Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DumbBOT (talk | contribs) at 23:11, 18 June 2012 (Adding subpage(s)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 23:11, 18 June 2012 by DumbBOT (talk | contribs) (Adding subpage(s))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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

Shortcuts

Deletion discussions
Deletion today Undeletion Deletion review Deletion log Request a copy of a deleted article
Articles
today all (sorted) closing log
Templates and modules
today all closing holding
Files
today all closing
Categories
today all category closing speedy working manual
Redirects
today all closing log
Miscellany
today all closing
Speedy deletion
candidates
Proposed deletion
all (sorted) BLPs
Policy Process Guide (Images) Administrator guidelines
v t e

XFD backlog
V	Nov	Dec	Total
CfD	0	8	8
TfD	0	0	0
MfD	2	2	4
FfD	1	18	19
RfD	0	0	103
AfD	0	0	0

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

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

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

Before listing a redirect for discussion

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

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

Shortcut

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)

Shortcuts

Further information: Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Common outcomes and Misplaced Pages:Moving a page § Moving over 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 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

Shortcut

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):

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.
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 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:.)
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.
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

Shortcut

WP:RFD#KEEP

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 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.
They would aid accidental linking and make the creation of duplicate articles less likely, whether by redirecting a plural to a singular, by redirecting a frequent misspelling to a correct spelling, by redirecting a misnomer to a correct term, by redirecting to a synonym, etc. In other words, redirects with no incoming links are not candidates for deletion on those grounds because they are of benefit to the browsing user. Some extra vigilance by editors will be required to minimize the occurrence of those frequent misspellings in article text because the linkified misspellings will not appear as broken links; consider tagging the redirect with the {{R from misspelling}} template to assist editors in monitoring these misspellings.
They aid searches on certain terms. For example, users who might see the "Keystone State" mentioned somewhere but do not know what that refers to will be able to find out at the Pennsylvania (target) article.
Deleting redirects runs the risk of breaking incoming or internal links. For example, redirects resulting from page moves should not normally be deleted without good reason. Links that have existed for a significant length of time, including CamelCase links (e.g. WolVes) and old subpage links, should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them. See also Misplaced Pages: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 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.
The redirect is to a closely related word form, such as a plural form to a singular form.

Neutrality of redirects

Shortcut

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:

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 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

Shortcut

WP:RFDHOWTO

STEP I.

Tag the redirect(s).

Enter {{subst:rfd|content= at the very beginning of the redirect page you are listing for discussion and enter }} at the very end of the page.

Does this look too complicated?
Try this semi-automated process instead: (note only confirmed users can use this)

Enable Twinkle in the Gadgets tab of your preferences.
Go back to the redirect page, and choose "XFD" from the new Twinkle menu.
Fill in the form and submit it.

Please do not mark the edit as minor (m).
Please include in the edit summary the phrase:
Nominated for RfD: see ].
Save the page ("Publish changes").
If you are unable to edit the redirect page because of protection, this step can be omitted, and after step 2 is completed, a request to add the RFD template can be put on the redirect's talk page.
If the redirect you are nominating is in template namespace, consider adding |showontransclusion=1 to the RfD tag so that people using the template redirect are aware of the nomination.
If you are nominating multiple redirects as a group, repeat all the above steps for each redirect being nominated.

STEP II.

List the entry on RfD.

Click here to edit the section of RfD for today's entries.

Enter this text below the date heading:

{{subst:Rfd2|redirect=RedirectName|target=TargetArticle|text=The action you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for that action.}}

~~~~

For this template:
- Put the redirect's name in place of RedirectName, put the target article's name in place of TargetArticle, and include a reason after text=.
- Note that, for this step, the "target article" is the current target of the redirect (if you have a suggestion for a better target, include this in the text that you insert after text=).
Please use an edit summary such as:
Nominating ]
(replacing RedirectName with the name of the redirect you are nominating).
To list multiple related redirects for discussion, use the following syntax. Repeat line 2 for N number of redirects:

{{subst:Rfd2|redirect=RedirectName1|target=TargetArticle1}}

{{subst:Rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectName2|target=TargetArticle2}}

{{subst:Rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectNameN|target=TargetArticleN|text=The actions you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for those actions.}}

~~~~

If the redirect has had previous RfDs, you can add {{Oldrfdlist|previous RfD without brackets|result of previous RfD}} directly after the rfd2 template.
If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "deletion sorting lists". Then add a {{subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}} template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done.

STEP III.

Notify users.

It is generally considered good practice to notify the creator and main contributors of the redirect(s) that you nominate.

To find the main contributors, look in the page history of the respective redirect(s). For convenience, the template

{{subst:Rfd notice|RedirectName}} ~~~~

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 ]

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

June 18

Gro.aidepikiw.ne

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Gro.aidepikiw.ne → Misplaced Pages (links to redirect • history • stats)

Implausible. Virtually unused as one might expect. Apparently, people looking for Misplaced Pages will usually not type its url backwards when searching for it. Kilopi (talk) 12:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

comment this was orginally created as a double redirect to palindrome via Ikiw/gro.aidepikiw.ne//:ptth, which was speedily deleted years ago under criterion G1 (nonsense). It was retargetted to the present article in 2009 (presumably as it isn't a palindrome). Thryduulf (talk) 13:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
delete the anagram is an implausible search term. (I doubt that problems with RTL/LTR input schemes could cause this outcome) 70.49.127.65 (talk) 00:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Delete as implausible synonym.--Lenticel 00:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
eteleD, ton ynnuf. —Kusma (t·c) 17:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Home language

The result of the discussion was retarget to First language. JohnCD (talk) 20:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Home language → Heritage language (links to redirect • history • stats)

I don't think the target of this redirect exactly matches the meaning, e.g. they are not the same. I'm not sure what better target there is though. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 08:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Would First language be a better target? My other initial thought (Mother tongue) redirects there already, as does Native speaker. Thryduulf (talk) 13:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Weak Retarget to First language per Thryduulf, not exactly the best target but close enough.--Lenticel 00:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Misplaced Pages:Chobham 2.0

The result of the discussion was Speedily deleted by RHaworth (talk · contribs) under criterion G3. Subsequently, the target article was deleted per Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Chobham 2.0. Thryduulf (talk) 16:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Chobham 2.0 → Chobham 2.0 (links to redirect • history • stats)

This redirect doesn't needed here.It's from a Misplaced Pages page to the article. Max Viwe | Viwe The Max 08:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete XNR. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 00:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Speedy-delete as a self-corrected mistake - the user moved the page from his/her userspace to the Misplaced Pages-space then one minute later, moved it to the mainspace. This appears to be a common mistake somehow triggered by our new article creation process. I have not yet found the error in our instructions leading to this hiccup but I have to believe that there is some common cause. Rossami (talk) 03:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The Entertainologist

The result of the discussion was defer to AfD Thryduulf (talk) 16:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The Entertainologist → Lulu Powers (links to redirect • history • stats)

Redirect for a page currently in AfD at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lulu Powers DarkAudit (talk) 08:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

defer to AfD. Redirects like this don't need to be nominated here. If the target is deleted then redirects get speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G8. If the article is not deleted and you still think the redirect should be deleted you can nominate it here without prejudice. Thryduulf (talk) 13:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- The redirect and the main article were both put up for AfD, that's why I nominated the redirect here. Lesson learned and no harm done. DarkAudit (talk) 13:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Republic of China (1927–1949)

The result of the discussion was keep as is. No alternative title presents itself and the diversity of content on the target page suggests that this is plausible ambiguity. Regardless, the redirect takes the reader to the correct page where the best-available data is presented. Rossami (talk) 18:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Republic of China (1927–1949) → Nationalist Government (links to redirect • history • stats)

Move to correct title. What are the correct years for the beginning and end? The Target article Nationalist Government states years 1928-1948, but the info box says 1927-1948. We should have correct year range to correspond to the target article. Mistakefinder (talk) 07:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep reasonable search term. It is the period of the Chinese Civil War (according to the target article). 70.49.127.65 (talk) 00:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Repulic of Venice

The result of the discussion was keep. Thryduulf (talk) 11:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Repulic of Venice → Republic of Venice (links to redirect • history • stats)

deletion. Unnecessary for a stupid misspelling of common word. Mistakefinder (talk) 07:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep. It's been around since 2006 and has not caused any controversy or confusion in all that time. By all appearances, it was created in good faith and the statistics show a steady trickle of hits suggesting that this misspelling is not uncommon. It is not in the way of any other content. "Unnecessary" is a value judgement based on how you navigate the wiki. It is explicitly not a reason to delete a redirect. They really are that cheap. Rossami (talk) 03:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Republic of China (1911-1949)

The result of the discussion was retarget. Rossami (talk) 18:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Republic of China (1911–1949) → Taiwan (links to redirect • history • stats)

deletion or re-targeting. Should be deleted, because of wrong beginning year 1911, and it redirected to Taiwan, which is incorrect. There's already an article named Republic of China (1912-1949). It should, at a minimum, redirect to this article. However, why keep a redirect that's wrong anyway? Mistakefinder (talk) 07:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Retarget to Republic of China (1912–1949), since the rebellion that started the ROC was in 1911, thus a reasonable search parameter. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 00:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Criticism of Misplaced Pages

The result of the discussion was Keep the redirect. Ruslik_Zero 16:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of Misplaced Pages → Misplaced Pages (links to redirect • history • stats)

Undo the whole redirect and restore the original page. This page was meant to be here, and the Misplaced Pages main article talks very little about critical reception; it does not even have a section about reception and criticism. Longbyte1 (talk) 02:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

EDIT: Seems like there's been a long-running discussion in the NPOV noticeboard. Any way we can bring the issue up again? The issue has not been resolved. --Longbyte1 (talk) 02:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment if you delete the redirect, you will delete the page you want to restore as well. That page appears in the edit history of the redirect. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 00:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Emphatic keep. This page has history going back almost to the start of the project. It serves an essential function for the project, allowing editors to vent about the nature of the wiki but more importantly, acknowledging the published failings of the project. It is essential that we live up to our own rules about balanced presentation even when the article is about Misplaced Pages itself. No, make that especially when the article is about Misplaced Pages. The history of this debate must be preserved.
I am less emphatic about whether the page should be kept-as-is or restored to a pre-redirect version. Many of the older versions, while living up to NPOV (mostly), suffered serious deficiencies in sourcing and conflict-of-interest editing. I believe that a balanced page could be written but can also see the argument for redirect. That, however, is a matter to sort out on the article's Talk page and is not a proper decision for this forum. Rossami (talk) 03:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Keep - I mostly agree with Rossami, the history of this page is valuable, in fact, Jimmy Wales even cited this Misplaced Pages article in a debate with the editor-in-chief of Britannica. However, there is still the mild debate on POV. Can we revive some discussion on that note? Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Emphatic keep (the original page). This page serves as a healthy check and balance in understanding both the accuracy/inaccuracy and strengths/weaknesses of articles here. Criticism is invaluable and paramount to improving the quality of the repository that makes up Misplaced Pages. Veritycheck (talk) 11:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Move to Misplaced Pages: namespace? benzband (talk) 08:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- No, this was and should be an encyclopaedia article, not an internal project-space page. While there is scope for a project page it would have a different focus (e.g. strategies and good practice to follow in response to criticisms). keep redirect until an article is (re)established. 82.132.211.155 (talk) 15:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Strong keep (the redirect) - I don't know if this page is an appropriate place to discuss bringing back the article, but since that's being discussed, I will respond. The criticism has not been removed; it has simply been moved to other articles, such as Misplaced Pages, Reliability of Misplaced Pages and Community of Misplaced Pages. This was done to better comply with the recommendations in WP:NPOV that discourage "Criticism of" pages. No one here who has written on behalf of bring back the article has provided a policy reason for doing so. I also disagree with the statement that "the Misplaced Pages main article talks very little about critical reception". Some of the Nature section and most of the Analysis of Content section deal with issues where Misplaced Pages has been criticized, and much of this content came from the original Criticism of Misplaced Pages article. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 03:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep the redirect - After reviewing Reliability of Misplaced Pages, I think that it would work better and generally more acceptable by the community than the old article on the Criticism. And I think JTSchreiber summed it up pretty well too. However, because the information in Reliability of Misplaced Pages is is more or less similar to Criticism of Misplaced Pages, should we change the redirect to Reliability instead? Michaelzeng7 (talk) 02:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Keep - Only a jerk would want to redirect this page to begin with. This is a stupid poll. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.243.9.2 (talk) 07:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

June 17

Falafel (Bill O'Reilly)

The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete. Rossami (talk) 18:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Falafel (Bill O'Reilly) → Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) (links to redirect • history • stats)

No chance anyone will type this intentionally, and the target article doesn't mention falafel in any way (nor is it likely to). Qwyrxian (talk) 23:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

comment, leaning towards keep. This is consistently getting around 30 hits/month suggesting people continue to find it useful. While the target page doesn't currently mention falafel, the last version of the original target before it was afd-merged into the present article does (see old revision), which combined with a satement in the afd (linked at the top of the old revision) about the importance of it to the case makes it quite possible that it will be mentioned in future. If this is not harmful (it doesn't appear to be, but I've never heard of the subject before now and its bleeping difficult doing the research on my increasingly senile phone) then I don't see a reaon to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 00:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. I've not found any evidence that this is harmful, so per my earlier comment there is benefit to keeping and none to deleting. Thryduulf (talk) 16:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

My Little Brony

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 19:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

My Little Brony → South Park (season 16) (links to redirect • history • stats)

Delete. "My little Brony" was added as the name of an episode, it was either vandalism or a rumour that turned out to be incorrect, and has now been removed. Peter E. James (talk) 15:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete seems to be a rumor that turned out false, considering the activity on it over the internet outside of Misplaced Pages. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 03:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Delete as unlikely synonym.--Lenticel 23:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Banned users

The result of the discussion was Revert to the previous target. Ruslik_Zero 16:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Banned users → Misplaced Pages:List of banned users (links to redirect • history • stats)

Delete cross-namespace redirect. I've rewritten the previous target of the redirect, Block (Internet), as it was contrary to WP:SELF Nobody Ent 10:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I consider it borderline abuse of process to turn a page into a cross-namespace redirect, then immediately nominate it for deletion on that basis. Revert to prior target.
This redirect was previously discussed in Oct 2008. The decision then was "retarget to Ban (law)" though Block (internet) was presented as a viable alternative and an ordinary-editor update quickly switched the target to that. I see no reason to overturn that prior decision. I do not have a strong preference for which target is best but both are clearly associated with this topic. The redirect is entirely plausible.
I also reviewed the recent changes to Block (Internet) and disagree with the categorization of that content as violating WP:SELF. While it does describe the mechanism used by Misplaced Pages (and could use expansion about other mechanisms), that mechanism is not unique to Misplaced Pages - that blocking mechanism is common to many pseudonymous websites. Rossami (talk) 13:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Revert per Rossami. I'm also okay with a dab with links to Block (Internet), Ban (law) and Misplaced Pages:List of banned users.--Lenticel 23:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Revert per Rossami. I also agree that the original content at that target was not a violation of WP:SELF. Thryduulf (talk) 16:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Gap junction protein, alpha 1, 43kDa

The result of the discussion was 'no consensus to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 11:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Gap junction protein, alpha 1, 43kDa → GJA1 (links to redirect • history • stats)

This page title has been entered with an error (the "43kDa" part being superfluous) - it was very soon moved by another editor to a more correct title Gap junction protein, alpha 1. However, the old title was not deleted; instead, simply a redirection has been made. As this is a wrong title, nothing links here and there is hardly an chance anyone would ever search for this erroneous title. Deletion requested. kashmiri 08:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

This article was created in Oct 2007 at GJA1. It was moved to Gap junction protein, alpha 1, 43kDa in Nov 2008 and moved to Gap junction protein, alpha 1 a day later where it stayed until earlier this week when it was moved back to GJA1. I will grant that the content did not exist at this longest version of the title very long but the redirect has existed for 4 years without creating any evidence of controversy or confusion. (And while there are no inbound links showing via WhatLinksHere, we have no way to know whether any links exist external to the project.) According to the Nation Institute of Health, "gap junction 43 kDa heart protein" is a synonym for GJA1. The jump from that recognized synonym to this redirect title does not seem at all implausible to me. Keep because the redirect is unharmful and redirects are cheap. Rossami (talk) 13:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Micro Award

