Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

Skip to current discussions

Administrator instructions Purge the cache to refresh this page

Shortcut: WP:RFD
Deletion discussions Deletion today Deletion yesterday Articles (by category) Templates Images & media Categories (active) User categories Stub types Redirects Miscellany Deletion review Deletion policy Process – log – tools Guide – Admin guide

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

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

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

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

Contents 1 Before you list a redirect for deletion... 2 The guiding principles of RfD 3 When should we delete a redirect? 3.1 Reasons for deleting 3.2 Reasons for not deleting 3.2.1 Neutrality of redirects 4 Closing notes 5 How to list a redirect for deletion 6 Current list 6.1 October 12 6.2 October 11 6.2.1 All toasters toast toast → Hotel Mario 6.2.2 That Don't Make Me A Bad Guy! → That Don't Make Me a Bad Guy 6.2.3 George Smith Patton → George S. Patton IV 6.3 October 10 6.3.1 Forensics (debate) and courtroom communication → Forensic science 6.3.2 Red Jew → Jewfish 6.4 October 9 6.4.1 Unusual articles → Wikipedia:Unusual articles 6.4.2 Casey Donovan (disambiguation) → Casey Donovan 6.4.3 Halo Blue → Halo 3: Recon 6.4.4 Untitled Halo 3 project → Halo 3: Recon 6.4.5 Untitled Halo project → Halo: Chronicles 6.4.6 Untitled Halo Project → Halo (series)#Spin-offs and sequels 6.4.7 Berbara Bell → Corbara 6.4.8 Berbara → Corbara 6.4.9 Bishop of Żmudź → List of bishops of Samogitia 6.4.10 Text editor support → Wikipedia:Text editor support 6.5 October 8 6.5.1 Aliens of London (Doctor Who) → Aliens of London 6.5.2 Day of the Clown → The Day of the Clown 6.5.3 Brockley CC → List of English cricket clubs 6.5.4 John Allan (1747-1805) → John Allan (colonel) 6.5.5 Template:User Nu Metal → User:Chanakal/Userbox/Nu Metal 6.5.6 Toonami's TOM hosts and SARA hHosts → Toonami glossary 6.6 October 7 6.6.1 February 17, 2009 → 2009#Februrary 6.6.2 ``high school musical`` → High School Musical (song) 6.7 October 6 6.7.1 I want these motherfucking snakes off this motherfucking plane → Snakes on a Plane 6.7.2 Judd Bagley → Overstock.com 6.7.3 6D → Sixpence (disambiguation) 6.7.4 WP:COMMUNISM → Wikipedia:Ownership 6.8 October 5 6.8.1 TheEnvironmentalist → Andrew Tait 6.8.2 Reverse funnel system → Pyramid scheme 6.8.3 Tropical Storm Norbert (2008) → 2008 Pacific hurricane season 6.8.4 As of October 2008 → October 2008 6.8.5 Create artcile → Farigo The International Club for Adventure and Appreciation 6.9 October 4 6.9.1 Albany Firebirds → Indiana Firebirds 6.9.2 Uosdwis R. Dewoh → Homer Simpson 6.9.3 Talk:Game Center CX: Arino's Challenge → Talk:Retro Game Challenge 6.9.4 St. John's Lodge, (New York) → George Washington Inaugural Bible 6.9.5 MOS:IDENTITY → Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Identity 6.9.6 The Castle Jeweler → White Castle Building No. 8 6.9.7 Bayer designations 6.9.8 M Arae → Mu Arae 6.10 October 3 6.10.1 Pyramonster → Eye of Providence 6.10.2 Dead-end pages → Wikipedia:Dead-end pages 6.11 October 2 6.11.1 Jebus (The Simpsons) → The Simpsons#Influences on language 6.11.2 Joey Jo-Jo "Junior" Shabadoo → Homer Simpson 6.11.3 Rock Strongo → Homer Simpson 6.11.4 Homie (The Simpsons) → Homer Simpson 6.11.5 Lance Uppercut → Homer Simpson 6.11.6 Homee → Homer Simpson 6.11.7 H.J. Simpson → Homer Simpson 6.11.8 H. J. Simpson → Homer Simpson 6.11.9 Jeebus (The Simpsons) → Homer Simpson 6.11.10 The Simpsons/Jebus → Homer Simpson 6.11.11 'Barry' Obama → Barack Obama 6.11.12 Lodge meeting → Masonic Lodge

Before you list a redirect for deletion...

