Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
====[[Be bold in updating pages]] → [[Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages]]==== |
====[[Be bold in updating pages]] → [[Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages]]==== |
||
Cross-namespace redirect. [[User:Kotepho|Kotepho]] 16:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC) |
Cross-namespace redirect. [[User:Kotepho|Kotepho]] 16:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC) |
||
*"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: |
|||
*#Is the redirect sitting on a title that could ever be a valid article about some encyclopedia topic? |
|||
*#Is it likely that a reader has ever typed the name in the search box expecting to be taken to an encyclopedia article? |
|||
*#Is the redirect an obvious mistaken creation with other intent, or vandalism or similar? |
|||
*#Is it likely that, when typing the name in the search box, the reader ''was'' expecting to be taken to its other-namespace target (i.e. has the redirect ever helped a clueless newbie?) |
|||
*#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? |
|||
*Given 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. -[[User:Splash|Splash]] - [[User talk:Splash|tk]] 16:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
====[[Avoid statements that will date quickly talk]] → [[Wikipedia talk:Avoid statements that will date quickly]]==== |
====[[Avoid statements that will date quickly talk]] → [[Wikipedia talk:Avoid statements that will date quickly]]==== |
Revision as of 16:53, 10 July 2006
Deletion discussions |
---|
|
Articles |
Templates and modules |
Files |
Categories |
Redirects |
Miscellany |
Speedy deletion |
Proposed deletion |
V | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 0 | 9 | 20 | 29 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 14 |
Redirects for discussion (RfD) is the place where potentially problematic redirects are discussed. Items usually stay listed for a week or so, after which they are deleted, kept, or retargeted.
- If you want to replace an unprotected redirect with an article, do not list it here. Turning redirects into articles is wholly encouraged. Be bold!
- If you want to move a page but a redirect is in the way, do not list it here. For non-controversial cases, place a technical request; if a discussion is required, then start a requested move.
- If you think a redirect points to the wrong target article, this is a good place to discuss what should be the proper target.
- Redirects should not be deleted just because they have no incoming links. Please do not use this as the only reason to delete a redirect. However, redirects that do have incoming links are sometimes deleted, so that is not a sufficient condition for keeping. (See § When should we delete a redirect? for more information.)
Please do not unilaterally rename or change the target of a redirect while it is under discussion. This adds unnecessary complication to the discussion for participants and closers.
Before listing a redirect for discussion
Please be aware of these general policies, which apply here as elsewhere:
- Wikipedia:Redirect – what redirects are, why they exist, and how they are used.
- Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion – which pages can be deleted without discussion; in particular the "General" and "Redirects" sections.
- Wikipedia:Deletion policy – how we delete things by consensus.
- Wikipedia:Guide to deletion – guidelines on discussion format and shorthand.
The guiding principles of RfD
- The purpose of a good redirect is to eliminate the possibility that readers will find themselves staring blankly at "Search results 1–10 out of 378" instead of the article they were looking for. If someone could plausibly enter the redirect's name when searching for the target article, it's a good redirect.
- Redirects are cheap. They take up little storage space and use very little bandwidth. It doesn't really hurt things if there are a few of them scattered around. On the flip side, deleting redirects is also cheap because recording the deletion takes up little storage space and uses very little bandwidth. There is no harm in deleting problematic redirects.
- If a good-faith RfD nomination proposes to delete a redirect and has no discussion after at least 7 days, the default result is delete.
- Redirects nominated in contravention of Wikipedia:Redirect will be speedily kept.
- RfD can also serve as a central discussion forum for debates about which page a redirect should target. In cases where retargeting the redirect could be considered controversial, it is advisable to leave a notice on the talk page of the redirect's current target page or the proposed target page to refer readers to the redirect's nomination to allow input and help form consensus for the redirect's target.
- Requests for deletion of redirects from one page's talk page to another's do not need to be listed here. Anyone can remove the redirect by blanking the page. The G6 criterion for speedy deletion may be appropriate.
- In discussions, always ask yourself whether or not a redirect would be helpful to the reader.
When should we delete a redirect?
The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:
- a redirect may contain non-trivial edit history;
- if a redirect is reasonably old (or is the result of moving a page that has been there for quite some time), then it is possible that its deletion will break incoming links (such links coming from older revisions of Wikipedia pages, from edit summaries, from other Wikimedia projects or from elsewhere on the internet, do not show up in "What links here").