Relisted see Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 July 8#Micro Award. Thryduulf (talk) 11:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

June 16

Microsoft connect

The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 11:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Microsoft connect → Microsoft (links to redirect • history • stats)

Hi. The target of this redirect provides no information about its subject, "Microsoft Connect", which is a website run by Microsoft Corporation. I advise deleting it. Best regards. Codename Lisa (talk) 16:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm... This title was an article about a not-especially-notable Microsoft product website. Early drafts were poorly written and it was speedy-deleted four times on the day of creation. In my opinion, those speedy-deletions were largely inappropriate because they were too rapidly and too aggressively applied. (Except the copyvio-version. That had to go.) The creator's poor english appears to have been a primary justification rather than the inherent suitability of the topic. Regardless, the page creation and re-creation continued until finally user:SarekOfVulcan turned the title into a redirect. While the reverts continued, they appear to have been more controllable after the overwrite. Redirects from a non-notable or semi-notable product to a more notable parent entity are routine. And while it is usual for a redirect to actually be mentioned on the target page, it is not required.
Given the page's troubled history, I am inclined to keep the redirect as is. This preempts further attempts to recreate the deleted content (and while the early drafts may be objectionable, it is not yet proven that the topic itself fails to meet our inclusion criteria, so SALTing is inappropriate). Keeping the redirect also keeps the Talk page alive so that we can try to have a conversation with the article creator to determine if and when the topic does meet our inclusion criteria and preserves the pagehistory in case pieces are then useful.
In the meantime, the redirect is doing no harm. Rossami (talk) 17:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, Rossami
  I investigated a little to check your statements and I am afraid what I see in the article history does not justify your rationale for keeping the redirect. Contrary to what you said, the dispute did not stop with SarekOfVulcan's turning the article into a redirect; instead, a fierce revert war took place that only concluded when User:Google6666 received an indefinite block. Another reason to dismiss your rationale is the fact that anyone willing to re-create the article will probably create a Microsoft Connect instead.
  Best regards,
  Codename Lisa (talk) 17:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
  - I didn't say that the disputed editing stopped completely. But compared to the disputes in the deleted history, the fight since SarekOfVulcan's decision has been tame. Rossami (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
    - Hi again. Well, I see three reverts before and three reverts after that point. So, I don't see anything tamer. Anyway, the troublemaker is blocked. If he decide to evade block, a redirect will not stop him. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
      - Were you able to review the deleted history? I see an additional 15 reverts or so - arguably more if you include the four speedy-deletions in the count. The fact that the user has been blocked helps a lot but as a general rule, a redirect is still easier to watchlist and protect than a blank title. Rossami (talk) 17:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
        Hi. An uncreated page is equally easy to watchlist. (You did know that, right?) But most importantly, a redirect must only exist when it helps bona fide readers reach authentic information, not to serve as an illegitimate alternative to salting. Our first priority is our bona fide readership who should not be lead astray. If you believe there is genuine risk, then please be bold and salt the page. Otherwise, please don't resort to half-measures that are already proven ineffective. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
        Re: "easy to watchlist" - Yes and no. It used to be impossible to watchlist a blank title and it still doesn't present the same on a watchlist but you are correct that it is now possible. To your other point, however, our Protection Policy explicitly tells us to limit page protection to the minimum extent necessary to protect the project. Protection is inherently anti-wiki. It creates a section of the encyclopedia at odds with our motto (The encyclopedia that anyone can edit). Salting a page is overkill were a non-harmful redirect will do. Also, your statement that "a redirect must only exist ..." is not strictly true. Aid to navigation is one important function of redirects but not the only one. The relevant question to the debate here is whether the redirect is harmful. I still don't see any harm in this case. Redirects from non-notable products to a more notable parent article are routine. How is this different? Rossami (talk) 23:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
        Hello again.

So, basically, to summarize your message, you don't see harm in this redirect. How about our readership being led astray? They search a sprawling article for the topic with no result, wasting their time. As for what you call "routine", a prevalent mistake, in my humble opinion, is different from a community consensus. So other stuff exist is not a good reason.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Bob Bradley (composer/producer)

The result of the discussion was keep. JohnCD (talk) 21:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Bob Bradley (composer/producer) → Bob Bradley (composer) (links to redirect • history • stats)

I don't think anybody is going to search for "composer / producer" with the slash and such, but this should be discussed. Till 06:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep. This redirect is the artifact of a recent pagemove. The article existed at that title for almost 6 years before the move. The potential for link rot is high. The redirect is not harmful or confusing and is not in the way of any other content. While not the ideal title for the article (hence the move), redirects are cheap. There is some small benefit to keeping it and none for deleting it. Rossami (talk) 12:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Keep per Rossami and WP:CHEAP. Nothing is gained from deleting it and retaining it does no harm. James • 10:28pm • 12:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Misplaced Pages:HAPPYPLACE

The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete. Note: There is a plausible argument to retarget. That is an ordinary-editor decision which should probably be discussed further on the redirect's Talk page. Rossami (talk) 18:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:HAPPYPLACE → Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (links to redirect • history • stats)

Bad Joke. Delete per WP:ANISUCKS and WP:Sarcasm is really helpful. Totally unused except in RFD. MichaelSchumacherMercedes (talk) 01:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep I think it's a pretty good joke, personally. Also, how on earth can you claim it is sarcasm? For many editors, WP:ANI is their happy place. I don't think it's sarcasm. It's ironic, sure, but I'm not using it to express contempt for ANI. I genuinely think ANI is a truly wonderful and magical place. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Delete. No clear connection to the target page. There are many project space pages that some number of editors define as their "happy place," rendering the correct target of such a redirect highly ambiguous. Dcoetzee 08:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Delete - As much as the joke is funny, it is hardly used and is completely unrelated to the target page. James • 10:19pm • 12:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Keep per creator - David Gerard (talk) 13:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Delete Hi. So far, my understanding of the Misplaced Pages policy pages is that redirects are tools that are only meant to make life easier for readers by providing them with a shortcut or an alternate route to their destination. Therefore, in my humble opinion, this redirect, which does not do the latter, is not useful and should be deleted. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- It is a correctly formatted redirect, in the WP: pseudo-namespace that is shorter (14 vs 48 characters) than the target so by any definition it is a shortcut. As the title is different to the target, it does provide an alternative route to the target - indeed as no two pages may share the same title (due to software restrictions) all redirects do this and cannot not do. Whether it is useful or not (and two people above have said they find it so (which per WP:R#KEEP point 5 is a reason keep a redirect), it does serve the purposes you say it doesn't (and they are not the only reasons redirects exist). Keep or Retarget (somewhere like Misplaced Pages:Department of fun may make sense) as there is no reason to delete it - it isn't offensive or otherwise harmful. Thryduulf (talk) 22:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  - Hello, Thryduulf. I'm sorry, but I am a human and I cannot help but fail to see this redirect as an arbitrary strings of well-formatted characters! To me, this redirect reads "Happy Place" which is very offensive, very hurtful and completely irrelevant to its target. Therefore, feel free to vote keep if you so wish, but please do so at your own expense! Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
    - Comment Though I endorse you, don't punish other editors just because they have opinions at XFD. 218.22.21.3 (talk) 13:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
      - Hello, 218.22.21.3. I have no punishing power in Misplaced Pages. But if one day, I gained such power, I will bear your statement in mind. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Cmt1a

The result of the discussion was keep. Jafeluv (talk) 12:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Cmt1a → Charcot–Marie–Tooth disease (links to redirect • history • stats)

Erroneous capitalisation in the title. If ever, then it should read CMT1A. Still, I see no reason why of ~45 subtypes of CMT (Charcot–Marie–Tooth disease) - which go CMT1A, CMT1B, CMT1C, CMT2A1 etc., etc. - only CMT1A is to have a separate redirect entry. Propose to delete. kashmiri 00:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Erroneous capitalization. --Benefros (talk) 05:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Keep. Capitalization variants are routine and are an encouraged use of redirects. Remember that not all of the mechanisms by which our readers navigate the wiki are case-insensitive. The redirect has a clear connection to the target article, is not obviously harmful or confusing and is not in the way of other content. There is a slightly better argument that this particular subtype is obscure and doesn't "deserve" a redirect and I certainly would not recommend the creation of more in this pattern. But once the redirect has been created, there is no benefit to deleting it. Redirects really are that cheap. Rossami (talk) 12:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Keep. Erroneous capitalisation is helpful and per WP:R#KEEP: "The redirect is to a plural form or to a singular form, or to some other grammatical form." James • 10:26pm • 12:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

June 15

Template:United States

Relisted. See Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 July 1#Template:United States. Thryduulf (talk) 17:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Whoops

The result of the discussion was delete. Thryduulf (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Whoops → Template:Distinguish (links to redirect • history • stats)

I think this is an inappropriate name for a redirect. Distinguish is a well established hatnote anyway. Magioladitis (talk) 08:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I created it for consistency with another major wiki, whose counterpart to {{distinguish}} is called {{whoops}}. Please elaborate on how it is "inappropriate". Do we delete {{sudo}} and other redirects because {{edit protected}} is well established? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 15:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The "other major wiki" is Uncyclopedia. I hardly think we should be following their example on anything. Ten Pound Hammer • 13:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment Maybe some other major wiki also use {{whoops}}. MichaelSchumacherMercedes (talk) 06:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Confusing and vague name to use. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Delete as a vague synonym but can we have this linked to Misplaced Pages:Village stocks instead? :) --Lenticel 01:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

June 14

Patrizia D'Addario

The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Patrizia D'Addario → Silvio Berlusconi (links to redirect • history • stats)

Relation between the redirect source and the target is not mentioned in the target article. A Search Engine Test finds the only relation between the redirect source (the name of a self-described prostitute) and the target (a former Italian Prime Minister) is an unproven event that supposedly occurred in 2009. Redirect serves no useful purpose other than to help revive embarrassing allegations. --Allen3 14:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep. It's not "reviving" allegations; the trial is going on right now, as I type this. It's hardly irrelevant. Whether or not she is mentioned by name in his article can change at any time, depending on the current version, but people searching for her are looking for him. According to the page statistics, the redirect has been used 22 times this month alone (not counting the hits you generated as you set up the nomination). So, while it may eventually be unnecessary, it's useful for now. I would, however, support changing the redirect to Silvio Berlusconi underage prostitution charges, which did not exist when the redirect was first created. Kafziel 15:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Misplaced Pages:Cosmos and Psyche

The result of the discussion was delete; CSD G7. Kafziel 15:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Cosmos and Psyche → Cosmos and Psyche (links to redirect • history • stats)

Cross-namespace redirect which appears to be result of a typo when moving an article; nothing else links here, unlikely search term, only one pageview, &c.. bobrayner (talk) 11:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete. I am the author. It is the result of a typographical error. — goethean ॐ 11:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Could this be a nice easy CSD candidate, then? G6 or G7 maybe... bobrayner (talk) 12:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. — goethean ॐ 14:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

And done. Kafziel 15:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Petara

Relisted. See Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 July 1#Petara. Thryduulf (talk) 17:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Dingoes Ate My Baby

The result of the discussion was keep. There appears to be sufficient consensus that the current target is the most adequate one, and there's no evidence that this is a BLP violation. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Dingoes Ate My Baby → Death of Azaria Chamberlain (links to redirect • history • stats)

Dingoes ate my baby → Death of Azaria Chamberlain (links to redirect • history • stats)

Suggest deletion and moving Dingoes Ate My Baby (band) back here. In the words of User:Amandajm at Talk:Death of Azaria Chamberlain#Redirect,

This redirect is in the worst possible taste ... for the following reasons:
• This article contains biographical information pertaining to living persons and they need to be treated with appropriate respect.
• Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons
• The quotation is inaccurate. It is not what Lindy Chamberlain actually said, so it isn't relevant here.
• Anyone who looks for those words is presumably looking for the fictitious band.

Paul_012 (talk) 07:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep as creator of redirect. When I googled "a dingo ate my baby" (much closer to the original quote), the wikipedia page on the band was the first search result. Since I changed the phrase to a redirect, Death of Azaria Chamberlain is now the first result, as it should be. The accuracy of the quote is irrelevant, accuracy is also irrelevant for redirects. You're expecting us to believe that no one is ever mistaken about the quote and that no one ever thinks it's dingos instead of dingo? Finally, the idea that anyone looking for it is looking for the band is ludicrous. I have even pondered nominating the band for deletion. It's not very important to the TV show, Buffy, and has no real-world significance, and its notability is questionable. So, are our users typing in a slightly wrong quote, or are they typing in the name of a non-notable band? Seems easy to answer. And how it an almost accurate quote from the story "in the worst possible taste", especially considering that A dingo ate my baby! redirects there too? D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Keep. Real-life event vs. a fictional band from Buffy the Vampire Slayer? Real-life event, please. It's obviously a popular misquote, and precisely the sort of thing for which redirects were intended. Kafziel 15:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I have added the lowercase version of this redirect to the nomination as they are nearly identical. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Remove Can anyone explain to me why a "quotation" needs to have a hatnote? it is not usual for a quote to have a hatnote. "What about me little mate" doesn't have a hatnote. "Life wasn't meant to be easy" doesn't have a hatnote". Why should a serious misquotation of what a frantic mother said have a hatnote? Who would google that anyway, when people know the names of Lindy Chamberlain and Azaria Chamberlain very well, and both will take you to the article.
The fictitious band needs to be listed in the media section.
Don't the feelings of the family count for anything?
That ghastly misquotation goes against the policy of treating the living with due respect. Misquoting Lindy Chamberlain doesn't do that.
Haven't you guys got any human decency?
The naming of the band was victimisation. The misquoting of what the mother of the dead child said also amounted to victimisation, because the sentence itself was widely used to ridicule Lindy Chamberlain. Amandajm (talk) 05:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- See below for the reason this should be removed:
  WP:AVOIDVICTIM
  Avoid victimization
  When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Misplaced Pages editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.
  Please see Biographies of living persons noticeboard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amandajm (talk • contribs)
  - First, there is nothing wrong with a quotation in a hatnote - any time that a quotation redirects somewhere and readers might be looking for something different, such as the hatnote at Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow. Second, as far as "pared back to a version that is completely sourced...", the fact that dingoes did, in fact, kill her baby is probably the best-sourced fact in the entire article. As far as not "including every detail", this isn't a detail, this is the entire essence of what happened. Finally, the most important thing, this is not an article, it's a redirect. Redirects don't have to be neutral, see Water fluoridation conspiracy theory for an example. Redirects don't have to be correct, see Barack OBama and Kevin perria. The standard for deleting redirects is high as they are not articles, and deleting requires a much more blatant violation of neutral point of view, such as the "worst movie" redirects here.
    Redirects don't make editorial statements, not really. They are there to help someone who doesn't know what the child's name was but incorrectly remembers that she said "dingoes ate my baby". The quote is already out there and people already associate it with this case, and we can't change that. Removing the redirect will not make it go away. Misplaced Pages did not create the media circus, Misplaced Pages did not create the botched police investigation, and neither will be made any worse by having this redirect. The redirect exists because people already think she said that, and the real quote should be in the article so people can learn what she really said. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Delete and move. Relationship to current article: a misspelling and misquote of a phrase not even used in the article in its original form ( "A dingo's got my/the baby"). Relationship to fictional band: the exact name used. Misquotes of the phrase are common on the the net, but this particular variant with the plural "Dingoes" seem uncommon outside association with the band. Putting a hatnote on the fictional band page instead would also avoid the very unfortunate positioning at the top of the article on a real-life tragic event.--Melburnian (talk) 13:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
It shows an appalling lack of empathy to insist on leaving it there, regardless of how many reasons you can trot out for doing it!
Dodegroovily, your justification here is to make it very easy for curious people who can't remember what was said, or the names. Your concern is primarily to help really forgetful people. However, when it comes to the article, the living subjects have to be considered, more than those who are idly curious. I put it to you that anyone with a serious reason for wanting the info will have enough information to do a successful search.
Just try Googling "dingo" and "baby" and it will be there, without the hatnote.
You accused me of deleting a "fact". I didn't. I deleted a misquote and a link to something which is/can be linked at a different place in the article, the Media section.
You, Dodegroovily, have nothing to loose. These people have lost a child, and lost years of their lives to suspicion, hatred, persecution and gaol.
Let us show a little human decency in this matter. Amandajm (talk) 16:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Search
  I just did a Google search on the minimum information to find this topic i.e. the words "dingo" and "baby".
  I used the Google search engine for UK, USA and Australia.
  In each instance the words "dingo" and "baby" provided results that pertained directly to the Chamberlain case, and although the case is much in the news at this time, the Misplaced Pages article rated second to fourth on the list for each search.
  This indicates quite clearly that the page does not require a headnote that reads "Dingoes ate my baby" directs here. The link to the crassly-named band doesn't need to be at the top of the page either. Amandajm (talk) 16:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  - The quote is only barely a misquote, only two words slightly wrong. To say redirecting a barely misquote is disrespectful ignores the real disrespect floating around the inter webs, like this trash: (), not to mention its tasteless use on Seinfeld and the Far Side comic. I think we're being plenty respectful here. At any rate, I think the best solution is to delete the page on the non-notable fictional band and then you don't need a hatnote. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 17:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Keep as is. I find the arguments about "disrespect" confusing when the proposed alternative is to point the title instead to a fictional band that was itself named to lampoon this real-world event. I am also confused by the argument that 1) this is so prejudicial that it must be removed from Misplaced Pages and in defending that statement, a google search shows that the very same terms return the relevant topic.
The title is clear, points to the logically connected article and helps readers find the content they want. Note that even if these were untrue, WP:NPOV does not apply to redirects (or more specifically, it does not apply in the same way that it does to article titles and content). The arguments above to delete are not based in Misplaced Pages policy. Rossami (talk) 22:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Keep. In May these redirects had over 6000 hits between them (the stats are unfortunately case insensitive), which is a truly massive number for a redirect (we routinely regard redirects with low double-digit hit counts as actively used). It's clear therefore that we need something at this title and the question then becomes what is the primary topic? The only logical choices are the current target, a clearly notable event due at least in part to the massively high-profile international media circus it generated; or a fictional band from a discontinued cult TV series named after the event. All the evidence points, unsurprisingly to the former. Despite this it could be that the redirect is still harmful, and if so that harmfulness will need to be balanced against the above-demonstrated benefits. So is it harmful? WP:RNEUTRAL suggests that it is actually beneficial to have redirects like this because it educates readers that the quote that exists in the popular concsciousness (hence this, not the correct formulation, is the name of the fictional band, for example) is incorrect and gives them the actual quote. Thus any harm is miniscule in comparison with the benefits of enabling thousands of people a month to finx the article they are looking for. Finaly, to use a dictionaric analogy, Misplaced Pages is descriptive not prescriptive - that is our coverage reflects what is not what shhould be. 82.132.233.104 (talk) 01:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages policy on victimization
Avoid victimization
WP:AVOIDVICTIM
When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Misplaced Pages editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.

