Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

From Global Warming Art

The following page is a local copy of the Wikipedia page at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. (more info)

Skip to Table of Contents. Skip to table of contents · Skip to current discussions ·
Deletion discussions
Wikipedia deletion policy
Tools

Process – Log – Guide
– Images – Admins

Redirects for discussion (RfD) is the place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic redirects. Items sent here usually stay listed for a week or so, after which they are deleted by an administrator, kept, or retargeted.

Note: If all you want to do is replace a currently existing, unprotected redirect with an actual article, you do not need to list it here. Turning redirects into fleshed-out encyclopedic articles is wholly encouraged at Wikipedia. Be bold.

Note: Redirects should not be deleted simply because they do not have any incoming links. Please do not list this as a reason to delete a redirect. Redirects that do have incoming links are sometimes deleted as well, so it's not a necessary condition either. See When should we delete a redirect?

Old discussions are archived at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log.

Centralized discussion
Treffpunkt.svg
Proposals Discussions Recurring proposals
  • WT:RFC#Revamp - proposal to improve WP:Requests for comment/User conduct
  • Project: An Admin Project has been established. All are encouraged to participate.
  • Discussion: are there problems with how we interact with new users and what can we do?
  • Proposal to increase the default size of thumbnail images from 180px.
  • Proposal (Manual of Style): to disapprove all-numeric dates (like 2009-09-30) in footnotes
  • Proposal (software change): Turning autoconfirmed into an explicit usergroup granted automatically
  • Proposal: Enabling RevisionDelete for administrators, and the subsequent criteria for revision deletion
  • Discussion: Should administrators be permitted to impose discretionary sanctions (page/topic bans, revert restrictions, interaction bans, etc.) without prior community consensus or arbitration remedy?
  • Discussion : Should a section be added on the main page for "Article to improve"?
  • Discussion: To what extent shall non-free text be permissible in userspace?
  • Proposal: Add a link to Wikinews articles in template {{Recent death}}.
  • Discussion: Should we give guidance on the lengths of lead sections?
Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.
archive • talk • edit • history • watch

Contents

Before you list a redirect for discussion...

...please familiarize yourself with the following:

The guiding principles of RfD

  • The purpose of a good redirect is to eliminate the possibility that an average user will wind up staring blankly at a "Search results 1-10 out of 378" search page instead of the article they were looking for. If someone could plausibly type in the redirect's name when searching for the target article, it's a good redirect.
  • Redirects are cheap. Redirects take up minimal disk space and use very little bandwidth. Thus, it doesn't really hurt things much if there are a few of them scattered around. On the flip side, deleting redirects is cheap since the deletion coding takes up minimal disk space and use very little bandwidth. In general, there is no harm in deleting problematic redirects that do not contribute to improving the encyclopedia.
  • The default result of any RfD nomination which receives no other discussion is delete. Thus, a redirect nominated in good faith and in accordance with RfD policy will be deleted, even if there is no discussion surrounding that nomination.
  • Redirects nominated in contravention of Wikipedia:Redirect will be speedily kept.
  • RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes. If you think a redirect should be targeted at a different article, discuss it on the talk pages of the current target article and/or the proposed target article. However, for more difficult cases, this page can be a centralized discussion place for resolving tough debates about where redirects point.
  • Requests for deletion of redirects from one page's talk page to another page's talk page don't need to be listed here, as anyone can simply remove the redirect by blanking the page.
  • Try to consider whether or not a redirect would be helpful to the reader when discussing.

When should we delete a redirect?

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

  • a redirect may contain nontrivial edit history;
  • if a redirect is reasonably old, then it is quite possible that its deletion will break links in old, historical versions of some other articles — such an event is very difficult to envision and even detect.

Note that there could exist (for example), links to the URL "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorneygate" anywhere on the internet. If so, then those links might not show up by checking for (clicking on) "WhatLinksHere" for "Attorneygate" -- since those links might "come from" somewhere outside Wikipedia.

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

Reasons for deleting

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.
  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, 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 redirecting Apple to Orange.
  5. It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exception to this rule is the "CAT:" shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space but in practice form their own "pseudo-namespaces". (Note "WP:" redirects are in the Wikipedia namespace WP: is an alias for Wikipedia.)
  6. If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to an article that does not exist or itself, it can be deleted immediately, though you should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first.
  7. If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful. Implausible typos or misnomers are potential candidates for speedy deletion, if recently created.
  8. 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 it needs to be deleted to make way for move.
  9. If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains little information on the subject. In these cases, it is better that the target article contain a redlink pointing back to the redirect.

Reasons for not deleting

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, 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 the article texts because the linkified misspellings will not appear as broken links.
  3. They aid searches on certain terms.
  4. You risk breaking incoming or internal links by deleting the redirect. Old CamelCase links and old subpage links should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them.
  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 a liar, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways.
  6. The redirect is to a plural form or to a singular form, or to some other grammatical form.

Neutrality of redirects

Note that redirects are not covered by Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. This covers only article titles, which are required to be neutral (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Article naming). Perceived lack of neutrality in redirects is therefore not a valid reason for deletion. Non-neutral redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term.

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. Dalmatian Kristallnacht → Dalmatian anti-Serb riots of May 1991).
  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 redirected to Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008).
  3. The subject matter of articles may be commonly represented outside Wikipedia by non-neutral terms. Such terms cannot be used as Wikipedia article titles, per the words to avoid guidelines and the general neutral point of view policy. For instance, the widely used but 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.

If a redirect is not an established term and is unlikely to be used by searchers, it is unlikely to be useful and may be nominated for deletion. However, if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources (as defined by Wikipedia:Verifiability#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.

See also: Policy on which redirects can be deleted immediately.

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

To list a redirect for discussion, follow this two-step process:

I.
Flag the redirect.

  Enter {{rfd}} above the #REDIRECT on the redirect page you are listing for discussion. Example:

{{rfd}}
#REDIRECT [[Foo]]
  • Please do not mark the edit as minor (m).
  • Please include in the edit summary the phrase:
    Nominated for RFD: see [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]]
  • Save the page.
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 the template in the previous step:
    • 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 [[RedirectName]]
    replacing RedirectName with the name of the redirect you are nominating.
  • To list multiple related redirects for discussion, use the following syntax:
    • {{subst:rfd2|redirect=RedirectName1|target=TargetArticle1}}
    • {{subst:rfd2m|redirect=RedirectName2|target=TargetArticle2}}
    • .
    • .
    • .
    • {{subst:rfd2m|redirect=RedirectNameN|target=TargetArticleN|text=The actions you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for those actions.}} ~~~~
  • 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.
  • It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the redirect that you are nominating the redirect. To find the main contributors, look in the page history of the redirect. For convenience, the template

    {{subst:RFDNote|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 redirect and use an edit summary such as:
    Notice of redirect discussion at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]]

Administrator instructions

Imbox style.png This page has a backlog that requires the attention of one or more administrators.
Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared.

Current list

October 11

Child's Play (2009)

Recommend both for deletion (particularly the former) as the possibility of a remake/sequel is still in rumor stage, and related material/section has consistently been removed from target article. While the latter redirect may someday be valid, the former will not, as at this point a 2009 release of an as yet unplanned film is rather unlikely. ToET 09:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 07:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Huh? WP:RFD#The guiding principles of RfD item3: The default result of any RfD nomination which receives no other discussion is delete. Thus, a redirect nominated in good faith and in accordance with RfD policy will be deleted, even if there is no discussion surrounding that nomination. I'm not trying to slip anything by here, I just assumed that they were uncontroversial. -- ToET 08:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
    • OK, hold on a second I see that there is a new Child's Play (film series)#Remake section, which means I will probably withdraw Child's Play (Remake), but Child's Play (2009) should still probably go. I'll get back to you. -- ToET 08:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
      • False alarm. It was just another unsourced section presumably based on couple year old rumors, and was subsequently deleted. Let's just delete both and be done with it, although if you really want this nomination to gather dust for another week, it won't trouble me. -- ToET 10:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment The Child's Play (2009) is clearly unneeded – if there were such a beast, we'd know about it by now. I'm less sure about Child's Play (Remake). Plans of a remake have been announced more than once, so if we can keep the info regarding it verifiable (instead of getting carried away), I don't see the harm. --Dominic Hardstaff (talk) 10:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Sounds good (and I see that we have a targetable section back, this time thin but sourced.) So, Child's Play (Remake) withdrawn by nominator, but Child's Play (2009) still strongly recommended for deletion (whenever). -- ToET 11:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

October 10

Seo experts

Delete — This was originally a spammy article advertising the company SEO Experts. An editor redirected to Search engine optimization rather than nominate for speedy deletion, but this effectively made the company name a synonym for the general concept, hence this nomination. The original author's only other contribution, Contextual link building, was speedily deleted as a spammy copyvio. Favonian (talk) 10:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete - Unfounded connection between company and field. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 04:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

October 9

Siberians

I'm unsure about the accuracy of this redirect, since "Siberians" is not necessarily a synonym for the country's indigenous peoples. Currently Siberian redirects to Siberia, since there is no article on "Siberian people" (it was PRODded and deleted a few months ago, since the subject is apparently nonexistent). I'd be in favor of re-targeting to Siberia, or perhaps deletion, although input from others would be good since I'm not an expert on the subject. JamieS93 23:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Urban Wear

Delete, or revert to article (and consider AfD). The redirect is unsupported, although it's been in place for over 20 months. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Entertainment

