Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:03, 26 July 2006

Skip to table of contents · Skip to current discussions · Purge this page · Archives

Shortcuts WP:RFD WP:RfD

Redirects for discussion (RfD) is the place where potentially problematic redirects are discussed. Items usually stay listed for a week or so, after which they are deleted, kept, or retargeted.

• If you want to replace an unprotected redirect with an article, do not list it here. Turning redirects into articles is wholly encouraged. Be bold!
• If you want to move a page but a redirect is in the way, do not list it here. For non-controversial cases, place a technical request; if a discussion is required, then start a requested move.
• If you think a redirect points to the wrong target article, this is a good place to discuss the proper target.
• Redirects should not be deleted just because they have no incoming links. Please do not use this as the only reason to delete a redirect. However, redirects that do have incoming links are sometimes deleted, so that is not a sufficient condition for keeping. (See § When should we delete a redirect? for more information.)

Please do not unilaterally rename or change the target of a redirect while it is under discussion. This adds unnecessary complication to the discussion for participants and closers.

Before listing a redirect for discussion

Please be aware of these general policies, which apply here as elsewhere:

• Misplaced Pages:Redirect – what redirects are, why they exist, and how they are used.
• Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion – which pages can be deleted without discussion; in particular the "General" and "Redirects" sections.
• Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy – how we delete things by consensus.
• Misplaced Pages:Guide to deletion – guidelines on discussion format and shorthand.

The guiding principles of RfD

• WP:RGUIDE

• 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 Misplaced Pages:Redirect will be speedily kept.
• RfD can also serve as a central discussion forum for debates about which page a redirect should target. In cases where retargeting the redirect could be considered controversial, it is advisable to leave a notice on the talk page of the redirect's current target page or the proposed target page to refer readers to the redirect's nomination to allow input and help form consensus for the redirect's target.
• Requests for deletion of redirects from one page's talk page to another's do not need to be listed here. Anyone can remove the redirect by blanking the page. The G6 criterion for speedy deletion may be appropriate.
• In discussions, always ask yourself whether or not a redirect would be helpful to the reader.

When should we delete a redirect?

This page is transcluded from Misplaced Pages:Redirect/Deletion reasons. (edit | history)

• WP:RFD#HARMFUL
• WP:RFD?

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 Misplaced Pages 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

• WP:RFD#DELETE

You might want to delete a redirect if one or more of the following conditions is met (but note also the exceptions listed below this list):

1. The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. For example, if the user searches for "New Articles", and is redirected to a disambiguation page for "Articles", it would take much longer to get to the newly added articles on Misplaced Pages.
2. The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so the redirect should be deleted.
3. The redirect is offensive or abusive, such as redirecting "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs" (unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is legitimately discussed in the article), or "Joe Bloggs" to "Loser". (Speedy deletion criterion G10 and G3 may apply.) See also § Neutrality of redirects.
4. The redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam. (Speedy deletion criterion G11 may apply.)
5. The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting "Apple" to "Orange". (Speedy deletion criterion G1 may apply.)
6. It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Misplaced Pages 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, were an exception to this rule until they became their own namespace in 2024. (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:, Misplaced Pages:, Help:, or Portal:.)
7. If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to an article that does not exist, it can be immediately deleted under speedy deletion criterion G8. You should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first and that it has not become broken through vandalism.
8. If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful. In particular, redirects in a language other than English to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. (Implausible typos or misnomers are candidates for speedy deletion criterion R3, if recently created.)
9. If the target article needs to be moved to the redirect title, but the redirect has been edited before and has a history of its own, then the title needs to be freed up to make way for the move. If the move is uncontroversial, tag the redirect for G6 speedy deletion, or alternatively (with the suppressredirect user right; available to page movers and admins), perform a round-robin move. If not, take the article to Requested moves.
10. Shortcut
    • WP:RETURNTORED
    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

• WP:RFD#KEEP

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

1. They have a potentially useful page history, or an edit history that should be kept to comply with the licensing requirements for a merge (see Misplaced Pages:Merge and delete). On the other hand, if the redirect was created by renaming a page with that name, and the page history just mentions the renaming, and for one of the reasons above you want to delete the page, copy the page history to the Talk page of the article it redirects to. The act of renaming is useful page history, and even more so if there has been discussion on the page name.
2. They would aid accidental linking and make the creation of duplicate articles less likely, whether by redirecting a plural to a singular, by redirecting a frequent misspelling to a correct spelling, by redirecting a misnomer to a correct term, by redirecting to a synonym, etc. In other words, redirects with no incoming links are not candidates for deletion on those grounds because they are of benefit to the browsing user. Some extra vigilance by editors will be required to minimize the occurrence of those frequent misspellings in article text because the linkified misspellings will not appear as broken links; consider tagging the redirect with the {{R from misspelling}} template to assist editors in monitoring these misspellings.
3. They aid searches on certain terms. For example, users who might see the "Keystone State" mentioned somewhere but do not know what that refers to will be able to find out at the Pennsylvania (target) article.
4. Deleting redirects runs the risk of breaking incoming or internal links. For example, redirects resulting from page moves should not normally be deleted without good reason. Links that have existed for a significant length of time, including CamelCase links (e.g. WolVes) and old subpage links, should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them. See also Misplaced Pages:Link rot § Link rot on non-Wikimedia sites.
5. Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Misplaced Pages in different ways. Evidence of usage can be gauged by using the wikishark or pageviews tool on the redirect to see the number of views it gets.
6. The redirect is to a closely related word form, such as a plural form to a singular form.