You see, it really doesn't matter how many people search it wrongly.
People enjoy sensationalism. People are often crass and insensitive. People who were crass and insensitive hounded and victimiszd the Chamberlain family with stuff like this.
When this redirect was created, it catered (like the press) to the satisfiction of the lowest common denominator, the people whose suspicions put Lindy Chamberlain in goal, the people whose curiosity had her hounded by the media.
So now we have a Misplaced Pages that to the curiosity of the masses like some cheap nasty tabloid, instead of avoiding victimization as per Misplaced Pages's clearly stated policy.
Solution is obvious. Make sure that there is a hatnote on the page Dingoes Ate My Baby (band)
That solves the problem. Amandajm (talk) 06:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- I really don't get how this victimizes anyone. The article itself is neutral and fair and accurately describes what happens and reports on the media circus for what it is - a grave injustice.
  But, we're not talking about the article. The policy above does not apply to redirects. In fact, one of the reasons for redirects to exist is so offensive terms can lead to the correct topic without having to include the offensive term in the article. I don't see how this caters to the lowest common denominator. Not knowing the exact quote or the name of the baby doesn't make one the lowest common denominator. In fact, I'm willing to bet that nearly everyone outside Australia known nothing about this case but "dingo ate my baby" as the story didn't have much lasting impact in other countries. This is how these people can find the article and learn the truth, but if they don't find it, they're likely to continue to believe the media's lies. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 06:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment Dingoes Ate My Baby (band) is now nominated for deletion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dingoes Ate My Baby (band) D O N D E groovily Talk to me 06:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Response to the above comments.
Dondegroovily, you say "I really don't get how this victimizes anyone."
The fact that you "don't get it" is part of the point. I am prepared to take your persistence in retaining it as "good will".
Now, because you say you "don't get it", I want you to accept my good will in telling you that the mother of the dead child would beyond doubt find it offensive as a recollection of the victimization.
The Misplaced Pages statement says: Misplaced Pages editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.
It is clear, from what you have said, that you were not acting intentionally to "prolong victimization".
But now that you have been alerted to the fact that this may cause great offence to the living subjects of the article, you are now no longer acting unintentionally.
Please take the word of a person who has counselled others in grief situations. It would offend the mother of the child. She has done nothing whatsoever to deserve offending!
As I have already pointed out, a person only needs to do a search on "dingo, baby" and they will bring up the article. The "redirect" is superfluous.
The band doesn't need to be mentioned, and the statement "Dingoes ate my baby" does not need a hatnote.
As for people not knowing about it outside Australia, it is so well known that the coroner's decision has been world news.
The death of the child and following case is so well known that even "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" had reference to it.
Please don't keep insisting on this crassness! I understand that you don't "get it". And I understand that you want to win this dispute. But sometimes you just have to pay attention to someone who does get it! Are you really going to feel right if you win at the risk of hurting the living subjects of the article? Amandajm (talk) 13:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- You've stated your position. Please don't start making your arguments personal. Kafziel 14:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- It is not "beyond doubt." You don't know that. You are not Lindy Chamberlain. Don't pretend to know how she feels. I'm pretty sure any grieving person would be offended by that. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 15:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
  - Is this some sort of a joke?
    Does Misplaced Pages really concern itself more over an editor trying to make a point very clearly to another editor that they may be exceeding the boundaries of human decency and compassion, than dealing with the issue itself?
    As for it being "not beyond doubt": It may not be "beyond doubt" in the mind of the public who took part in the witch hunt. It may not be beyond doubt to a public who has never seen a domestic dog (Blue Cattle Dog for example) give a rabbit a sharp flick to kill it, then skin it neatly before consuming. It may not be beyond doubt in the mind of a public who see Seventh Day Adventists as people who sacrifice babies, rather than people who run Tuberculosis and Leprosy clinics.
    It is certainly "beyond doubt" in the High Court of Australia that Lindy Chamberlain is innocent. The article needs to respect that fact, and not be arranged in a way that prolongs the ridicule.
    What Lindy said at the time that the child was discovered missing must be quoted in the article, because it is highly relevant.
    However, a misquote that was widely used in sick jokes and numerous parodies of the situation does not belong at the top of the article. Amandajm (talk) 03:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
    - Clarification - it is beyond doubt that Azaria was attacked by dingoes and her parents are innocent of all charges. In is not beyond doubt that the victim will find it offensive. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
      - Hello, did you just refer to Lindy Chamberlain as "victim"? You mean as "victim of the victimisation" , presumably?
        You are right, of course. It is not proved beyond reasonable doubt that Ms Chamberlain and her family might find it offensive.
        So, are you suggesting that Misplaced Pages leaves potentially victimizing material in articles, just on the off-chance that the victim of the victimization won't be offended? Amandajm (talk) 06:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
        comment: You seem to be slighly confused about what we are discussing here. We are not concened with the content of the article (that is a discussion for the article talk page), only whether the very widely known (and highly searched for - see the stats) phrase "dingoes ate my baby" should redirect to the article about the event the phrase refers to. The guiding principle in this is not the guidelines about avoiding victimisation, because that is about article content which is not relevant, but WP:RNEUTRAL, which deals with redirects. According to that long-standing principle, which continues to enjoy widespread consensus, and everything at WP:R#DELETE, which similarly is widely supported, there is no reason to either delete this redirect.or to point it at a different target. The sole purpose of redirects of this nature is to enable people to find the article they are looking for. If what they are looking for is non-neutral, incorrect or disputed then it is the job of the article to educate them about this and redirects from these titles facilitate this. If this redirect did not exist then there is a very high likelihood of a duplicate, probably inferior article being written by someone who was unaware of the existence of the existing article. These provable large benefits far, far outweigh any unprovable slight offence that the subject of the target of the redirect may theoretically take from Misplaced Pages saying "You looked for X, information about that is in article Y", wbich is no different to saying "You looked for 'Dubya', information about that is at 'George W Bush'". Thryduulf (talk) 09:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC).
Retarget to Oz (Buffy the Vampire Slayer). The ~~target~~ band article has been merged there. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- The article about the fictional band has been merged there, but the article about the death of Azaria Chamberlain (that the fictional band were named after) has not been. It is the latter which is the primary topic for this search phrase. Thryduulf (talk) 10:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  - I dispute that, as you can see from my !vote. — This, that, and the other (talk) 12:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Untwisted

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 19:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Untwisted → Twisted (software) (links to redirect • history • stats)

Delete, as untwisted is a non-notable project with no actual relevance to Twisted, other than that they both attempt to solve the same problem. —habnabit 21:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Untwisted is well known in various technical communities but is now in the process of being merged/renamed back into Twisted, which is why I created the redirect. Enthdegree (talk) 23:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

untwisted is not a fork of Twisted, nor does it implement anything that isn't already included in Twisted, so it getting "merged back" is highly unlikely. It is possible that we are talking about different "untwisted"s, though, as I believe there are multiple projects. I linked the one I was referring to; which are you? —habnabit 17:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —habnabit 04:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete — As "Untwisted" is unrelated to "Twisted", and isn't mentioned in the article/target of the redirect. Senator2029 ❝talk❞ 14:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

June 13

Shannon Ward

The result of the discussion was delete, as no reliable sources confirm the subject of the target is or was ever known by this name have been provided. Thryduulf (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Shannon Ward → Daffney (links to redirect • history • stats)

This redirect goes to a page that has absolutely no mention of the name Shannon Ward within the article. There is only mention of the name Shannon. This is causing the name Shannon Ward to redirect to a page about someone who is not surnamed Ward. The biography links do not specify a real name or previous name using Ward. The redirect should be deleted, and the Shannon Ward page should be deleted. Sirrussellott (talk) 17:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep, said her real name was Shannon Ward, so the article probably should mention that as a previous name. TimBentley (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- There is no reliable source which can confirm her surname is Ward. You posted a link from SLAM! but here is another link suggesting her real name is Shannon Claire Spruill . Her IMDB profile gives the same birth name of Shannon Claire Spruill .Sirrussellott (talk) 21:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete: if no reliable sources can be found stating that her real name is 'Shannon Ward', otherwise is too confusing/useless when a search for 'Shannon Ward' redirects to this page with no mention of such.--Michaela den (talk) 10:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Im bored

The result of the discussion was keep GB fan 18:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Im bored → Boredom (links to redirect • history • stats)

Delete – This speedy deletion was declined, but it is an implausable redirect. It can be protected from page creation to prevent vandalism. –sumone10154 04:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

What makes you say this is implausible? It seems quite logical to me that someone who is bored would seach for this. Also, what benefit does a salted redlink bring? By taking someone to the article about boredom it's possible that they might learn something or be inspired to do or find out about something to alleviate their condition. It's far from guaranteed of course, but redirects are so cheap that even a slight benefit is better than nothing. Thryduulf (talk) 08:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Keep because it has been successfully preempting the vandalism that recurred with distressing frequency at this title until the redirect was created. The target is reasonable plausible and not obviously harmful. Yes, we could SALT the page but that policy also tells us to limit protection to the minimum extent necessary to protect the project. Salting is overkill where a non-harmful redirect will do. Rossami (talk) 03:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Any thoughts on re-anchoring to Category:Misplaced Pages backlog? Dru of Id (talk) 18:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think that's a good idea. Firstly we shouldn't redirect artile-space titles to maintenance categories when there are plausible encyclopaedia articles that we can target (see WP:CNR). Secondly, that category is not a helpful place to dump inexperienced users wanting something to do (it's not unlikely to result in more work due to errors by well meaning users who don't understand what they're doing) - and in any case much there is an admin backlog not a general user backlog. If you want to recruit help from bored people, and I think it's an idea worth exploring, then much better would be a {{selfref}} hatnote to a Misplaced Pages space page that gives an introduction to what people can do. Thryduulf (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Sales Actor MSK (disambiguation)

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 19:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Sales Actor MSK (disambiguation) → Actor (links to redirect • history • stats)

Delete — this is an extraordinarily implausible redirect. In the last twelve months, it's never been viewed more than seven times per month, and only once has it been viewed even three times in one day. I can't imagine why anyone would ever search for this target. Nyttend (talk) 01:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete, speedy if you find a criterion, see User:Sales Actor MSK. TimBentley (talk) 17:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Looking at the user's contribution history, I'm not sure if it was a new-user test, a vanity page or just vandalism. Regardless, I can find no justification to keep this redirect. Rossami (talk) 03:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

June 12

Selyse Baratheon (disambiguation)

The result of the discussion was Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • 03:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Selyse Baratheon (disambiguation) → Characters in A Song of Ice and Fire (links to redirect • history • stats)

Copied from the declined prod "Not a true disambiguation page, has never disambiguated two articles, unnecessary as a redirect. Selyse Baratheon already exists as a perfectly good and logical redirect." AIRcorn (talk) 04:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Old car

The result of the discussion was Disambiguate, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • 03:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Old car → Jalopy (links to redirect • history • stats)

Ambiguous term. If jalopy has to have a hatnote saying "This refers to beat up old cars, not well kept antique cars", then the ambiguity is too much. A car can be "old" without being a jalopy. Ten Pound Hammer • 03:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguate. In addition to Jalopy this could also mean Veteran car, Vintage car or Classic car. Thryduulf (talk) 15:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- I've just discovered there is Antique car as well, further strengthening the case for disambiguation. Thryduulf (talk) 15:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  - This sounds reasonable. Ten Pound Hammer • 15:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguate for now This was an article one time that was userfied following an afd. I do want to work on making it a better article some day, but I haven't gotten around to that yet. Until then, a disamb is good enough. Hellno2 (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguated, expansion is welcome.--Lenticel 05:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

10th Supply and Transportation Battalion

The result of the discussion was disambiguate. Thryduulf (talk) 17:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

10th Supply and Transportation Battalion → 10th Transportation Battalion (United States) (links to redirect • history • stats)

Redirect should be deleted. The 10th Supply and Transportation Battalion is not the same unit as the 10th Transpostation Battalion. 10th S&T was redisignated as the 10th Forward Support Battalion when 10th DISCOM deactiviated and reflagged as 10th Sustainment Brigade. Ryan.opel (talk) 02:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Retarget to 10th Sustainment Brigade (United States). If I've read everything correctly, there's a direct continuity to that as a current name, so it seems like the most logical target. Please do correct me if I'm wrong.--Fyre2387 17:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- If retargeted should go to 1st Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division (United States) which contains the successor unit to 10th S&T > 10th Brigade Support Battalion (unit has no page currently).Ryan.opel (talk) 00:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguate. Predecessor names and similar units are a problem. Disambiguation pages are perfect for helping readers sort them out. Rossami (talk) 20:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment: Based on the suggestions above, I have drafted some disambiguation content. Please review and correct as appropriate. Rossami (talk) 21:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Escuadrón 201 (film)

The result of the discussion was delete per WP:CSD#G7. Jenks24 (talk) 19:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Escuadrón 201 (film) → Escuadrón 201 (links to redirect • history • stats)

Please delete the redirect. I introduced the existence of this World War II film to WP some years ago; the redir points to the Mexican squadron the film is about. (A friend's uncle was in the squadron; my friend told me about the film.) The redir implies an article and there isn't one, creating confusion. Varlaam (talk) 16:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

June 11

Millosheviq

The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete. It's been listed for over two weeks and no one has come forward to recommend deletion. I am withdrawing the courtesy nomination. Rossami (talk) 21:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Millosheviq → Slobodan Milošević (links to redirect • history • stats)
Milosivec → Slobodan Milošević (links to redirect • history • stats)

