Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Woohookitty (talk | contribs) at 00:53, 1 May 2005 (→April 30). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template loop detected: Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion/Header

Holding pen

Some redirects cannot be deleted because of a temporary software limitation. They are listed here until the limitation is removed and they can be finally deleted.

December 12

  • Cornell Hangovers : Target of Redirect does not exist : Target is: Cornell University Glee Club
  • Cornell University Hangovers : Target of Redirect does not exist : Target is: Cornell University Glee Club
    • (Offstage cursing and gnashing of teeth.) The first use to redirect to the second, which used to have content. The second was later turned into a redirect to a third article, one that was later deleted for copyvio. I'd just restore the content on the second, except... that one was VfD'd, but I can't find any record of the discussion on Wikipedia:Archived delete debates/May to Jun 2004, which is the relevant time period. Bah. Maybe I'll just restore the content, and let someone VfD it properly this time. Noel (talk) 00:18, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete Masterhomer 21:51, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete both. Unlikely that the historical revisions would survive VfD and no one has done anything to this well over a month. jni 15:21, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Been busy with WP:AN; I'll try and get to these soon. Noel (talk) 18:54, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Current list

Older unfinished requests are at Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion/Old.

February 4

  • Gundam Seed Episode 1 → Cosmic Era episode list - I'm not sure whether to list this here or VfD. It was a very small article, since merged into the redirection, but doesn't seem to warrant its own existence as a redirect. 132.205.15.43 05:50, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • This one has history - need to check to see if it was used to prepare an article, if so cannot delete, will have to archive. Noel (talk) 13:52, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • PHASE-01 → Cosmic Era episode list - I'm not sure whether to list this here or VfD. It was a very small article, since merged into the redirection, but doesn't seem to warrant its own existence as a redirect. From appearances, orignally it was a copyedit of Gundam Seed Episode 1. 132.205.15.43 05:56, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Ditto for this one. Noel (talk) 15:22, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

February 7

  • Stub → Wikipedia:Find or fix a stub. Self reference as well, and, if deleted, will allow for moving of Stub (disambiguation). — Itai (f&t) 13:05, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd recomment redirecting Stub to Stub (disambiguation); see User:Jnc/Disambiguation for my reasoning as to why. Noel (talk) 14:59, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Much better practice would be to delete Stub and move Stub (disambiguation) to that title. -- Netoholic @ 19:11, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)
      • Why not make it easy to see when someone has linked to what's actually a disambig page? Noel (talk) 20:10, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Also, this page has a zillion pages linking to it; some of them undoubtly expect the existing linked meaning. Noel (talk) 15:02, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, I know. Still, Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. — Itai (f&t) 15:12, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Sure, but since you're one moving the deletion, you get to organize fixing them! :-) I already did my bit on the ones above... Noel (talk) 16:59, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • I need to do this? Whatever happened to the gnomes? <sigh>. Nice job on the first four. I took care of everything I could regarding stub - of course, I cannot modify text in the Talk: and User: namespaces. — Itai (f&t) 18:08, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Actually, I think it's generally agreed to be OK to edit User: and Talk: pages to fix links that would otherwise be broken. Certainly, when we were deleting all the redirects from the main namespace to User:, we sure edited a lot of User: and Talk: pages! Noel (talk) 18:03, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • Are you sure I won't be lynched if I edit User: and Talk: pages? If I am, do you promise to continue my legacy? (Never leave edit summaries. Mark all edits as minor.) — Itai (f&t) 23:02, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Still has lots of links to it, most presumably being to the old meaning. Noel (talk) 02:30, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

March 6

  • Nelli Kim/Temp → Nelli Kim. Remnant of a copyvio repair. I'm amazed there isn't a csd case for this. —Korath (Talk) 10:48, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • I think these can be deleted right away as continuation of copyvio process, like orphan talk pages can be deleted if the article they are for has been deleted per VfD. If it was listed 7 days in WP:CP and no one objected to the moving of /Temp over article, then we IMHO already have enough consensus for trivialities like this. jni 12:41, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Be bold and edit CSD to include this case too, and see if it sticks. Personally I think it's a good idea. Noel (talk) 13:40, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