...please familiarize yourself with the following:

• Wikipedia:Redirect — our general policy on what redirects are, why they exist, and how they are used.
• Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion — our policy on which pages can be deleted without discussion. The "General" and "Redirects" section apply here.
• Wikipedia:Deletion policy — our deletion policy that describes how we delete things by consensus
• Wikipedia:Guide to deletion — whose guidelines on discussion format and shorthands also apply here

The guiding principles of RfD

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

When should we delete a redirect?

Shortcut: WP:RFD#HARMFUL

Shortcut: WP:RFD#DELETE

1. The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine.
2. The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so it should be deleted.
3. The redirect is offensive, such as "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs", unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is discussed in the article.
4. The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting Google to love.
5. It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exception to this rule is the "CAT:" shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space but in practice form their own "pseudo-namespaces".
6. If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to an article that does not exist or itself, it can be deleted immediately, though you should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first.
7. If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful. Implausible typos or misnomers are potential candidates for speedy deletion, if recently created.

Shortcut: WP:RFD#KEEP

1. They have a potentially useful page history. If the redirect was created by renaming a page with that name, and the page history just mentions the renaming, and for one of the reasons above you want to delete the page, copy the page history to the Talk page of the article it redirects to. The act of renaming is useful page history, and even more so if there has been discussion on the page name.
2. They would aid accidental linking and make the creation of duplicate articles less likely, whether by redirecting a plural to a singular, by redirecting a frequent misspelling to a correct spelling, by redirecting a misnomer to a correct term, by redirecting to a synonym, etc. In other words, redirects with no incoming links are not candidates for deletion on those grounds because they are of benefit to the browsing user. Some extra vigilance by editors will be required to minimize the occurrence of those frequent misspellings in the article texts because the linkified misspellings will not appear as broken links.
3. They aid searches on certain terms.
4. You risk breaking external or internal links by deleting the redirect. Old CamelCase links and old subpage links should be left alone in case there are any existing external links pointing to them.
5. Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful — this is not because the other person is a liar, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways.
6. The redirect is to a plural form or to a singular form.

Neutrality of redirects

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

Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:

1. Articles that are created using non-neutral titles are routinely moved to a new neutral title, which leaves behind the old non-neutral title as a working redirect (e.g. Dalmatian Kristallnacht → Dalmatian anti-Serb riots of May 1991).
2. Articles created as POV forks may be deleted and replaced by a redirect pointing towards the article from which the fork originated (e.g. Barack Obama Muslim rumor → deleted and redirected to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008).
3. The subject matter of articles may be commonly represented outside Wikipedia by non-neutral terms. Such terms cannot be used as Wikipedia article title, per the words to avoid guidelines and the general neutral point of view policy. For instance, the widely used but non-neutral expression "Attorneygate" is used to redirect to the neutrally titled Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. The article in question has never used that title, but the redirect was created to provide an alternative means of reaching it.

If a redirect is not an established term and is unlikely to be used by searchers, it is unlikely to be useful and may reasonably be nominated for deletion. However, if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources (as defined by Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources), it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms. Please keep in mind that RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes.

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

Closing notes

Details at: Wikipedia:Deletion process#Redirects for discussion page

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 deletion

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

I.

Flag the redirect.   Enter {{rfd}} above the #REDIRECT on the redirect page you are listing for deletion. Example: {{rfd}} #REDIRECT [[Foo]] If the redirect is to a category or image, make sure there is a colon ( : ) before "Category:" or "Image:". 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]] You can check the "Watch this page" box to follow the page in your watchlist. This allows you to notice if the RfD tag is removed by a vandal. Save the page.

