Misplaced Pages

:Redirects for discussion - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DumbBOT (talk | contribs) at 00:13, 3 July 2012 (Adding subpage(s)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:13, 3 July 2012 by DumbBOT (talk | contribs) (Adding subpage(s))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Skip to Table of ContentsSkip to table of contents · Skip to current discussions · Purge this page · Archives
Shortcuts
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion
XFD backlog
V Oct Nov Dec Jan Total
CfD 0 0 1 67 68
TfD 0 0 0 4 4
MfD 0 0 0 3 3
FfD 0 0 5 21 26
RfD 0 0 0 0 81
AfD 0 0 0 0 0

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

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

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

Before listing a redirect for discussion

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

The guiding principles of RfD

Shortcut
  • The purpose of a good redirect is to eliminate the possibility that readers will find themselves staring blankly at "Search results 1–10 out of 378" instead of the article they were looking for. If someone could plausibly enter the redirect's name when searching for the target article, it's a good redirect.
  • Redirects are cheap. They take up little storage space and use very little bandwidth. It doesn't really hurt things if there are a few of them scattered around. On the flip side, deleting redirects is also cheap because recording the deletion takes up little storage space and uses very little bandwidth. There is no harm in deleting problematic redirects.
  • If a good-faith RfD nomination proposes to delete a redirect and has no discussion after at least 7 days, the default result is delete.
  • Redirects nominated in contravention of Misplaced Pages:Redirect will be speedily kept.
  • RfD can also serve as a central discussion forum for debates about which page a redirect should target. In cases where retargeting the redirect could be considered controversial, it is advisable to leave a notice on the talk page of the redirect's current target page or the proposed target page to refer readers to the redirect's nomination to allow input and help form consensus for the redirect's target.
  • Requests for deletion of redirects from one page's talk page to another's do not need to be listed here. Anyone can remove the redirect by blanking the page. The G6 criterion for speedy deletion may be appropriate.
  • In discussions, always ask yourself whether or not a redirect would be helpful to the reader.

When should we delete a redirect?

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

Shortcuts

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

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

  • a redirect may contain non-trivial edit history;
  • if a redirect is reasonably old (or is the result of moving a page that has been there for quite some time), then it is possible that its deletion will break incoming links (such links coming from older revisions of Misplaced Pages pages, from edit summaries, from other Wikimedia projects or from elsewhere on the internet, do not show up in "What links here").

Therefore consider the deletion only of either harmful redirects or of recent ones.

Reasons for deleting

Shortcut See also: Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion § Redirects

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

  1. The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. For example, if the user searches for "New Articles", and is redirected to a disambiguation page for "Articles", it would take much longer to get to the newly added articles on Misplaced Pages.
  2. The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so the redirect should be deleted.
  3. The redirect is offensive or abusive, such as redirecting "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs" (unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is legitimately discussed in the article), or "Joe Bloggs" to "Loser". (Speedy deletion criterion G10 and G3 may apply.) See also § Neutrality of redirects.
  4. The redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam. (Speedy deletion criterion G11 may apply.)
  5. The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting "Apple" to "Orange". (Speedy deletion criterion G1 may apply.)
  6. It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Misplaced Pages namespace. The major exception to this rule are the pseudo-namespace shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space. Some long-standing cross-namespace redirects are also kept because of their long-standing history and potential usefulness. "MOS:" redirects, for example, were an exception to this rule until they became their own namespace in 2024. (Note also the existence of namespace aliases such as WP:. Speedy deletion criterion R2 may apply if the target namespace is something other than Category:, Template:, Misplaced Pages:, Help:, or Portal:.)
  7. If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to an article that does not exist, it can be immediately deleted under speedy deletion criterion G8. You should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first and that it has not become broken through vandalism.
  8. If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful. In particular, redirects in a language other than English to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. (Implausible typos or misnomers are candidates for speedy deletion criterion R3, if recently created.)
  9. If the target article needs to be moved to the redirect title, but the redirect has been edited before and has a history of its own, then the title needs to be freed up to make way for the move. If the move is uncontroversial, tag the redirect for G6 speedy deletion, or alternatively (with the suppressredirect user right; available to page movers and admins), perform a round-robin move. If not, take the article to Requested moves.
  10. Shortcut If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject.

Reasons for not deleting

Shortcut

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

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

Neutrality of redirects

Shortcut

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

Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:

  1. Articles that are created using non-neutral titles are routinely moved to a new neutral title, which leaves behind the old non-neutral title as a working redirect (e.g. Climategate → Climatic Research Unit email controversy).
  2. Articles created as POV forks may be deleted and replaced by a redirect pointing towards the article from which the fork originated (e.g. Barack Obama Muslim rumor → deleted and now redirected to Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories).
  3. The subject matter of articles may be represented by some sources outside Misplaced Pages in non-neutral terms. Such terms are generally avoided in Misplaced Pages article titles, per the words to avoid guidelines and the general neutral point of view policy. For instance the non-neutral expression "Attorneygate" is used to redirect to the neutrally titled Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. The article in question has never used that title, but the redirect was created to provide an alternative means of reaching it because a number of press reports use the term.

The exceptions to this rule would be redirects that are not established terms and are unlikely to be useful, and therefore may be nominated for deletion, perhaps under deletion reason #3. However, if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources, it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms. Please keep in mind that RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes.

Closing notes

Details at Administrator instructions for RfD

Nominations should remain open, per policy, about a week before they are closed, unless they meet the general criteria for speedy deletion, the criteria for speedy deletion of a redirect, or are not valid redirect discussion requests (e.g. are actually move requests).

How to list a redirect for discussion

Shortcut
STEP I. Tag the redirect(s).

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

Does this look too complicated?
Try this semi-automated process instead: (note only confirmed users can use this)
  1. Enable Twinkle in the Gadgets tab of your preferences.
  2. Go back to the redirect page, and choose "XFD" from the new Twinkle menu.
  3. Fill in the form and submit it.
  • Please do not mark the edit as minor (m).
  • Please include in the edit summary the phrase:
    Nominated for RfD: see ].
  • Save the page ("Publish changes").
  • If you are unable to edit the redirect page because of protection, this step can be omitted, and after step 2 is completed, a request to add the RFD template can be put on the redirect's talk page.
  • If the redirect you are nominating is in template namespace, consider adding |showontransclusion=1 to the RfD tag so that people using the template redirect are aware of the nomination.
  • If you are nominating multiple redirects as a group, repeat all the above steps for each redirect being nominated and specify on {{rfd}} the nomination's group heading from Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion
STEP II. List the entry on RfD.

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

  • Enter this text below the date heading:
{{subst:Rfd2|redirect=RedirectName|target=TargetArticle|text=The action you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for that action.}} ~~~~
  • For this template:
    • Put the redirect's name in place of RedirectName, put the target article's name in place of TargetArticle, and include a reason after text=.
    • Note that, for this step, the "target article" is the current target of the redirect (if you have a suggestion for a better target, include this in the text that you insert after text=).
  • Please use an edit summary such as:
    Nominating ]
    (replacing RedirectName with the name of the redirect you are nominating).
  • To list multiple related redirects for discussion, use the following syntax. Repeat line 2 for N number of redirects:
{{subst:Rfd2|redirect=RedirectName1|target=TargetArticle1}}
{{subst:Rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectName2|target=TargetArticle2}}
{{subst:Rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectNameN|target=TargetArticleN|text=The actions you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for those actions.}} ~~~~
  • If the redirect has had previous RfDs, you can add {{Oldrfdlist|previous RfD without brackets|result of previous RfD}} directly after the rfd2 template.
  • If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "deletion sorting lists". Then add a {{subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}} template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done.
STEP III. Notify users.

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

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

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

may be placed on the creator/main contributors' user talk page to provide notice of the discussion. Please replace RedirectName with the name of the respective creator/main contributors' redirect and use an edit summary such as:
Notice of redirect discussion at ]

Notices about the RfD discussion may also be left on relevant talk pages.

  • Please consider using What links here to locate other redirects that may be related to the one you are nominating. After going to the redirect target page and selecting "What links here" in the toolbox on the left side of your computer screen, select both "Hide transclusions" and "Hide links" filters to display the redirects to the redirect target page.