March 9

  • Chewing → Mastication --Djanvk 03:55, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • This listing is confused. Chewing is an article, listed to be merged with [Mastication]. So far, so good. However, once the content is merged, we need a redirect at the other one, otherwise someone will just re-create the page. In addition, we need to keep the edit history of the one that was turned into a redirect, for Wikipedia:Copyright reasons. Noel (talk) 21:11, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Random page → Special:Randompage - An especially unpleasant cross-namespace redirect, since it doesn't leave the "Redirect from..." line. See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Random page. —Korath (Talk) 12:06, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • Already left a 'delete'-vote to the VfD page. jni 12:48, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm curious, why is this 'considered harmful'? The user asks for a random page, and gets exactly that: a random space. It's not really cross-namespace, as special:randompage once more returns to a normal namespace. Radiant! 14:38, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree with Radiant. The user gets what he asks for (something random) and it doesn't really cross namespaces. Jonathunder 07:03, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)
    • I think the issue with "cross-space redirects" is that we have people who take copies of the database - but only of the main article namespace. So for them, a redirect to Special: wouldn't work. What might work is to make the redirect to a URL for Special:Randompage, like this, which will work from anywhere. Noel (talk) 00:02, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep this, people who suck down copies of the database wholesale can fix their own problems. SchmuckyTheCat 14:44, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Since this problem is the reason we get rid of cross-space redirects to Wikipedia (among others), I find your line of reasoning here unpersuasive. If it's a good enough reason to get rid of Wikipedia: redirects, it ought to apply here, too, no? Noel (talk) 14:54, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

March 12

March 20

  • "welfare capitalism" → Welfare capitalism - More "quoted" to unquoted redirects. – ABCD 19:17, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • The ones that are left have content history, and at least one of them was merged (i.e. the history contains info on the contribution of material used in an article), so it can't be simply ditched; will have to archive, or something. Noel (talk) 12:34, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep There is no good reason to delete this. Burgundavia 17:13, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

March 26

March 27

  • MPEG-4 Version 3 → MPEG-4 Layer 3 Delete because the "version 3" page seems to have been created by someone confused about the correct terminology. There really is no such thing as MPEG-4 Version 3, and if there was, it would be something else. Cat5nap 06:41, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • This may be an error, but Yahoo shows about 1,100 hits for "MPEG-4 Version 3". So maybe we need to turn that into a short article explaining that it's a mistake, and linking to the right place? Noel (talk) 14:44, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • MPEG-4 Layer 3 → MPEG-4 Part 3 Delete because the "layer 3" page seems to have been created by someone confused about the correct terminology. There really is no such thing as MPEG-4 Layer 3, although if there was, it might be something in MPEG-4 Part 3. The root of this problem seems to have been because some "parts" of MPEG standards include "layers" within them. (Most notably, MPEG-1 Part 3 includes a "Layer 3" that is now very widely known as MP3.) Someone got the impression that the "parts" were called "layers", and unfortunately started naming pages accordingly. Cat5nap 06:51, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

March 31

  • Ipod halo effect → Ipod - Redirects to a non-existent section of article. rae 21:25, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Section targets don't work in redirects anyway, so the question is "do we keep the redir anyway" (no idea, myself). Noel (talk) 00:23, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Preserve history. There was a stub [1] before it was merged into iPod [2] as a section. Then the section was moved to the introduction [3] and halo effect turned into gateway drug. It is now part of the history section of iPod. GFDL considerations may make deleting it difficult. And (ignoring capital letter errors) it is a common enough phrase [4] with 7,000 hits. My view is that it (the current redirect and history) should be moved to iPod halo effect, and the contents of the old stub should be merged into halo effect. I don't mind whether the redirect points to iPod or halo effect, but I think deletion of the history would be wrong. --Henrygb 00:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, we have to keep the history for Wikipedia:Copyright - content from this page was used on a live page. After looking into this, probably the right thing is to do just as Henrygb suggests - keep the page, move it to the correct capitalization, and redirect to Halo effect (redirecting to iPod it too diffuse a target - most of that article is not relevant). The other option would be to archive it as a Talk: subpage of iPod, and reference it on Talk:iPod. Any preferences? Noel (talk) 14:40, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 7