II.

List the entry on RfD.  Click on THIS LINK to edit the section of RfD for today's entries. Enter this text below the date heading: {{subst:rfd2|redirect=RedirectName|target=TargetArticle|text=Reason the redirect should be deleted}} ~~~~ 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=. If the redirect or its target is a category or an image, make sure there is a colon ( : ) before "Category:" or "Image:". Please use an edit summary such as: Nominating [[PageName]] replacing PageName with the name of the redirect you are nominating. To list multiple related redirects for deletion, provide a separate link for each listing under a single heading and detail your listing reasons below the last redirect (example).

• Please consider using WhatLinksHere 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|PAGENAME}}

  may be placed on the creator/main contributors user talk page to provide notice of the discussion. Please replace PAGENAME with the name of the redirect and use an edit summary such as:
  Notice of redirect discussion at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]]

Current list

October 12

October 11

All toasters toast toast → Hotel Mario

Only barely mentioned in article. I know exactly what this refers to, but it seems a bit too narrow a search term. Note that similar redirects such as I hope she made lotsa spaghetti were deleted. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

That Don't Make Me A Bad Guy! → That Don't Make Me a Bad Guy

Very unlikely that anyone would add an exclamation mark to the album's title. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

George Smith Patton → George S. Patton IV

Looped back to the page of origin. I corrected the link on the page of origin to point to the target directly. There were no other links. Ineuw (talk) 01:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Disambiguate. As you note on the redirect page in question, this seems like it was originally intended to distinguish two people named "George S. Patton", which seems like a useful thing to do. Making a disambiguation page will do that. By the way, thanks for fixing the incorrect link. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

October 10

Forensics (debate) and courtroom communication → Forensic science

Awkward title with incorrect disambiguation leads to confusion as to possible meaning because "forensics" here has two different meanings (and thus two potential targets if the redirect is kept) - as shorthand for "forensic science", and as the art and science of public speaking. This redirect clearly does not belong in Wikipedia 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 15:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. As noted, this is ambiguous and therefore seriously flawed. It's also not likely to be used for anything, because of the atypical format. This is better off not existing. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Red Jew → Jewfish

This redirected to Jewfish, which I converted to a dab, but actually refers (apparently) to 2 species of Lutjanus that are redlinks. Lutjanus currently redirects to the family, Lutjanidae, which is too broad a topic to include this informal name. It will be a useful redirect when the species (or genus) articles are up, but a dab with only two redlinks sucks. cygnis insignis 05:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed above target form redlink to Jewfish because I understand that this is what we're discussing.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Dabify. In addition to being alternate (local) names for the crimson snapper (Lutjanus erythropterus) and the Malabar blood snapper (Lutjanus malabaricus), "Red Jews" were a legendary Jewish nation that 14th Century sources asserted to be a threat to Christianity, and "The Red Jew" is the name of a 1915 painting by Marc Chagall. I should point out that both of the fish species mentioned appear to have numerous local (and obsolete) names. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 14:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

October 9

Unusual articles → Wikipedia:Unusual articles

Non-encyclopaedic, cross-namespace redirect. — neuro^(talk) 21:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Casey Donovan (disambiguation) → Casey Donovan

Pointless. Since article names now pre-fill as they are typed in the search box, once someone types as far as "Casey Don" they will have both disambiguated articles along with the page to which this re-directs. Otto4711 (talk) 21:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Redirecting titles like Foo (disambiguation) to the actual disambiguation page for the topic "Foo" is generally useful, since it documents that the target page is a dabpage and ensures that external links to Foo (disambiguation) will work – our use of "(disambiguation)" as a naming convention is fairly well known, but we shouldn't rely on readers understanding when we use it and when we don't. It also helps searching; though it's true that the autosuggestion feature lessens the need for this function, it does not eliminate it entirely. Granted, this is a small disambiguation page, but the redirect is still helpful. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, with the auto-fill Casey Dovan will come up just before his disambig page, and 99% chance the non disambig will be clicked on. CTJF83Talk 06:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Halo Blue → Halo 3: Recon