The page was speedy-deleted by Joy under criterion R3, however the redirect was created in Dec 2007 and is far too old for that criterion to apply. The redirect appears to me to be a modestly-plausible transliteration of Milošević. Nevertheless, bringing it here as a courtesy nomination. Rossami (talk) 23:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Update: A related redirect, Milosivec was also speedy-deleted but, having been created in Jan 2010, also did not qualify as "recently created". Merging courtesy-nominations. Rossami (talk) 23:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep "Milosivec", strip the accents, and this is a plausible transposition. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 03:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

12345

Relisted. See Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 July 1#12345. Thryduulf (talk) 16:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Badimage

The result of the discussion was keep as is for now. While the discussion shows diversity of opinion, the tide of the conversation clearly changed once the connection to the MediaWiki list and the bugzilla entry were noted. It may be appropriate to revisit these redirects after those issues are corrected. Rossami (talk) 18:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Badimage → Template:Restricted use (links to redirect • history • stats)
Template:Bad image → Template:Restricted use (links to redirect • history • stats)

To me, "bad image" means that file is corrupt and not viewable, rather than its use must be restricted. I suggest pointing this instead to Template:Db-f2, speedy deleting corrupt image files. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 21:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Retarget per nom. "Bad" implies a corrupt image. Ten Pound Hammer • 03:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Retarget per nom. However, we need to look out for usages of it, so they don't suddenly show up for deletion. --The Evil IP address (talk) 07:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
There's also {{Bad format}}, {{Bad GIF}}, {{Bad JPEG}}, and {{Bad SVG}}. I don't know if any of those would be better targets, though. - Eureka Lott 01:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Delete redirect, rename target - Remove the redirect, and simply rename the target of it to {{restricted}} which implies that rather than being utterly broken, the picture shouldn't be used outside of the accepted pages. {{restricted use}} is ok, but i'd ask it be shortened a bit. BarkingFish 00:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
keep. As long as MediaWiki:Bad image list exists at this title, this is a logical alternative title and thus necessary redirect. I take the points above, but that would best be solved by getting a bot to bypas the redirect if one doesn't do so already. There has been a slow, low-level campaign to rename the MediaWiki page, but AIUI that requires developer access and, last I was aware, no developer was interested in dealing with the issue. 82.132.218.233 (talk) 23:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- Bugzilla:14281 is the relevant one. user:Paine Ellsworth is the biggest campaigner on this issue, and I've invited them to comment here if they wish. Thryduulf (talk) 17:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Note The IP editor immediately above is me, as are most (but not necessarily all) RfD comments from IPs in the 82.132.216.0 - 82.132.219.255 range) - my ancient phone logs me in and out of the mobile version seemingly randomly. Thryduulf (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Keep. I agree with IP editor above. As editor Thryduulf notes above, bug 14281 was opened long ago to change the name of the associated list. When I just checked that bug, I found it marked "resolved", but it hadn't really been resolved, just closed. So I reopened it until we can at least get some idea why the listname change is such a grandiose deal, or, failing that, actually get the listname changed. Whether or not the list is renamed, this redirect should be kept as is to provide access by internal links. There are a lot of these links, by one count over 1000. Evidently, those links were delivering errors due to the discussion template, so an editor has temporarily changed this redirect back to the actual template. It would be good if we could resolve this RfD as quickly as possible. – Paine (Climax!) 20:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
note. I have added Template:Bad image (Cheers to Paine Ellsworth for the heads-up on their talk page) to this nomination as, regardless of the outcome, the two should be treated the same. Thryduulf (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Misplaced Pages:HDH

The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete. Rossami (talk) 21:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:HDH → Misplaced Pages:Help desk/Header (links to redirect • history • stats)

Useless shortcut to WP:Help desk's header template. Not likely to be used much if at all, as it's not a page anyone navigates to except to edit the interface at Help desk, which shouldn't happen often. Equazcion 09:10, 11 Jun 2012 (UTC)

keep, no reason to delete this. It's linked in several places and while I can't view the stats on my phone it seems likely that if it was created then at least one person finds it useful. 'Unnecessary' is explicitly not a reason to delete a redirect and I'm truly struggling to think of what benefit removing it could possibly bring? Even if the target doesn't need to be edited often the shortcut will aid when it does. 82.132.212.144 (talk) 13:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC) (user:Thryduulf not logged in)
keep, agreeing with Thryduulf here, in the absence of a more appropriate target for this acronym. I would only delete shortcuts if they're misleading or disruptive and this is neither. The header in question has been edited quite a large number of times considering it's just a header, so it's not inconceivable that several editors might have memorised this one. - filelakeshoe 13:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- It's actually been edited less than most headers (for noticeboards etc), and about a third of those edits are from me. It was actually full-protected for 4 years, until about a month ago when I requested unprotection, so I doubt anyone relies on this or has it memorized. I think shortcuts should be reserved for pages that constitute tools for frequent use, not veritable interface elements. The only reason to go directly to it is to edit it, and it really shouldn't be seeing a lot of editing activity. It could be argued that we don't keep edit links in most venues' header templates for that reason. Equazcion 17:36, 11 Jun 2012 (UTC)
Delete I don't know what the second H would stand for and as WP:HD already redirects to the Help Desk and there are shorter cuts like WP:Y I don't see reason to keep. AndieM (Am I behaving?) 08:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Never mind, I didn't realise it redirected to the header, but my original decision still stands as the header has barely been edited. AndieM (Am I behaving?) 09:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

June 10

Fictional Jimbo Wales

The result of the discussion was keep. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Fictional Jimbo Wales → Dinosaur Comics (links to redirect • history • stats)

This redirect doesn't make sense. "Fictional Jimbo Wales" isn't even mentioned on Dinosaur Comics. Tideflat (talk) 20:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep. On the face of it, no it doesn't make sense but Fictional Jimbo Wales is apparently a (minor) character in Dinosaur Comics. It seems likely that anyone searching for this term, and the stats show that people do (although note that stats.grok.se is currently broken and showing 0 hits for every page during May 2012) will know this. An article at this title was deleted after an AfD in December 2006, speedily deleted (per WP:CSD#G4 later the same day, prod-deleted in April 2007 and then a redirect speedily was deleted (per R3, possibly incorrectly) in November 2010. As such it seems very likely that the title will be recreated again if it were deleted - something the redirect is discouraging. In the apparent absence of any content about Jimbo in popular culture (please let me know if I've no spotted something) the current target is probably the best and is definitely preferable to a editible redlink. If this is deleted then I recommend salting. Thryduulf (talk) 23:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Keep per Thryduulf and history-restore the four deleted versions from the invalid R3. (It was definitely an invalid R3, being far too old for speedy-deletion even then.) Rossami (talk) 00:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Testathon

The result of the discussion was delete. Thryduulf (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Testathon → Extreme programming (links to redirect • history • stats)

I request removal of the redirect, since I believe it is unrelated to the target page and it is misleading to suggest testathons are an Extreme Programming practice. It would be fine with me if it's turned into a new page of its own. On the other hand, people have questioned the notability of the subject on the talk page. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The original article, which was made into a redirect, suggested that it was an XP practice. There were no sources cited. I have not heard the term used in Real Life, except informally. --Alvestrand (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Jay Abraham

The result of the discussion was delete to encourage the creation of an article. Thryduulf (talk) 16:41, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Jay Abraham → FedEx (links to redirect • history • stats)

An IP wonders "Why would this link to fedex....?" There appears to be no reason for this redirect. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Originally linked because he had quite a lot to do with Fedex's marketing. Jay Abraham really should have his own entry - he meets notability criteria for his two published books alone - but as he's very commercial I didn't fancy the accusations that I was somehow doing this commercially or the extra notability criteria that it would attract. JASpencer (talk) 18:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Turn into article. (Is there a verb for that?) With a cursory Google search, I can find a little on Jay Abraham. I'd say he meets the notability guideline, as there are some independent sources that cover him or his works. It should be possible to write at least a small article about him, and that's more fitting than a redirect to FedEx. Knight of Truth (talk) 21:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 18:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete unless someone wants to turn it into an article. As it stands now the redirect is confusing and useless. It might be better to leave it as a red link, like so many BLP's rather than one that does not provide the searcher with any information on 'Jay Abraham'.--Michaela den (talk) 11:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Community- Based Forest Management in the Philippines

The result of the discussion was keep. JohnCD (talk) 10:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Community- Based Forest Management in the Philippines → Community based forest management in the Philippines (links to redirect • history • stats)

Delete. Unnecessary. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 11:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Harmless. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Keep. The content was at this title for almost 6 months until less than a week ago, so it's likely that there are still incoming external links, and as it's doing no harm there is no reason to delete it. Thryduulf (talk) 17:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Keep. Harmless, likelihood of inbound links, no reason given to delete. "Unnecessary" is explicitly not a valid reason to delete. Rossami (talk) 00:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Kirby Corporation

The result of the discussion was Delete both. Ruslik_Zero 09:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Kirby Corporation → Kirby Company (links to redirect • history • stats)
Kirby corp → Kirby Company (links to redirect • history • stats)

Kirby Company sells vacuums, while Kirby Corporation is an S&P 400 shipping company. Most the links to the redirect are for the shipping company so I suggest deleting the redirect, and hope the someone will start an article. Svgalbertian (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete per WP:REDLINK. When created, the two articles should be linked by hatnotes. Thryduulf (talk) 23:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Keep as redirect for now. I am not finding strong evidence that Kirby Corporation meets Misplaced Pages's generally accepted standards for inclusion. A Google-News search, for example, returns nothing relevant. WhatLinksHere shows four inbound links and granted, two of them refer to Kirby Corp but they are undifferentiated list articles which do not necessarily justify inclusion. The S&P 400 is a mid-cap list, not a subset of the more notable S&P 500. I concur that the two articles should be hatnoted if/when Kirby Corp is shown to be notable but until then, the redirect is more helpful to readers. Rossami (talk) 00:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Delete the redirect. These are two separate companies. Continuing to use the incorrect ambiguous name as a redirect only perpetuates confusion. Senator2029 04:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Including Kirby corp with this discussion, as it should also be deleted for the same reasons we all have stated above. Senator2029 07:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

June 9

Computer zealotry

The result of the discussion was retarget to Operating system advocacy. Thryduulf (talk) 15:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Computer zealotry → Fan (person) (links to redirect • history • stats)

Nearly orphaned. Only incoming article link is from Operating system advocacy, which is also the only target that would really fit. Don Cuan (talk) 14:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

keep per the top of this page "Note: Redirects should not be deleted simply because they do not have any incoming links. Please do not list this as a reason to delete a redirect. Redirects that do have incoming links are sometimes deleted as well, so it's not a necessary condition either. See When should we delete a redirect?". And this one doesn't even have no incoming links. Tideflat (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

This is not the reason why I nominated it. That redirect pointed to Fanboy, first as a separate entry, now as a section of Fan (person). This target is completely inappropriate though. Operating system advocacy comes closest, but still doesn't cut it. And being the only article that actually uses the redirect, it would result in a circular redirect. Better to get rid of it. Don Cuan (talk) 07:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Other than resulting in a circular redirect, what's wrong with operating system advocacy as a target? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Retarget per Arms and Hearts, and remove the link to here at the target article. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

APTX 4869

The result of the discussion was Retarget to List of fictional toxins#Fictional poisons. Ruslik_Zero 18:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

APTX 4869 → Jimmy Kudo (links to redirect • history • stats)

There is no such section as "APTX 4869" in Jimmy Kudo. Despite I went through some articles related to Case Closed, no where explicitly deal with this subject. Quest for Truth (talk) 10:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Re-anchor- Back to List of fictional toxins#Fictional poisons, which is what it is, where it's already appropriately covered, and has been before. Dru of Id (talk) 13:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment, I've added {{anchor}} to the Fictional poisons section of the target so the existing redirect again works. Thryduulf (talk) 17:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

June 8

June 7

Opticron

The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 10:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Opticron → Cromoglicic acid (links to redirect • history • stats)

Delete. This seems to be a typo - the brand name is Opticrom, not Opticron. Opticron is a manufacturer of binoculars and telescopes, so the current redirect is confusing. 81.142.107.230 (talk) 11:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete as unlikely typo and to encourage possible creation of an article on the company.--Lenticel 23:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

June 6

QuickDB

Relisted see Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 June 27#QuickDB. Thryduulf (talk) 15:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Troposhere

The result of the discussion was Keep. Thryduulf (talk) 15:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Troposhere → Troposphere (links to redirect • history • stats)

Article originally created with a typo (cf. article history). It currently redirects to correctly spelled article but this is an unlikely typo. Would it be possible to check the hit counts of the typo article to confirm it is not often used? Xionbox 11:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep. I concur that it was originally created as an accidental fork of an existing article. On the other hand, it has existed since 2002 without creating harm or controversy and the stats counter shows it getting a very steady number of hits over a long period of time. WhatLinksHere even shows some current inbound links to the title. All those suggest that the typo is rather more plausible that it first appears. Even if it weren't getting so many this though, redirects are cheap and this is doing no observable harm. Rossami (talk) 13:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Delete: Keeping every misspelling of every word is not productive. The proper page will be found every time with or without this redir. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Keep {{R from typo}} , this is not an unlikely typo, I see sphere misspelled as "shere" and "spere" , so I don't see anything that unlikely about it. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Keep harmless. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

June 5

Antarctic Fluffball

The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 10:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Antarctic Fluffball → Penguin (links to redirect • history • stats)

Unlikely search term. /ƒETCH COMMS / 20:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete, possibly speedily under G2. I find no non-wikipedia sources that even mention the phrase "antarctic fluffball", much less which substantiate it as a synonym for "penguin". The user who created this redirect had a very thin editing history and shows no signs of returning to the project. I don't see a clear pattern of vandalism that would support a G3 speedy but I do see a number of edits in the new-user pattern. This strikes me as a "can I create a redirect" variant of the same. Rossami (talk) 21:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Delete cute but unlikely.--Lenticel 03:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Delete Truly unused. See Google Tideflat (talk) 22:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Delete - funny but...just no. CyanGardevoir 04:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject NIH/Template:WPNIHubx

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 19:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject NIH/Template:WPNIHubx → Template:User WikiProject NIH (links to redirect • history • stats)

A user template was created in the Misplaced Pages namespace for WP NIH. I moved it to Template namespace and fixed all the user template usage to the new template. Recommend deleting this link Kumioko (talk) 18:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon

The result of the discussion was article moved over redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 20:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon → Luigi's Mansion Dark Moon (links to redirect • history • stats)

No Reason ♠♥♣Shaun9876♠♥♣ 16:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The edit history shows that this redirect was created after a user created a forked article, innocently from what I can tell. Redirect to resolve a fork and to politely point the editor to the page where his/her contributions will be appreciated are entirely appropriate. I see no potential for confusion or controversy over this redirect. The inclusion or omission of a colon in the title of a game is an entirely plausible redirect. (In fact, if the target article's content is correct, the title for the article should include the colon.) Keep with the qualifier that a temporary delete to enable pagemove may become appropriate when the game is finally released. Rossami (talk) 17:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- The original article now at Luigi's Mansion Dark Moon has been blanked so the info should be restored there since that article has the established history. The second article should be merged with the first and if someone thins that the : should be added they can use the requested moves procedure. Either way the original edit history needs to be preserved.--174.93.167.177 (talk) 21:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  - The cut-and-paste pagemove has now been reverted on both pages. Cut-and-paste creates all sorts of problems for our compliance with the attribution requirements of GFDL and CC-BY-SA. Those wanting to rename the page should get consensus that the page should be moved, then ask for help to do it properly via the pagemove function. Cut-and-paste is evil. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 21:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I really don't believe this is the correct process for doing this as it's an uncontroversial speedy deletion covered by Template:db-move. In any case, I created the article with the colon, not realizing that a non-colon version existed. I wrote a small amount of content on the colon version but I'm fine with it being overwritten. All I want is for the non-hyphen version (with the content) to be moved to the hyphen version (with the correct page name). This is very straightforward, and the page's creator (me) supports it. CaseyPenk (talk) 22:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Plerogram

The result of the discussion was keep. Rcsprinter (gas) 20:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Plerogram → Molecular graph#History (links to redirect • history • stats)

No Reason for this Redirect ♠♥♣Shaun9876♠♥♣ 16:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The redirect helps in clarifying the term "Plerogram", so it is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by El Roih (talk • contribs)
It's a specialized term that is discussed in the target section. What justification for deletion are you suggesting applies? Because several of the "keep" justifications appear to apply. Keep unless an actual reason to delete is offered. Rossami (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Template:vandalip

