Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RickK (talk | contribs) at 08:47, 3 October 2004 (→September 26). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
For other meanings of rfd see RFD
Shortcut

Sometimes, we want to delete redirects. If you think a redirect page should be deleted, please insert {{rfd}} at the top of the page and list the redirect at the bottom of this page. Note that a bug causes {{rfd}} to be ignored if it follows #REDIRECT.

List articles to be deleted in this format:

Deletion tools
Policy (log)
Articles (howto · log)
Templates (howto · log)
Categories (howto · log)
Mergers
Page moves
Speedy
All speedy templates
Unfree files
Transwiki (howto · log)
All transwiki templates

When should we delete a redirect?

To delete a redirect without replacing it with a new article, list it here. This isn't necessary if you just want to replace a redirect with an article: see meta:redirect for instructions on how to do this.

You might want to delete a redirect if one or more of the following conditions is met:
  1. The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. (see meta:searches and redirects for proposals to lessen this impact)
  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 it should be deleted.
  3. The redirect is offensive and/or POV, such as "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs", unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is discussed in the article.
  4. The redirect makes no sense, such as [[Pink elephants painting daisies]] to love
  5. It is a cross-space redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace.
  6. If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to an article that does not exist, it can be deleted immediately, though you should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first.

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

  1. They have a potentially useful page history. 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
  3. They aid searches on certain terms.
  4. You risk breaking external or internal links by deleting the redirect. There is rarely a reason to delete historical CamelCase links.
  5. Someone finds them useful. 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 a liar, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways.

For example, redirecting Dubya to George W. Bush might be considered offensive, but the redirect aids accidental linking, makes the creation of duplicate articles less likely, and is useful to some people, so it should not be deleted.

See also: Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion#Redirects for policy on which redirects can be deleted immediately, and Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Precedents#Redirects for precedents that are followed with regards to redirects.

If you delete one of these pages, don't forget to delete any accompanying talk page.

June 19

[[Ås<caron>rÄ«mÄ?lÄ?-sÅ«tra]] -> Srimala sutra. RickK 06:07, Jun 19, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete the entry with cur id:736339, if it's still there. How does one link there ( [[<i_>Å&#154;rÄ«mÄ?lÄ?-sÅ«tra</i_>]] ) -- User:Docu
    • Special:Whatlinkshere/Srimala_sutra has nothing linking to it, which suggests 736339 doesn't exist. Angela. 10:30, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • I just ran SELECT cur_title, cur_text, cur_namespace FROM cur WHERE cur_id = 736339
        on a more recent version, and it still shows up. --User:Docu

July 25

  • [[L. S<caron>arounová]] This redirect page should be deleted because the S caron in the title is not ISO-8859-1 (and thus won't show correctly on some machines, such as Macs). As for the "mistake", my understanding is that the redirection entry would work only for Windows users (which do include the S caron in their ANSI character super-set). I'm not completely clear yet on how redirects work with non ISO-8859-1 characters. Let me be clear: the proper name of the astronomer in question is "L. S<caron>arounová". Links within pages could be in either long or short ("L. S<caron>arounová") form, with or without accents (so there are eight link forms total). The target page cannot be titled "Lenka S<caron>arounová" because the S caron isn't kosher. What's the correct solution? Urhixidur 12:12, 2004 Jul 25 (UTC) (moved here from vfd by Graham ☺ | Talk 22:23, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC))

