Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Redirect Archives/July 2006

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

Hotshot crew delete me → Hotshot Crew

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

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

The nominated redirect was Deleted, funny but unneeded attack (diving in football could be attributed to Mexico, Arjen Robben, Ronaldo, to name a few) 12:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Italian Diving Team → Italy_national_football_team

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

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

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

Hany Ramzy Actor → Hany Ramzy

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

• Delete While it might be worthwhile to have an article on Hany Ramzy (actor) redirecting to an article on a different guy with the same name just breeds confusion. Dgies 18:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was keep (no consensus) – Gurch 11:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ronaldo Luíz Nazário de Lima → Ronaldo Luiz Nazário de Lima

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

• What about irregular users? There's no harm in having misspelled redirects, and at least one person already made this spelling mistake, which is why they created this redirect in the first place. So keep as redirect to Ronaldo, obviously. — sjorford++ 10:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two common, acceptable variations for the Portuguese name are Luiz and Luís, but in this case the legal name is the first one, with a "z". The mispelling Ronaldo Luíz was an artifact that happened when a well-intentioned editor tried to correct back Luís to Luiz without paying attention to the accent, but it is itself very unlikely to be used. There is no need to multiply redirects for every possible combination of mispellings for all kinds of irregular users, just keep the mispellings and variants most likely to be used. (Besides, multiplying mispellings also pollutes the Google results with false spellings.) --HYC 13:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was speedy deleted as CSD R3 - implausible typo. Kimchi.sg 00:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World of Starcraft → April 1, 2006

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

• Delete Joke or not (and I don't find it at all funny). Viridae^Talk 14:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No information, not a real topic. No such thing exists. It's an April Fool's joke, anyway. --Irayo 21:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Possible confusion with rumored MMORPG under development. Dgies 00:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No-brainer here. -- Scientizzle 23:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Uesr:Waitak/Articles → User:Waitak/Articles

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

The German Solution → Wikipedia:German userbox solution

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

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

Delete -- Omniplex 13:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Rumney → Wayne Rooney

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

Speedily deleted as an unlikely redirect. Iolakana|^T 13:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Delete as misleading. A "list" shouldn't redirect to a category. --Zoz (t) 20:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Also delete List of channel 2 TV stations in the United States, List of channel 3 TV stations in the United States, List of channel 4 TV stations in the United States, List of channel 6 TV stations in the United States, etc. up to List of channel 20 TV stations in the United States. --Mathew5000 20:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Why shouldn't a list redirect to a category? Isn't the idea to make it easier to find things?--Brownlee 12:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition to not redirecting across namespaces, these are unlikely search terms or links. No one is going to search for "List of channel 13 TV stations in the United States" or link to it if they did not already know there existed such an artificially named page. —Centrx→talk • 21:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, to make it decisive. —Centrx→talk • 03:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Centrx. BigNate37_T·C 03:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was Redirected to The Walt Disney Company --Cyde↔Weys 17:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disney' → Disney's Blizzard Beach

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

Change target to The Walt Disney Company. It's definitely not worth creating these redirects systematically, but, as this one has existed for a while, I don't think that there's a real reason to delete it. On US keyboard layouts, the apostrophe is next to the Enter key, so at least it might save someone the frustration of having to corect a mistake in the search box. — TKD::Talk 15:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Change target per TKD. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 16:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Change target to The Walt Disney Company. --Zoz (t) 20:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was speedily deleted by Royboycrashfan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). — TKD::Talk 11:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Toothache → User:Glaze/Irishtoothache

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

• Speedy delete - R2 (I already changed the tag from {{rfd}} to {{db-r2}}) Timrem 21:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article size → Wikipedia:Article size

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

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

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

The nominated redirect was delete. – Will (message me!) 14:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page titles to be deleted → Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

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

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

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

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

Request for page protection → Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

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

• Delete Cross-namespace redirects are bad because they result in a person (reader) walking around a building (encyclopedia) and falling into the pipework (project space) because the builders (editors) thought cracks in the walls and floors would be useful for them to get around. Delete as per WP:ASR, as a unneeded (numerous WP: style shortcuts) minor convenience for a sub set of editors does not outweigh creating a standalone encyclopedia for readers. If people do not specify "wikipedia:" in a search, we should remember that, first, and foremost, we are an encyclopedia, and return encyclopedic results by default. Regards, MartinRe 22:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Cross-namespace redirect. jni 05:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As an RfPP regular I still feel that this is just search clutter.Voice-of-All 05:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per MartinRe. -- JLaTondre 14:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete crossnamespace redirect. Yanksox 19:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This comment by MartinRe on another page is very instructive: "See Wikipedia:Verbatim copying where the rules for mirrors are laid out. The main text section explains that for a CNR, the mirror has a choice - either leave it in, which will be a red link, or remove it as a link to a non-copied document, which is 'legally questionable'. Putting mirrors in a situation where they need to to choose between those two options is the main difficulty, in my view." --Cyde↔Weys 03:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as cross-namespace redirect. --Zoz (t) 11:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was fixed by the nominator, no action necessary – Gurch 22:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fingerprintz → The Silencers (band)

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

• Comment - It appears, but I may be wrong, that the nominator fixed the redirect target. The redirect doesn't even have an RfD tag. Timrem 15:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was All deleted. -- JLaTondre 02:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

A whole lot easier to delete. Are there any others? Iolakana|^T 20:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if there are any others. Voortle 18:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both July 10, 2002 and July 15, 2006 do not exist, I removed them from the section above. But I changed 2006 to 2002 (after July 15), since there is a redirect link that exists (see the section above). I mean this: July 15, 2002. -- ADNghiem501 05:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 12, 2002 added to the header. -- ADNghiem501 05:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Especially entire dates in article title should not redirect to titles including months and years, and seems worthless. -- ADNghiem501 04:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - These purposefully need to be left as redlinks so people realize they've made an error when they try to link everything altogether in an article. --Cyde↔Weys 04:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Cyde. --Zoz (t) 11:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Cyde. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 21:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was changed to a real article in article namespace. -- ADNghiem501 01:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Be bold! Remove the redirect and create it! Iolakana|^T 20:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tadaaa the school website courtesy of a google search. I would add something myself but it's 1:40 in the morning and I really should sleep. Cowman109^Talk 05:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was deleted. Kimchi.sg 00:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipe-tan → Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan

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

• Speedy delete as CSD G7 - author requests deletion. (grm_wnr, feel free to delete it yourself, as you're also the only author, I doubt you'd complain to yourself! :) MartinRe 22:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- JLaTondre 14:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Reverend Edward Nelson → Edward Nelson

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

• Comment this is a strange redirect, maybe it could be changed to Edmund Nelson. Yanksox 04:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You mean change the redirect to Edmund Nelson? Having a typo from Edward to Edmund is pretty far-fetched, don't you think? Also, there is a Reverend Edmund Nelson redirect already Superwad 04:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentMaybe a mis-hearing redirect? Ie they misheard the name. That would be possible/proboble. Viridae^Talk 12:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nonsensical and useless. The guy's a mathematician. Grandmasterka 23:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Grandmasterka. Cowman109^Talk 21:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Nelson (priest) → Edmund Nelson