Speculated album title of American recording artist Usher. Never came to be and leaving this redirect in tact seems misleading. — ξxplicit 22:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Sammy Davis, Jr. as he was billed as "Mr. Entertainment" for decades. B.Wind (talk) 00:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Sammy Davis, Jr. He wasn't the only person ever to have called himself "Mr. Entertainment", but he's certainly the most prominent. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

True or false no word has more than 4 vowels

The result of the discussion was speedy delete by User:NawlinWiki (non admin close). B.Wind (talk) 00:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Unlikely search term. To the max. GrooveDog • oh hai 21:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete - I redirected it, as a joke, while on WP:NPP. Feel free to speedy it. :-) MuffledThud (talk) 21:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Bhopal - Indore Intercity Express

Delete. This title redirects to a completely unrelated train; the routes of both trains don't even intersect and the closest they get to each other is about 500km apart. -SpacemanSpiff 03:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Barnes (Family Name)

Delete as it has an implausible disambiguation qualifier. Tavix |  Talk  17:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep, seems a harmless redirect. It may be unlikely to be used as a search term here, but remember that it may be used as a search term externally, or used in external links. The page views are rather low, but not low enough to suggest it recieves no real use. --Taelus (talk) 09:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - Per Taelus. Also, Smith (family name) exists which implies, at least to me, that the (family name) suffix has been/is used in some places, making this redirect more useful. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 04:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:Somefootnotes

Orphaned template redirect; unused, and I really can't see any reason why it would be. Also would mess with most bots who work with {{More footnotes}}. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I made it because I felt it was a valid way of looking at the nofootnotes spectrum which could be used - there are articles which have no footnotes which use {{no footnotes}}, and you have articles with some footnotes. Does it really 'mess with most bots'? Do template redirects typically mess with bots? --Malkinann (talk) 08:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
A lot of the time, bots are programmed to recognize certain templates and highly-used redirects to them, but the less-used redirects typically won't be programmed in. Then, if the bot is, say, dating the tag, it would probably miss any uses of the template through a redirect.
As another comment, a short article can have "some" footnotes but not need "more" footnotes. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Not causing any harm. If the bots are broken, fix them. causa sui× 22:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:Indiscriminaterefs

Orphaned template redirect; unused, and I really can't see any reason why it would be. Also would mess with most bots who work with {{No footnotes}}. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete. Unnecessarily strong language could be perceived as bitey. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - Mostly for the issues that it may have with the bots. The issue of it being aggressive is a bit unfounded in my opinion. "Indiscriminate" is a perfectly valid way to describe a reference. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 04:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

"Citation needed" redirects

Orphaned template redirect; unused, and I really can't see any reason why it would be. Also would mess with most bots who work with {{Citation needed}}. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: I've merged multiple nominations together here. If comments differed in individual discussions, I've added a note after the "delete" or "keep" to indicate which template was being discussed. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete Proveit. Use of the imperative mood can be perceived as bitey. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Geofacti, Template:Histfact & Geofact-inline. Potentially confusing, as it indicates specificity not present in the target. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Fct - "fct" could be an abbreviation for either "fact" or "fiction." B.Wind (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Proveit, Delete Geofacti, Geofact-inline and Histfact as they dont do anything different as their name suggests. Delete Fct, per disambiguation problems. Also, I don't think merging the nominations was a good idea, although that is just my personal opinion as I don't like them. Makes it more complex to close with concenses, especially as we now have several !votes which are out of context with this merged RfD. --Taelus (talk) 09:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:Refplease

Orphaned template redirect; unused, and I really can't see any reason why it would be. Also would mess with most bots who work with {{Citation needed}}. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep it matches the naming of {{unref}}, fix the bots if they're broken. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 04:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, i see no harm. There's already a ton of template redirects to {{Citation needed}}, i don't see how one more is a problem. I thought we shouldn't worry about performance. This one was suggested in the move discussion when {{fact}} was renamed to {{Citation needed}} and i liked the sound of it. And it's a lot less cryptic than, say {{cn}} or {{an}}--ospalh (talk) 15:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
    • It isn't efficient to code every bot to include redirects to templates in addition to the templates themselves, so removing redirects that aren't very highly used seems like a logical course of action to me. That having been said, I see your reasoning that this one may be more worth keeping than some of the others, so I haven't collapsed it into the discussion above. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Not causing any harm. causa sui× 22:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, harmless. The bots can be adjusted I am sure. --Taelus (talk) 09:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:Refstyle

The result of the discussion was Withdrawn; this is a good redirect. My bad. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned template redirect; unused, and I really can't see any reason why it would be. Also would mess with most bots who work with {{Citation style}}. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep Is this really unused? I use this tag, so someone must be going around and replacing it. It matches the naming of {{unref}} 76.66.197.30 (talk) 04:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

"Citation style" redirects

Orphaned template redirect; unused, and I really can't see any reason why it would be. Also would mess with most bots who work with {{Citation style}}. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep If the bots are broken, fix them. causa sui× 00:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:Cleanup-citation

The result of the discussion was Withdrawn, name is inline with similar templates (hadn't thought about that when nominating; my bad). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned template redirect; unused, and I really can't see any reason why it would be. Also would mess with most bots who work with {{Citation style}}. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep it matches the naming of several cleanup templates/shortcuts. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 04:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:Fact-check

Orphaned template redirect; unused, and I really can't see any reason why it would be. Also would mess with most bots who work with {{Refimprove}}. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete - name of redirect implies something other than the fact that the article is lacking in references. B.Wind (talk) 16:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:Fact check

Orphaned template redirect; unused, and I really can't see any reason why it would be. Also would mess with most bots who work with {{Refimprove}}. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:Cleanup-verify

The result of the discussion was Withdrawn; this one does seem to be valid on second glance. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned template redirect; unused, and I really can't see any reason why it would be. Also would mess with most bots who work with {{Refimprove}}. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:Notverified

Orphaned template redirect; unused, and I really can't see any reason why it would be. Also would mess with most bots who work with {{Refimprove}}. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep - the fact that it is an orphan is insufficient reason for deletion of a redirect. This one is sometimes used as people not acquainted with the often-used abbreviations that make up some template names actually use this. Deletion in this case would be unnecessarily WP:BITEy. B.Wind (talk) 16:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep as potentially useful to some. We don't want to go around deleting lots of such redirecting templates, otherwise it becomes more difficult and less flexible to learn how to use them. --Taelus (talk) 09:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:Improve-references

Orphaned template redirect; unused, and I really can't see any reason why it would be. Also would mess with most bots who work with {{Refimprove}}. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep - the fact that it is an orphan is insufficient reason for deletion of a redirect. This one is sometimes used as people not acquainted with the often-used abbreviations that make up some template names actually use this. Deletion in this case would be unnecessarily WP:BITEy. B.Wind (talk) 15:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per Wind. Tavix |  Talk  17:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep as potentially useful to some. We don't want to go around deleting lots of such redirecting templates, otherwise it becomes more difficult and less flexible to learn how to use them. --Taelus (talk) 09:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:Improve-refs

Orphaned template redirect; unused, and I really can't see any reason why it would be. Also would mess with most bots who work with {{Refimprove}}. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep - the fact that it is an orphan is insufficient reason for deletion of a redirect. This one is sometimes used as people not acquainted with the often-used abbreviations that make up some template names actually use this. Deletion in this case would be unnecessarily WP:BITEy. B.Wind (talk) 15:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per wind. Tavix |  Talk  17:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep as potentially useful to some. We don't want to go around deleting lots of such redirecting templates, otherwise it becomes more difficult and less flexible to learn how to use them. --Taelus (talk) 09:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:Improvereference

Orphaned template redirect; unused, and I really can't see any reason why it would be. Also would mess with most bots who work with {{Refimprove}}. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Would you bundle up nominated templates in the same category? --Caspian blue 04:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Please do this because I want to vote keep on all of them. causa sui× 04:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
At this point, bundling would be inappropriate as some have attracted "delete" recommendations. B.Wind (talk) 16:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I've now tried to bundle related nominations which had similar !votes. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - the fact that it is an orphan is insufficient reason for deletion of a redirect. This one is sometimes used as people not acquainted with the often-used abbreviations that make up some template names actually use this. Deletion in this case would be unnecessarily WP:BITEy. B.Wind (talk) 16:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Would this really be used even by new users? {{Improvereferences}} seems like it would be much more intuitive. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep as potentially useful to some. We don't want to go around deleting lots of such redirecting templates, otherwise it becomes more difficult and less flexible to learn how to use them. --Taelus (talk) 09:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:Few refs

Orphaned template redirect; unused, and I really can't see any reason why it would be. Also would mess with most bots who work with {{Refimprove}}. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep - the fact that it is an orphan is insufficient reason for deletion of a redirect. This one is sometimes used as people not acquainted with the often-used abbreviations that make up some template names actually use this. Deletion in this case would be unnecessarily WP:BITEy. B.Wind (talk) 15:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually, maybe this should be redirected to {{morefootnotes}} instead... if an article doesn't have many references, it needs more refs, not improved ones. I'd accept that as a good alternative to deletion. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • New editor, I was having a problem with external reference to some changes I made to Border Television as my External Link opened to an empty New Statesman page. I have practiced, sought advice from my adopter and re-done the link and it works. The link does not appear all blue like the two above (there are three links with mine), BUT it does work. Do I need any further advice or is this link saisfactory as it is. Many Thanks.-Angliaman (talk) 01:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:Georefimprove

Orphaned template redirect; unused, and I really can't see any reason why it would be. Also would mess with most bots who work with {{Refimprove}}. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete. Potentially confusing, as it indicates specificity not present in the target. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree, it is misleading as the template name suggests it is different to the standard refimprove, but it simply redirects. --Taelus (talk) 09:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:Cleanup cite

