Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pigsonthewing (talk | contribs) at 18:40, 27 December 2003 (Forest Kelley). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Other Votes for deletion (VfD) pages: copyright violations -- foreign language -- images -- personal subpages -- lists and categories -- votes for deletion

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

List articles to be deleted in this format:

When should we delete a redirect?

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

You might want to delete a redirect if one or more of the following conditions is met:

  1. The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. (see meta:searches and redirects for proposals to lessen this impact)
  2. The redirect might cause confusion. For example, "Charles C. Boyer" used to redirect to "Daniel C. Boyer", because Daniel was accidentally called Charles on one external web page. However, this caused confusion with the article on Charles Boyer, so it was deleted.
  3. The redirect is offensive, such as "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs".
  4. The redirect makes no sense, such as [[Pink elephants painting daisies]] to love

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

  1. They have a potentially useful page history. If the redirect was created by renaming a page with that name, and the page history just mentions the renaming, and for one of the reasons above you want to delete the page, copy the page history to the Talk page of the article it redirects to. The act of renaming is useful page history, and even more so if there has been discussion on the page name.
  2. They would aid accidental linking and make the creation of duplicate articles less likely
  3. They aid searches on certain terms.
  4. Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful - this is not because the other person is a liar, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways.

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

Redirects to be deleted

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

16 November

26 November

  • Posh Spice Takes it Up the Arse -> Victoria Beckham Football chant
    • Offensive and should not be a title of an article, but it can be in a soccer chants article (no redirect). --Daniel Quinlan
    • I can see the potential for offence, so consider deleting. I rewrote the text from scratch, so no need to keep history. Martin 21:20, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete (this is a duplicate of my vote on VfD. I've also moved the redirect to point to Football chant rather than Victoria Beckham. Remove the information from the Victoria Beckham page unless it really is the most notable thing in her book.Onebyone 03:11, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete this pointless, unencylopædic redirect. If someone wants to find it it will show up as a link to an internal text elsewhere. It is grossly irresponsible to use an offensive, utterly unencyclopædic chant as a page title, even with a redirect. It is shades of the sick Aids kills fags dead rubbish. Do we want wikipedia to be the net's main source on nasty stupid moronic redirect pages? Delete. FearÉIREANN 01:07, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. orthogonal 04:04, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, with only 12 google hits it doesn't even seem like a very important chant. Maximus Rex 19:47, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I want Wikipedia to be the net's main source on all historical information, whether nasty stupid moronic or not. For one thing, the most important lessons of history are those about the cruelty and foolishness of mankind. Eliminating the offensive is hiding the truth. Keep. --The Cunctator
      • Hmm, but it's not eliminating the offensive - the informative content is already at Victoria Beckham and Football chant. It's more a case of categorising the offensive - will that put the lessons of history in danger? Martin 00:06, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • HmmMMMM. What is the female case of "Ipse dixit?" Well the fact is that she did feign to whisper the words to Ali G during the Red Nose Day interview with her bender husband. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 15:36, Nov 29, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, for the perfectly straightforward reason that the chant is discussed in the article it redirects to. I object to the idea that we should help readers find material that people consider inoffensive more than we should help them find material that people consider offensive. Our aim should be to help them find whatever information they are looking for, and that's what redirects help to do. -- Oliver P. 01:48, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Offensive title; offensive information can be told as such in the body of an appropriate article, but we should keep this stuff out of the titles. Having a page named like this, redirect or not, is an expression that this is a topic we need to cover. This isn't (as a topic). Sverdrup 23:23, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • But we do, as a matter of fact, cover the topic. (There is some information on the chant in the article it redirects to.) The question is whether or not we should help to direct people to the places where offensive material is covered. If we don't, then we reduce the ease of linking to it, reduce the chance that people will find it, and thus increase the chance that someone will re-add the content at the obvious title without realising that it is already covered somewhere else. Of course, if that happens, we can always nominate it for deletion again, but redirecting eliminates the need to do that. -- Oliver P. 00:10, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • I think it's a question of priorities. Either we want to make the statement that the thing we, as a group, find most notable about Victoria Beckham is this chant, or we don't. This redirect, combined with the fact that her article is even more slender as she is, doesn't make me feel too good about our consensus motives. It's the same with articles attacking anyone else. Onebyone 00:18, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
          • I'm not trying to attack Victoria Beckham. I'm trying to make a more general point about offensive redirects, which I suppose is more appropriate at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/redirects. So I've brought it up there. -- Oliver P. 02:03, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