September 9

  • George Woshingtin has been created again. As there seems to be some confusion about the matter, allow me to make several points. Woshingtin first appeared in the pages of wikipedia when I offered it as an example of an absurd redirect when trying to have Helmuth von Molke deleted. Later, User:33451, who has been under suspicion in the past of trolling, created it as a redirect. When I and several other users objected, he cited my post as the justification (see here for the discussion). For about the last eight days this redirect has passed from creation to deletion and back again - I'm not even sure how many times. Google reports four hits for "Woshingtin" - three of which come from discussions over this redirect. This is not a useful mispelling and, given the discussion above, I do not believe it was created in good faith. Could we please end the madness? Mackensen 19:50, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • See Vandalism in progress (cf Silver Proxy) for more activity related to this redirect. Mackensen 19:53, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • So just keep it. That'll end the madness. anthony (see warning) 00:29, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • I agree on this one: (1) redirects are cheap; (2) don't feed the trolls. • Benc • 22:19, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • I fail to see why we should either i) put up with trolls, or ii) encourage incorrect spellings. Nuke it. Noel 21:14, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • I fail to see how keeping a redirect encourages incorrect spellings. anthony (see warning) 03:38, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
          • A redirect based on an incorrect spelling? You don't see? Bearcat 07:18, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • No. I don't see. How is having a redirect based on an incorrect spelling going to encourage incorrect spellings? anthony (see warning) 20:01, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
            • That's what Anthony is asking—how does a redirect encourage bad spelling? By this logic, we also need to get rid of Hillary Duff so we don't encourage people to spell it with 2 L's. El Chico! Talk 17:01, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Support deletion. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 22:17, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. It's cheap. It's harmless. Further, why has it been deleted before the decision was made here? — Stevietheman 15:20, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • A decision was made. Then somebody who didn't like the decision decided that the discussion was insufficient, and recreated it. Then it was deleted again, after more discussion. Bearcat 07:18, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Just to end this madness once and for all. The only problem is, Bearcat seems to delete things like this without even looking at the discussion. He even deleted Queen/Band, which had an edit history, and when asked about it, refused to undelete. — i386 | Talk 18:45, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • I did this ONCE. Don't even try making it sound like I make a habit of inappropriate deletions. Bearcat 07:14, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • Yes, but you deleted a redirect with an edit history—Queen/Band—and when User:33451 pointed this out to you, you failed to undelete it. — El Chico! Talk 17:01, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. I fail to understand the reasoning going on here. People say "keep", because we aren't supposed to feed the trolls. Its creation (as I've noted repeatedly) was itself a trollish activity. To retain such a useless redirect, created in bad faith, is itself encouragement. Once we allow this one, there shall be precedent for keeping any odd redirect. We'll have crap like James Munroah and Coffee Annan. Realize that the links made in Wikipedia propagate throughout web because of mirror sites and Google. We have a responsibility to NOT pollute the pool, as it were. Mackensen 19:48, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • If its creation was a “trollish activity”, only you are to blame, as you suggested it in the first place. You are calling your own actions trolling. Of course, that assumes it was created in bad faith, but I don't see how a useful redirect is bad faith or trolling. — i386 | Talk 18:51, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • You've got a real problem reading for context if you think Mackensen was suggesting it as something that should be in the Wikipedia -- he was quite clearly suggesting it as something that shouldn't be here. Bearcat 07:05, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Why argue this entire thing out? There's no reason to keep fighting this. A determined user, SilverProxy, attempted to move pages in such a way that George Woshingtin would have to be kept becuase it had the edit history of the real article. Judging from how strong the support is here, I'm creating it and keeping it. — —WikiWatch (Talk) [[]] 19:01, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I've just a tiny suspicion that there's more than a little sock-puppetry going on in this debate. Delete under speedy deletion provisions. -- The Anome 19:40, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • I'm not a sock puppet. Look at my history. -- Stevietheman 05:16, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • This whole discussion is absurd. There's absolutely no valid reason for this redirect to exist, and even less for it to have been recreated and deleted and recreated again multiple times. Bearcat 07:11, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a harmless redirect. Guanaco 21:02, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