Untitled Halo 3 project → Halo 3: Recon

Untitled Halo project → Halo: Chronicles

Untitled Halo Project → Halo (series)#Spin-offs and sequels

All four of the above Halo-related redirects are implausible. The first is the result of some creative speculation and has nothing to do with the target, and the latter three are too vague to be of any help, especially considering that all currently announced Halo projects have already been given official names. The similarity of the last three redirects is also confusing since each one links to a markedly different article. It is unlikely any of these will be helpful or commonly used search terms. -- Commdor {Talk} 19:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Delete all four as very confusing redirects. The latter three demonstrate the necessity and wisdom of WP:CRYSTAL. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 19:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delete shades of WP:HAMMER. JuJube (talk) 21:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Berbara Bell → Corbara

No mention in target article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I would agree this redirect to be deleted because it dosen't make sense at all Anthony Alda (talk) 20:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. JuJube (talk) 21:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Berbara → Corbara

No mention in target article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I would agree this redirect to be deleted because it dosen't make sense at all Anthony Alda (talk) 20:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. JuJube (talk) 21:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Bishop of Żmudź → List of bishops of Samogitia

"Bishop of Żmudź" is not used nor in Google books nor in Google scholar. Have no establish academic usage in English speaking word. In contrast to proper render "Bishop of Samogitia" M.K. (talk) 11:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep The entry for Żmudź has one of the two options "as Polish name for Samogitia, a region of Lithuania". This is perfectly acceptable and has been used in various sources such as here and here. JASpencer (talk) 17:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It's also likely to be used in text from the polish wikipedia such as this example. JASpencer (talk) 17:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

We are not discussing redirect Żmudź, but Bishop of Żmudź; Google books gives ZERO hints, Google scholar gives ZERO hints.BTW, in your presented webs (are they within WP:RS?) there is no Bishop of Żmudź.Not even mentioning WP:N. M.K. (talk) 11:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

There are two mentions of the Bishop of Zmudz in Google books, the episcopal lineage of Pope Pius XI (one of the two sources you called into question) mentions Mieczyslaw Leonard Pallulon, Bishop of Zmudzand the other page is headed Diocese of Samogizia o Tels (Zmudz). JASpencer (talk) 07:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep per JASpencer. Polish names are applicable for that period, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a good argument for deletion.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Keep as context is established in the target list article (although an explanation for the alternate title would be most helpful there). Even if it were never the official title for the bishop of that region in the appropriate era, the fact that the redirect's title incorporates an alternate name for the region makes it a very plausible search term indeed. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 18:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Google books 0 hints, Google scholar 0 hints, also per WP:N and WP:NOT concerns. M.K. (talk) 11:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Text editor support → Wikipedia:Text editor support

I'm not entirely sure what the policy is for Article -> WP but I don't believe that these spaces should be linked. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Redirect is from 2005 and doesn't link to any pages outside of listing it as a crossnamespace redirect. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 09:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as an unneeded cross-namespace redirect (for the record, policy heavily discourages these, but does not prohibit them). The concept of "text editor support" could apply to any number of things, not just Wikipedia, so pointing this at project space is wrong. However, the redirect is also not specific enough to determine exactly what's wanted, so this is best as a red link. Alternately, it could be retargeted to text editor, but that's unlikely to be the intended target of a search on this phrase, so I feel the red link is better. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delete CNR. JuJube (talk) 21:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