Orphaned template redirect; unused, and I really can't see any reason why it would be. Also would mess with most bots who work with {{Refimprove}}. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep I use it because it's easier to remember. causa sui× 04:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep as potentially useful to some. Being unused doesn't mean they will never be used. --Taelus (talk) 09:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:Factual

Orphaned template redirect; unused, and I really can't see any reason why it would be. Also would mess with most bots who work with {{Refimprove}}. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete - name is vague; much more likely one would stop after the letter "t" ({{fact}}). B.Wind (talk) 16:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, personally when I see that template I think of it redirecting to . I doubt others agree with me though, so changing the redirect target probably isn't suitable. Best to delete as potentially misleading. --Taelus (talk) 09:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:Cleanup-cite

The result of the discussion was Withdrawn; hadn't thought about how this is named the same way as other cleanup templates. My bad. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned template redirect; unused, and I really can't see any reason why it would be. Also would mess with most bots who work with {{Unreferenced}}. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep it matches the style used for several cleanup templates/shortcuts. If the bots need fixing, then fix them. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 04:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep per anon causa sui× 04:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:Additional

Orphaned template redirect with a really ambiguous name; unused, and I really can't see any reason why it would be. Also would mess with most bots who work with {{Refimprove}}. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete - additional what? Vague to the nth degree. B.Wind (talk) 16:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Confusing causa sui× 22:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as confusing redirect. User:B.Wind summed up the problem here perfectly. --Taelus (talk) 09:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:RI

Orphaned template redirect; unused, and I really can't see any reason why it would be. Also would mess with most bots who work with {{Refimprove}}. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete potentially confusing redirect as "RI" can have several meanings. B.Wind (talk) 16:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:Cite sources section

Orphaned template redirect; unused, and I really can't see any reason why it would be. Also would mess with most bots who work with {{Unreferenced section}}. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep "I don't find this useful" is not a rationale to delete something causa sui× 04:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - the fact that it is an orphan is insufficient reason for deletion of a redirect. This one is sometimes used as people not acquainted with the often-used abbreviations that make up some template names actually use this. Deletion in this case would be unnecessarily WP:BITEy. B.Wind (talk) 16:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, does what it says on the tin, potentially helpful and usable for some editors especially newer ones. No reason for deletion. --Taelus (talk) 09:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:Nocite section

Orphaned template redirect; unused, and I really can't see any reason why it would be. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep "I don't find this useful" is not a rationale to delete something that isn't otherwise causing any trouble. causa sui× 22:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, it does what it says, and is potentially useful to some editors. No real reason to delete. --Taelus (talk) 09:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:Notverifiable

Orphaned template redirect; unused, and I really can't see any reason why it would be. Also, is something is "not verifiable", then it should be removed, not tagged. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete as potentially confusing as "Not verifiable" is different from "I cannot find any references from reliable sources." B.Wind (talk) 16:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as confusing, it seems too set in stone to simply say something is not verifiable... Other templates and their redirects do this better, in a more appropriate way. --Taelus (talk) 09:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:Uncited-article

Orphaned template redirect; unused, and I really can't see any reason why it would be. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep "I don't find this useful" is not a rationale to delete something that isn't otherwise causing any trouble. causa sui× 22:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, does what it says on the tin. No real problems with it. --Taelus (talk) 09:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:Unrefarticle

Orphaned template redirect; unused, and I really can't see any reason why it would be. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep I really don't see why you'd nominate it. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 04:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
    • It is just as easy to type {{Unreferenced}} for one thing, and the latter seems more intuitive than an abbreviated form that I doubt would ever really be used. Not even a newcomer would probably use "Unrefarticle", and anyone who has been around for awhile should know the actual template name. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Me either. "I, personally, don't see why someone would want to use this" is one of the worst possible rationales for deleting something that isn't otherwise causing any trouble. causa sui× 22:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, it does what it says it will, and some users may find it useful. Better to have a wide option of {{tags}} than to give new users a list saying "Learn these." --Taelus (talk) 09:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

"Unreferenced art"-style redirects to "Unreferenced"

Orphaned template redirect; unused, and I really can't see any reason why it would be. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete. Potentially confusing, as it indicates specificity not present in the target. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Unreferencedart & Unrefart –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC). "Art" could also mean "file" or "image" in the Wikipedia sense. B.Wind (talk) 16:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Unreferenced art –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC). No need for the second word; furthermore, potentially confusing as "art" could also mean "image" in the Wikipedia sense. B.Wind (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as misleading redirects, they make the user assume they are more specific and different to the standard unreferenced template, but are not. --Taelus (talk) 09:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Ciara: Untitled

Basically equivalent to this. The title of the album, Fantasy Ride, was revealed quite some time ago and the album itself was released back in May. No reason to keep this redirect around. — ξxplicit 00:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

October 8

Template:Law unref

The result of the discussion was speedy close, nominated out of process bd2412 T 22:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Unused template redirect; only used on two articles when I redirected it, which I edited to bypass the redirect due to a bug. I can't see any reason why this would be used in the future. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

  • This is a maintenance template, and is supposed to be unused at times, depending on the need for it to be applied to articles. Do not change it to a redirect again without obtaining a consensus for such a change at the governing wikiproject, which is Wikipedia:WikiProject Law. bd2412 T 22:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Bubble pushing

Not sure. The page history indicates that an editor believed the old content of this page was basically a description of DeMorgan's laws, so redirected it to that article. However, the term does not appear in the target article, so anyone who is actually looking for the term "bubble pushing" is going to be left confused. Either (a) delete, (b) convert back into an article, or (c) add this concept to the target article. R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

  • It certainly is a restatement of DeMorgan's laws, and if it is deemed notable enough to keep, it should be retargeted to Logic gate#De Morgan equivalent symbols. I would argue against artificiality inserting this precise phrase into that section for no reason other than support of the redirect. -- ToET 13:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Nick Synodis

Delete as likely vandalism with no apparent connection to the target article. A google search on the terms yields a single hit of a 2007 discussion on a Yu-Gi-Oh! gaming board in which one participant identified himself as "Nick Synodis" to which another participant responded by asking if he was a duck, suggesting an in-joke. ToET 14:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Darrel Rundus

Unclear how this person is related to the subject of the redirected-to article. Stifle (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Ursal the Mauler

A very very minor NPC in the game World of Warcraft. It will never be covered in the target article due to lack of notability, and is as such a misleading redirect. It is a highly unlikely search term, and thus it is more harmful than beneficial. Taelus (talk) 07:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Neuroimaging of internal carotid artery dissection in Horner’s syndrome

Delete as misleading as the article does not cover such in depth a topic. This started as an article which was correctly identified as an "Overly technical cut & paste essay, comprehensible only to experts (student paper?)" and converted into a redirect. It does receive 15 hits per month, but presumably dissapoints every time.ToET 04:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete. I put the redirect on here as a quick and easy way to get rid of a junk article. I'd be happy to see it go. Hairhorn (talk) 11:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Snoop Dogg/infobox

Apparently, a separate subpage was made for the infobox. As a result, it was redirected, making this redirect useless now. — ξxplicit 04:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete as a sandbox which is seemingly finished with. --Taelus (talk) 07:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - clearly a temporary redirect that has served its purpose. There's no need to hang onto a "subpage" redirect. B.Wind (talk) 16:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Seville briggs

Seville Briggs was not Nas' birth name. No apparent reason as to why this redirect should exist to begin with. — ξxplicit 03:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as vandalism - sole "contribution" from User:2008 LHS. Original post under this title was a cut'n'paste parody article.B.Wind (talk) 03:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Kanye Swift

The result of the discussion was withdrawn as nominator. — ξxplicit 02:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Cross namespace redirect, amazingly useless. — ξxplicit 03:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete, cross namespace and unsuitable. --Taelus (talk) 07:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Struck. User to Article seems to be allowed on a second read-through of guidelines... And thinking about it, it isnt really harmful, as no search term will ever point to user space. --Taelus (talk) 12:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Question: Are cross namespace redirects into article space truly verboten? WP:R#DELETE #5 does say "cross-namespace redirect out of article space". And if so, then why not simply blank the user page and speedy close the nomination? -- ToET 11:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
    The full sentence reads: It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. I read that as articles can't be redirected to non-article space, not vice-versa, but correct me if I'm wrong. — ξxplicit 18:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep as redirects from user space to article space occur with regularity as a result of moving articles from sandboxes. Breaking the redirect would break any links that appear in earlier editions of Wikipedia. The editor whose space incubated the article should have the ultimate authority on this, not here. B.Wind (talk) 16:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
    There is no history to this redirect, or else it would be evident within the move log. The redirect was created not even a month ago and the chances of the average reader searching for User:Kanye Swift is basically impossible. Furthermore, this redirect wasn't linked to anything except Beyoncé Knowles prior to this discussion (and odd target at that, as the user name refers to Kanye West and Taylor Swift). — ξxplicit 18:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Nonetheless, this is a userpage of a registered editor (albeit a new one), and we should give deference to that editor's desire as to whether to keep or delete it.B.Wind (talk) 02:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Beyonka Jones

The result of the discussion was Speedy Delete G3 --Taelus (talk) 08:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Beyoncé Knowles was never known as Beyonka Jones. Search term is unlikely, near impossible. — ξxplicit 03:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as vandalism from vandalism-only (currently blocked) account. B.Wind (talk) 04:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

