Wifedogging

Wikipedia:RFD

Welcome to our website. It is generaly simplier version of wikipedia. You will find there selected articles. Enjoy!

Skip to Table of Contents. Skip to table of contents · Skip to current discussions · Purge this page
Shortcut:
Deletion discussions

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: If you want to move a page but a redirect to that page is preventing this, you do not need to list it here. Place a request in the appropriate section at Wikipedia:Requested moves and an administrator will perform the move for you.

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
Proposals Discussions Recurring proposals
Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.

Contents

Before listing a redirect for discussion

Before listing 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 enter 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. There is no harm in deleting problematic redirects.
  • 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?

Shortcut:

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

  • a redirect may contain nontrivial edit history;
  • if a redirect is reasonably old (or a redirect is created as a result of moving a page that has been there for quite some time), 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.

Shortcut:

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 or abusive, such as redirecting "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs" (unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is discussed in the article), or "Joe Bloggs" to "Loser". (Speedy deletion criterion G10 may apply.)
  4. The redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam. (Speedy deletion criterion G11 may apply.)
  5. The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting Apple to Orange. (Speedy deletion criterion G1 may apply.)
  6. It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exception to this rule are the pseudo-namespace shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space. Some long-standing cross-namespace redirects are also kept because of their long-standing history and potential usefulness. "MOS:" redirects, for example, are an exception to this rule. (Note "WP:" redirects are in the Wikipedia namespace, WP: being an alias for Wikipedia.)
  7. If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to itself or to an article that does not exist, it can be deleted immediately under speedy deletion criterion G8, though you should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first.
  8. If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful. In particular, redirects from a foreign language title to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. Improbable typos or misnomers are potential candidates for speedy deletion, if recently created.
  9. If the target article needs to be moved to the redirect title, but the redirect has been edited before and has a history of its own, then it needs to be deleted to make way for move.
  10. If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject. In such a case, it is better that the target article contain a redlink than a redirect back to itself.
Shortcut:

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. For example, if someone sees the Keystone State mentioned somewhere but does not know what that refers to, then they will be able to find out at the Pennsylvania (target) article.
  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 being untruthful, 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.

Also, redirects are cheap. Redirects take up minimal system resources, so it doesn't really hurt things if there are a few of them scattered around.

Neutrality of redirects

Shortcut:

Just like article titles using non-neutral language are permitted in some circumstances, so are redirects. Because redirects are less visible to readers, more latitude is allowed in their names. Perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is therefore not a sufficient reason for their deletion. In most cases, non-neutral but verifiable redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term.

Non-neutral redirects 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; Climategate → Climatic Research Unit email controversy).
  2. Articles created as POV forks may be deleted and replaced by a redirect pointing towards the article from which the fork originated (e.g. Barack Obama Muslim rumor → deleted and redirected to Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008).
  3. The subject matter of articles may be represented by some sources outside Wikipedia in non-neutral terms. Such terms are generally avoided in Wikipedia article titles, per the words to avoid guidelines and the general neutral point of view policy. For instance the non-neutral expression "Attorneygate" is used to redirect to the neutrally titled Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. The article in question has never used that title, but the redirect was created to provide an alternative means of reaching it because a number of press reports use the term.

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

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

Shortcut:

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

I.
Flag the redirect.

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

{{subst: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. Repeat line 2 for N number of redirects:
{{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

Current list

April 27

2200s (decade)

April 26

April 25

Dipangkorn Rasmijoti Bridge

Misleading and confusing redirect. Was created due to a mention in an unreliable source that this would be the name of the bridge in question; however, it is not. Paul_012 (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Grasping at straws

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was soft-redirect to Wiktionary article w:grasp at straws (non-admin closure). As nominator I feel this is a good solution, and I don't see this as a controversial result. If there is concern that this closure is too out-of-process anyone may re-open it. Equazcion (talk) 04:16, 26 Apr 2012 (UTC)

"Grasping at straws" is a phrase used to describe creating weak arguments to desperately advance one's position when one knows they've been beaten. It has little relation to "straw man" arguments, which mischaracterize an opponent's argument -- and are often used even when one's position is strong. The relation has been drawn purely because of the common word they share, but they are far from synonymous. Until an article can be created in its place, this redirect should be deleted. Equazcion (talk) 17:57, 25 Apr 2012 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete by creator of the redir (some 5 years ago); this isn't linked to from anywhere in article space at this point, and Equazcion is exactly correct that it's a very dubious target article to begin with. My bad! -- Kendrick7talk 19:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I concur that the current target is not supportable. Maybe retarget to desperation? That seems better though maybe still not ideal. It does seem like the phrase ought to point somewhere. Delete only if no better target comes up by the end of the discussion period. Soft-redirect to Wiktionary using {{wi}}. I see no potential that this phrase can every support an article beyond a mere dicdef. Rossami (talk) 22:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I suppose one could support an article at a later date were there any reliable real world controversy over the phrase's relation to straw man. I can support the soft-redirect insomuch as it is without prejudice to a later expansion based on WP:RS's. Given the holiness that deletion discussions are often anointed with on this project, I am once bitten, twice shy. ;) -- Kendrick7talk 03:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Scott Wilson (ice hockey)

Redirects to a simple list of players and doesn't give much more information that that. Possibly in the near future he could become notable. Would be better served being a red link at this point. DJSasso (talk) 20:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Yeah it was created before he met WP:NHOCKEY. But he is pretty close to meeting it now so likely will be recreated in the near future. -DJSasso (talk) 11:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: while nobody has explicitly argued against the deletion, I'd like to see a stronger consensus to overturn the AfD's consensus that he shouldn't have an article
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 12:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep the redirect. If/when he meets the notability criteria clearly enough to overcome the AfD decision, the redirect can be overwritten with article content - deletion of the pagehistory is not necessary. In the meantime, the redirect points readers to what little content we have on the persion and keeps the Talk page alive so those debating his notability have a place to hold their discussion. Rossami (talk) 22:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Damián Fernández Beanato

This article was deleted twice (1 & 2) after this discussion and now the author created it again as a nonsense redirect. It should be deleted for good. PeterCantropus (talk) 05:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

April 24

Ämt

Delete, "Ämt" is an implausible typo but an already executed {{db-r3}} was reverted/contested. Ämt is nothing anyone knowing the least of German would search. An Englisch user wouldn't look for it either because of the Umlaut. -- S.K. (talk) 21:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep. The correct singular is Amt but the plural is Ämter. This does not seem like an implausible mistake for a novice speaker. The argument against the umlaut overlooks the fact that we have somewhere around 10,000 titles in Category:Redirects from titles with diacritics. Many readers of the English Wikipedia use alternate keyboards. Even more use cut-and-paste to try to find the article they want. Rossami (talk) 23:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
    • The argument about the around 10,000 titles in Category:Redirects from titles with diacritics is IMHO misleading. From what I can tell, the titles are in their majority valid titles with diacritics for which the English Wikipedia for one reason or another has chosen to store the article without. The C&P argument is valid for "Ämter" but why would anyone restrict the cut to "Ämt", who has no idea of German? And such a person would most likely reduce all the way to "Amt". --S.K. (talk) 18:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep as a plausible synonym per Rossami.--Lenticel (talk) 02:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep-Stats show hits at least a bit over the noise level, so evidently someone is inputting this somewhere.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Intelligent Energy

Delete. Target section has minor mention of one use of the term. The Wikipedia search "Intelligent Energy" shows many articles with other uses. There is apparently no primary target. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:40, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Neutral. According to the redirect target "Intelligent Energy is the dominant term in publications ..." though I don't know how much that stands up to scrutiny if you consider the cited reference seems to be strongly related to the term. Perhaps a hatnote on the target section, to direct interested readers to the European Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme would be a better idea? Astronaut (talk) 11:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Integrated operations is a term in the oil and gas industry and not energy in general. The article is only about that meaning. The source [1] of your partial quote says "Each SPE Intelligent Energy International event marks a milestone on the Oil & Gas industry's road map to fully integrated operations." My point is that the oil and gas industry does not have a monopoly on the term Intelligent Energy. It's used in other fields as the Wikipedia search shows. I nominated after a post at Wikipedia:Help desk#Intelligent Energy about a fuel cell & hydrogen technology company called Intelligent Energy, mentioned in ENV and several other articles. The company does not have an article but is among many uses of the term Intelligent Energy in Wikipedia articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Neutral For electricity, the I.E. term as in 'intelligent energy grid' is today more commonly referred to as a smart grid. But when I originally made this redirect, I would have preferred to make Intelligent Energy a disambiguation page, had there only been other pages to redirect to, like a page about the fuel cell. The same applies to a lesser degree to integrated operations which is also a military term [2] and even business parlance. (As in 'vertically integrated operations'). This is not a coincidence, as the "integrated operations" in the three domains share some of the same concepts, borrowed from organizational and management theory. Regardless of the redirect decision, this discussion has unearthed material which would be very useful in the Integrated operations#naming conventions section! :-) EverGreg (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 13:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


Haul road

A "haul road" is a generic term for any road specifically designed for heavy and/or bulk transfer of materials by lorries or construction equipment, that are often temporary or not fully made up (gravel roads, etc) and occur in all parts of the world. The Dalton Highway is just a specific example of a haul road, although probably the most famous. We really ought to have an article on haul roads in general, but afaict we don't, the closest I can find is Gravel road, which is not a suitable target as it's just an overlapping set (some haul roads are gravel roads, some gravel roads are haul roads, but neither set encompasses the other). If I've overlooked a suitable article this should be redirected there, otherwise it should be deleted pending the writing of an article (if I had time I'd write a stub myself). Thryduulf (talk) 10:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep redirect. It's used for others, but it's a terribly common name for the Dalton. Google news supports this. It would be entirely appropriate for it to become a stub or a dab page, but until then, the redirect seems perfectly appropriate. tedder (talk) 19:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
  • While the Dalton Highway is the specific road referred to more than any other, it is not the primary use for the phrase "haul road" and it is not helpful to redirect the generic term to one specific example as it tells our readers that "haul road" = "Dalton Highway", especially as the only use of the word "haul" on the page is the phrase "formerly known as the North Slope Haul Road". Thryduulf (talk) 21:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Convert to article per nom, or delete since the Dalton Highway is not the only haul road. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 04:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

April 23

WDVE and WKVE

Implausible redirect, as WDVE and WKVE are not related; while there is a page history, it was in the form of a cut-and-paste merger of the WDVE and WKVE articles (but only WKVE was redirected, and that has been reverted). Had been nominated for proposed deletion, though the redirection ended that process for this page. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The Idler Wheel Is Wiser Than The Driver of The Screw And Whipping Cords Will Serve You More Than Ropes Eill Ever Do

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Speedy Delete, G7. by Rossami Lenticel (talk) 02:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I misspelled it. sorry. there's a redirect for this album and i just misspelled "Will" with "Eill". Reza (Let'sTalk) 21:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

  • When you immediately recognize your own mistake like this, you can just tag the page with {{db-self}}. No need for a full deletion nomination. Rossami (talk) 22:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Ski walking

This redirect was blanked and tagged for AFD on April 22. The concern was, in its entirety, "Nordic Walking is not Ski Walking." The redirect has been in place since 2006, and I can find no discussions about whether it is appropriate or not. So, I'm bringing it here for discussion. The nominator's recommendation was Delete; on the merits, I have no opinion. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 17:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

  • A google search on the exact phrase "ski walking" turns up almost nothing except descriptions of the activity described at our current Nordic walking article. The google results do suggest that the more generic term should be pole walking ("Nordic" being a brand name of the company that popularized the equipment and the activity) so perhaps the article should be moved and the redirects retargetted but I see no credible argument to delete. Rossami (talk) 18:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, if another target is found then sure, the redirect can point to that article. The fact of the matter just is that "Nordic Walking is not ski walking". As is also proved by Rossami, with a simple Google search. Now on this current subject, as a well-informed individual (I am in direct contact with the sport's creator Marko Kantaneva) ski-walking is just another attempt at sabotage by one of many opportunists - let me explain. When originally having trouble with posting this article, I think I mentioned in a discussion that there has been a lot of dispute over the new sport, simply because people see a new market product. Due to that there have also been large amounts of misleading information and mistreatment towards the creator etc. As seen before, when Tom Rutlin, the creator of Exerstrider was supposedly the creator of Nordic Walking (check previous articles. "Note: Google Tom Rutlin, he now calls Exerstrider Noric Walking as well, which it isn't. If you read his main argument through, the Times reference then there is talk of Ecerstrider, but no Nordic Walking." ) or mentioned on the articles discussion page, "INWA is simply a front for Excel". Now in an attempt to get a clear message through to the world I went ahead and fixed the article - much help was given to me by competent Wiki editors (Thank you by the way!). So in conclusion Ski-walking is not Nordic Walking it is simply a term taken into use to split the sport and sell goods under a different name, rather like Adidas and Adibas, but at a more equal scale (seeing as Nordic Walking is only just becoming popular amongst masses). KMuuli (talk) 06:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Envirowiki