October 8

Aliens of London (Doctor Who) → Aliens of London

Unusually, I'm putting this redirect up because I think it should be kept. Edokter deleted it twice, despite a relatively longstanding guideline at WP:TV-NC that recommended that such redirects be created and kept. I've given some of the history and justifications for keeping redirects of this sort at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Redirects. I invite editors who deal with redirects on a regular basis to join that conversation, to determine the fate of redirects of this sort. (In short: we name TV episode articles by the standard Wikipedia rule "disambiguate only when necessary", but we also create redirects with "unnecessary" disambiguators for the ease of readers looking for articles.) Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I feel it is simply unnecessary disambiguation to an unambigous title. New readers are unlikely to search with a (xxx episode) as a suffix. The new searchbox also has no need for these redirects, as these only pollute the list of suggestions with redirects pointing to the same article. In short, unambigous titles should not have ambigous redirects. — Edokter • Talk • 18:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Note — it's worth re-emphasizing that these redirects were recommended by a guideline that's been in place since 2006, until Edokter tried to change it today. Of course, consensus can change, but not without discussion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Redirects are cheap. There's no reason to get rid of a redirect which might potentially be useful. Especially with these TV episodes, sometimes it's tricky to know if one should link to the title, or the title plus the disambig. Which doesn't mean that every episode has to have these extra disambig redirects, but if one's created, it's not worth the fuss to delete it. See also WP:REDIRECT#CRD. --Elonka 19:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • But not free. More redirects mean more to keep track of. And linking should actually be easier, as a red link will tell you instantly that the link is wrong, which in turn encourages proper linking. — Edokter • Talk • 20:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
    • A redlink also causes frustration and wasted time, as it's necessary to track down the "correct" link just to get things to turn blue. And to be honest, when I'm writing an article, if my "first guess" for a link turns out to be red, rather than just fixing the link, I'm inclined to fix it and create a redirect at the same time, since if I guessed wrong on a link once, I and/or others are likely to do it again. --Elonka 20:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Keep foreseeable search item, and in this case, the cost of deletion could very well be greater than the cost of keeping. Is it a confusing redirect? No... Is it an implausible typo that diminishes its value as a search item? No... Does its inclusion aid accidental linking? Yes, as it is quite likely that someone could otherwise attempt to write a duplicate article for the TV episode with this title. Reading WP:RfD#KEEP and WP:RfD#DELETE, I am much more pursuaded by the "keep" arguments than the (much rarer) "delete" arguments here (and up top). 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 20:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Elonka. Just today I was looking for a song and went straight to it by using "<title> (song)" without using the search box etc. I see the housekeeping aspect, but it really doesn't seem to be a problem. Verbal chat 21:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Keep since people who don't know our naming conventions will often assume certain standardized formats that aren't always used. -- Ned Scott 03:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Day of the Clown → The Day of the Clown

Redirects are cheap, but not free, and the is a wildfire of redirects growing that is unnecessary. One of such is this one, which is an episode title. The episode has the unambigous name "The Day of the Clown". The redirect is simply incorrect and will likewise encourage linking to the incorrect title. — Edokter • Talk • 17:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Reliable sources reported the episode title as "Day of the Clown" before the episode's actual airing revealed the correct title. Furthermore, the addition or subtraction of the definite article is a plausible mistake for a reader to make when searching for a title. If we had an article for some other subject titled "Day of the Clown", we would have a disambiguating hatnote at the head of it pointing to The Day of the Clown. Since we don't, we should keep the redirect. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Harmless redirect, someome might indeed forget "The". Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - WP:NC is a bit ambiguous on the naming convention for an article of a television episode or series. Keeping this in mind, it is most highly likely that a Wikipedia reader would omit the definite article in his/her/its search. In addition, if the name of the redirect were indeed mentioned in reliable sources for the episode before someone changed the name, the redirect should be left behind as a plausible search term as well. 147.70.242.40 (talk), temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 21:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a plausible redirect, that is not doing any harm. --Elonka 13:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• Keep plausible search. Tim! (talk) 17:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Josiah Rowe and similar examples such as Day of the Triffids and (alternatively) The Return of the Jedi - these are common search mistakes Stephenb (Talk) 18:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Brockley CC → List of English cricket clubs