Therefore consider the deletion only of either harmful redirects or of recent ones.
Reasons for deleting
You might want to delete a redirect if one or more of the following conditions is met (but note also the exceptions listed below this list):
- The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. For example, if the user searches for "New Articles", and is redirected to a disambiguation page for "Articles", it would take much longer to get to the newly added articles on Wikipedia.
- The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so the redirect should be deleted.
- The redirect is offensive or abusive, such as redirecting "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs" (unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is legitimately discussed in the article), or "Joe Bloggs" to "Loser". (Speedy deletion criterion G10 and G3 may apply.) See also § Neutrality of redirects.
- The redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam. (Speedy deletion criterion G11 may apply.)
- The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting "Apple" to "Orange". (Speedy deletion criterion G1 may apply.)
- It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exception to this rule are the pseudo-namespace shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space. Some long-standing cross-namespace redirects are also kept because of their long-standing history and potential usefulness. "MOS:" redirects, for example, are an exception to this rule. (Note also the existence of namespace aliases such as WP:. Speedy deletion criterion R2 may apply if the target namespace is something other than Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help:, or Portal:.)
- If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to an article that does not exist, it can be immediately deleted under speedy deletion criterion G8. You should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first and that it has not become broken through vandalism.
- If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful. In particular, redirects in a language other than English to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. (Implausible typos or misnomers are candidates for speedy deletion criterion R3, if recently created.)
- If the target article needs to be moved to the redirect title, but the redirect has been edited before and has a history of its own, then the title needs to be freed up to make way for the move. If the move is uncontroversial, tag the redirect for G6 speedy deletion, or alternatively (with the
suppressredirect
user right; available to page movers and admins), perform a round-robin move. If not, take the article to Requested moves. - If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject.
Reasons for not deleting
However, avoid deleting such redirects if:
- They have a potentially useful page history, or an edit history that should be kept to comply with the licensing requirements for a merge (see Wikipedia:Merge and delete). On the other hand, if the redirect was created by renaming a page with that name, and the page history just mentions the renaming, and for one of the reasons above you want to delete the page, copy the page history to the Talk page of the article it redirects to. The act of renaming is useful page history, and even more so if there has been discussion on the page name.
- They would aid accidental linking and make the creation of duplicate articles less likely, whether by redirecting a plural to a singular, by redirecting a frequent misspelling to a correct spelling, by redirecting a misnomer to a correct term, by redirecting to a synonym, etc. In other words, redirects with no incoming links are not candidates for deletion on those grounds because they are of benefit to the browsing user. Some extra vigilance by editors will be required to minimize the occurrence of those frequent misspellings in the article texts because the linkified misspellings will not appear as broken links; consider tagging the redirect with the {{R from misspelling}} template to assist editors in monitoring these misspellings.
- They aid searches on certain terms. For example, users who might see the "Keystone State" mentioned somewhere but do not know what that refers to will be able to find out at the Pennsylvania (target) article.
- Deleting redirects runs the risk of breaking incoming or internal links. For example, redirects resulting from page moves should not normally be deleted without good reason. Links that have existed for a significant length of time, including CamelCase links (e.g. WolVes) and old subpage links, should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them. See also Wikipedia:Link rot § Link rot on non-Wikimedia sites.
- Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways. Evidence of usage can be gauged by using the wikishark or pageviews tool on the redirect to see the number of views it gets.
- The redirect is to a closely related word form, such as a plural form to a singular form.
Neutrality of redirects
Just as article titles using non-neutral language are permitted in some circumstances, so are such redirects. Because redirects are less visible to readers, more latitude is allowed in their names, therefore perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is not a sufficient reason for their deletion. In most cases, non-neutral but verifiable redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term. Non-neutral redirects may be tagged with {{R from non-neutral name}}
.
Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:
- Articles that are created using non-neutral titles are routinely moved to a new neutral title, which leaves behind the old non-neutral title as a working redirect (e.g. Climategate → Climatic Research Unit email controversy).
- Articles created as POV forks may be deleted and replaced by a redirect pointing towards the article from which the fork originated (e.g. Barack Obama Muslim rumor → deleted and now redirected to Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories).
- The subject matter of articles may be represented by some sources outside Wikipedia in non-neutral terms. Such terms are generally avoided in Wikipedia article titles, per the words to avoid guidelines and the general neutral point of view policy. For instance the non-neutral expression "Attorneygate" is used to redirect to the neutrally titled Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. The article in question has never used that title, but the redirect was created to provide an alternative means of reaching it because a number of press reports use the term.