The result of the discussion was keep. Thryduulf (talk) 15:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:vandalip → Template:Shared IP (links to redirect • history • stats)

Appears to misleading for those who use this template on the talk pages of IP addresses who are used to vandalize Misplaced Pages. Vandal IPs are not always shared IPs, they can also be owned by only one person. The converse is also true, shared IPs ae not necessarily vandal IPs, nor do they always have at least one edit that is vandalism. jfd34 (talk) 11:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete Fails to assume good faith. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
- Wait, no, reluctant keep. Far too widely used. (For some reason I thought {{vandalip}} was subst'd.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Template:WP:CINCINNATI REDS INVITE

The result of the discussion was Keep. The target was nominated at TfD, the discussion was closed as "no consensus". Thryduulf (talk) 15:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:WP:CINCINNATI REDS INVITE → Template:WP CINCINNATI REDS INVITE (links to redirect • history • stats)

Recommend delete. Unneeded redirect for a project thats been inactive since February 2010 anyway. Its also a rather implausible title so it probably won't be used anyway. Kumioko (talk) 00:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Close discussion and put the template for deletion instead. When the template is deleted, this redirect will be a speedy delete. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Oppose if the template is unneeded, nominate it for deletion. This redirect is perfectly reasonable, since it concerns a Misplaced Pages space topic. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 06:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Template:WP:BOSOX INVITE

The result of the discussion was keep. Thryduulf (talk) 15:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:WP:BOSOX INVITE → Template:WP BOSOX INVITE (links to redirect • history • stats)

Recommend delete. Uneeded redirect for a project that is only semi active anyway. Its also a rather implausible title so it probably won't be used anyway. Kumioko (talk) 00:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Close discussion and put the template for deletion instead. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Oppose if the template is unneeded, nominate it for deletion. This redirect is perfectly reasonable, since it concerns a Misplaced Pages space topic. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 06:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

June 4

townhallartscentre

The result of the discussion was Delete as there is no reason for it to point to one particular town hall art centre. Ruslik_Zero 16:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Townhallartscentre → Town Hall Arts Center (links to redirect • history • stats)

Was tagged for speedy-deletion under R3 but is much too old for that criterion to apply. This is a courtesy nomination to see if regular deletion is appropriate. Rossami (talk) 22:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep, six years old, highly likely that external websites link to this. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Delete Google reports no links to it and it's misspelled to boot ("centre" vs. "center"). --Cybercobra (talk) 08:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - no, that's not a misspelling, that's a British English variant spelling. That particular variant is frequently adopted in the US by "artsy" organizations trying to imply either age or sophistication. See, for example, The Arts Centre of West Virginia or The ArtCentre of Plano, TX. Note also that the inbound google search that you ran has been extensively tested in other cases and was shown to miss significant numbers of known existing links (and it can never show offline links at all). That test could disprove the hypothesis that a link is unused but it can not prove the hypothesis. Rossami (talk) 13:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Delete. Unnecessary and if it is used I don't think it should link to one particular town hall art centre. There may be other. Bin it - not worth keeping. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Delete Unnecessary typo, not worth keeping.--Ankit Maity _Contribs 08:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Keep, per Dondegroovily - Tideflat (talk) 02:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

User:Fpalmertree

The result of the discussion was speedy deleted WP:CSD#G8. After a chain of moves, the target was deleted as copyvio. JohnCD (talk) 13:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Fpalmertree → Misplaced Pages:Steve Charles, MD (links to redirect • history • stats)
Misplaced Pages:Steve Charles, MD → Steve Charles, MD (links to redirect • history • stats)

Left over from move from User name space to wikipedia project space. Not appropriate. Hasteur (talk) 21:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

nominations merged Rossami (talk)

Interesting. Looking at the edit history, I think the second destination ("Misplaced Pages:Steve Charles, MD") could be speedy-deletable under criterion G7 since Lunaweb moved the page there, then immediately moved it away. That immediate self-move seems to me to be the functional equivalent of a page-blanking. (It would have been more clear if he/she had then updated the original site to resolve the double-redirect.) The first redirect from userspace to mainspace is allowable in theory (though the reverse, a redirect from mainspace to userspace, definitely is not). Regardless, the current target is tagged as a probable copyright violation. It also has many earmarks of a COI page. If the target is deleted, both redirects will follow automatically. Rossami (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Peaks over 1400 m

The result of the discussion was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Peaks over 1400 m → Fourteener (links to redirect • history • stats)

Totally misleading and useless, if I typed "peaks over 1400 m" into the search box I would want an article about peaks over 1400 m, not peaks over 14000 ft. I don't see how this is an allowed or constructive use of redirects. Previously deleted under CSD R3 but restored by Rossami (talk · contribs). - filelake shoe 08:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep. A non-US reader who has heard of a "fourteener" and has a vague idea about the concept but is not sure of details might well look for "peaks over 1400 meters". The redirect takes them to the correct page where they learn that the definition of a "fourteener" is based on feet, not meters. That is in keeping with our mission as an encyclopedia - to help people find the articles they need to learn. And, yes, we have many redirects which are technically incorrect but which take readers to the proper page. That's the entire premise behind R from incorrect name and the other {{unprintworthy}} redirect categories. Rossami (talk) 13:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
If they'd heard of a "fourteener" but weren't sure of details, wouldn't they be better off searching for "fourteener"? Meanwhile someone actually searching for "peaks over 1400 metres" is left with the wrong article. We shouldn't be misleading people who can use search functions in a logical manner at the expense of people that cannot. - filelake shoe 14:20, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Delete, misleading. Searches for "peaks over 14" and "peaks over 14000" both find the target, but "1400m" has really nothing to do with the targte at all. —Kusma (t·c) 14:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Delete per nom and it is a completely useless search string. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Delete it's not 1400yd, it's 1400ft, so it's not even close. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 07:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- It's actually 14000 ft, about 4,267.2 m. TimBentley (talk) 22:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  - It was a typo actually. (I missed a zero on the ft) ; Still the point is that 1400yd =/= 14000ft =/= 1400m ; and 1400m ~= 1400yd, if you were generous. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

King Old Guy the Bastard

The result of the discussion was delete, speedied by User:Boing! said Zebedee, procedural closure. - filelake shoe 19:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

King Old Guy the Bastard → Edward I of England (links to redirect • history • stats)

Delete. Nonsensical insult created by a former admin. (What, no speedy criteria?) Clarityfiend (talk) 05:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment you can try {{db-attack}}... 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- or {{db-g3}}. - filelake shoe 08:51, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Delete nonsense redirect.--Lenticel 23:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Speedy Delete According to {{db-g10}} ~~and {{db-g8}}~~ and maybe {{db-g3}}.--Ankit Maity_Contribs 15:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
- I can see the justification for G10 (attack pages) and G3 (vandalism), but I don't see how G8 (non-existent target) is relevant here? Thryduulf (talk) 17:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  - Mistake.--Ankit Maity _Contribs 16:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Talk:Casein/Archive1

The result of the discussion was withdrawn by nominator. 17:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Casein/Archive1 → Talk:Casein/Archive 1 (links to redirect • history • stats)

Delete. Unneeded now that the page is moved to the standardised name. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment "/Archive1" is the old standard form, lots of very old archives use/used that format. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 06:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Keep, absolutely harmless. May be useless, but that is not an argument for deletion. —Kusma (t·c) 07:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Keep. As the anon notes, that format without the spacing was the norm for a very long time and is in very common use. Readers knowing that convention often look for it directly. More than that, many of us created links to some of those old discussions. There is absolutely no justification for breaking all those links over a minor style convention change. Rossami (talk) 13:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Withdraw as nominator. Don't agree with the keep !votes but lets all move on. Plenty to do and all that. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF URANIUM MINING IN NAMIBIA

The result of the discussion was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF URANIUM MINING IN NAMIBIA → Uranium mining in Namibia (links to redirect • history • stats)

delete. Recently created redirect that is an implausible search string. Has been previously deleted but subsequently restored. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete: Agree with nominator. The redirect is superfluous. That said, I support the addition of well-sourced environmental impact content within this and/or other mining articles. Rosiestep (talk) 02:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Delete, why in hell was this restored? There was a clear consensus in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF URANIUM MINING IN NAMIBIA to keep the moved and improved article and delete this redirect. - filelakeshoe 07:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- Welcome to the world of WP redirects. Every redirect ever created is hoarded... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:51, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Keep in order to comply with the attribution requirements of GFDL and CC-BY-SA. The decision to move the content was entirely reasonable and in keeping with the Manual of Style for article titles. That is not, however, sufficient justification to delete a redirect which is neither harmful nor confusing to readers. So far, no reason for deletion that matches policy has been offered. Being "superfluous" is a value judgement based on how you navigate the wiki and is explicitly not a reason to delete a redirect. Rossami (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- Policy and rationality don't always intersect. Keeping this redirect is the equivalent of keeping a scrap of paper with an erroneous statement for time immemorial. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:13, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Neutral, Rossami's got a point, now that the redirects been here, it should stay, but the admin who closed the AfD should be trouted for not deleting it then. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 21:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- I did delete it and then Rossami restored it, so I reject your trout. - filelakeshoe 21:44, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  - Agreed that Filelakeshoe deserves no trout. In my defense, the AfD was not noted in the deletion rationale. The title clearly did not qualify under CSD#R3. I'll also note that the AfD participants discussed only the fate of the article, not of the title. Filelakeshoe's closure is the first reference to it as a redirect. Rossami (talk) 22:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment The Afd outcome was to delete the redirect. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:13, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment Is search case sensitive? If it is, delete, since there's no reason to have an ALL CAPS REDIRECT FOR SEARCH. CarniCat (meow) 05:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Searches are not case sensitive for the purposes of this, arhh, case. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- The search engine built into Misplaced Pages is no longer case-sensitive. A number of other mechanisms by which readers navigate the wiki are case-sensitive, however. Remember that redirects do more than merely support our internal search engine. Rossami (talk) 13:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  - What are these reasons, and do they make it worth keeping the redirect? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep Not harmful at all. It redirects to a logical place. Tideflat (talk) 15:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- I would argue that it is "harmful". It is yet another page that needs a bit of attention every now and again, it is "false advertising" with respect to WP content, the topic of "THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF URANIUM MINING IN NAMIBIA" is easily found on a google search, and per User:Alan Liefting/Redirects are costly. Note that there is only a snippet of info about "THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF URANIUM MINING IN NAMIBIA" in the target article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  - Please explain exactly what ongoing attention a redirect like this requires. Rossami (talk) 13:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
    - protection from vandalism, endless visits by curious editors who scratch their heads to figure out what it is for, occasional Tfds and the interminable discussions over its merit..... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
      - I am watching it now, which should protect it from vandalism somewhat. The redirect is very easy to see why it is pointing where it is, so that shouldn't be a problem. And if nobody wanted to delete harmless redirects then the discussions should pass quickly with out much work. Tideflat (talk) 16:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Delete as unlikely redirect. I can't see any licensing compliance issues here: all edits appaear to be correctly attributed in the moved article's history. -- The Anome (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

June 3

Persoanl finance

The result of the discussion was keep. Thryduulf (talk) 15:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Persoanl finance → Personal finance (links to redirect • history • stats)

Originated from an erroneous edit, has minimal edit history, unlikely to be useful. Reify-tech (talk) 16:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The edit history shows that this was originally created in 2005 as an act of probable vandalism - random posting of content under an irrelevant title. It was speedy-deleted, then re-created. A different editor resolved and permanently pre-empted the title by turning it into the current redirect. (Back then it was not possible to protect a page without any content.) The page has existed since without any obvious controversy or confusion. The vandal is long gone and we do now have the option to salt the page but I believe that would be overkill. The redirect is a straight transposition of two letters in the title and it is a transposition that is statistically common among QWERTY keyboard users. There is some small benefit to keeping the redirect and zero benefit to deleting it. Keep but tag with {{unprintworthy}}. Rossami (talk) 23:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Misplaced Pages:SMS

The result of the discussion was Keep as is. Thryduulf (talk) 15:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:SMS → Help:Dummy edit (links to redirect • history • stats)

The dummy edit page suggested using edit summaries to send messages. I removed all such suggestions from that page, as this is a terrible idea. We are supposed to keep discussions and messages where people can find them later, and an edit summary is absolutely not the place for this (not to mention that no one expects to see messages there and they won't see it). Since the destination no longer says anything about SMS, this redirect should be deleted or maybe retargeted. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 15:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment Perhaps Template:Shoutbox sidebar could be the target? D O N D E groovily Talk to me 16:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep as is. The use of edit summaries to send short messages to others has a long and respectable history. I've reverted the change to Help:Dummy edit, as this use has been a part of that page since 2005. Since I think this use should remain part of Help:Dummy edit, I think redirecting WP:SMS to Help:Dummy edit makes sense, and should stay as is. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep as is. Dummy edits are used to explain edit(s) made immediately prior to the dummy edit. So someone later examining the edit history and wondering "huh? why did they do that?" quickly sees the dummy edit and "oh I see. that's why!" Perhaps an editor accidentally stumbled on the enter key before they were finished entering their edit summary. Don't make later editors wade through the talk page in search of an explanation. —Wbm1058 (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

June 2

Paris Katherine Jackson

The result of the discussion was moot - the page is no longer a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Paris Katherine Jackson → Michael Jackson (links to redirect • history • stats)

The redirect of this article is now uncessary as the subject of this is now notable across the globe. What I believe should happen is that the redirect be deleted and start a new article F1fan1000 (talk) 13:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

June 1

Socially liberal

The result of the discussion was Disambiguate. Thryduulf (talk) 14:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Socially liberal → Social liberalism (links to redirect • history • stats)

Delete The page it re-directs to is not a synonym. At present the re-direct page links out to Pride parade, Yuppie, Pseudo-anglicism, East coast liberal, Democratic Convergence of Catalonia, Maryland Democratic Party and Jaunlatvija. The use of links in these articles appears to be over-linking. TFD (talk) 18:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment There's a relevant discussion ongoing (?) at Talk:Social liberalism#Contemporary, popular use of term 'socially liberal'. For what it's worth, I don't fully understand the rationale here. If "socially liberal" doesn't mean the same as "adhering to social liberalism", then what does it mean? And I don't see how any of the uses in the linked articles constitute overlink. – hysteria18 (talk) 22:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I have to agree with Hysteria18 here. Grammatically, it's the adverbial form of the same adjective-noun combination. If you don't think "socially liberal" means "one who believes in social liberalism", what do you think it means? Are you arguing that it should redirect to something like Cultural liberalism instead? Regardless, there is no basis to delete the redirect. Rossami (talk) 00:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep Many (most) redirects are not "synonyms" - they are there to benefit readers who might well use the term, and where the best fit is another article which exists. And a redirect has nothing to do with whether the page it links to has other links - I suggest that most pages would fall into that category <g>. Collect (talk) 12:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep Adherents of social liberalism are socially liberal, and socially liberal people are adherents of social liberalism. It's vaguely like making Dancer and Dancing redirect to Dance — they're not synonyms, but they're forms of the same word and refer to precisely the same topic. Nyttend (talk) 21:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I started the relevant discussion that hysteria18 refers to above, so I thought I would comment here. I understand that when a person is described as "socially liberal" (as the Economist does in the article Right man, wrong job) it commonly means they believe that legislation primarily aimed to impact on the private / personal lives of individuals should be minimised. Other commentators who share a similar understanding of the term can be found within the Adam Smith Institute, the Huffington Post, again in The Economist (this time with an actual definition) and elsewhere on the web. Currently however socially liberal simply redirects to social liberalism and this latter article makes no mention of what I believe is the common usage of socially liberal, instead its sole premise being that "social liberalism is the belief that liberalism should include social justice". I therefore edited the article to include what I believe is the contemporary use of socially liberal. This edit was however removed with the reason given as being "off-topic." Although I would have been happy for my edit to have been refined and improved (and in retrospect I think it could be improved), I objected to its complete removal. The conclusion of this discussion was the socially liberal article should be put up for deletion. Although that is one option there are others: a.) If socially liberal continues to link to social liberalism some explanation of its contemporary use should be included (accepting my original edit could be improved), b.) The socially liberal article becomes an article in its own right as opposed to simply a redirect or c.) socially liberal is redirected elsewhere (possibly cultural liberalism). I have no strong opinion on which of these options is chosen, but I do believe that the wikipedia article for socially liberal is currently misleading in that it makes no reference to what is a contemporary, popular use of the term - someone with no prior knowledge would assume that someone who is socially liberal simply believes that liberalism should include social justice, and although that is possibly some people's understanding it is certainly not everyone's. If the choice is between the status quo or deletion then I vote for the latter. NB I will not be able to contribute further to this debate from today as I'll be offline for a period (to the delight of many I'm sure...). DistractionActivity (talk) 10:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