Current list

July 3

Byron Todd Frank

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 speedily deleted as vandalism by Fram. Thryduulf (talk) 08:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Useless redirect with no merit. Nothing about "Todd" or "Frank" in the biography of Byron. Binksternet (talk) 02:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Obvious good faith mistake, suggest you just change it, I did it, because after googling "Byron Todd Frank" all the first entries just goto Lord Byron. There was nothing sinister about it, also, User talkpages can't be redirected except to the same user in the case of multiple accounts, however, although it is rare, user pages can be directed to the mainspace, this is within policy, however I can't recall which policy it is I'm sorry. It doesn't matter at all about changing it back, however if at some stage you determine to your own satisfaction that it is ok, would you kindly return it to the way that it was. Penyulap ☏ 02:48, 3 Jul 2012 (UTC)
Google? That's a laugh. Google has cached your ridiculous redirect, and other websites have mirrored it from Misplaced Pages. Try looking for the term in the news, or in books, and you will find nothing at all. I'm afraid Penyulap's sockpuppet, ThomasMoore1852, is just having some fun at Misplaced Pages's expense. Binksternet (talk) 03:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I've speedy deleted it as blatant vandalism. Will block Penylap for 24 hours for disruptive editing. Fram (talk) 07:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Another editor has cleared me of any wrongdoing here. Penyulap, a.k.a. ThomasMoore1852 (talk) 23:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Jupiter family comet

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 Comet#Orbital_characteristics and put {{R with possibilities}}. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The page period comets contains no information about what Jupiter family comets are and I do not believe they are one and the same. I have been unable to find a suitable page to change the redirect to; I don't think there is any information about what Jupiter family comets are on Misplaced Pages. Ideally, a knowledgeable editor should add this information to the page now. Failing that, the redirect at "Jupiter family comet" should be deleted to make it clear that more information should be added.     — SkyLined (talk) 08:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

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

July 2

July 1

WP:DNFTT

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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Not entirely sure how to move an already started discussion, so I'm crosslisting it here. Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:DNFTT -- Avanu (talk) 14:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Rationale: This page redirects to a reasonable essay on deescalating conflict, however, this abbreviation is typically used in chat to attack the other editor by blaming them for escalating a conflict. This seems to be at odds with our WP:Civility pillar and our WP:No personal attacks policy. Rather than encouraging this use through a shortcut that facilitates it, I recommend its deletion. Avanu (talk) 17:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Original discussion from Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:DNFTT:

    This page redirects to a reasonable essay on deescalating conflict, however, this abbreviation is typically used in chat to attack the other editor by blaming them for escalating a conflict. This seems to be at odds with our WP:Civility pillar and our WP:No personal attacks policy. Rather than encouraging this use through a shortcut that facilitates it, I recommend its deletion. Avanu (talk) 17:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

    • By way of clarification, you're proposing to delete the shortcut, rather than the actual essay? Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment. I'm not taking a position on this because I don't know if Avanu's factual premise is correct, i.e., how much this shortcut is used in "chats". However, if the consensus is to delete the shortcut itself, we need to also delete the reference from Misplaced Pages:Deny recognition's shortcuts box.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Good question, is there some way to do a scan of Misplaced Pages to see how many things are linked to that redirect page and it's twins? The only reason it caught my attention at this moment was because of two instances where some editor was ranting at another editor and calling him a troll and linking to this. Typically when I see people say "Don't feed the troll", they are just being dismissive of someone else. -- Avanu (talk) 21:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Delete as per nom. My personal experience is that the shortcut is unhelpful to the project. --Surturz (talk) 06:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Keep as no evidence or policy-based reason has been presented to support deletion of two redirects (WP:DNFTT and WP:DFTT) that have existed for six years—where is a list of examples of abuse? Any policy/guideline/essay/redirect could be abused, but when that happens attention should focus on the abuser, not the page that was misused. Misplaced Pages is not a group-hugging exercise where trolls are encouraged in the hope that niceness will make them see the error of their ways. It is often important to DENY recognition and a simple reference to DNFTT can be all that is required to alert good editors that further engagement would be counter productive. Re the "history of switching back and forth" mentioned above: that was due to a GNAA advocate who was eventually indeffed after becoming a little too blatant—they were apparently trying to undermine WP:DENY (see its history and talk). Johnuniq (talk) 08:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Well, actually I did present a policy-based reason. WP:Civility, which is not merely a policy, but a core policy aka Misplaced Pages Pillar. As far as evidence, I did provide the link above to Special:WhatLinksHere. I'm not going to go through a thousand pages, but I'll posts a few quotes for you, however, out of context it is less likely to make sense. I get the feeling that it will clearly support my position that it is used in a dismissive fashion. If WP:DENY is the guideline to give people, why do we need to rephrase it as "Do Not Feed The Troll"? I'm not advocating for people to be perfect in Misplaced Pages. To quote the mayor from Ghostbusters: "Being miserable and treating other people like dirt is every New Yorker's God-given right." Fortunately for us, Misplaced Pages has a policy that allows us to still be miserable sods, but we're supposed to at least not be jerks. -- Avanu (talk) 14:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
        Quotes from Special:WhatLinksHere
        As I wrote elsewhere, by virtue of his inability or unwillingness to understand what we're telling him and reply coherently, WP:DNFTT seems to be the best course of action when dealing with Pumpie. Constantine ✍ 18:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC) from User_talk:Pumpie
        WP:DNFTT is a good policy to follow. Ignore, and block if necessary. --NeilN talk to me 07:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
        Which leads to the question of whether invoking WP:DNFTT is in fact feeding the trolls or fanning the flames. Obotlig (talk) 20:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC) from User_talk:NeilN
        And, basically, what is your point? You persist in being argumentative for unclear reasons -- noted on your talk page recently. Like, are you a troll? Others can continue to indulge you, but I'm cutting you off. Corticopia 04:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
        Corticopia, you don't speak for other editors. You have not torn through any statements, in fact you are resorting to argumentum ad hominem, argumentum ad metum, straw man (red herring) and several other fallacies and not even addressing the issue. There is no "POINT". I am being argumentative because we disagree; what is your point? It should be clear that my assertion that Americas in NOT America is not literal, but rather has to with connotation and precedence. By the way, are you, corticopia, a troll? I find it humorous that the only way you can back out of your fallacious statements is by calling me a troll, and avoiding the issues. I for one am glad "you are cutting me off" as I'm tired of your hearing your fallacious ad hominem attacks. Deepstratagem 04:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC) from Talk:Americas/Archive 1
    • Keep per Johnuniq. Shortcuts don't insult editors, editors insult editors. Nobody Ent 12:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Wrong venue List at WP:RfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
      • I've crosslisted it there. People should be able to make it here from there. Honestly, since people have already weighed in, I believe I would need to be a lot of complicated things to actually move this to there. Does that crosslisting suffice? -- Avanu (talk) 14:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Speedy close per Wrong Venue, as SmoJoe explains. But before relisting at RFD, remember: An essay, or a shortcut, or an article, can't make us uncivil. Achowat (talk) 13:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
      • You are right that essays and whatnot aren't what make people uncivil, but why would we encourage the use of terms that are uncivil? WP:DENY has a more neutral tone than WP:DNFTT. Part of changing the way we interact is through changing the words we choose to express ourselves. If I refer to you as 'My esteemed colleage from Pennsylvania' rather than as 'a douchebag troll', it sets a different tone entirely. While DNFTT doesn't plainly show the word 'troll', the implication is still there. I guess I'm just thinking that civility starts with how we label each other. -- Avanu (talk) 14:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
        • The reason your argument falls flat, methinks, is because WP:DENY exists. It's softer and used frequently. Not only that, but WP:DNFTT doesn't mean anything to anyone. It's just a string of letters that brings you to WP:Deny recognition. The problem arises when people use ] which could just as easily be ]. Removing the redirect doesn't solve any of the problems. Achowat (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
    Cunard (talk) 19:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep as is per Thryduulf. While marginally incivil (and only marginally), the cost of breaking the many links throughout the project and all across pagehistories is much too great. Rossami (talk) 22:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. (although I'd prefer it to be a double redirect via Misplaced Pages:Do not feed the trolls. Or even better: m:What_is_a_troll?#Dealing_with_trolls). People feeding trolls are contributing to excalation of a conflict. They *should* be told "do not feed the trolls". Nowhere near enough evidence presented that this shortcut itself has caused problems. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm generally strongly supportive of maintaining a high standard of civility, and I don't find this uncivil. The essay they link to specifically deal with clearly bad-faith users, and unlike other redirects / templates with questionable names, I don't recall seeing this widely misused to attack contributors on the other side of a dispute. It's a succinct summary of an approach to dealing with vandals and trolls. wctaiwan (talk) 16:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep WP:RNEUTRAL applies. But I don't think there's anything explicitly uncivil about the acronym—it can mean whatever you think it means. It depends on your point of view. Even if "WP:DFTT" goes away, I can still cut someone off and call them a douchebag troll. I agree with Nobody Ent: Shortcuts don't insult editors, editors insult editors. Braincricket (talk) 14:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Criticism of the United States

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 Criticism of American foreign policy. JohnCD (talk) 21:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

This redirect reflects a political attempt to describe all criticism of the United States as "anti-American" and is inherently non-neutral.

While there are multiple different interpretations of "anti-American" listed at that article, all sources roughly agree that the term primarily refers to prejudicial hatred of the United States of America, and is also used in a non-neutral, political way to discredit criticism of the United States. (This is also consistent with the introduction at List of anti-ethnic and anti-national terms.) The article on anti-Americanism is primarily about the phenomenon of anti-American feelings, and does not directly address criticism of the United States.

