for someone entering it to get a search result. I couldn't find any better redirect or disambiguation items on Google or WP, and I don't think redirecting or a static disambiguation page for things like "The Teenie Weenies" would be appropriate. Sporty, which was in the same situation, I thought did warrant creating a disambiguation page. —Centrx→talk • 01:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget By far the most common expected result would be Teen or Teenager both of which redirect to Adolescence. Dgies 03:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Adolescence as per Dgies. BigNate37T·C 22:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "teeny" meaning "teen" would never occur to me; must be a different dialect. To me "teeny" means "very very small" (derived from "tiny", I suppose); I think this is what most Americans will be expecting. --Trovatore 22:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Dionisio Aguado/Temp → Dionisio Aguado edit

The nominated redirect was Deleted --Cyde↔Weys 03:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect left after article moved from temporary subpage to main page; no edit history here. —C.Fred (talk) 00:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

American Beauty (film) → American Beauty (1999 film) edit

The nominated redirect was something that belongs at Wikipedia:Requested moves. — Jul. 17, '06 [14:25] <freak|talk>

As per discussion, I've nominated American Beauty (film) for deletion. The year is superfluous and there are not other films with the same name, therefore there is no need for this kind of disambiguation. The article it redirects to (American Beauty (1999 film)) will need to take its place. ----HughL [talk?]/[contribs] •  23:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Iraqo War → Iraq War edit

The nominated redirect was Deleted, this is an obvious typo that would cause any searcher to realize they had made a typing mistake. --Cyde↔Weys 18:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe anyone uses "Iraqo", at least not in any language I know. Jmabel | Talk 19:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Iraqo is a fairly plausible typo of Iraqi, but I don't think "Iraqi War" is common enough a term to warrant having a redirect from a typo of it. -- NORTH talk 21:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Recursive functions → Recursive function edit

The nominated redirect was speedy kept. Misguided nomination. — Jul. 17, '06 [14:23] <freak|talk>

Plural redirect CMummert 13:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

17 July edit

Template:db-blanked → Template:db-author edit

The nominated redirect was Reverted to 12 July version. General agreement that it shouldn't be a redirect. If anyone feels that the template should be deleted, that should be taken to TFD. -- JLaTondre 13:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Comment: Next time, please consider using {{db|whatever reason (in your own words) you are actually trying to convey}}. — Jul. 17, '06 [19:33] <freak|talk>
  • Revert to 12 July version and keep as a different template. That version is useful, and not redundant with {{db-author}}. --Zoz (t) 21:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the CSD G7 (author requests deletion criterion) states that "If the author blanks the page, this can be taken as a deletion request." To me, this means that we ought to assume intent to delete and, acting on behalf of the blanking author, use {{db-author}}. If they were seperate CSD criteria I could see having seperate templates. Perhaps the db-author template should read "and he or she desires it to be deleted" which emcompasses implied and expressed requests for its deletion. At any rate, I believe it should not be reverted. BigNate37T·C 22:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: It's assumed that the author places {{db-author}} to the page they want deleted ("...and he or she requests its deletion"). I think it's sensible to have a different template (the 12 July version) that can be placed by others on pages that have been blanked by their author ("...and he or she has blanked the page"). Merging it into {{db-author}} ("...and he or she desires its deletion") is a possible option, but I think having separate templates for separate cases is better. By the way, there are multiple templates for G6 too, see {{Db-histmerge}}, {{Db-move}} and {{Db-g6}}.--Zoz (t) 22:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if only because it has meaninful content in its history, assuming we feel that the content is meaningful. I'm willing to go along with a delete if someone can make a strong arguement that the content in the Template:db-blanked history is not meaningful. If it were deleted, there would be a lot of red links (though last I looked, only one from a broken transclusion). BigNate37T·C 22:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert to July 12 version per Zoz. ~ PseudoSudo 02:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment One former use (not necessarily correct) of the template was to restore a speedy-delete notice to pages that had been speedy-tagged and then blanked by their only non-speedying contributor. I've created {{db-blankcsd}} for this purpose; as all revisions are CSDs (A3 for the blanked version) it doesn't violate policy as at least one editor thought the old {{db-blanked}} did. I'm starting to suspect that this discussion should be moved to TfD. --ais523 16:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Revert per Zoz. Mr Stephen 13:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert per above. (Hmmm. I think we may need another {{db-author}}-related template along the lines of author requested deletion, but not in an obvious place.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Complete list → List of episodes of Spongebob Squarepants edit

The nominated redirect was Speedy deleted per maintenance clause of WP:CSD. Next time try a speedy deletion tag rather than RFD. --Cyde↔Weys 19:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was a new article created by someone under the original title "Complete list". I renamed it appropriately, and now the redirect should be removed. EuroSong talk 19:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Col d'ausbique → Col d'Aubisque edit

The nominated redirect was Deleted by King of Hearts. -- JLaTondre 01:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the entry Col d'ausbique to the correct Col d'Aubisque (please note the spelling typo in the first one!). Pascal.Tesson 20:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, it seems to be both a capitalization error and a spelling error mixing two separate letters, making it very unlikely to be entered. I think it's very unlikely that such a term would be entered again. Cowman109Talk 21:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as implausible typo (CSD R3). Invitatious (talk) 00:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