April 10

  • Prussian Holocaust - POV term of very limited usage. A significant parst of google hits is from several wikipedia's artices and mushroomed mirrors. It is proposed to discuss this issue at the VfD page Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Prussian Holocaust for broader participation. Mikkalai 23:05, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • This is currently the subject of a VfD debate - should this listing be deleted, in favour of the one there? Noel (talk) 01:12, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I have closed the VfD. The result was no consensus. This article will not be deleted as a result of the VfD discussion. I suggest that the RFD also be closed (I've left the RFD tag there for now). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:54, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. The result of VfD-debate was 12 delete (as redirect or article), 5 keep, 2 no vote. Some of the arguments the "Keep"-votes were based on turned out to be wrong. How big the majority has to be? Jesusfreund 20:11, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • The redirect does no harm and might conceivably be useful. Nobody managed to create a consensus contradicting this, or present convincing arguments. The redirect stays. — Helpful Dave 22:03, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. I closed the deletion process and determined that there was no consensus to delete. My criterion is that something clearly over 80% is definitely deletable, over 75% I'm looking hard at individual votes, 75% or less I usually determine to be no consensus. And it does not seem right to me that a redirect should be subject to two deletion processes, but if we're going to rerun I will exert my vote on principle to keep, because that seemed to me to to be the result of the earlier process and I think this should be reflected somehow in the votes on this much more exclusive venue. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:19, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Weakish keep. Not only does this not seem to me to fit any of the qualifications or precedents for deleting a redirect, but it could be useful under reason not to delete #2 (preventing accidental article duplication). The term is used in reality (well, a little bit) and is mentioned in the article redirected to (well, a little bit). Nickptar 22:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • User:Helpful Dave's opinion I find obnoxious (manipulating Wikipedia for the purposes of any political propaganda is harmful, and the harm is multiplied x100 when the political ends the propogands serves are neo-nazi ones: were there encyclopedic value to the term there would be a case for an NPOV article documenting the term's usage would have value, but since there is no such value this point is moot, a redirect is in any case POV), but I think it is out of order to use this as a second referendum. Since the page was not a rediect at the time of any votes, I propose firstly keep and that we interpret the keep votes as indicating a brief article summarising the facts along the lines of It appears that some editors with sympathies for neonazi causes wish the term Prussian Holocaust to be regarded as a synonym for Evacuation of East Prussia, although at the time of writing this term is not used outside of Wikipedia. This motives of these editors appear to be to ground a moral equivalency argument between this event and the Shoah, a strategy used elsewhere such as with Bombing of Dresden in World War II. Note that most of the keep votes in the VfD process were ambiguous, and a plain redirect would be inconsistent with neutrality. In three months or so, we can start the VfD process again, hopefully with a more useful-idiot-proof formlation of the case for deletion. --- Charles Stewart 08:17, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep, and I agree strongly w Chammy Koala. Sam Spade 11:49, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. The worh "holocaust" is abused in numerous other cases; Jews did not happen to put a trademark upon it, and I am sure over time more "microholocausts" will appear. The fact that the term is someone's propaganda effort it irelevant. Want it or not, neonazis are visible, and their terminology must be known. (BTW, I don't know whether the "PH" is nenonazi's invention. It is obvious that there are quite a few Germans who have direct reasons to genuive feelings of this kind) Mikkalai 17:37, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually the term pre-dates nazism, and was used to describe a WWI library burning. I quote:
      German troops marched into Leuven, which was shortly before declared an open city. On the 25th of august, the Belgian army launched a counterattack. The Belgian army broke through the German defence lines at certain points, and pushed them back towards Leuven. There anxious civilians and German soldiers listened to the thundering gunfire. In the evening, when the battle was over, German troops marched back into Leuven. And then disaster happened. The German soldiers in Leuven who had been waiting for their comrades to return from the battlefield, mistook them for Belgian soldiers and commenced firing. Several German soldiers were killed or wounded. As soon as they realised what really happened, they falsely accused the civilians of Leuven of having cowardly shot German soldiers. Revenge was swift and brutal. During the next days hundreds of civilians were murdered or deported, more than a thousand houses and public buildings were destroyed. Our university library unfortunately went up in flames. Not one book or manuscript survived the inferno.
      The destruction of Leuven and especially its library provoked an international scandal. Amongst many others Sir Arthur Evans protested in a letter to The Times:
      'Sir, may I be allowed to voice the horror and profound indignation at the Prussian holocaust of Louvain. (…) The holocaust of Louvain should at least have the effect of electrifying all the more intellectual elements of our country with a new vigour of determination to overthrow the ruthless regime of blood and iron imposed by Prussian arrogance on 20th century Europe.' (The Times, september 1st , 1914).[5]
      Sam Spade 21:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 11