I think an article should be created at Criticism of the United States which describes specific criticisms and critiques of the United States, both from internal and external parties. At that point, it may be worthwhile to merge Criticism of American foreign policy into Criticism of the United States if appropriate. Augurar (talk) 17:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC) Augurar (talk) 17:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment: After some further thought, it might be better to create "Criticism of US government and policies", redirect "Criticism of the United States" there, and merge "Criticism of American foreign policy" into there. Augurar (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Template:United States

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 both this and Template:United States 2. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

This redirect doesn't make sense to me. It is a huge leap for me to think that anyone who looks for a template about the United States would obviously be looking for a template to United States political divisions. I think it would make more sense for this to go to something else more general if we keep it at all. Kumioko (talk) 18:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment it makes some sense to me, since it makes the US primarily its top level political divisions, as the Articles of Confederation would have it. As for whether we should keep, retarget, or develop this, perhaps it could be redeveloped for the main topics of the US? 70.49.127.65 (talk) 03:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 17:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Petara

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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Not mentioned in article, and unlikely to be added - see Talk:Formula One Group#Petara. Peter E. James (talk) 09:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 17:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete – The redirect makes no sense. There is no connection between the name of his yacht and an article about one of his business holdings. Senator2029 04:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

12345

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 disambiguate. I have started a disambiguation page, but it could do with work. Thryduulf (talk) 12:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Not mentioned in the target; presumably numerous possible meanings. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 16:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Jada Stevens

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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete, not clear this person merits a redirect, and more importantly, the redirect imparts no useful infomation, there is a single (unsourced) sentence in the target page that reads "Adult Film Star Jada Stevens is from Snellville". Hairhorn (talk) 03:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

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

June 30

Gender and sport

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 Women's sports#The Battle for Equality. Ruslik_Zero 19:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Misleading, as one would expect a page similar to Race and sport, however the target is only about women. The Evil IP address (talk) 18:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Perhaps retarget to Sociology of sport, which seems like it's about the right sort of thing, although the article is a stub with a truly massive reading list appended. It does have a see-also link to the current target though. Thryduulf (talk) 20:08, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep as is for now. The dominant gender-based issues in sports are about access (the problems that Title IX, for example, was supposed to fix). There is no second issue of physiological difference - no one expects men and women to be the same. The current target focuses on exactly that social progression.
    I could see an argument to expand the current "Women's sports" content to focus on the more general issue of gender. If done, it might make sense to move the expanded content to this title. Until then, however, there's no better target that I can find. Sociology of sport is far too broad a topic even if that page were expanded past a stub. Rossami (talk) 01:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Women's sports#The Battle for Equality and tag {{R with possibilities}}, which is a sufficiently similar topic to what one would expect following a link to gender and sport. Recommend additionally adding an {{anchor}} in the section title to insulate against section name changes in the future (in my opinion The Battle for Equality is non-neutral, and may end up changing). BigNate37(T) 08:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Koreanophile

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. Ruslik_Zero 18:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

An article titled Koreanophile should describe appreciation of Korean culture itself, whether it is about modern or traditional. However, it currently redirects to an article about that of South Korean popular culture. I'm not saying it should be deleted, but I think someone should create an article about appreciation of Korean culture in general. (Well, I'm not an expert at all.) JSH-alive/ 16:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

  • I agree that the current target is less than ideal. Unfortunately, I'm not sure what is better. Looking at similar titles, I find anglophile, an awful article that dresses up a dictionary definition in paragraph form and includes far too many pop-culture "examples". Francophile, on the other hand, starts with a short definition but then goes on to discuss the different cultural connections and significance of general francophilia through history. Unfortunately, many of the listed examples describe political alliances more than true francophilia.
    This redirect is an artifact of a disputed pagemove (the "Korean wave" content was moved here then promptly moved back). All in all, I think a simple retarget to Korea is most likely to get a reader to the page they really want. Rossami (talk) 01:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Creation of new, more topic-appropriate content is always welcome, however that is asking more than is fair of the closing admin. Unless and until content is added, is it more helpful in this case to link to the closest thing, or is that too misleading? In this case I believe it is misleading; the term Koreanophile does not appear at the target article, and while keeping this redirect and tagging it as {{R with possibilities}} isn't a bad solution, I believe it's a better solution to delete it at this time. Note that editors can create a new article about 'Korea-philia' whether there is a redirect at the location of the preferred title or not. BigNate37(T) 08:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Beezo

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. Ruslik_Zero 16:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete. The section in question ("Recurring enemies") does not exist on the page; it appears that at some point in the past, minor recurring enemies such as Beezos were removed from the article. "Beezo" is no longer mentioned on the page. The only incoming link is intended for an artist featured on a rap album, which should be a redlink AFAICT. Powers 14:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

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

List of most wanted suspected jihadists

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. No explanation given of why this particular redirect should point to that particular target. Ruslik_Zero 16:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure why a List of most wanted suspected jihadists (if ever it exists) should point to Saudi list of most wanted suspected terrorists, there is a similar list by almost every country fighting against Jehadists. The redirect was wrongly created, support deletion. DBigXray 13:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

eg FBI Most Wanted Terrorists, FBI's most wanted jihadists, Yemeni list of most wanted suspected terrorists etc (A similar list also exists for India ) --DBigXray 18:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep -- I question nominator`s assertion that “almost every country has one”. Without regard to whether other countries maintain a “list of most wanted suspected jihadists” I assert no other country has published a list of most wanted suspected jihadists.
Nominator has been very insistent that I would be in a conflict of interest unless I explicitly disclaimed that I started the target of any of the XfD initiated on material I started. Geo Swan (talk) 14:06, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
@Creator Please WP:AGF and see WP:DISCUSSAFD, WP:Comment on content, not on the contributor attacking discussing the nominator will do no good to your case.--DBigXray 14:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
@DBigXray, there was no attack on the nominator.
@Geo Swan, great idea to disclose that you are the creator, but no need to make a fuss about it.
@BothOfYou, please drop the drama. Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
The comment above is uncalled for as the so called "drama" was already calm for the last 3 days. That said, now can we please discuss the Redirect in question ?--DBigXray 06:51, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

June 29

MuHammad

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— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathan2055 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 1 July 2012‎

Do we really need a redirect that simply has a random capital letter? Nathan2055 17:47, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Sangeet Sharada

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 speedy delete WP:CSD#U2. JohnCD (talk) 15:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Created by mistake by moving the article to article space - Vivvt 15:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be grounds for a speedy? Nczempin (talk) 15:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Never mind; it's not. Nczempin (talk) 15:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, if this should happen again, either WP:CSD#G7 sole author requests deletion or WP:CSD#U2 user page of a non-existent user would do. JohnCD (talk) 15:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Currently Untitled

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. Salting does not seem necessary yet, but should be considered if this gets re-created. JohnCD (talk) 21:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

This seems to have come from an invalid original redlink, pointing to the title of an album that was unreleased at the time.

As it is now, it makes no sense; no one would ever look for "currently untitled" and expect to find "one cold night". This should really be a speedy delete since it's so obvious, but I didn't find this reason under the sd criteria. Nczempin (talk) 14:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete and salt - Should be speedied, but I'm not sure what category to put it under. --Nathan2055 17:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete. It can not be speedy-deleted now (far too old) but the original page should have been deleted back in 2006 as a WP:CRYSTALBALL violation. Rossami (talk) 19:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. This is not (and probably never was) a plausible redirect to One Cold Night. It could refer to many other artistic projects in their earlier stages, but it would not be a plausible search term for any of them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete and salt "currently untitled" is the state of many projects when in their first phases. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 03:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete but do not salt, no evidence that it will be recreated often. —Kusma (t·c) 04:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete without salting. This is not a useful redirect and there is currently no target that would make it useful. Creation protection (salting), like all other forms of protections, should be used sparingly and only when necessary. In this case the title has only been used once in the history of the project, which means there is no evidence that it will be repeatedly recreated. In the absence of need, protection actually harms the project. Thryduulf (talk) 18:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Clerkenwell (UK Parliament constituency)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 21:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Please can this (the page 'Clerkenwell (UK Parliament constituency)' simply be deleted? There has never been a constituency called 'Clerkenwell', and no other Misplaced Pages pages link to this redirect, rendering it useless. Marplesmustgo (talk) 10:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep - Redirects are meant for being accessed through searching. Links would have been auto-fixed using a bot. --Nathan2055 17:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • But this makes no sense. There has never been a Clerkenwell constituency, so no-one is set to search for it. It is as if someone set up a page called Bronx Central (US Congressional District) and set it up to redirect to NY-16, claiming that someone may some day look for the mythical 'Bronx Central' and get the redirect they need. All it does is add confusion by suggesting there may have been a Clerkenwell seat. Marplesmustgo (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • According to our own article, Clerkenwell was part of the Metropolitan Borough of Finsbury for 65 years. Looking at the old maps, the geographic coverage between that and Finsbury Central appears plausibly close. The redirect was created in apparent good faith in 2007 by an established editor with a reputation for competence in UK politics. Absent strong evidence to the contrary, I am inclined to defer to her expertise and keep the redirect.
    Note that not all redirects are technically correct titles for the thing they are pointing toward. In fact, one of the primary purposes of a redirect is to help a reader who doesn't know the correct name to find the topic they are looking for. That is the whole point of Category:Redirects from misspellings and the other {{unprintworthy}} redirects. Rossami (talk) 19:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Note. I've just notified the creator of the redirect about this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete. I had no recollection of I created this redirect (it was 5½ years ago), but when reminded by a note on my talk I presumed that it was as a result as of some biographical article having had a redlink, and that this led me to consider it a plausible redirect. I checked my contribs for that day, and can't see anything relevant, so that idea looks less plausible than I thought.
    Anyway, in hindsight, I think that this redirect was a bad idea. As the nom points out, there has never been a constituency called "Clerkenwell", nor can I find any ref to it being informally known as Clerkenwell ... so keeping the redirect is misleading because it implies (incorrectly) that Clerkenwell was at least an informal name for the constituency.
    I considered whether it might be a good idea to convert it into a disambiguation page, listing all the constituencies of which Clerkenwell has ever formed a part. However, following that approach would lead us towards creating FooBar (UK Parliament constituency) dab pages for every town, village and urban area, even if its name has been included in the name of a constituency. That seems to be to be a recipe for an unmaintainable morass of redirects, and I really don't want to go there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The Randumb Show

