Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Anthony (talk | contribs) at 00:41, 31 March 2004 (=March 24=). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Sometimes, we want to delete redirects. Hence this page.

Other Votes for deletion (VfD) pages: copyright violations -- images -- votes for deletion

Deletion guidelines for administrators -- deletion log -- archived delete debates -- undeletion -- blankpages -- shortpages -- move to Wiktionary -- Bad jokes -- pages needing attention -- m:deletionism -- m:deletion management redesign -- Wikipedia:Cleanup

List articles to be deleted in this format:

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, "Charles C. Boyer" used to redirect to "Daniel C. Boyer", because Daniel was accidentally called Charles on one external web page. However, this caused confusion with the article on Charles Boyer, so it was deleted.
  3. The redirect is offensive, such as "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs", unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is a slogan being discussed in the article.
  4. The redirect makes no sense, such as [[Pink elephants painting daisies]] to love

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. 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 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.

Redirects to be deleted

People voting here may also be interested in the discussion on the policy regarding the deletion of offensive redirects.


March 12

  • Mars -> Mars (disambiguation) so we can move Mars (planet) there. Anthony DiPierro 13:01, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I looked around and didn't see any discussion on whether this was the right thing? If you can point me at that, I'll nuke Mars so you can do the move. Noel 17:07, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • AFAIK, there was no discussion. Anthony DiPierro 17:13, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • OK, so you should put short notes on the Talk pages for Mars (planet) and probably Mars (disambiguation) too, and if everyone's OK let's do it. I suggest taking this extra step to make sure everyone's OK with it only because it's not a minor topic, and better safe, etc. (I must say though that when I think of Mars, it's the planet, so this sounds like a reasonable move to me.) Oh, and of course if you do this, you will have to update the Mars (planet) page so that it has somewhere prominent a link to Mars (disambiguation). Noel 18:00, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • OK. I figured listing here was sufficient for the notice. Thanks. Anthony DiPierro 18:03, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Now that I stop and think about it, this may not be such a good idea. All the other planets are listed under [[Foo (planet)]], and [[Foo]] is a disambig page. So if you're going to change one, you really ought to do them all. And there are a zillion pages linking directly to Mars (planet). Somehow I don't see people going along with such a massive upheaval, but ahead and see what people say. If everyone's OK, then it's OK, right? Noel 18:09, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • Hmm, I didn't realize all the planets were that way. Assuming the only problem is the massive upheaval, then I think we should keep Mars as a redirect to Mars (planet) and add a disambig notice at the top. In fact, maybe that's the best choice anyway. Anthony DiPierro 18:12, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • Yeah, I don't like this; I think Mars should remain a disambiguation page, and the article on the planet moved back to Mars (planet). I remember there being a discussion about this years ago, and there being much disagreement over whether the planet or the god should get the "primary" article; disambiguation resolved all of that handily and it could get messy trying to reorganize everything again now. Bryan 00:24, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
          • I couldn't find the discussion. Seems clear that the planet should get the primary article. Anthony DiPierro 02:58, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • I just looked it up, the redirecting of Mars to the planet was tried back in 25 Aug 2002 and didn't stick. I think the reasons it didn't stick are still good ones. Check out the early stuff at [1] to see if there's anything significantly different now. Bryan 00:29, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • Mars should remain a disambiguation page. The planet was named after the god anyway. Perl 00:31, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
          • The fact it's named after a God is certainly irrelevant. I'll read those reasons on that link, though. Anthony DiPierro 02:55, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Apocalyptic Number confusing Anthony DiPierro 13:24, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • how? --Jiang
      • 666 is not the only apocalyptic number. In fact, according to some definitions, it's not even an apocalyptic number in the first place. anthony 02:46, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

March 14

  • Lecitihin --> Choline -- Please delete this page. It is a misspelling, my fault. The correct one should be Lecithin. BTW, I am unable to create a REDIRECT there properly, why? I am a newbie here. -- deego


March 20

  • Herbert Arthur Disney -> Walt Disney. Herbert was Walt's (and Roy's) older brother; they are not the same person. Herbert isn't noteworthy by himself and doesn't deserve his own Wiki page - his only claim to fame is in being related to Walt. (Unless someone actually has something interesting to say about him, and feels like creating a page.) Brian Kendig 16:00, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • See Reason 3 for avoiding deletion above: will aid searches on certain terms. Wikipedia is not paper and a REDIRECT doesn't actually take up that much extra real estate. In the meantime anyone looking for HA Disney will at least find something. --Phil | Talk 09:03, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, but as he is mentionned in Elias Disney the redirect should lead there. -- User:Docu
  • Injective, surjective and bijective functions --> function. These three topics each have their own page. The function page explains the differences (with links) in a section about a paragraph long. Is this redirect really all that useful?
    • Delete. This redirect makes it harder to find the information. Andrewa 19:19, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Eviltwin -> User:Eviltwin. RickK | Talk 04:07, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I just speedily deleted two more redirects created by this individual, that were orphans except that they redirected to each other. -- Graham  :) | Talk 17:40, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

March 22

March 23

  • In-car -> Car -- nothing links there, what is an "In-car" anyway?
    • Delete. Orphan. RickK | Talk 02:33, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

March 24

  • Macintosh II - Need to move Apple Macintosh II to Macintosh II and can't because the latter is a redirect back to former. "Apple Macintosh II" is the only mac article named with "apple" at the beginning (except for the generic article Apple Macintosh, which is correct), most people call it simply Macintosh II, and not unexpectedly there are more links to the latter than to the former. I'd just switch the 2 if I knew how to do it preserving the history. Elf | Talk 16:35, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I moved it. -anthony
  • Dinghy Racing: please delete the redirect to Dinghy sailing, as the latter page now has enogh stuff to start a Dinghy Racing Page. So kind. TonyClarke 12:37, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

March 25

  • Nibiru -> Marduk (planet). A Google search for Nibiru garnered three times as many hits as one for +Marduk +planet. The redirection should go the other way around. In addition, Marduk is also an ancient Babylonian deity, and obviating the disambiguation would be beneficial for cosmetic reasons. --Smack 22:23, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Function operation -> function. This is an orphan. Worse, function is a disambiguation page. Without context, what should it be disambiguated to? As an orphan, why keep this at all? I asked user:Raul654 (talk#redirect) who created it, and he said he created it because it was on the requested articles page. Seems like they requested an article, not a redirect. Idunno. *confused* --ssd 04:03, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • 90125 -> 90125 (album). I've made it an orphan. This page will simply take up space for the next 88,121 years. - Woodrow 19:37, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, unless it becomes a disambiguation page. -- User:Docu

March 28

  • Krio -> Krio language since the link which the redirect points to does not exist. I believe Krio should be deleted so that linking to it does not give a blue link, falsely implying that there is useful content behind the link. -pne 15:10, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • As Krio language hasn't been created yet, I deleted the page. -- User:Docu

March 30

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion&oldid=2999074"