  • Warschau -> Warsaw. This is the English Wikipedia, we don't need a redirect to every place in the world from evey language's version of the name. Besides, Warschau is being used in some weird German nationalist campaign to get the Warsaw article renamed to Warschau on the specious grounds that it's a German city. RickK 01:08, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep - it doesn't hurt and IMHO the more redirs we have the better. Halibutt 07:19, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
      • Halibutt is the User who created the redirect. So, then, are you going to create redirects for the spelling of Warsaw in every other language in the world, or are you limiting your redirect creation to the German nationlist version? And have you created a redirect to "Warsaw" and "Warszawa" in the German language Wikipedia? RickK 19:42, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. Basically harmless and potentionally useful for German speakers. As for POV campaign, it is easy to make sure this stays as a redirect, instead of being expanded. I wouldn't mind seeing more redirects derived from List of European cities with alternative names. jni 05:56, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • We do have some redirects from city names in foreign languages (e.g. Beyrouth -> Beirut), but in general we don't do them unless they are forms that have had (at some point, at least) some amount of use in English-language writing. I don't think Warschau passes this test - I've never seen it referred to as anything except "Warsaw" in English. Noel (talk) 01:18, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep.If you look up warschau on google there are 74,000 English pages. Can't see a good reason not to keep it. It's only a redirect.--Chammy Koala 16:06, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete, POV-pushing. A redirect from Warszawa is proper, since the native language of the city is Polish. —Korath (Talk) 17:04, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. Absolutely no reason to delete this potentially useful redirect. It is no more POV-pushing than Warszawa. — Helpful Dave 18:23, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. I'm not a German nationalist and I found this vote by trying to reach Warsaw from Warschau, having just seen The Pianist. Call me stupid for not remembering the "proper" English name if you must. JRM 19:08, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)

April 12

  • Trigraph (computing) -> C_trigraph. Trigraphs are particular to C. I repointed existing pages to the new article; the old page is an orphan. Akihabara 13:42, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • C_Trigraph -> C_trigraph. Typo. I repointed existing pages to the new article, so the old page is an orphan. Akihabara 13:42, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Trigraphs are not particular to C, neither are computer trigraphs, neither is the topic of the page, termed a "trigraph sequence", which also occurs in SQL. I fear something is not quite right here. Aliter 16:46, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • C trigraphs (the subject of the new page) are particular to the C family of languages, which is how the link from the disambiguation Trigraph page is labelled. Any other meanings of trigraphs should get new pages linked from the Trigraph disambiguation page. I see little point in keeping the redirects. Akihabara 23:05, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • I mixed something up there. I don't think it's supposed to be SQL, but I can't recall what the other use for that type of trigraphs is. It does simplify the discussion, though. In C, this type of trigraph is called a "trigraph sequence", not a "C trigraph". Apparently the link from the disambigation page is less than correct. Creating a redirect from C trigraph to trigraph sequence seems like a good idea, though. Anyway, let's see which pages we can give content rather than just redirects. Aliter 21:44, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. Helps prevent accidental re-creation, causes no harm. jni 05:59, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 14