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. We actually delete redirects if " there is a chance they could be notable". Ruslik_Zero 16:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Randumb Show was closed as redirect to Pepperdine University back in 2010 but there was nothing notabile about it (student show on college TV station with no independent, reliable nontrivial coverage) so it was never included in that article. DreamGuy (talk) 00:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Regardless of whether it might maybe somehow become notable in the future, nobody can add it to the Pepperdine article unless reliable sources *already* exist. DreamGuy (talk) 19:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep - If there is a chance it could be notable, keep it. --Nathan2055 17:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't understand. We keep things not merely because they are notable, but because someone knows that "notability will grow", or "there is a chance it could be notable"? Nczempin (talk) 17:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article Pepperdine University doesn't even mention the show, so it is pointless to redirect the reader to that article. The article on the show was deleted 2 years ago, so there has been plenty of time to add material about the show, if references had been found to justify its inclusion. I have no objection to e-creating the redirect if the material is added, but at this point we have misled readers for too long what is effectively a redirect to nowhere. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

June 28

Misplaced Pages:Andrew Shonfield

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 Speedy Delete (non-admin closure)

Mistaken redirect moving article from AFC to mainspace (didn't mean to stick Misplaced Pages space name in front of it), left-over redirect Zad68 17:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

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

June 27

Freaklikeme

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 retargeted. (non-admin closure) --BDD (talk) 20:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The target article was merged pursuant to an AFD, so this is now a double redirect. Rather than fixing it, I thought it would be best to just delete it. I think R3 may apply. It's not a typo, but it certainly seems like an implausible search term. I'm erring on the side of caution given my lack of experience with RFD. Alternatively, if we're going to keep the redirect, it should probably point to "Freak Like Me" instead. --BDD (talk) 23:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

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

QuickDB

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 QuickDB ORM. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete - the redir appears to be the name of a product Attachment made some time in the past. Does not appear on the Attachmate page, very little information on the web, no page history to speak of. Will not be missed, and a redline is better than a confusing redir. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 15:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Retarget per A&H as above, failing that, delete. Any {{R from subtopic}} (even those not marked as such) pointing to a page that makes no mention of subject of the redirect is harmful and confusing. We do not want readers to read an article in a puzzled manner trying to deduce why they arrived there, and in such cases we are better served by having a redlink. The QuickDB ORM article's subject seems to actually only be called QuickDB, so I wonder whether the author created it at its present location simply because QuickDB already existed as a redirect at that time. BigNate37(T) 08:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Super Junior's Untitled fifth studio album

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 no consensus to delete. I separately evaluated the pagehistories to see if the attribution risk justified a history-restore of the versions deleted per the old AfD. Based on the dates of edits in the deleted content and on the creation date of the target page, I do not see convincing evidence that content was merged away from this title. Similar words were used in the early versions of the target page but that was likely because the same editors were remembering and retyping their own words, not the words of others. Since those editors already have full attribution credit via the edit history of the target page, I am declining the history-restore for now. Rossami (talk) 23:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete: an article was created, titled Super Junior's Untitled fifth studio album citing Twitter and some fansites with no confirmed information, namely the title. Subsequently it did not survive an AFD per Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Super Junior's Untitled fifth studio album with a result for 'delete'. However it was not but redirected instead, presumably so that what little content there was can be re-use in the article when official info became available, hence Mr. Simple. It should now be deleted per AFD also it is an implausibly worded title to search for, since there is no such 'untitled fifth studio album' anymore. Michaela den (talk) 11:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

  • 'Keep and undelete old revisions behind redirect. Firstly, this gets lots of hits, so it's linked from somewhere external and secondly information was merged from this article into the present one, so this should be kept to maintain the attribution history (hence the reason I'm recommending the undeletion of old revisions). Thryduulf (talk) 22:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment: If edit history was the only concern, that could be preserved without preserving the redirect in its current form. BigNate37(T) 08:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
      • True, although when the original location is not harmful why would we - moving to talk subpages, etc is less optimal than retaining in the original location. Anyway, the edit history is not the only reason I'm recommending keeping as is. 82.132.211.243 (talk) 09:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Timothy Craig

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 deleted under WP:CSD#G3, G7 by Kusma (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) at 13:47, 9 July 2012. RfD closure by BigNate37(T) 08:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Several people have this name. I found an artist, a doctor, but none have any obvious connection to Dracula. Kilopi (talk) 11:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Disambiguate, there are several people with this name mentioned in Misplaced Pages articles, some are possibly notable in their own right. As for the Dracula connection, I'm struggling to find anything (the closest I've come is that a Tim Craig, the father of a local celebrity in Shropshire, was known as "The Count", because of his resemblance to Dracula. Which is tenuous in the extreme). Neither the page history nor the creators contributions offer any clues, other than that the referenced Timothy Craig is possibly more likely to be an American than any other nationality (and that doesn't help much) and so unlikely to be the English person I found above. Thryduulf (talk) 22:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • This was created by the same person who made the two redirects discussed immediately below. As already noted, the contribution history makes me very skeptical. To Thryduulf's proposal, I did not find anyone mentioned in Misplaced Pages with this name that clearly appeared to pass our inclusion criteria. And even if they do, the Manual of Style does not generally allow redlinks on disambiguation pages. Unless there are specific articles that can be named for disambiguation, I think for now we should simply delete. Rossami (talk) 18:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete Alright, I admit it. I did this because I was really bored one day and decided to see how long it would last. And really, a couple months is pretty impressive, you gotta admit. I apologise, it won't happen again. But I do have to say that the fact you guys are discussing it is hilarious to me xD. I apologise, though. --Aguyuno (talk) 11:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Ass Clown

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 speedily delted per G10 and R3 by user:Ponyo. Thryduulf (talk) 02:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Here's the best explanation I got. Last month the umpire made a call and a player disagreed. The next day about 3 fans of the aggrieved player called him an assclown on Twitter.

I'm sure the fans have moved on and found someone else to blame for their team's continuing woes, so let's get rid of this BLP violation of a redirect. Kilopi (talk) 11:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Stephen Fountain

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 speedy delete per WP:CDS#G7. Thryduulf (talk) 12:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

There's a few people by this name. I found a massage therapist, a psych professor, and a pastor, but nobody with any visible connection to Pres Lincoln. Kilopi (talk) 11:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete. It's not clear whether anyone with this name is notable enough for their own article, and none seems particularly more prominent than the others, so there is no suitable target for the redirect that I can find (and I can find even less of a connection between any Stephen Fountain and Abraham Lincoln than I managed with Timothy Craig and Dracula above). Thryduulf (talk) 22:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I can find no connection at all between these two concepts. The contribution history of the creating user (including deleted contributions) is not encouraging. I don't have enough evidence to definitively call it vandalism but it streches past my ability to assume good faith. Delete. Rossami (talk) 18:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete unable to find any link whatsoever between anyone with this name and Lincoln. Hut 8.5 10:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete Alright, I admit it. I did this because I was really bored one day and decided to see how long it would last. And really, a couple months is pretty impressive, you gotta admit. I apologise, it won't happen again. But I do have to say that the fact you guys are discussing it is hilarious to me xD. I apologise, though. Nonetheless, how serious you guys take this site is very impressive to me (and I mean that). Nowhere else would this type of thing a) Have been caught immediately and b) Be actually discussed before just deleted. Had I noticed you caught it immediately, I would've admitted it was me and immediately apologised - not just let it go. I thought I had escaped notice, but apparently not! Well done :). --Aguyuno (talk) 11:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

0.4

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 List of numbers#Fractional numbers. Ruslik_Zero 10:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Err...Redirecting this is as absurd as redirecting 42 to "Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything". MichaelSchumacherMercedes (talk) 01:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Done i redirected 0.4 only. Jawadreventon (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Is there any evidence that other such number articles exist? I spot-checked a few random numbers in that range via the search engine and came up empty. Don't have a clue how to run an exhaustive search, though. Rossami (talk) 14:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete with no prejudice against replacing with an article about the number in the future. Courses of action that are contingent on someone volunteering to create content aren't viable in my opinion, such things could have been done already over top of the redirect, and can still be done if the redirect is removed. Note that a search for "0.4 shot" brings up the 0.4 redirect as the first result, and Derek Fisher (section The 0.4 shot) as the second result. I have created redirects at The 0.4 shot and 0.4 shot, pointing them at Derek Fisher#The 0.4 shot and tagging said section with an anchor & comment to insulate against link breakage should the section's name be changed in the future. I feel that 0.4 is too broad a search for a redirect, and it's not intuitive that someone seeking the 0.4 shot would simply search "0.4". BigNate37(T) 07:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