October 7

Keyshia Cole disocgraphy

Unlikely typo, implausible search term. — ξxplicit 22:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Republican vampire

Delete - obscure redirect not mentioned in the target article. Eddie's Teddy (talk) 22:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Chris Brown (song)

An awkward redirect, as there has never been a song of this name. Seems that this article was created as a duplicate of the song "Say Goodbye". Not a likely search term. — ξxplicit 21:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Hinduism - The religion

Histmerge into HINDUISM, then delete this redirect. This redirect was mentioned in an RfD of Hinduism - The Naked Truth. Essentially, this redirect was created by a move of a POV fork to HINDUISM, which itself is a redirect to the current target. The title of this redirect is an unwieldy name is flies in the fact of WP:NAME by appearing like a book title (clearly a confusing redirect) even though there is no book with that title available. The suggestion of a histmerge into HINDUISM was mentioned in the RfD of the redirect that was deleted. This one should go, too, but the history can be saved at another redirect. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete, unlikely search term. Checking the article traffic supports the idea that this is not used by any external links, as all traffic related to it can be assigned to it being created, checked, listed for AfD and viewed by those who reviewed it. --Taelus (talk) 21:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Roonscape

Seriously? Roonscape? While that's how RuneScape is pronounced, it's not something that somebody would type into the search bar... Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 14:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete-ish Neutral It is an alternate spelling, and I could see people trying this (there were 24 pageviews in September), but this is a pretty dumb redirect and I wouldn't miss it. --JaGatalk 15:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. There are many, many ways to feasibly misspell RuneScape, so having a limited number of redirects is useful. This, however, is not. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 16:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, redirects are cheap, and this is a possible misinterpretation if someone heard it spoken out loud, then decided to look it up on Wikipedia. --Taelus (talk) 19:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Runescape Versions

Implausible search term. Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 14:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete per Unionhawk. --JaGatalk 15:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. "RuneScape Classic" and "RuneScape 2" are the main versions, and they're redirects that are far more likely to be used. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 16:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

North of Ardougne

Implausible redirect; I've personally never heard "North of Ardounge" used ever. Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 14:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete per Unionhawk. --JaGatalk 15:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per Unionhawk. Very unlikely search term. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 16:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, misleading redirect, it is far too small a term to ever be featured in the article it redirects to. --Taelus (talk) 19:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Runescape:Ranged

Implausible search term, but, as it was not recently created, does not fall under R3 speedy. Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 13:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete per Unionhawk. --JaGatalk 15:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per Unionhawk. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 16:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. It isn't an implausible search term, however it is a misleading redirect as it will never be covered in the target article due to being too small a topic for the Wikipedia project. --Taelus (talk) 19:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

RuneScape: Runecrafting

Implausible Redirect, but does not fall under R3 as it was not recently created. Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 13:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete per Unionhawk. --JaGatalk 15:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as a little redundant to "Runecrafting (RuneScape)", which, in Wikipedia disambiguation terms, seems a more appropriate title. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 16:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Lacks notability to be covered in the target article, thus it is a misleading redirect of no real benefit. --Taelus (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Boyer temp page name

Delete this "temporary" redirect with the unusual name. There's no reason to hang onto it, but it's been here with virtually no history since 2005. Adding similar "temporary" redirects with nonstandard (or unusual) names:

147.70.242.54 (talk) 01:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete all after histmerging any appropriate information into the destination article. If there is too much to histmerge, merge it into another redirect (even if this is caused by a move to a new name). B.Wind (talk) 16:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Roll with It/redirects

Delete these redirects that advertise their being redirects. We have removed dozens from Wikipedia over the last few months, and (unlike the "temporary" redirects), the number of these has gone way down... But these two survive, at least temporarily. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 00:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete Seems no reason to keep these. --JaGatalk 15:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete both per the deletion of similar "/redirect" redirects that we've had here over the past month or two. B.Wind (talk) 16:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

October 6

Munster (temp)

Delete - another batch of redirects that have names indicating that they're temporary. There's no reason to keep these "temporary" redirects, even those that have more than slight history (like Porifera/Temp, England/Temp, and Lithuania/temp - these can be histmerged to another redirect to the current targets). 147.70.242.54 (talk) 00:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Takeshi Miyajima

I really don't know the point of this redirect, I mean redirecting the victims' names to the Japan Airlines Flight 123 is unnecessary and pointless, plus it is a total waste of time and inconvience to those who wish to create an article of those with similar namesakes of those who I have nominated. In a hindsight, I would like to point out that Wikipedia is not a memorial site. Altogether, all of these have failed WP:NOTABILITY.

I am also nominating the following related pages for that same reason above:

Miyajima Takeshi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Hiroshi Fukuda (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Yukawa Akihisa (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Akihisa Yukawa (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Masakatsu Taniguchi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Taniguchi Masakatsu (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Keiichi Matsumoto (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Matsumoto Keiichi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Kazuo Yoshimura (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Yoshimura Kazuo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Yutaka Sasaki (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Ken Miyajima (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
美谷島健 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
川上慶子 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
吉崎美紀子 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
吉崎博子 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
落合由美 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
柏原愛子 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
川北京子 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
白井まり子 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Mikiko Yoshizaki (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Hiroko Yoshizaki (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Keiko Kawakami (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Yumi Ochiai (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Mariko Shirai (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Shirai Mariko (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Yoshihiro Kashihara (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Kashihara Yoshihiro (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Kashihara Sachiko (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Sachiko Kashihara (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Aiko Kashihara (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Kashihara Aiko (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Kashihara Yuuta (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Yuuta Kashihara (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Kyoko Kawakita (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Kawakita Kyoko (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Hirotsugu Kawaguchi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Kawaguchi Hirotsugu (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Donnie Park (talk) 22:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

have you checked whether any of them might actually be otherwise notable.? DGG ( talk ) 23:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I have and none of these qualify other than their fellow namesakes, these lot nominated are pilots, ground crews and passengers, I mean when have plane crash victims (other than those being notable prior to an accident) of a commercial airliner ever qualified for notability. Donnie Park (talk) 14:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I think the four survivors on this flight should survive as redirects to the article. "Akihisa Yukawa" is specifically mentioned in the article as being famous dead person from the flight. Otherwise, the flight crew might be useful redirects due to their handling of the aircraft. Any other redirects are likely safe to delete. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 04:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Akihisa Yukawa isn't notable other than having a now famous daughter that he never had the chance of seeing. Donnie Park (talk) 11:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Bank International Indonesia

Delete. BII is a disambiguation page, and one of the entries on that page is for "Bank International Indonesia"; this is likely to be extremely confusing to new users, because anyone who clicks on that link will just see the disambiguation page reload itself. It would be clearer to have a red link there (or, even better, have someone write an actual article about this bank). R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Martin_Krafft

deletion, it makes no sense to have name redirects to a book. By reason 3.1.4, I thus request their deletion. madduck (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

  • strong oppose It makes very good sense. He's the author of the book, and we do not have an article on him. We should always make a redirect in such a case. DGG ( talk ) 23:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
    • there used to be an article on me, but it fell prey to a deletionist. I either want my article back or not have my name redirected to a book. madduck (talk) 07:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't know that we should "always" have such redirects, but it's often reasonable to do so. I see no reason why it's bad in this case. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC) Update: The named subject's objection to having their name as a redirect is a reason why it's bad in this case. If there's no prospect of further coverage, I support deletion. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I am a person and not a book. My name is that of a person, not that of a book. When people look up my name, they may well do so for other reasons than my book, so it's distracting if they get my book shoved in their face. madduck (talk) 07:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Pit of voles

Derogatory slang term. No reliable sources indicating its use is commonplace. – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 19:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

bunch of WikiProject NHRP-related cross-namespace redirects

The current Wikipedia:Database reports/Cross-namespace redirects shows 10 WikiProject NRHP cross-namespace redirects, which apparently are bad. I think i am responsible for all of these. One was in a batch deleted previously in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 February 8#NHL photos → Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/PhotoCreditsForNHLsByState, which I then immediately re-created. IIRC, I re-created because a) its deletion was disruptive, undercutting ongoing discussions where it was used frequently, b) i didn't appreciate the "problem" of having a cross-namespace redirect, and c) maybe i was miffed about how the redirect was deleted, perhaps with inadequate notice and direction to me or WikiProject NRHP, i don't remember exactly.

