Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 4

February 4

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 4, 2015.

SimCity 6

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 17:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The target is the fifth installment in the SimCity video game series, not the 6th. Thus, the redirect is misleading. Also, there do not seem to be any retargeting options for this redirect as the 6th installment has yet to be officially announced, so it poses a WP:CRYSTALBALL issue. Steel1943 (talk) 22:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - misleading redirect, per Steel1943's explanation. Ivanvector (talk) 22:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 01:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or retarget to SimCity as the expansion to the 5th game is documented in the 5th game's article, so some could construe it as the 6th. Also, usually, one would find sequel information in the last iteration before a separate article is created. Alternately, the series article features all games, so would cover all interpretations of what "6th" would mean --- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 06:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Covering what something "would" or "could" mean is pure speculation, and potentially violates two aspects of what Wikipedia is not: WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:NOTNEWS. That, and I believe that EA (or whoever chooses the titles for this series) has been doing a substantial job in making it clear what "number title" each title is in the series. Steel1943 (talk) 15:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not an article, it's a redirect, so as long as it is a viable search term, then it works. There's no CRYSTAL involved. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 04:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They did, up to SimCity 4, but since then they haven't. Both this game and "SimCity Societies" are EA releases but are not numbered. Whether or not Societies is a major release in the series or not seems to be open for debate. Ivanvector (talk) 15:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Thou wouldst but couldst". Shakespeare, I think. Macbeth:
Slightly wrong, "I wouldst thou couldst".[1] Si Trew (talk) 00:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, actually. The section about this game in the SimCity article calls this the "sixth major release", counting SimCity Societies which I wasn't aware of and isn't in the navbar. However, SimCity (2013 video game) calls it the latest major release since SimCity 4, making it the fifth major release. I think that clarification is needed, however since it is apparently reasonable that some readers might consider this the sixth release, the redirect should be kept. Ivanvector (talk) 15:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this makes sense especially because it is considered as the sixth major release. --Lenticel (talk) 01:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ivanvector's logic seems like those riddles where one ends up being one's own grandfather, but is right all the same. Si Trew (talk) 22:19, 5 February 2015 (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.

Air Control (video game)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 19:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per result at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 3#Air Control. To ensure that the attributions at Air Control related to its target, they have been moved to Air Control (video game). Per the previous discussion, the subject was claimed not notable enough or mentioned enough to exist as a search term. Steel1943 (talk) 21:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Wakes up) which previous discussion; You've lost me there. Si Trew (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Si Trew, the discussion is linked in the first sentence of my nomination statement above. Steel1943 (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete well since the video game has nothing to do with ATC and isn't notable enough for either list of video games notable for negative reception or its own article, I guess there is nowhere else to redirect it to. good888 (talk) 21:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ditto to what Steel1943 said. This act of appeasement of nothing in particular, obviously didn't make any sense. Thank you. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 21:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not mentioned at target, and likely shouldn't be. It isn't "notable for poor reception", it's just not notable. Ivanvector (talk) 22:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Lenticel (talk) 00:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Are we talking about that Air Control that Markiplier once played? For that there are some sources: Gamespot PCGamer 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 12:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think so, but see the previous discussion; the article on that game was merged due to consensus that it wasn't notable. You're welcome to make a draft or something, but you should probably be aware of the previous AfD if you're going to proceed. --BDD (talk) 14:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'm only trying to get into context and not interested in keeping. It is just a very primitive game that got just loud enough and picked up by only two of the larger outlets. The list has 55 games and 276 cites, so a good benchmark is to have at least 5. Delete 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 00:26, 6 February 2015 (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.