June 26

Bronyetransportyor

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 tag as {{R from misspelling}}. This is not the correct venue to discus whether linking to the article vandalised on vandal's talk pages encourages further vandalism. Thryduulf (talk) 10:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe Bronyetransportyor should be deleted. It is incorrect translation per either WP:RUS (Russian: бронетранспортёр) or WP:UKR (Ukrainian: бронетранспортер), and it is that transliteration that caused a series of bad pun vandals made by IP users. Besides, redirects in the linked pages were fixed by now. JSH-alive/ 12:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep Huh? It's, like, the third word in the target article. This nomination doesn't make any sense. And even if it is a mistranslation, deleting the redirect required compelling evidence that no one else has ever made this same mistranslation. If it is transliterated incorrectly, just tag it as {{R from misspelling}} which will keep it out of search results. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's an artifact of a very recent pagemove. Prior to the move, content existed at that title for almost a year. While it has been currently orphaned, all the inbound links remain in the history of other pages and could be restored at any time if, for example, a page is reverted to fix vandalism. The solution to IP vandals is to protect the page, not to delete a legitimate redirect. Rossami (talk) 12:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

See? This is what happens when you didn't delete the redirect based on wrong transliteration which caused some anons to put nonsense (Well, Bronyetransportyor) before I moved the article to BTR (vehicle). We had chance to prevent this happening again when the article was still in semi-protection; if you made it a red link by deleting it quickly, when anon's back, s/he would assume the article itself was deleted so s/he wouldn't touch BTR (vehicle) article anyway. Now, it's too late, because, when someone leaves message regarding the vandalism in the anon's talk page, s/he will get the link to the current article and vandalise it again. JSH-alive/ 08:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Interstate 79 (1957-1958)

 Relisted see Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 July 8#Interstate 79 (1957-1958). Thryduulf (talk) 10:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Voxu

 Relisted see Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 July 8#Voxu. Thryduulf (talk) 10:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

June 25

Poop machine

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. Thryduulf (talk) 10:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Nonsensical redirect. Delete it. Voortle (talk) 03:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Koletsou School of English

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. Thryduulf (talk) 10:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

America First Books

 Relisted See Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 July 8#America First Books. Thryduulf (talk) 10:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

UK plc

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 Economy of the United Kingdom. As a normal editorial action I will add a hatnote to United Kingdom company law. Thryduulf (talk) 10:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Also GB plc. I think people typing this in are more likely to be looking for the meaning given at Wiktionary and used quite frequently in UK news media, but about which we don't have an article (soft redirect?). There's also @UK plc, where this briefly pointed; and I think the current target has its merits too. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

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

WYGIWYGAINUC

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. Ruslik_Zero 16:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Although these abbreviations are ostensibly equivalent, as redirecting one to the other would indicate, I can find no sources for what the longer abbreviation stands for, and the article that is redirected to never mentions it. Possible hoax. Specs112 t c 15:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

  • According to Acronym Finder, WYGIWYGAINUC stands for "What You Get Is What You're Given and It's No Use Complaining". It was a pejorative play on WYSIWYG, though not an especially notable one that I can tell. The redirect is not especially harmful and has been around since 2005. Nevertheless, I'm not sure the redirect is the most helpful we can be to readers. Wiktionary accepts acronym entries. Transwiki to Wiktionary (in cleaned up format), then turn this redirect into a soft-redirect using {{wi}}. Rossami (talk) 19:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete. WYGIWYGAINUC doesn't seem to have much to do with WYSIWYG and the page gets only negligible views, so there's no obvious benefit in keeping (the reader doesn't find out what it stands for, much less any encyclopaedic information) and no significant harm in deleting. But if Wiktionary wants it (and would they? I know the criteria for neologisms is looser there, but there must be some sort of limit?) then a soft redirect would also work. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

June 24

Misplaced Pages:Spero Canton

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. Thryduulf (talk) 10:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Moved 2 years ago - not really relevent for a wp: page Mdann52 (talk) 17:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Pig vomit

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 Private Parts (1997 film). Thryduulf (talk) 10:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

This is apparently a nickname for Paul Giamatti, but as it potentially offensive (has been accidentally deleted as vandalism three times today) I thought it should be listed here to decide whether or not it is useful or not. SmartSE (talk) 17:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

  • I almost speedy-deleted it myself. Looking into it in detail, though, this is a capitalization variant of the nickname of Kenny Rushton, a movie character played by Giamatti. I find it hard to argue that the name of a character can be offensive to the actor who voluntarily plays the part. Since the movie was biographical in nature, the nickname could be offensive to the real person on whom the role was based but but I don't think that applies here. The pejorative nickname of a character seems less offensive than Pig Virus, the real nickname used for the real person. All that said, the redirect is not especially clear. Retarget to Private Parts (1997 film) where the character and the context are more clear. Rossami (talk) 22:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Private Parts (1997 film) per Rossami.--Lenticel 03:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Dr. Iyad Allawi

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. Thryduulf (talk) 10:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

implausible typo (Iyad Allawi already exists), getting redirects like Dr. Iyad Allawi or Dr. Angela Merkel for everyone who is a doctor or has a German PhD doesn't make sense Mrzwischenzug (talk) 17:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep. This is neither a typo nor implausible. It was deliberately created at this title and, as you note, it is a variant of an uncontroversial redirect. The inclusion of the honorific is a non-standard title for an article and we should generally encourage editors to do something more productive with their time than creating redirects with honorifics but redirects are cheap. Once such a redirect is created, there is no benefit to deleting it unless it is actively harmful or confusing. This redirect has existed for almost 5 years without creating any confusion or controversy. I see no harm in it. Rossami (talk) 20:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Nicola Foot

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. Nobody has come to the defence of this redirect after 2 weeks so deletion seems uncontroversial. Thryduulf (talk) 10:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Not notable person - the girlfriend of a murdered person should not be a search term that links to this article - she is only mentioned in the article that she was walking home with him. Her involvement is so minimal as to not require a lifetime search result for her name via wikipedia. Youreallycan 15:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

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

WP-BRD

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. Thryduulf (talk) 10:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

This title was tagged for speedy-deletion but is too old to qualify. It appears to have been created in good faith as a pseudonamespace variant. This is a courtesy nomination. I abstain for now. Rossami (talk) 14:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

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

June 23

Amillenialism

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. Rossami (talk) 18:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete this and make amends to the inbound links. I like to saw logs! (talk) 18:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Nominations merged Thryduulf (talk) 00:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

June 22

Klingon language (disambiguation)

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 move without redirect to Klingon languages, overwriting the redirect already there. Thryduulf (talk) 10:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Former disambiguation page that, per discussion on talk page, is no longer necessary and as "Klingon language (disambiguation)" is an unlikely search term, should be deleted as a redirect William Thweatt 22:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep to ensure our compliance with the attribution requirements of GFDL and CC-BY-SA. That page was originally at Klingon languages and has a significant history. While the content has now been merged to other pages (and reasonably so, in my opinion), we are still obligated to preserve the history of those contributions pre-merger. (A history-merge is infeasible on pages this old - it would generate false diffs as the page versions were intermingled.) The redirect title may now seem a bit counter-intuitive but it is doing no harm. Tag it with {{unprintworthy}} and leave it be. Rossami (talk) 23:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Significant history? I've just gone through the history and I can't really find anything I'd deem significant. Which content exactly has been merged, and where? Is it even still present there? If you insist on keeping those old revisions, I propose that the page be moved back to Klingon languages (as a redirect), and Klingon language (disambiguation), then without any possibly significant history left, be deleted. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 09:00, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Comment: "Significance" in the sense that you are using the term is not part of the attribution requirements of our licenses at all. The pagehistory records every addition of a template or correction of a typo and the license requires us to do that. "Significant" in my usage meant only that there were multiple edits such that the moved content could not be easily attributed via an edit-summary comment on the destination page. By the way, whether the moved content is still on an active page somewhere does not necessarily relieve us of our obligations - that is a point of open debate among scholars studing open-source licenses like ours. In projects like ours where past content can be summarily restored, there is arguably never a time when it becomes safe to purge contribution history of good-faith edits. Rossami (talk) 20:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I think its possible to simply merge the histories no?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Move without redirect to Talk:Klingon language/page history D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Move without redirect to Talk:Klingon language/page history per User:Dondegroovily. Excellent solution. bd2412 T 17:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Move without redirect to Klingon languages, per Florian Blaschke, since that redirect has no history of its own to worry about. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

刘洋

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 Liu Yang. Thryduulf (talk) 11:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I came across this doing RC patrol and had a question. I've never seen redirects from foreign scripts and I couldn't find anything regarding them on WP:REDIRECT. I know Redirects Are Cheap, but are people really using non-latin script to search the English WP? William Thweatt 22:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Yes, quite commonly. The relevant page is WP:FORRED. One of the reasons they are allowed is that some readers (like me) will occasionally see a foreign-language concept and try cut-and-paste into a search engine. To the extent that the foreign phrase or name is especially notable, a redirect will take me to the English-language page where I can learn about the topic. In this case, it does appear that the topic passes our notability requirements and the redirect is the original name of the subject. The only question I have in this case is whether 刘洋 should be a straight redirect or whether the name is sufficiently common that it should be a disambiguation page. The fact that the target page carries the "(astronaut)" disambiguator suggests the latter but I don't know the language well enough to be sure. Rossami (talk) 22:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
    I see. Thank you for the explanation.--William Thweatt 00:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
    Two characters Chinese name mean it's highly likely there will be a number of people with such a name, more than one of which will meet the notability criteria for inclusion on here. The equivalent zh.wp page is a disambiguation page with 3 blue links and a number of red most if not all of which meet WP:N for an articles even if they don't exist yet on en.wp. KTC (talk) 00:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep and redirect to Liu Yang - While the astronaut is the only person with exactly such a Chinese name with an article at the moment, zh.wp page suggests there's a number of other people with this name that would meet our notability guidelines that someone might well search for. KTC (talk) 00:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep We have a lot of non-English titles with lettering not found in the English alphabet, why should this be different? This title is the original language name for the target, so is a viable search term. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Liu Yang, as there are other people with this name. In fact, it seems to be quite common, as I found links intended for an actor and various athletes while disambiguating them. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Liu Yang per User:Dondegroovily--Lenticel 01:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Karl Sellan