The exceptions to this rule would be redirects that are not established terms and are unlikely to be useful, and therefore may be nominated for deletion, perhaps under deletion reason #3. However, if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources, it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms. Please keep in mind that RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes.
Closing notes
- Details at Administrator instructions for RfD
Nominations should remain open, per policy, about a week before they are closed, unless they meet the general criteria for speedy deletion, the criteria for speedy deletion of a redirect, or are not valid redirect discussion requests (e.g. are actually move requests).
How to list a redirect for discussion
STEP I. | Tag the redirect(s).
Enter
|
STEP II. | List the entry on RfD.
Click to edit the section of RfD for today's entries.
|
STEP III. | Notify users.
It is generally considered good practice to notify the creator and main contributors of the redirect(s) that you nominate. may be placed on the creator/main contributors' user talk page to provide notice of the discussion. Please replace RedirectName with the name of the respective creator/main contributors' redirect and use an edit summary such as: Notice of redirect discussion at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]]
Notices about the RfD discussion may also be left on relevant talk pages. |
- Please consider using What links here to locate other redirects that may be related to the one you are nominating. After going to the redirect target page and selecting "What links here" in the toolbox on the left side of your computer screen, select both "Hide transclusions" and "Hide links" filters to display the redirects to the redirect target page.
Current list
10 July
Wikipedia strategy → Wikipedia:Wikipedia strategy
Cross-namespace redirect--Daduzi talk 16:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
List of unpopular tactics on Wikipedia → Wikipedia strategy
Redirect to a cross-namespace redirect--Daduzi talk 16:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Be bold in updating pages → Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages
Cross-namespace redirect. Kotepho 16:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- "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:
- Is the redirect sitting on a title that could ever be a valid article about some encyclopedia topic?
- Is it likely that a reader has ever typed the name in the search box expecting to be taken to an encyclopedia article?
- Is the redirect an obvious mistaken creation with other intent, or vandalism or similar?
- Is it likely that, when typing the name in the search box, the reader was expecting to be taken to its other-namespace target (i.e. has the redirect ever helped a clueless newbie?)
- 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?
- Given 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)
Avoid statements that will date quickly talk → Wikipedia talk:Avoid statements that will date quickly
Cross-namespace redirect. --Zoz (t) 12:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Mongolian mare milk → Kumis
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)
- 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)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Politicial parties and poliiticians in Canada → Wikipedia:WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada
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)
- Delete per nom. Ardenn 05:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Redirects are cheap; this spelling error may be unlikely but it is not implausible.--Mathew5000 06:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- I realize that, but the criterion for deletion is implausibility, not improbability. --Mathew5000 11:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
Muhammad Taqfiq Nasim Pasha → Muhammad Tawfiq Nasim Pasha
Redirect was created during moving the page. Taqfiq is a totally wrong spelling, probably a typo. --Wedian 04:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
9 July
"a non smoking generation" → A non-smoking generation
Implausible typo. Invitatious 23:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Giant raccoon → Raccoon
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)
- Delete per nom. (cannot imagine a giant raccoon - sounds horrifying) ViridaeTalk 03:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Maps on Wikipedia → Category:Maps
Article-space redirect to a category that is unlikely to be used. Invitatious 15:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. We have
{{R to list entry}}
, could that help, considering the category as list? -- Omniplex 21:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Anti-liberal → authoritarianism
Inappropriate redirect - I think anti-liberal doesn't necessarily mean authoritarian Zoz (t) 14:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 17:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball → Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball
Cross-namespace redirect Zoz (t) 12:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, besides redirects to fragments (right hand side starting with "#") cannot work. -- Omniplex 13:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Help:Redirect#A redirect to an anchor. ~ PseudoSudo 11:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Delete per nom. ~ PseudoSudo 11:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
WPJ → Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan
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)
Not biting newcomers → Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers
- Delete as a cross-namespace redirect. --Hetar 06:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete -- Omniplex 06:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above – Gurch 11:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as a cross-namespace redirect. --Zoz (t) 12:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
"The 13-carat Diamond" → 13 Carat Diamond and Other Stories
Is it really an implausible typo? It really is in quotes.Invitatious 03:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Zoz (t) 12:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ViridaeTalk 03:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Template messages → Wikipedia:Template messages
Cross namespace redirect incorrectly tagged as "shortcut". We have WP:TM and WP:TEMP. -- Omniplex 02:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Delete as a cross-namespace redirect. --Zoz (t) 12:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Mathbb → Help:Displaying a formula
Cross namespace redirect incorrectly tagged as "shortcut". There's a new WP:FORMULA. -- Omniplex 02:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Template substitution → Wikipedia:Template substitution