The Beatles/Please Please Me

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep as {{R from old history}} Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Beatles/Please Please Me → Please Please Me  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Deletion. This isn't a good redirect because it is too close to the search term The Beatles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bossanoven (talk • contribs) 00:03, 29 January 2015

@Bossanoven:Could you clarify please? What do you mean by "too close"? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's just not a good search term IMO because it starts with "The Beatles". That is confusing. - Bossanoven (talk) 01:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not confusing at all. It's perfectly clear to me that the Beatles have a song called Please Please Me. Keep. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - {{R from page move}} way back in 2002. I think this might be a relic of an old Wikipedia file structure but that's not really of interest to this discussion. Ivanvector (talk) 05:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment back then Wikipedia did not support categories, so it is indeed an artifact of how Wikipedia used to be organized WP:SUBPAGE -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 08:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No incoming links, no edit history present on this redirect that needs to be retained per WP:A, and appears as a subpage (which is frowned upon in the article namespace.) Steel1943 (talk) 06:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - on second thought I think Steel1943 is right on this one, even though we usually keep R's from page moves. I fixed the link to the stats tool - there have been 5 hits in the last month which suggest this isn't in use at all. Ivanvector (talk) 16:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep mostly per Ivanvector's original rationale. It is perhaps an unlikely search term, but a legitimate {{R from old history}} (its redirect {{R from subpage}} is more accurate) and unambiguous. --BDD (talk) 16:49, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Steel1943 and because it is an implausible search term. Tavix |  Talk  05:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BDD. There is no benefit to the deletion of old history, particularly history that has been harmlessly existing for over a decade. The search term is unlikely but not implausible and the redirect takes you to the content the searcher (or more likely link-follower) is unambiguously looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 11:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. See Category:Redirects with old history; we keep such redirects as a standard practice. Deleting this would be as senseless as deleting a CamelCase redirect. Nyttend (talk) 14:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as {{R from old history}} (perhaps ancient history), and tag as such. Si Trew (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2015 (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.

Ponyfag

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was The current link is clearly shown to be inappropiate. No real evidence is presented that this is a significant term in itself. It is clearly derogatory. Thus: delete based on arguments below, unless / until some compelling evidence of significance is provided. Guy (Help!) 23:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ponyfag → wiktionary:Special:Search/ponyfag  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Not currently being used by any article, doesn't serve any purpose besides denigration. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Suggest Retarget to My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic fandom#Fan activities, which is also the target for Brony. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Oiyarbepsy. A similar term to Brony, should target to the same place. Ivanvector (talk) 05:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Oiyarbepsy --Lenticel (talk) 00:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's not mentioned at the My Little Pony article, and presumably anyone familiar with the term also knows to search for that or "brony". So as long as it's not a term that's discussed anywhere, it's needlessly offensive. --BDD (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As BDD said, it has nothing to do with anything. It's just an epithet. Thank you. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 21:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment is this actually offensive? Some of the -f-suffic-terms are used endearingly within their own communities. Retarget to the fandom section, to match Brony -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 05:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know "newfag" and "oldfag" are used that way on 4chan, but it's hard to imagine many people self-identifying as "ponyfags". --BDD (talk) 16:20, 25 February 2015 (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.

Furfag

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Swarm X 03:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furfag → wiktionary:Special:Search/furfag  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Not currently being used by any article, doesn't serve any purpose besides denigration. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Previously discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 June 27 and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 July 19. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Furry fandom per WP:NOTCENSORED. It is a term used in the context of furry subculture; it should target there. It was previously deleted as an offensive redirect but it does not seem to be used in that context among furry enthusiasts, and it probably should not have been speedy deleted anyway. Ivanvector (talk) 05:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Ivanvector --Lenticel (talk) 00:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's not mentioned at the furry article. So as long as it's not a term that's discussed anywhere, it's needlessly offensive. However, I think this is less neologistic—relatively speaking—than "ponyfag". It's unlikely, but I can conceive of someone encountering "furfag" and not knowing what it refers to. In this case, it might be better to incorporate it into the Furry fandom page, at which point it would be fine to retarget there. --BDD (talk) 16:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment is this actually offensive? some of these -f-suffix-terms are used endearingly within their own communities. 'Retarget to the fandom article -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 05:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'm not familiar with "ponyfag", but this one really is pejorative. Whether the term has been at all reclaimed I can't say. --BDD (talk) 14:33, 6 February 2015 (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.