September 10

  • Liquid democracy - redirect to article now deleted via VFD. --195.11.216.59 16:07, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. I changed the redirect to a real article E-democracy after Liquid Democracy was deleted. The "liquid democracy" concept is very related to e-democracy. -- Stevietheman 21:58, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Hmm. I read up on liquid democracy here and it seems like a sufficiently different concept that I'm not sure a redirect is proper. At the very least, there's no mention of "liquid democracy" on the E-democracy page, which is not good in light of the significant difference in meaning. I don't know why the article was deleted, but I'm uneasy with this as a redirect. Either the E-democracy article should be updated to include some material on liquid democracy, or the redirects should be deleted so any refernce to the concept shows up red. There's also a Liquid Democracy link which should get the same treatment as this one. Noel 21:36, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Male Genital Mutilation redirects to circumcision. That seems to fit the grounds of POV and offensive to me. --195.11.216.59 16:40, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Keep, but preferably not as redirect. anthony (see warning)
    • Keep, on the principle of minimum waste of time. Yes, the redirect is on the POV side, but it's not blatantly offensive. More importantly, would we rather leave the article name open for someone to come along later and write a POV rant about it? We'd VfD it, but it would be recreated eventually by some other ranter. Rinse, repeat ad nauseam. Besides, once the dispute at circumcision is resolved, the genital mutilation angle will be covered in an NPOV fashion, making the redirect acceptable. • Benc • 22:19, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • If it's going to be kept as a redirect, then the term needs to be discussed in the article. Apparently you are saying this is going to be done? If so, I support keeping the redirect. anthony (see warning) 03:50, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • Yes, that's precisely what I'm saying. :-) • Benc • 07:05, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Support deletion. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 22:17, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • ¡Keep! Male Genital Mutilation is real. Ŭalabio 18:07, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC) Besides, in deleted, such a common term will just reappear as an article or redirect in a little while. ¿How many times has an article or redirect existed with this name already? It has 1630 hits on Google.Com. Besides, you already have the president of female genital mutilation. If you delete one you will have to delete the other. Indeed, in the interest of neutrality, we should also have a redirect for human genital mutilation. In the interest of balance, I shall place female genital mutilation on { { rfd } }. If male genital mutilation and female genital mutilation]] survive, I shall create a redirect for human genital mutilation. Ŭalabio 23:18, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)
      • Looking at the google hits, I've been convinced to change my vote. This seems to be an actual term, even used in scientific contexts [1]. I'm not sure making it a redirect as opposed to a full article in its own right is correct, as male genital mutilation includes acts which are not circumcision (without even addressing the POV question as to whether or not circumcision is necessarily mutilation), but this can be resolved eventually. anthony (see warning) 03:50, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. POV and is debatable. Mike H 00:25, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. I don't think we should care if a redirect is POV. The point is that we want to prevent a full article on it, and further, some people may actually type this phrase in. It's harmless. -- Stevietheman 15:08, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Why do you want to prevent a full article on it? anthony (see warning) 03:52, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • I didn't say I want to, I said we want to. Circumcision is the term that covers this subject, and "Male Genital Mutilation" is decidedly POV. -- Stevietheman 05:19, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
          • There's nothing POV about the term "Male Genital Mutilation". What is POV is saying that circumcision === Male Genital Mutilation. And I think you misunderstood my use of the term "you". I meant it in the plural form. Why do y'all want to prevent a full article on it? anthony (see warning) 20:05, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, if only to leave the recent wave of anti-circumcision protesters one less article to disrupt. --Ardonik.talk() 18:34, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • I've changed the redirect to point to genital modification and mutilation. -Sean Curtin 19:50, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

September 15

  • Moldova Noua, Caransebes, Bocsa, Baile Herculane, Otelu Rosu, Oravita -- so the article from Moldova Noua, Romania, Caransebes, Romania, etc can be moved in place. Bogdan | Talk 20:13, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • All these articles were originally at the places where there are redirects now, and were moved to the "XXX, Romania" forms some time ago. Alas, it was done via a cut-and-paste, so the edit history is partially on the redirect page. What's the Wikipedia standard now for pages on cities? I think it's to put it in the "XXX, <country>" form, no? Noel 21:56, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • I don't think there is a standard for international (non-US) parties. Usually, if there is only one placename with a name, it can have the article without country name. The names of the cities listed here do not conflict with any others. Bogdan | Talk 22:14, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Holy Ghost -> Holy Spirit
    • The whole purpose of the "Holy Ghost" article was to show why some groups (particularly LDS and some Charismatics/Pentecostals and Independent Baptists) insisted on the former term in preference to "Holy Spirit". The idea of "ghost" being an archaic use when refering to the human spirit rather than an "apparition" was noted. A link was sufficient. The former "Holy Ghost" article should be restored. Making it a redirect suggests that the difference is a silly quibble, which is very POV.
    • This is not the right place to be discussing this. Resolve the issue on the talk page. anthony (see warning) 04:22, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I believe that the discussion "Holy Ghost vs. Holy Spirit" should stay in the Holy Spirit article. The redirect should be kept. -- Mike Rosoft 18:57, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

September 16

  • The VfD on 3909 04 ended with overwhelming support for deleting the article outright, but SimonP chose to redirect instead. I'd like to see this deleted, unless someone thinks there's a possibility of the topic being looked for under this title. Austin Hair 21:02, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
    • If this redirect is to be kept, then the text needs to be merged (the article needs to at least mention what 3909 04 is. No vote, as I've not checked the accuracy of the original text. anthony (see warning) 12:16, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • It's mentioned here: RMS Titanic#The 'Titanic Curse'. Somebody really needs to do something about making redirects to sections possible. As for keeping it, well, yes, it seems to me that if I were looking for information on "whether it's true that the Titanic's registration number was 3909 04 because that looks like nO POPE when you read it backwards" that 3909 04 is one of the things I might look for. But it's all sort of weird anyway because finding things in Wikipedia is very hit-or-miss; the chances of finding information by typing in a correct guess at the article title is close to nil even if you know the naming conventions. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 12:56, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • The vote was for deletion, not for redirect. The redirect is in violation of the VfD consensus, and should go. RickK 05:04, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. The vote was five to three in favour of deletion, hardly consensus. Not to mention that my redirection should also obviously count as a pro-redirect vote. - SimonP 17:35, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