Cross namespace redirect incorrectly tagged as "shortcut". We have WP:SUBST. -- Omniplex 02:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Template syntax → Wikipedia:Template namespace
Cross namespace redirect incorrectly tagged as "shortcut". -- Omniplex 02:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Tu’i_Tonga_Empire → Tu'i Tonga Empire
serious misspelling Tauʻolunga 23:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Possible misspelling; harmless redirect. Spacepotato 01:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep. Common misspellings can make good redirects.--Cúchullain t/c 02:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Possible typo, redirects are cheap. --Zoz (t) 12:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Can history be truly NPOV? → Wikipedia:WikiProject History
Cross namespace redirect Polonium 21:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete – Gurch 22:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete -- Omniplex 22:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- No it can't. So delete. --Zoz (t) 22:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Yanksox 04:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
July 8
Ceveceria Nacional → Cerveceria Nacional
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)
- Keep. If they misspelled this, there's probably a good chance somebody will misspell it again. Invitatious 21:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Invitatious. --Mathew5000 12:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Kids In Satan's Service → KISS (band)
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)
- keep, it's a popular "guess" to what KISS stands for, often found on music sites and the like, see: [2]. Thanks/wangi 21:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
2006 Christmas special → Doctor Who 2006 Christmas special
Not specific enough; dozens of shows will do Christmas Specials. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 18:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete Confusing. Not even worth making a disambig page. Invitatious 21:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Invitatious. --Billpg 11:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Zoz (t) 12:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Richest country → Luxembourg
Not useful. Destination could change with time (is it even true now?) –RHolton≡– 16:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Change Target to List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita or List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita, the two rankings of national wealth (I prefer PPP, but either is fine). smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 17:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Change target to List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita per above. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 21:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Wild Animal Park → San Diego Wild Animal Park
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)
- 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)
- Keep and redirect to zoo. Might create same redirect at wild animal park (nocaps). Luna Santin 10:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep redirected to Zoo. --Zoz (t) 11:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
Watchlist help → Help:Watching pages
Cross-namespace redirect. -- ADNghiem501 04:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Zoz (t) 11:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- JLaTondre 13:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete -- Omniplex 06:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Watchlist → Help:Watching pages
Cross namespace redirect. -- ADNghiem501 02:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- Keep Redirect it to appropriate article content. (Not sure what yet) Gimmetrow 04:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Northenglish. --Zoz (t) 11:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Retarget to Watch List (disambiguation). -- JLaTondre 13:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete or retarget, the latter makes more sense, doesn't it? -- Omniplex 06:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
Requests for page protection → Wikipedia:Requests for page protection
Cross-namespace redirect. -- ADNghiem501 02:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Zoz (t) 11:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- JLaTondre 13:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per practically identical recently deleted Request for page protection MartinRe 13:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete -- Omniplex 07:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
July 7
Morgan (comics) → Morgaine (disambiguation)
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)
- Keep someone might mess up by not specifying which. Invitatious 18:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- delete, no one is going to type in "Morgan (comics)". L/wangi 18:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
National Christian Forensics and Communications Association/Clubs → List of National Christian Forensics and Communications Association clubs
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)
- Delete - Sorry, my fault. I moved the page, but didn't think to delete the redirect. - pm_shef 02:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete G7 per pm_shef. Gimmetrow 04:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a democracy → Wikipedia:What wikipedia is not
Cross namespace redirect Polonium 18:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete cross namespace redirect. Yanksox 23:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- Delete per MartinRe. -- JLaTondre 01:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- Delete per MartinRe. --Zoz (t) 11:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not → Wikipedia:What wikipedia is not
Another cross namespace redirect Polonium 18:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- Keep This is linked by over 500 articles, see Keep4 above. That quantity also suggests Keep5. Gimmetrow 04:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per MartinRe. --Zoz (t) 11:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per MartinRe. jni 19:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Free ads paper and Free adds paper → Consumer to consumer
No mention of these two items in the target article; redirect makes no sense. —C.Fred (talk) 21:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Keep both per Petri Krohn's retargeting. -- JLaTondre 13:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep after retargeting. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 21:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