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

• Delete I doubt there are many people whom would use that term in a search or at all. Doesn't connect all that well with the subject. Yanksox 04:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a misleading redirect - Edward != Edmund, pontentially causing confusion. Cowman109^Talk 21:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was deleted together with all similar ones. Kimchi.sg 07:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Delete, and I believe there are lots more out there. Google points out 102, 103, 106, 111, 202, 208, List of Xiaolin Showdown episodes 210, 220, on the first page of results alone. Kimchi.sg 00:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per Kimchi.sg. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 18:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was keep (no consensus). -- JLaTondre 23:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

The nominated redirect was made into an article, [1]. —Centrx→talk • 22:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Analysis → Crystallography

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

• Comment if the OLAP tool is notable, perhaps an article could be made instead of it being a redirect? Cowman109^Talk 21:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was Retargetted --Cyde↔Weys 05:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roads in Germany → Autobahns of Germany

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

• Delete per nominator Dr Zak 15:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Forgive me for being dense, but why is this an obviously bad redirect? If I type "Germany Roads" in the search box, this is probably what I want. Gimmetrow 21:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• An Autobahn is a motorway, there are many other types of road in Germany other than autobahns, it does not make sense to redirect a generic term to one possible specific meaning of it (count this as a delete). Thanks/wangi 21:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Then this should redirect to Transport in Germany or a better article if it exists. I've made that change. Gimmetrow 02:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Good call. Dr Zak 02:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep redirected to Transport in Germany, seems like a good choice to me. --Cyde↔Weys 03:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep redirect with new target. Good idea. Grandmasterka 23:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep redirected per above. --Zoz (t) 11:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Change target to Transport in Germany per Cyde. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 21:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was Converted to article by Dhett. -- JLaTondre 02:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KDTP → KTAZ

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

• Delete per nom. Viridae^Talk 23:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was delete. – Will (message me!) 14:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

The nominated redirect was redirected to Citation. — Jul. 6, '06 [03:06] <freak|talk>

Citing sources → Wikipedia:Citing sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment No need to delete it for that, simple remove the redirect and replace it with either a blank page or {{talkheader}} Regards, MartinRe 19:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• OK, Will do. --GW_Simulations_{|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 19:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 23:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SurpriseRoyals → Arizona Royals

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

• Keep. Seems useful to me. Someone might look up the team this way.

Oh yeah, I didn't notice the lack of space. Delete.

Rbraunwa 04:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Considering no Google hits for "SurpriseRoyals", the lack of space must not be a common typo, such that even if the other should remain, this one should not. —Centrx→talk • 03:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Leftover from a reverted move. I've redirect the one page that pointed at SurpriseRoyals (without the space). Gimmetrow 16:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was Deleted (db-author). -- JLaTondre 23:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Burmesestatedivision → Template:Infobox Burmesestatedivision

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

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

The nominated redirect was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 23:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patch (emo) → Emo (slang)

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

• Delete - appears to be a confusing redirect (not to mention not a real term as stated above). Cowman109^Talk 21:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- nae'blis _(talk) 17:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• Why was this improper for template space? Common sections are listed as a use of templates at Help:Template. Gimmetrow 19:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I'm not exactly clear. Wikipedia:Template namespace says, "Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article." My limited understanding is that article C in the Help:Template page you cited is actually meant to be in the article namespace. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 19:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The section compares the advantages of having a common section in either article space or template space. From that, it sounds like either way is OK. The statement from Wikipedia:Template namespace, that "templates should not masquerade as article content", is confusing. It was added in March 2005 but I can find no discussion in talk. Could that refer to purely prose templates? Gimmetrow 19:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The I-95 exit lists are no longer being transcluded, and this is now a double redirect. (Interstate 95/Virginia exit list redirects to Interstate 95 in Virginia. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 03:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, now that it has been subst'ed, it should be deleted, as should Interstate 95/Virginia exit list which is not linked to by anything. Still would like a clarification on the policy point. Gimmetrow 04:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I tagged all the Interstate 95/X exit list articles for speedy deletion, and they were deleted. The problem with the Virginia one is that it contains all the page history, which is why I created a redirect. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 04:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure enough, my oversight. Gimmetrow 04:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was al-Masri converted to disambig and Masri kept. -- JLaTondre 00:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Keep. I just saw this nomination after I had already created Masri (disambiguation). Masri should remain a redirect to Egyptian Arabic because it is more commonly a native reference to the language. You may want however to create a disambiguation page for al-Masri since it applies to two different persons. — [zɪʔɾɪdəʰ] · t 19:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the latter per Zerida. Delete the first, possibly converting to a dismabiguation page (also somewhat per Zerida). -- Northenglish (talk) -- 21:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep later per Zerida, convert into a disambiguation page for al-Masri unless one ie much more well-known than the other. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 02:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was kept. —Centrx→talk • 22:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mazda Mazda2 → Mazda Demio

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

• Delete per nom. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 21:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The name of the car is the "Mazda2", the manufacturer's name is "Mazda". It isn't inconceivable to think that someone might type in "Mazda Mazda2". Besides, redirects are dirt cheap. I see no reason to delete this. --Cyde↔Weys 00:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Cyde...valid seach term, I think. -- Scientizzle 23:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Cyde, for once. -- nae'blis _(talk) 17:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was kept. —Centrx→talk • 22:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mazda Mazda3 → Mazda Axela

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

• Delete per nom. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 21:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The name of the car is the "Mazda3", the manufacturer's name is "Mazda". It isn't inconceivable to think that someone might type in "Mazda Mazda3". Besides, redirects are dirt cheap. I see no reason to delete this. --Cyde↔Weys 00:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Cyde...valid seach term, I think. -- Scientizzle 23:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Cyde, for once twice. -- nae'blis _(talk) 17:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was kept. —Centrx→talk • 22:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mazda Mazda5 → Mazda Premacy

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

• Delete per nom. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 21:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The name of the car is the "Mazda5", the manufacturer's name is "Mazda". It isn't inconceivable to think that someone might type in "Mazda Mazda5". Besides, redirects are dirt cheap. I see no reason to delete this. --Cyde↔Weys 00:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Cyde...valid seach term, I think. -- Scientizzle 23:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Cyde, for once twice thrice. -- nae'blis _(talk) 17:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was kept. —Centrx→talk • 22:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mazda Mazda6 → Mazda Atenza

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

• Delete per nom. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 21:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The name of the car is the "Mazda6", the manufacturer's name is "Mazda". It isn't inconceivable to think that someone might type in "Mazda Mazda6". Besides, redirects are dirt cheap. I see no reason to delete this. --Cyde↔Weys 00:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Cyde...valid seach term, I think. -- Scientizzle 23:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Cyde, for once twice thrice he's just right this time. -- nae'blis _(talk) 17:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was deleted. Kimchi.sg 08:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saturn Relay/Buick Terraza → Saturn Relay

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

• Delete per nom. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 21:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was Deleted Viridae^Talk 12:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mongolia on Wheels! → Mongolia

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

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

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

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

• Yeah, the redirect is unused and redundant now. Its target gets visited periodically, but I reckon that's as a result of a Google hit here and there. Given the very well referenced state of the non /old article, the target of this should not have been met with such weak will by AfD twice, either. Delete. -Splash - tk 02:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The target is linked from various places including the talk page of the article, so it's rather actively edited. This redirect involves a curious conflict between delete reason #5 and keep reason #4 - there are about 15 pages that link to the redirect including the AfDs, a few archives, and WP:Long term abuse. These should all be edited if the redirect is deleted. Gimmetrow 04:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete very odd redirect. Viridae^Talk 12:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Splash. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 21:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Florian Norton (Mondheller) → User:Mondheller