How about making it into a disambiguation page, between social liberalism and cultural liberalism (and perhaps classical liberalism)? Allens (talk | contribs) 18:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

On reflection, dabify seems to me like the best option. – hysteria18 (talk) 23:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment The article "Social liberalism" is about liberalism that supports the welfare state, while "socially liberal" refers to people who are tolerant of different cultures and lifestyles. One may support old age security, yet be opposed to same sex marriage, or one may believe in the equality of races yet not support government funded health care. They are different topics. TFD (talk) 12:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment: If there are reliable sources which establish that the phrase "socially liberal" refers more reliably to the concept of Cultural liberalism and not to Social liberalism, then simply cite the competing sources on the Talk page and retarget the redirect. (I am skeptical that this is universally true though it is perhaps a reasonable interpretation in the context of US politics and culture wars.) Regardless of target, though, there is no reason at all to delete the existing redirect. Rossami (talk) 18:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment: There is no consensus above to delete the redirect, but whether it should be kept as is, retargeted or converted to a disambiguation page does not yet have consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 18:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Retarget or dab In the United States, if someone describes themselves as "socially liberal" it means that they support abortion and gay marriage, as opposed to being an "economic liberal" who supports redistribution the welfare state. "Social liberal" itself would probably be understood the same way in the USA--since "social" refers specifically to non-economic issues (not socialism) and "liberal" does not imply that one is a free marketeer. This has nothing to do with the European term social liberal that refers to someone who is committed to liberalism (which in Europe includes support for the free market) but supports the welfare state. (This indeed characterizes much of the American center-left but we wouldn't use the same term). If you google "socially liberal" it mostly reflects the US definition--with the exception of pages based on Misplaced Pages itself. 169.231.120.215 (talk) 19:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- the first non-Misplaced Pages result that comes up is ; clearly they don't have social liberalism in mind as Misplaced Pages defines it. There's a lot of "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" after that. 169.231.120.215 (talk) 19:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Art pop

The result of the discussion was retarget to Art music. Thryduulf (talk) 14:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Art pop → Art rock (links to redirect • history • stats)

Not mentioned in the target. Pop and rock are generally considered distinct, so art pop would presumably be distinct from art rock. (Progressive pop is a plausible target, but is currently prodded.) – hysteria18 (talk) 15:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep but almost certainly retargetted. A search for "art pop" in proximity to music returned enough hits to convince me that this is a legitimate sub-genre of music - a blending of art music and popular music. While the name probably derives from "art rock" (which blended art and rock music), the kinds of music tagged to this genre seem to be closer to the music we have described at ambient music. (Ambient pop redirects there, by the way.) On the other hand, Operatic pop might also be considered an example of "art pop" and that's anything but ambient. Perhaps the best current target is Art music#Relationship with popular music. That's a pretty thin section right now but it has potential. Rossami (talk) 20:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment: Further input on the best alternative target would be very useful here

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 18:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy with retargeting to Art music#Relationship with popular music. (I used to be hysteria18.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Redirect to Art music, it seems the section 'Relationship with popular music' has been deleted. But it should still suffice as it is the umbrella term which includes Art rock. Rock and Pop are distinctively two different genre of music and one probably should not redirect to the other.--Michaela den (talk) 10:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

New York Bar

The result of the discussion was delete. Thryduulf (talk) 14:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

New York Bar → New York State Bar Association (links to redirect • history • stats)

Nominate for deletion on the basis of confusion, as the New York Bar and the New York State Bar Association are two entirely different entities. The New York Bar is the community of all attorneys licensed to practice in New York State (i.e., an attorney licensed to practice in New York State is a member of the New York Bar); the New York State Bar Association is a private, voluntary professional organization analogous to the American Bar Association, American Medical Association, etc.-Vartan Dadian (talk) 17:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

~~Keep~~, Vartan is describing a distinction without a difference. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- It is most certainly not a distinction without a difference. One must be a member of the New York Bar/New York State Bar in order to practice as an attorney in the State of New York, and such membership entails passing the state bar exam, undergoing a character & fitness review, and taking the oath and signing the ledger in a ceremony at the Appellate Division of one of the state's four Judicial Departments. Membership has absolutely nothing to do with the New York State Bar Association. The New York State Bar Association is merely a private, voluntary professional organization like the American Bar Association and American Medical Association. I'll refer you to their own web site:

The New York State Bar Association (NYSBA) is the oldest and largest voluntary state bar association in the nation, and is a separate entity from the licensing body for New York – the NYS Office of Court Administration (OCA). Unlike some other states, New York does not have an integrated bar.

Q: Does membership in the NYSBA entitle an attorney to practice in New York?

A: No. The NYSBA is not the official New York Bar and is not responsible for attorney licenses or registration. Please contact the NYS Office of Court Administration (OCA), the official licensing/registration unit.

It seems you don't understand the distinction in states like New York that lack an "integrated"/"unified" bar between "the (state) Bar" and bar associations, so I'll cite to the Misplaced Pages entry on this topic:

In the United States, admission to the bar is permission granted by a particular court system to a lawyer to practice law in that system. This is to be distinguished from membership in a bar association. In the United States, some states require membership in the state bar association for all attorneys, while others do not.

The "New York Bar" and the "New York State Bar Association" are two completely different things.-Vartan Dadian (talk) 05:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

comment The search term "New York Bar" could also mean Bars as in the establishment from New York. Tideflat (talk) 04:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't keep, changing my vote due to clarification by Vartan. Best to convert to an article, or failing that, red link. Both pages would need "not to be confused with" hatnotes. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 16:06, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete, I agree that this is confusing and non-productive. Many other states have a similar public bar/private bar association distinction. It could also refer to a tavern (as noted above I see)! I like to saw logs! (talk) 05:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete: regardless of whether they are the same thing or not, as the redirect stands now it is confusing. I would expect to find a New York drinking establishment or nightclub when I type in 'New York Bar' and not the State Bar for lawyers.--Michaela den (talk) 10:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Short people

The result of the discussion was disambiguate. Accordingly, I've moved Short people (disambiguation) over this redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 14:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Short people → Dwarfism (links to redirect • history • stats)

While "short people" is related to "dwarfism" the two are not synonyms (the former being a medical condition and the latter just being shorter than average). SQGibbon (talk) 03:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete you can be short without having some form of dwarfism, the Pygmys for instance, are not pathologically short, rather they have a non-pathological inheritance. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Delete. No to redirects for short people, fat people, bald people, skinny people, tall people, or ignorant people. In my opinion, they're just unencyclopedic and offensive. Appropriate terms are things like stunted growth, obesity, alopecia, supermodels, basketball players, and brothers, etc. (Just my thoughts off the top of my head.) Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 06:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Redirect to human height, by analogy with tall. —Psychonaut (talk) 06:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- "Tall" is not appropriately redirected there. Tall buildings or features would be equally likely. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 12:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Retarget per Psychonaut. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Tall people redirects to List of tallest people, so List of shortest people is another possible target. TimBentley (talk) 18:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Redirect to human height. I agree with psychonaut, even though I was the one who created the redirect. Ticklewickleukulele (talk) 19:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
P.S. Whatever article this will redirect to, there should also be a disambiguation page for "short people". Randy newman had a song called "short people." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ticklewickleukulele (talk • contribs) 19:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Redirect. Changing my recommendation to a redirect to List of shortest people per TimBentley. Seriously, when I saw the redirect Short people, I expected to see a list of short people. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 21:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
~~Now I think it should go to the same place as short person, so redirect to Short stature~~. TimBentley (talk) 16:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- I've created Short people (disambiguation). TimBentley (talk) 16:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Replace with the contents of Short people (disambiguation). Given all the suggestions above, there are too many possible targets for us to assume what the intended one is; let's make Short people the new disambiguation page. —Psychonaut (talk) 21:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Disambig as suggested by Psychonaut above. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 16:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Move short people (disambiguation) to short people. —Kusma (t·c) 16:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Move short people (disambiguation) to short people. TimBentley (talk) 22:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Colcor

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 18:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Colcor → Color (links to redirect • history • stats)

Unlikely typo. Ten Pound Hammer • 02:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment, if it were not getting the hits it does then I'd agree with the deletion. As it is, I'm not sure. It could be that people are looking for information about the COLCOR corruption scandal of the early 1980s in Columbus County, North Carolina but the article on the county is just a standard demographics, adjacent places and one-line history US place article that doesn't mention any event more recent than 1808.

Alternatively they could be interested in the punk band, who likely took their name from the scandal. All we have on them is a name-check in a prose list at Music of North Carolina. From a 2-minute google, the scandal is likely notable for a section somewhere (the county page would be logical) or maybe an article (I don't know, maybe ask the North Carolina and crime wikiprojects). The band don't merit more than a sentence, if that, that I'm seeing. Thryduulf (talk) 03:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete, according to Thryduulf's research there is potential for confusion. —Kusma (t·c) 09:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete: it is not a plausible nor common spelling mistake, unless the searcher is really stupid.--Michaela den (talk) 10:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

May 31

UNC Nannygate

The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete. It's been almost a month and no one stood up to defend the anon's speedy-deletion rationale. I'm going to administratively close this debate. Further time seems unlikely to get any more attention. Rossami (talk) 14:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

UNC Nannygate → North Carolina Tar Heels football (links to redirect • history • stats)

Page was nominated for speedy-deletion by anon user:66.194.217.2 with the explanation "A quick Google search of "UNC Nannygate" yields a mere 71 results, most coming from websites devoted to rival fanbases." The page was created in 2010 and does not qualify under the "recently created" requirement for CSD#R3. This is a courtesy nomination to evaluate whether regular deletion is appropriate. Rossami (talk) 21:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

When The Lord Is About To Come

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 18:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

When The Lord Is About To Come → Mikael Bolyos (links to redirect • history • stats)

Delete. Non-notable song by non-notable musician whose article has been redirected to his wife's (having been tagged for 3 years for notability and sourcing). – Fayenatic London (talk) 21:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete. I'm tempted to say speedily delete per WP:CSD#G8, but it's conceivable that there is a different suitable target. The song is clearly not notable, and I make no judgment about the artist. I wondered about retargetting to a page about the second coming of Jesus or prophecies about the end of the world, or something like that, but other than one website using the term in relation to prophecy in the Book of Mormon it doesn't seem to be used that way. Thryduulf (talk) 00:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Bolyos

The result of the discussion was Retarget to Marie Fredriksson. Ruslik_Zero 16:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Bolyos → Mikael Bolyos (links to redirect • history • stats)

Delete. Surname of non-notable musician whose article has been redirected to his wife's (having been tagged for 3 years for notability and sourcing). – Fayenatic London (talk) 21:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

weak retarget to Marie Fredriksson, Mikael Bolyos' wife. I say weak as although this is her married name she doesn't seem to use it as a stage name and it isn't mentioned in the article. Google suggests she does use the name when working as a producer though (or maybe it's just her company name?). Thryduulf (talk) 00:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Gaopeng

The result of the discussion was Retarget to List_of_township-level_divisions_of_Hebei#Dingzhou as an alternative for deletion. Ruslik_Zero 16:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Gaopeng → Groupon (links to redirect • history • stats)

Chinese pinyin name of a multinational. Per WP:FORRED, this is not an appropriate usage of a foreign language redirect, unlike, say redirect 薄瓜瓜 to the personal life section at Bo Xilai. GotR 20:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

wow we are drowning in bureaucracy these days! I'm curious, why is it not appropriate? cheers, Nesnad (talk) 05:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

It is not an original language redirect (not a redirect from the original language of the topic), since Misplaced Pages is not a translation dictionary... 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Adarwis

The result of the discussion was Delete as it is now without a suitable target. Ruslik_Zero 16:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Adarwis → Andrew Darwis (links to redirect • history • stats)

Implausible misspelling. Mosmof (talk) 14:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep Not a misspelling but a username, and so a plausible search term and alternative name per WP:R. No obvious benefit in deleting. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete. It's not a Misplaced Pages user name, but a Twitter handle for one of the founders of the Kaskus website, and adarwis dot com seems to be his business website. The page Andrew Darwis has just been redirected to Kaskus. Neither of those articles mentioned "adarwis". – Fayenatic London 12:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Kafele boothe cone

The result of the discussion was Speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G3. Thryduulf (talk) 00:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Kafele boothe cone → Traffic cone (links to redirect • history • stats)

The traffic cone article had this as an alternative name, it has now been removed as hoax/vandalism so the redirect can be deleted. Peter E. James (talk) 12:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Star's Lover (TV Seires)

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 18:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Star's Lover (TV Seires) → Star's Lover (links to redirect • history • stats)

Delete: The article was un-necessarily disambiguated as there are no other Star's Lover articles hence was moved to its non-disambiguation title and the word 'series' is spelled incorrectly. Michaela den (talk) 08:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

~~Weak keep~~ Neutral. Unnecessary disambiguations are quite appropriate for redirects, and the misspelling is plausible. However, this is also a somewhat unlikely name for the series, so that's three degrees of separation from an optimal name. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

May 30

Progressive_Libertarianism

The result of the discussion was Retarget to left-libertarianism. Ruslik_Zero 16:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Progressive_Libertarianism → Libertarian socialism (links to redirect • history • stats)

Redirect is to a conceptually incorrect page (see Talk:Libertarian_socialism#Redirected_from_.22Progressive_Libertarianism.22). Topic probably doesn't warrant its own article, so recommending deletion (only 1 link in (from Libertarian_Christianity), which is an incidental one, and should definitely not be redirected to the target anyway). Any replacement article would probably be a stub, as the concept of "progressive libertarianism" is socially immature (in terms of media citations, etc.). Redirect creator's account has been deleted. Cowb0y (talk) 20:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Weak retarget to left-libertarianism. Progressivism and leftism in their modern senses are broadly similar, and I think Progressive Libertarianism (and progressive libertarianism) should probably point somewhere. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Question didn't we discuss a similar redirect to this recently? Thryduulf (talk) 00:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Corporate plutocracy

The result of the discussion was no consensus. This debate has been open for a month and has been well-advertised. Despite that, there was little participation and no reply to the cites offered by user:Tomwsulcer. Looking at the debate in the context of the disputed move and of the related articles themselves, I do not yet see a clear community consensus. I am closing this debate for now with a recommendation that it be renominated (if appropriate) once a firmer consensus has emerged on the target page(s). Rossami (talk) 14:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Corporate plutocracy → Corporatocracy (links to redirect • history • stats)

Delete. Although neither term is well-defined, and both may be neologisms, they're not the same. I know this was created by a disputed move.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment. I am nonpartisan and worked on a revamp of the highly contentious article corporatocracy and watched it be redirected to corporate plutocracy, and then redirected back again. While discussion about matters such as neologisms and synthesis and original research are ongoing and unlikely to be settled, I think it is fair not to redirect corporate plutocracy to corporatocracy for the reason that there were few sources I could find in which both terms were used, or any definitions indicating that "corporate plutocracy" was the same as "corporatocracy". At the same time, both terms I suspect continue to evolve in common parlance; "corporatocracy" has now attracted a few dictionary definitions as well as usage in a textbook, although I can not say the same for "corporate plutocracy". Generally both terms are highly politically charged such that it is hard to use either term without indicating one's political position, or without making an attack on the other position. Whether "corporate plutocracy" should be a stand-alone article, I am not sure, but I found a few sources indicating use of the term, mostly in left-leaning publications.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Shalom Lappin (Summer 2004). "The Need for a New Jewish Politics". Dissent Magazine. Retrieved May 30, 2012. ...Bush's unilateralism has estranged most of America's allies. His war on terrorism has provided cover for an extremist economic policy of tax cuts that primarily benefit the corporate plutocracy sponsoring his political machine. ...
JOE MOWREY (November 20, 2006). "America's Progressive Nightmare". counterpunch. Retrieved May 25, 2012. ...But I would rather plunge into the abyss of social and economic revolution than over the precipice to which corporate plutocracy has brought us. ....
BEN TRIPP (October 31, 2002). "Fourth Estate for Sale". counterpunch. Retrieved May 25, 2012. ...The corporate plutocracy was threatened on all sides and turned on the press: you want to be a respected profession, you join the Establishment like all the other respected professions. ....