  • George Grey (British Politician) and George Grey (British politician). Before we had a naming convention for baronets, the former page (or was it the latter?) held the article presently at Sir George Grey, 2nd Baronet. There's no way anyone will ever look for Grey in such a manner, and no pages link to either of these redirects anymore. Mackensen (talk) 01:43, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep they have a long history and it is never a good idea to break links without good reason. - SimonP 03:46, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
      • I simply regard this as good housekeeping. There's no reason for these links to exist, and I doubt seriously we'll break anything in the process. Certainly, there's no reason for both of them to exist. Mackensen (talk) 01:23, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep I see no good reason to delete this. Burgundavia 17:11, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

April 18

April 20

  • Baron Dunn. The original content of the page has been moved to Dunn Baronets, where it belongs. The redirect was created by the move. The title Baron Dunn should not link to Dunn Baronets. That would be factually incorrect. There are no hereditary barons named Dunn. The only life baron named Dunn is female and is thus a baroness. No articles link here. No articles will ever link here. No article with any content could ever exist here. No external sites could possibly link here. No one will ever look for something called "Baron Dunn." This article should never have existed under this name ever, for any reason. Mackensen (talk) 16:55, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 23

  • False hellebore -> Indian poke - double redirect since I have moved Indian poke to Green false hellebore - #redirect is inappropriate, because it causes a plant genus to redirect to a single species (when I created it, I wasn't aware that false hellebore was the correct vernacular name of the genus, not simply hellebore) Circeus 16:35, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • Gone --Henrygb 01:54, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 24