Anyhow, for all ten of the following, i have gone through usage of the redirects and tried to convert them all (e.g. replacing links to "NRIS info issues" by links to "wp:NRIS info issues" instead). The following ten redirects could/should now be deleted:

These have now been replaced in practice by direct links and by six shortcuts that are not cross-space ones (wp:List_of_fully_illustrated_NRHP_lists, wp:NRHP_dab_issues, wp:NHL_info_issues, wp:NRHP_attention, wp:NRIS_info_issues, and wp:NHL_progress, and there is similar wp:NHLs 2008 ). I think now that deleting all of the cross-namespace redirects is fine. doncram (talk) 18:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

  • I would agree with deleting them all. However, since you created them all, you can simply tag every one as WP:CSD#G7 so a discussion isn't necessary unless you want to create G4 deletion precedent, which probably isn't necessary unless you fear someone else will recreate them. VegaDark (talk) 18:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I had to look that up. Maybe i do want that? Also won't this process give a nice record in the deletion, linking to this write-up? I think i'd like for that, while my impression of speedy-deletions is that they provide little lasting explanation. Also, i don't know, someone associated with NRHP or otherwise might have some comment. There's no urgency to doing this, so i don't mind waiting for the RFD discussion period to close. doncram (talk) 19:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of WillOakland

Delete - Per precedent here and here, consensus has determined that sockpuppet redirect categories are a bad idea. VegaDark (talk) 17:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment: It's an empty cat, so as long as the parent cat is used, no worries. :) Cirt (talk) 18:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Fibonacci series using c language

Delete as misleading, since the target article contains no such code. This was created as a redirect but with the code for a short program following the redirect. The only other edits by the creator Hsadia90 (talk) were adding this same code below the redirect Fibonacci series. A kind-hearted editor moved that code into a section in Fibonacci number which was promptly deleted. This redirect does average one hit per day, but does not deliver what it promises. (Nor would the article benefit from sample sequence generators written in a dozen different languages.) -- ToET 10:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete - about as useful as Fibonacci sequence using FORTRAN. Mathematically, there is a huge difference between the Fibonacci sequence and the series based on it. So... not only do we have something too far afield from an actual piece of terminology here, but the specific inclusion of a piece of computer code runs afoul of WP:NOT (it's not a compendium of miscellaneous computer programming). B.Wind (talk) 06:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

SmartPen

Delete. There is a new category of device called smart pens that deserve a Wikipedia page, but this redirect sends the viewer to one minor use of such a device rather than anything about smart pens per se. Matthew C. Clarke 09:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't get it. Is there currently a page for these devices? If this term is in common usage for a broad class of pens/technology, I agree that the redirect shouldn't go to HealthDec's page. But where is the content to replace the redirect? If the content exists, I request adding a disambig link or "this may also refer to..." to go to HealthDec's technology because as far as I know they used the term for patented tech for a long time without other usage. Thanks for your attentiveness!--Xris0 (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
That target is slightly better, but I believe the term "smart pen" goes beyond Livescribe's claim on "SmartPen". Other uses of the term can be found for instance at http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/paq/pen.html, http://www.oregonscientific.com.au/cat-Babies-and-Kids-sub-SmartGlobe-prod-Smart-Pen.html and http://www.dealsdirect.com.au/p/lenoxx-inote-smart-pen-note-taker/. I cannot identify a better target, but would support Xris0's suggestion of a disambig page. Matthew C. Clarke 10:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Rúbéńs Bářřǐĉħèľľó

The result of the discussion was Speedy Delete per CSD R3 --Taelus (talk) 21:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete. This appears to not be from any language and is instead a respelling of a person's name using any available similar character available in the editing page. Will never serves its purpose as a redirect as no one will ever search for this name spelled in this fashion. IIIVIX (Talk) 08:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete, the user concerned has created a large number of pointless redirects from future events to dubious mispellings. Perhaps a warning is called for. --Falcadore (talk) 08:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I think that those other creations may be Lithuanian, but they certainly should be deleted. -- ToET 10:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Should they then be added to this RfD? --Falcadore (talk) 10:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps the whole batch would qualify for WP:CSD#R3. -- ToET 13:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
And the whole batch was deleted WP:CSD#R3. -- ToET 10:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete (speedy?) - a search of "Rúbéńs Bářřǐĉħèľľó" (without parentheses) turns up only one hit: the redirect in question. Either "Rúbéńs Bářřǐĉħèľľó" is a case of vandalism or a good faith contribution of an ambitious editor who has simply gone too far. Since this is less than a week old, it's possible that WP:CSD#R3 would apply as a most highly improbable typographical error. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per The359 et al. XXX antiuser 21:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

October 5

Viper (roller coaster SFGrAm)

This is a redirect with an implausible disambiguation qualifier. "SFGrAm" is not an abbreviation used for Six Flags Great America, so I don't see why this needs to stay. Tavix |  Talk  23:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Excavated

Propose deletion because the word "excavated" is not likely to be useful to people trying to find an article on archaeological excavation. Article has a short edit history relating nearly only to deletion proposals. Failing consensus to delete, recommend retargeting to disambig page Excavation Eric talk 16:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Retarget to Excavation - I've seen other verbs being linked to a description of the activity - see, for example, the disambig note at the top of Egged. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Retarget to disambig page as suggested. It's traffic stats would suggest it is either used in external links and/or as a search term. --Taelus (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Kifflom

Not mentioned in target article. Redirects to a nonexistant section. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment -- Kifflom is described as the deity of the fictional Epsilon cult supposedly discussed by characters in the game, according to the article at the time of redirect creation. All mention of Kifflom and Epsilon had been removed from the article at the time of retargeting to the "Myths" section and remain absent in the current revision. The "Epsilon Program" is currently mentioned in 9 articles but none seem an appropriate target. I do not know if the material was removed as non-notable, or due to perceived offense to Scientology which it satires. The Epsilon Program official site discuss the twelve tenants of Kifflom. -- ToET 04:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Add the information back to the targeted page--it seems appropriate there DGG ( talk ) 23:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Schlong Island

I'm throwing this over to you guys. Basically, my Schlong Island redirect to Long Island got deleted by someone whose motives I question. I contacted User:Woohookitty about it, and he suggested I come here. I'm going to cut and paste what I wrote on his talk page:

Hey. So encountered you at some point in the past, and as you are the only administrator I know, I decided to come to you with this. Last night, I edited the page Talk:Transportation in Vancouver to say that even though Vancouver has several light rail lines, its transportation system is still dominated by the automobile. This morning, I was informed on my talk page (User:Zweifel) that two pages I created had been deleted by one User:ConcernedVancouverite. I suspect that this user's motivations had less to do with the merits of those two pages, and more to do with retribution.

I don't care about Fiat Building, which was a joke I heard from several people in New York at the time of Chrysler's sale to Fiat. But Schlong Island is a well attested slang term/joking insult for Long Island around the New York metro area. I think Wikipedia would be richer for having it remain on the site.

Finally, about myself -- I think I am one of the good guys on here. Most of my edits have been copy-edits, and occasionally I have removed unwarranted distracting "citation needed" tags (though to be sure, I was once criticized for my lack of patience with those).

Okay, get in touch if you can. Zweifel (talk) 08:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me know. Zweifel (talk) 09:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment I attempted to search for reliable source mentions of the expression and couldn't find any to establish notability. And I noticed that you had been asked about it before and your response in this diff was that your brother and you have been using the term for years and that it was not-often-used. That doesn't sound very notable. Additionally the term is offensive. As such I recommended deletion per WP:NEO. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Well, for what it's worth, there are about 4,000 Google hits, and the diff you refer to says that the redirect, rather than the term itself, would likely not be used very much, though upon reflection I can imagine a non-native English speaker reading one of those many MySpace pages and going and entering the term into Wikipedia. And I doubt that the silliest term for "penis" ever created (it resembles the German/Yiddish word for "snake") would likely cause much offense, except to someone looking to be offended. Or more accurately, by someone who was offended by something I wrote on Talk:Transportation in Vancouver after he edited the page a couple days ago, and went looking for some way to get back at me, namely by deleting two pages I created. Come on, man, this is a charade. Zweifel (talk) 18:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment It is slang that is part of a regional dialect. I contend that its Google hits, and its | mention in urban dictionary, constitute notability. And I repeat, what's it to you? How did you even find this page? I'm sorry if my comment on Talk:Transportation in Vancouver offended you, but I did my master's degree at UBC and I was sick of everyone saying how great public transportation was in Vancouver while I was standing there in the rain waiting for that damn B-line. Seriously, dude, this is a charade. Zweifel (talk) 19:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment 4000 hits sounds like a lot. It must mean something to somebody. Jonathan.wellons (talk) 21:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment agreed. even i've heard of "schlong island" - admittedly as a joke...but it was from a chick from levittown, so i figure that there was some heft to that. and it's not really offensive...especially if it's just a re-direct page. mkushnir (talk) 6 October 2009
  • Comment Schlong Island? MORE LIKE DONG ISLAND exeunt (talk) 19:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
That does not help in the discussion of a possible redirect under consideration. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. There is no consensus as to what "Shlong Island" is (based on Google searches and Yahoo! searches). I didn't find a single reliable source referring to it as a specific spot. The most "common" seems to be a variant of Long Island (and of Long Island iced tea), but the 4000 Google hits are scattered all over the place (the hits on Ask.com tend to be blog entries from New York; the same is true for the 143 hits on Yahoo, but all of them were blog entries there. All of Bing.com's entries of "Schlong Island" are blog entries from New York, too). A regionalism is OK to enter into Wikipedia only if it can be documented by a reliable source, and there has yet to be one in this case. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Restore. 147.70.242.54, you may be having trouble because you seem to have searched for "Shlong Island" rather than "Schlong Island," according to the above. According to Redirects, nicknames are expected candidates for redirection when it is clear the nickname refers to a specific article. If you search for Schlong Island, as you say, all of the entries appear to be related to New York, specifically the Long Island area of New York. This would prove reliably that the nickname itself exists. Whether or not it's notable I can't speak to, but I do see many nicknames for areas of New York City that are as notable or less so: For Example, The Boogie-down, Hiphopabad, Ganono, Shaolin Land. This also applies to cities all over the world, see: The Cleve, Frisco Town, Big Potato, Cidade Maravilhosa, Round City. These redirects only add to the usefulness of Wikipedia and don't cause any harm, and I see no harm in keeping this one as well. Gregorus (talk) 14:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
This cannot be left unchallenged; so I'll go down point by point. First, I checked both spellings of shlong/schlong (and note that most of the discussion has been about the latter, which I reported (if you doubt me, do the requesite searches with quotations and see what numbers come up). No less than the American Heritage Dictionary - a WP:Reliable source, you must admit - shows both spellings for the word along with the slang notation meaning penis. Second, not one of the hits in any of the searches comes from (by WP:Wikipedia policy a reliable source), and if it cannot be verified by an appearance and explanation in a reliable source, then by policy, it does not belong in Wikipedia. PERIOD. There is no gray area here. A few years ago, some pundits referred to Florida as America's wang - and bloggers had a field day - but (guess what?) it wasn't widely accepted because no reliable source reported it. The same is here with the "nominated" term (note the discussion that actually started it - it was based on a Canadian conversation!). Third, your argument along the lines of WP:ALLORNOTHING fails on a very simple premise - just because someone had the ambition to write an article about something, it is automatically assumed to be worthy of inclusion... FALSE! It is worthy of inclusion only if the application of the appropriate policies deem them to be so. By the way, there are at least three terms in your list that are actually supported by reliable sources (and thus should be kept) - their inclusion is virtually mandated by WP:V and WP:RS. Which ones aren't? Fourth, perusing WP:LOCAL is an eye-opening experience. Again, how many items on your list were covered by media away from the local communities? Chances are that the percentage of that is much greater than the zero that was Shlong Island/Schlong Island... and those that have not had such coverage should not be covered, either, until they get some. Oh, by the way, WP:NOHARM is not a valid argument in itself for either keeping or deleting redirects. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 01:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The cartilige family