Original arcticle reduced to a redirect instead of being deleted as a non-notable local cricket team. Target article has been cleaned up and is now no longer directly relevant to the subject. bigissue (talk) 14:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

John Allan (1747-1805) → John Allan (colonel)

I don't think a wikilink to the subject's name with the year of birth and date of death is a good idea. I think we should delete it. Nothing of importance points to it yet. Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 09:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as premature and potentially confusing. I can see disambiguating on the basis of birth and death years only if there is no other basis available for disambiguation (such as contemporary artists or baseball players with the same name). 147.70.242.40 (talk), temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 21:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• The page was created at John Allan (1747-1805) but I moved it to the more appropriate colonel. I see no need for this redirect to continue; no actual articles link to the old title. Boleyn (talk) 11:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:User Nu Metal → User:Chanakal/Userbox/Nu Metal

no links to the redirect page, besides only two users using target userbox one is me chanakal (talk) 06:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Template:Nu Metal
• Delete - cross-namespace redirect into userspace. As originator of the original redirect, nom could ask for speedy deletion, CSD G7. 147.70.242.40 (talk), temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 20:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • That's incorrect, it's only a speedy if it's from the article space. -- Ned Scott 03:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• I'd say keep because redirects are cheap, but I don't feel strongly about it. Consider me neutral. -- Ned Scott 03:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - cross-namespace redirect into userspace. I reread CSD R2 and it does say from article space. I messed up in requesting speedy deletion for the redirect. I opened a thread on this. -- Suntag ☼ 17:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• I've speedied this as R2 although it also qualified as G7; if anyone objects let me know. Stifle (talk) 18:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Toonami's TOM hosts and SARA hHosts → Toonami glossary

This is an old redirect (created in Oct. 2007) that includes a typo. It has no significant page history, and no article links to this one. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 08:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

October 7

February 17, 2009 → 2009#Februrary

(or wherever it goes) Possibly could redirect to DTV transition in the United States, but I think it's better left red. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as an IAR delete. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 20:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per precedents for deleting redirects from date unless the date is out-of-the-ordinary, such as September 11, 2001 and December 7, 1941. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 23:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

``high school musical`` → High School Musical (song)

October 6

I want these motherfucking snakes off this motherfucking plane → Snakes on a Plane

Overlong and unlikely search term, plus a misquote to boot. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Delete but only because it's a misquote :D -- Ned Scott 02:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - a misquote, and therefore very unlikely as a search term.
• Delete Misquote. GlassCobra 12:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Highly unlikely search term. CTJF83Talk 06:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Judd Bagley → Overstock.com

I'll cheerfully admit that I'm nominating this for deletion as a result of something I read at Wikipedia Review, but I don't think that diminishes the validity of this at all.. Judd Bagley's connection to Overstock.com is that he was a onetime employee, and that he also worked for another of Patrick Byrne's companies at one point. The article to which he currently redirects does not so much as mention him, and any reader seeking information about him will not be served by being redirected to it. This is not about Bagley's tactics in the whole naked shorting affair, which I find as repugnant as anybody, but about the usefulness of this redirect, which is nil. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Note. Redirect was created in the wake of second AfD of Judd Bagley article. The discussion for the first AfD can be found here. The first AfD (January 2007) closed as "delete"; the second (September 2007) closed as "delete and redirect". 147.70.242.40 (talk) 14:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Since the Overstock article does not seem to mention Bagley, and thus the connection is unexplained to the reader, delete. Anyone searching for Bagley (and would anyone?) and being redirected there, might have no idea why.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 20:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep after having read the AfD. Although he's not mentioned in the article the name's more than likely to be a search term and Judd Bagley is very much associated in Overstock's crusade. JASpencer (talk) 21:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• So if we accept that he is likely to be used as a search term, what purpose is there in directing the searcher to an article that doesn't so much as mention him? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

If his association with overstock is not significant enough to be mentioned in the article, how is it significant enough for a redirect to the article?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 07:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