Neutrality of redirects

• WP:RNEUTRAL

Just as article titles using non-neutral language are permitted in some circumstances, so are such redirects. Because redirects are less visible to readers, more latitude is allowed in their names, therefore perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is not a sufficient reason for their deletion. In most cases, non-neutral but verifiable redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term. Non-neutral redirects may be tagged with {{R from non-neutral name}}.

Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:

1. Articles that are created using non-neutral titles are routinely moved to a new neutral title, which leaves behind the old non-neutral title as a working redirect (e.g. Climategate → Climatic Research Unit email controversy).
2. Articles created as POV forks may be deleted and replaced by a redirect pointing towards the article from which the fork originated (e.g. Barack Obama Muslim rumor → deleted and now redirected to Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories).
3. The subject matter of articles may be represented by some sources outside Misplaced Pages in non-neutral terms. Such terms are generally avoided in Misplaced Pages 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

• WP:RFDHOWTO

• 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

26 July

WB 61 → KASW

KASW is on channel 61, it is a WB affiliate. However, The CW and the station's channel 6 cable placement (and WB 6 branding) make this an unlikely target for someone looking for info. KASW is OK, but WB 61 is not. They call themselves WB 6. TrackerTV 18:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

''Qana Massacre'' → Qana shelling

malformed article name with multiple single quotes Gavia immer 16:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as unlikely search term.--Firsfron of Ronchester 17:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

''The Life Pursuit'' → The Life Pursuit

malformed article name with multiple single quotes Gavia immer 16:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as unlikely search term.--Firsfron of Ronchester 17:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

'The 4400' Broadcasters → The 4400 Broadcasting Stations

redirect to deleted content Gavia immer 16:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Global_Justice → Global_justice_movement

Global_Justice (capital 'J') redirects to Global justice movement, but: 1. they're not the same thing. GJ is an issue in political philosophy, not a movement; and 2. the issue in political philosophy is dealt with in Global_justice (small 'j'). So, this redirect just causes confusion. Sam Clark 11:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

On Leather Wings (Batman: The Animated Series) → On Leather Wings

Because WP guidelines on disambiguation and on the wikiproject TV episodes, clearly point that it is better to avoid the parenthesis when the title of the episode doesn't belong to anything else. The format and content of the article are enough indication of the topic being a TV episode and the tencency on episode list articles' wikis is to hide disambiguation parenthesis anyway. The same problem happened with the rest of the currently developed articles about Batman: The Animated Series episodes all because a user recently moved all the articles with no parenthesis in the same manner T-man, the wise 00:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Pages in the same situation are:

2. Christmas With the Joker
3. It's Never Too Late
4. I've Got Batman In My Basement
5. The Cat and the Claw: Part I
6. The Cat and the Claw: Part II
7. Heart of Ice
8. Beware The Gray Ghost
9. Feat of Clay: Part I
10. Feat of Clay: Part II
11. Joker's Favor
12. Fear of Victory
13. Almost Got 'Im
14. The Man Who Killed Batman

...All those redirects must be erased and the pages named with the unnecesary parenthesis disambiguation moved with the proper title, according to the naming conventions. Most episode articles are not developed yet, so we are on good time to fix this little problem.

Also backing me up on my point is Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (television)#Episode articles--T-man, the wise 16:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Cult of Hermes → Hermeticism

POV redirect, should logically point to Hermes but POV editor kees pointing at Hermeticism. No incoming links -999 (Talk) 21:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

25 July

Four types of error → Type I and type II errors

Move was done because the name was misleading; it's still misleading. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Someone looking for information on "four types of error" will be taken to this target article which explains the situation on alternative proposals quite well, thus illuminating someone who would otherwise have remained ignorant. --Tony Sidaway 18:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The problem was that the number of types of (statistical) error depends on the reference, some only have the specified 2, some 3, and some 4. Perhaps we should create redirects from and three types of error, as well. I still lead toward Delete as nominator. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Make it redirect to Error and fix any links that are really talking about types of statistical errors (or more specifically, statistical hypothesis testing). The phrase "four types of error" could relate to just about anything. Kotepho 18:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Kotepho. GangstaEB~(penguin logs) 19:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I was the one responsible for the allocation of title "Four types of error". It was constructed as an attempt to signal that all of the things associated in the article (which had previously been widely dispersed throughout the Misplaced Pages) were, in fact, in one place.

In all of my rather comprehensive interaction with the literature in the various academic domains, I can not remember ever coming across such a group title (i.e., "Four types of error"), However, as I indicated in the article -- and, no doubt, driven by the notion of "errors of the first kind" and "errors of the second kind" -- we do find some writers speaking of "errors of the third kind", and just a handful of writers speaking of "errors of the fourth kind".