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 both. Thryduulf (talk) 11:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

"Soft redirects to non-English language editions of Misplaced Pages should be avoided because they will generally be unhelpful to English-language readers" as per WP:SRD. KTC (talk) 10:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

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

June 21

One Step Closer (album 2)

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. Ruslik_Zero 18:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

This should be deleted as the "2" is not a useful disambiguation - maybe it was the second article about an album called "One Step Closer". Peter E. James (talk) 14:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 19:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Moomincorn

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 both. JohnCD (talk) 20:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Both should be deleted as implausible. Peter E. James (talk) 18:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Heavy Mechanical Complex Taxila

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. Ruslik_Zero 18:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a bad redirect... HMC needs a separate article as it is a separate industry than HIT. Needs to be a redlink so that an article could later be created and the need for creation could be displayed. lTopGunl (talk) 10:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Commonist

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. JohnCD (talk) 20:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Used in Commons as a tool and this redirect may be confusing. See commons:Commonist MichaelSchumacherMercedes (talk) 06:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Results in the Google book search appear to show that it can mean "communist", but they are either errors in converting scanned pages to text, eye dialect, or are probably not intended to refer to communism. Peter E. James (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

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

In Soviet Russia Misplaced Pages browses YOU

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. JohnCD (talk) 20:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

We could not create a redirect for every Soviet Russia Joke. "In Soviet Russia" itself is enough. MichaelSchumacherMercedes (talk) 06:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Cruising California (Bumpin' In My Truck)

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. JohnCD (talk) 20:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The correct spelling is actually Cruising California (Bumpin' In My Trunk) (Trunk, not Truck). Was nominated for deletion as a misspelling at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cruising California (Bumpin' In My Truck), but no action was taken there due to the fact that redirects are not deleted from AfDs. Canuck 02:09, June 21, 2012 (UTC)

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

Stunt Show

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 Stunt performer. JohnCD (talk) 20:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete per reason #2. There are many stunt shows in the world and redirecting this through to just one is misleading. Current links to the article are referring to the topic of stunt shows not this particular one. Themeparkgc  Talk  00:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

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

June 20

Messenger Muhammad PBUH

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. Retargetting can be carried out as a normal editorial action if desired. Thryduulf (talk) 11:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The secret Annexe

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. Rossami (talk) 18:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

"The secret Annexe" could refer to anything, and redirecting to Anne Frank House isn't what I redirect should be for. ⇒TAP 20:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Note: I've renamed it to The Secret Annexe anyway, capital "S". PamD 23:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. Down to the 5th page of google book and web hits for "The secret annexe" and "secret annex" as set phrases, every single result relates to Anne Frank's house. So much so that I don't think the dab page is the primary topic for the version without the definite article. I've fixed the resulting double-redirect and listed the capitalised version above as whatever the outcome of this discussion, it should apply to both). Thryduulf (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

June 19

Quit Kashmir Movement (2010)

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. Thryduulf (talk) 11:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The Redirect had been created as a result of a Page move . The redirect should be deleted as this was not the name of the event. The old title of the article was created for propaganda purposes and the title of the redirect is not supported by any reliable source. The page should have been moved without leaving a redirect. Some other editors have also expressed concern against the earlier title on Talk:2010 Kashmir unrest. The redirect can be deleted as it is neither neutral nor is verifiable. DBigXray 13:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep. A google search on the exact phrase (excluding Misplaced Pages-derivatives) returns rather a lot of sources using this phrase, all of them apparently referring to the topic discussed in the target article. While most of those sources are casual (blogs, etc), they do substantiate that the phrase is in established use. The standards of reliable source and NPOV are relevant for article content and sometimes even for article titles but they are not relevant to redirects. The applicable policy is WP:RNEUTRAL which tells us that non-neutral and even pejorative redirects can have value if they point readers to the balanced and neutrally-written article where they can learn the correct title. RNEUTRAL 1 and 3 both apply. Rossami (talk) 19:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Director (education)

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 disambiguate. Thryduulf (talk) 11:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

It is very misleading and unhelpful to explain "director" in the context of education. See Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#director (education) Quest for Truth (talk) 12:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

  • The term is commonly used in the international schools system. See, for example, United Nations International School, and (the last one is actually Director-General). --Viennese Waltz 13:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Director isn't mentioned in the Head teacher article. "Director" alone seems to refer to head teacher but is used in titles such as "Director of ..." for other senior roles in schools or education authorities. Anywhere it links to should probably mention this, either with hatnote or within text. The closest definition for this is at Director (business); maybe that page could be expanded to include senior roles in other organisations. Peter E. James (talk) 14:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • The first version of this page was a quasi-disambiguation page in paragraph format. Director can refer to "head teacher" but it can also refer to other roles in the leadership of an educational institution. I recommend conversion to an explicit disambiguation page. Rossami (talk) 19:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Draft of possible disambiguation content posted under the RfD tag. Note: In addition to the concerns above, the edit history shows that content was at some point merged to the current target. Add "keep pagehistory to ensure compliance with the attribution requirements of GFDL and CC-BY-SA" to my opinion above. Rossami (talk) 20:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Kayla Huntington (Desperate Housewives character

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. Being useless is usually not a reason for deleting a redirect, and there seems to be no consensus here that this redirect is actually harmful. Jafeluv (talk) 07:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

This redirect should be deleted because it is missing a close parens and is therefore not useful to anyone. Kayla Huntington (Desperate Housewives) has all of the useful history, and this is merely a move artifact. -LtNOWIS (talk) 00:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

  • It was created as the artifact of a pagemove in Dec 2007. It has created no controversy or confusion in all the 4 1/2 years since. It is not in the way of other article content. While I would agree that there is little value to keeping it, there is zero value to deleting it. "Little" still being bigger than "zero" leaves me at keep unless an actual reason to delete is offered. Yes, redirects really are that cheap. Rossami (talk) 06:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete- Zero incoming article links; in the search box, by the ninth character, its only competition is...the character, similarly redirected. At seven and eight characters, only obfuscates that it's the same subject. Dru of Id (talk) 14:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • keep per Rossami. The search box is far from the only method people use to find Misplaced Pages articles and internal links are not the only ones that matter (indeed they perhaps matter less as we know what they are and so can update them as needed). This should be tagged as {{unprintworthy}} though, which has the useful side-effect of removing redirects so identified from the search suggestions. Thryduulf (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
It is thusly tagged. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete—absolutely useless redirect. Ruslik_Zero 16:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep, as a plausible typo. It's only one character off of the correct form. I wouldn't recommend going and creating redirs for every typo that's one character off, but since it's already there it was obviously typed that way once, and there's no harm in keeping it. In that vein, I've gone and changed the {{unprintworthy}} to {{R from misspelling|printworthy=no}}, which is a more specific version. This is all assuming it won't appear in the search bar suggestions once it's un-listed from RfD—the proper form isn't appearing, nor are other redirects listed at Category:Redirects from misspellings. BigNate37(T) 07:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Luis Capela

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 "Both speedied - no target." Peridon (talk) 18:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of these redirects. The target page has been deleted and was done by a retired user. So that I cannot report this to him. (Shall I inform him about this proposal?). The page was deleted after a proposed for deletion discussion. Reason- Expired PROD, concern was: Non-notable footballer who hasn't played in a fully-professional league. Vanischenu m 17:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

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

June 18

Gro.aidepikiw.ne

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Home language

The 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 First language. JohnCD (talk) 20:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Misplaced Pages:Chobham 2.0

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

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

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

The Entertainologist

The 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 defer to AfD Thryduulf (talk) 16:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

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

  • defer to AfD. Redirects like this don't need to be nominated here. If the target is deleted then redirects get speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G8. If the article is not deleted and you still think the redirect should be deleted you can nominate it here without prejudice. Thryduulf (talk) 13:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Republic of China (1927–1949)

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

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

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

Repulic of Venice

The 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. Thryduulf (talk) 11:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

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

  • Keep. It's been around since 2006 and has not caused any controversy or confusion in all that time. By all appearances, it was created in good faith and the statistics show a steady trickle of hits suggesting that this misspelling is not uncommon. It is not in the way of any other content. "Unnecessary" is a value judgement based on how you navigate the wiki. It is explicitly not a reason to delete a redirect. They really are that cheap. Rossami (talk) 03:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Republic of China (1911-1949)

The 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. Rossami (talk) 18:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Criticism of Misplaced Pages

The 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 the redirect. Ruslik_Zero 16:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

June 17

Falafel (Bill O'Reilly)

The 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 no consensus to delete. Rossami (talk) 18:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