One of the more irritating points in these deletion discussions is the insistence that things have to be mentioned in the articles. Well, it should say it in the policy if it's going to be insisted on. It doesn't. It's a useful indication but it is not a hard a fast rule. (1) Could it be useful ofr a background on Judd Bagley? Yes. (2) Is it a potential search term? Yes. Why is it easier to get a redirect deleted than an article? JASpencer (talk) 21:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Because articles need citations, and tell the reader what the connections are especially with BLPs. You want to link a guy to a company, without any explanation of the link, and with no citations to back it up. There's no way a redirect can be qualified and explained - thus we need to be very careful.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 21:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Further comment If this is deleted we are also removing an edit history and Talk:Judd Bagley. After some background reading I can see he's got a bad reputation as a wikistalker and there may be some desire to get rid of any mention of him, but I think that this would be ill advised. JASpencer (talk) 08:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

6D → Sixpence (disambiguation)

WP:COMMUNISM → Wikipedia:Ownership

I have serious concern with this. It looks like an off hand, anti-communist gag that REALLY doesn't belong here. I would like to propose the speedy deletion of this redirect. --Ipatrol (talk) 01:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as potentially confusing. Would any admin like to speedy this as a test? 147.70.242.40 on workmate's computer (talk) 21:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy already agreed as not the route - however; I think this redirect will only serve to create flame wars, unrest and upset.

Scenario: Editor 1 reverts some edits by Editor 2. Editor 2 suggests talk page. Editor 2 says "Well I wrote that so please don't touch it". Editor 1 says "Well, sorry but you don't own the article."

Other Scenario: Editor 1 reverts some edits by Editor 2. Editor 2 suggests talk page. Editor 2 says "Well I wrote that so please don't touch it". Editor 1 says "Well, sorry but you don't own the article."

(please hover other the blue links to get my drift). What's the outcome of being accused of ownership issues? What's the outcome of being accused of ownership issues with a bunch of sarcasm thrown in? I've nothing against communism in this context, but it is clearly being used pejoratively. This redirect does not help, it only serves to hinder or belittle. No gag is worth irritating other editors and this does not encourage a collegial atmosphere. Delete Pedro :  Chat  21:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• For goodness sake, it isn't a cold-war gag. It's simple "Wikipedia articles are not privately owned - please don't think this is yours but understand WP:COMMUNISM." Communism here is not red-socialism but the practice of holding ownership in COMMON - see also "living in a commune". It is a philosophy practised by the early Christians (Acts 4) and Jewish kibbutzim, not just Marxists. It is very appropriate as a wikipedia philosophy. Wikipedia is communism: no one owns the product and all work for the common good. Oh, Keep. --Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Not really appropriate. GlassCobra 12:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

October 5

TheEnvironmentalist → Andrew Tait

This redirect is the name under which the target article was created two days ago. I moved the page to the more appropriate title Andrew Tait. Although I am not asking for a deletion of this redirect, I can think of many much more appropriate targets.  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Delete malformed title (it should be "The Environmentalist" with a space). There is already a standalone article with the appropriately-formatted name. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 17:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Are you suggesting that's where this redirect should be retargeted? -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 19:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I've suggested that it be deleted, not retargeted. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as misleading because he's not the enviromentalist...David Suzuki is. ;). Nevertheless, delete. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 21:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to The Environmentalist with the space. The space less search could come up when a user types too quickly and misses the space. CTJF83Talk 06:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Reverse funnel system → Pyramid scheme

Tropical Storm Norbert (2008) → 2008 Pacific hurricane season

Remouns Norbert article Leave Message orYellow Evan home 03:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:WPTC consensus about articles on non-impact EPac storms, this article should not exist at this time. — jdorje (talk) 03:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

What does "remouns" mean? I don't understand what Yellow Evan is saying. Plasticup ^T/C 03:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. It is a redirect, so technically not an article. If someone is to look for the "N" storm of 2008, there you go. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

An article is trying to be created.Leave Message orYellow Evan home 03:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

There is consensus to not have an article at the moment. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