Now that the "Type I and type II errors" article far better represents the state of affairs in the literature, and now that it has been reorganized into a far more coherent form, I can see no reason of any kind for the continued existence of "Four types of error". I am in favour of removing the redirect. Lindsay658 20:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Lindsay - I have taken college statistics and "Four types of errors" is WP:OR at best, misleading at worst. And no offense to GangstaEB, but simply given his age, it's highly unlikely he's ever taken statistics (and thus would not know what this is about). --Cyde↔Weys 21:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete (see comment above) Lindsay658 04:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Move Log → Misplaced Pages:Requested moves

Incorrect cross-namespace redirect. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete because we really shouldn't be encouraging editors to use the main namespace to look up project matters. --Tony Sidaway 18:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

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

Supposed shortcut but title is longer than the target page (which isn't very good anyway) Stifle (talk) 10:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, harmless. The only first thing on that entire page that made me laugh was the inclusion of this shortcut. =) Powers 14:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Bah, it's a lot funnier than it was before. Or maybe I'm just in a more easily amused mood. Powers 14:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

24 July

''Argiope aetherea'' → Argiope aetherea

Malformed article name using two single quotes Gavia immer 18:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

''Esquerda Republicana Galega → Esquerda Republicana Galega

Malformed article name using two single quotes Gavia immer 18:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

''Mabo v Queensland'' → Mabo v Queensland

Malformed article name using two single quotes Gavia immer 18:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

''R3MIX'' → R3MIX

Malformed article name using two single quotes Gavia immer 18:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

''RPG World Online' → RPG World Online

Malformed article name using two single quotes Gavia immer 18:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

''RPG World Online'' → RPG World Online

Malformed article name using two single quotes Gavia immer 18:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

''Supernova'' by Lisa ''Left Eye'' Lopes → Supernova (album)

Malformed article name using two single quotes Gavia immer 18:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

''The Socialist'' → The Socialist

Malformed article name using two single quotes Gavia immer 18:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

''Three Drives'' → Three Drives

Malformed article name using two single quotes Gavia immer 18:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

'' ride the rail '' → Riding the rail

Malformed article name using two single quotes Gavia immer 18:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

''idigit design'' → idigit design

Malformed article name using two single quotes Gavia immer 18:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

''mode2'' → Optical disc recording modes

Malformed article name using two single quotes Gavia immer 18:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Of Stupid → Misplaced Pages:Parodies/Encyclopedia Of Stupid

Crossnamespace redirect leads to article that looks a lot like a main-space article except that it has licence to violate all of our policies. Misplaced Pages:BrianPeppers anyone? Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Redirect is a result of a pagemove after an afd. Not needed. --Zoz (t) 18:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

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

A DRV consensus determined that the previous "Speedy Keep" closure of an RfD on this redirect was improper. Please consider anew. Note that I abstain (very rare for RfD), so if no one comments here, the default result should be keep. Xoloz 17:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Pretty obvious redirect. --SPUI (T - C) 17:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Indeed, obvious speedy keep. —freak(talk) 15:09, Jul. 25, 2006 (UTC)
• Concur. Obvious speedy keep. Waste of time taking this to deletion review and waste of time relisting. --Tony Sidaway 20:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No incoming links, unlikely spelling, no useful history. What purpose does this serve? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and stop nominating (oh, and describing that as a "consensus" is surely stretching the point: how many people actually took part?). —Phil | Talk 20:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. No incoming links is not a requirement. It is preferable that articles DON'T link to redirects. Viridae 22:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• I don't understand why this is an "obvious speedy keep." I mean, it's not harmful but it seems like an unlikely search term, so it's good why? - brenneman 07:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

  I would surmise that the reason to keep would be to alert the would-be creator of the article that the subject matter is probably already covered elsewhere. In other words, "make the creation of duplicate articles less likely." Note that I abstain on this one, though I agree that the closure of the last RfD for this redirect was premature. BigNate37_T·C 07:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

  It's an obvious speedy keep because there's absolutely no good reason to delete it. --Tony Sidaway 14:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

  No incoming links, unlikely spelling, no useful history. *cough* - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

  Not sure what "unlikely spelling" means in this context. King's, Highway and Ontario all appear with their usual spelling. "No incoming links" and "no useful history" aren't reasons to delete, redirects are cheap. --Tony Sidaway 15:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

  Obvious speedy keep? Terrible suggestion. Use weasel words or bold text if you want to be melodramatic, but speedying this through RfD (especially after it came back via DRV) is an entirely counterproductive suggestion. There are specific criteria for keeping redirects aside from "not having any criteria for deletion", and even if you can make a valid arguement based on those criteria then it does not warrant a speedy keep by default. For the love of God, stop closing RfDs early. I'd suggest scrolling up to WP:RFD#When should we delete a redirect?, scroll down a bit to the list of reasons why we might not delete the redirect in question, and make an arguement on some combination of 2, 3, and 5. Those seem to be the points with the most relevance here. BigNate37_T·C 15:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

  No argument for keep need be made. We need an argument to delete. I note that this redirect satisfies none of the conditions for deletion. It's an utterly fatuous, timewasting, mindless, robotic and transparently unjustified nomination. The target page appears in my google search as number six on "king's highway ontario". Removing this redirect would probably adversely affect that appropriate listing, if not remove it entirely. --Tony Sidaway 15:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

  You have an arguement to delete. That's what an RfD is, if no discussion takes place at all the assumption is uncontested delete. Don't judge the RfD nomination's merits be pretending it wasn't made at all. Having said that, I understand where you are coming from with your keep nomination, and I agree with it to some extent. Still, there is no reason for a speedy keep. This was already closed early once and dragged through DRV; why do you want that to happen again? BigNate37_T·C 15:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