Totally unnecessary redirect. Doesn't fall under typo; because its not similar to Catridge Family ceranthor 01:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak delete - the closest I can get to this as a possible search item is Chondrichthyes, a class (not a family) of fish with skeletons made of cartilage... but that's a long stretch from the nominated redirect's name. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Kitten killing

This redirect should be deleted as I have found nothing other than a lone urbandictionary definition dictating that the term "kitten killing" is slang for masturbation. 24.184.200.190 (talk) 00:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment This also claims that it means masturbation. But with the only sources being from non-verifiable sources, I'm inclined to say delete this. Netalarmtalk 00:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as overly obscure and not discussed in target article (or optionally, retarget to Every time you masturbate... God kills a kitten). -- ToET 02:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Redirect as suggested above. I think that's the intended meaning. DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

October 4

interestingness

This redirect is an ad for Flickr, and should be deleted. TV4Fun (talk) 07:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep as the term is mentioned in the target (the explanation should be more thoroughly explained, however); the application for a U. S. patent involving the term is cited there as well. B.Wind (talk) 15:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't think that mentioning the word once in an article should be sufficient grounds for having a redirect to it. Nor is Flickr applying for a patent that has something to do with interestingness. Interestingness is a very common word and a concept that Flickr hardly has the monopoly on. There are plenty of articles (such as this one) that discuss and link interestingness that have absolutely nothing to do with Flickr. By redirecting such a common term to a company's article, it looks very much like you're just trying to promote the company with something only peripherally related to them. TV4Fun (talk) 16:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Generally a single isolated mention would be insufficient, but the term is trademarked by Flickr, if I'm reading this correctly, and it is getting coverage in reliable sources independent of Flickr, not the least being the United States Patent Office. Of course, the premise can be destroyed if there were "common usage" of the coined word prior to the use by Flickr, and that usage can be demonstrated in reliable sources. But then again, that would also be a basis for fighting the trademark and patent.147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

A lucid account of how "Interestingness" works would be useful and appropriate to a resource such as Wikipedia. As a flickr user, I find that the algorithm seems to work very well. However, it would be useful to know - for example - what interesting content might be being excluded. The general issue of how web based content is indexed, searched for, and found, is of profound general interest. Although the word "Interestingness" is obviously and immediately understandable, it is not really natural English, and clearly not intended to be mistaken to be so.--Dominicos (talk) 07:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

October 3

Father Christmas (1987 film)

The result of the discussion was delete. Jafeluv (talk) 09:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Propose deletion as confusing. This is the remnant of a move, made when it was realized that the article was named after an incorrect release date, and has no history in need of merger. Its smattering of traffic (one or two dozen hits per month) was likely caused by links to the redirect from other articles that I have just now corrected. ToET 23:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete - this wasn't even a working title for any film made or released in 1987 that I could find (the closest I could get was a 1985 movie). B.Wind (talk) 16:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

/A\ redirects

also:


Similar to redirects previously deleted at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_July_8#.2FA.5C_Atlantic and Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_July_9#.2FA.5C (the second group is identical, but G4 deletion has been contested). Apparently some A Network press releases use "/A\" as a text stylization of the actual graphic logo, but there's no evidence this stylization is used outside those press releases. As such, these are not likely terms for searching or linking. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep /A\ → A (TV system) ; that's a perfectly good way for people to look for it, instead of the mess at the article A and A (disambiguation) . 76.66.197.30 (talk) 02:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Speedy delete all, either as recreated deleted redirects (CSD G4) or improbable typos/misnomers (CSD R3). No one would expect to find a name starting with /A\ instead of the official name. We got rid of a similar set in July (and those that now show as bluelinks on the previous discussion page are definite recreations that can be deleted now - how can a recreated redirect not be subject to CSD G4?); we should use this as precedent for eliminating the others. B.Wind (talk) 02:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment that's simple, because consensus can change. And, these things (G4 issues) have come up before at various XfD processes without going through DRV. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 05:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes, just to be clear, I have no problem at all with using the long process if there's been a reasonable objection to speedy deletion, as there was in this case. — Gavia immer (talk) 12:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete all but main I think one of these is enough. Gigs (talk) 15:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Jutland Penninsula

Delete – since otherwise we should have such a spelling-error redirect for every peninsula in the world. Law Lord (talk) 20:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep - while we don't go out of the way to create redirects with typos and misspellings, misspelling peninsula as "penninsula" does happen on occasion. In this case, the redirect would point to the article with the correct spelling, and therefore would make Wikipedia more user-friendly (see WP:RFD#KEEP). B.Wind (talk) 02:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment – In my view, helping searches does not mean promoting ignorance. Keeping that redirect promotes letting ignorant people remain ignorant. Besides, in that case, we should make such pages for all peninsula articles. Perhaps we could compromise on letting the page Penninsula redirect to Peninsula? When somebody is searching for the Jutland Peninsula I very much doubt they will be writing anything but simply "Jutland". In other words, I disagree with the notion that the misspelling occurs following the word "Jutland" doing searches. --Law Lord (talk) 02:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
A redirect to the correct spelling does not promote ignorance. It points the user to the correct spelling (with the notice of "Redirected from (misspelling)" just underneath the correct spelling); so it promotes education... which is precisely the purpose of an encyclopedia.B.Wind (talk) 20:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
The "redirected from" notice is in so small prints that the user will not notice it, and if he does, he will not care. So it promotes ignorance and contempt for knowledge, which goes against everything Wikipedia stands for. User:Thinking of England makes a wiser argument for the deletion than I do, so I just want to add, that those ending up at Jutland and looking for something else will now see a link to this nice new page: Jutland (disambiguation). --Law Lord (talk) 11:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. While this redirect might save the occasional user from being presented with a page suggesting the proper spelling, it also causes all users who type "jutland p" into the search tool to be presented with two spellings of "peninsula" to choose from, and thus, on the whole, it makes Wikipedia less user-friendly. As an aside, I am intrigued by this redirect's history. It was created in 2001 with the text "see Jutland Peninsula" and automatically converted to a redirect the following year. It's creation comment, however, reads: <<*"Jutland Penninsula" is misspelled , should be deleted ."Jutland Peninsula" is already created>> which almost sounds like an author requesting deletion at time of creation. Strange. -- ToET 04:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep very plausible error. DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - the doubled "n" is just as plausible a misspelling today as it was in 2001. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Both Law Lord's "ignorance" argument and ToE's argument about the redirect showing up at the search box apply to all redirects from misspellings. However, redirects from misspellings are most certainly allowed (see reasons for not deleting a redirect point #2), as long as it's plausible that the redirect could be useful for readers. Jafeluv (talk) 09:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Punch-Out!! (Wii) - All characters' dialogue translation

Delete - Content from this page was moved to Wikiquote after previously being merged into the game article. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Histmerge, then delete - target has several redirects going to it. Histmerging to one of them, say, Punch Out Wii (which was created in 2008 but currently has minimal history) would then allow the deletion of the redirect of a most highly unlikely search term (which is nowhere close to WP:NAME standards). B.Wind (talk) 20:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
    Doing a history merge to a completely random article is not a good idea. — RockMFR 22:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Since a histmerge is to a redirect with little history, it wouldn't be to a "completely random article." Also, note that the name of redirect that I suggested is simply the name of the target, less the punctuation. It is a superior option than either deleting the history or keeping this mess of a redirect. B.Wind (talk) 02:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't think we need to preserve history for copyright or licensing issues when it comes to wikiquote... wikiquote is one big copyright violation anyway. Gigs (talk) 15:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2

Season of the Pumpkin (album)

Page doesn't exist, redirects to band's page Львівське (talk) 21:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep. Redirects of albums to the article covering the band that recorded/released it is standard procedure; this precedent has been repeatedly reinforced by RfDs over the past few years. The redirect can be easily overwritten with/by a standalone article at any time if the new article can demonstrate the notability of the album. B.Wind (talk) 00:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. While Season of the Pumpkin should (and does) exist for the reasons B.Wind points out, the "(album)" disambiguator makes this one an unlikely search term and as such an unneeded redirect. Jafeluv (talk) 09:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It Is What It Is

The result of the discussion was speedy deleted per G8, the target page was recently PROD deleted. JamieS93 17:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion; on the grounds that the redirect serves no purpose. There used to be an article here, which didn't have any sources. It was deleted and turned into a redirect to a page that didn't follow naming conventions and also didn't have sources, which was recently PRODed. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