28 November

  • Extradimensional -> Dimension
    • Undeleted. Keep. Martin 19:43, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Dimension page is a red herring, it doesn't explain anything relating to "extradimensional". Hence this redirect is harmful. Onebyone 14:52, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Seems like a reasonable redirect, though maybe redirecting toUFO or science fiction would be of more use to those actually using the term? Jamesday 04:18, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Choreography (dance) -> Choreography
    • Undeleted. Keep. Martin 19:43, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. There's no need for disambuiguation, choreography only means one thing. Harmful because it's bad procedure. Onebyone 14:52, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. The choreogaphy article started out here, so someone actually used it. Jamesday 04:18, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Talk:2003 electricity blackout in New York -> Talk:2003 U.S.-Canada blackout
    • Undeleted. Keep. Martin 19:43, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Marginal. This is another case where you could easily have a few hundred variations on the same phrase. Delete if it's an orphan. Onebyone 14:52, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep - the series of blackouts of New York City are of specific interest and it's also inevitable that people will think in terms of their own location. Jamesday 04:18, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete; Wik and Lir kept moving the page around. Fixing all the double/triple redirects was too much work. --Jiang | Talk 23:27, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

29 November

  • Hamlet Mess - I am laughing in my chair at what has happened. We really don't need the first one at all, do we? Delete. Hamlet's soliloquoy should redirect directly to Hamlet. Problem solved. - Arthur George Carrick 21:03, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Actually, Angela has already fixed the redirects. Delete The first though. - Arthur George Carrick 21:07, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Arthur - you were referring to a prior redirect here, I believe, that's already deleted? I think the two we have here can stay. Martin 16:36, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

3 December

  • Unabomer -> Theodore Kaczynski
    • Orphaned redirect, accidental linking unlikely, no history / talk / talk history. Tualha 16:00, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • 670 google hits (see wikipedia:google test). As Daniel says in creation, marginal, but I think reasonable. Martin 19:23, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. More people can spell "Unabomber" than can spell "Kaczynski". Onebyone 14:51, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Pink Floyd/Animals -> Animals (album)
    • Orphaned redirect, accidental linking unlikely, no history / talk / talk history. Tualha 16:00, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Was created here, possibly bookmarked, external links, etc. Keep unless causing problems. Martin 19:23, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • New World orioles -> New World oriole
    • Originally created plural in error, moved to proper location, now an orphan, history intact. --big_iron 21:18, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Keep. New World orioles gets more Google hits that New World oriole, so it is a helpful redirect to prevent someone else coming and writing an article at New World orioles, not knowing that New World oriole already exists. Angela 21:25, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Floro Dery -->Transformers (television series)
    • Was listed on Vfd for being self-promotion. Ok to keep as a redirect? Angela 21:56, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Onebyone 14:51, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Floro Dery. Self-promotion? RickK 06:49, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Anjouli 08:12, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. If the claim in the article about Transformers_(television_series), is true, then he's at least slightly notable. Article is currently a bit fannish, though. Onebyone 02:54, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Search "Floro Dery" + "transformers", it seems to check out. Onebyone 03:02, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Everybody's heard of the Transformers (except people in those valleys in Papua New Guinea). Ergo, keep. Wiwaxia 10:41, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete unless serious rewrite. Besides painting in his spare times? Is this a way to start an article? And i dont live in Papua and i ver heard of Transformers. Muriel Victoria 09:28, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Advert, self-promotion, etc. Daniel Quinlan 17:08, Dec 3, 2003 (UTC)
  • Japanese people --> Japanese person.
    • The redirection should go the other way around. Seems to have been created as a redirect on the premise that the title is a plural of Japanese person. Has no edit history, unlike the target article. If you delete it, please perform the move operation as well. -Smack 19:05, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • You may want to take into consiteration the fact that people is not the plural of person. Persons is the plural of person, people is a singular collective noun. People means "a group of persons". Noldoaran 21:06, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)
      • According to my dictionary, and indeed also according to Wiktionary, "people" is also a plural noun meaning "persons". Onebyone 21:53, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