18 July edit

Bangas → Afro edit

The nominated redirect was delete.--SB | T 21:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Lame-o-ramaness → Lame edit

The nominated redirect was delete.--SB | T 21:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

McCrae, Stewart (1919- ) → Stewart McCrae edit

The nominated redirect was Deleted by King of Hearts. -- JLaTondre 01:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the page because it was in the wrong format for a person's name the redirect is an unlikely search term DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 22:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Molnar, George (1910-1998) → George Molnar edit

The nominated redirect was delete.--SB | T 21:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the page because it was in the wrong format for a person's name the redirect is an unlikely search term DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 22:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia cocktail guide → List of cocktails edit

The nominated redirect was Deleted, and I still don't understand why it was ever made. --Cyde↔Weys 00:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Don't → Contraction (grammar) edit

The nominated redirect was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 11:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The original and target aren't related.

  • Delete. Article fails to mention don't. Also, it just doesn't make sense. BigNate37T·C 09:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change target to Auxiliary verb. That would make more sense. --Zoz (t) 17:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the article doesn't specifically mention don't in the introduction. Forgive my unfamiliarity—what's it called, principle of least astonishment or something to that effect. It's not until section 2.5 of the Auxiliary verb article when don't appears. BigNate37T·C 22:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft Redirect to wiktionary. --Daduzi talk 09:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't particularly see the value of that. I don't think there's any people out there who don't know what don't means. If it were up to me, I'd say, "Don't redirect don't, and especially, don't overuse words." --Cyde↔Weys 22:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm perfectly in favour of it, providing we do it like this; we write something like "Don't is a contraction of do and not; it is used as an auxilliary verb", and next to it we put one of those "Look up don't in Wikitionary, the free dictionary." Or would that be deletable as a violation of WP:NOT a dictionary? --Quentin Smith 19:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think that would be against WP:NOT dictionary. --Zoz (t) 18:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. On second thought, it's highly unlikely that someone who wants to read about contraction or auxilary verbs would search for "don't". Deleting this redirect is not only the easiest but also the least confusing solution. --Zoz (t) 18:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Zoz. --Mathew5000 10:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Cornish toe → Mortons toe edit

The nominated redirect was delete.--SB | T 21:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Suggest delete. Google returns zero hits for the term, term unknown to medical science, see related debate in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celtic toe. Pete.Hurd 16:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete; deserves just as much of a toehold as the previous deletion. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celtic toe. Eluchil404 19:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per Eluchil404. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 21:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

19 July edit

Tackleball → American football edit

The nominated redirect was Kept. -- JLaTondre 12:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Concur; apparent neologism or retrologism from Touch football. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, my standards of inclusion for redirects are much lower than for articles, and I think this is sufficiently used that a number of readers might come to Wikipedia asking, "Wait, what is tackleball?" Unlike, say, a redirect from Ignorant douchebag to George W. Bush, football is a sport, not a person, and it can't really be "attacked". This is just a light ribbing. --Cyde↔Weys 21:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Cotw → Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week edit

The nominated redirect is now a disambiguation page. — Jul. 24, '06 [19:33] <freak|talk>

Cross namespace redirect. Could potentially be a disambig page, though, (see [14] and it also appears to be short for Children of the World Cowman109Talk 17:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as cross-namespace redirect, possible encyclopedic redirect target of The Call of the Wild. --Cyde↔Weys 18:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Renesis13 21:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as below. Making it a dab page, with link, is not unreasonable. Septentrionalis 16:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or make disambiguation per Septentrionalis. Novice users might not know the difference between the Wikipedia: and main namespaces. NeonMerlin 04:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Cross namespace redirects are bad and there are lots of things Cotw could stand for. David | Talk 11:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. COTW is not an unique Wikipedia term. Wikipedia should not be monopolizing its use. This redirect can actively discourage the creation of article content. New users have a difficult enough time figuring out how to edit redirects. -- JLaTondre 13:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JLaTondre or turn it into a damb page. --Zoz (t) 18:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Cyde, David and JLaTondre Rbraunwa 18:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • REDIRECT TO Wikipedia. 132.205.45.110 23:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig this, lets not bite the newcomers, or redirect to nonencyclopedic targets when we can target encyclopedic ones. --Aknorals 05:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This doesn't have anything with WP:BITE; I wish people would stop citing that in deletion discussions. And even if it did, WP:BITE is "just" a guideline, not a policy, like WP:ASR. --Cyde↔Weys 15:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as redirect disambiguation page, and include a selfref hatnote about collaboration. -- nae'blis (talk) 15:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't really understand what you are suggesting? --Cyde↔Weys 15:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's useful to the encyclopedia as a four-letter abbreviation for several things, as mentioned above, but including a {{selfref}} note at the top that only our users will see, about the collaboration of the week, is an established method of handling things here (see the current edition of RFA for example). -- nae'blis (talk) 17:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, that's what I thought you were trying to say, but you said "Keep as redirect", which threw me off, because a disambiguation page is patently not a redirect. --Cyde↔Weys 17:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've been doing that a lot lately (I tried to delete someone during their RFA the other day). Thanks for the catch. -- nae'blis (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Pokemon test → Wikipedia:Pokemon test edit