Redirect is not discussed in the list due to the fact that the redirect itself is non-notable, which is a criterion which is keeping the list in proper scope and length. Izno (talk) 15:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

  • The redirect does not strike me as especially harmful or confusing. The only argument I can see for deleting it is to return the title to redlink so someone might create the page. Looking at their Alexa rank, however, it does not appear that they meet Wikipedia's inclusion standards. That leaves me at weak keep (maybe retargetted to something about environmentalism rather than about their copyright license) because the redirect may be preempting the creation of non-notable content. Rossami (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Retarget to List of environmental websites, where it is mentioned (and linked; that should be changed to an external link probably). The topic of a redirect should appear in the target article; failing to follow this rule is confusing to readers. Therefore, if it continues to be targeted as it is, it should be deleted. If it is "preempting the creation of non-notable content" (which is not supported by the logs or history), we can just WP:SALT it. --NYKevin @896, i.e. 20:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Filter, map, reduce

Ctrl+F "filter" doesn't find anything on the target page. This should probably target something, but NoSQL isn't it. NYKevin @639, i.e. 14:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

  • The history points to MapReduce which was recently updated to open with the very first line that "MapReduce is the name of several software frameworks. See NoSQL where filter, map, reduce pipelines are described generally." That edit also marked the page with {{npov}}. The NoSQL page is also being extensively rewritten at present.
    A google search on the exact phrase "filter, map, reduce" suggests that this is a fairly generic computing concept[3], often though not exclusively associated with Python.
    Existence of a term on a target page is not necessary to support a redirect, though it is generally preferred. In this case, I am reluctant to support deletion while the respective articles are being reworked. My recommendation is to keep for now and reevaluate when the respective pages have stabilized a bit. Rossami (talk) 18:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
    • If it's a "generic programming concept," why are we targeting it at NoSQL? Surely it's used elsewhere. --NYKevin @859, i.e. 19:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

April 22

Refinery Town

Makes no sense to single out this one city as a "refinery town". What about all the other cities around the world with refineries? Canuck89 (converse with me) 21:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not, the redirect is for the nickname and proper noun "Refinery Town" not for the sum of parts adjective+noun "refinery + town", and it is cited. There are many nicknames that refer to more than one item but if there happened to be any other cities called "Refinery Town" and it is a noun then a disambiguation is in order.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete or disambiguate nicknames are capitalized, generic terms are not, and many refinery districts are nicknamed refinery towns. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 04:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete, per LuciferWildCat. bobrayner (talk) 06:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Municipal Pier

This redirect should not exist, or should be a disambiguation page, as there are many different piers which are known as "municipal pier" or are named "Municipal Pier". For example, a Google search comes up with municipal piers at the following locations (in that order, only from first page of results):

  • San Francisco, US
  • Chicago, US
  • Ocianside, US
  • Fairhope, US
  • Santa Monica, US

If the vote goes for a disambiguation page, it may be worth mentioning why it is common for piers to carry this name. Kat (talk) 19:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

  • You make a compelling argument to disambiguate. Be bold. Rossami (talk) 21:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Make it a disam page. Navy Pier is likely not the primary topic for that name pbp 02:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:TENNISNAMES

Proposal seems to have been thoroughly rejected by the community (and moved back into userspace). Failed proposal shouldn't have a cross-namespace redirect like actual guidelines and policies; it could easily mislead casual readers into thinking that it's a valid rule. bobrayner (talk) 18:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Agree. Probably should have been vetted in user space as opposed to a subheading of Tennis to begin with. The only problem is people still seem to be commenting and referring to it in other ongoing discussions and they will suddenly have no link to refer to. Not all the editors will know of the original user page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:17, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Glucojasinogen

This fictional substance was the subject of a hoax, as explained on Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. It is currently a cross-namespace redirect to that project page. That redirect was speedily deleted per WP:CSD#R2, which prohibits cross-namespace redirects from mainspace. In the ensuing discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 April 14, no clear consensus emerged about what to do with the redirect. Options proposed include retaining it because it helps inform readers about the hoax, deleting it or covering the hoax in mainspace. To resolve this, as the DRV closer, I am nominating the redirect for discussion here, although I refrain from expressing an opinion of my own.  Sandstein  07:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It's actually a fictional condition, not a substance. Not sure if that matters but I thought I'd mention it.Equazcion (talk) 08:16, 22 Apr 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete. Either the hoax is notable or it is not. If it is notable it belongs in mainspace. That project page should not be allowed to exist as alternate article space, which it does if mainspace sends readers to it for information. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. As creator of the redirect and the one to bring its deletion to DRV, here is a reiteration of my initial discussion about the background for this page given at the Deletion Review:
  • Keep As I said at DRV, it's just a redirect, and one that helps convey arguably verifiable information, despite it not agreeing with the letter of "the law" (and we're not supposed to have those here anyway). The opposition to this is purely technical, and on Wikipedia that's never a good reason; although we tend to forget that. Equazcion (talk) 14:17, 22 Apr 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep the redirect. Given that wikipedia is at fault for editors missing the subtle but serious vandalism and the subsequent hoax that occurred I believe that we have a duty to explain this hoax. I believe that the redirect is harmless and will help to debunk this hoax term.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Change the redirect to redirect to a mainspace article discussing reliability in Wikipedia and the careless adoption of Wikipedia text in other publications, which can surely discuss this remarkable incident. Dcoetzee 23:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
    • I'd be in favor of this as a long-term solution, but I just don't see it happening as a result of this particular process. In the shorter term, assuming consensus can't be established for this, would you settle for keeping the redirect as-is (assuming the only other option is to delete)? I'd like to know the same from everyone who !votes this way. Equazcion (talk) 05:14, 23 Apr 2012 (UTC)
    • We can't present this discussion yet in the article mainspace for lack of reliable sources. That would be original research and synthesis. Given the spectacular nature of the matter I'm sure there will be such media coverage in the future though (the incident is a pre-eminent anecdote to be brought up by Jimmy Wales, who is aware of the affair, and others when being asked about the reliability of Wikipedia or its use in scientific research). __meco (talk) 10:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete. This hoax is not notable. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Good thing this isn't WP:AFD then. Equazcion (talk) 12:16, 24 Apr 2012 (UTC)
      • It's much worse than not notable. It seems to be not worth a single mention anywhere in mainspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure where you're getting that from. The not-notable argument was probably better, even though it too doesn't apply. I get that udontlikeit, but aside from personal opinion, there's no criteria we can point to to actually make that call. Equazcion (talk) 23:41, 25 Apr 2012 (UTC)
          • Where am I getting that from? A Wikipedia article space search of "Glucojasinogen" returns only the redirect that is being discussed here. The most likely page to make a mention would be Diabetic_neuropathy, but editors decided that no mention was warranted. There is sort of a discussion at Talk:Diabetic_neuropathy#Funny_situation. My objection is that Wikipedia should only cover things that others have already covered. Anything else is original research. We need to maintain a firm stance on original research. This corss-namespace redirect to factual content is a loophole around WP:NOR. The project page is not subject to WP:NOR. Any number of hoaxes (stories of wikipedia hoaxes) can be introduced to that page based on internal referencing, with maybe some primary source only referencing, as is the case with.

            It's not that IDon'tLikeIt. I understand that some people feel we have a responsibility to right a past mistake. I understand that the "no cross-namespace redirects" thing is a mantra that in reality has caveats, holes and exceptions. However, this decision sets another example of a Wikipedia:Namespace#Pseudo-namespaces, and if that's what we're doing, at least be aware of what we are doing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

U.S. Route 91 (Arizona-Nevada-California)

Not a plausible search term; no incoming links except user page of editor that created the redirect. Minimal page history. LJ ↗ 06:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete—redirects might be cheap, but this one is worthless in a scheme that would have separate ones for each state through which US 91 passes or passed. The search term just isn't plausible on that basis, and this editor has created dozens of questionable redirects based on "completing" his book, User:Morriswa/Books/United States Highways‎ which he is now pruning back to resolve article duplication issues in it. Imzadi 1979 → 06:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete - Unlikely search term. Dough4872 15:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep: Harmless. It's pointed to the right place and isn't offensive, so no need to get rid of it pbp 02:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Template:Country data Virgin Islands

For those unfamiliar, this template is used in conjunction with the {{flag}} and {{flagicon}} templates to produce, for example:

With there being two countries going by the name "Virgin Islands", this redirect makes it easy for an editor to make an unknowing error. Both territories are commonly known as "Virgin Islands" depending on the perspective of the subject. The British Virgin Islands are officially known as "Virgin Islands", but the U.S. Virgin Islands are not. A redirect under this name to the British Virgin Islands would be slightly helpful for lists of IGO memberships where the member is listed under its official name, but the best outcome would be for this to be deleted so there aren't any unwitting errors. Osiris (talk) 04:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

April 21

Hazeltown

Hazeltown seems to be some private translation of an Austrian (German language) placename. It is unknown anywhere else on the web. A request for speedy deletion was declined because of some en.wikipedia red tape (in de.wikipedia, we would have gladly deleted it, but here it's kept without any review, and I am directed to this nightmare of beaurocracy on this page). --FA2010 (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep article was at this title in 2008, so deleting would cause broken links. However, a new target with hat note would be OK. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 19:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep per Dondegroovily. It is not sufficiently bad to overcome the risk and harm of link rot. Rossami (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Coney Island Elephant

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was history merged by user:Anthony Appleyard. Rossami (talk) 01:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

(Note: I messed up the policy on this, so I'm just going to bring it here). Schnevets made a page titled Elephantine colossus, then he redirected the older page Coney Island Elephant to it, at first I thought this was vandalism, but when I looked at the page, Schnevets article was much better made. So I'm bringing it here to decide which should be redirected and which should be kept. Bluefist talk 21:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Not a problem at all. It was a last-minute decision to revise the article's name, but later I realized I should have looked up the proper protocol for renaming articles and setting up redirections. This was actually my first major contribution. I originally wrote the article on the Coney Island Elephant page, but realized it was more frequently referred to as the Elephantine Colossus during its lifespan. Here are some external links to a flyer and token; the book Coney Island: The People's Playground also refers to it as the Elephantine Colossus. A more wiki-experienced friend was going to attend to the warnings later on (and show me what to do). Once again, sorry for raising the red flags! Schnevets (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Histmerge the old article into the new one. No significant edit history overlaps the two, and the previous article should be accessible from the new one. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 04:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

MSR (band)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete. This should have been tagged {{db-author}}. —C.Fred (talk) 21:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I accidently moved the user page article to this link. Since the article is disputed over sources, it is better that it remains on the user page while this redirect should be deleted. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 18:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Italo Calvino/Italian Folktales

Improbable search term bobrayner (talk) 15:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete Refers to two terms, Italo Calvino and Italian Folktales. Perhaps it were phrased as "Italo Calvino's Italian Folktales," but I doubt it's necessary to establish that. --BDD (talk) 15:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep article was at that title for eight years, so we don't want to kill external links to it. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 19:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is an artifact of a pagemove from before the change in title conventions that deprecated sub-pages. Once upon a time, this was the "right" way to say 'Italo Calvino's Italian Folktales'. It also predates the change to the software that records pagemoves in the moved pagehistory. Rossami (talk) 21:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

U.S. Route 40 (California-Nevada)

Not a plausible search term; no incoming links except user page of editor who created the redirect. Minimal page history. LJ ↗ 09:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete—redirects might be cheap, but this one is worthless in a scheme that would have separate ones for each state through which US 40 passes or passed. The search term just isn't plausible on that basis, and this editor has created dozens of questionable redirects based on "completing" his book, User:Morriswa/Books/United States Highways‎ which he is now pruning back to resolve article duplication issues in. Imzadi 1979 → 10:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep: I realize that U.S. Route 40 (California) and U.S. Route 40 (Nevada) exist, but what if a user wants to look at all of the states (only 2, I know) that US 40 used to pass through? Us experienced (or semi-experienced editors, in my case) already know that we can go to "U.S. Route 40" and look at the "History" section. What about the newbies? Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 11:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Anybody searching for what states US 40 used to pass through are likely not going to know what those states are. They would start with the US 40 main article and go from there. Such a search could also be done more effectively with existing redirects in categories. No newbie reader/editor is going to be typing U.S. Route 40 (California-Nevada) to achieve the specific result you describe. -- LJ ↗ 19:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)-- LJ ↗ 19:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
      • What does "Such a search could also be done more effectively with existing redirects in categories" mean? Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 20:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete -Unlikely search term. Dough4872 18:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

iGod

Delete this redirect. The word "iGOD" is not an established term among the dedicated Apple community. iGod is actually a popular web application that uses an AI algorithm to interact with users. Autocorrectz (talk) 05:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Weak delete One of the references at Steve Jobs refers to him as "iGod" in its title, but with the phrase otherwise unused in our article, and it not being a particularly well established nickname anyway, I'll say delete unless there were more merit at Steve Jobs. --BDD (talk) 15:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete Oh (Avoiding use of deity's name) no. I know there are some comedic redirects floating around, but this one? Absolutely not. Nate • (chatter) 08:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Oral sex, sexual intercourse, anal etc