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

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

The nominated redirect was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 23:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan (comics) → Morgaine (disambiguation)

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

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

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

The nominated redirect was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 23:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Delete - Sorry, my fault. I moved the page, but didn't think to delete the redirect. - pm_shef 02:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete G7 per pm_shef. Gimmetrow 04:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete per creator's word. -- nae'blis _(talk) 17:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The Dupe → Christopher Hitchens

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

• Speedy delete I've tagged it as such (db-attack). -- Scientizzle 22:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was deleted. — Jul. 16, '06 [14:51] <freak|talk>

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

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

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

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

The nominated redirect was deleted (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not → Wikipedia:What wikipedia is not

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

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

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

The nominated redirect was Kept as re-targeted. -- JLaTondre 23:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Free ads paper and Free adds paper → Consumer to consumer

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

I was originally thinking just for the misspelt Free adds paper to be deleted. Free ads paper is referred to from here, where it has recently been added. Stephen B Streater 21:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have now redirected these to Classified advertising and expanded the article. Free adds paper is a common misspelling, but could go. -- Petri Krohn 05:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep both per Petri Krohn's retargeting. -- JLaTondre 13:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep after retargeting. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 21:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Free ads paper. I've generally seen misspellings deleted to avoid clutter, but whatever is consistent with WP practice is fine. Stephen B Streater 08:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was Belongs at Wikipedia:Requested moves instead. -- JLaTondre 01:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dahlia Ravikovitch → Dalia Rabikovitch

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

You're looking for WP:RM I think/wangi 22:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was unaware of that. I'll remove the RfD tag. --Asbl 23:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Aunt arctica → Antarctica

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

• Speedy delete as nonsense. Roy A.A. 21:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was Kept and tagged with {{R from misspelling}}. -- JLaTondre 23:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ceveceria Nacional → Cerveceria Nacional

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

• Keep. If they misspelled this, there's probably a good chance somebody will misspell it again. Invitatious 21:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Invitatious. --Mathew5000 12:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Invitatious, misspellings are excellent redirects and prevent this problem in the future. -- nae'blis _(talk) 17:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

The nominated redirect was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 23:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Christmas special → Doctor Who 2006 Christmas special

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

• Strong Delete Confusing. Not even worth making a disambig page. Invitatious 21:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Invitatious. --Billpg 11:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Zoz (t) 12:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete only a relic left after a move anyway. Tim! 16:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was Kept and target changed to List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita. -- JLaTondre 23:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richest country → Luxembourg

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

• Change Target to List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita or List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita, the two rankings of national wealth (I prefer PPP, but either is fine). smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 17:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Change target to List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita per above. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 21:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Change target per smurrayinchester. -- nae'blis _(talk) 17:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per above. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was Both deleted by Freakofnurture. -- JLaTondre 23:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suffuck university → Suffolk University

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

• Delete per nom. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 21:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Delete per nom. --Zoz (t) 11:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Possible G7 speedy delete as mistakenly created per "oops wrong namespace" edit summary on move by creator. MartinRe 11:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per MartinRe. -- JLaTondre 13:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per MartinRe. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 21:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was Retargeted --Cyde↔Weys 05:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

End of all life → Republican Party (United States)

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

• Speedy delete and close this discussion quickly. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 05:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep redirected to End of the world or Extinction or Global warming (I think that's the context the phrase is most known). Redirects are cheap. Gimmetrow 06:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep redirected to End of the world. --Zoz (t) 11:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to End of the world per Gimmetrow & Zoz. -- JLaTondre 13:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Change target to End of the world per above. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 21:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy retarget to End of the world. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to End of the world Ex nihil 01:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was made into a disambiguation page, [5]. —Centrx→talk • 22:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Animal Park → San Diego Wild Animal Park

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

• Keep either as a dab page for places with similar names, or if those are too numerous redirect to Zoo. Redirects are cheap. Gimmetrow 06:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and redirect to zoo. Might create same redirect at wild animal park (nocaps). Luna Santin 10:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep redirected to Zoo as a disambiguation page. --Zoz (t) 11:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert to disambig. I have changed it to a disambig that encompasses both articles with Wild Animal Park in their name and also zoo. -- JLaTondre 13:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with JLaTondre's changes. -- nae'blis _(talk) 17:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was deleted. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlist help → Help:Watching pages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The nominated redirect was deleted. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for page protection → Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

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

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

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

The nominated redirect was speedy deleted per author request. Roy A.A. 21:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Composite video sync → Component video sync

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

• Keep Delete The phrase is used on the target page. Seems plausible to me. Gimmetrow 04:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Composite video and component video are not the same thing. Invitatious 18:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, you're correct. I read the redirect as "Composite sync" - the phrase the page actually uses. My mistake. Gimmetrow 19:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per above and WP:CSD G7. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 21:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was Deleted by Freakofnurture. -- JLaTondre 23:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"shared read lock" → Shared read lock

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

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

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

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

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

• Delete per nom Viridae^Talk 03:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as plausible typo. -- nae'blis _(talk) 17:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Delete per nom. (cannot imagine a giant raccoon - sounds horrifying) Viridae^Talk 03:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this might be a plausible search term and the target is the best result. -- nae'blis _(talk) 17:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If someone were to search for it, and understood basic English, he/she would know that Raccoon is the place to look. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If someone thought this existed, the redir would set them straight. Redirects are cheap. Dgies 03:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Perhaps, but is there any reason to think someone believes these exist? That seems implausible to me. Rbraunwa 17:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Giant raccoon-bear" is sometimes used for Giant Panda, FYI. It's not so much about whether it exists, as whether it's useful as a redirect. Another possible target would be Godless: The Church of Liberalism, Ann Coulter's newish screed book; see the Science and intelligent design section. -- nae'blis _(talk) 16:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Run away! It's a Giant raccoon!!!1 71.132.132.147 18:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Giant Racoons? They have those in D&D, don't they =P --Aknorals 10:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, I just googled "giant raccoon" and I got this Godless: The Church of Liberalism so perhaps it should redirect there as "Giant Raccoon's Flatulence theory" does? -Aknorals 10:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Funny animal (no, not really). BigNate37_T·C 03:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I seem to remember that 'giant raccoon' is a literal translation of a foreign name for panda bears. Pandas are genetically related to racoons. The red panda is arguably a giant raccoon. I suggest redirecting to panda. - Richardcavell 04:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was deleted. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maps on Wikipedia → Category:Maps

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

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

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

The nominated redirect was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 23:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-liberal → authoritarianism

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

• Delete per nom. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 17:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as attack. jgp (T|C) 03:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was Speedy kept after withdrawal by nom. --Zoz (t) 13:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki → Wikipedia:Transwiki log