The nominated redirect was Deleted, retargetting to Pokemon contest didn't make enough sense. --Cyde↔Weys 21:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cross namespace redirect, could potentially be confusing in search terms. Cowman109Talk 17:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and re-target to Pokémon, this is actually a term that makes some sense within the Pokémon universe. It certainly shouldn't be returning non-encyclopedic content, anyway! --Cyde↔Weys 18:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Renesis13 21:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Pokémon per Cyde. Cowman109Talk 22:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC) Actually, BigDT is right. It would be an iffy redirect that could potentially make it more confusing. I'll change to delete then. Cowman109Talk 02:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unless I'm missing something, I don't see the use of retargeting. WP:PTEST is a test that people invoke in WP:AFD discussions saying, "hey, my cruft is at least as notable as some Pokemon". I can't imagine that anyone wanting to learn about Pokemon would ever search for Pokemon test. In fact, having the redirect would only prompt someone to add a dab link to the top of the Pokemon article. So I suggest delete. BigDT 02:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Pokémon contest, since cross-namespace is bad, that project space article already has four shortcuts (at least two of which should point to the Pokémon Wikiproject instead), and contest is close enough to test for redir-from-misspelling. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as cross name-space redirect. Rbraunwa 18:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agreed that this cross-namespace redirect is bad, and I used to play the Pokemon games religiously (*shame*), and never heard the term "Pokemon test" used in that context, so I don't see the value in any other redirect. -- NORTH talk 02:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Random Page → Special:Random edit

The nominated redirect was deleted as useless. Redirects to Special: pages don't work. — Jul. 20, '06 [14:29] <freak|talk>

Cross-namespace redirect, and the capitalization seems strange to have page capitalized as well, not to mention the random page button is accessible on every single page in Wikipedia to the left of the screen, making the redirect unnecessary. Cowman109Talk 17:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - This redirect doesn't even point to a single page, it points to a different page every time you click on it. No one can possibly justify why we should have such an abomination as an article (note that this is in article space) that randomly gets its text from any other article. --Cyde↔Weys 17:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Renesis13 21:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete R3 BigDT 02:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete googl t 14:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Waldorf education → Waldorf-education edit

The nominated redirect was belongs at Requested moves, not here. Invitatious (talk) 16:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually a request for a move onto a redirect page. The article once at Waldorf Education has been wrongly moved to Waldorf-education and should now be moved to Waldorf education; this requires a deletion of the existing redirect at the latter page. Hgilbert 13:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Barry Turner UK → Barry Turner (journalist) edit

The nominated redirect was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 11:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Various cross-name space redirects edit

The nominated redirects were deleted, finally, after nine days, thirteen hours of navel-gazing. —freak(talk) 16:59, Jul. 28, 2006 (UTC)

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

  1. Requests for Adminship --> Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship
  2. Request for adminship --> Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
  3. Categories for deletion --> Wikipedia:Categories for deletion
  4. Wikignome --> Wikipedia:WikiGnome Deleted. —Centrx→talk • 05:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wiki fairy --> Wikipedia:WikiFairy Deleted. These two: likely search terms, less useful, more likely articles: more support. —Centrx→talk • 05:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Speedy delete --> Wikipedia:Speedy deletions
  7. Speedy deletions --> Wikipedia:speedy deletions