April 25

  • Matrixism → The Matrix or New religious movement --As per RfC, references to the alleged New religious movement "Matrixism" have been deemed non-encyclopedic and removed from The Matrix (see: Talk:The Matrix#RfC). Original VfD. Most "Matrixism" references in Wikipedia were originally, and repeatedly, added by linkspamming vandals. Keeping Matrixism as a redirect invites the attention of said vandals. Non-encyclopedic, probable hoax. One person setting up a website does not warrant recognition in Wikipedia. Obscure. Philwelch 06:12, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep as a redirect to New religious movement or New religious movement#Fiction-based NRMs, include appropriate reference to Matrixism there. The Matrixism faith currently claims over 500 followers according to their FAQ. May not be sufficiently significant to warrant its own article, nor an appropriate addition to the Matrix article, but it's a useful example of a Fiction-based New Religious Movement (especially one in its early development). Although it could be a hoax, there's currently insufficient evidence either way, therefore removing references to it on that basis constitutes religious discrimination and a violation of Wikipedia's NPOV. (This vote originally posted Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Matrixism (2nd nomination), see for further discussion.) KickAir8P~ 01:16, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)
      • If there's "insufficient evidence either way" about whether a purported religion even exists or not, the purported religion is not notable enough to warrant mention in Wikipedia--it is unencyclopedic. Philwelch 06:14, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • There is not "insufficient evidence" of the existence of Matrixism - the observable fact of at least one declared adherant shows it exists. There's insufficient evidence as to whether or not it's a hoax, and all of that's negative data (specifically, that there's nothing indicating its existence but the website and a number of posts on various boards from a few IP addresses) - I haven't seen one piece of affirmative information indicating it's a hoax (and I've looked), not even from any of those voting for deletion on that basis. Without affirmative data, any hoax assertion against a religion (even if it's a NRM) is POV. KickAir8P~ 15:45, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)
          • It it's a hoax, then it's a nonexistent religion masquerading as an actual religion. This is what I meant. Obviously, it exists as either a hoax or a religion, but there's insufficient evidence that it exists as a religion. Philwelch 17:01, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
            • The only evidence for the existence of any religion is people who stand up and say "This I believe" - everything else that can be considered evidence derives from that. The people who believe in Matrixism have done this on a website that's available for any Wikipedian to verify. That they've done so anonymously is no bar to the expression of their faith. Although this may be a hoax perpetrated by one person who's lying about his belief in Matrixism and is falsely claiming 500+ converts, without affirmative evidence of that the assertion that Matrixism is a hoax is POV. To say something like "Critics claim Matrixism is a hoax because _____" is NPOV, but that means including a reference to Matrixism in an appropriate article like New religious movement, which means this should be redirected there instead of deleted. KickAir8P~ 20:15, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)
              • Actually, if there are some 500 "Matrixists", you would expect far, far more widespread evidence of its existence from blogs, forum postings, etc. All the evidence that *does* exist could have easily been created by one or two people. Wicca is mentioned on thousands if not millions of independent websites by different practitioners, the Branch Davidians lived in an independently observable compound, and LeVeyan Satanism has a body of published literature. Matrixism has...one Geocities website, a series of forum postings, and a Wikipedia linkspamming campaign perpetuated by remarkably one and the same range of dialup IP addresses. Philwelch 20:39, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
                • That's all true. It's also all negative evidence. Does anybody have affirmative evidence? If not, the assertion that Matrixism is a hoax is POV. If so, then this redirect should point at Hoax, a reference to Matrixism should be added to one of the sections, a brief blurb on the reason should be included in the edit summary, details of the evidence should be included on the talk page, and this redirect still shouldn't be deleted. KickAir8P~ 01:16, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
                  • Matrixism isn't a notable hoax, it isn't a notable religion, and it isn't a notable anything. — Phil Welch 08:17, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Also, "unencyclopedic" is not an absolute - a fiction-based New Religious Movement with between one and a bit over five hundred adherents may not warrent it's own article, but a reference to it can be encyclopedic in the proper context, such as an example in New religious movement#Fiction-based NRMs. KickAir8P~ 15:45, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)
          • Except such a reference, in order to be NPOV and factual, would have to have qualifiers indicating that there's no evidence whether or not it's a real religion or not, which would make it sort of a useless example. Philwelch 17:01, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
            • The [website] is evidence of it's existence, the lack of other evidence can be presented to maintain NPOV. This doesn't hurt it as an example of a New religious movement, that's a common criticism of NRM's. KickAir8P~ 20:15, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)
              • Until we can be reasonably certain that it's an actual religion, it's useless. Any point you may want to make about Matrixism showing a trend of fiction-inspired new religious movements falls apart if we aren't certain whether it actually is a religious movement. Philwelch 20:39, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
                • You're setting the bar unreasonably high for a NRM - adherants of minority non-traditional religions have a vested interest in hiding their identities to avoid persecution and ridicule, making verification difficult - and that lack of high-level verification can be noted to maintain NPOV. And I wasn't trying to establish a trend, I don't think there is one. In New religious movement#Fiction-based NRMs I indicated three unrelated examples of a rare-but-notable (IMHO) subset of New religious movements. KickAir8P~ 01:16, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
                  • Nonsense. There are plenty of new religious represented on Wikipedia. Of course, these are only the new religious movements we know to exist. — Phil Welch 01:51, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete per vfd (which really was the proper place to bring it back to after the merge was rejected). —Korath (Talk) 12:03, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
      • I wasn't sure - there are two "Delete and Redirect" votes there, both of which qualify as "Keep" since the article now is a redirect. Moving it here seemed to be the wiki-appropriate way to clear up the confusion. KickAir8P~ 15:45, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)
    • Delete. Nonsense, not a real religion, not notable. RickK 04:14, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
      • This makes three votes for "delete", counting the original listing as a vote, opposed to one "keep" vote. — Phil Welch 05:52, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep - no harm. If someone looks up "Matrixism", they'll wind up at "The Matrix". Makes sense to me. - Pioneer-12 06:16, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • If you've checked the edit histories of The Matrix, List of religions, and New religious movement, you'd see that it invites linkspamming vandals. They use the redirect as rationale for linkspamming these articles. In the interest of stopping vandalism, deletion is the best option--"Matrixism" doesn't refer to anything notable and reported in the Wikipedia. — Phil Welch 06:28, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 26