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

• Speedy keep, see edit history, one of Angela's redirects, apparently supposed to work in the same way on all projects. Admittedly it doesn't on Meta, but an article with that name exists also there. It's related to the Transwiki process, I've no idea what breaks if we simply delete it. -- Omniplex 21:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: Angela created the redirect at 00:01, 21 November 2003. In fact, I was searching for an article about the Transwiki process (what wikis are involved, when was it created, etc) and I didn't expect to be redirected to the WP namespace let alone to a log. Maybe searching for a transwiki article is a stupid idea, but then having nothing at Transwiki is better than having a cross-namespace redirect imo. --Zoz (t) 10:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy unconditional keep. This is a keep without exception and without discussion. There is a policy across all Wikimedia projects that, whatver the project and whatever the language the Transwiki space can always be found by typing 'Transwiki', in English, in the search box. The precise arrangment of a project's transiwki pages is a matter for them, but it ensures that it can always be found the same way. It is vital for the process to work. Also, there is nothing harmful in a non-word cross-namepsace redirect on which no valid article could ever sit, could ever have sat, could ever get searched for by anyone not actively wanting information about Transwiki or the Transwiki log (which you got) and there is no value in robotic deletion of all such redirects (which the nomination verbless sentence is). See [6] and m:Transwiki for further information. -Splash - tk 13:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, I didn't know about this policy. --Zoz (t) 13:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was deleted. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Delete, besides redirects to fragments (right hand side starting with "#") cannot work. -- Omniplex 13:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: So they don't. Is this by design, or is it a bug? It seems this would be useful in some situations – Gurch 11:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  By design, affecting all URLs, not only HTTP. In short browsers are supposed to deal with these so-called fragments locally, they are never sent in e.g. HTTP GET requests or "location" replies (= redirects). If you want A#B your browser asks for A. If it's redirected to C it asks for C. And so on finally arriving at an existing page P (or an error). If it got P it then applies the original "#B" locally finding P#B (maybe, if fragment B exists). The servers for A, C, ..., P never knew that what you really want is A#B. Very old browsers like mine actually ask for A#B and (probably) would accept a redirect to C#D, but that's incorrect. Servers are expected to ignore an incorrect "#" in requests. 149.225.70.221 16:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Help:Redirect#A redirect to an anchor. ~ PseudoSudo 11:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Fix the help page if you like, it's not difficult to implement, it's verboten by design of URLs, RFC 3986 and predecessors. 149.225.70.221 16:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. ~ PseudoSudo 11:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No article could ever exist at this title, and anyone typing that in the search box would expect to get taken to the target. It cannot turn up on Special:Randompage being a redirect. Deletion is pointless; redirect are cheap and fun, not to mention actively useful in such cases as this. -Splash - tk 13:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this redirect is one of the top results for "A crystal ball", which is not a wikipedia term, so is potentially harmful, and I doubt its usefulness in searches when there exsit so many shorter WP:NOT style links instead. MartinRe 12:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- nae'blis _(talk) 17:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This comment by MartinRe on another page is very instructive: "See Wikipedia:Verbatim copying where the rules for mirrors are laid out. The main text section explains that for a CNR, the mirror has a choice - either leave it in, which will be a red link, or remove it as a link to a non-copied document, which is 'legally questionable'. Putting mirrors in a situation where they need to to choose between those two options is the main difficulty, in my view." --Cyde↔Weys 20:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Agree with Splash. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Cyde. Thanks/wangi 16:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Splash's arguments. It's a useful redirect with no reasonable possiblity of confusion. The comment about mirrors is irrelevant since this redirect is not used in any articles, only in Talk spaces - pages not generally mirrored. Rossami (talk) 06:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't see anything legally questionable about mirrors removing CNRs unless there are pages in article space which link to them - which is something we should not do in any case. And I think that the "legally questionable" issues raised at Wikipedia:Verbatim_copying are absolute side issues. The really legally questionable thing for mirrors to do is to remove the contribution history - and they all (?) do that anyway. Bring me a scraper who's worried about the legal implications of cross-namespace redirect cleanup and then I will start worrying about them. Haukur 10:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a cross-namespace redirect. There is lots of precedent here, and there are obvious reasons why we keep the article and wikipedia spaces separate. --Hetar 04:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as can be confusing (redirect is returned as search result for "A crystal ball", and its hardly useful as I doubt anyone searching for the wikipedia page would type the long version when WP:NOT is so much shorter. CNR's in general are problematic as they result in a reader receiving non-encyclopedic results when explicitly searching for encyclopedic ones, and we shouldn't have to ask the readers to sift through wikipedia internals to get to the encyclopedia. Regards, MartinRe 12:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has about 150 inbound links so apparently a significant number of people type this in rather than WP:NOT. Rossami (talk) 02:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly, so getting rid of this will force people to do it the correct way and prevent contaminating the encyclopedic namespace with non-encyclopedic topics. --Cyde↔Weys 03:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a cross-namespace redirect. --Ezeu 02:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 23:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WPJ → Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan

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

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

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

The nominated redirect was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 23:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The nominated redirect was deleted by Freakofnurture – Gurch 20:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Delete per nom. --Zoz (t) 12:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Viridae^Talk 03:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, does no harm. -- nae'blis _(talk) 17:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was deleted. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template messages → Wikipedia:Template messages

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

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

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

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

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

The nominated redirect was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 23:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mathbb → Help:Displaying a formula

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

• Delete per nom. --Zoz (t) 12:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- nae'blis _(talk) 17:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 23:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template substitution → Wikipedia:Template substitution

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

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

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

The nominated redirect was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 23:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template syntax → Wikipedia:Template namespace

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

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

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

The nominated redirect was Speedy delete ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks → Wikipedia:No personal attacks

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

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

The nominated redirect was Kept. -- JLaTondre 23:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tu’i_Tonga_Empire → Tu'i Tonga Empire

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

• Keep. Possible misspelling; harmless redirect. Spacepotato 01:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Common misspellings can make good redirects.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Possible typo, redirects are cheap. --Zoz (t) 12:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. -- nae'blis _(talk) 17:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was speedy deleted under CSD R1. David | Talk 09:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Coyle - Raid → Andy Coyle

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

• Speedy delete per CSD-R1. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was speedy delete by Freakofnurture. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew J. Coyle → Andy Coyle

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

• Speedy delete per CSD-R1. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was speedy deleted under CSD R1. David | Talk 09:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Coyle → Andy Coyle

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

• Speedy delete per CSD-R1. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was deleted. — Jul. 11, '06 [09:44] <freak|talk>