September 18

  • Please delete Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. I'd like this because I want to move University of Thessaloniki on it, and then create an opposite redirect. Take a look at my talk page to see why I opted for this. Thank you in advance. Etz Haim 09:47, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Sounds reasonable, but a quick question: when people in the region talk about the Univsity, or write its name, do they use the full name, or do they just go with the short version? On Wikipedia, we try to put articles under the "common" names of things, with redirects from the full, formal name. Thanks! Noel 12:12, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Well, that seems OK. The problem is that Aristotle University of Thessaloniki has a lot of history. It would be good to merge that into the other page before moving it over. I'll do it eventually, or someone else could go ahead and take care of it. Noel 21:18, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • That shouldn't be a problem. This way, the names of the three contributors, User:Tupsharru, User:Sky and me are all going to appear to the page's history. As for me though, I wouldn't even mind if some attribution for my work gets cropped out; the final result is all that matters. :) Etz Haim 21:26, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

September 22

  • SUPER FIGHTING ROBOT -> Mega_Man. I've never heard of Mega Man being called a fighting robot, much less a SUPER CAPLOCK FIGHTING ROBOT! -- [[User:Bobdoe|BobDoe]] 18:59, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Irish Cream needs to be red so someone will write an article; shouldn't redirect to one brand. Gehirn
    • It could be redirected to Cream liqueur instead. sjorford 13:08, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes, but do we want an article about Irish Cream specifically, as opposed to cream liquers in general? If so, deleting it would be the right move. Noel 21:59, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Ass fucking, Scat fetish, Piss drinking and Crap eating. A bit on the iffy side. And I don't know why anybody would want to type these in. Denelson83 04:03, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. See more here which should be deleted - [2] Fuzheado | Talk 04:31, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. They're accurate and they're not really harming anything. And for those who don't know why anybody would type these in, well... I think you're giving the average Internet user too much credit. Rhobite 04:37, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
    • They weren't here for three years before this guy added them, so I think arguments that these are oft-searched-for terms are overrated. I think unnecessary redirects like this do a disservice to the Wikipedia. I can imagine people going to discussion boards and saying "heh. Type 'drinking piss' into the Wikipedia." Delete these sophomoric, scatalogical redirects. --Ardonik.talk()* 05:22, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
    • I hesistantly concur with Ardonik. If anyone can make a brilliant defense of these redirects, I may vote to keep. Mackensen 05:26, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. If we delete these redirects we might as well delete Arse shaggin', created by Sam Spade. How come no one complained about that one? I sense some bias against anonymous users. The redirects were created in good faith and are useful for someone who doesn't know the highly clinical terms "coprophagia" and "urolagnia". The only way one can see these redirects is by clicking "What links here" on the anal sex or urolagnia pages. And if you are old enough to read about anal sex or drinking urine, you are probably old enough to see the redirects. The redirects are consistent with Wikipedia's redirect policy. The fact that they are "scatological" is not grounds to delete them. Wikipedia is not bowdlerized. 63.159.128.38 05:50, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC) (Anon's first and only edit was here).
    • Keep. They're all good redirects. — El Chico! Talk 12:46, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep all, this is an obvious one. Heaven forbid we leave these article names open to be created by the type of newbie who would search for "ass fucking" in the first place. • Benc • 05:54, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep: Legitimate, if stupid. -Sean Curtin 01:22, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

September 24

September 26

  • Caisse pop -> credit union. Um, what? RickK 22:57, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
    • "Caisse pop" is short for "Caisse populaire", which is French for a literal meaning of "people's bank" (or something like that - "caisse" means "money-box" (the original meaning) or "cashier" and related meanings); hence "credit union". So it's basically a translation link. Noel 23:24, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Why do we have slang terms in foreign languages as redirects in the English Wikipedia? RickK 08:47, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Neolioberalismo -> Neoliberalism
    • Started life as a misspelled Portuguese title for a short diatribe in Portuguese on a topic we already handle appropriately. Redirected; nominating this as a redirect for deletion. -- Jmabel 00:27, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
    • You should probably put the contents back, and then list the page on VfD. Turning a page into a redirect, and then asking for it to be deleted, is not really the way to handle these cases. Noel 16:21, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