  Wrong, the default on RFD is not delete in all circumstances. The default is delete only if the nomination reason is valid and no one has stepped forward to contest it. There is no nomination here, merely a process wankery mandated relisting, so the default would be to keep. --Cyde↔Weys 17:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per above. Mackensen (talk) 14:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. (ESkog) 17:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, why in the hell should we delete this?! Can anyone possibly dispute that highways in Ontario are called "King's Highways"?! --Cyde↔Weys 17:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• I've reverted the closure as 1) the {{rfd}} tag was never removed from the article so the closure wasn't done correctly and 2) this has been through DRV twice already. It doesn't hurt to let it run its course even though I doubt it will change the outcome. There is no sense in continuing the controversy with early closures of this. My opinion is 'keep. -- JLaTondre 19:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Vacuum Cleaner Galaxy → Messier 109

Completely unofficial galaxy name. Google search reveals only one result, which says the name was suggested by Devon J. Moore on an unofficial list of galaxy names. This coincidentally happens to be the same as Hurricane Devon, creator of the redirect. Looks like vanity to me. Chaos syndrome 16:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Water, Wastewater → Ontario Clean Water Agency

What? Completely nonsensical redirect by User:WikiWoo, who has been creating some questionable articles lately about Ontario Public Works, but that's another story. --Kinu /_c 04:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete as implausible search term. I could see it becoming a redirect to Wastewater. We have Waste water which redirects to Wastewater, but I don't think this needs to redirect there too. BigNate37_T·C 05:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Very improbable search term on its own, and the only link is from Regional Public Works Commissioners of Ontario which should really be a redlink, and that page is up on AfD anyway. Dgies 06:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

6346 → Qur'an

Page was moved from 6346 to 6346 (number), which was later redirected to Qur'an. Later, the double-redirect was fixed. But there's no good reason for 6346 (the year) to redirect to Qur'an. –RHolton≡– 03:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I'd love to see the logic behind the creation of this one. Dgies

You can get some idea of the logic by looking at the history of 6346 (number). Note: I'm not saying it's good logic.–RHolton≡– 12:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Disabled Owen → Disabled (poem)

This article has been moved to a more sensible location. No value in keeping the redirect. HappyDog 00:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete rather ambiguous redirect. Viridae 01:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and above. -- NORTH 02:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

NERUOK → Smooth Criminal

Tagged for speedy with the reason "Nobody would ever search for this. It appears to be a redirect based on a line in the song's chorus: "Annie, are you okay?"". That is not a speedy criterion, so I am listing this here. Delete anyway unless new evidence is found. Kusma (討論) 09:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete, could be a plausible redirect in somebody's txt msgng unvrs, but Google only pulls up one reference. -- nae'blis _(talk) 15:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nae'blis. --Zoz (t) 18:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Nae'blis's evidence.--Firsfron of Ronchester 07:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikibreak → Misplaced Pages:Wikiholiday

Originally nominated as PROD because it's one of those evil cross namespace redirects. However in this case I believe it should be KEPT because a: Wikibreak is a recognized term in Misplaced Pages that people may type in hoping to learn more about (i.e. thinking there may be an article on the subject) and b. People will NOT know to go to Misplaced Pages:Wikiholiday. I've never even heard the term Wikiholiday before today. An alternative might be to creat an actual Wikibreak article with a link therein to the Wikiholiday page. Until that's done, there should be a redirect. I am particularly citing points #3 and 5 under "Avoid deleting such redirects if..." under this section of the RFD mainpage. 23skidoo 13:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, does not cause confusion with encyclopedic content and is useful as per nom. Kusma (討論) 13:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, a site-search for Wikibreak quickly reveals Misplaced Pages:Wikibreak, which is a redirect to Misplaced Pages:Wikiholiday. There's no reason to pollute the encyclopedic content with "Wikibreak", which is itself not an encyclopedic topic. Namespaces were created for exactly this reason, to keep the encyclopedia separate from the Misplaced Pages-exclusive stuff. --Cyde↔Weys 14:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Cyde. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Cyde. Viridae 23:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Cyde. jni 05:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, can not be confused ans is useful as described by nom - addtionally - how do newcomers know that they should look at Misplaced Pages:Wikiholiday --Trödel 19:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • See Cyde's comment above about searching. -- JLaTondre 19:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I read the comments - I still think that it is useful - until the current discussion re deleting all redirects out of the main space is finalized and possible software changes/new namespace is created. This redirect is no different that WP:V, WP:RS, What wikipedia is not, etc. --Trödel20:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Cyde. -- JLaTondre 19:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• D GangstaEB~(penguin logs) 20:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• I think the article should be on Misplaced Pages:Wikibreak and Misplaced Pages:Wikihollyday should be the redirect... Actually I think all the wikiwords are wikilame.--T-man, the wise 00:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Cyde. --WinHunter 09:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Alto flute → Western concert flute

The Alto flute is not the same as the Westen concert flute, or C flute. It should be a redlink to encourage creation of an article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mets501 (talk • contribs) .