5 December

  • Mallorean --> The Mallorean --> The Malloreon
    • Double indirect based upon a mis-spelling. The first two should go, they have no actual edit history at all. Phil 12:25, Dec 5, 2003 (UTC)
    • That spelling seems almost as common as the correct spelling, from google - 3,000+ each. I fixed the double redirect. Martin 04:51, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

6 December

  • Commentary --> Wikipedia:Meta-Wikimedia
    • An inappropriate redirect to the Wikipedia namespace. The four articles which link to this do not want to be pointing to a page about Meta-Wikimedia. Angela. 08:59, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • now a stub --Uncle Ed 20:27, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

7 December

  • Femtometre (the redirect, to make room for moving femtometer there)
    • someone is trying to move the article there by copy-and-pasting --User:Docu
    • So can we get on and delete it so it can be moved please. --"Someone" SGBailey
      • I don't think that being in the way makes it a candidate for speedy deletion, although I could be wrong. Onebyone 11:50, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • We have article A redirecting to article B. We want to delete A so we can move B to it so that b redirects to A. The only contentious thing here is whether we want to throw away the history of article A - which I am told we do by the folk who revert the articels when I cut and paste them. I can see no reason for waiting ANY time at all to do this. -- SGBailey 2003-12-11
          • I've moved femtometer to femtometre. femtometre originally had some history, but was basically an edit war over the fact it had been cut and pasted, so I'm guessing this isn't useful and you don't want it restored? Let me know if I am mistaken and I can merge the page histories if this would be useful, but it looks like the original femtometre did not have any useful page history. Angela. 21:49, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
            • Thanks -- SGBailey


  • Ann-->Wikipedia:Announcements.
    • Highly confusing for people searching for people called Ann. Angela. 06:33, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. It's not terribly sinister, but it's occupying namespace that might be useful for something else. Onebyone 23:59, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Kings Arms (Portesham) --> Portesham
    • Created by Oliver on moving Kings Arms which was listed on VfD with all 7 votes to delete and deleted. Is it ok to stay at this new name as just a redirect? Angela. 01:58, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I disambiguated it to answer the charge that there were lots of pubs with the same name, and then merged it with Portesham because it seemed unlikely that it would grow very much. As it turned out, there was nothing worthwhile in the page on the pub that wasn't in Portesham already (except the note that the pub existed), so nothing worthwhile to keep in the history of the redirect. However, I think it's harmless. I want to establish moving, merging, and redirecting as a better and more wiki-esque alternative to deletion. People use Vfd far too much. (By the way, my next step was going to be to make Kings Arms into some sort of disambuation page, but I didn't quiet get round to it. I bet you're relieved about that!) -- Oliver P. 21:42, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Turing Machine simulator - there must be hundreds if not thousands of such projects, and this is not an interesting example. Morwen 14:19, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Redirected. Deletion unnecessary. Martin 16:26, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Redirect okay. Daniel Quinlan 04:29, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. However, I followed the redirect thinking to myself "I want to know what a Turing Machine simulator is", and Turing machine only told me in a single line down near the bottom that all it is is exactly what it says on the tin. Such redirects are arguably harmful, but in this case the fix to the main article is probably not too difficult. Onebyone 23:55, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Searching For An Answer - idiosyncratic. Secretlondon 18:37, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)
    • been made into a redirect Secretlondon 18:41, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete would have been better. Redirecting this to Wikipedia: space is odd. Daniel Quinlan 04:29, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete redirect. Reasons as per Outline of Roget's Thesaurus above. Angela. 02:57, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • AOLiza - a year-old stub w/ nothing more than Wiktionary content. --zandperl 21:07, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Merge and redir to ELIZA Dysprosia 23:34, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Done. Fuzheado 15:31, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • AOLiza is mentioned in ELIZA, so the redirect is helpful. -- Oliver P. 21:42, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Pointless cruft, but isn't causing any harm so in line with current policy on redirects, keep.Onebyone 23:51, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Ownage - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Dysprosia 23:32, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Ugh, 13375p34k. |)31373. --MIRV 23:41, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Incorporate into leet. Leet isn't reason enough to delete it on its own, but the article is neither well written nor very informative, but wouldn't hurt to put into leet. --zandperl 01:29, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • "0wn" and its variant "pwn" are already in leet -- I see no problem with incorporating this variation.--MIRV 01:33, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, Wikipedia is not a repository for slang definitions. Daniel Quinlan 04:29, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
    • The term is explained at Leet, so the redirect is helpful. -- Oliver P. 21:42, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Pointless cruft, but isn't causing any harm so in line with current policy on redirects, keep.Onebyone 23:51, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