Fails Wikipedia:Redirect#Purposes_of_redirects. No one will search "oral sex, sexual intercourse etc" for the topic sexual intercourse. And even if one searches so, why not he try alternate sequence such as "sexual intercourse, oral sex etc." or "anal sex oral sex etc"? Are we going to create all these redirects? BTW, the redirect was created by a vandal User talk:Chevap. SupernovaExplosion Talk 04:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Strong delete per nom. --BDD (talk) 15:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Request for undeletion

Cross-namespace redirect in main space. Does not conform to the purpose of the main space. I propose deletion. 70.244.32.155 (talk) 00:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep. This one of the limited occasions where cross-namespace redirects from article to project space are a good thing. Specifically, if Wikipedia is to maintain it's culture of openness and make it as easy as possible for new contributors to get involved we need to make it as easy as possible to find the absolutely key deletion pages. While anyone looking for this should be given a link to the target, we cannot know that they will be. Also, we don't know that they will follow a link, particularly if the instructions they are getting are external and just tell them to go to Requests for undeletion, if they don't know about namespaces yet (and we generally go out of our way (for good reasons) to hide them from causal readers) they'll just put that phrase in the search box. If you look at the history of this redirect you'll see that it's initial creation was by someone wanting to request the undeletion of a particular article, with the redirect in place they'd have been taken directly to the right place rather than relying on a new page patroller to spot it and correct them. See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 August 11#Articles for deletion where the similar "Articles for deletion" redirect was unanimously kept. Thryduulf (talk) 10:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep per Thryduulf. The prohibition against cross-namespace redirects is a weak argument for deletion in all cases and is especially weak for redirects like this which help new users to find critical policy pages. Rossami (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

April 20

Public outcry

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Speedy Delete, G7 by Smerdis of Tlön. Lenticel (talk) 01:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Nominated at AFD with rationale of "Currently redirects to moral panic, but public outcry does not necessarily constitute a moral panic." Moving to proper venue. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment. I think I came across this redlink quite some time ago, and in the context it seemed like it was talking about a moral panic, so I redirected it. May not have been a good idea in retrospect, but this was 2003. "Public outcry" might support an article, or at least a disambiguation page, but I'd have to do some brainstorming to figure out what else might be disambiguated there. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete as nom who wasn't previously aware of RfD. Let's face it, "moral panic" is a bit POV. It's well established enough in scholarly usage that we shouldn't worry about renaming it, but that does mean it has connotations that aren't readily ascribed to public outcry as such. In short, public outcry isn't necessarily panic and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with morality. --BDD (talk) 15:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Deleted. I agree. Speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G7. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 06:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Shigematsu

I noticed seven other pages containing "Shigematsu" in the title. Don't see why this one should have the honors...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=Shigematsu&fulltext=Search Smarkflea (talk) 18:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Dabify (taking into consideration complexities regarding Japanese names) per nom. – hysteria18 (talk) 23:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Convert to disambiguation- done. A412 (Talk • C) 00:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Kristina Abernathy (meteorologist)

The redirect for Kristina Abernathy points to The Weather Channel article. Abernathy has not been employed by The Weather Channel since 2009. Furthermore, Abernathy is not a prominent topic on The Weather Channel article. At the very minimum the redirect should be removed. A discussion could commence whether or not Abernathy meets WP:BIO. ChadH (talk) 16:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment. Redirects like this are often created when there isn't enough sources or data to establish notability for a stand alone article. Her only claim to fame is that she read the weather on the Weather Channel. A stub was created for her, and later redirected. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
    • That (Weather Channel employment) does not meet WP:ANYBIO and would meet WP:SD A1. ChadH (talk) 17:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep Actually, WP:ANYBIO is for articles- this is a redirect, notability for people does not apply here. Although, I don't mind it being removed, as the destination article does not mention her. A412 (Talk • C) 00:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Question So you want to keep a redirect to an article that no longer has relevance to the redirect's subject? WP:ANYBIO does matter in this case because if we remove the redirect, we need to know if the person (Kristina Abernathy in this case) can stand on its own, even as a stub. My reply to User:Ihcoyc is that it would not given WP:ANYBIO. In closing if we remove the redirect, we need to speedy delete because she does not meet WP:ANYBIO. ChadH (talk) 20:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Amy Kremer

Per policy wp:note Travis Thurston+ 00:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

  • You're going to have to be a great deal more specific in your nomination. Exactly how do you think this redirect violate Wikipedia's notability standards? Rossami (talk) 03:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete and/or expand into an article per point 10 of WP:R#DELETE. She appears to be notable in her own right: [4], [5], [6]. – hysteria18 (talk) 17:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

April 19

Labour Club

Misleading: the term "Labour Club" has historically referred to, and continues to refer to, workers' social clubs affiliated to the Labour Party. Student organisations are just one type of club known by this name. – hysteria18 (talk) 23:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Jesse Blacker

Just redirects to his name on a list. Player is very close to meeting WP:NHOCKEY so is better suited as a red link. DJSasso (talk) 20:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Yes I am aware as I created the original one. Both of these where while he was an amateur player. He has since turned pro and is only 36 games from meeting WP:NHOCKEY. Yes its possible still that he never becomes notable, but 36 games is a drop in the bucket and it would be pretty unlikely not to happen. -DJSasso (talk) 11:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Hockey Player Redirects

Likely to meet GNG/WP:NHOCKEY in the near future. Just redirects to a passing mention that they are the relation of someone. Would be better served as red links due to their likely meeting notability in the near future. DJSasso (talk) 18:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

  • At least one of these was deleted after an AfD discussion. That decision is recent enough that the allegation that they are "likely to meet WP:NHOCKEY in the near future" is debatable. If/when they do clearly meet Wikipedia's inclusion standards, the redirects can be easily overwritten with content. In the meantime, the redirects point readers to the next-best page. It also keeps the respective Talk pages alive so editors can debate when and whether the subjects have each met the inclusion standards. Rossami (talk) 22:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
  • With the exception of Brock McGinn they are all less than half a season away from meeting the number of games requirement to meet WP:NHOCKEY. So are very much about to meet NHOCKEY. One player is only 10 games away. Red links help us avoid not noticing the player hasn't been created as has happened in the past. Red links are preferable to redirects in such situations. -DJSasso (talk) 11:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Common eland

This redirect page must be deleted as it is causing problem in the renaming and moving of the main article "Common Eland". The 'e' in the Common Eland need not be capital anyhow. The lower case is much appropriate. But you can not rename it as the redirect exists with that name. The discussion can be found in the talk page of the article. Sainsf <^> (talk) 08:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

G6'ed and moved. - TB (talk) 12:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment you could have just filed a technical move request at WP:RM speedy section. 70.49.124.147 (talk) 04:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

List of batsmen who have scored 100 centuries in international cricket

There is only one person who would be on this "list". It's not likely to grow soon. Users are not likely to search for this list. It's pointless. Delete it. JIMp talk·cont 04:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Sports records like this rarely stand as long as people think they will. I remember when a four minute mile was a truly exceptional feat and now it's almost routine. Several reputable cricket-related websites suggest that other players (Ricky Ponting of Australia most commonly) are not that far behind but even if he doesn't match the record, someone will. At that point, the history behind the redirect may be useful. In the meantime, the redirect is not harmful or confusing. Keep. Rossami (talk) 05:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Imre River

Delete. No such river (neither "Imre River" nor "Râul Imre", in Romanian). Staszek Lem (talk) 19:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

  • The second link provided when that title was first created expands to a detailed topo map showing many small streams, many but not all of which are labeled. I have not yet been able to definitively confirm the existence of a waterbody named "Imre" feeding that watershed but I can't disprove it yet either. I do suspect that if it exists, it will be more a creek than a river. Contradicting that hypothesis is the fact that "Imre" is a common male first-name in that area. I notice that no one has yet notified the creator of this discussion. Abstain pending confirmation. Rossami (talk) 23:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Regarding the case of the Imre River, Staszek Lem is definitely wrong in his statement that there is no such river. Maybe he didn't find any reference, which is definitely different. As proof, the river is indicated in the Russian military maps scale 1:50.000 Map 050k L34-060-3. There are other maps too, but this seems to be the only one which can be accessed through the internet.
      However, the issue is more complicated, because other rivers have been deleted too. When I started writing the articles about the rivers, there was a discussion within the Wikiproject Rivers to define which rivers qualified for articles for Wikipedia. The conclusion of the wikipedians who participated in the Wikiproject was that there are no limits of size for rivers and any river regardless of size qualifies for an article. Once this rule had been accepted, i started to write articles on various rivers. After having completed over 10000 such articles, some of these articles were deleted (such as the Văleni River) without any justification. I found out the hard way that in Wikipedia it doesn't matter if we have rules or not. They are not applied and a small group of two or three people can decide that they can delete articles regardless of the rules. This happened not only for rivers but also for villages and other geographic information which was deleted, even if the subjects did comply to rules.
      I tried to make maps indicating the location of rivers though this is a very laborious exercise. But it was much more difficult to fight the people who objected to these maps - even though eventually I was able to prove that they did not violate any copyright and have them eventually accepted. But geographic information is mostly graphic and articles without appropriate maps are less useful.
      No administrator or bureaucrat - even those contacted - have taken any decision on how such matters should be dealt with. Therefore, it doesn't really matter if you delete or not the Imre River. Wikipedia was a place where people who were interested could at least find information about practically all the rivers of Romania and I intended to expand it to other countries. But if - consistently with the rules accepted by the Wikiproject Rivers - articles are deleted, it doesn't make sense to continue. We simply have to accept the reality that in the present setup, Wikipedia is not the place where people who seek this type of information can find it.
      The issue is not the Imre River - which exists and is represented on maps. The issue is Wikipedia intends to have extensive geographic information - part of which might be interesting just for a few people - or prefers to concentrate on information only on items which can be found in any other places. There are many places where you can find information about the Arieş river - you really do not need Wikipedia if you are interested in it. But there are very few where a person who is interested can find anything about the Pietroasa, Văleni or Imre Rivers.
      I am sorry I had the illusion that if a rule was accepted it would be applied. I am sorry that because I had this illusion I spent several years to compile hydrographic information which is not readily available. And I am sorry that I believed that Wikipedia was about compiling knowledge and making it available to those who might be interested in it. Afil (talk) 01:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Afil, you need to assume good faith. Most of us don't know nearly as much about Romanian Rivers as you do, so there was no active effort to destroy stuff. Just a bunch of people who don't know there was a river in Romania with that name. It might make sense to take some of those articles up for deletion review (deleted pages are archived, just not visible to the public) to point out to admins what the original voters missed. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Also, there is no discussion to delete an article on Imre River - just a redirect at Imre River that points to a different river. The issue is not whether there should be an article on Imre River, but whether someone typing it in the search box will see Arieș River (Mureș) instead of Imre. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Based on the comment above, I am prepared to assume good faith and keep the redirect. No opinion on whether it should be reverted back to a prior version holding stub content. Rossami (talk) 15:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I am sorry I was incorrect to say "no such river" Of course one cannot make such claim. There are millions of streams and there may be Imre River, Gyorgy River, and Lajos River and Staszek River and Rossami river, who knows. The point is wikipedia policies of notability and verifiability. A redirect is to an article which has no information about the subject whatsoever. How on Earth you are voting to keep? It is not even among tributaries of Aries River! On the other hand, I can understand fructration of user:Afil, whose work was ruthlessly deleted. Here is the suggested solution: create an article, Watershed of Arieș River (Mureș) and list in the tree form all rivulets he collected from the maps, and retarget all these minor redirects there. Then the person who looks for Czaba River, will find a good information:
    • Aries River
      • Tamas River, left tributary
      • ...
      • Zoltan River, right tributary
        • Hegedus River, right tributary
          • Czaba River, left tributary; Official River Code <what is it?>: XCXXII.1.81a.5.1
            • Settlements: Kincstaritanya, Kedvesöreghold, Háromvonat
          • ...
          • Szabolcs River, left tributary
Because I doubt there is much more information available for these, other than coordinates; which would be of great help. Otherwise I still cannot find "Imre" in the ref map provided. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete Redirect a redlink is better to encourage the creation of an article. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment: If you want to encourage the creation of the article, then I think you'd want to revert the page to its original stub version (assuming that you trust the content of the stub). Stubs generally get expanded sooner than redlinks get created. Rossami (talk) 15:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
      • See my compromise suggestion above. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
The problem is not the Imre River or Rivers of Romania. If we accept the idea that Wikipedia is covering the entire world without any discrimination, a river is not more notable just because it is located in Sweden or the United States that if it is in Romania or Bangladesh or Congo.
Therefore, the issue which is to be discussed is if there are any criteria which would define the notability of rivers, i.e. which rivers qualify for articles (or for stubs) and which do not. For rivers this should be a technical criterion: length, discharge, river basin or others. Once such a criterion is selected, we can try to assess if any particular river meets this criterion. Maybe the Tamas River qualifies for a separate article, maybe the Arieş also should not have a separate article, but be included in the Mureş river. Unless we have such a criterion, the compromise solution proposed by Mr. Lem is purely arbitary.
There is a Wikiproject Rivers which has discussed this matter. These discussions have stated that for rivers there is no notability criterion, i.e. any river however small, qualifies for a separate article. This discussion could be revised, if Mr. Lem or anybody wishes to do it. And the place to discuss this is not the article of the Imre River or Tamas River or Arieş River but within the Wikiproject Rivers, where the initial discussion took place.
However, until then, any arbitration solution is purely arbitrary. And I do not understand why Mr. Lem wants to ignore the Wikiproject River or to overrule a solution which was taken by this project, assuming he disagrees with it.
What is the scope of having specialized groups who are supposed to discuss these matters, if we are ignoring them?
There has to be some principle in what we are doing not a chaotic environment with no rules or guidelines.
Otherwise it is perfectly possible that the type of solution proposed for the Arieş River is not applied in the same way for the rivers of Peru or New Zealand. And in this case the entire Wikipedia becomes inconsistent.Afil (talk) 02:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Afil, once again, please stop reading other people minds and looking for enemies. Nobody tries to insist that rivers in Romania are less important than rivers in Costa Rica. I am not aware about wikiProject Rivers and don't care. I suggested the solution here because I wanted to actually help you to restore your content which was massively deleted and I am surprized that you are unhappy that someone actually wants to restore your content . If you don't like my solution, if you want millions of articles with one sentence instead, be prepared you will be seeing millions votes for deletion. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Please continue the general discussion here:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rivers#Handling_millions_of_creeks.2C_rivulets_and_streams. I started it, but will not take part in it, since this is not my area of knowledge. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