  • Deletionism ---> m:Deletionism. It doesn't work, and a redirect about a WP term shouldn't appear in the main namespace. Meelar (talk) 00:55, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. It works. It just doesn't automatically work. All redirect links to meta currently have the same problem. This should be fixed in the next software update. And I don't see why we shouldn't mention wiki terms in the main namespace. This is done all the time. See stub for example. If we didn't include links to wiki terms in the main namespace then if would be pretty hard to find out the maining of any wiki terms! This is currently a redirect, but could always be turned into a disambiguation page if another usage of "Deletionism" exists. - Pioneer-12 01:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Re. "This should be fixed in the next software update", I don't believe this is the case. Interwiki redirects were purposely disabled by the developers as an anti-vandalsim measure. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 16:31, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually, stub was listed above for deletion, and would be gone by now except that not all references to it had been fixed (last I checked - need to check again). Noel (talk) 13:44, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. Nonsense and un-encyclopedic. --Zappaz 03:21, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete, we shouldn't have redirects to meta in the article space to begin with, and this particular article fosters factionalism. RickK 04:14, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. Cross-namespace redirects are unpleasant enough. Cross-wiki redirects are just utterly unspeakable. Even when they're enabled, they don't work properly -- they don't leave behind the "redirected from" thingy under the article title, so you can't get at the original redirect unless you know enough to use the &redirect=no syntax. Not to mention the Inherent Badness of sneakily redirecting people off-site -- not an issue for m:, but some of the places on the Interwiki map are pretty iffy. —Korath (Talk) 07:40, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment. I don't understand the attitude against trans-wiki redirects. By deleting this you are just making it harder to find this information. Ask yourself... by deleting this, what do you accomplish? All it seems to accomplish is making things harder to find, thus increasing ignorance and confusion. - Pioneer-12 14:44, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. I don't see a problem with Wikipedia:Deletionism redirecting to m:Deletionism (if interwiki redirects are ever re-enabled), but an article in the main article space should not redirect to meta. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 16:31, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. I second what Taco said, but I doubt that they will enable interwiki redirects. Jeltz talk 17:03, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Belle River -> Belle River Township, Minnesota - Last edit summary before blanking was remove inappropriate redirect. Angela. 10:47, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep sicne I can't see anything wrong with it. Jeltz talk 17:26, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • The problem is that there are several North American rivers named "Belle River", and most of the links to this name are for them, so this really needs to be a disambig for them. Noel (talk) 17:49, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Then it should be turned into one. Jeltz talk 19:02, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 27

  • Male2female and Male2Female ---> Transwoman (originaly M2f. Together with the probably equally useless M2F those were created by one person, but have no history, and not a single article linking to them. While one might keep the abbreviations for search purposes, there seems to be little point in keeping the long versions, especially since there are more variations of those, too (Male-to-female, male-to-Female, MtoF, m2F etc); not to mention that all of those exist in the Female-to-Male form as well (which were never created, and so far, not missed, either). -- AlexR 08:13, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Jerry-built ---> Jury rig. The current redirect suggests that the terms are related in meaning or etymology. However, the meanings are conceptually related but not the same, and there may be no etymological connection; Merriam Webster says "jerry-built" is "origin unknown" and American Heritage says "From dialectal jerry, defective, perhaps from the name Jerry." Finally, I can't think of anything useful for "jerry-built" other than a dictionary definition. Not that I'm taking this personally. —JerryFriedman 18:19, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 28

April 30

Holding pen

Some redirects cannot be deleted because of a temporary software limitation. They are listed here until the limitation is removed and they can be finally deleted.

December 12

  • Cornell Hangovers : Target of Redirect does not exist : Target is: Cornell University Glee Club
  • Cornell University Hangovers : Target of Redirect does not exist : Target is: Cornell University Glee Club
    • (Offstage cursing and gnashing of teeth.) The first use to redirect to the second, which used to have content. The second was later turned into a redirect to a third article, one that was later deleted for copyvio. I'd just restore the content on the second, except... that one was VfD'd, but I can't find any record of the discussion on Wikipedia:Archived delete debates/May to Jun 2004, which is the relevant time period. Bah. Maybe I'll just restore the content, and let someone VfD it properly this time. Noel (talk) 00:18, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete Masterhomer 21:51, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete both. Unlikely that the historical revisions would survive VfD and no one has done anything to this well over a month. jni 15:21, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Been busy with WP:AN; I'll try and get to these soon. Noel (talk) 18:54, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Current list

Older unfinished requests are at Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion/Old.