We he gets back he will see a big surprise.Leave Message orYellow Evan home 16:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

This is the new Norbert article.Leave Message orYellow Evan home 16:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. If it is determined this storm is significant enough to have an article, the article can be created. There's no need to delete the redirect first. --UsaSatsui (talk) 16:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Discussion not necessary per UsaSatsui: The only discussion is whether an article needs to be created. That's a discussion best handled on one of the tropical-cyclone discussion pages, not here. If someone jumps the gun and creates an article before it meets the criteria agreed upon by the editors of tropical cyclone article editors, well, that's what WP:MERGE discussions are for. Recommend speedy close of this RfD by an un-involved editor as wrong venue for discussion and/or discussion not required at this time. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Ammended If there is a draft of a suitable article in user-space, and this redirect has no history other than a redirect but for whatever reason move-over-redirect fails, it can be speedy-deleted under category G6 to make way for a move so the history of the draft can be preserved. Again, no discussion is required so this RfD can be closed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Keep redirect as Tropical Storm Norbert does exist (as of 3 October). The redirect can be overwritten by an appropriate article whenever the Wikiproject members deem appropriate. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 14:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral as even though Nobert does exist, not sure anyone would type in the (2008) part. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 21:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • It's needed as there are other storms named Norbert. --UsaSatsui (talk) 23:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

As of October 2008 → October 2008

I don't see the usefulness of this redirect. Not an obvious delete, but it should be discussed nevertheless.  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The usefulness is in categorizing dated statements in a way that they can be checked, but these pages are deprecated by use of the special {{as of}} template. The redirect isn't necessary.--chaser - t 06:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Unlikely search term CTJF83Talk 06:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Create artcile → Farigo The International Club for Adventure and Appreciation

October 4

Uosdwis R. Dewoh → Homer Simpson

Implausible search term. David Pro (talk) 20:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC) David Pro (talk) 20:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, police chief wiggum did confuse Homer with this name, why not others? Bambinn (talk) 20:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Chief Wiggum is not entering searches on Wikipedia. Delete. --UsaSatsui (talk) 16:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • And he didn't really confuse Homer with this name, he just read a tomb stone upside down. CTJF83Talk 06:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delete the relevant episode here is Mother Simpson, but not every nickname Homer ever went by needs a redirect. JuJube (talk) 09:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Unlikely search term CTJF83Talk 06:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Game Center CX: Arino's Challenge → Talk:Retro Game Challenge

Unnecessary talk page redirect. jj984jj 15:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Documents the page move. No real reason to delete. --UsaSatsui (talk) 16:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

St. John's Lodge, (New York) → George Washington Inaugural Bible

Inappropriate redirect. Target article is about a notable bible That this bible is owned by the the subject of the redirect is mentioned only in passing in the target article. The redirect was created as a last ditch attempt to save an impropper dab page from deletion. Blueboar (talk) 13:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Created as a redirect because they own that particular book. This entry was already listed on the dab page in question before deletion was proposed so the idea that it would somehow influence the argument is a misconception. Indeed, the original entry for the page that would later become a disambig page was a redirect to to the Bible (I later changed this because there where other entries and so I thought a disambiguation page was more in order). JASpencer (talk) 14:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• keep Is a logical place to redirect since someone might be looking for info about the book. Moreover, since the article actually mentions the lodge there's no compelling reason not to have a redirect. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delete improperly named redirect. Had it been St. John's Lodge (New York), or (shakily so) St. John's Lodge, New York, I would have urged a "keep" (although the latter appears to be inconsistent with Wikipedia disambiguation policies and guidelines). Nominated redirect is some hodgepodge between the two disambiguation methods, and having both the comma and the parentheses stretches the boundary of plausible search terms. Delete as confusing as to disambiguation. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 18:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough on the hodgepodge of styles. I've created a redirect on the suggested style and replaced it in the article in which it appears. Not sure if it's the end of the world if it stays, but certainly not the end of the world if it goes. JASpencer (talk) 21:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)