There are several types of persons who are seeking information on Wikipedia. Some are those who just try to find some general information on a certain issue. This is what I call the schoolboy type of readers, who could use the information they found on Wikipedia for their school essays, a common practice.
In principle there are other readers who are looking for information which is difficult to find and they need for their professional activities. These are the professional type of readers.
In the case of rivers, I can tell you that even very basic information about the existence of a river is extremely difficult to find. Even when they exist on detailed maps, they are practically never indexed. Take for example the Imre River from which this discussion started - though it exists on maps which are on the internet, it is practically impossible to identify.
In my activity, I worked besides Romania in several countries as remote as Bangladesh, Kyrgystan or Guinea. I always encountered difficulties in identifying the information regarding rivers. This can be critical in cases when people are involved in assistance in case of emergencies such as floods, earthquakes, tsunamis and other similar catastrophies. I have been part of teams which have been deployed on extremely short notice and sent to foreign countries with supplies or equipment for rapid intervention. In many cases we were given some name of a small river or some other geographic entity, but had not clue if that place was North or South of where we were. In most cases locals, overwhelmed by the catastrophy were of no help. Caravans of much needed supplies are simply stuck because they cannot identify their destination. Any possibility of fast identification of the destination can be critical and these are the types of readers I was trying to reach. The articles of rivers was just a first step. The second was to add maps of the river, which I did for the upper tributaries of the Bistrita River in Romania.
While a few people did understand the rational - I have received correspondence from Botswana, requesting me to help produce this type of information (unfortunately I do not have the required maps of Botswana), I have found out that Wikipedia is definitely not the place where this information should be stored. The schoolboy mentality is prevalent, and people who do not understand the issues or their importance, simply delete information, which, as indicated before, could potentially even save lives. I regret having believed that Wikipedia could be used by professionals and will probably try to find some other site which should specialize on geographic information required for emergency intervention.
As far as the discrimination regarding various countries - in particular Romania - is concerned, this is not a theoretical case. If you have the curiosity to look at the English language Wikipedia, you will be able to assess that articles on villages of Germany, Poland and other countries have been written and kept even if these settlements had less that 50 inhabilants. However, in the case of Romania, ALL articles regarding villages have been deleted (some information regarding them has been included in articles regarding the communes) - even for villages of historical importance. An example to prove this is the case of the village of Mărăşti, which was the site of one of the major battles of WWI - but does not deserve an article in Wikipedia. This is just to tell you that the statement about discrimination against second class countries was not directed at you, but at en:Wikipedia in general.
While these issues should be discussed before decisions are take on the articles this has not been done.
A acknowledge your merits in producing a schoolboy type article for the Arieş River. But this does not correct the basic flaw of Wikipedia which is completely useless for professionals. Regards Afil (talk) 20:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


Shzdya

One of a string of useless redirects DGG ( talk ) 02:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment Looks useless, but I don't understand it... Peridon (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 15:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete. That would be like having est-tay redirect to Pig Latin because it is a word in Pig Latin. @Peridon, Shzdya is mentioned in the picture in Faux Cyrillic. "Pepper" @ 21:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

April 18

Neofelid

delete I stumbled on this today, pointing to Felis. No sign of the word in the article. I redirected it to Neofelis, but thought better we delete as Google searches by me including Scholar and also searches by a Wikipedian who seems to be an expert who searched for it in places available to him could find it. It looks like some kind of a mistake; not a real word. Chrisrus (talk) 23:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--Lenticel (talk) 00:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep as redirect to Neofelis. Neofelid is a legitimate grammatical construction for the adjectival form of Neofelis. An exact google search for neofelid returns a number of legitimate uses including this, this, this and this. By the way, I have not yet been able to verify the content in that last link but if true, it suggests that a retarget to Machairodontinae may be even better. Rossami (talk) 05:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  • This is actually a term that's in use in the literature (and not just in the misspellings and unreliable sources that Rossami cites): see [7]. However, it not used for Neofelis, but apparently for some group of modern-type cats, as opposed to older "paleofelids". Perhaps it should redirect to Felidae, or perhaps the term is obscure enough that we can simply delete it; it certainly should not redirect to Neofelis. Ucucha (talk) 15:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
    • You are right. It's used as the opposite of paleofelid. As far as I can tell neither the article Felidae nor any other Wikipedia article knows about these terms or their referents, so we have no good place to send a user. It's pretty ambiguous as it seems a term for any Neofelis animal also. Huh...Chrisrus (talk) 05:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Wait! Wikipedia does seem to know something about the term paleofelid. It's here: Carnivora#Distinguishing_features, in the third paragraph, the one about the Feloidea. In the first sentence, the term "paleofelid" refers to the Nimravidae. If "neofelid" means something like "not a nimravid", what would be the best target for the redirect? Chrisrus (talk) 14:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
        • I believe it is simply a synonym for "Felidae"; "paleofelid" appears to refer to the Nimravidae, a different family. I haven't seen any evidence in reliable sources that "neofelid" is ever used for Neofelis specifically. Ucucha (talk) 14:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
          • I was just looking at some of these articles and thinking the same thing: Felidae. Can this be confirmed? Also, it's nice when the word you search for actually appears in the article to which you are directed. Could we get the term "Neofelid" or "Neofelidae" into the article Felidae in an article-improving way? That is, if our belief could be confirmed. Also, some sort of disambiguation technique, a disambiguation page or hatnote system or some such, might be in order. Chrisrus (talk) 14:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Marine Mammal Protection Act (disambiguation)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Keep per WP:INTDABLINK and WP:SNOW. The WP:INTDABLINK policy requires redirects like this and the consensus of everyone except the nominator is that the policy does and should apply in this case. Thryduulf (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete a bot created redirect that was recently created and is an implausible typo. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

  • The target is a disambiguation page. How is this redirect implausible? Keep. By the way, you may disagree with the bot's purpose but in this case it performed as designed. There is no typo involved anywhere. Rossami (talk) 23:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't see either a typo or anything implausible. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 23:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Seriously? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Seriously. Is "Marine" misspelled? Is "Mammal"? Where is the typo? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 01:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, what I meant to say is that it is an implausab;e search string. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
But that does not give guidance for an unused dab page. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
That's a funny thing to say when you're the one who ignored the above guideline and orphaned the page. - Eureka Lott 00:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I think I am getting confused here. I suppose that you know that there is a Marine Mammal Protection Act dab page. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes. That is exactly why there needs to be a Marine Mammal Protection Act (disambiguation) redirect. That way, if somebody wants to point to the disambiguation page, it will be clear that they did not accidentally link there while intending to link to one of the articles on the disambiguation page. bd2412 T 15:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Why would someone link to Marine Mammal Protection Act (disambiguation) when Marine Mammal Protection Act exists? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep, not a typo.--Lenticel (talk) 02:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep per WP:INTDABLINK. This redirect not only conforms with a longstanding and useful policy, it is required by it. bd2412 T 02:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
That does not seem relevant. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Alan, you have half a dozen editors agreeing that this redirect should be kept, including some of Wikipedia's most experienced disambiguators. Most of us have indicated that this specific policy requires it, and is applicable to this particular instance. Please consider the possibility that we are correct in believing that this policy should be applied in this instance, even if you don't see the reason why. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
That does not seem relevant. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
OK, it's my turn now: Seriously? Did you read the paragraph How to link to a disambiguation page? Here is what it says:
To link to a disambiguation page (rather than to a page whose topic is a specific meaning), link to the title that includes the text "(disambiguation)", even if that is a redirect—for example, link to the redirect America (disambiguation) rather than the target page at "America". (If the redirect does not yet exist, create it and tag it with {{R to disambiguation page}}.) This helps distinguish accidental links to the disambiguation page from intentional ones. (For use in navboxes, see the {{D'}} template.) There is nothing wrong with linking to a redirect instead of linking directly to the disambiguation page; redirects are cheap and are basically transparent to the reader.
I don't see how you can claim that is not "relevant"; it directly and specifically addresses the situation you asked about. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Obvious keep. There many (very, very, many) of these pages where "x (disambiguation)" redirects to "x". They are used when a subject is so ambiguous and/or none of the subtopics are more individually notable than the others. See Newtown. There are so many Newtowns that it is impossible to generalize and have a redirect to the "most likely page the searcher is looking for. However, it is common practice to have a disambiguation page for anything ambiguous, so a disambiguation page ("x (disambiguation)") is created to redirect to the home of the actual page, "x". In this case neither of the acts are more notable than the other, so the plain old Marine Mammal Protection Act page is used as the disambiguation page. "Pepper" @ 21:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Acquired factor

As far as I can tell, age is one type of acquired factor, but the two terms are not synonymous. For example, the article Acenocoumarol contains a sentence that identifies both age and body mass index as "acquired factors"; thus, the current redirect appears to be misleading (like having "Mammal" be a redirect to "Cat") although I'm not sure what the correct solution is. R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete too vague to be useful as a redirect. I did a search for plausible targets and probably make a dab of sorts but failed--Lenticel (talk) 02:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete many other things unrelated to age can also be acquired. 70.49.124.147 (talk) 05:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  • What exactly is an "acquired factor", then? How do we know age and body mass index are acquired factors? It seems to me that either we should have an article explaining what this is, or if it is no more than a dicdef, a soft redirect to a Wiktionary entry defining it. bd2412 T 15:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Joonas Korpisalo

Links to a single sentence about the player. This player may very well be notable in the near future himself. Would be better served as a red link. DJSasso (talk) 19:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep for now. Redirects from a non- or semi-notable person to a more notable family member are routine. If/when he becomes notable in his own right, the redirect can easily be overwritten with content. Redlinks are better when it is patently obvious that Wikipedia wants an article at that title. Borderline cases (and this still feels like one to me) are better supported by a redirect. Rossami (talk) 22:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Kyle Moir

Only links to a list of people who won an award. Better served by being a red link incase the player ends up meeting WP:NHOCKEY in the near future. DJSasso (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

  • This title failed a PROD deletion in 2008. I'm not seeing a whole lot of evidence that he clearly meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria now. If/when he does, however, the redirect can be easily overwritten with content. In the meantime, the redirect points readers to at least something useful. Rossami (talk) 22:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