---

  • Delete #4,5 not very useful, cross namespace redirects. — xaosflux Talk 04:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per the previous run, these are cross-namespace redirects and cause confusion between the encyclopedic content and the non-encyclopedic content because a user who is searching for something as innocuous as "request" with search restricted only to the encyclopedia could end up falling through a hole and down into the dank underbelly of esoteric Wikipedia process. The namespaces were created (and with good reason) to separate the encyclopedic content from everything else, but cross-namespace redirects violate that separation. --Cyde↔Weys 04:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're telling me that someone who searches for "Wikignome" will fall through a hole and into a dank underbelly if they end up at the page that explains what a wikignome is? What 'encyclopedic content' could they be looking for with that search term? - Richardcavell 00:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If someone is searching only the encyclopedia they should not get a Wikipedia namespace result, period. If they expand their search to other namespaces it will of course find Wikipedia:Wikignome. But if there isn't an article on it, an article-space-only search shouldn't return anything. --Cyde↔Weys 01:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just to be absolutely clear, someone who searches for WikiGnome is going to find it. They don't need a cross-namespace redirect polluting the encyclopedic content to do so. --Cyde↔Weys 01:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just to be absolutely clear, Cyde, you're supporting them finding the Wikipedia:Wikignome article through the search engine as okay? Doesn't that just put a neon sign on the pipes and fittings of the encyclopedia? I'm not sure what the solution is, short of a stub at wikignome that sends you to Wiktionary, but I'm not sure I follow your logic. -- nae'blis (talk) 15:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Have you used the search engine recently? It allows you to filter by namespace. You can choose to search only the encyclopedia, in which case you shouldn't find anything on Wikignomes (which are not a notable enough topic to have an entry in an encyclopedia of general knowledge), or you can search in a variety of other namespaces, and searching everything (which is the default) will find Wikipedia:Wikignome. Having that cross-namespace redirect in article space is simply unnecessary. --Cyde↔Weys 15:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Cyde has just reduced his own argument to absurdity. Yes, if a user knows Wikipedia's tools intimately, he doesn't need these redirects; such a user knows the names of Wikipedia;space articles too. But we are here to serve other users as well.
            • On a deeper level, Cyde's argument would imply not having any redirects at all, because the search engine will do it. It won't. Even when the search engine is up, it gets you a clumsy list of links; and it often isn't. (It wasn't when I tried to test Cyde's claim, for example.) Septentrionalis 16:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • You're right, users are too stupid to know how filters work, so the filters should always be broken and should return results from all namespaces no matter what options the user inputs. As for wanting to delete all redirects ... lmao. --Cyde↔Weys 16:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • We should not require that all users search WP in the manner that Cyde would, and with the background knowledge he has. What's hard about this? Septentrionalis 16:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I agree with Cyde. In the list of all articles in the encyclopedia, all the titles should refer to topics that belong in the encyclopedia. There are other ways to access other content, and those are not difficult. And even if that weren't true, a small inconvenience is not too large a price to pay for a clean, clear distinction between what our project is (the encyclopedia) and how it is made (the rest). Rbraunwa 18:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - any redirect that helps the user get to what they're searching for is beneficial to wikipedia. - Richardcavell 00:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Cyde. -- Renesis13 05:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I agree with Cyde. Rbraunwa 22:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep everything but #4 and #5, delete #4 and #5. Speaking from my own experience, when I was a newbie, I frequently used the "speedy deletions" redirect because I could never remember WP:CSD. Personally, I think any cross-namespace redirects should be soft redirects. That way, it helps newbies to learn the proper names, but at the same time doesn't make them hunt forever to find what they are looking for. BigDT 01:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You'd really put a small editor convenience over making sure that all encyclopedic search results are relevant? Remember, for every editor there's at least ten times as many readers. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and an encyclopedia search should return only encyclopedic results. --Cyde↔Weys 01:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Two points: (1) Consider these main namespace search results [15]. Every single WP: link shows up in the article namespace and is a potential search result. There are hundreds of those. Unless that oversight is corrected, I don't see how a few redirects to critical WP processes are causing a great problem. (2) I don't think it's a small editor convenience. I think it's huge for newbies to have a way to find basic functions. That doesn't mean that every single crufty essay needs cross-namespace redirects ... but a few of the most basic processes are helpful. I will say, though, that the worst thing by far is when they get WP:SALTed. Now, not only does the user not get taken to the WP policy they were looking for, they don't even get a search result - they just get a useless page. BigDT 02:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP: can easily be turned into a shortcut namespace (it doesn't even require changing any code, just a config file). That would take care of those. But all of the cross-namespace redirects with no unifying namespace, like "Be bold", "Watchlist", etc. ... those are permanently stuck in article space. --Cyde↔Weys 03:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • If it can easily be done, is there some reason it hasn't been? BigDT 03:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I actually don't think anyone's ever asked. Want to ping a dev? --Cyde↔Weys 13:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Dear gods yes, someone make this into a shortcut space. Unfortunately it doesn't answer what to do with CAT:CSD, WT:*, or any of those other oddball shortcuts (only the first one do I find really really useful). -- nae'blis (talk) 15:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • I'm sure you know this, but "other people got away with it" is a fallacy. Just because there's some other crappy stuff out there doesn't mean that it gives a free pass to the crappy stuff we are currently discussing. --Cyde↔Weys 15:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Useful to some people; and #4 and #5 are perhaps more useful than the others. One purpose of WP is to explain obscure references. The only reason to delete them worth discussing is to be nice to our mirrors. I would have no objection to Category:redirects from main namespace (which will cover things a shortcut namespace won't) to make it easier for the mirrors to find and remove them, but deleting them for that reason is making WP less useful to save other people work. Septentrionalis 15:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Less useful? Keeping the unencyclopedic content separate from the encyclopedic content is "less useful"? Can you give me one good reason why someone who has specifically filtered the search options so that they are only searching encyclopedic content should find a bunch of Wikipedia: namespace pages in the results? --Cyde↔Weys 15:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The convenience of a user who has used a mechanical filter and is too lazy to look through the resulting list to avoid a single cross-namespace redirect is not high on my list of priorities. Such a user is getting other false positives anyway. In any case, this problem can be solved for him by putting these in a cat and permitting him to avoid the cat. Septentrionalis 16:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for displaying your utter disdain for users. The filters exist for a reason, to fine-tun search results; you brush them off as though it doesn't even matter if they work or not. And some encyclopedic searches return a majority of Wikipedia pages because of all of the cross-namespace redirects; the user shouldn't have to filter through manually, that's what the filters are for. How in the hell does putting cross-namespace redirects help a user avoid cross-namespace redirects? He opens up the search results, views all of them, and ignores all of the ones in the category? Ohh wait ... he already wasted his time opening up those pages when they should've just been omitted from the search results per the filters in the first place. Nothing you're saying is making any sense. Tell me, how would you like it if Google's domain-type