July 6
Template:Interstate 95 in Virginia exit list → Interstate 95/Virginia exit list
Cross-namespace redirect created when moving a transclusion page improperly created in the Template namespace. Northenglish (talk) -- 19:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Comment: The I-95 exit lists are no longer being transcluded, and this is now a double redirect. (Interstate 95/Virginia exit list redirects to Interstate 95 in Virginia. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 03:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Sure enough, my oversight. Gimmetrow 04:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, now that it has been subst'ed, it should be deleted,
Al-Masri→Abu Hamza al-Masri and Masri→Egyptian Arabic
"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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Mazda Mazda2 → Mazda Demio
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)
- Delete per nom. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 21:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- Keep per Cyde...valid seach term, I think. -- Scientizzle 23:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Mazda Mazda3 → Mazda Axela
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)
- Delete per nom. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 21:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- Keep per Cyde...valid seach term, I think. -- Scientizzle 23:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Mazda Mazda5 → Mazda Premacy
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)
- Delete per nom. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 21:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- Keep per Cyde...valid seach term, I think. -- Scientizzle 23:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Mazda Mazda6 → Mazda Atenza
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)
- Delete per nom. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 21:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- Keep per Cyde...valid seach term, I think. -- Scientizzle 23:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Saturn Relay/Buick Terraza → Saturn Relay
Malformed article name. Page has long since moved. 198.103.172.9 17:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 21:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
List of sexual slurs/old → Talk:List of sexual slurs/unverified
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Delete very odd redirect. ViridaeTalk 12:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Splash. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 21:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
July 5
SurpriseRoyals → Arizona Royals
Some sort of a fork. Not clear if useful. Also Surprise Royals - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Template:Burmesestatedivision → Template:Infobox Burmesestatedivision
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)
Patch (emo) → Emo (slang)
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)
- Delete - appears to be a confusing redirect (not to mention not a real term as stated above). Cowman109Talk 21:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
July 4
Reverend Edward Nelson → Edward Nelson
There is no Reverend Edward Nelson that I can find. Superwad 04:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment this is a strange redirect, maybe it could be changed to Edmund Nelson. Yanksox 04:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- Delete, nonsensical and useless. The guy's a mathematician. Grandmasterka 23:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Grandmasterka. Cowman109Talk 21:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Edward Nelson (priest) → Edmund Nelson
There is no Edward Nelson who is a priest that I can find Superwad 04:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- Delete as a misleading redirect - Edward != Edmund, pontentially causing confusion. Cowman109Talk 21:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
List of Xiaolin Showdown episodes 101 → The Journey of a Thousand Miles
unlikely search term, may cause confusion Jay32183 17:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, and I believe there are lots more out there. Google points out 102, 103, 106, 111, 202, 208, List of Xiaolin Showdown episodes 210, 220, on the first page of results alone. Kimchi.sg 00:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all per Kimchi.sg. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 18:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Lost books of the Tanakh → Lost books of the Old Testament
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)
- 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)
Crystal Analysis → Crystallography
Crystal Analysis is an OLAP tool, whilst crystal anaylsis is a description of Crystallography Ratarsed 12:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
KDTP → KTAZ
KDTP redirects to KTAZ, but should not, as KDTP is a separate station. -- dhett 08:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
July 3
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
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)
- A whole lot easier to delete. Are there any others? Iolakana|T 20:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if there are any others. Voortle 18:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- July 12, 2002 added to the header. -- ADNghiem501 05:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if there are any others. Voortle 18:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Delete per Cyde. --Zoz (t) 11:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Cyde. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 21:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
July 2
List of channel 13 TV stations in the United States → Category:Channel 13 TV stations in the United States
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)
- Delete as misleading. A "list" shouldn't redirect to a category. --Zoz (t) 20:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Also delete List of channel 2 TV stations in the United States, List of channel 3 TV stations in the United States, List of channel 4 TV stations in the United States, List of channel 6 TV stations in the United States, etc. up to List of channel 20 TV stations in the United States. --Mathew5000 20:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Why shouldn't a list redirect to a category? Isn't the idea to make it easier to find things?--Brownlee 12:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)