Could you perhaps write a stub article? /wangi 16:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per nom. Viridae 23:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The lead of Western concert flute should perhaps be re-written to make it clear that it refers to a family of instruments, with the c-flute being the most common representative. The alto flute is already mentioned in the article, and it's hard to think of how much additional info could be added, alto-flute often has a curved head-joint, but the basic means of sound production is the same. Compare with the Trombone article which treats all forms of the instrument (alto, tenor, bass etc). David Underdown 15:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Waldort School → Waldorf Education

misspelled name (Waldort), unnecessary page Hgilbert 20:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

22 July

Misplaced Pages is communism → Misplaced Pages:Long term abuse/The Communism Vandal

Just as we don't have an article or a redirect at Willy on Wheels, I think we shouldn't have a redirect from the article namespace to the depths of the vandal-fighting process. We do have shortcuts (WP:WiC, WP:☭, WP:TCV) for quicker navigation. Zoz (t) 15:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Misleading, detrimental to searching, self-reference and cross-namespace. BigNate37_T·C 17:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and above. Yanksox 22:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Feature article → Misplaced Pages:Featured articles

Cross-namespace Gizza 12:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Feature article is clearly not an encyclopedia topic, and so shouldn't be a redirect either. Rbraunwa 12:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Lots of other sites have featured articles. This is potentially confusing / misleading. --Zoz (t) 14:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete cross namespace redirect. Viridae 01:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to editorial. In my high school English course in Australia, we refer to feature articles as opinion pieces with a by-line, much like what is called an Op-ed in the US. A google search and this search for "define:feature article" shows this is a widely used term. Graham talk 12:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Yeah, I do think it should redirect to Editorial. I have seen it used it that context. Gizza 07:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, misleading. Kusma (討論) 13:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to Editorial, I believe this is somewhat common usage, and an encyclopedic redirect should always be favored over a non-encyclopedic one. --Cyde↔Weys 14:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete self-ref GangstaEB~(penguin logs) 20:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete articles should not redirect to WP: space.--Firsfron of Ronchester 23:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Biography infobox → Gary Mule Deer

Completely unrelated to target page Computerjoe's talk 08:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete under WP:CSD#G6 as housekeeping - this redirect was created by a pagemove with edit summary stating wrong title. BigNate37_T·C 09:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per above. I tagged it with db-because. --Zoz (t) 14:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit summary and Edit summaries → Help:Edit summary

Both are cross-namespace redirects. -- ADNghiem501 07:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Shouldn't be in the encyclopedia namespace. There are other ways to find the target. Rbraunwa 12:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

True; but I just searched "edit summaries" for my first look at this topic. I would argue that leaving this redirect in qualifies as not biting the newcomers. Also qualifies as engineering the tool for the user, not the user for the tool, IMHO. Thanks. --00:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I wish people would please stop citing WP:BITE in these cross-namespace redirect discussions. WP:BITE means don't be mean, not favor the newbies over the encyclopedia. Let's say a newbie is trying to edit an article but he doesn't really understand template syntax and he munges up a template, ruining the entire look of the page. WP:BITE says don't lose your head over it and go crazy at him, but at the same time, you have to revert his bad edit to fix the page and keep the encyclopedic content intact. It's the same way with cross-namespace redirects; maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedic content (everything in namespace 0 should be encyclopedic) is more important than a cross-namespace redirect of dubious usefulness. Newbies aren't likely to just randomly type in "Requests for adminship" ... they'll most likely first find it through a link anyway. A non-cross-namespace link, by the way, which is important, because it helps newbies understand the namespace system and how it works to keep the encyclopedic content separate. --Cyde↔Weys 15:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Cross-namespace redirect. jni 05:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, aids in accidental linking (useful for talk pages), no collision with encyclopedic content (other than "namespace purity") has been shown. Kusma (討論) 09:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, these aren't even Misplaced Pages-exclusive terms (they come up in versioning systems in computer programming, for instance). They also come up in document editing systems. We shouldn't favor a redirect of dubious usefulness into another namespace when encyclopedic content could be linked to instead. --Cyde↔Weys 15:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The "dubious" usefulness is currently amply evidenced by more than 500 incoming links (which should in any case be orphaned before deletion, if that is the outcome). Kusma (討論) 16:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeah, those can easily be fixed by bot (in fact, I will do so later tonight). Need I remind you that inertia is a poor reason to continue doing something wrong, though. If we allow this as a reasoning, within another year it might be 1,000 bad links to a cross-namespace redirect. --Cyde↔Weys 16:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm not talking about inertia, I am just showing the evidence "more than 500 times, people found this useful" to counter your "dubious". Kusma (討論) 16:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I'll tell you why they are dubious: because someone foolishly included this XNR in the boilerplate talk page warning message to use edit summaries. Very few of those incoming what links here are even from people who were consciously aware they were using an XNR; they just wanted to warn someone to use edit summaries. Once the links are fixed there's no purpose in keeping this old XNR around; the templates aren't using it anymore and all of the old links on the talk pages will be fixed too. If it's a redlink and people try to do it again they will realize they were doing something wrong and they will have to learn about namespaces. Frankly, I see people citing WP:BITE a lot, but I think it's actually more of a disservice to the newbs to coddle them to the point where they don't even have to learn about the namespaces and separation of encyclopedic content from non-encyclopedic content. --Cyde↔Weys 16:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Used outside of wikipedia - cross namespace redirect especially eggregious. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete–I never thought I'd say this :)–per Cyde. Joe 04:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• d GangstaEB~(penguin logs) 20:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