SimCity (2013 computer game)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep - article moved to SimCity (2013 video game) per WP:NCVG and no less than eleven assorted redirects all now point to that. JohnCD (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The term "computer game" should never be used on a disambig page. So it shouldn't even exist as a possible redirect. Furthermore the game is stated to not even have mac support, so PC would seem apt. JamaUtil (talk) 02:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep - Due to the extensive move wars going on, we have know idea which of the titles other websites might be linking to. We therefore need to keep all of the redirects as we have so that we don't kill other websites links. This keep vote applies no matter what title is finally chosen for the article. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. No opinion on which is the best title for this page (the rule against "computer game" seems a bit arbitrary) but I see no reason to delete the redirect. It is not confusing or harmful, it helps to document a complicated series of page moves, it helps control link rot and it may be useful to a new reader who doesn't know that obscure naming rule. Rossami (talk) 04:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Tentative keep whilst constant moves continue. Move article back to SimCity (2013 video game) - The new location for the article SimCity (2013 PC game) is also against the wp:vg consensus. Platform disambiguations are only used if the title is a version specific remake of an existing title. It seems the OP is intent on moving the article to any disambiguation as long as it doesn't reside at SimCity (2013 video game). All of their moves have been against consensus, none of the moves have been explained. Suggest Admin combines this request with the 16 April request and the explanations and views there. - X201 (talk) 08:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Move article back to SimCity (2013 video game) and redirect there. Same argument as on the relevant discussion -- long-standing WP:VG naming convention. This move shouldn't have happened while the discussion was in progress. Besides, due to the moves, all redirects will now be kept anyway. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

April 17

*Graham Miller (sports presenter/relief newsreader, late 80s - 1992)

Fails WP:MoS as I suppose (I didn't find an appropriate criteria for CSD-tagging, that's why I nominated for discussion). ♪ anonim.one ♪ 19:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep. Its an artifact of a pagemove in 2009. While the current title is better, the original title is not overtly confusing or harmful to readers. Redirects are cheap, so cheap that there is no value to deleting it. Tag it with {{unprintworthy}}, though. Rossami (talk) 20:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete search is going to bring up the target page anyway. Redirects are cheep but this one will never get hit and only encourages bad titling.--RadioFan (talk) 00:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  • No brainer keep, doesn't matter how ridiculous the title is, the article was here for years, so there are probably all kinds of links to it. We don't want to give people "page not found" errors. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
    «the article was here for years» — in the project with 3m articles I have seen a nanostubs, being here for years (now it's deleted at last), so this doesn't surprise me. And have you seen the edit summary: «simplifying, no need to include resume in the title»?; «so there are probably all kinds of links to it» — no; «We don't want to give people "page not found" errors» — who will search this title (exactly with asterisk at the beginning)? Btw, even the «author» !votes for deletion. ♪ anonim.one ♪ 06:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
    You seem to miss the point. In the years that article was at the title, numerous other websites have likely created links to it. It is impossible for us to know if other websites link to our pages. So, yes, the search will find it, but links from other webpages don't use the search function, they use the actual link which needs to be exact in order to work. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 13:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. R3 criteria for speedy deletion. Implausible misnomer. There is nothing common in this title to suggest that readers would search for the subject under an asterisk. Simply keying in the subject's name brings up a link to the desired article. Note also that there are not "all kinds of links" to the redirect, but rather just three, which only exist in relation to this deletion discussion. Redirect that is implausible, uncommon, and not in another language = R3. Just general cleanup. And a primary example of why we have the R3 criteria in the first place. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 11:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
    • See my comment above as to why this argument is incorrect. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 13:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC) Not to mention that this redirect doesn't meet R3 criteria as it was created in 2009, not "recently" D O N D E groovily Talk to me 13:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
    • This kind of misunderstanding of R3 is an excellent example of why that criterion needs to be either completely rewritten or just plain deprecated. Regardless of your opinion on whether the redirect should be deleted, this is absolutely not a valid speedy-deletion candidate. Rossami (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Cosmonaut

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Keep User:Woohookitty Disamming fool! 09:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Old, unused. Magioladitis (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep I don't see the problem. 70.49.124.147 (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep-Not harmful, and something an editor might reasonably expect to exist. I should also note that neither "old" nor "unused" are policy-based reasons for deleting a redirect.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep per Fyre2387, plausible synonym as well.--Lenticel (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep prevents the needless creation of yet another infobox. Both are synonymous. Since this is the english wikipedia, non english use gets the redirect to the english one.--RadioFan (talk) 00:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Template:Ski jumper infobox

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Unused, misnamed, redundant. JIMp talk·cont 04:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Ιτ doesn't follow the {{Infobox xxxxx}} scheme. All editors should be now familiar with the fact that infoboxes should follow this scheme. Magioladitis (talk) 15:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

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

April 16

Central European Convention

This article was originally about the very non-notable pretend organization that's part of the International Association for the Exchange of Students for Technical Experience. I redirected it there for now, but I'm sure there are plenty of Central European organizations that would make more sense as a destination for this redirect. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 18:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep, disambiguate or restore to an article and send it to AfD. Converting an article to a redirect and then immediately nominating the redirect for deletion always seems like an end run around proper process. Thryduulf (talk) 23:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
It is redirects for discussion and that was my intention, to find a better target. I don't think deletion is right here. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Leah Lewis

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Actress redirects to TV pilot article, with no actual information on the actress herself. Link should be left empty until actress is more notable. QuasyBoy (talk) 17:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete and redlink There is definitely a potential article on her, so we should red link to encourage editors to create one. The closing admin should add a redlink to the Madison High article after deleting, BTW. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 19:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Interstate 77 (1957-1958)

Unlikely search term since it redirects to Interstate 77. This implies that nationally, there was an Interstate 77 that existed in two years and was discontinued. Instead, Michigan proposed a continuation of the number that was not accepted. Imzadi 1979 → 16:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete - No need. Dough4872 20:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep: Now, I don't know whether there was a separate Interstate 77 (in 1957-1958) from the current one, but there should be a redirect to the former instance. If there is a source that could shed some light on the issue of whether there was a former highway or a former segment of the current highway, then I would like to see it. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 01:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
    • There isn't a "former segment of the current highway" because Michigan didn't sign any of its Interstates until 1959. Ergo, the I-77 in Michigan concept proposed in 1957 was never anything more than a line on a planning map that wasn't approved as a part of the system. Imzadi 1979 → 01:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

တပ်မတော်(ကြည်း

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Typo for တပ်မတော်(ကြည်း), localized name of target; implausible search term. Gurch (talk) 13:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete implausible search term on the English wiki--RadioFan (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Talk:SimCity (2013 video game)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep - article moved to SimCity (2013 video game) per WP:NCVG. NAC --Izno (talk) 02:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Associated talk page, please see discussion that is pursuant below. JamaUtil (talk) 05:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Void nomination talk pages do not need to be nominated separately from the redirect. Whatever happens to the redirect will happen to the talk page too. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 19:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

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

SimCity (2013 video game)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep - article moved to SimCity (2013 video game) per WP:NCVG. NAC --Izno (talk) 02:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Redirect is misleading, since game will only be on computer. Not even sure what "video" means in this instance. Did user perhaps mean console/phone/tablet? Also no relevant edit history on history page. JamaUtil (talk) 05:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Snow close and start RM Move. "video game" is the proper title as per long-standing consensus. Also, the edit history is obviously linked to SimCity (2013 computer game)'s history. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)\
    • I'm not sure what "the edit history is obviously linked to SimCity (2013 computer game)'s history" means. Would you mind explaining what is obvious? JamaUtil (talk) 15:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
      • It is relevant because the history says there was a page move. What I mean by "obvious" is that you know it, since you moved the page. The link only became a redirect after that. Thus the closing admin has to take into account how the redirect was formed, and it is directly related to a page move. Moving a page is different to redirecting a page, because incoming links, external mirrors, various reports, etc., all pointed here. Hope that's clarified what I meant. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
        • No, I'm afraid it hasn't. Why does the closing admin have to take into account how the page was formed when we're discussing a redirect? JamaUtil (talk) 00:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Move. The article's current name goes against the WP:VG consensus on naming conventions - (WP:NCVG - "In addition never use "(computer game)" or "(computer gaming)" for any disambig even if the article is exclusively about a PC-related topic.") . User who nominated this redirect for deletion twice moved the article from its correct disambiguation name, with the edit summary "See WP:NAME". Regardless of the fact that (for now) only one platform has been announced, the correct location for the title is "(2013 video game)" in order to differentiate it from the original Sim City game. - X201 (talk) 08:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure why you brought disambig pages up, since SimCity (2013 computer game) is not a disambig page. For an example of a disambig page, please see UMD. JamaUtil (talk) 15:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
      • You know full well that by "disambig" the guideline is referring to the suffix "(2013 video game)". You moved the Sim City article from (2013 video game) to (2013 computer game). You moved to a naming system that is against consensus. Even when you were informed of the consensus and the guidelines, you moved the article a second time. You also removed all links to the redirect page, stating that they were Double redirects when they were not. - X201 (talk) 15:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
        • Pretty sure they're double redirects, X->Y->Z is a double redirect, right? I just removed Y so that X->Z. JamaUtil (talk) 00:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
          • "X->Y->Z" isn't a double redirect. But that is just a side issue, the main point is what part of WP:NAME were you referring to when you moved the article? - X201 (talk) 08:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete SimCity (2013 video game) and move SimCity (2013 computer game) to "SimCity (2013 video game)", per WP:NCVG. Also suggest a snow close of this nomination.

    I'm not sure a WP:RM is necessary, HK, given the clear precedent. I'm sure the admin who closes this request can deal with it. --Izno (talk) 14:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

    • I'm not sure what a snow close would do, since it's not clear what consensus is. I see one delete, one move, and one keep. JamaUtil (talk) 15:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
      • While the bolded statements differ, the comments following are clearly in consensus. -- ferret (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I guess that's easier and less confusing. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Ditto. - X201 (talk) 16:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete SimCity (2013 video game) and move SimCity (2013 computer game) to "SimCity (2013 video game)", per WP:NCVG and above comments from Izno, HK, X201. -- ferret (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete and move per Izno/Ferret. the WP:VG project has favored the term "video game" for any computer-based game when disambig is needed, as is the case here. --MASEM (t) 18:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Note

The OP has now moved the article again. It now resides at SimCity (2013 PC game) which is also against guidelines as it is not a platform specific remake/version of an already existing title. - X201 (talk) 08:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Marquis Lí of Jin

The title is based on a misreading of the obscure Chinese character (釐). I've moved the article to the correct name, but the redirect remains and may cause confusion with Marquis Li of Jin, a different person. It should be deleted to prevent confusion. --Zanhe (talk) 04:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment Google translate says that character "釐" is "Lí", so just add hatnotes to both articles. 70.24.248.211 (talk) 06:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Hatnote the two articles per anon. Neutral on which article the redirect should point to but tag with {{R with diacritics}}. Keep to help preserve the move history. Rossami (talk) 15:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: Google translation is useless for ancient Chinese. Do a Google translation on the character's dictionary entry instead. You'll see that the character has three different pronunciations, but when used as a posthumous title, as in this case, it's exclusively pronounced Xi, and is now commonly written as 僖 (Xi), whose pronunciation is unambiguous. As for the move history, it's already preserved in the article's history. --Zanhe (talk) 16:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Marquis Li of Jin and provide a hat note pointing to Xi. "It's wrong" is by itself not a valid reason to delete a redirect, and now that there are other websites likely linking to it, the redirect should be retargeted to the correct article, with a hat note in case someone is looking for Li. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 19:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: the main reason for deleting the redirect is not that it's wrong (although it is), but that it causes confusion: casual visitors linked to the page may get the wrong impression that Marquis Li and Marquis Xi are the same person. Besides, redirects with pinyin diacritics are rarely useful, as people almost never type them. There were two or three WP articles linking to the redirect, and I've already changed them all to Marquis Xi. I believe that in this case, the downside for causing confusion far outweighs the negligible benefit for navigation aid. --Zanhe (talk) 19:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

JIMBO WALES

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. JohnCD (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Not a plausible typo. There is no reason which I can see to keep this page. If anything, it should be deleted and create-protected ("salted") to prevent usage by vandals. I am also proposing that any similar redirects also be deleted. 99.70.103.243 (talk) 02:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep. Page protection and especially preemptive protection (salting) is inherently hostile and anti-wiki. We do it when we must but our Protection Policy directs us to keep it to the minimum extent and duration necessary to protect the project. If a redirect can successfully preempt vandalism (and this one evidently has), that's a better answer. As to this one, "Jimbo" is the subject's commonly used name and redirects for capitalization variants are routine. Rossami (talk) 03:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep where's the typo? 70.24.248.211 (talk) 06:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment In the search bar even if you use caps it proposes the normal un-capped version so there's no need really. Also, who would add a wikilink in full caps to an article (if you look at it, the answer is no one)? benzband (talk) 10:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
    • The search box is far from the only method people use to find Wikipedia artcles, and of the myriad other methods there are many that are case sensitive. While it isn't a likely target for internal links, we cannot what links there are to it from outside Wikipedia. Stats.grok.se is case insensitive, so we can't know how many people use this (given that Jimbo Wales also exists]]. Thryduulf (talk) 18:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Proposal: The system should be programmed to automatically redirect from different capitalizations, similar to the "auto-redirection" that Wiktionary uses. This should eliminate this issue, and we will not have to worry about creating capitalization variants for every single page on Wikipedia, which wastes time which could otherwise be used for other purposes. Assuming that somebody actually does wish to create the different capitalization variant for good reason, (s)he can simply click the link in the upper left hand corner found on any redirected page, and follow the page creation prompts. (On another computer at a different location now. Was out of town. See my IP address confirmation I made before I left). 75.53.218.81 (talk) 01:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep as plausible misspelling/miscapitalization.--Lenticel (talk) 00:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