12 December

15 December

  • Jap -> Japanese person
    • Potentially offensive. Gringo doesn't redirect to Whites. Tongpoo 03:59, 2003 Dec 15 (UTC)
    • Also acronym for "Jewish American Princess". --Jiang | Talk 01:47, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Redirect should be removed, however a page detailing the meaning and history of the 'offensive' meaning would be acceptable if perhaps too stubby. It is after all, an abbreviation, not an insult. HappyDog 01:39, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • University Library --> Cambridge University Library.
    • Inappropriate redirect as Cambridge University Library isn't the only University library. Angela. 20:41, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • delete, unless there's a list being made. --Jiang | Talk 01:47, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • At most universities, the main library is called the "university library". Thus, the redirect is inappropriate. --Jiang 00:32, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • delete or write a useful article. The redirect is misleading and pointless. -- HappyDog 01:39, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

17 December

Patent Cooperation Treaty or PCT orphan and unlike to be found by searh etc. DJ Clayworth 17:13, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

18 December

  • Antibodies&Contributions -> antibody. I can't see any need to keep this bizarrely named article. The original text is already incorporated into antibody so I made it a redirect for now, but I think it should be removed as nothing links to it, and I doubt anyone will search for it! HappyDog
  • AoTeAroa (redirects to New Zealand). While there might be some point to keeping this around as something people might search for (or link to) by mistake, it could probably be deleted. It's a form of the Maori name for New Zealand, generally written Aotearoa. It's rare to find the word with its component parts capitalized individually, but even if you want to do that, the capital letters are in the wrong place - it should be AoTeaRoa, not AoTeAroa. Quite an easy mistake to make, given that te is a common particle in Maori (it means "the"), but it happens to be incorrect here. -- Vardion 12:05, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • A redirect from Aotearoa would be okay. AoTeAroa is just nonsensical. Nurg 09:10, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)


20 December

22 December

  • Jafa -> Jaffa (chocolate)
    • Different spelling; different meaning. Nothing to stop someone writing an article for jafa/JAFA. Nurg 09:10, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

23 December

24 December

  • already listed in VfD earlier this week, Our Posthuman Future currently is a redir to Transhumanism but should probably be deleted since Francis Fukuyama wrote the book, Our Posthuman Future, which is referenced (and linked) in Transhumanism so the redir creates a self-reference loop. Davodd 06:32, Dec 24, 2003 (UTC)

27 December

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion&oldid=2048894"