User:OttawaMetro → User OttawaMetro

This is a cross-namespace redirect that was seems to have been mistakenly created by a user trying to create a userbox. The page was moved to User OttawaMetro, a page being considered for deletion below. —Mira 06:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Rbraunwa 06:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Also, account for such user does not exist. -- ADNghiem501 07:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Redirect was created by mistake, has no use, no such user exists, no incoming links. --Zoz (t) 14:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all of the above. -- NORTH 02:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

User OttawaMetro → Template:User OttawaMetro

As with the redirect immediately above, this seems to have been mistakenly created. The page has been moved into the proper namespace at Template:User OttawaMetro. —Mira 06:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Does indeed look like an error. Rbraunwa 06:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. -- ADNghiem501 07:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Redirect was created by mistake, has no use, no such user exists, no incoming links. --Zoz (t) 14:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all of the above. -- NORTH 02:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Clarity → News style

Arbitrary, and cross-namespace. JianLi 17:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Rbraunwa 06:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Change target to Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style. --Zoz (t) 14:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Zoz; this CNR just goes the wrong way. -- nae'blis _(talk) 15:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Retarget per Zoz, cross-namespace. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 09:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• R per Zoz sorry mass fding GangstaEB~(penguin logs) 20:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Canada Provincial Parliamentary Delegation → Template:Canada Provincial Parliamentary Delegation

Cross-namespace redirect to template space - I can't imagine a use for this one. BigDT 13:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Hick Activity → NASCAR

Delete - Redirect is offensive/POV and also has no incoming links. Speedy? --Brian G 12:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC) Delete - As above-ROFLcopter 12:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

"post cholecystectomy syndrome" → postcholecystectomy_syndrome

Unlikely search term (with quotes), and no incoming links. (sorry for marking this and other redirects to this page as speedy before, it was mistyped and redlinked, and I couldn't find that it actually existed at the time) Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 05:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

21 July

'''160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (Airborne) → 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (Airborne)

Malformed redirect name with three single quotes. Unlikely search term; no incoming links.Gavia immer 19:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Rbraunwa 19:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

'''Felix Mantilla Lamela''' → Felix Mantilla Lamela

Malformed redirect name with three single quotes. Unlikely search term; no incoming links.Gavia immer 19:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Rbraunwa 19:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

'''Mottel the Cantor's Son''' → Adventures of Mottel the Cantor's Son

Malformed redirect name with three single quotes. Unlikely search term; no incoming links.Gavia immer 19:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Rbraunwa 19:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Page was automatically created by me when I moved it from that quite implausible name —likely an artifact of the article's creator believing that he needed to place boldface wikimarkup in the title.--Fuhghettaboutit 19:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

American identity → Who Are We? The Challenges to America's National Identity

This is only part of the books title, and it implies to anyone searching for "American identity" that this is an authoritative opinion. AdamBiswanger1 18:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Move source to American Identity, leaving no re-redirect? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• I don't understand AdamBiswanger1 22:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, book is not representative of the concept as a whole. Redirect to American culture or similer. -M 23:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Change target to Culture of the United States. --Zoz (t) 14:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• My suggestion now is to move this redirect to America's Identity, as a plausible shortening of the title, and delete the resulting redirect. I can't think of a plausible target for American identity as a redirect. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Decani → Dečani

Article on Decani cannot be seen as the redirect goes to Dečani —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 157.203.43.103 (talk • contribs) .

• I've fixed your nomination for you. The RFD tag goes on the redirect and not the target article. Also, you listed the redirect as the target above. I'm not positive about what your nomination is actually saying. If you believe an article should be at Decani, then you can simply make one. However, it would probably be best to use a disambiguation page as the titles are too similiar. -- JLaTondre 14:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • It appears to be a bit more complicated than that. Decani was originally created as a redirect over a year ago. Ealier this monthsomeone changed it to reflect the musical usage (opposite to cantoris) and it was then changed back to the redirect. Probably best to convert Decani to a disambiguation page, pointing to Dečani and new article Decani (music), but this has the disadvantage that the naming convention for Cantoris and Decani would not be the same. Or alternatively put the music article at Decani with the appropriate "for the town in Kosovo, see Dečani" boilerplate text at the top. Difficult to say which "most" users of English wikipedia would expect to see. I'm much more familiar with musical usage, but would accept that in the greater scheme of things it's a fairly niche usage. David Underdown 14:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    • The article should have priority over the redirect; that's why we have dab headers. If somebody wants to argue that the city should be at Decani for some reason, then we can discuss where the musical article should be moved. I'm taking out the redirect; deleting this would lose the history of the musical article. Septentrionalis 16:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

20 July

Showtime Too → Showtime

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

Showtime Beyond → Showtime

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

Showtime Extreme → Showtime

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

Showtime Family Zone → Showtime

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

Showtime Next → Showtime

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

Showtime Showcase → Showtime

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

Showtime Women → Showtime

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

Encore WAM → Encore (Premium TV)

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

Starz Cinema → Starz!

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

Starz Comedy → Starz!

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

Starz Edge → Starz!

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

Starz InBlack → Starz!

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

Starz Kids & Family → Starz!