filtering (e.g. ".edu" only) didn't actually limit it to .edu, and when you were searching for something only on educational sites, you had to filter out all of the .com crap by hand because the filter wasn't working as intended? --Cyde↔Weys 16:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Calm down, Cyde; just because you have another uniformity to impose on WP is no reason for personal attacks. Your hypothetical user can either include (minus) Category:cross-namespace redirects, or we can supply a button to do it for him. In Cyde's proposal, the newbie users for whom these redirects are useful will be left up the creek. This approaches WP:BITE. Septentrionalis 16:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • There's no search option to not include categories in the search results. I don't see why they should have to go through the extra trouble of specifying a special category not to search through just to avoid non-encyclopedia search results when setting the "articles only" filter should do it in the first place. Again, citing BITE here is another straw man, and thanks for confirming my suspicions that you have been following me around for months, being contrarian whenever you perceive me to be "imposing another uniformity on WP". We first met many months ago in a mediation that was going poorly for you. Ever since then you've been following me around giving poorly-reasoned contrary positions to everything I've been involved in, whether it's been userboxes, RFAs, cross-namespace redirects, category naming, bots, etc. It ends now. Cease and desist at once. --Cyde↔Weys 16:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • This is hysteria. I have been visiting this page off and on for a year now; it's on my watchlist; this talk page edit is the oldest a cursory search can find. I visited again about the redirects to Regular number, below, and looked around while I was here; that's a good editor's responsibility. I have no idea what mediation Cyde is talking about; all the mediations I recall have either resolved the problem or been aborted by another party's withdrawal - in neither case anything to do with Cyde. Septentrionalis 16:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all cross-namespace redirects. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, harmless. Kusma (討論) 16:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Care to add any explanation as to why you think it's "harmless"? I've already explained why it's actually harmful, because someone searching for just encyclopedic content can "fall through a hole in the encyclopedia" (as MartinRe calls it) and end up at some esoteric project page. --Cyde↔Weys 16:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Slight potential harm, maybe, which is more than compensated by real and proven usefulness when aiding accidental linking. I find the pro-deletion arguments all pretty weak, and explained that on your talk page at User_talk:Cyde/Archive008#Be_Bold, to which you never answered. Kusma (討論) 08:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm sorry for putting you through all this trouble with my cross-namespace redirects. I wish I had read the policy on that beforehand. --Gray Porpoise 20:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There isn't a policy. If there were, this wouldn't be an issue. There is a guideline Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. Guidelines should be followed, but there are times that the benefits of a self-reference outweigh the problems. BigDT 01:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • What benefits would that be? All I'm seeing are negatives. --Cyde↔Weys 02:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Feel free to click to WP:RFD#When should we delete a redirect? and read #5. Then repeat that there isn't a policy against CNRs. This isn't the way to fight for CNRs; this very page clearly says they are a reason to be deleted, with the exception of the pseudo-namespace WP:. I've been here for like five or maybe six weeks and have a very solid grasp on what namespaces are and policy regarding redirects. If you feel that newbies need these CNRs then perhaps it is time to propose reform to the RfD policies; for now the policy clearly calls for the deletion of these redirects. This is not the place to argue RfD policy. BigNate37T·C 05:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't some account be taken of the previous RfD discussions? You can see some of them here, FYI. (Just scroll up and down some. :-)) Should someone make an attempt at contacting those that commented last time? I'm sure they may be interested to know their opinoins were not discounted last time. Just a thought. --LV (Dark Mark) 00:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sigh, I'll go it. Normally I wouldn't endorse this as it's close to talk page spamming, but I know how personally annoyed I am when I voice my opinion in a matter, think it's settled, and then a while later I learned the decision changed behind my back with no further input from me. --Cyde↔Weys 13:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, I hate talk page spam, but like you, I would hate to think I voiced my opinion on the matter, thought it dealt with, only to realise later that it was discarded. In this case, and very few others, it seems appropriate. If only there were a way to just repost their comments and opinions when relisting, and have them count as part of the new discussion and decision. Oh well... Thanks. --LV (Dark Mark) 14:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete all, per Cyde and earlier comments on these RfDs/wangi 13:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all There is no benefit in having a ban on cross-namespace redirects. New users who want to find out how to do things will rarely think to add "Wikipedia:" before their search term. Chicheley 13:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you read my comments above? The default search options are to search all namespaces, so if they type in "Articles for deletion" but that page doesn't exist, it will simply turn into a search, and the first search result is going to be ... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. This is actually better for new users because it still gets them where they want to go while also teaching them about namespaces. As for no benefit in having a ban on cross-namespace redirects ... why oh why, when I limit my search filter to just the encyclopedic content, would the search return results in Wikipedia space? Remember, we are first and foremost an encyclopedia, and it doesn't make sense to not even make it possible to only return encyclopedic results. --Cyde↔Weys 13:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've just created a test account to check and the default search option is to search only the mainspace. --Zoz (t) 17:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Cyde and others above. Tom Harrison Talk 13:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I used to use cross namespace redirects all the time, so that I could figure out how to correctly make edits, etc. It took me a while, however to notice that the convention was 'Wikipedia:Whatever' instead of 'Wikipedia Whatever' or 'Wikipedia: Whatever' so i would often searched for 'whatever' and, the built in search featured sucking as it does, it took me a while to find the convention/MoS/whatever I was looking for. However I now realise that this kind of behavior should be corrected, while still allowing new users to be able to find what they are looking for. Thus soft redirect these and all cross-namespace redirects as they allow users/newbie editors etc to find what they are looking for while still correcting the user and saying "you should link to this next time". --Aknorals 13:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. In my opinion, only when something is a likely article search term is it an inherently bad cross-namespace redirect. (For example, Spoil redirected to Wikipedia:Spoiler warning until I changed it to redirect to Decomposition.) Cyde's concern is valid, but this is the wrong way to address it. Cyde mentioned that we could ask the developers to create a "WP" namespace. I suggest that we ask them to automatically exclude redirects to non-article namespaces from article searches. Problem solved. —David Levy 13:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems like a "solution" that's more trouble than just not doing the bad thing in the first place. Namespaces were created for a reason, so that the encyclopedic content would be separate. Changing the search makes search results different, but the content is still not fundamentally separate as it is in namespaces. Also, I seriously question whether it's a good idea that every page in a Wikipedia: namespace have a corresponding redirect in article space (but without the Wikipedia: part). It seems really silly to me. I've deleted cross-namespace redirects to various WikiProjects, personal essays, and other stuff. If you're going to say that this is all fine because we could theoretically ask the developers to remove cross-namespace redirects from search results ... what's to stop a really notable user from having a redirect in article space? I'm a lot more notable than some random Wikipedia essay, why can't I have Cyde redirect to User:Cyde? And ditto for lots of other users? I just don't think we should go down the road of allowing thousands of cross-namespace redirects for each little Wikipedia: page and possibly lots of other stuff. The namespaces exist, use them. If something is in namespace zero it should be encyclopedic content, period.