April 15

Committee for the Defense of the Republic

Delete. Nothing in the target article suggests that this short-live political party was ever known by this name. There was an entirely distinct Committee for the Defence of the Republic however that the redirect may lead to confusion with. TB (talk) 17:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Weakish keep. The first three google hits for Committee for the Defence of the Republic relate to Rwanda and, if I'm not mistaken, refer to the Coalition for the Defence of the Republic. There've been other organisations with the same name, but unless one or more can be shown to be notable then this redirect seems appropriate (and if this is kept, Committee for the Defence of the Republic should be created with the same target). – hysteria18 (talk) 19:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep unless better target found as "committee" and "Coalition" are words easily confused in names of political parties. If there is another group with the name, then retarget. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 19:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:TANGENT

A redirect created in the Wikipedia namespace to lead to one user's personal page. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep I thought only problem was redirects from mainspace to other areas of the project. I'm certain there are other redirects from the WP namespace to essays hosted in userspace. I don't know if it matters, but I created the redirect. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 16:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Info: We have 884 redirects from namespace 4 (Wikipedia) to namespace 2 (User). Probably to be avoided; in general moving content from userspace into Wikipedia:, if nothing else to keep clear what's communal vs personal. I've listed them at User:Largoplazo/WP Redirects in case you want to investigate. - TB (talk) 19:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
    • I would like to see them all deleted per my comment below. They are not as bad as redirects from article namespace into user namespace but lets get rid of them. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete. User namespace is a free for all (sort of) so it should not be linked from the more regimented Wikipedia namespace. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Alan, you should maybe consider your own user space essay (redirected from Wikipedia:COSTLYREDIR) before you tell us to delete other people's. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 19:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. There is no problem with the general concept of a redirect from the Wikipedia space to the User space (or vice versa). Essays get moved in and out of the userspace all the time. Leaving redirects in place makes it easier to for people to follow conversations from before the move. Redirects can also, like this one, be used for shortcuts to popular essays. Individual redirects may be deletable if they are deceptive or harmful. I don't see a particular problem with this one. Rossami (talk) 04:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep, and seeing User in huge text at the top of the page will make it clear that this is a user, not Wikipedia essay. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 19:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Would a clause in Template:Essay to highlight the fact that a page is in user-space be apropos ? - TB (talk) 20:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep - no problem with the redirect, and per above, it is good to leave it in place as a shortcut. "Pepper" @ 03:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:HandGCOTM

Proposing deletion of the shortcut Wikipedia:HandGCOTM, which links to Wikipedia:WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening/COTM, the WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening collaboration of the month. The abbreviation's lettering is rather vague regarding what the shortcut links to, and there are less ambiguous shortcuts already existent for the page: WP:HORTCOTM and WP:HGCOTM. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Pope John Paul III

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 12:44, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

No such antipope, as far as I can tell. Soooooo tempted to IAR speedy delete but thought best to play it straight. BencherliteTalk 11:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Interesting. I found the following possible sources:
    1. This Uncyclopedia hoax
    2. This NationStates fiction
    3. This garage band
    4. This rant against the legitimacy of John Paul II
    None properly substantiate this redirect, though. Delete unless the redirect's creator can clear up the confusion. Rossami (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete as confusing redirect.--Lenticel (talk) 00:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete as the article it directs to seems to have no content that refers to a Pope John Paul III. [8] is hardly a rant though: it is a long list of sourced quotations. Meowy 14:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

April 14

Grace Hamilton

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retargetted. RfD is not necessary for cases like this. Thryduulf (talk) 23:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Dab Redirects to the movie because of a character in the movie. However, Grace Towns Hamilton is about a real person in Atlanta, Georgia. I think the real person is more likely to be the object of a Search than a movie character, so Disambiguate. Maile66 (talk) 00:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Be bold and make the change. No need to ask permission here first. Rossami (talk) 03:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Resolved
Maile66 (talk) 11:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Interstate 976

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete both. JohnCD (talk) 12:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Non-existant, never proposed highway designation that is an unlikely search candidate. Imzadi 1979 → 11:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment: Redirect histories and nominations are identical. Merging nominations. Abstain. Rossami (talk) 03:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete under implausible redirects. These were created just 3 days ago. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 19:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete - implausible per above. This is not to mention that the section redirects are typos and don't even redirect to the correct section of the article if these redirects were to be kept. "Pepper" @ 03:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - These designations have never existed, don't currently exist, nor are currently even remotely being considered for future use. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 01:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Verwaltungsverband

Delete, according to reasons 5 and 10 of WP:RFD#DELETE. The redirect is misleading as Verwaltungsverband and Amt are similar but different types of country subdivisions in Germany. See de:Verwaltungsverband and de:Amt (Kommunalrecht). There is nothing in the history worth keeping. S.K. (talk) 08:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep until someone overwrites with more detailed content. As the nomination notes, these are closely related topics. Amt is the common structure in Brandenburg , Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and Schleswig-Holstein while Verwaltungsverband is found in Saxony. And while the German Wikipedia does go into quite a bit more detail about the technical distinctions between the subdivisions, the current Amt article in the English Wikipedia is more general, covering the broad concept of country subdivisions below the level of Kreis all together. It mentions the regional variations prominently and early in the article. I have no objection to including the greater detail here but until someone does so, the current article appears reasonable to me. Given the technical distinctions and regional specificity, though, I am skeptical that redlinking will be more likely to result in that detail showing up here anytime soon. Rossami (talk) 03:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: Verwaltungsgemeinschaft nomination merged into this discussion. Same reasoning given by S.K.. Rossami (talk) 12:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep but Redirect to Amt until the content of these other articles becomes meaningful. I usually am a big fan of keeping the specificity of German words seperate, however, in this case these articles are so sparse that sections in Amt is a good INTERIM solution, even tho I realize Amt is not exact. My reasons are that for the average educated English speaker these tiny distinctions don't mean anything and will be difficult even to search on. In addition, having all these terms in ONE article may actually enlighten people on the differences. Since the only current article of any length is AMT, that's where these should go. However, if someone wants to translate from the individual German articles into these terms, then separate articles are warranted again. That is a long project and may take awhile :)

-- Ultracobalt (talk) 11:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Maliha

This redirect has no incoming links, and there is nowhere in the article that refers to this transliteration. As with Abdul Qasim below a delegate to Afghanistan's Constitutional Loya Jirga has this name, and until an article is created about that Afghan I think this should be a redlink. Geo Swan (talk) 08:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep as the village was known as Al-Maliha before it was part of Israel. Tag as a misspelling, alternate name, and possibilities. If an article is created about Maliha the Afghan, we can change it to a disambiguation page. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 19:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Abdul Qasim

This redirect was created about 2.5 months ago, and has no incoming links. The target article lists half a dozen alternate transliterations -- but "Abdul Qasim" is not one of them. There is an Afghan politician, who sat on the 2002 Constitutional Loya Jirga. I think this should be a redlink, so individuals working on the Loya Jirga realize there is no article on the constitutional delegate. Geo Swan (talk) 00:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

A History of Iraq (i forget the author), names him Abdul Qasim... --TIAYN (talk) 07:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Okay, a book offers this as another transliteration. But this wasn't important enough include that transliteration in the article?
If I am not mistaken, keeping this redirect will require the creation of a disambiguation page.
502 individuals were appointed as delegates to Afghanistan's Constitutional Loya Jirga. The Loya Jirga that drafted Afghanistan's new constitution, and laid out the rules and format for its new legislature, sat for almost two years. It is a national level post, and I suggest its delegates were of comparable importance to the representatives elected to the Wolesi Jirga whose rules and structure they drafted.
Due to the sparseness of the namespace for personal names in Afghanistan a significant fraction of the names result in name collisions. When there was a name collision, and there was an existing disambiguation page, I have been adding an entry to that disambiguation page.
When there was a name collision with a redirect to a single existing article, and that redirect has at least one incoming link, I change the redirect to a disambiguation page, and piped all the incoming links in articles that pointed to the former redirect to point directly to the actual article. FWIW this consumed very considerable time, the more links to pipe, the longer it took. While doing so I found several redirects which should have required disambiguation years ago, as some of the incoming links to the redirect had nothing to do with the article they had been redirected to.
However, when there is a name collision with a redirect with no incoming links, I question whether a disambiguation page is appropriate. When the article in question doesn't even mention the spelling as an alternate transliteration, stage name, pen name, nom de guerre, I am pretty sure a disambiguation page is inappropriate. Geo Swan (talk) 14:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep Lack of links is not a valid reason to delete a redirect. We don't know how many non-Wikipedia websites link here, and we should strive to keep our links valid. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 19:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

March 27

Template:Portalpar

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. JohnCD (talk) 14:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Unused redirect. The "par" extension offers nothing. Nowadays "Portal" is well-established and well-known name as is. Magioladitis (talk) 18:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep. While it's true that it's just been a redirect for several years, it's still getting a good number of hits on a regular basis (63 last month for example), showing that it still has value. If it's only just been orphaned then wait a couple of months to see if the usage dies off - it probably will but might not. Thryduulf (talk) 19:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. Indeed, per Thryduulf. Why bother deleting this which is still in use. I found this today because my User Page was suddenly "broken" for no good reason. After fruitlessly clicking the non-working "this redirect's entry" on the banner notice, a 10 minutes or so of "WTF" cursing and much more I finally found the page here. Why on earth do people nominate working pages such as this without good reason? The nominators reason that it's" unused" is patently wrong, and causes unneccessary grief to Users who still rely on it. If you are going to nominate stuff for deletion Magioladitis, at least get your facts correct and do the users of such a page the courtesy of a notification at least (although some proper discussion beforehand would be preferable). --Cactus.man ✍ 21:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I should have written "unused in mainspace". My mistake. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Why is this page not used in the main namespace? [9] [10] [11]. It appears that it was intentionally orphaned just before the deletion discussion. That is completely inappropriate - it distorts the argument in favor of deletion and makes it impossible for others to see how the template is used when they are looking at the deletion discussion. If the outcome is delete, then a bot will orphan the redirect. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Tai chi

We have dozens of redirects on this subject - variations on language form, capitalisation, apostrophes etc - each redirecting to either Taiji or T'ai chi ch'uan. Taiji is about a concept, T'ai chi ch'uan the martial art, but it gets more confusing because the two terms we are using are in different romanization methods of Chinese. In Pinyin, tàijí or taiji means the concept and tàijíquán or taijiquan means the martial art. In Wade-Giles romanization, t'ai chi means the concept and t'ai chi ch'üan or t'ai chi ch'uan means the martial art. But in the Western world we use the terms tai chi or t'ai chi to mean the martial art! Aargh!

I can't figure out why some of the redirects were created, but they do no harm so I'm only nominating the potentially confusing ones. There is also Tai chi chih, a less common modern exercise form practised in a few countries. We do have a dab page at Taiji (disambiguation) but the only redirects pointing to it are Tai Chi (disambiguation) and Tai Ji (disambiguation).

This has been discussed at Talk:T'ai chi ch'uan. There is an older, long summary of most alternate spellings at the top of the same talk page. Nø tried to create some consistency by directing all spelling variations of taiji and t'ai chi to Taiji and all spelling variations of taijiquan and t'ai chi ch'uan to T'ai chi ch'uan. But it hasn't held up due to the Western usage ambiguity, and now we have a mess. In some cases (eg. Tai-chi / Tai-Chi) simply capitalising the C will land you at a different article.