2009 Japan Grand Prix

Delete all Redirects like 2009 Malaysian Formula BMW Pacific Round aren't encyclopedic, and redirects like Singapur Grand Prix, 2009 Japanese GP or 2009 Australije grand prix are incorrect with the Grand Prix standard style. --Francesco Betti Sorbelli (talk) 09:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Note without recommendation. No reason for deletion (or keeping, for that matter) has been given by nom. This can be interpreted as a justification for a speedy close of this discussion. B.Wind (talk) 15:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Update. Nom added a justification after my previous post. Still no recommendation from me, at least for now.B.Wind (talk) 00:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete all, per nom. DH85868993 (talk) 03:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Mainstream Chart

Confusing redirect. There are two charts with Mainstream in the name: Mainstream Rock Tracks and Top 40 Mainstream, both of which are markedly different from each other and Rock Songs. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment. Wouldn't it be sensible to make Mainstream Chart a disambiguation page that includes all three links? — ξxplicit 03:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
    • The problem would be twofold: none of these titles have "Mainstream Chart" in its title, and there is no consensus definition of what makes a "mainstream" music chart, which makes the creation of a possible list article problematic. B.Wind (talk) 00:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - "mainstream" is in the eye of the beholder. B.Wind (talk) 07:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Cobalt/Temp

Delete these chemistry-related "temporary" redirects. I am not sure if I have all the "temps", being that there are 116 known elements (with one more in dispute), but these were the ones I've found in Wikipedia so far... 147.70.242.54 (talk) 01:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I've appended Niobium/Temp -- that should be all the Element/Temp redirects. -- ToET 23:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  • History merge, per this edit at cobalt. Probably all the pages need to be treated similarly, and I plan to work on these either later today or tomorrow. Graham87 01:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Done up to nitrogen for now. Graham87 09:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Done up to Vanadium before my Internet connection went down last night. I'll do the rest after I get back from a holiday on Friday. Graham87 05:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Consciousness causes collapse

Consciousness causes collapse, a supposed interpretation of quantum mechanics, was previously AFD'd with a consensus to merge to quantum mysticism. While many argue that CCC is an example of "mysticism", the relevant material is no longer in the target article. Given the number of incoming links (from articles that tend to treat CCC as a viable interpretation), the redirect is now uninformative. Another article with information about "consciousness causes collapse" has been created at Quantum mind/body problem. All of these articles seem to be contentious, but something needs to be done about this redirect. Either Delete or Retarget to Quantum mind/body problem. 140.247.103.56 (talk) 01:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Alternatively, allow recreation of the article, which should never have been deleted in the first place.Likebox (talk) 01:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I believe that our license requires that the CCC history be kept as long as the relevant material is in the history as having been merged to QM, even if subsequent editing removes it or changes it beyond recognition. The matter of targeting the redirect is being discussed here, here, and a little bit here. As nobody is arguing for outright deletion, just retargeting, can we speedy close this? - 2/0 (cont.) 15:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
While deletion appears not to be the issue anymore, we still have a discussion on the fate of a fully protected redirect and a proposal to retarget it. Since no retargeting has occurred, the redirect has not been overwritten, and there has been no withdrawal by the nominating editor, this discussion must run its course. WP:Speedy keep does not apply to this right now. B.Wind (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I feel it should be directed to Quantum mind, just as Quantum consciousness redirects there as well. The phrase "Consciousness causes collapse" is a central discussion to the metaphysics and theories of people that study that field, including notable professors, such as Dr. Penrose. While there are particular theories based on the subject, the Quantum mind article is broader than just one theory, such as Orch-OR. To redirect CCC to any other place would be uninformative. For example, the opening phrase of quantum mind: "Quantum mind theories are based on the premise that quantum mechanics is necessary to fully understand the mind and brain, particularly concerning an explanation of consciousness." The article's subject is theory that relates to consciousness, mind, and quantum mechanics. If the original authors of CCC and Wigner's interpretation wish, they should cross-link and reference their material in relation to the Quantum mind article, rather than attempt to "bait and switch" through a redirect. Deleting it would be pointless as well, since those interested parties would recreate it or something similiar. --☯Lightbound☯ talk 20:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Rendition/Temp

Delete all. Another collection of "temporary" redirects whose expiration dates have long passed. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 00:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Treat on a case-by-case basis - The fate of some of these redirects is unimportant because they have no significant history or incoming links. But some of them, such as Venus/Temp, have long page histories that could be moved to other places or history merged. In the case of baseball/Temp, which is on my watchlist, it has several incoming links. Deuterostome/Temp was part of a complex history merge I did several months ago, and I'll speedy delete it now; I usually try to delete any "/Temp" pages I create because they usually contain junk revisions, but I obviously forgot about it that time. Graham87 01:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete those with trivial history; histmerge the others into another redirect, then delete the "temporary" pages.B.Wind (talk) 04:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Afridi (temp)

The result of the discussion was delete. Jafeluv (talk) 09:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete - a year is an awfully long time for a temporary redirect to exist. Nobody will look for it by this name. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 00:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete - since the redirect was formed by a move to the current target, no significant history would be lost by the deletion of this temporary page. B.Wind (talk) 16:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Ciara's 3rd Album: Untitled

The result of the discussion was delete. Jafeluv (talk) 09:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Unlikely search term. The title of the album, Fantasy Ride, was revealed quite some time ago and the album itself was released back in May. No reason to keep this redirect around. — ξxplicit 00:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete. Essentially the nomination is asking for the deletion of a temporary redirect. Since Ciara's third album has a title, this name is now redundant and misleading. Deletion is best here. B.Wind (talk) 07:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

October 1

Zenwalk/redirects

The result of the discussion was delete all. Closedmouth (talk) 08:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete. Somehow this one fell through the cracks when we were deleting other redirects that advertised to be redirects. Created in 2005, this seems too old to be speedied. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 00:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Appending three more:

All four of these are the result of recent moves by Anthony Appleyard -- ToET 01:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

  • OK, OK, delete them: each [[X/redirects]] is junk that I shifted aside when obeying a request to move another page to name [[X]]. Leaving deleted parallel-history edits under a visible page with an edit history, is too liable to accidents if the new page [[X]] must for some reason be later temporarily deleted. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Appending eight more of the parenthetical style:

More of the same (these tend to be older.) -- ToET 01:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Appending one more; this one without an explicit "redirect":

used in one of the moves relate to Sewanee: The University of the South (redirects) above ToE($a,$b)=($b,$a);06:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Ranunculus nivalis

The result of the discussion was retargeted to Snow buttercup; speedy close upon withdrawal of nomination by nom (non-admin close). B.Wind (talk) 05:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This plant does not grow just in Canada, but also Greenland, Svalbard, and mainland Norway – this should be redlinked (or an article), not redirected to an arbitrary list. — the Sidhekin (talk) 23:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep - I just created an article about this species here and redirected Ranunculus nivalis there. A redirect to the appropriate article is better than a red link. Neelix (talk) 23:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep – or do I say withdrawn? – yes, a Ranunculus nivalis article, by any other name, would be as good. Thanks! :) — the Sidhekin (talk) 23:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The Replacements (disambiguation)

The result of the discussion was keep. Killiondude (talk) 07:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It is redirecting to a disambiguation page. It makes no sense to maintain the name (disambiguation) page anymore. warrior4321 03:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep. Redirecting "Foo (disambiguation)" to the disambiguation page for "Foo" is generally quite useful. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Gavia immer sums it up nicely - and there is plenty of precedent for keeping such redirects. B.Wind (talk) 02:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

September 29

LeetIRC

The result of the discussion was keep. Killiondude (talk) 07:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