  • 1. I don't agree that a cross-namespace redirect is an inherently "bad thing." I believe that some are bad (as noted above), but not all. 2. My proposed solution would cover "WP," "WT," and any other pseudo-namespace created in the future. Even if we delete all of the other cross-namespace redirects, it still would be beneficial. 3. I don't see why it's so essential to keep different types of content 100% separate. We certainly don't want someone searching for the word "spoil" to arrive at Wikipedia:Spoiler warning, but is it even remotely likely that someone who types "categories for deletion" could seek anything other than Wikipedia:Categories for deletion? Your slippery slope argument is unrealistic; the difference between the type of redirect that you describe and the subjects of this deletion discussion is clear. —David Levy 16:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, cross-namespace redirects tend to squat on pages and prevent valid encyclopedic content from being written. Until very recently Watchlist was a cross-namespace redirect because no one thought they could overwrite a cross-namespace redirect with valid encyclopedic content. A cross-namespace redirect to Wikipedia policy just looks too official and most users arriving there accidentally expecting an actual article are not going to realize they can write that article. I have a strong feeling that if our policy on cross-namespace redirects had been a lot stricter from the get-go, Watchlist would've been created as an article a long time ago and would be much better article by now. That's just one example, but I've run across a few other examples of cross-namespace redirects squatting on encyclopedic article names. The risk of losing material valuable to the encyclopedia is not worth the dubious editor benefits it provides. --Cyde↔Weys 15:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Cyde. Kimchi.sg 13:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Cyde. -- JLaTondre 13:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all non-shortcut cross-namespace redirects... there is some line somewhere that should keep people from creating whatever redirects they want, and I think this is beyond that line. If they really must be kept, hopefully they can be marked with something like {{R from shortcut}}, so they're easier to keep track of (eg. so that sites that don't include Wikipedia: can more easily find and hide them) --Interiot 13:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The oft-cited mirror issue is basically nonexistent. Sites that use our content can automatically exclude redirects to non-article namespaces just as easily as they exclude the non-article namespaces themselves. As I noted above, this is what we should be doing with our search tool. (Let's fix the software bug instead of working around it.) —David Levy 14:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, this is incorrect, mirrors can not exclude CNR's as easily as non-article space, for the latter they can choose not to download it in the first place, but for the former, they have to download it and then post-process it to remove it. Regards, MartinRe 23:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per David Levy. - Mailer Diablo 14:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Wikipedia is a single package and this attempt to fracture it is misguided. Osomec 16:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, but that's simply not true, per the terms of the GFDL and official project policy. Wikipedia isn't a single package, it's a whole slew of separate articles, each of which is licensed independently under the GFDL. This isn't an attempt to "fracture" it, it's an attempt to make it as usable as possible. Search filters should work, not return extraneous results. --Cyde↔Weys 18:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all cross-namespace redirects. Modify the default search filter for logged-in users to include the Wikipedia:, Category:, etc namespaces. Create separate shortcut-namespaces for WP:, WT:, CAT:, etc and include those too in the default logged-in searches. This way readers interested only in articles would never see the non-encyclopedic encyclopedia-building process; and newbies would find their non-mainspace pages easily. And everyone would live happily ever after. --Zoz (t) 17:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all non-shortcut cross-namespace redirects, except those which have Wikipedia or some other Wikipedia Foundation project in the title. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per last two above, we need to keep in mind that this encylopedia's mainspace is designed for those on the outside, not those inside. Yanksox 18:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep five but neutral on "Wikignome" and "Wiki fairy" as they seem infantile and I can't imagine them to of great enough utility to care. The rest all serve a purpose, redirects are cheap, I'm unconvinced by the delete arguments, and I really would think that there were more important things to crusade over. - brenneman {L} 23:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please stop impugning other people's motives. I personally have never crusaded for anything on Wikipedia, and I really doubt that anyone else saying "Delete" has either. --Cyde↔Weys 00:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • By "crusade over," Aaron probably meant, "fervently pursue." I don't think that he intended to insult or offend anyone. —David Levy 01:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. In addition like these, both Votes for deletion and Articles for deletion, at the same time, have been nominated for deletion here. -- ADNghiem501 01:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as cross-namespace redirects. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 21:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as CNRs. feydey 18:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all but 4 and 5. per above. --Banana04131 20:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Cyde and others. jni 05:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all as per Septentrionalis. Lectonar 13:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ps.: and thanks for bringing this to my attention. Lectonar 13:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I believe I have a solution to this dispute. Please review it/leave comments at Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects. Thanks. --Zoz (t) 15:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Cyde and YankSox, with the caveat that Aaron B. is surely correct that we've more important things about which to worry; once we're presented with the issue, though, we ought to dispose of it properly. Joe 04:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per excellent comment from Cyde regarding misuse of WP:BITE and newbie coddling. And please, for the love of God, stop closing RfD discussions early without a good reason (like if they were stubbed or speedied). BigNate37T·C 05:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment When the search function works, feel free to let me know and I'll consider changing my vote to keep all—until then the "let's fix the software bug instead of working around it" arguement holds no water for current RfDs. WP:NOT a crystal ball. BigNate37T·C 05:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my opinion, the advantages of having these redirects already outweigh the disadvantages. I do, however, acknowledge that Cyde's concern is valid, and I've suggested a simple means of solving the problem (irrespective of whether these redirects are deleted). Incidentally, the "crystal ball" principle applies to article content, not MediaWiki functionality. —David Levy 23:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Yet more process wankery. --Tony Sidaway 20:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all CNR's result in the search engine returning non-encyclopedic results when a reader explicitily asked for only encyclopedia results. Also, please note that this can occur even when the non-exact CNR term is entered, so while we might expect reasonably expect someone entering the entire term to be looking for wikipedia, we should not expect other readers to have to sift though incorrect search results to find what they want. Despite eariler comments, CNR's do impose a load on mirrors, for "normal" wikipedia space material, a mirror can choose not to download it, but with CNR's, a mirros is reuiqred to download it, and then post-process it to remove them. First and foremost, we are in the business in creating an encyclopedia, and making it more difficult to achieve that goal simply to make it marginally easier for a sub set of editors (who can easily create bookmarks or add links on their userpage to do the same thing) is not acceptable. Per previous comment: Wikipedia is not a single package, the product is an encyclopedia, which just so happens to be currently hosted by wikipedia, but if wikipedia dissappeared in the morning, the encyclopedia should still exist, so the two should not be entwined. CNR's blur the lines between the product we're making (an encyclopedia) and the current process of doing so (wikipedia) which is a bad thing in my view. Regards, MartinRe 23:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Shortcuts for Wikipedia:WikiProject North Carolina State Highways edit