Assuming that we don't want to delete anything now, I propose:

An alternative solution is to retarget all the commonly-used variations of t'ai chi to the dab page, but then almost anyone searching for the globally-practised martial art by its common Western name will have to go through the dab. ~ Kimelea (talk) 02:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Opposed to mass delete and redirects: they're cheep and there's no reason to break existing links. This appears to forum shopping as the consensus was not in favor of redirecting the concept (T'ai chi/Taiji) to the martial art, see the discussion at T'ai chi ch'uan. Thanks.—Machine Elf  03:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Um?? I haven't nominated anything for deletion. I've nominated the ambiguous ones for discussion, with suggestions to keep some where they are and redirect others. As for forum shopping, there was no consensus on the talk page, not enough participants for a consensus, that's why I brought it here. It was a completely friendly and civil discussion with one other editor (Nø). We both agreed that it's a mess the way it is, and are working together. I'm a little stunned by your accusation. ~ Kimelea (talk) 03:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment It's a euphemism for deletion ("keep/delete"). Once again, they were being discussed, and User:Nø was not in favor of your proposed redirects. Now it's 2 to 1 opposed and make no pretense of it, this is not working together, this is circumventing. I didn't imply that it was uncivil, did I? Choose to be "stunned" if you wish but there's 208 links to those redirects and you you've chosen to include none that go to your desired location, despite the lack of consensus (or rather none that would go to your desired location, per User:Nø's recommendation).—Machine Elf  03:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand what's led you to assume bad faith so completely, but I'm going to take it back to Talk:T'ai chi ch'uan. I hope Nø will weigh in here, as you seem to have claimed a hostile opposing !vote on his behalf. ~ Kimelea (talk) 11:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC) [Word 'hostile' redacted due to being misinterpreted. 16:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)]
LOL, you're accusing me of bad faith? You're the one claiming that I've accused you incivility, telling me to calm down, (take your own advice). You're the one pretending that you're not explicitly trying to get redirects pointed to your preferred article, (not that you couldn't have just edited them yourself without all the subterfuge). It's perfectly obvious you've been fibbing, as I've had to point at Talk:T'ai chi ch'uan; and it's perfectly obvious that you've left out the "MANY" (per your hollering) examples of the exact same problem for the redirects to your preferred page; and it's perfectly obvious that you've nominated these redirects for a little something more than discussion (apparently, discussion wasn't working out the way you wanted). I take it what's not perfectly obvious is that your "detailed recommendations" are bogus: the best choices for Taiji are the ones most editors have been using, (who would have thunk it)
The alternate capitalizations look like perfectly helpful redirects to me, I disagree they should be deleted… No one is talking about etymology, and there is nothing confusing about them. That's not a "mess", that's 70% of the links right there, as opposed to 16%. This is not the forum to discuss moving one the two articles to Taiji (concept). It's not an unreasonable suggestion that the martial art is WP:PRIMARY in English; too bad you're not getting there from here.—Machine Elf  16:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Endorse Kimelea's detailed recommendations, they represent the most likely targets of all searches. What matters is how the terms are used in English, not what their etymology is. Also, "discussion" in RfD is not a euphemism for "deletion". Thryduulf (talk) 09:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I think that in the interests of maintaining accuracy in the articles/searches while not disregarding usual usage, spellings in the short form "Taiji/T'ai chi" should redirect to the respective disambiguation pages, or if not, then to the Taiji article page, with hatnotes to the T'ai chi ch'uan page the disambiguation page(s). Honestly, I'm undecided about the matter, but in a way think the disambiguation pages should be consolidated (I won't pursue that though). Additionally, I agree on deletion of redirects based on variations in capitalisation, with only one of each respective variant left, since the search engine compensates, but have no comment on deletion of spelling variations as I'm not aware of much of the WP guidelines regarding such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InferKNOX (talk • contribs) 12:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
    • While the internal search function is case insensitive, there are many other ways that people use to search and find articles on Wikipedia and many of them are case sensitive. For this reason we tend to keep redirects from other capitalisations. Thryduulf (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Understood. Thus I recant what I said regarding deletion on the grounds of variation by capitalisation. I do, however, propose that pages based on gross misspellings/misinterpretations (e.g. "Tai qi", "Thai chi", etc) and/or hybridisation of Wade-Giles & Pinyin (e.g. "T'ai ji") for both the informal short and formal long form of taijiquan, be deleted. I say this because I believe their very existence serves to mystify what the proper spellings are, "taiji" & "taijiquan", or "t'ai chi" & "t'ai chi ch'uan". I may be wrong in that they may serve some other purpose & am willing to hear what it could be. Foremost, I propose that all variations of the shortened forms "t'ai chi" & "taiji" redirect to Taiji (disambiguation). Doing so will serve to both inform the reader that the commonly used shortened form of taijiquan/t'ai chi ch'uan is actually the spelling for and thus is technically the concept, whilst not forcing them to the concept page itself, and allowing them to see that it's shortened use is, in fact, informal, not actual, before allowing them to proceed to the martial art page. In my view, such use is a major point of a redirect's relevance. InferKNOX (talk) 21:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
        • Agreed regarding the weird hybrids. However, Taiji is an article and what you're proposing would be to demote it from WP:PRIMARY would it not? It would need to be renamed something like Taiji (concept) in order for Taiji to become the dab. At the very least that discussion should happen on Talk:Taiji, not here or at Talk:T'ai chi ch'uan. But for wider participation, it would probably be best to submit a move request.—Machine Elf  22:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
          • I see what you mean. I do believe that the properly spelt "T'ai chi" & "Taiji" themselves aught to point at Taiji, however the honest situation is that the variants could be searched for in hope of finding either Taiji or Taijiquan, thus pointing them at Taiji would be disregarding the common informal use. At the very least pointing the variants at the dab, would inform the reader of the proper spellings and the alternate uses of the term. After all, Taijiquan is not necessarily a subset of Taiji, but rather is a merger between it's principles & martial arts, while otherwise would be suggested if all the variants pointed to Taiji with merely a Taijiquan hatnote. Ultimately the most honest measure is to have proper short spellings (T'ai chi & Taiji) point to Taiji, improper short spellings point to the dab, and all proper & improper long spellings point to T'ai chi ch'uan. Not particularly ideal, but true to the reality, I believe. InferKNOX (talk) 22:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
            • I don't understand why searches for the concept Taiji/T'ai chi would tend be spelled correctly but variants (without a third syllable) would be ambiguous. FWIW, I think almost all of them will be looking for the martial art, either way. I'm sure it would come as no surprise to English speakers if a search for T'ai chi went to directly to T'ai chi ch'uan (the hat note's there for anyone who wants the concept). A dab page isn't about subsets. No one looks for a dab page: it's better to go directly to one of the two articles. Spelling variants of Taiji/T'ai chi should go to the WP:PRIMARY topic, otherwise it's hit or miss (mostly miss) for people who only vaguely know how to spell it, e.g., English speakers.—Machine Elf  00:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
              • It is not about ambiguity, it's about acknowledging the necessity to compromise for the sake of both usage and accuracy. By pointing redirects to Taiji, which is what the short variants essentially spell, it would disregard the informal usage for the martial art. If it points to the martial art, it's ignoring the fact that taiji/t'ai chi & all the misspelled variants thereof are in actuality a concept, whilst taijiquan/t'ai chi ch'uan and their misspelled variants are a martial art. I believe the proper spelling taiji & it's Wade-Giles form t'ai chi should of course point the page whose name they have (Taiji) and likewise for Taijiquan/T'ai chi ch'uan, however, it would also create a middle ground if the misspelled variants are pointed at the dab, thereby recognising both informal usage and actual fact. The dab would simply serve to inform the reader, not undermine Taiji or T'ai chi ch'uan. The ambiguity would be to continue pointing taiji one way & t'ai chi the other when they are different transliterations of the same thing. That is the very reason for this discussion & a failure to reunify their direction, or directing them to only one thing when they also mean the other would be a disservice to the topics themselves & the readers they're meant to inform. InferKNOX (talk) 09:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
                • You say “it would also create a middle ground if the misspelled variants are pointed at the dab, thereby recognising both informal usage and actual fact.”, however it's unclear how that creates a middle ground: By informal usage do you mean misspelled? By actual fact, do you mean something in particular? A dab serves to help readers navigate, it's the articles themselves that are informative. I don't think anyone has suggested dab pages undermine those two articles but I'll take your word for it regarding “the very reason for this discussion”. As they're the same word, it's certainly reasonable to point Taiji and T'ai chi to the same WP:PRIME article on that topic, as well as misspellings of that word. What do you mean by “& a failure to reunify their direction, or directing them to only one thing when they also mean the other would be a disservice to the topics themselves & the readers they're meant to inform.”, it seems to suggest an impasse or self-contradiction? Machine Elf  20:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
                  • Before I continue, let me just say that unless I specify otherwise, or it's obviously not the case, take it that I'm simply using the term taiji to refer to all it's variants, correctly spelt or not. Now, answering you: I mean it creates a middle ground by not pointing to any article in particular, since the intended search could be for either Taiji or Taijiquan. By informal usage, I mean referring to taijiquan as the shortened "taiji". By "actual fact", I mean that the fact is that taiji is in actuality the name of the concept, not the martial art. The dab would be informative by making the reader aware that taiji could mean either the concept or martial art. Lastly I mean that pointing misspelled variants of t'ai chi to t'ai chi ch'uan, while pointing misspelled variants of taiji at Taiji would be creating/maintaining a division where there shouldn't be one, whilst pointing both at either t'ai chi ch'uan or Taiji, would be disregarding the topic they aren't pointing to, bringing me back to the dab page being a "middle ground" of sorts. InferKNOX (talk) 22:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I understand your points InferKNOX. It's a tough one. I think you're saying if we had Wade-Giles spellings (t'ai chi etc) pointing at the martial art and Pinyin spellings (tai ji etc) pointing at the concept, we'd create a double standard by drawing a line that is only a bit less arbitrary than it is currently. And I think you're saying that redirecting t'ai chi etc to the dab page (compromise) would serve part of the educational process by informing readers of the actual meaning of "t'ai chi" before they are allowed to move on to the martial art article. Have I got this right?
The trouble is, the sole purpose of a redirect or a dab page is to help readers find the article they are looking for. It might pain us all to think about it, given the trouble we are taking to serve them, but not all readers care about this. If an English speaker wants to quickly check whether the 'slow' martial art they're thinking of is t'ai chi or tae kwon do, they will not appreciate Wikipedia trying to teach them the proper use of the words "t'ai chi". They just want to look up something about the martial art that everyone calls t'ai chi. I really sympathise with your position InferKNOX, but in my understanding, redirs and dabs are navigation tools only - they are not intended as learning tools in themselves. See WP:PRIMARYTOPIC - it is usage, not correctness, that decides where they should point. Even misspellings and misconceptions (like our Thai Chi, for example) are deliberately kept as redirects because they help people who use them to find what they actually wanted.
The question for us to answer together is: what is the Primary Topic - most likely desired article - of each one of the Wade-Giles-ish spellings.
  1. In my nom I suggested that the primary topic for Wade-Giles-ish searches is the martial art, as Thryduulf deftly illustrated in the section below. Exception being the confused typos, which are too weird to have an established primary topic, thus a nudge towards the dab might be the gentlest way for us to say "um, what?"
  2. There's a case for the primary topic for all Wade-Giles-ish searches including confused typos being the martial art, as Machine Elf said; then we'd use the dab in hatnotes only.
  3. There's a case for there being no primary topic for the Wade-Giles-ish spellings, in other words, searchers for "t'ai chi" etc are not more likely to be looking for T'ai chi ch'uan than all our other t'ai-chi-related articles, and therefore we should use the dab for all Wade-Giles-ish spellings.
  4. There's a case for there being no primary topic for ANY of the Wade-Giles-ish spellings OR the Pinyin-ish spellings, so ALL the nominated redirects should be retargeted to Taiji (disambiguation). The dab page would suddenly start getting a whole lot of hits, and I personally don't like forcing every searcher to go through the dab, but nobody could say we weren't consistent. ;)
I hope all that made some semblance of sense... ~ Kimelea (talk) 07:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
  • ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Totally Kimelea, I agree 100%. And thanks InferKNOX, that helped a lot but please do correct me if I miss-objectify any of what you proposed. Which is to say, I don't mean to question the subjective merits, just the normative considerations in terms of guidelines.
  1. T'ai chi should be the one and only redirect targeting the concept article Taiji
  2. All duo-syllabic variants/misspellings (w/o ch'uan) should be re-targeted to Taiji (disambiguation)
  3. No change for any triple syllabic+ variants/misspellings targeting the martial arts article T'ai chi ch'uan
As Kimelea was saying, the dab page is merely a means to an end. Most searches will be for the martial art, (maybe even more than all the other subjects combined), however the Daoist/Taoist concept is currently WP:PRIME and Kimelea lists several viable alternates besides the either/or scenario. Due to English usage, it's effectively a name for both, thus the 2-syllable variants/misspellings are all ambiguous.
No doubt there's China-related political scenarios that warrant precautions against snubbing one topic in favor of another, but no such worries here as far as I know. Normally, if there's a WP:PRIME, all the variants/misspellings should target it. With a few exceptions, that seems to be what they're doing (2-syllable). That certainly disregards the primacy of the martial art over the philosophical concept in terms of English speakers, but it's almost never a good idea to link to a dab page. Normally, it's expected that when re-targeting a redirect from an article to a dab page, incoming links should be updated so they keep pointing to the actual article, (and maintain the same text via piping). It's a good idea to revisit the special exception made for T'ai chi, etc. from time to time, but indirectly retargeting hundred+ links to a dab instead of the WP:PRIME wouldn't be tenable, people would disambiguate them.—Machine Elf  10:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad we're on the same page now Machine Elf. I'm confused about one thing though. I understand that you're supporting all nominated redirects to be sent to the dab except T'ai chi, which should go to the concept? T'ai chi is perhaps the most commonly used term for the martial art, whereas Tàijí for example is exactly the same word as Taiji but with the original diacriticals in place. I understand the case for forwarding the whole lot to the dab, but why single out T'ai chi either way? ~ Kimelea (talk) 15:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
That was an attempt to summarize InferKNOX. I don't support that, no.—Machine Elf  16:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
My understanding of InferKNOX's personal preference was to direct all spellings to their Chinese meaning, as was Nø's original solution (t'ai chi, tàijí and similar to Taiji, taijiquan and similar to T'ai chi ch'uan; confused typos to be purged from existence), but that he accepted the need to compromise due to the common usage, so instead supported directing all the nominated Wade-Giles-ish spellings to the dab - option 3 in my previous post. I trust he'll correct either or both of us if we misunderstood. By the way I am calling both of you 'he' on no good basis - correct me if you're female please! ~ Kimelea (talk) 17:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I think you have both indeed made a somewhat accurate estimation of what I said. As for purging, it's something more prevalent in the taijiquan variants, but in this case, Thai chi, Tai qi & Tao chi [which is actually a painter] are the ones I feel have no place, but I won't fight you if you insist they must remain. The reason I believe t'ai chi should point to Taiji, is because it's the exact same word as taiji, but only WG. If what you're proposing is to have taiji & pinyin-ish variants point to Taiji, t'ai chi point to T'ai chi ch'uan, and all other WG-ish variants point to the dab, then I think I'll concede that that's fair and I would give a 'thumbs up' to that. Oh, and yes, I'm a man. :-) InferKNOX (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Do what you like with Thai Chi, Tai qi and Tao Chi, they're horrible and I'm indifferent to their fate, but I can't find a "reason to delete" them per WP:R#DELETE. An argument for keeping them is so that people who actually use those search terms can still find the article they wanted and learn how it's actually spelled. Sending Tao Chi to Tao Chi (painter) sounds like a very smart idea to me, we can plant a hatnote. And we all seem agreed that pinyin-ish variants of Taiji should continue to go there.
I did misunderstand part of what you said. One thing I do feel strongly about is that Wade-Giles-ish spellings should stay together. T'ai chi, T'ai Chi, Tai Chi, Tai chi, Taichi, T'aichi, T'ai-chi, Tai-chi and Tai-Chi form a chain, each just one character different from its neighbours, and all likely searches by English speakers who don't know the spelling of the martial art commonly called t'ai chi. (In retrospect I think T'aichi should be included with them and not the weird ones like Thai Chi.) I still propose to send all of them (the reasonable Wade-Giles-ish two-syllable spellings) to T'ai chi ch'uan with a prominent hatnote and explanatory note in the lead, because I think the primary sense of those terms in English is the martial art. If the consensus is to send the Wade-Giles-ish spellings to the dab, fair enough - just please don't split them up! ;) ~ Kimelea (talk) 12:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
If all the Wade-Giles-ish point to T'ai chi ch'uan, then the dab remains without anything to disambiguate. As you said before, only "Tai Chi (disambiguation)" and "Tai Ji (disambiguation)" would point to the dab. Considering that the cloud of ambiguity surrounds the Wade-Giles-ish, would it not be fair to then point them entirely, if not in part, to the dab? It would alternatively kind of make sense, to have them point to T'ai chi ch'uan, but wouldn't that be ignoring the fact of their ambiguity? Would pointing only 11 pages (+2 confused spellings) to the dab be excessive? I would whole-heartedly agree to that: Pinyin-ish → Taiji, Wade-Giles-ish → dab & all tri-syllables → T'ai chi ch'uan. InferKNOX (talk) 13:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
If the Wade-Giles-ish ones went to T'ai chi ch'uan, the main function of the dab would be to sit prominently in hatnotes and swiftly relocate anyone who ended up at the wrong article. Thing is, we can't please everyone - if they go to T'ai chi ch'uan we will get a few linguists who insist that it's wrong, and if they go to the dab we might lose a few people who either can't be bothered to read down to the third line, or just saw a poster in the gym and don't even know that t'ai chi is a martial art so don't know which option to select. ;) But I like what you propose a lot better than what we have now. If this RfD closes in favour of Wade-Giles-ish → dab, how would you feel about moving the martial art to the top line of the dab? ~ Kimelea (talk) 18:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, unfortunately not all can be pleased. I do think that someone that doesn't have the common sense or patience to see what they may want on the dab, can't be helped though. The hat note is easier to miss though, possibly misleading the reader. The martial art at the top of the dab is an excellent suggestion, as it is the most likely searched for. InferKNOX (talk) 18:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  • In addition to any specific hat notes, articles include a link to the dab for the even less frequent uses. Again, I do not support redirecting the exact same word to different articles due to pinyin vs. Wade-Giles for the reasons Nø and InferKNOX have given (although InferKNOX seems to have changed his mind for some reason).—Machine Elf  20:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
My fundamental belief that all should point to Taiji (for the sake of accuracy) remains, however, in acknowledgement of valid arguments made regarding usage, I am trying to be reasonable/compromising for the sake of satisfying both arguments as best possible, so that progress can be made and an agreement reached. In terms of the usage vs accuracy arguments, I lean towards accuracy, but reality isn't that black & white, so it is my belief that one needs to be malleable enough to concede on some aspects of an argument for an optimal result. Pinyin vs Wade-Giles is an unfortunate circumstance brought about by laymen, but the truth is that the (usage) ambiguity surrounds the Wade-Giles version(s), so sadly the line is actually between pinyin & WG, when there shouldn't even be one. At least this way, the number of directions being pointed to would be brought under control, with the relative definites pointing to their respective articles & the ambiguous pointing to the dab. InferKNOX (talk) 18:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
For anyone following this discussion, it is still very active, just that Machine Elf  1735 has seen fit to continue/restart it here: Talk:Taiji#Requested move. InferKNOX (talk) 15:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
That's your excuse for following me? Am I so strong with the Force? Don't let me stop you, carry on with this discussion… it's about a controversial move, is it? These are not the dramz you're looking for.—Machine Elf  04:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Ignoring suggestions of drama and excuses, since everyone here is trying to improve the encyclopedia, please see my post at the bottom of this RfD. ~ Kimelea (talk) 16:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment, I carried out a completely unscientific straw poll among people I interacted with today. I asked them what they would expect the Wikipedia article called "tai chi" to be about? (This was verbal so it doesn't impact spelling). The results were 5 martial art, 3 exercise, 1 dab page, 1 person who couldn't decide and one person who said "tea". Obviously you can't draw consensus from this, but it's another perspective. Thryduulf (talk) 01:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Tea :) Unless someone can rally an argument based on prevalence in the relevant WP:RS, it seems like a slam dunk.—Machine Elf  03:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I actually guffawed to realise that the last answerer probably spoonerised Chai tea. :D ~ Kimelea (talk) 07:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Something my niece loves to call it in order to tease me whenever it's mentioned within her earshot.... InferKNOX (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep, retarget as needed - I'm not at all sure why this has been brought to AfD. Nobody seems to want to delete these (useful) redirects, so Keep is the snowball outcome. I understand the Taiji (concept), Tai Chi... (martial art) distinction - and it should be reflected in the targeting of the redirects, for which AfD authority is not needed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
It's been brought to RfD (redirects for discussion) to discuss where they should redirect (martial art or concept), not whether they should be kept. There are different opinions about whether Tai Chi should indeed direct to the martial art (I personally agree with you, but it's complicated, hence bringing it to RfD). Thank you for weighing in. ~ Kimelea (talk) 10:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
I see. Well, I think I'm with you then - specialist 'Concept' usages to Taiji, everything else to whichever form of Tai Chi Chuan is preferred. It's all arbitrary given the impossibility of transliteration so we just have to do something sensible. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  • As I've said, I don't think this RfD is the appropriate place to decide whether or not to demote Taiji from WP:PRIME. Unless anyone feels that a discussion on that article's talk page will suffice, I think it would be best to solicit wider participation with a requested move and a heads-up to WP:WikiProject China and WP:WikiProject Taoism; the current note on Talk:Taiji#Redirect of Tai chi indicates only that Tai chi and related redirects are under discussion here. That discussion should decide, as a rule of thumb, the destination of redirects that do not end with some form of "chuan". Unfortunately, characterizing various subsets as pinyin-ish or Wade-Giles-ish confuses the scope of the issue, so unless any of the listed redirects are supposed to be special cases or candidates for deletion, let's close this farrago and move on to the WP:PRIME discussion.—Machine Elf  20:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Talk:Taiji#Requested move – WikiProject China & WikiProject Taoism (#Pinyin vs Wade-Giles at Taiji/T'ai chi).—Machine Elf  21:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to point out (now that I finally understand it) that the Requested Move proposal is not meant to override the outcome of this RfD proposal. In my understanding, the only remaining point of consensus for the RfD's closing admin to figure out will be whether to redirect Wade-Giles-ish two-syllable spellings (such as Tai chi) to the dab or the martial art article. The Requested Move is a separate suggestion to rename the concept article (currently Taiji) to Taiji (concept) to reduce confusion. It does not have any bearing on this RfD. ~ Kimelea (talk) 16:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Is anyone other than InferKNOX voting for the dab? Every article linking to them would need to edited to edited to point to a non-dab page. Not a viable proposal. OTOH, the consensus to point Tai chi etc at the martial arts article seems well grounded in usage, policy, and guidelines.—Machine Elf  14:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Only InferKNOX has stated the dab as his first choice for Tai chi etc, but consensus is judged on strength of argument not voting, and he made some good points about compromise. Um, and not sure whether you realise but your own early !vote opposing retargets is still standing. ~ Kimelea (talk) 05:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
No contest either way, it's almost always a bad idea and this is no exception. It was deletes and redirects to dabs I was opposed to; I'd prefer it to simply close as keep (except for a few silly ones); they're normally edited normally per consensus.—Machine Elf  13:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Important comment: Machine Elf's requested move for Taiji gained consensus and the page was moved to Taiji (philosophy). In the process, the closing admin retargeted Taiji to the martial art. All redirects in this RfD that used to point to the philosophy article are now double redirects to the martial art, and many links to Taiji on philosophy pages are now incorrectly directed to the martial art.
Also in the process, InferKNOX !voted on the requested move (now located at Talk:Taiji_(philosophy)#Requested_move) for retargeting ALL two- and three-syllable spellings of both romanization systems, to the martial art article T'ai chi ch'uan. This suggests, if I may say InferKNOX, that we have a clear consensus for the destination of the Wade-Giles spellings. But it surprised me as previously we were all agreed that pinyin-ish two-syllable spellings such as Taiji and Tai Ji should redirect to the philosophy article. That makes less sense now that the philosophy article is not called Taiji, but since they used to point to the philosophy article, and now they point to the martial art article, and we have a dab page, and there is no primary topic for these spellings, how about we send pinyin-ish two-syllable spellings to the dab and all other spellings to the martial art (except Tao Chi, which can go to the painter). But if people want to send them all to the martial art and have it consistent, I'll happily go with that to have this settled. I'll help sort out the mistargeted links and double redirects, whatever we decide. ~ Kimelea (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Addition: I'm now talking to the closing admin of the requested move, JHunterJ, on Talk:Taiji (disambiguation) concerning the implications of our decision on what the primary topic of Taiji is. Put simply, if we decide the martial art is its primary topic (Taiji redirects to T'ai chi ch'uan), I have some concern about how it is to be shown in the dab page (as does Nø, who edited it before me). If we decide it has no primary topic, Taiji may have to become the dab page, not just redirect to it. ~ Kimelea (talk) 23:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Every philosophy article link will be re–targeted to Taiji (philosophy). That was no surprise at all; I've mentioned it several times. It was not the closing admin's job to edit them:

When repairing a link, use pipe syntax so that the link does not show the new qualifier. For example, when renaming Topic Name to Topic Name (qualifier), [[Topic Name (qualifier)|Topic Name]] will render as Topic Name just like the original.

— WP:FIXDABLINKS

None of them are to go anywhere different. I wish you would have helped to sort out the links, because regardless of the fuss you're raising over the close, you're not seeking a full reversal… so either way, that part's already been decided.—Machine Elf  07:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

What fuss? You lost me. I'm not seeking any kind of reversal - I supported your page move. I updated this RfD with information about something that happened elsewhere which has a bearing on our decision here and the cleanup work necessary after this is closed. ~ Kimelea (talk) 14:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak support for Kimelea's proposal, as it sounds reasonable to an outsider in the area but I hesitate to speak strongly. But I would suggest that the hatnote at T'ai chi ch'uan needs to be expanded to reassure people who've looked for a spelling with a "ch" in it that the dab page Taiji (disambiguation) will cover their "other uses" too. Might have to use a non-standard wording rather than a template, to end up with something like:
""Taiji", "Tai Chi" and similar spellings redirect here. For the philosophical concept, see Taiji (philosophy). For other uses, see Taiji (disambiguation)."
Not everyone will recognise the similarity of "j" and "ch" here, and we need to make the scope of the dab page clear. PamD 18:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


Advertisement. Check our sponsors: gold
Thanks for your time.
All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License