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

Showtime Beyond → Showtime

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

Showtime Extreme → Showtime

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

Showtime Family Zone → Showtime

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

Showtime Next → Showtime

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

Showtime Showcase → Showtime

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

Showtime Women → Showtime

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

Misplaced Pages:Community Portal/Draft0 → Misplaced Pages:Community Portal/Redesign/Draft1a

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

• 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)
• Comment. For details, please see Misplaced Pages talk:Community Portal#Orphaned subpage. Thanks. -Quiddity 20:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Community Portal/October 2005 Redesign → Misplaced Pages:Community Portal/Redesign/October 2005

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

• Keep, harmless and has incoming links. Kusma (討論) 07:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• 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)

Misplaced Pages:Community Portal/Draft1 → Misplaced Pages:Community Portal/Redesign/Draft1b

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

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

Misplaced Pages:Community Portal/Redesign/DraftA → Misplaced Pages:Community Portal/Redesign/Draft1a

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

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

Misplaced Pages:Community Portal/Redesign/DraftB → Misplaced Pages:Community Portal/Redesign/Draft1b

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

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

Misplaced Pages:Community Portal/Redesign/Draft2b → Misplaced Pages:Community Portal/Draft

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

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

Misplaced Pages:Community Portal/Draft1b → Misplaced Pages:Community Portal/Redesign/Draft1b

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

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

Misplaced Pages:Community Portal/Draft1a → Misplaced Pages:Community Portal/Redesign/Draft1a

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

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

Misplaced Pages talk:Community Portal/New featured content → Misplaced Pages talk:Community Portal

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

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

Misplaced Pages talk:Community Portal/Policies and guidelines → Misplaced Pages talk:Community Portal

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

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

Misplaced Pages talk:Community Portal/Wikipedia by department → Misplaced Pages talk:Community Portal

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

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

Misplaced Pages talk:Community Portal/Collaborations → Misplaced Pages talk:Community Portal

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

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

WP:MENU → Misplaced Pages:Community Portal/Menu

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

• Keep. This is a shortcut to an actual page in the Misplaced Pages namespace. As long as it is still there I see no reason for it to not have a shortcut. BigNate37_T·C 03:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, and my comments above. -Quiddity 21:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• 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}}. BigNate37_T·C 06:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:MENU2 → Misplaced Pages:Community Portal/Menu2

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

• Keep. This is a shortcut to an actual page in the Misplaced Pages namespace. As long as it is still there I see no reason for it to not have a shortcut. BigNate37_T·C 03:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, and my comments above. -Quiddity 21:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:TTD → Misplaced Pages:Community Portal/Things to do

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

• 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)
• Keep. This is a shortcut to an actual page in the Misplaced Pages namespace. As long as it is still there I see no reason for it to not have a shortcut. BigNate37_T·C 03:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Mallgoth → Mansonite

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 Misplaced Pages: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 . 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)

• Keep: mentioned in the introductory paragraph of Mansonite and aids searching. BigNate37_T·C 03:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment If this redirect is kept, create Mall Goth and Mall goth as additional redirects to the same target. BigNate37_T·C 06:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• 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 Misplaced Pages. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 04:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

• Keep per BigNate37. -- NORTH 03:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

St. Michelle Malkin → Michelle Malkin

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)

Jews did 9/11 → 9/11 conspiracy theories

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)

• 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)
• Delete per Fan-1967. CWC(talk) 10:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Obviously a useful redirect. --SPUI (T - C) 12:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• 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)
• delete, and fast. AdamBiswanger1 00:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

19 July

Tackleball → American football

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)

• Concur; apparent neologism or retrologism from Touch football. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Cotw → Misplaced Pages:Collaboration of the week

Cross namespace redirect. Could potentially be a disambig page, though, (see and it also appears to be short for Children of the World Cowman109 17:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as cross-namespace redirect, possible encyclopedic redirect target of The Call of the Wild. --Cyde↔Weys 18:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- Renesis13 21:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as below. Making it a dab page, with link, is not unreasonable. Septentrionalis 16:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or make disambiguation per Septentrionalis. Novice users might not know the difference between the Misplaced Pages: and main namespaces. NeonMerlin 04:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Cross namespace redirects are bad and there are lots of things Cotw could stand for. David | Talk 11:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. COTW is not an unique Misplaced Pages term. Misplaced Pages 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)
• Delete per JLaTondre or turn it into a damb page. --Zoz (t) 18:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Cyde, David and JLaTondre Rbraunwa 18:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• REDIRECT TO Misplaced Pages. 132.205.45.110 23:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• 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)
  • 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)
• Keep as redirect disambiguation page, and include a selfref hatnote about collaboration. -- nae'blis _(talk) 15:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't really understand what you are suggesting? --Cyde↔Weys 15:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • 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)
      • 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)
        • 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)

Pokemon test → Misplaced Pages:Pokemon test

Cross namespace redirect, could potentially be confusing in search terms. Cowman109 17:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• 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)
• Delete -- Renesis13 21:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Retarget to Pokémon per Cyde. Cowman109 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. Cowman109 02:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• Delete as cross name-space redirect. Rbraunwa 18:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• 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 02:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Random Page → Special:Random

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 Misplaced Pages to the left of the screen, making the redirect unnecessary. Cowman109 17:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• 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)
• Delete -- Renesis13 21:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete R3 BigDT 02:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete googl t 14:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Waldorf education → Waldorf-education

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)