The nominated redirect was Deleted, it doesn't appear that deleting cross-namespace redirects to small WikiProjects is remotely controversial. --Cyde↔Weys 21:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Delete all. -- Renesis13 05:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, WikiProjects certainly don't need cross-namespace redirects in the main article space. --Cyde↔Weys 17:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unless they start with WP:, I hope. We do need cross-space shortcuts such as WP:RFD, and Wikiprojects can have shortcuts like that. Kusma (討論) 08:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP: is already a pseudo-namespace, and if my proposal goes through, it will become a real namespace (the shortcut namespace). I do distinguish between these legitimate shortcuts and those random XNRs scattered throughout article space. --Cyde↔Weys 18:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Rbraunwa 22:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per NORTH. --Zoz (t) 17:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • d GangstaEB~(penguin logs) 20:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

20 July edit

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

Showtime Too → Showtime edit

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

Showtime Beyond → Showtime edit

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

Showtime Extreme → Showtime edit

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

Showtime Family Zone → Showtime edit

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

Showtime Next → Showtime edit

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

Showtime Showcase → Showtime edit

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

Showtime Women → Showtime edit

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

Encore WAM → Encore (Premium TV) edit

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

Starz Cinema → Starz! edit

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

Starz Comedy → Starz! edit

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

Starz Edge → Starz! edit

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

Starz InBlack → Starz! edit

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

Starz Kids & Family → Starz! edit

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

Showtime Beyond → Showtime edit

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

Showtime Extreme → Showtime edit

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

Showtime Family Zone → Showtime edit

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

Showtime Next → Showtime edit

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

Showtime Showcase → Showtime edit

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

Showtime Women → Showtime edit

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

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was All deleted. Having two different numbering systems for the same content is more confusing then helpful. -- JLaTondre 00:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

  • Delete (and all 10 below). These were all components (or sideeffects from page moves) of a redesign by user:Go for it! who has since abandoned his account. The design never came to fruition, and these redirects serve no useful purpose being kept. -Quiddity 07:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. For details, please see Wikipedia talk:Community Portal#Orphaned subpage. Thanks. -Quiddity 20:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

  • Keep, harmless and has incoming links. Kusma (討論) 07:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and my comments above. The single incoming link (a dbl redirect) has been cleaned up. -Quiddity 21:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

  • Delete per nom, and my comments above. -Quiddity 21:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

  • Delete per nom, and my comments above. -Quiddity 21:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

  • Delete per nom, and my comments above. -Quiddity 21:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

  • Delete per nom, and my comments above. -Quiddity 21:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

  • Delete per nom, and my comments above. -Quiddity 21:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

  • Delete per nom, and my comments above. -Quiddity 21:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

  • Delete per nom. —Mets501 (talk) 13:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and my comments above. -Quiddity 21:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