September 28

  • Wages -> Wage -- Delete because it's a redundant and unnecessary plural redirect. All pages linking to [[Wages]] have been edited to point to [[Wage]]s instead, except for the user page User:Mike [email protected]/Taxonomy DDC 300, the purpose of which I cannot discern and which also links to many many (many) other nonexistent pages. The use of simple plural->singular redirects (where [[XXX]]s will work instead) clutters the wiki and encourages sloppy linking.
    • Keep. There are literally thousands of plural redirects on Wikipedia and setting a precedent to delete them would be foolish. This one is particularly useful, since "wages" is a common form of the word "wage" and not obviously thought of as a plural. — David Remahl 20:44, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. The above reasoning is exactly right. Rlquall 20:47, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Economists tend to talk about wages in the plural. - RedWordSmith 05:21, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

September 30

October 1

  • VfD - cross namespace redirect. anthony (see warning) 00:13, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: I tend towards keep, but I'm not sure what a cross namespace redirect is, or why that's bad. One thing I do know: I use the redirect often to get to the VfD. I don't know about anyone else, but that's what I do. •→Iñgólemo←• 04:14, 2004 Oct 1 (UTC)
      • A cross-namespace redirect is a redirect from the article space into another namespace, such as the Wikipedia one in this case. It's reason number 5 for deletion. anthony (see warning) 05:16, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Perhaps a better solution would be to redirect to VFD? anthony (see warning) 05:17, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • That strikes me as a good solution. Mackensen 05:24, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • Sounds good to me too. Noel 12:21, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Harmless historical link, heavily used in the past. But no big deal either way. Nearly all the links that this will break are from page histories, rather than from current pages. Andrewa 07:15, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep! I still use this redirect, it's quicker to type than "WP:VfD". Plus, it's case sensitive so there is not really any chance of anyone typing it accidentally. - Mark 08:03, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: See also talk:vfd, talk:VfD, talk:VFD. Oh, and the redir seems to be busted by the RfD notice anyway. No change of vote. Andrewa 13:46, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • The Glass Bead Game - so Das Glasperlenspiel can be moved there, and the opposite redirect created. Pyrop 04:21, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
    • Hmm, which version is the common/usual way to refer to it in English? I assume it's Glass Bead Game? Noel 19:01, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • WxPython this page has 2 links to it, one of them is the target of the redirect, this is a self link, it should be deleted, so its blank and people will know someone needs to write a article, I already blanked the redirect. Patcat88 21:51, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Umm, I don't see a problem with the links - this page (which probably ought to be an article) currently links to WxWidgets, which contains a link back to WxPython in a list of associated packages. So when this page becomes an article, all will be well. Are you saying that this redirect should be deleted so that references to WxPython show up in red, so people will know they need to create the page? Noel 23:51, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

October 2

October 3

  • George Woshingtin -> George Washington.
    • Once more unto the breach, dear friends. I've prepared a summary of the tortuous history of this redirect. I originally suggested it as an example of an absurd redirect during the RfD debate over Helmuth von Molke (this was back on August 12, I think). It was created by 33451 The original RfD was on August 30 (see diff here), and the vote was 4-1 to delete, with the only vote in favor of keeping from 33451. It seemed clear to me, and others later, that this creation was not in good faith. It was re-created on September 7, after the consensus to delete, and was speedy deleted (I believe by Bearcat). The article came back that same day, because I accidentally re-created it by putting a delete tag on it (I did not realize it had been speedy deleted–freak accident, really) (see diff here). My listing was noted and quickly processed by Michael Snow, who noted that it had already gone through the process and been deleted (diff here). The redirect was created again on September 9, where the current RfD discussion now resides. The vote there was, admittedly, inconclusive, but many of the votes in favor came either from people reported for vandalism (SilverProxy), or people using sockpuppets (33451, WikiWatch). To cap the matter, the discussion on Votes for undeletion, which, given the successful deletion process back in August, strikes me as the most logical place to hold debate, was very much in favor of keeping it deleted. The redirect was undeleted in good faith by Guanaco, who was unaware of the strange history of the matter. Thus, at his suggestion, this has been listed a final time so as to put a rest to the matter. And yes, for the context-impaired, I vote to delete. Mackensen 01:50, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Who's George Washington? I always spelt it Gorge Woshingten.... delete ugen64 03:23, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm still all about the delete on this one. I also swore like a banshee when I saw that this was back for yet another kick at the can. Like, we've got to eventually let this stupidity rest. Bearcat 03:48, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion&oldid=6307489"