Can history be truly NPOV? → Wikipedia:WikiProject History

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

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

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

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

TL;DR → List of Internet slang phrases#T

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

• Strong Delete Redirects to sections don't work anyway. Invitatious 02:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Change target to List of Internet slang specific to thread-based communication. It stands for "too long; didn't read". Also see deletion log.--Mathew5000 03:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Mathew. DyslexicEditor 17:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Change target to List of Internet slang specific to thread-based communication per Mathew5000. For the record, I've seen and heard tl;dr used quite a bit--it's far from an unknown acronym. jgp (T|C) 03:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Might it not be better to change to a soft redirect to Wiktionary:TLDR (as this seems more dictionarific than encyclopaedic to me)? --Daduzi ^talk 03:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment/Update I changed it to what people suggested for the List of Internet slang specific to thread-based communication that actually defines it. I didn't wiktionary because I'm a little unsure how to format that. DyslexicEditor 01:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment use the {{wi}} template, but it goes to the same name on Wiktionary; you would have to move the redirect to TLDR first. And only do that if it is really likely to be used. Invitatious (talk) 13:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Keep or articlefy (is that a word? it is now). In other words, either create a full article on five-pointed star or leave the redirect alone. jgp (T|C) 00:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change target to star polygon per Mathew5000. jgp (T|C) 03:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or articlefy: Nowhere in any of the articles, or REFERENCES to articles, to which current attempts to link pentagram are going (Islam or Ottoman Empire) is there any reference to a pentagram. A five pointed star is NOT the same as a pentagram, or, if it were, just for the sake of WP:Point i would have to link the flag of the USA to pentagram.--Vidkun 02:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Change target to Star polygon. --Mathew5000 03:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and redirect to Star polygon. I don't understand what Vidkun is trying to convey. Jkelly 03:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Articlefy: Star polygon isn't much better than Pentagram and can be nearly as confusing with respect to a genuine five pointed star. The star in the flag of the USA would not fit either, so I would not think the references from Islam or the Ottoman Empire would, either. --PhilHoward 03:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose First we should figure out the differences between a pentacle, Unicursal star, Star polygon, Pentagon, Pentalpha, Pentangle , and Arabic "five-pointed" star. "...a five pointed star is a very particular type of pentagram" --South Philly 03:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The differences are: pentagram, pentangle and pentalpha are synonyms, although pentagram is the most common current usage. Pentalpha was the term as used by the Pythagoreans for this symbol. A clear description and a picture are given in the article. A pentacle is a kind of talisman that can have any design, such as a magic square, a name of god or a demonic signature, and is used in magical evocation. Its etymology is actually unrelated to the concept of "five", sharing its root with the words "pendant", "depend", etc, presumably because it was generally hung about the neck. A unicursal star is a star that can be drawn with a Eulerian path (i.e. in a single stroke without lifting the pen from the paper and without visiting any vertex twice). There are many examples of these, including the pentagram and the rather odder "unicursal hexagram" (see Thelema). A star polygon is probably synonymous with a unicursal star, however I don't know whether irregular figures like the unicursal hexagram qualify as star polygons. The Arabic star I am not so familiar with, however the article informs me that it is the typographical mark "*" and can be displayed with varying numbers of points (and may at times not even be "star" shaped, but be made of disconnected blobs). Support for my info regarding pentagon, pentagram, pentacle, pentalpha and pentangle can be found in the discussion pages of Pentacle and Pentagram, and should also be clear from reading the articles. Fuzzypeg☻ 01:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, your strikeout and addition of quote came just as I was trying to submit my comment, so my comment addresses the struck section. Who are you quoting, because they're wrong. If this is in support of your stance, please cite. Fuzzypeg☻ 01:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Star polygon. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I quote the article "More common is a five-pointed star obtained by filling in a pentagram, i.e. not showing any separation between the inner pentagon and the five isosceles triangles." --evrik 18:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The text you're quoting is indicating that this five-pointed star is not a pentagram, but is more common than the pentagram. I actually just reworded it (before I read this comment) because it had been shifted from its original location in the article and was (rather confusedly) being used to support the inclusion of solid five-pointed star material into the article. Fuzzypeg☻ 01:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Quotes from the Pocket Oxford Dictionary 1978: "a 5-pointed star formed by producing sides of pentagon both ways until they meet, formerly used as a mystic symbol" and Merriam-Webster Online: "a figure of a 5-pointed star usually made with alternate points connected by a continuous line and used as a magic or occult symbol; also : a similar 6-pointed star (as a Solomon's seal)". Unfortunately these are both a little confusing, the Oxford because the explanation is so cryptic (it's describing the straight lines of a pentagon being extended at both ends until they meet other similarly extended lines) and the M-W because it includes the possibility of a 6-pointed star! I'm at work at the moment and don't have access to the full OED. Fuzzypeg☻ 05:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Compromise? I say we leave it as it is until someone wriets the article, here. --evrik 16:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable, especially since this is starting to seem like an editorial dispute, though I can't figure out what the dispute is about. But while this discussion has been up we've had a couple of reverts and counter-reverts of five-point star material added to Pentagram. I'll construct a stub, looking at some other symbol page such as Cross for guidance. The page here has good starting info. Fuzzypeg☻ 21:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't know the protocol on this. Should I wait for this debate to be judged, or just forge ahead? Unless someone says go, I'll wait. Fuzzypeg☻ 00:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be WP:BOLD! Stubbing a redirect is usually a good idea, unless said redirect is speediable. BigNate37_T·C 10:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Change redirect to Mullet (heraldry). Just to mention another option. Eugène van der Pijll 14:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to Star (symbol) per Fuzzypeg. BigNate37_T·C

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

The nominated redirect was deleted. Perhaps this is due to somebody pressing "\" instead of "←Backspace" on the keyboard, due to close proximity of the keys. — Jul. 11, '06 [09:43] <freak|talk>

Joh\n Stewart → Jon Stewart

• The redirect page name is dreadfully spelt wrong.
• Who searches Joh\n Stewart?
• Subject doesnt appear to be that notable anyway.

Created by Marudubshinki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) don't know if the users bot malfuctioned or something:S.

Could it be speedied? Andeh 21:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• dele/te incredibly implausible typo. Viridae^Talk 23:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible, mayhap, but an anon did in fact make it, which is why I created a redirect. --maru (talk) contribs 01:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was deleted by Freakofnurture --Zoz (t) 22:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia strategy → Wikipedia:Wikipedia strategy