DeLeet. This article was redirected to circumvent notability guidelines. Wikipedia is not a directory of software, including chat software, and this product is not notable in any event. I suggest that the redirect be deleted and the list it is redirected to be cleaned up of non-notable products. JBsupreme (talk) 07:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Speedy Keep Abuse of process by User:JBsupreme. See AN/I Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Continued wikistalking/wikihounding and harassment. --Tothwolf (talk) 07:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Please try to keep to the subject at hand, your repeated personal attacks are uncalled for. The closing administrator will weigh out the arguments accordingly. JBsupreme (talk) 07:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not for the promotion of products, free or not. The standards for the content of a list are certainly lower than the standards for an independent article, but lists need to have some kind of inclusion criteria in order to avoid becoming promotional vehicles. In the sense that this is a redirect, the product name is an unlikely search term so the choice to make a redirect is poor. The list article does not provide any context at all about this piece of software, so the choice of redirect targets is poor. Miami33139 (talk) 21:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - as long as LeetIRC is notable enough to be included in the list at Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients, this redirect is helpful. It is not doing any harm, and will direct any users who search with this term to the correct location. —Zach425 talk/contribs 06:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
    • The comparison article has no inclusion criteria, so everything is notable enough to be in it. Does that change your opinion? Miami33139 (talk) 03:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The notability guidelines refer only to the question of whether a topic is appropriate for its own article. Content, on the other hand, is dictated by our content policies, such as verifiability and neutral point of view. Please see the subsection Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content. This is not a discussion about whether or not LeetIRC should get its own article, but whether or not it is helpful for inquiring readers to be redirected to that page when searching for the term. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Miami33139, the notability guideline does not apply to the actual content of an article. It only helps determine of a particular subject meets the bar for having its own standalone article.
    Per WP:NCC: "The notability guidelines determine whether a topic is notable enough to be a separate article in Wikipedia. They do not give guidance on the content of articles, except for lists of people. Instead, various content policies govern article content, with the amount of coverage given to topics within articles decided by its appropriate weight."
    It might also help if you asked for the inclusion criteria on the comparison article's talk page...
    Inclusion criteria:
  1. The client has to exist. We have to be able to verify that the client actually exists and isn't a made-up hoax entry. This is standard practice for comparison articles.
  2. The entry has to be more than just a name and link. It takes a good bit of time to research and fill out details so this raises the bar and tends to discourage drive-by additions of someone's no-name home-brew Visual Basic based client.
  3. Only standalone clients, browser plug-in type clients, or web server or browser based Java applet type clients should normally be included.
  4. Multi-IM type clients that support other instant messaging protocols should go into the comparison article that covers Instant Messaging clients. This is for article size and maintenance reasons since many IM clients now offer basic IRC support.
  5. Clients for mobile / handheld devices go into their own comparison article. This is also for article size reasons and because mobile devices have completely different operating system requirements than normal clients.
--Tothwolf (talk) 03:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
(For the record, a number of months back I completely reworked the comparison article. While doing so I removed a large number of entries and added several others. The table rows were in complete disarray with many clients not even being listed in all of the tables. I did this as part of an overall restructure/rewrite of the tables as they were deficient in many areas.) --Tothwolf (talk) 04:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep appropriate redirect to the place on Wikipedia where it's discussed. How the namer of the product can be an inappropriate search term for it puzzles me; How changing an article to a redirect circumvents notability guidelines puzzles me, too--it's the appropriate way of dealing with something of dubious notability in order to conform to notability and deletion guidelines, as explained in WP:BEFORE. DGG ( talk ) 16:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep It's a likely search term, and if a subject isn't notable enough to be included on its own merit, the least we can do is redirect people searching for it to a useful and helpful article we do have. It's not advertising to include a redirect to page on that subject. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 19:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Also see the AfD less than two months ago that led to this being redirected. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 19:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: the nom intentionally subst: the {{rfd}} template when nominating this redirect for RFD [2] even though the template is explicit in its instructions not to do this. This prevented the bot from notifying the WikiProject of this RFD. I have replaced the subst markup with the correct template. [3] --Tothwolf (talk) 23:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Other article like this that went to AFD recently ended in Keep. Deleting it without a AFD, or replacing it with a redirect which is the same thing, as people looking for it won't see the article either way, is ridiculous. Right now there is a redirect to a page that only list notable things, and if its not notable enough to have its own article, it'll probably be purged from it eventually. If you don't believe an article is notable, send it to the AFD and do things properly. As for [4] Joe Chill went to AFD with it, and 10 hours later just replaced it with a redirect, with only one other person having time to comment on it. Dream Focus 17:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
    • In the case of the earlier AfD for LeetIRC, while it is unique and one of only maybe 2 or 3 MS-DOS type IRC clients, there just weren't enough secondary sources to argue for it as a keep at AfD. (Joe Chill wasn't the one who redirected this page either.) I'm sure it will eventually get proper coverage in books about IRC though due to how unusual DOS-based IRC clients are (which are becoming more popular due to people wanting to play with classic software), at which time we can unredirect and expand the material that is still in the edit history. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
      • That decision is made in the AFD, through the proper method. We can't just have people making a decision on their own, and rampaging about destroying articles on a whim. If you don't believe an article should remain, you send it to a proper AFD. Dream Focus 23:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
        • While this really isn't the place to have this discussion, don't assume that the LeetIRC stub article was carelessly redirected without due diligence and some careful consideration. Any editor is of course always free to redirect an article per WP:BRD and WP:PRESERVE, especially when there is a parent article available where more coverage is available. In this particular case, there wasn't much in the article not covered in the redirect target and the nom happened to agree. That said however, you and I likely agree that blindly redirecting or nominating software articles for AfD where the nom doesn't think they are notable and has not even attempted to source them is a serious problem. If you would like to lend a hand with the larger project related to many of these stub articles we can certainly discuss this further on the WikiProject's talk page. --Tothwolf (talk) 01:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Joe Coleman (actor)

The result of the discussion was delete. Jafeluv (talk) 09:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Unsure what to do with this; the Joe Coleman disambiguation page gives separate listings for Joe Coleman (painter) and Joe Coleman (actor), with different birthdates, so it is perhaps suboptimal to have one title redirect to the other.  Skomorokh  23:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete Joe Coleman (actor): The actor has no incoming links and redirecting to disambig would simply create a a loop.--Labattblueboy (talk) 00:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete redirect and remove entry from Joe Coleman dab page (I have boldly done the latter) as it was Joe Coleman (painter) (born 1955) who appeared in Mondo New York (per his own bibliography and other sources). The IMDB page appears to be the source of the 1947 birth date. I don't know if they are simply in error or if they are conflating two people of the same name. -- ToET 07:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per ToE. —Zach425 talk/contribs 06:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Guitar Hero: The Beatles

The result of the discussion was retarget Guitar Hero: The Beatles to The Beatles: Rock Band, delete others. Jafeluv (talk) 06:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Propose deletion as confusing. Possible retargeting options include (a)The Beatles: Rock Band (the actual game released 3 weeks ago), (b) The Beatles: Rock Band#Promotion (includes one sentence on industry rumors of Activision's attempt to license the material), and (c) Cultural impact of the Guitar Hero series#On the music industry (includes two sentences on the licensing attempt). The old, originally targeted material is here. The YouTube parody video would be a perfect target were it ever to received an article, but that seems unlikely. ToET 23:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete - Clearly no evidence this title will exists. At the time that it was suggested for deletion, a youtube video parodying the Guitar Hero-approach as if they were doing a Beatles game, entitled "Guitar Hero: the Beatles", received some but minor coverage, and thus is not really going to develop into anything encyclopedia where this redirect(s) could be used. --MASEM (t) 00:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete all but the first; retarget first to The Beatles: Rock Band as A) the actual name of the game is nowhere close to these, and B) The targeted sections no longer exist (nor should they). One redirect (Guitar Hero: The Beatles to The Beatles: Rock Band) should be sufficient as many people mix up the two franchises. I'd also suggest adding the correct names of the Rock Band offerings to the "See also" section of Guitar Hero.147.70.242.54 (talk) 16:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete all - as confusing & misleading. Even if someone does get confused and enter Guitar Hero: The Beatles, I feel like a search page would be more elucidating than taking them to the relevant Rock Band page. —Zach425 talk/contribs 06:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete all except first as confusing redirects. Like Zach425, I think it makes more sense to have a search page where the real page will popup, but if we retarget one of these per 147.70.242.54 then it will be blatantly obvious what the mistake was, and we can guarantee a reader will see it first in the list. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 19:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

German submarine U-233

Propose deletion of these two redirects. Although the targeted section of the target article does contain pertinent information about this German U-boat, it is highly likely that a full article will be written about this German U-boat, and having a non-redlink has (or will) probably discourage that effort. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment - I'm torn on this. While I agree a redlink would be useful, I'm hesitant to delete and remove these as auto-complete options in the search box. I think the best solution here would be to turn German submarine U-233 into a stub and retarget Unterseeboot 233 there. —Zach425 talk/contribs 06:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Stubify per Zach425's reasoning. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 06:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Kartzuli

The result of the discussion was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 19:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I can find no evidence that kartzuli is used in English, beyond use in various Wikipedia versions based on the original, unreferenced Wikipedia article, which is now this redirect. I can also find no reference to the "Maxin Gouhshtein" mentioned in that original article. The concept seems to be unverifiable, and is, perhaps, a hoax. I believe that the redirect should be deleted. Tim Ross (talk) 12:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete CSD R3 - not only was the original article a hoax, "Maxin Gouhshtein" earns the Golden Doughnut award for having zero Google hits when being searched. Clearly it's an implausible misnomer, and having been created only 16 days ago, it's recent enough to qualify for speedy deletion. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 18:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Almost definite hoax. --JaGatalk 20:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per IP. It seems this term was once used by Borat. —Zach425 talk/contribs 06:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Two-pass encoding

The result of the discussion was retarget to Variable bitrate. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this article should be a separated article or redirected to Variable bitrate. (Multi-pass encoding is mentioned in Variable bitrate#Methods of VBR encoding.) It should not be redirected to Smart Bitrate Control (SBC), because the SBC article is more specific about multi-pass encoding software tool Nandub (video processing utility).

"Two-pass encoding" (2-pass encoding) also known as "Multi-pass encoding" is a variable bitrate encoding method and it is used by many codecs and encoders. Reference: [5]. See also articles about other encoders: Dr. DivX#Multi-Pass Encoding, Cinema Craft Encoder. Multi-pass encoding is also used by XviD [6], x264 [7], libtheora (Theora) [8], etc.

"Two-pass encoding" wikilink is used only in Windows Media Encoder article. [9] 89.173.68.106 (talk) 12:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Retarget per nom. Should be the same as for Multi-pass encoding which I just created as it is also according to the target only used in VBR recording and explained there.--Tikiwont (talk) 20:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Retarget per nom. Redirects from the general to the particular are generally confusing and misleading. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

 W The content appearing above is a local copy of the Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion page from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. It was written by various Wikipedians (contributor history) and is distributed under the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 3.0 License (license text).

The version shown above has Revision ID: 319189532 and was last updated October 11, 2009, 7:48 am.

Current version on Wikipedia: view / edit Read Wikipedia's disclaimers.
Retrieved from "http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Special:GWArtMirrorPage"
Sea Level Explorer
Random image
Toolbox