Mark Wellington

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Dominion of Melchizedek#Mark Logan Pedley. --BDD (talk) 19:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mark Wellington → Pearlasia Gamboa  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Procedural; possible delete. User:BDD nominated this for deletion a month ago, along with several other redirects to the same target; I've deleted the ones that got unanimous support for deletion, but this one was convoluted, so I figured that it would be safer just to relist it. The original nomination rationale was "There are still many spurious redirects to Pearlasia Gamboa that need to be cleaned out. These are pseudonyms used by her husband (his article has been redirected to Dominion of Melchizedek), so they're unlikely search terms for her. Some of them additionally present WP:BLP issues." While I'm calling this a relist, it ought to be treated as a new discussion; anyone who participated in the original nomination, including BDD, is welcome to vote in this one. Nyttend (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Dominion of Melchizedek where it is at least discussed. --Lenticel (talk) 00:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. For hours at the back of my head this has been bugging me to try to cryptically do it as a Plimsoll line, as some kind of measure of a Plimsoll shoe relative to a wellington boot (so that such latter boot would be "Marked" in chalked as being so many plimsolls when one fell in a puddle). I really should stop trying to make these cryptic connexions but every I dunno once in twenty some good comes out of it, you have to suffer the others. "Mark Twain" for example is suggested that he used that pen-name because it was calls from the riverboat pilots calling "Mark One, Mark Twain", which is a measure of width not displacement, but some good may come of this. Si Trew (talk) 00:34, 6 February 2015 (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.

David KorMAN

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 19:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural; possible delete. User:BDD nominated this for deletion a month ago, along with several other redirects to the same target; I've deleted the ones that got unanimous support for deletion, but this one was convoluted, so I figured that it would be safer just to relist it. The original nomination rationale was "There are still many spurious redirects to Pearlasia Gamboa that need to be cleaned out. These are pseudonyms used by her husband (his article has been redirected to Dominion of Melchizedek), so they're unlikely search terms for her. Some of them additionally present WP:BLP issues." While I'm calling this a relist, it ought to be treated as a new discussion; anyone who participated in the original nomination, including BDD, is welcome to vote in this one. Nyttend (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete last discussion, there's no mention in the article about this alias. --Lenticel (talk) 00:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nuff said. Si Trew (talk) 00:36, 6 February 2015 (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.

David Korman

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 19:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural; possible delete. User:BDD nominated this for deletion a month ago, along with several other redirects to the same target; I've deleted the ones that got unanimous support for deletion, but this one was convoluted, so I figured that it would be safer just to relist it. The original nomination rationale was "There are still many spurious redirects to Pearlasia Gamboa that need to be cleaned out. These are pseudonyms used by her husband (his article has been redirected to Dominion of Melchizedek), so they're unlikely search terms for her. Some of them additionally present WP:BLP issues." While I'm calling this a relist, it ought to be treated as a new discussion; anyone who participated in the original nomination, including BDD, is welcome to vote in this one. Nyttend (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete last discussion, there's no mention in the article about this alias. --Lenticel (talk) 00:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nuff said. Si Trew (talk) 00:36, 6 February 2015 (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.

Suicide in the military

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Veteran#Suicide. --BDD (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a recent redirect resulting from a page move, so it shouldn't just be deleted, but the topic implied by the redirect is much broader than the target article. I'm not sure where its best to point this though - the main suicide article mentions military briefly in at least two different contexts (suicide attacks, and suicides following defeat) and not in detail in either place. Military suicide is a redirect to suicide attack which links to this redirect as a hatnote, while History of suicide#Military suicide covers suicide attacks, suicide rather than defeat and suicide rather than capture. As far as I have been able to tell, only the current target deals with suicide by (former) military personnel outside of conflict and/or in modern times. Thryduulf (talk) 12:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's also Veteran#Health effects of military service and treatment for veterans, which mentions the word three times. Fgnievinski (talk) 13:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Globalize - suicide amongst military veterans is certainly not limited to the United States military. This should target to an article which offers a broad, not-nation-specific coverage of the subject. I think retargeting to Fgnievinski's target is the way to accomplish this. Ivanvector (talk) 15:49, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What Ivanvector said. Obviously, we should not merely redirect this to an article about one country. At best, it should be a disambiguation page to any number of articles which deal with military aspects of suicide, possibly including even suicide attacks (kamakaze, suicide bombing, etc.). But to redirect this to one article on one aspect of suicide in one country is a bad idea. --Jayron32 16:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fgnievinski: I would prefer your original suggestion. The #Suicide section seems to suffer from the same U.S. bias issue. The larger section is a bit better in that regard. Ivanvector (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ivanvector: The whole article is tagged to be globalized; furthermore, Veteran#Suicide starts with the UK (then ends with the U.S.). It's a short paragraph, admittedly, but I don't think the target should conflate issues of homelessness and imprisonment, as in the original longer paragraph. Fgnievinski (talk) 15:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not great, but you're probably right. Ivanvector (talk) 15:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "Shot in the foot" would seem an odd way to look for this, as would "honourable discharge", but both have been used as euphemisms in obituaries if I recall correctly (mostly during WWI), but I would have a hard time right now to RS these. Si Trew (talk) 22:15, 5 February 2015 (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.