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

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

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

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

List of unpopular tactics on Wikipedia → Wikipedia strategy

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

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

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

The nominated redirect was deleted. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• "Cross-namespace redirect" is inadequate a reason for deletion on its own there being nothing better than a style guideline suggesting against them. There should be a few tests that people apply before using Ctrl+V to make a nomination:
  1. Is the redirect sitting on a title that could ever be a valid article about some encyclopedia topic?
  2. Is it likely that a reader has ever typed the name in the search box expecting to be taken to an encyclopedia article?
  3. Is the redirect an obvious mistaken creation with other intent, or vandalism or similar?
  4. Is it likely that, when typing the name in the search box or clicking the link, the reader was expecting to be taken to its other-namespace target (i.e. has the redirect ever helped a clueless newbie?)
  5. Is it reasonable to suppose that, given the length of existence of such a redirect, the mirrors have worked out either not to include it or found some other technical solution of their own?
• Note that redirects are never returned on Special:Random and anyone clicking Special:Randomredirect deserves what they get, having asked for it. The nominator here fails to deal with any part of any of these reasons, as do the other nominators who suppose that a robotic "CNR del" nomination is in any way adequate. Keep, per failing tests 1, 2 and 3 and passing tests 4 and 5. -Splash - tk 16:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  This nom is actually close to a violation of POINT. I only brought it here so it has a higher chance of not getting speedied again. However, since *FD isn't a vote the adequacy of the nomination is quite irrelevant. We aren't discussing (well, we are, but it is rather a meta-discussion) the nomination, but if the redirect should be deleted. Personally, I don't think "CNR del" is much reasoning, but it is a reason for deletion. Kotepho 18:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  We can discuss the nom in just the same way as we can any other comment; any comment that amounts to what your nomination does is inadequate, and it's important to be clear on the point. I do not agree that it is a reason for deletion. It is a two- or three-word reason that some people think is enough to delete such redirects (despite the controversy surrounding many of them). It is not, by itself, or by common consent, a sufficient reason for deletion. -Splash - tk 19:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Some people think "cross-namespace redirect" is ipso facto a reason for deletion, others disagree. I did not try to imply that we cannot discuss the nomination, just that we do not have a nomination and then everyone votes on it. As such, badgering people that think that such a nomination or statement is not meaningless is not productive. Your tests are generally good ones, but I would include "Does this redirect have incoming external links?" (per http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI, Link rot). Google finds at least one example, and I know I've seen a citation in an academic paper that used a CNR (but I'm not sure if it was this or one of the other permutations, or even about "be bold"). Kotepho 19:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, after fixing all references to it. -- nae'blis _(talk) 17:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nomination is inadequate, insubstantial and what there is of it is little more than rhetoric. Why would one want to rely solely on that to inform one's own thinking? -Splash - tk 18:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This comment by MartinRe on another page is very instructive: "See Wikipedia:Verbatim copying where the rules for mirrors are laid out. The main text section explains that for a CNR, the mirror has a choice - either leave it in, which will be a red link, or remove it as a link to a non-copied document, which is 'legally questionable'. Putting mirrors in a situation where they need to to choose between those two options is the main difficulty, in my view." --Cyde↔Weys 20:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is incorrect in interpretation. That document (apart from being a little speculative in style) deals with the Wikipedia as a "Collection of Documents". It invalidates itself in terms if the pedia is to be viewed as a single, whole work. It describes that "Each Document comprises...". The page describes what people must do with a single article, not with the whole project. A mirror remains free to not include the cross-namespace redirect page in its entirety without having any trouble with the page you mention. -Splash - tk 22:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And how much extra work do you want to push off onto the mirrors? Do you really want each one of them to have to go in and remove all of the cross-namespace redirects? That's so inefficient. We should just get rid of all of them at the source, to save effort and prevent problems. There's no legitimate reason to have a redirect for every Wikipedia:XXXX page at XXXX. Namespaces were created in the first place to separate out the encyclopedic content from the non-encyclopedic content. Why short-circuit this division? --Cyde↔Weys 23:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because it is useful to the discussions that lie behind the construction of the content that the readers and the mirrors use. What the mirrors need to do is up to them, really. It's not a cause for saying to people trying simply to have an efficient discussion that no, they must reach around their heads to touch their noses in case a mirror finds it easier that way. I do not think I have said that each one of them should have such a cross-namespace redirect, and there are some example further up today's page of such that are not useful, being targetted at 'minority sports'. I don't see what problems deleting all of them is supposed to prevent. -Splash - tk 23:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Now you're just being unreasonable. Deleting cross-namespace redirects is not remotely comparable to asking you to reach around your head to touch your nose. --Cyde↔Weys 02:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment One problem that CNR's cause that deleting will help prevent is that CNR's make encyclopedia searchs return non-encyclopedic results, potentially confusing readers. For example, searching the encyclopedia for a term "page update" (which is hardly a wikipedia specific term) will return CNR's as the first four results, and we should not be requiring readers to sift through non-encyclopedic background noise when they were explicitly searching the encyclopedia. So, in that sense, CNR's fail your test 2 above, as a reader can be offered that page when searching for encyclopedic content. Regards, MartinRe 11:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • The real problem is when newbies type a Wikipedia specific term into that little box on the left used for searching, yes, Wikipedia - and come upon not the redirect they were searching for but the extremely unhelpful "deletedpage" template. That's still metadata in the article space except that now it is useless metadata. I don't care so much whether userbox is a redirect or a redlink - but it does bother me that it's a bluelink to a completely useless article-space page. Haukur 12:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Indeed, {{deletedpage}} is worse than a CNR (which I believe is worse than a redlink), but as you can see from the deletion log, without {{deletedpage}} it gets recreated again and again, so it seems to need an explicit "this pages has been deleted, do not re-create message". So, uness there is a way to both remove the {{deletedpage}} and also ensure the page won't be re-created, that's the situation we're stuck with. (btw, yes, the little box on the left can be used to search wikipedia as well as the encyclopedia, the problem is what with CNR's, when searching just the encyclopedia, it also returns wikipedia results, which is not good) Regards, MartinRe 12:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • We only have this bunch of {deletedpage}s because some people decided they were the best way of enforcing their view of this topic. -Splash - tk 15:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Indeed, get rid of the deletedpage nonsense that is a worse selfreference than any CNR. If you want to prevent the redirect from coming back, put it on your watchlist. -- nae'blis _(talk) 16:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Splash, for Userbox, I'd agree with you, as there has been no rfd for that redirect (so G4 doesn't apply), but other CNR's have been rfd'd, yet still recreated more than once. Yes, it can be added to watchlists, but how many times should something be deleted before a {{deletedpage}} is needed? MartinRe 18:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Anyone searching for that page will know it is in the wikipedia namespace and needs to be have "Wikipedia:" tacked onto the front. As someone else said in one of these debates (paraphrasing) "cross namespace redirects are like people coming into a building then accidentally falling into the pipework under the floor because the engineers thought cracks in the floor would be a good idea". For those arguing that "cross namespace redirect" is not a sufficient reason for deletion. When should we delete a redirect? #5 "It is a cross-space redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. Note that while "WP:" shortcut redirects (like WP:RFD) are technically in the main article space, they are typically treated as their own "pseudo-namespace". All "articles" beginning with "WP:" are in fact redirects.". I see no reason why an argument should be fleshed out when there is already sufficient argument in the policy. Viridae^Talk 23:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The thing-that-is-not-a-policy does not argue the point, it merely states it unadorned. WP:ASR argues the case, but is nothing more substantive than a style guideline, despite protestations to the contrary. Further, in cases such as this (and not in all cases) the peculiar analogy to a collapsing building site is misguided because of the tests 2 and 4 I suggested further up. -Splash - tk 23:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is first and formemost an encyclopedia, and therefore if people enter a search term without the "wikipedia" prefix, we should return encyclopedic content by default. Making it easier for a subset of editors does not outweigh creating a standalone encyclopedia for the readers. In my view, this also applies for terms such as these, as the creation of articles in the main space that discuss or point to wikipedia internals should be disouraged, regardless of the likelyhood (or not) of being an encyclopedic term (at the moment). Regards, MartinRe 09:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Also, this does failpass test 2 in so far as that when searching for terms such as "page update" (which is not a wikipedia specific term, it could be memory related, for example) the first four search results are redirects to project space, of which the top one is the very redirect we're discussing now. Regards, MartinRe 10:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Unambiguous keep. This is where the article existed before the creation of the Wikipedia-space. It has useful history. Any external links to this policy page (and there are likely to be some by researchers of social software) will risk being broken unnecessarily.
  By the way, the comment above about the effect on mirrors is irrelevant since this redirect is not used in any articles, only in Talk spaces - pages not generally mirrored. Rossami (talk) 06:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rossami. Note also [7]. --Goobergunch|? 07:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No-one will ever stumble on that one unless she's looking for the project page. Haukur 12:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment *cough*, see my point above, where searching for "page update" (not a wikipedia specific term) in this case will get this as the top result (and another three cross space redirect afterwards). If the top results when explicitly searching an enclyopedia are not enclyopedic results, there is something a little wrong, in my view. Regards, MartinRe 13:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point. Our internal search is annoyingly braindead. But if you turn a CNR into a "deleted page" it will still show up in the internal search, like "userboxes" does, so you haven't gained anything. Haukur 14:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not a good example, however (and there may be some mileage in your argument, too). It doesn't matter how you use e.g. Google to search en.wikipedia.org for "page update" [8] or [9], you get not much of use. Whether this applies to all such redirects I obviously don't know, but it doesn't seem to apply usefully to this one. -Splash - tk 15:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, not the best example, but it was intended to show that these pages do affect people other than those who type in the full page title. I'd agree that anyone who types in the full title is looking for a WP: page, but since a) the WP:link is shorter, and b) it can negativily affect normal encyclopedia readers, I believe that the cons of CNR's outweight the pros, for this, and above reasons. Regards, MartinRe 18:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • PS Another thought comes to mind, that just because I can't think of a "good" search term that returns these redirects, does not mean that they don't exist (absence of proof is not proof of absence) so I don't think we should limit deletion to those that someone manages to think of a good search term for. ("bold page", "updating in bold" are other terms that return this redirect, for example). In general, though, I think the fact that a search that explicitly specified encyclopedia content can return non-encyclopedic results is a bad thing and should be avoided. Regards, MartinRe 19:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete. Be bold in updating pages is clearly not the name of any possible encyclopedia article, and for that reason it shouldn't appear even as a redirect. Rbraunwa 19:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete to keep the article and the Wikipedia namespace separated. I think Splash made some good points, but the cons mentioned above by MartinRe and Cyde still outweigh the pros. --Zoz (t) 15:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Wikipedia. The Wikipedia article has a section on that. Invitatious (talk) 22:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was deleted. — Jul. 11, '06 [09:46] <freak|talk>