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

  • comment, leaning towards keep. This is consistently getting around 30 hits/month suggesting people continue to find it useful. While the target page doesn't currently mention falafel, the last version of the original target before it was afd-merged into the present article does (see old revision), which combined with a satement in the afd (linked at the top of the old revision) about the importance of it to the case makes it quite possible that it will be mentioned in future. If this is not harmful (it doesn't appear to be, but I've never heard of the subject before now and its bleeping difficult doing the research on my increasingly senile phone) then I don't see a reaon to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 00:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

My Little Brony

The 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. Ruslik_Zero 19:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Banned users

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

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

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

Gap junction protein, alpha 1, 43kDa

The 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 'no consensus to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 11:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Micro Award

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

June 16

Microsoft connect

The 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 no consensus to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 11:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

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

  • Hmmm... This title was an article about a not-especially-notable Microsoft product website. Early drafts were poorly written and it was speedy-deleted four times on the day of creation. In my opinion, those speedy-deletions were largely inappropriate because they were too rapidly and too aggressively applied. (Except the copyvio-version. That had to go.) The creator's poor english appears to have been a primary justification rather than the inherent suitability of the topic. Regardless, the page creation and re-creation continued until finally user:SarekOfVulcan turned the title into a redirect. While the reverts continued, they appear to have been more controllable after the overwrite. Redirects from a non-notable or semi-notable product to a more notable parent entity are routine. And while it is usual for a redirect to actually be mentioned on the target page, it is not required.
    Given the page's troubled history, I am inclined to keep the redirect as is. This preempts further attempts to recreate the deleted content (and while the early drafts may be objectionable, it is not yet proven that the topic itself fails to meet our inclusion criteria, so SALTing is inappropriate). Keeping the redirect also keeps the Talk page alive so that we can try to have a conversation with the article creator to determine if and when the topic does meet our inclusion criteria and preserves the pagehistory in case pieces are then useful.
    In the meantime, the redirect is doing no harm. Rossami (talk) 17:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Hi, Rossami
      I investigated a little to check your statements and I am afraid what I see in the article history does not justify your rationale for keeping the redirect. Contrary to what you said, the dispute did not stop with SarekOfVulcan's turning the article into a redirect; instead, a fierce revert war took place that only concluded when User:Google6666 received an indefinite block. Another reason to dismiss your rationale is the fact that anyone willing to re-create the article will probably create a Microsoft Connect instead.
      Best regards,
      Codename Lisa (talk) 17:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
      • I didn't say that the disputed editing stopped completely. But compared to the disputes in the deleted history, the fight since SarekOfVulcan's decision has been tame. Rossami (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
        • Hi again. Well, I see three reverts before and three reverts after that point. So, I don't see anything tamer. Anyway, the troublemaker is blocked. If he decide to evade block, a redirect will not stop him. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
          • Were you able to review the deleted history? I see an additional 15 reverts or so - arguably more if you include the four speedy-deletions in the count. The fact that the user has been blocked helps a lot but as a general rule, a redirect is still easier to watchlist and protect than a blank title. Rossami (talk) 17:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
            • Hi. An uncreated page is equally easy to watchlist. (You did know that, right?) But most importantly, a redirect must only exist when it helps bona fide readers reach authentic information, not to serve as an illegitimate alternative to salting. Our first priority is our bona fide readership who should not be lead astray. If you believe there is genuine risk, then please be bold and salt the page. Otherwise, please don't resort to half-measures that are already proven ineffective. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
              • Re: "easy to watchlist" - Yes and no. It used to be impossible to watchlist a blank title and it still doesn't present the same on a watchlist but you are correct that it is now possible. To your other point, however, our Protection Policy explicitly tells us to limit page protection to the minimum extent necessary to protect the project. Protection is inherently anti-wiki. It creates a section of the encyclopedia at odds with our motto (The encyclopedia that anyone can edit). Salting a page is overkill were a non-harmful redirect will do. Also, your statement that "a redirect must only exist ..." is not strictly true. Aid to navigation is one important function of redirects but not the only one. The relevant question to the debate here is whether the redirect is harmful. I still don't see any harm in this case. Redirects from non-notable products to a more notable parent article are routine. How is this different? Rossami (talk) 23:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
                • Hello again.
So, basically, to summarize your message, you don't see harm in this redirect. How about our readership being led astray? They search a sprawling article for the topic with no result, wasting their time. As for what you call "routine", a prevalent mistake, in my humble opinion, is different from a community consensus. So other stuff exist is not a good reason.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Bob Bradley (composer/producer)

The 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. JohnCD (talk) 21:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Misplaced Pages:HAPPYPLACE

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

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

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

Cmt1a

The 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. Jafeluv (talk) 12:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

June 14

Patrizia D'Addario

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 no consensus to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Misplaced Pages:Cosmos and Psyche

The 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; CSD G7. Kafziel 15:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Petara