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Fox Disambiguation

The result of the discussion was Delete. Implausible newly created redirect. Ruslik_Zero 18:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Fox Disambiguation → Fox (disambiguation) (links to redirect • history • stats)

I can't imagine anyone actually searching for fox disambiguation, and if this is acceptable, then we probably need a lot more like it! Dougweller (talk) 09:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I should add that I and other editors have viewed a number of the edits by this editor as problematic. Dougweller (talk) 09:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete two days old, stats indicate only one visit to the page (strangely enough, before the page was created) D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- It's actually not that strange. Remember that our stats counter looks at page requests, not page hits. The stats counter is also case-insensitive. If a somewhat middling-experienced user were trying to find Fox (disambiguation), they might well try "fox disambiguation" which would also be counted as a 'hit' for the capitalized version. Keep, by the way. I do not think that we want to actively encourage these redirects and should coach the creators to spend their time on more productive edits. But once such a redirect is created, there is zero value to deleting it. Redirects really are that cheap. Rossami (talk) 21:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Nenan

The result of the discussion was Delete both. Ruslik_Zero 18:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Nenan → Misplaced Pages:Not everything needs a navbox (links to redirect • history • stats)
NENAN → Misplaced Pages:Not everything needs a navbox (links to redirect • history • stats)

Delete: Inappropriate redirect from mainspace to a WP guideline article GotR 03:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep: It is foreseeable that someone might type "NENAN" in order to reach "WP:NENAN".--Jax 0677 (talk) 06:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

All other such redirects I have seen have been deleted for the reason I gave. In addition, Nenan is NOT the same as NENAN, and see Talk:Jimo#Requested move for a similar case; the closing administrator decided that Jimo is not the same as JIMO, and hence conducted the move. GotR 07:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Just added NENAN.--Jax 0677 (talk) 13:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete I think cross-namespace redirects are useful for major Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, but less so for fairly obscure essays like this. If someone's experienced and knowledgeable enough to want to read this essay, they probably also know to preface it with a WP:. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete as a cross namespace redirect which clearly conflicts with article space as it is already linked to from List of township-level divisions of Heilongjiang. 82.132.139.20 (talk) 20:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete (and I added NENAN to the redirects to be deleted shortly after it was created, although some of the reasoning for deletion doesn't apply. It's still an obscure cross-namespace redirect.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete. All redirects from the article space to project space need to evaluated in terms of the balance between usefulness in helping inexperienced Wikipedians find the target, and the risk of harm from confusion or conflict with an actual article. In this case the risk of harm is high (per the anon's comment above) and the value of this page to users unfamiliar with namespaces is nearly nil. Thryduulf (talk) 01:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Monstrous Carbuncle

The result of the discussion was Retarget to Charles, Prince of Wales#Built environment. Ruslik_Zero 18:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Monstrous carbuncle → National Gallery (links to redirect • history • stats)

Recommend deletion. That an English aristocrat once used this particular phrase to describe the architecture of the National Gallery doesn't mean that it's actually a synonym. Collabi (talk) 02:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC) nb: For some reason the template fails to link to the redirect properly; the absolute URL to the page is http://en.wikipedia.org/Monstrous_carbuncle

Delete interesting background. Perhaps we could delete this as an obscure synonym. BTW, I fixed the redlink for you.--Lenticel 04:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe retarget to Experience Music Project :) D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Retarget to Charles, Prince of Wales#Built environment where the phrase is used, with context and a link to National Gallery, in the first paragraph. The link to this redirect should be changed to a link to the carbuncle article. Thryduulf (talk) 01:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Keep I wouldn't find myself in this wretched redirect mess if I hadn't wanted to go to Monstrous Carbuncle. BTW, it was not used to describe the architecture of the National Gallery--it was a proposed addition to the National Gallery. And it wasn't just any old aristocrat--it was Prince Charles himself defending the National Gallery against the onslaught of "modern" architects. It deserves to be kept. User pchase79830 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluefox79830 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

May 29

Sleek

The result of the discussion was change to a soft-redirect to Wiktionary. Thryduulf (talk) 17:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Sleek → Creature type (Dungeons & Dragons) (links to redirect • history • stats)

I want info on the term itself and its use. Not a worthy redirect. Jasper Deng (talk) 21:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Since the content has been around since 2006 and was moved to other pages, keep the pagehistory to preserve attribution (a requirement of GFDL and CC-BY-SA) and to minimize the problem of link rot. Overwrite with a soft-redirect to Wiktionary using {{wi}} because I agree that the D&D monster is less important (and far less likely to be the next reader's desired target) than the adjective. Rossami (talk) 22:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Soft Redirect to Wiktionary per Rossami.--Lenticel 23:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete or disambiguate' there is no edit history to keep around, the edit history is located on a different page. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

User:VistaPrince/Rick Denzien

The result of the discussion was Keep. Ruslik_Zero 18:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

User:VistaPrince/Rick Denzien → Rick Denzien (links to redirect • history • stats)

Redirect from user space to the new location after the user moved it. Not sure if it's appropriate, but cleaning out the unnecessary redirects. Hasteur (talk) 20:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep unless VistaPrince requests otherwise. This isn't doing any harm and so unless VistaPrince wants it deleted there isn't much reason to. Thryduulf (talk) 00:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Keep – The relevant policy is Misplaced Pages:Cross-namespace redirects, which indicates a preference for deletion but not a requirement. Senator2029 ❝talk❞ 14:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Keep User to articlespace redirects are usually okay since we create them when moving articles out of our sandbox.--Lenticel 00:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Misplaced Pages:Rick Denzien

The result of the discussion was speedy deleted. Jenks24 (talk) 05:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Rick Denzien → Rick Denzien (links to redirect • history • stats)

Redirect from WP space to Article space for artist. Definitely not the purpose of the WP space Hasteur (talk) 20:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The redirect was automatically created when I did the move from WP space to Article space. I have no objection to deleting this redirect. GoingBatty (talk) 20:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Izrail

The result of the discussion was retarget. Rossami (talk) 13:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Izrail → Israel (links to redirect • history • stats)

Unused and unlikely to be used Mosmof (talk) 15:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Retarget to Azrael. "Izrail" is a plausible search term for "ʿIzrāʾīl", which is an alternative transliteration of the Arabic "عزرائيل" (Encyclopaedia Britannica have their article at that title for example). Thryduulf (talk) 00:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Redirect per Thryduulf, nice catch.--Lenticel 15:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Thierry Ongry

The result of the discussion was delete. Thryduulf (talk) 17:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Thierry Ongry → Thierry Henry (links to redirect • history • stats)

Unused and unlikely to be used Mosmof (talk) 15:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Liv'pool

The result of the discussion was delete. Thryduulf (talk) 17:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Liv'pool → Liverpool F.C. (links to redirect • history • stats)

Unused and unlikely to be used Mosmof (talk) 15:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Tallest philadelphia

The result of the discussion was delete. 17:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Tallest philadelphia → List of tallest buildings in Philadelphia (links to redirect • history • stats)

Vague and implausible rephrasing. Psychonaut (talk) 08:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Tallest nashville

The result of the discussion was delete. Thryduulf (talk) 17:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Tallest nashville → List of tallest buildings in Nashville (links to redirect • history • stats)

Vague and implausible rephrasing. Psychonaut (talk) 08:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Lily allen smile

The result of the discussion was keep. Rossami (talk) 13:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Lily allen smile → Smile (Lily Allen song) (links to redirect • history • stats)

Implausible rephrasing. Psychonaut (talk) 08:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep. This has been in existence since February 2009 without causing any problems, and it gets lots of hits (70-100 each month this year for example) suggesting it's far from implausible. Thryduulf (talk) 00:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- I suspect that the hits are from our search box's autocompletion feature (which also lists lily allen the fear and lily allen fuck you), which would make the argument somewhat circular—the page is getting hits only because the search box is promoting it as the name of an article, and not necessarily because people set out to look for it. These sorts of redirects are harmful insofar as they prevent more relevant autocompletions from being listed. In this particular case, that isn't a problem, because the number of articles beginning with the phrase "Lily Allen" is small enough that they are all listed. However, the high visibility of these sorts of implausible redirects may encourage users to create more of them, which in many other cases can lead to the problem I described. —Psychonaut (talk) 06:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  - The solution to that is to tag them as {{unprintworthy}}, which removes them from the autocompetion list. It must be noted though that the internal search is only one of many ways that people use to find our articles, all or most of the others not having the benefit of autocompletion. Additionally, our tools can only show current internal links, and the longer a redirect has been in existence, the greater the likelihood of their being links external to Misplaced Pages. It is a Very Bad Thing if we break these links without good reason. Thryduulf (talk) 07:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Keep, quite probable that someone would search for the song that way. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- By searching, they'll find it whether or not this redirect exists. Redirects are for navigation. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  - Redirects exist to help people find the content they are looking for, regardless of why or how they choose to search or browse Misplaced Pages. Significant numbers of people demonstrably are using this title to find our article, deleting the redirect would therefore make it harder for them to access what they are looking for, which would be a Bad Thing. Search results are not predictable and do not even get displayed when navigating by some methods (for example going directly to the URL or by following a link from an external site). Thryduulf (talk) 19:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Breaking back

The result of the discussion was retarget to Backbreaker. Thryduulf (talk) 19:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Breaking back → Mongol Empire (links to redirect • history • stats)

Proposing deletion as per criterion #10. The target article doesn't discuss the subject of back-breaking as an execution method, and it's unlikely the redirect could be replaced with a meaningful article at this time. The only references I'm able to turn up for this method of execution are a passing mention in a book on Mongol history, and countless blogs and other unreliable web pages which simply repeat this information without expanding on it. There was formerly an article here which was deleted, which is why the redirect appeared, but apparently whatever meagre information got merged into the target was deemed too trivial or irrelevant to keep. Psychonaut (talk) 07:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Redirect to Backbreaker as a plausible redirect or Soft redirect to Wiktionary's backbreaking entry--Lenticel 23:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Template:Sudo

The result of the discussion was Withdrawn. Ten Pound Hammer • 19:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:Sudo → Template:Edit protected (links to redirect • history • stats)

The hell does "sudo" mean? I don't see how this is a plausible redirect to {{edit protected}}. Ten Pound Hammer • 06:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

It's the Unix command used to carry out tasks that require elevated permissions, which has obvious parallels with making a protected edit request. Plus it's shorter to type. I think it's the last mildly amusing redirect I made that nobody has deleted yet, so it's probably had its time. Gurch (talk) 07:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep. The rationale for the redirect name is obvious, but only to people familiar with *nix. ~~I'm not sure if that set of people is large enough to warrant keeping it; are there any similarly named redirects which are demonstrably used?~~ Despite this it appears the redirect has been widely used and referenced, up to and including the present day. I think that as long as people are using it it should be kept. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep, sudo make me an edit. And also since it does seem to be getting used. Seraphimblade 13:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep: sudo explains the redirect (I'm not sure how you missed that :-). I use the redirect frequently. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep Do some research before you nominate something for deletion. --Closedmouth (talk) 09:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Keep: Useful and in high-use, and redirects are cheap. _ennasis @ 11:21, 11 Sivan 5772 / 11:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Keep, it's only for use on talk pages to transclude a template: so the average user will typically see the brown box stating either "It is requested that an edit be made to this ..." or "This edit request has been answered.", and they won't really care about the name of the template which produces that. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

London Conference of 1838–39

The result of the discussion was Withdrawn by nominator Pdfpdf (talk) 03:09, 2 June 2012 (UTC) fixed by Redrose64 (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

London Conference of 1838–39 → Treaty of London (1839) (links to redirect • history • stats)

~~Delete~~ the redirect page - the "Treaty of London (1839)" has never been referred to as "London Conference of 1838–39". Pdfpdf (talk) 16:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Because noone else bothered to read what I wrote, I fixed up most of the situation myself. However, more work on the issues I raised would inprove the situation notably, particularly on pages Partitions of Luxembourg and Treaty of London (1839). Pdfpdf (talk) 12:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep This is part of the histories of Belgium and the Netherlands. A Misplaced Pages example of "the London conference in 1839" is in Auguste, Baron Lambermont. An external example is about "a Memorandum of the London Conference of 18 April 1839". Another external link says "The London Conference found itself in full session again. By summer of 1838 the Conference had come to a general agreement ... after the unconditional French agreement reached London, late in January 1839, the government of Leopold I was left with no alternative." This is a totally suitable redirect and should be included in the London Conference disambiguation page as a navigation aid to readers. Meanwhile something should be done about what looks something like a content fork at List of conferences in London where an editor's comments in included in the list to excuse the disruption caused by this edit. --Rumping (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- What you say is largely true, and largely irrelevant. The "London Conference" page is a disambiguation page, and therefore should comply with WP:MOSDAB. It didn't, by a very long shot, and "this edit" brings the dab page back into compliance. I fail to see how this relates to the subject matter. Pdfpdf (talk) 18:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- As I said, the "Treaty of London (1839)" has never been referred to as the "London Conference of 1838–39". Also, the "Treaty of London (1839)" article makes zero mention of the "London Conference of 1838–39". In fact, in the whole of wikipedia, there are zero visible mentions of a "London Conference of 1838–39". In the whole of wikipedia, the only occurrence of a link to the page is in Partitions of Luxembourg, where is says: "The London Conference's first proposal ... " with no prior (or subsequent) mention or definition of what London Conference it is referring to, when it was held, why it was held, or what it was about. Nor is there any sort of supporting evidence. Currently, nowhere in wikipedia is there any evidence that there ever was a "London Conference of 1838–39". That there exists a page for this undefined event, which is a redirect to another page that makes no mention of this undefined event, seems very peculiar. Until there is some evidence provided that this undefined event actually did occur, and the evidence explains what this undefined event was, the page should not exist. If/when this evidence is supplied, if the page remains as a redirect, then the target page should make at least some mention of the event. Pdfpdf (talk) 18:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- As to the comment about forking, a disambiguation page is not a list of things that could be related. Please read WP:MOSDAB. Pages about a list of things that could be related are titled something similar to: "List of things that could be related". Such a page serves a completely different purpose to a disambiguation page. Pdfpdf (talk) 18:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- To clarify, I'm not saying there was no conference. What I'm saying is that currently wikipedia makes no mention of what it was. Also, the conference and the treaty are two separate (but related) things - they are not the same thing, and wikipedia should not imply that they are. Misplaced Pages should make it clear what they are, and how they are related. Currently, it doesn't. Pdfpdf (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep There was a London conference. It happened in 1838 and 1839. It's not a big leap here. This is exactly what redirects are for, and there is no reasonable reason to delete here. "It's incorrect" is never a valid reason to delete a redirect, unless it should point somewhere else or it's flat out ridiculous. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Like the other gentleman, what you say is largely correct and largely irrelevant. Please read what I wrote and address the points I have raised. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Again to clarify, if the target page and the Partitions of Luxembourg actually included what User:Rumping says above, with the associated references he quotes, I would have no objection to the redirect existing and pointing to the target. But in the current circumstances, neither Treaty of London (1839) nor London Conference of 1838–39 should appear on the London Conference page, because it is a disambiguation page, neither satisfy WP:MOSDAB. However, it is appropriate that both would appear on List of conferences in London. Which is what I have already said above. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

May 28

Red Lipstick (album)

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 18:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Red Lipstick (album) → Lady Gaga (links to redirect • history • stats)

There is not reason for this redirected article to exist. There is no confirmation that her next album is called Red Lipstick and is completely fabricated. Aaron • 18:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete - Nothing to confirm that "Red Lipstick" is the title. There is a YouTube video that hints "Possible demo snippet of " Red Lipstick" Gaga's song off her upcoming fourth album", but this can't be absolutely certain. Aside from this, zero sources. SwisterTwister talk 01:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Boys' schhool of st. pauls'

The result of the discussion was Keep. Ruslik_Zero 18:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Boys' schhool of st. pauls' → St. Paul's School (Brooklandville, Maryland) (links to redirect • history • stats)

