Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jnc (talk | contribs) at 23:35, 11 October 2004 (→October 9). 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 /Precedents for precedents that are followed with regards to redirects.

If you delete one of these redirects, 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 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)

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)
    • FWIW, the entire content of the old "Holy Ghost" article seems to be on the "Holy Spirit" page now. Noel 02:16, 5 Oct 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

  • 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)

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)
        • Hey, dude, I'm not expressing an opinion (either way :-), just letting you know what it meant! Noel 12:53, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
          • My comment wasn't aimed at you in particular, Noel, sorry. RickK 20:04, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • In this case, Canada. :-) Try an English-only Google search on caisse pop [1]. Nearly 3,000 hits = keep vote from me. • Benc • 09:33, 3 Oct 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)
      • I don't think it really matters whether this is listed here or on VFD; the end result will either be a delete or a redirect. Delete, I suppose. • Benc • 09:33, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Yes, but it will set a precedent we probably don't want. Do you really want people to delete pages with content (and their history) by turning them into redirects, and listing the redirect here? Noel 12:53, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)


September 30

  • Dicarbon hexahydro-monoxide -> Ethyl alcohol This was created as part of the Thomas Hatcher prank. It is neither a well-known joke nor a useful name, and could just as easily describe dimethyl ether which has the same elemental composition as ethyl alcohol. Andrewa 21:50, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Nomenclature is not correct, has never been used, would never accidentally be typed in by somebody who forgot the term for alcohol (heh!), and even if we just count the atoms it's ambiguous with dimethyl ether. Cool Hand Luke 03:40, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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)
    • Keep. This dead horse has been beaten enough, and there's nothing fatally wrong with the status quo. • Benc • 09:10, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Case sensitive and non-intrusive. Do note that we have other such redirects which are probably less used though. For example: RfA and... RfD. Heh. Cool Hand Luke 03:40, 5 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)
      • All recent (i.e. within about 20 or 30 years) publications of the book in English have used the title "The Glass Bead Game". Pyrop 18:15, Oct 5, 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)
    • Keep, Delete, harmless. I've made it a requested article here; someone will see it sooner or later and create the article. • Benc • 09:45, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • We've generally been deleting redirects that are in place of articles we need, to make sure they show up red. I'm going to do that here, unless someone has a cogent reason not to in this case. Noel 12:53, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

October 2

October 3

  • PGA Tour, so that PGA TOUR can be moved there. Tregoweth 18:06, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • Both the page, and the PGA site, claim it's correctly remdered with all caps. So why is "PGA TOUR" incorrect? Noel 18:52, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • KEEP, AS ALL-CAPS SEEMS TO BE CORRECT. (Sorry, I couldn't resist.) • BENC • 08:22, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • There's no good reason for it, other than for the PGA to grab attention. See the discussion at Talk:Ansari X Prize about "ANSARI X PRIZE" vs. "Ansari X Prize". —tregoweth 19:57, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC) (And, no, I'm not anti-caps, as my signature would seem to indicate. :) )
      • So? I'm not saying it's not silly and/or obnoxious, but it is the official name, and I don't think it's up to us to change it to be more tasteful. Noel 00:33, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

October 4

  • Urbeach -> Urban beach. Neologism. 12 Google hits for this term. Being pushed by an agenda (see Beachwear and Urbeachwear). RickK 00:28, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • Borderline. None of the 12 google hits are respectable sources. I'll vote keep if I see this term used in some mainstream source (after all, it's just a redirect), but otherwise no vote. anthony (see warning) 00:18, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep for continuity. Disclaimer: I'm the one guilty of inventing this new word, but also we've written a whole bunch of articles on the concept, and some of them reference Wikipedia/Urbeach. It would be nice to keep it for continuity, so we don't get broken links when the articles start to appear in the published literature. It's also starting to be used by some of the architects, urban planners, etc., and since the concept itself is new, it may take some time to become widely used, so that's why I used the full term "urban beach" for the article I wrote, but I also wanted people "in the know" to be able to find it as referenced by the unique text string (no spaces) of "urbeach". Glogger 04:27, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Based on the fact that a Wikipedian invented the word (presumably for the sake of a Wikipedia article), I change my vote to delete as original research. Whoever makes the delete be sure to check for any links and update them first. anthony (see warning) 18:28, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. With all due respect to Glogger, redirects don't exist so that you can add secret shortcut keywords. Use http://tinyurl.com or a similar service for that, please. • Benc • 08:14, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

October 5

  • Jirga > Loya jirga. It's like redirecting Parliament to House of Commons. The Loya jirga is one instance of a jirga--in fact, not even the only one, but the (hiearchically) "highest" such body--in Afghanistan. Village jirgas have also been in the news in Pakistan.—iFaqeer | Talk to me! 20:39, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
    • You're absolutely right. Delete. (Side note: the best solution would be to get a Jirga stub set up with a link to Loya jirga. The trick is writing more than a dicdef, though. I'll see what I can do over the next day or so, unless anyone else wants to take a crack at it?) • Benc • 08:10, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Sample article title -> Topological Geometrodynamics. Remnant of an article move. --Slowking Man 20:58, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
    • Done. There seems to also be a Talk:Sample article title page, which seems to contain an early version (plus edit history) for the Anthotype page. I think it's probably safe to delete, though, as the creator - User:Pachuco2 - seems to have moved the content to the Anthotype page (via cut-n-paste, sigh), so their contribution is recorded for GFDL purposes. Better would be to merge, though - I'll do it when I get a chance if nobody else does it first (there are some other merges waiting to be done too). Noel 21:01, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

October 9

  • Yargo > User:Yargo. I remember seeing that redirects to the User namespace are discouraged, but can't presently find where I saw that. —tregoweth 19:51, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
    • This'll do: User:Tim_Starling/Redirects_from_:_to_User:. tregoweth 20:01, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
      • See the top of this page, under "When should we delete a redirect?", number 5. Noel 00:33, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • They are candidates for speedy deletion. anthony (see warning) 16:34, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Oh, right, I forgot about that special case for User: pages; most cross-space redirects are not CSD. Alas, when I looked, prior to nuking it, the page had significant history - no time to sort it out right now. Someone probably did the cut-n-paste wrongo-move. Noel 14:41, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

October 10

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion&oldid=6508422"