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

Dingoes Ate My Baby

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

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

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

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

  • Keep as creator of redirect. When I googled "a dingo ate my baby" (much closer to the original quote), the wikipedia page on the band was the first search result. Since I changed the phrase to a redirect, Death of Azaria Chamberlain is now the first result, as it should be. The accuracy of the quote is irrelevant, accuracy is also irrelevant for redirects. You're expecting us to believe that no one is ever mistaken about the quote and that no one ever thinks it's dingos instead of dingo? Finally, the idea that anyone looking for it is looking for the band is ludicrous. I have even pondered nominating the band for deletion. It's not very important to the TV show, Buffy, and has no real-world significance, and its notability is questionable. So, are our users typing in a slightly wrong quote, or are they typing in the name of a non-notable band? Seems easy to answer. And how it an almost accurate quote from the story "in the worst possible taste", especially considering that A dingo ate my baby! redirects there too? D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. Real-life event vs. a fictional band from Buffy the Vampire Slayer? Real-life event, please. It's obviously a popular misquote, and precisely the sort of thing for which redirects were intended. Kafziel 15:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I have added the lowercase version of this redirect to the nomination as they are nearly identical. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Remove Can anyone explain to me why a "quotation" needs to have a hatnote? it is not usual for a quote to have a hatnote. "What about me little mate" doesn't have a hatnote. "Life wasn't meant to be easy" doesn't have a hatnote". Why should a serious misquotation of what a frantic mother said have a hatnote? Who would google that anyway, when people know the names of Lindy Chamberlain and Azaria Chamberlain very well, and both will take you to the article.
    The fictitious band needs to be listed in the media section.
    Don't the feelings of the family count for anything?
    That ghastly misquotation goes against the policy of treating the living with due respect. Misquoting Lindy Chamberlain doesn't do that.
    Haven't you guys got any human decency?
    The naming of the band was victimisation. The misquoting of what the mother of the dead child said also amounted to victimisation, because the sentence itself was widely used to ridicule Lindy Chamberlain. Amandajm (talk) 05:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
    • See below for the reason this should be removed:
      WP:AVOIDVICTIM
      Avoid victimization
      When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Misplaced Pages editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.
      Please see Biographies of living persons noticeboard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amandajm (talk • contribs)
      • First, there is nothing wrong with a quotation in a hatnote - any time that a quotation redirects somewhere and readers might be looking for something different, such as the hatnote at Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow. Second, as far as "pared back to a version that is completely sourced...", the fact that dingoes did, in fact, kill her baby is probably the best-sourced fact in the entire article. As far as not "including every detail", this isn't a detail, this is the entire essence of what happened. Finally, the most important thing, this is not an article, it's a redirect. Redirects don't have to be neutral, see Water fluoridation conspiracy theory for an example. Redirects don't have to be correct, see Barack OBama and Kevin perria. The standard for deleting redirects is high as they are not articles, and deleting requires a much more blatant violation of neutral point of view, such as the "worst movie" redirects here.
        Redirects don't make editorial statements, not really. They are there to help someone who doesn't know what the child's name was but incorrectly remembers that she said "dingoes ate my baby". The quote is already out there and people already associate it with this case, and we can't change that. Removing the redirect will not make it go away. Misplaced Pages did not create the media circus, Misplaced Pages did not create the botched police investigation, and neither will be made any worse by having this redirect. The redirect exists because people already think she said that, and the real quote should be in the article so people can learn what she really said. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete and move. Relationship to current article: a misspelling and misquote of a phrase not even used in the article in its original form ( "A dingo's got my/the baby"). Relationship to fictional band: the exact name used. Misquotes of the phrase are common on the the net, but this particular variant with the plural "Dingoes" seem uncommon outside association with the band. Putting a hatnote on the fictional band page instead would also avoid the very unfortunate positioning at the top of the article on a real-life tragic event.--Melburnian (talk) 13:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • It shows an appalling lack of empathy to insist on leaving it there, regardless of how many reasons you can trot out for doing it!
    Dodegroovily, your justification here is to make it very easy for curious people who can't remember what was said, or the names. Your concern is primarily to help really forgetful people. However, when it comes to the article, the living subjects have to be considered, more than those who are idly curious. I put it to you that anyone with a serious reason for wanting the info will have enough information to do a successful search.
    Just try Googling "dingo" and "baby" and it will be there, without the hatnote.
    You accused me of deleting a "fact". I didn't. I deleted a misquote and a link to something which is/can be linked at a different place in the article, the Media section.
    You, Dodegroovily, have nothing to loose. These people have lost a child, and lost years of their lives to suspicion, hatred, persecution and gaol.
    Let us show a little human decency in this matter. Amandajm (talk) 16:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Search
      I just did a Google search on the minimum information to find this topic i.e. the words "dingo" and "baby".
      I used the Google search engine for UK, USA and Australia.
      In each instance the words "dingo" and "baby" provided results that pertained directly to the Chamberlain case, and although the case is much in the news at this time, the Misplaced Pages article rated second to fourth on the list for each search.
      This indicates quite clearly that the page does not require a headnote that reads "Dingoes ate my baby" directs here. The link to the crassly-named band doesn't need to be at the top of the page either. Amandajm (talk) 16:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
      • The quote is only barely a misquote, only two words slightly wrong. To say redirecting a barely misquote is disrespectful ignores the real disrespect floating around the inter webs, like this trash: (), not to mention its tasteless use on Seinfeld and the Far Side comic. I think we're being plenty respectful here. At any rate, I think the best solution is to delete the page on the non-notable fictional band and then you don't need a hatnote. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 17:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep as is. I find the arguments about "disrespect" confusing when the proposed alternative is to point the title instead to a fictional band that was itself named to lampoon this real-world event. I am also confused by the argument that 1) this is so prejudicial that it must be removed from Misplaced Pages and in defending that statement, a google search shows that the very same terms return the relevant topic.
    The title is clear, points to the logically connected article and helps readers find the content they want. Note that even if these were untrue, WP:NPOV does not apply to redirects (or more specifically, it does not apply in the same way that it does to article titles and content). The arguments above to delete are not based in Misplaced Pages policy. Rossami (talk) 22:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. In May these redirects had over 6000 hits between them (the stats are unfortunately case insensitive), which is a truly massive number for a redirect (we routinely regard redirects with low double-digit hit counts as actively used). It's clear therefore that we need something at this title and the question then becomes what is the primary topic? The only logical choices are the current target, a clearly notable event due at least in part to the massively high-profile international media circus it generated; or a fictional band from a discontinued cult TV series named after the event. All the evidence points, unsurprisingly to the former. Despite this it could be that the redirect is still harmful, and if so that harmfulness will need to be balanced against the above-demonstrated benefits. So is it harmful? WP:RNEUTRAL suggests that it is actually beneficial to have redirects like this because it educates readers that the quote that exists in the popular concsciousness (hence this, not the correct formulation, is the name of the fictional band, for example) is incorrect and gives them the actual quote. Thus any harm is miniscule in comparison with the benefits of enabling thousands of people a month to finx the article they are looking for. Finaly, to use a dictionaric analogy, Misplaced Pages is descriptive not prescriptive - that is our coverage reflects what is not what shhould be. 82.132.233.104 (talk) 01:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Misplaced Pages policy on victimization
    Avoid victimization
    WP:AVOIDVICTIM
    When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Misplaced Pages editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.
    You see, it really doesn't matter how many people search it wrongly.
    People enjoy sensationalism. People are often crass and insensitive. People who were crass and insensitive hounded and victimiszd the Chamberlain family with stuff like this.
    When this redirect was created, it catered (like the press) to the satisfiction of the lowest common denominator, the people whose suspicions put Lindy Chamberlain in goal, the people whose curiosity had her hounded by the media.
    So now we have a Misplaced Pages that to the curiosity of the masses like some cheap nasty tabloid, instead of avoiding victimization as per Misplaced Pages's clearly stated policy.
    Solution is obvious. Make sure that there is a hatnote on the page Dingoes Ate My Baby (band)
    That solves the problem. Amandajm (talk) 06:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I really don't get how this victimizes anyone. The article itself is neutral and fair and accurately describes what happens and reports on the media circus for what it is - a grave injustice.
      But, we're not talking about the article. The policy above does not apply to redirects. In fact, one of the reasons for redirects to exist is so offensive terms can lead to the correct topic without having to include the offensive term in the article. I don't see how this caters to the lowest common denominator. Not knowing the exact quote or the name of the baby doesn't make one the lowest common denominator. In fact, I'm willing to bet that nearly everyone outside Australia known nothing about this case but "dingo ate my baby" as the story didn't have much lasting impact in other countries. This is how these people can find the article and learn the truth, but if they don't find it, they're likely to continue to believe the media's lies. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 06:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Dingoes Ate My Baby (band) is now nominated for deletion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dingoes Ate My Baby (band) D O N D E groovily Talk to me 06:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Response to the above comments.
    Dondegroovily, you say "I really don't get how this victimizes anyone."
    The fact that you "don't get it" is part of the point. I am prepared to take your persistence in retaining it as "good will".
    Now, because you say you "don't get it", I want you to accept my good will in telling you that the mother of the dead child would beyond doubt find it offensive as a recollection of the victimization.
    The Misplaced Pages statement says: Misplaced Pages editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.
    It is clear, from what you have said, that you were not acting intentionally to "prolong victimization".
    But now that you have been alerted to the fact that this may cause great offence to the living subjects of the article, you are now no longer acting unintentionally.
    Please take the word of a person who has counselled others in grief situations. It would offend the mother of the child. She has done nothing whatsoever to deserve offending!
    As I have already pointed out, a person only needs to do a search on "dingo, baby" and they will bring up the article. The "redirect" is superfluous.
    The band doesn't need to be mentioned, and the statement "Dingoes ate my baby" does not need a hatnote.
    As for people not knowing about it outside Australia, it is so well known that the coroner's decision has been world news.
    The death of the child and following case is so well known that even "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" had reference to it.
    Please don't keep insisting on this crassness! I understand that you don't "get it". And I understand that you want to win this dispute. But sometimes you just have to pay attention to someone who does get it! Are you really going to feel right if you win at the risk of hurting the living subjects of the article? Amandajm (talk) 13:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
    • You've stated your position. Please don't start making your arguments personal. Kafziel 14:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
    • It is not "beyond doubt." You don't know that. You are not Lindy Chamberlain. Don't pretend to know how she feels. I'm pretty sure any grieving person would be offended by that. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 15:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Is this some sort of a joke?
        Does Misplaced Pages really concern itself more over an editor trying to make a point very clearly to another editor that they may be exceeding the boundaries of human decency and compassion, than dealing with the issue itself?
        As for it being "not beyond doubt": It may not be "beyond doubt" in the mind of the public who took part in the witch hunt. It may not be beyond doubt to a public who has never seen a domestic dog (Blue Cattle Dog for example) give a rabbit a sharp flick to kill it, then skin it neatly before consuming. It may not be beyond doubt in the mind of a public who see Seventh Day Adventists as people who sacrifice babies, rather than people who run Tuberculosis and Leprosy clinics.
        It is certainly "beyond doubt" in the High Court of Australia that Lindy Chamberlain is innocent. The article needs to respect that fact, and not be arranged in a way that prolongs the ridicule.
        What Lindy said at the time that the child was discovered missing must be quoted in the article, because it is highly relevant.
        However, a misquote that was widely used in sick jokes and numerous parodies of the situation does not belong at the top of the article. Amandajm (talk) 03:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
        • Clarification - it is beyond doubt that Azaria was attacked by dingoes and her parents are innocent of all charges. In is not beyond doubt that the victim will find it offensive. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
          • Hello, did you just refer to Lindy Chamberlain as "victim"? You mean as "victim of the victimisation" , presumably?
            You are right, of course. It is not proved beyond reasonable doubt that Ms Chamberlain and her family might find it offensive.
            So, are you suggesting that Misplaced Pages leaves potentially victimizing material in articles, just on the off-chance that the victim of the victimization won't be offended? Amandajm (talk) 06:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
            • comment: You seem to be slighly confused about what we are discussing here. We are not concened with the content of the article (that is a discussion for the article talk page), only whether the very widely known (and highly searched for - see the stats) phrase "dingoes ate my baby" should redirect to the article about the event the phrase refers to. The guiding principle in this is not the guidelines about avoiding victimisation, because that is about article content which is not relevant, but WP:RNEUTRAL, which deals with redirects. According to that long-standing principle, which continues to enjoy widespread consensus, and everything at WP:R#DELETE, which similarly is widely supported, there is no reason to either delete this redirect.or to point it at a different target. The sole purpose of redirects of this nature is to enable people to find the article they are looking for. If what they are looking for is non-neutral, incorrect or disputed then it is the job of the article to educate them about this and redirects from these titles facilitate this. If this redirect did not exist then there is a very high likelihood of a duplicate, probably inferior article being written by someone who was unaware of the existence of the existing article. These provable large benefits far, far outweigh any unprovable slight offence that the subject of the target of the redirect may theoretically take from Misplaced Pages saying "You looked for X, information about that is in article Y", wbich is no different to saying "You looked for 'Dubya', information about that is at 'George W Bush'". Thryduulf (talk) 09:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC).
  • Retarget to Oz (Buffy the Vampire Slayer). The target band article has been merged there. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Untwisted

The 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. Ruslik_Zero 19:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Untwisted is well known in various technical communities but is now in the process of being merged/renamed back into Twisted, which is why I created the redirect. Enthdegree (talk) 23:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
untwisted is not a fork of Twisted, nor does it implement anything that isn't already included in Twisted, so it getting "merged back" is highly unlikely. It is possible that we are talking about different "untwisted"s, though, as I believe there are multiple projects. I linked the one I was referring to; which are you? —habnabit 17:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —habnabit 04:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

June 11

Millosheviq

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

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

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

12345

Template:Badimage

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

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

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

Misplaced Pages:HDH

The 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 no consensus to delete. Rossami (talk) 21:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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