Barry Turner UK → Barry Turner (journalist)

not Misplaced Pages style and unlikely to be used Shantavira 07:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Various cross-name space redirects

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 03:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Requests for Adminship --> Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship
2. Request for adminship --> Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship
3. Categories for deletion --> Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion
4. Wikignome --> Misplaced Pages:WikiGnome
5. Wiki fairy --> Misplaced Pages:WikiFairy
6. Speedy delete --> Misplaced Pages:Speedy deletions
7. Speedy deletions --> Misplaced Pages:speedy deletions

---

• Delete #4,5 not very useful, cross namespace redirects. — xaosflux 04:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
  • 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)
    • If someone is searching only the encyclopedia they should not get a Misplaced Pages namespace result, period. If they expand their search to other namespaces it will of course find Misplaced Pages: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)
    • 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)
      • Just to be absolutely clear, Cyde, you're supporting them finding the Misplaced Pages: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)
        • 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 Misplaced Pages:Wikignome. Having that cross-namespace redirect in article space is simply unnecessary. --Cyde↔Weys 15:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Cyde has just reduced his own argument to absurdity. Yes, if a user knows Misplaced Pages's tools intimately, he doesn't need these redirects; such a user knows the names of Misplaced Pages;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)
            • 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)
              • 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)
            • 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)
• 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)
• Delete all per Cyde. -- Renesis13 05:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all. I agree with Cyde. Rbraunwa 22:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• 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)
  • 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. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia and an encyclopedia search should return only encyclopedic results. --Cyde↔Weys 01:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Two points: (1) Consider these main namespace search results . 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)
      • 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)
        • If it can easily be done, is there some reason it hasn't been? BigDT 03:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
          • I actually don't think anyone's ever asked. Want to ping a dev? --Cyde↔Weys 13:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
            • 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)
              • 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)
• 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)
  • 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 Misplaced Pages: namespace pages in the results? --Cyde↔Weys 15:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
    • 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)
      • 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
        • 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)
          • 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)
            • 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)
• Delete all cross-namespace redirects. (ESkog) 15:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, harmless. Kusma (討論) 16:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • 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)
• 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)
  • There isn't a policy. If there were, this wouldn't be an issue. There is a guideline Misplaced Pages: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)
    • What benefits would that be? All I'm seeing are negatives. --Cyde↔Weys 02:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    • 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. BigNate37_T·C 05:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• 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 00:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • 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 14:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• delete all, per Cyde and earlier comments on these RfDs/wangi 13:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• 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 "Misplaced Pages:" before their search term. Chicheley 13:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • 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 ... Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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)
    • 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)
• Delete all per Cyde and others above. Tom Harrison 13:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• 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 'Misplaced Pages:Whatever' instead of 'Misplaced Pages Whatever' or 'Misplaced Pages: 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)
• 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 Misplaced Pages: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)

• 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 Misplaced Pages: namespace have a corresponding redirect in article space (but without the Misplaced Pages: 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: 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 Misplaced Pages:Spoiler warning, but is it even remotely likely that someone who types "categories for deletion" could seek anything other than Misplaced Pages: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)

• 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

• Do you honestly believe that Requests for Adminship is a likely title for an encyclopedic article? —David Levy 16:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all per Cyde. Kimchi.sg 13:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per Cyde. -- JLaTondre 13:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• 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 Misplaced Pages: can more easily find and hide them) --Interiot 13:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

• Keep all per David Levy. - Mailer Diablo 14:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all Misplaced Pages is a single package and this attempt to fracture it is misguided. Osomec 16:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but that's simply not true, per the terms of the GFDL and official project policy. Misplaced Pages 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)
• Delete all cross-namespace redirects. Modify the default search filter for logged-in users to include the Misplaced Pages:, 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)
• Delete all non-shortcut cross-namespace redirects, except those which have Misplaced Pages or some other Misplaced Pages Foundation project in the title. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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 23:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Please stop impugning other people's motives. I personally have never crusaded for anything on Misplaced Pages, and I really doubt that anyone else saying "Delete" has either. --Cyde↔Weys 00:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    • 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)
• 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)
• Delete all as cross-namespace redirects. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 21:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all as CNRs. feydey 18:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all but 4 and 5. per above. --Banana04131 20:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per Cyde and others. jni 05:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all as per Septentrionalis. Lectonar 13:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Ps.: and thanks for bringing this to my attention. Lectonar 13:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Note: I believe I have a solution to this dispute. Please review it/leave comments at Misplaced Pages:Cross-namespace redirects. Thanks. --Zoz (t) 15:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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). BigNate37_T·C 05:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• 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. BigNate37_T·C 05:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• 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)

• Delete all. Yet more process wankery. --Tony Sidaway 20:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Shortcuts for Misplaced Pages:WikiProject North Carolina State Highways

• NC Routes Wikiproject
• NCSH
• Wikiproject North Carolina State Highways
• WikiProject North Carolina State Highways

Unnecessary cross-namespace redirects that aren't proper Misplaced Pages shortcuts -- NORTH 01:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all. -- Renesis13 05:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all, WikiProjects certainly don't need cross-namespace redirects in the main article space. --Cyde↔Weys 17:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • 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)
• Delete all Rbraunwa 22:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per NORTH. --Zoz (t) 17:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• d GangstaEB~(penguin logs) 20:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages deletion