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

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

• Delete per nom. -- nae'blis _(talk) 17:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This comment by MartinRe on another page is very instructive: "See Wikipedia:Verbatim copying where the rules for mirrors are laid out. The main text section explains that for a CNR, the mirror has a choice - either leave it in, which will be a red link, or remove it as a link to a non-copied document, which is 'legally questionable'. Putting mirrors in a situation where they need to to choose between those two options is the main difficulty, in my view." --Cyde↔Weys 20:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Implausible search and CNR. Invitatious 02:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Mongolian mare milk → Kumis

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

• Keep. It's entirely plausible that someone might not remember the name for the Mongolian drink made from fermented mare's milk, and therefore type "Mongolian mare milk" into the search box. It's made clear at the beginning of the article that kumis is not the milk itself, but a product made by processing the milk, so there is no chance for confusion. --Mathew5000 12:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Matthew5000 - I make plenty of redirects when single-topic searches fail to get me directly to an article (the search results page on WP is NOT user-friendly). -- nae'blis _(talk) 17:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep fine redir - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Matthew5000. --Zoz (t) 15:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per nae'blis and mathew5000.... the wikipeida search results are HORRIFIC, and I think that's the reason that redirects that may appear to be obscure or unlikely are created on a daily basis. --Aknorals 04:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was keep. This is simply a case of Party X says "this is implausible" and Party Y saying, "no it isn't". Now, when we consider that: a) redirects are cheap b) Someone made the spelling error, so it's not so implausible as to be speediable; and particularly c) ties go to the runner. By the way, nobody needs to slap Cyde for his "slippery slope" argument; I'll do that myself later, so save yourselves the bother. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Delete per nom. Ardenn 05:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Redirects are cheap; this spelling error may be unlikely but it is not implausible.--Mathew5000 06:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The redirect addresses a double spelling error ("Politicial" and "politiicians") so the odds of someone landing there are pretty slim. --Ckatz 07:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I realize that, but the criterion for deletion is implausibility, not improbability. --Mathew5000 11:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - If we allow bizarrely improbable misspellings like this one to stick around we could have over a billion redirect pages. --Cyde↔Weys 20:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: How many redirects does RfD delete per week, on average? Twenty? Thirty? At that rate, it will be many lifetimes before RfD spares Wikipedia "over a billion" redirect pages. I am not suggesting that somebody sit down and create, for every article, redirects for every combination of two plausible typos. But when we already have a redirect for one such combination, as here, why should we delete it? What harm is it doing if we just leave it be? --Mathew5000 03:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete when they don't get the page they were looking for they will look back at the search term, realised they made a typo and correct it. I really doubt this quallifies as a common misspelling. Viridae^Talk 23:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Plausible typo. jgp (T|C) 03:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really? You realize there are two typos in the given link? I'm not going to make a point, but if I wanted to, I could go make thousands of redirects to Wikipedia:WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada, each with exactly two misspellings. --Cyde↔Weys 12:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you did that, you would be spending quite a lot of your time in order to create a minuscule benefit for the usability of Wikipedia. However, although minuscule, it would still be a benefit. What is the purpose of deleting those thousands of hypothetical redirects (or this one actual redirect)? --Mathew5000 19:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree, having a ratio of misspelled redirects to articles of a million to one would be a terrible idea and would be of very real detriment to the encyclopedia. Search results very much depend on what kind of pages exist, and if you have a thousand different variations on "WikiProject Political Parties" and you're trying to do a site search on "political", you're going to get hundreds of listings of pure, redundant garbage. If you're so worried about misspellings the correct solution would be to change the Wikipedia search function so that it's fuzzy and takes into account possible misspellings (like Google). But creating, en masse, thousands of redirects from misspellings from each page would be the absolute worst way to go about it. --Cyde↔Weys 02:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Implausibile typo. --Zoz (t) 15:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete. In a purely policy-based way, it meets -none- of the reasons on this RfD page for deletion or keeping it however it passes CSD R3 (depending on your definition of recent) which states Redirects as a result of an implausible typo that were recently created. To address Mathew5000's comment that "the criterion for deletion is implausibility, not improbability", check wikt:implausible and you'll see it lists it as unlikely, dubious, not plausible. Well, it definately is unlikely, and it is definately wikt:dubious (defined as uncertain, doubtful, questionable). BigNate37_T·C 19:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: With all due respect to Wiktionary, that is a poor definition of "implausible". The concept of plausibility/implausibility has to do with whether an explanation being offered for an event or situation is believable. For example, suppose the tax authorities ask me where I got the million dollars in my bank account. If I say "I saved it up from three years working as a schoolteacher" that is implausible because schoolteachers just don't make that much money. But if I say "I won it in the lottery", that's quite plausible as an explanation for why I have a million dollars, even though winning the lottery in general is an improbable event. --Mathew5000 10:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Well, your logic makes sense but I don't feel good about accepting a definition for a term that can't be verified with a reference—if that is how implausible is to be interpreted regarding RfD nominations, then it should be written down somewhere. Also, did you mean to say that is a poor definition of implausible, rather than saying it is not? BigNate37_T·C 21:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes I did. Thanks; I've corrected it now.--Mathew5000 01:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per BigNate37. googl t 17:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Muhammad Taqfiq Nasim Pasha → Muhammad Tawfiq Nasim Pasha

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

• Keep. Redirects from typos are good. Note that q is next to w on the qwerty keyboard, so this typo is not at all implausible. --Mathew5000 11:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mathew5000. Viridae^Talk 23:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Algore → Al Gore