User talk:Fatemi127

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep and convert to soft redirect. Drop me a line if I can help sort out the technical anomaly. An admin can also feel free to be bold and delete and recreate. --BDD (talk) 18:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion. User talk inappropriately created in article namespace and inappropriately redirecting to another Wikipedia (fa:User talk:Fatemi127). Prhartcom (talk) 05:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - it doesn't seem to be in article space, it's in User talk: space, and I think it's fine for it to redirect to the user's talk on another language wikipedia. Ivanvector (talk) 15:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Ivanvector, you appear to be right, but what alerted me in the first place is something strange: When typing "User talk" into the search box (when planning to type out some other user), the Javascript there has been suggesting this User talk page since the day this redirect was created. That's so odd, it has never suggested any other user talk page before and today it only suggests this one user talk page. That's why I suspected it might somehow be in the article space. I wonder what's going on. Prhartcom (talk) 16:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, it does that for me as well, but only if I do the search from a page outside of article space. Try it from an article and see what happens. I don't know what's causing it but it's clearly not in article space, otherwise the tabs along the top would read "Article" and "Talk", not "User page" and "Talk". Someone who knows the software better would have to comment on that (pinging Jackmcbarn - he's good at this stuff) Ivanvector (talk) 16:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I does it for me everywhere: article, article talk, user, user talk, template, you name it. Thanks for looking into it. Prhartcom (talk) 17:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a software issue. By coincidence, this page is the one that exhibits the problem. It'll be fixed soon, and it's not worth deleting the page over. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Jackmcbarn, hopefully this gave you a good test case. Need admin to close this, then. Prhartcom (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although change to a soft redirect, because this kind of redirect doesn't work. I've seen lots of soft redirects from one Wikipedia to another; as long as the user is fine with it, I don't see why we'd want to get rid of this one when others are routinely used. It's actively helpful in that the user apparently is more likely to notice messages left at his Farsi talk than messages left at his English talk. Nyttend (talk) 19:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me, I thought it was a soft redirect. Ivanvector (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Soft redirects use the {{soft redirect}} template; see its appearance on pages such as User:Alibaba or Wikipedia:GNUStufF. Nyttend (talk) 03:37, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This page is also, for the record, being erroneously picked up by the Untagged Uncategorized Articles toolserver as an uncategorized article. So some part of Wikipedia's server architecture, at a level beyond my technical understanding, does think this is in articlespace even if it is behaving correctly in some other ways. I don't know what the problem is or how to fix it, but it must be fixed somehow, because the categorization project will not tolerate having this as a permanent bit of kludge gumming up our tools that we have to permanently work around. Fix it, by whatever means are necessary. Bearcat (talk) 20:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Update: this page actually does appear to be one a relatively small handful of pages in internal namespaces which, even though they're behaving correctly according to their prefix at the end user level, do have the erroneous code "page_namespace: 0" (i.e. mainspace) in their server metadata files — and are thus technically corrupting the database. So even if this is retained, it might have to be retained in a "delete and then recreate" sort of way. Bearcat (talk) 05:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, then perhaps WP:IAR delete per WP:G6 and then immediately recreate as a soft redirect in the proper namespace? Ivanvector (talk) 15:43, 9 February 2015 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_February_4&oldid=1138580116"