Shouldn't this be deleted? WP:R is only really for common misspellings, not gibberish. :) OrbiterSpacethingy (talk) 16:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete- Created (accidently, I presume) by the initial editor, no substantive editing here, routine housekeeping. Dru of Id (talk) 17:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
It's been around since 2007 without creating any confusion or controversy. The title was created as fork of an existing article - probably inadvertently. The redirect was used to point the editor to the correct title where his contributions would be more appreciated (and his spelling corrected). That is a legitimate use of a redirect so, no, redirects are not merely for "common misspellings". This particular redirect is not especially helpful but neither is it harmful. Weak keep because there's no actual reason to delete. (Tag with {{unprintworthy}}, though.) Rossami (talk) 01:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- I've added the tag. The only reason I wanted this removed was because it appears rather prominently when searching for "boys s...", and looks very silly. OrbiterSpacethingy (talk) 07:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  - {{Unprintworthy}} should remove it from the search results, though it may take a week or so for the index to refresh. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 13:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
    - Ah, that's handy. Thank you! OrbiterSpacethingy (talk) 08:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

May 26

One Step Closer (album 2)

Relisted. See Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 June 21#One Step Closer (album 2). Thryduulf (talk) 19:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Mrs Spirella

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 18:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Mrs Spirella → Vorticia (links to redirect • history • stats)

Vorticia was created as a redirect, then it was replaced by an article about a character with the alter ego "Mrs Spirella". The article was almost certainly a hoax, as the character is not mentioned in the books cited as sources, so I've changed it back to a redirect; there is now no content related to this name. Peter E. James (talk) 14:17, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Misplaced Pages:RFCU/C/N

The result of the discussion was Keep. Ruslik_Zero 19:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:RFCU/C/N → Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for checkuser (links to redirect • history • stats)

Links to historical page and easily confused with RFC/U set of pages when scrolling through options in search box of Misplaced Pages interface Nobody Ent 10:43, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually the whole WP:RFCU series of redirects have probably outlined their usefulness. Nobody Ent 10:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Some of these redirects (and the WP:RFCU/C, which was deleted apparently without discussion) appear frequently in archived discussions and on user talk pages. As redirects to a page don't appear in the search box, maybe a page (similar to the shortcut disambiguation pages) could be created at WP:RFCU, which can mention the old redirects and the new process, and link to other pages users may be looking for, then the other RFCU redirects could be redirected to it. Peter E. James (talk) 11:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Suggestion Perhaps we could create a template/category for deprecated/historical shortcuts that removed them from the search suggestions in the same way that {{unprintworthy}} does? Thryduulf (talk) 17:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Template:Birth year

The result of the discussion was delete The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:Birth year → Template:Birth date (links to redirect • history • stats)

Delete as misleading. It implies that it should be used when only the year is known, but it produces an error unless the full date is added. I've changed the redirect to a transclusion for the duration of this discussion, so that the articles currently using it don't show the #REDIRECT code in the infobox when the RFD template is added Peter E. James (talk) 10:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete. This redir is totally nutso, with spittle running down the chin. A routine that takes 1 parm is redirected to one requiring 3. Why?
Varlaam (talk) 08:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

May 22

William Peace University

The result of the discussion was keep. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

William Peace University → Peace College (links to redirect • history • stats)

This school has changed its name and has begun using the new name on its website. The time has come to delete this redirect to make way for a move of Peace College to William Peace University RadioFan (talk) 22:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Clarification: The institution has begun sporadically using the new name on its website. Most of the site, including the footer on every page, still says "Pace College." There's no rush to make this change, particularly when the institution itself hasn't really made the change. ElKevbo (talk) 22:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- The article title should reflect the official title. The institution has made the change. The local media using the new name as is the administration in press releases . While the old name does persist in some spots on the university website, that will change in time. There is no need to wait until all traces of the old name have been purged from the website. The very first words on the website are the new name after all.--RadioFan (talk) 22:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
This should be a Requested moves debate, not an RfD discussion. Regardless of which title is chosen by the community, neither of you have yet presented a reason to permanently delete the other title as redirect. Rossami (talk) 22:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- I haven't made a case to delete any redirects because I don't think any should. In this period of transition it seems like a good idea to have a redirect from the soon-to-be/new/kind-of-already-in-use name to the old/still-in-use name. ElKevbo (talk) 23:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Wrong fourm-As Rossami said above, this belongs at Requested moves, not RfD.--Fyre2387 22:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Tim Maroney

The result of the discussion was Keep. Ruslik_Zero 18:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Tim Maroney → Usenet celebrity (links to redirect • history • stats)

Should be deleted; originally, there was an article about my friend Tim; it was redirected to Usenet celebrity; but there's nothing in that article about him, and there's only one mainspace link to Tim's article. --jpgordon 21:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep to preserve the attribution history (a requirement of GFDL and CC-BY-SA). The content of this page was merged to the target page in Jan 2008 and remained there until September when it was removed as part of a larger purge of content. I see no discussion or debate to substantiate that purge and while some of the reasons given (lack of sources) are true, others (the BLP accusations) are less defensible. The edit history shows that a number of other edits made by that same user were reversed. I do not know why the content on Mr Maroney was not restored (and do not have the content knowledge to know whether that would be appropriate) but it seems plausible to me that someone might someday restore that content. If/when they do, we will need the pagehistory behind the redirect. In the meantime, the redirect does not strike me as especially harmful or confusing.
Note: I can also see an argument to restore the title to it's 2007 stub version. A quick google search suggests that the subject is at the edge of WP:BIO. I defer judgment on that option for now. Rossami (talk) 22:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, it really is quite on the edge. It does seem harmful to me to have redirects that point to articles containing no information about the subject of the redirect, especially when the article in question contains a fair number of vile loons, total assholes, and propaganda robots. (And some good and interesting people.) I think Tim would laugh to think of himself as worthy of an encyclopedia article -- and then he'd try to make sure it was a good and accurate article. --jpgordon 23:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Edo Sushi

The result of the discussion was keep. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Edo Sushi → Bergh-Stoutenburgh House (links to redirect • history • stats)

This redirect should be deleted as it failes to meet the guidelines set forth in WP:RDR. The target article only has a brief mention of it TheLou75 (talk) 17:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep per the arguments in the "Thomas Doret" discussion below. Redirects of a semi- or non-notable topic to a more notable parent topic are accepted and even encouraged. The topic is clearly mentioned in the first paragraph of the target article. The redirect serves to preempt content which would be unlikely to meet our generally accepted inclusion criteria.
Having said that, it does appear that "Edo Sushi" is a fairly common name for Japanese restaurants. I have been unable to determine whether they are a related chain (in which case, conversion to an article may be appropriate) or, if unrelated, whether any of the other instances of "Edo Sushi" are sufficiently notable to justify converting the redirect into a disambiguation page. No objection to either of those solutions if someone else is more successful researching the company that I have been. Rossami (talk) 17:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

1999−2000 ANAPROF

The result of the discussion was keep. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

1999−2000 ANAPROF → 1999–2000 ANAPROF (links to redirect • history • stats)

Page is named with an emdash; since the standard for association football season articles, per WP:MOSDATE, is an endash (plus a hyphen as a convenience accessibility redirect), this emdash version is not needed. Soccer-holic 09:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep. This redirect is the artifact of a very recent pagemove of a title that existed for several years prior to the move. The redirect is automatically created to catch any remaining inbound links (whether current, in Misplaced Pages page history or external to Misplaced Pages). While it was mildly helpful to bring the title into compliance with the Manual of Style ("mildly" because the difference between an emdash and an endash is fairly trivial), there is no reason to delete the redirect. This creates no possibility of confusion, is in the way of no other content and is not in any way harmful to the project. Rossami (talk) 13:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

May 20

Religious perspectives on dinosaurs

The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete, either keeping as the current redirect or converting it to an article would be in accordance with the consensus here. Thryduulf (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Religious perspectives on dinosaurs → Young Earth creationism (links to redirect • history • stats)

A misleading redirect because the section it points to is all about Christian perspectives, not "religious perspectives" in general (and then only a subset of Biblical literalist Christians). I'm leaning toward deletion, because I can't think of where this might be retargeted to. it also has only one link from article space ( here), and strikes me as a somewhat unlikely search term. 69.111.79.119 (talk) 22:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep. This page has an extensive history. It was moved from the original title to Creationist perspectives on dinosaurs in May 2007 for exactly the reasons you cite but the redirect was retained in order to preserve history and to minimize link rot. I have no objection to retargetting to a more universal article if one exists but as far as I know, the existence of dinosaurs are only relevant (religiously, that is) to the fundamentalist Christian debates. Absent a better target, this redirect is more helpful than harmful. Rossami (talk) 00:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Convert to stub the redirect to a Christian viewpoint provides a biased view that religion means Christianity. So, instead, a stub should be placed in its place. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the above concerns that redirecting a "religions perspectives" title to the perspective of only one segment of one religion is misleading. After all, there have been some deeply religious paleontologists who also believed in the conventional scientific view of dinosaurs. Furthermore, there are bound to be different views on dinosaurs that are of significance to other religions. For example, I recall reading that the Hindu Vedas have some passages about ancient beasts that are interpreted as referring to dinosaurs. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Convert to article. Move Young Earth Creationism#Paleontology and dinosaurs here. Split out any information specific to certain religions into their own sections, and add further section stubs for those religions not yet covered. Has the potential to be a fascinating and informative article once fleshed out. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Thomas Doret

The result of the discussion was Keep. Ruslik_Zero 18:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Doret → The Kid with a Bike (links to redirect • history • stats)

I don't believe we should create redirects for an actor to one film they've appeared in. This person seems notable for other films too, and should be left as a redlink to encourage creation. I guess there could be possible BLP issues too. Lugnuts (talk) 09:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Note. When the redirect was created, this was (at least according to IMDB) the only film this actor had appeared in. The second one, Renoir, will only be released in the coming week when it is screened in the Un Certain Regard section at the 2012 Cannes Film Festival. --Lambiam 19:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Is it standard practice to create BLP redirects to a film a person has been in? Lugnuts (talk) 07:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  - If the person in question is not notable enough for their own article then it is quite common to redirect their name to the article about what they are known for, particularly if there is material about them in that article. Thryduulf (talk) 09:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
    - Can you provide a link to where this is stated in any policy on WP? Maybe I've missed it. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 11:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
      - There isn't any overarching policy that states this, but it is common practice and is mentioned or implied in several individual policies and guidelines. Perhaps the most relevant for this discussion is Misplaced Pages:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event. It is also a corollary to the guidelines at WP:RED that redlinks encourage article creation, that redirects discourage article creation in cases where we don't want one (e.g. not notable or there is an existing article already). At the time of the redirect's creation it was clear that Doret was not notable enough for their own article, and so the redirect was obviously the right thing. If however he now does meet he notability criteria (and at this moment I don't think that is clear either way), then the redirect can be overwritten by an article without the need for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
        That whole arguement is redundant. He's not notable, but create a link for him anyway? Is it even a likely search term? The correct answer is no, BTW. Lugnuts (talk) 18:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
        44 page views in April and over 100 in March say that "Thomas Doret", regardless of how likely you think it is as a search term is actually being used. Thryduulf (talk) 20:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
        I suspect alot of those are coming from 2nd Magritte Awards, the only article the link is on. And now that he's in a second film, there's even less reason why the redirect should point to the above film, let alone exist in the first place. Lugnuts (talk) 06:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter where people are coming from, or why, just that they are (as that's the only thing we can know). We know that people are looking for information on him, and we don't have an article to give them. There are three choices available to us:
1. write an article.
2. take them to another article that has some content about him.
3. present nothing but a suggestion that they might want to try searchin.
As he isn't notable, option 1 is a non-starter. Option 2 is the most helpful, as it gives people somehting close to what they are looking for. Option 3 is unhelpful as the search results would likely bring up the target from option 2 anyway, and the redlink would encourage the creation of an article we don't want.
So we just need to decide which target is best, and the current one has far more content about him than the article about the new film does (at least currently). So I don't see what the benefit in doing anything other than keeping the status quo brings. Thryduulf (talk) 09:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep per Thryduulf. If/when he definitively meets Misplaced Pages's generally accepted inclusion criteria for biographies, the redirect can be easily overwritten with content. In the meantime, the redirect provides the reader with at least a little bit of context. (The redirect also keeps the Talk page live so editors have a place where they can debate whether and when he meets the inclusion criteria.) And yes, there is long precedent for this practice. Rossami (talk) 14:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- There's no real context, no talk page for this redirect and no policy for this "long precedent for this practice" that anyone can supply me with. Apart from that, it's fine. Lugnuts (talk) 14:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  - Context = "he's an actor in that particular film". That's not much but it's what Misplaced Pages has right now. Re the Talk page - granted, it's not currently being used but if the redirect is deleted, that Talk page will never be usable (per CSD#G8). Lastly, I said "precedent", not policy. Not all precedents are enshrined as policy, nor should they be. That does not mean that the precedent doesn't exist. Many such redirects have been created over time and either explicitly or implicitly encouraged by various editors. More importantly, however, there does not have to be an explicit policy allowing this practice. To satisfy the burden of deletion, you have to show that there is a policy against the practice. The precedent is evidence that no such policy exists. Rossami (talk) 17:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
    - So if something is done from day one and it is wrong, but it's a "precedent", then that's OK? This redirect makes no sense and offers NOTHING to the reader. A better redirect would be to go offsite to IMDB, or to his Facebook/Twitter account, if the aim is to educate the reader to what he has done. Lugnuts (talk) 18:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
      - Well, lots of us would disagree with your value judgment that what was done in this case "from day one" was wrong. Regardless, there are very good reasons why policy forbids redirects external to the WikiMedia family of projects (and limits even those to soft-redirects.) A redirect to IMDB or Facebook is infeasible and inappropriate. Rossami (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Misplaced Pages:PETTIFOGG

The result of the discussion was rename to PETTIFOG. The arguments to delete were based on the assertion that the term is pejorative. The counter-arguments, while politely not including explicit examples, noted that Misplaced Pages precedent allows pejorative shortcuts (several that are far more inflammatory than this one). Oddly, no one in the debate noted that the target title (Wikilawyering) is itself a pejorative.
The decision to "rename" is complicated by the fact that title has already been independently created. Even if had not been, moving this page there would only have created a double-redirect which would have had to be resolved back to the current target. Taken together, that gets us back to "keep as is" even though only one person in the debate below worded it that way. Rossami (talk) 22:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:PETTIFOGG → Misplaced Pages:Wikilawyering (links to redirect • history • stats)

Even google doesn't show it without the ER added. Inflammatory, very unlikely to be of any use as it is not a common word. Not consistent with neutrality, and encourages incivility. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Rename to "pettifog" which appears to be the proper verb form, and does show up on Google. "Wikilawyering (and the related legal term pettifogging)..." has been the long-standing introduction to this article (2006), so the redirect seems reasonable, and I don't see leaving off the "ER" as any particular problem. "Wikilawyering" itself is pejorative and this appears to be another way to clarify what it means when making reference, as redirects often do, even if it's just as pejorative. In fact leaving off the "ER" seems to drive home the fact that it's referencing the practice and not the person. I'm not seeing a problem. Equazcion 02:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Now, surely Equazcion you don't have to go to all this trouble to help out my spelling? B——C_ritical 03:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
rename to WP:PETTIFOG, as that is a useful shortcut. I don't see the double "g" spelling as getting any uses other than as a misspelling, a name (which may or may not also be a misspelling), a username or as part of "pettifogger" or "pettifogging", etc. If this had uses or significant history then I'd argue for a keep, but as it has neither I don't see the value. Thryduulf (talk) 11:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Spelling or not, I don't see the usefulness of an uncommon term that is derogatory and would be seen as incivil in use, by definition: 1. Quibble about petty points. 2. Practice legal deception or trickery. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- So basically, it's a synonym for wikilawyering... In other words: In pointing out discouraged behaviors, we do use negative terms. If someone is gaming the system, spamming, or even being a general douche, we tend not to shy away from saying so. This is just another veritable synonym for a behavioral "don't", no more inflammatory than the page it directs to. Equazcion 18:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Rename to WP:PETTIFOG as plausible synonym.--Lenticel 03:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Leave alone just in case someone misspells pettifog. --Lambiam 15:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Like me. My mother always said I'd rue the day I didn't learn to spell... it's been a number of decades, but now I know she was right... B——C_ritical 07:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Category:

Misplaced Pages deletion