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

• Strong DeleteKitteneatkitten 03:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per nominator's suggestion that this derogative term is used on a long running nationally syndicated radio show. According to Wikipedia:Redirects_for_deletion/Precedents section 1.7, this sort of redirect should be kept if the nickname is widely known. Dgies 03:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per noms own statements that it's a nickname used on a widely available radio show. Just because their neocons doesnt mean they shouldnt be able to get to Al Gore's article. Hell, it may help them learn a thing or two. -M^ask 03:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete your precedents section actually runs 7 to 4 against. NPOV is a pillar and should trump other considerations. Thatcher131 04:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:NPOV. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment NPOV isn't at issue here. Calcutta redirects to Kolkata, despite the Indians making it very clear that they dont wish the city to be called that anymore and find it offensive. The issue with redirects is usefulness. Is this a term someone would type in trying to get information? I believe it is, yes, so it should lead them to information. Now, if the article were written from a paticular drug addicts point of view, it would be an issue. NPOV is a strawman argument in this case. -M^ask 06:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In that case, I'll withdraw my argument. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 06:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep UsefulForPeopleSearchingWithABrokenSpacebar Regards, MartinRe 10:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per MartinRe. --Billpg 11:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment also per AKMask. --Billpg 14:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, plausible redirect, and not in itself derogatory. Article should mention the nickname briefly in context, if it doesn't already. -- nae'blis _(talk) 15:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If it's used as an insult, it is derogatory. The only justification would be if it were also a common typo. But if this is included as a typo for "Al Gore", what about the thousands of other possible typos without spaces for other articles? Rbraunwa 17:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This ignores one of the uses of WP: as popular culture explicator. If a Limbaugh fan is ranting about Algore, and it is impossible to tell by context whether he means Gore, Algol, or Al-jazeera, WP should tell me. Septentrionalis 02:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It looks like a common nickname for Gore. jgp (T|C) 07:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it is perjorative, but it's in common usage. - Richardcavell 06:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dubya clause. --Zoz (t) 15:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Even aside from possible pejoratives permitted under redirect policy, this is a plausible typo. —Centrx→talk • 22:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• Delete per nom. Mangojuice^talk 04:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete to the highest degree. The editor who made it appears to have no use for good faith or useful edits. Ryulong 05:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Fofana was the ringleader in the Halimi kidnapping-murder, so the redirect makes excellent sense. Are you saying that you want to write an article on the soccer player? --JJay 03:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, major figure in the Halimi murder. Do go ahead and make it an article on that soccer player if you want to, but then you should add a disambiguation link to Ilan Halimi at the top. Sandstein 05:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep irrespective of the player - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was Speedy deleted --Cyde↔Weys 13:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What Wikipedia is not → Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not

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

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

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

The nominated redirect was Speedy deleted -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Delete. It's nonsensical, and an implausible mistake. jgp (T|C) 05:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as implausible typo (R3). Invitatious (talk) 14:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Anyone is welcome to do that but, until such time, the redirect ought to be deleted and its presence actually discourages an article from being created there. —Centrx→talk • 05:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Centrx. -- NORTH ^talk 01:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The nominated redirect was speedy delete as vandalism / implausible typo. Kimchi.sg 16:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this → Haiducii

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

• Delete looks like vandalism to me, too. -- Scientizzle 16:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was kept, clearly a misguided or bad faith nomination. — Jul. 11, '06 [10:17] <freak|talk>

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

• Delete -- a recent WP:POINT creation by SPUI during a (continuing) Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 8, within minutes after his CfD nomination. The CfD is not going well for him. It's parethetically disambiguated, so an unlikely accidental link. (I've never understood this yearning by some US folks for royalty.) It's for a decades obsolete terminology, and not used anywhere in *pedia, or in official Ontario government, and they took the old signs down long ago (circa 1993). Kill it while it's still young! --William Allen Simpson 04:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion. This is an unnecessary redirect. Though it's true that historically it was the proper name of the system, nobody, but nobody, ever calls them that anymore (not even the Ministry of Transportation), and nobody, but nobody is ever going to type the phrase "King's Highway (Ontario)" into the search box. And no article links to that title; the only direct links to King's Highway (Ontario) are discussions about the necessity of it that have taken place within the two days that the redirect has existed. As part of the same campaign, SPUI also tried to get away with retitling Thousand Islands Parkway with a highway number that was removed from it almost 40 years ago. I really think he'd best step away and let the people who actually know something about the state of Ontario's highway system decide what's best here. (Oh, and further, I should probably also note that SPUI has felt somehow entitled to label anybody who disagreed with his position in this dispute an "idiot".) Bearcat 04:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Really unnecessary. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Bearcat. WP:POINT. David | Talk 09:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Luna Santin 09:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong strong keep, as should be bloody obvious. "However, avoid deleting such redirects if: They would aid accidental linking and make the creation of duplicate articles less likely. In other words, redirects with no incoming links are not candidates for deletion on those grounds because they are of benefit to the browsing user." --SPUI (T - C) 10:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Be bold and do it, then! Anything we'd expect to have some put into the search engine should be a page, stub, or redirect, not a redlink. -- nae'blis _(talk) 21:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm working on a disambig page, at User:BigNate37/Ilia (disambiguation) for now. BigNate37_T·C 23:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep this article has a deep revision history, partially explaining why the redirect goes where it does. Elijah is a variant of Ilia, FYI. BigNate37_T·C 23:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, your disambig page is much better than the redirect. I never got around to doing one, but yours is better than I would have put together. Copy the disambig over the redirect, and we're fine, I think. -- Avi 23:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close, disambiguationalised. BigNate37_T·C 23:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was deleted, roundhouse kick forthcoming. — Jul. 16, '06 [15:03] <freak|talk>

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

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

• Delete, and roundhouse kick the editors who keep creating these Wikipedia space redirects -- Renesis13 17:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as implausible typo (CSD R3). Invitatious (talk) 03:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Zoz (t) 12:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Do not delete - Actually a Google search pulls up a fair number of links [11] [12] ; would aid in searches. -- nae'blis _(talk) 16:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per nae'blis. Spacepotato 00:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - yes, I think this is a correct redirect. - Richardcavell 06:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was speedy deleted, malformed parenthetical disambiguation. There was some edit history due to a cut-and-paste move to the correct title, but I've merged it together. — Jul. 13, '06 [03:32] <freak|talk>

Tao(disambiguation) → Tao (disambiguation)

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

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

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

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

• Delete, silly. —Keenan Pepper 04:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Semordnilap. --Mathew5000 05:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds fine to me. Kotepho 07:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to semordnilap. jgp (T|C) 11:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the nom is fine with retargeting, and the retargeting has been performed, can this be speedy closed? jgp (T|C) 15:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Semordnilap as above, I've been bold and made the edit. Thanks/wangi 11:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Don't change this target unless this discussion is closed. Thanks. -- ADNghiem501 09:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Never mind. I changed the target back you did. The nom. hasn't been over yet. -- ADNghiem501 10:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's called commonsense - there's an obvious solution here that's not disputed. What does extend bureaucracy gain? Thanks/wangi 11:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep retargeted to Semordnilap. --Zoz (t) 15:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• WTF, we have an article about this made-up crap? In that case, it should obviously be retargeted, but I have half a mind to put Semordnilap up for deletion. —Keenan Pepper 17:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a calculator. --Mathew5000 03:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Mathew5000. --Zoz (t) 12:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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