  • Delete per nom. —Mets501 (talk) 13:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and my comments above. -Quiddity 21:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

  • Delete per nom. —Mets501 (talk) 13:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and my comments above. -Quiddity 21:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

  • Delete per nom. —Mets501 (talk) 13:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and my comments above. -Quiddity 21:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

WP:MENU → Wikipedia:Community Portal/Menu edit

The nominated redirect was Deleted as CSD R1. Target was deleted per MFD. -- JLaTondre 18:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Keep. This is a shortcut to an actual page in the Wikipedia namespace. As long as it is still there I see no reason for it to not have a shortcut. BigNate37T·C 03:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and my comments above. -Quiddity 21:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment regarding WP:MENU, WP:MENU2, and WP:TTD:
It is my position that if a redirect's target is being considered for AfD that this is not a valid reason for deleting the redirect on RfD. In fact, this is terrible reasoning.
  1. If the target gets deleted, the redirects linking to it can be speedied as a matter of housekeeping and we've wasted our collective breaths considering the redirect for deletion. Worst case, the pages are not deleted and we've made a decision on a phantom criteria that never came to fruition.
  2. RfD should not be considering the validity of the articles that redirects link to. RfD's scope does not include deleting a redirect because the target does not deserve a redirect. Any deletionist arguement, in my opinion, must originate from one or more of the six criteria at WP:RFD#When should we delete a redirect?. It is very bad practice to judge the merit of a redirect on the merit of its target. As a corollary, the only basis for deciding whether an article does not deserve a redirect is whether the article deserves to be an article. I believe this applies to non-namespace zero articles as much as it does to namespace zero articles.
These three redirects are valid in accordance with WP:R#What do we use redirects for?, specifically {{R from shortcut}}. BigNate37T·C 06:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

WP:MENU2 → Wikipedia:Community Portal/Menu2 edit

The nominated redirect was Deleted as CSD R1. Target was deleted per MFD. -- JLaTondre 18:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Keep. This is a shortcut to an actual page in the Wikipedia namespace. As long as it is still there I see no reason for it to not have a shortcut. BigNate37T·C 03:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and my comments above. -Quiddity 21:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

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

The nominated redirect was Kept. While unused, there is no need to remove the shortcut while the target still exists. -- JLaTondre 00:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Delete all of the above. These were all components of a redesign by user:Go for it! who has since abandoned his account. The design never came to fruition, and these redirects serve no useful purpose being kept. --Quiddity 20:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a shortcut to an actual page in the Wikipedia namespace. As long as it is still there I see no reason for it to not have a shortcut. BigNate37T·C 03:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Mallgoth → Mansonite edit

The nominated redirect was Kept. -- JLaTondre 00:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I have no huge objections to redirect to Mansonite, I still consider the term to be non-notable or a neologism (e.g., 548 Google hits). In particular, Mall goth was recently deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mall_goth). Note that the result was delete, not redirect. Furthermore, all the "mall goth" variation pages (different cases, spacing - e.g., Mall Goth) were then speedy deleted as a result [16]. This redirect has been recreated just 2 days later. I don't see any fundamental difference between "Mall goth" and "Mallgoth" (if anything, I'd say Mallgoth is less common) - so should we stick by the AfD, or recreate all these pages as redirects? Mdwh 10:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: mentioned in the introductory paragraph of Mansonite and aids searching. BigNate37T·C 03:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The original "Mall goth" article was deleted by AfD; redirects to it were speedied because they pointed to articles that no longer exist. Two days later, somebody created a redirect to a useful article on a similar subject to aid searching, and that redirect happened to occupy the same space previously taken up by the Mall goth article. That's not a problem — this nomination exists only because Mdwh (talk · contribs), for all his good points, does not understand the deletion process on Wikipedia. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 04:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I understand the process here thank you very much, and I dislike your repeated implications that I don't. My logic is not "The AfD means this redirect must be deleted", rather (a) I believe we can do without it, (b) other people believed that such a redirect would be a bad idea, as discussed on the AfD; people disagree that this is a useful redirect. Of course, this doesn't mean that no one can create a redirect, but it does suggest it's worthy of discussion given the dispute, and I dislike the implications that I shouldn't even be bringing it up. I guess none of those people watch this page, but I'm happy to stand by the new consensus. Mdwh 10:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    AfD does not have jurisdiction over this particular case. You should not be nominating things you don't want deleted for deletion simply because of worries about "process", particularly when such concerns are unnecessary. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BigNate37. -- NORTH talk 03:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was speedy deleted; slam dunk. Thanks for pointing this out. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 10:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St. Michelle Malkin → Michelle Malkin edit

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

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

Jews did 9/11 → 9/11 conspiracy theories edit

The nominated redirect was Deleted--Cyde↔Weys 14:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Delete What I said in the DRV: POV masquerading as a redirect. Any user can easily search for 9/11 conspiracy or any variation of it and find the article. Fan-1967 02:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fan-1967. CWC(talk) 10:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously a useful redirect. --SPUI (T - C) 12:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per nom and Fan-1967. There are thousands of ways to name that conspiracy theory, this is far from one of the obvious ones, and being very inflammatory it should just go. Shanes 23:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, and fast. AdamBiswanger1 00:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Redirect_Archives/July_2006&oldid=1147968848"