February 4

  • Gundam Seed Episode 1 → Cosmic Era episode list - I'm not sure whether to list this here or VfD. It was a very small article, since merged into the redirection, but doesn't seem to warrant its own existence as a redirect. 132.205.15.43 05:50, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • This one has history - need to check to see if it was used to prepare an article, if so cannot delete, will have to archive. Noel (talk) 13:52, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • PHASE-01 → Cosmic Era episode list - I'm not sure whether to list this here or VfD. It was a very small article, since merged into the redirection, but doesn't seem to warrant its own existence as a redirect. From appearances, orignally it was a copyedit of Gundam Seed Episode 1. 132.205.15.43 05:56, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Ditto for this one. Noel (talk) 15:22, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

February 7

  • Stub → Wikipedia:Find or fix a stub. Self reference as well, and, if deleted, will allow for moving of Stub (disambiguation). — Itai (f&t) 13:05, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd recomment redirecting Stub to Stub (disambiguation); see User:Jnc/Disambiguation for my reasoning as to why. Noel (talk) 14:59, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Much better practice would be to delete Stub and move Stub (disambiguation) to that title. -- Netoholic @ 19:11, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)
      • Why not make it easy to see when someone has linked to what's actually a disambig page? Noel (talk) 20:10, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Also, this page has a zillion pages linking to it; some of them undoubtly expect the existing linked meaning. Noel (talk) 15:02, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, I know. Still, Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. — Itai (f&t) 15:12, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Sure, but since you're one moving the deletion, you get to organize fixing them! :-) I already did my bit on the ones above... Noel (talk) 16:59, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • I need to do this? Whatever happened to the gnomes? <sigh>. Nice job on the first four. I took care of everything I could regarding stub - of course, I cannot modify text in the Talk: and User: namespaces. — Itai (f&t) 18:08, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Actually, I think it's generally agreed to be OK to edit User: and Talk: pages to fix links that would otherwise be broken. Certainly, when we were deleting all the redirects from the main namespace to User:, we sure edited a lot of User: and Talk: pages! Noel (talk) 18:03, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • Are you sure I won't be lynched if I edit User: and Talk: pages? If I am, do you promise to continue my legacy? (Never leave edit summaries. Mark all edits as minor.) — Itai (f&t) 23:02, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Still has lots of links to it, most presumably being to the old meaning. Noel (talk) 02:30, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

March 6

  • Nelli Kim/Temp → Nelli Kim. Remnant of a copyvio repair. I'm amazed there isn't a csd case for this. —Korath (Talk) 10:48, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • I think these can be deleted right away as continuation of copyvio process, like orphan talk pages can be deleted if the article they are for has been deleted per VfD. If it was listed 7 days in WP:CP and no one objected to the moving of /Temp over article, then we IMHO already have enough consensus for trivialities like this. jni 12:41, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Be bold and edit CSD to include this case too, and see if it sticks. Personally I think it's a good idea. Noel (talk) 13:40, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

March 9

  • Chewing → Mastication --Djanvk 03:55, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • This listing is confused. Chewing is an article, listed to be merged with [Mastication]. So far, so good. However, once the content is merged, we need a redirect at the other one, otherwise someone will just re-create the page. In addition, we need to keep the edit history of the one that was turned into a redirect, for Wikipedia:Copyright reasons. Noel (talk) 21:11, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Random page → Special:Randompage - An especially unpleasant cross-namespace redirect, since it doesn't leave the "Redirect from..." line. See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Random page. —Korath (Talk) 12:06, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • Already left a 'delete'-vote to the VfD page. jni 12:48, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm curious, why is this 'considered harmful'? The user asks for a random page, and gets exactly that: a random space. It's not really cross-namespace, as special:randompage once more returns to a normal namespace. Radiant! 14:38, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree with Radiant. The user gets what he asks for (something random) and it doesn't really cross namespaces. Jonathunder 07:03, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)
    • I think the issue with "cross-space redirects" is that we have people who take copies of the database - but only of the main article namespace. So for them, a redirect to Special: wouldn't work. What might work is to make the redirect to a URL for Special:Randompage, like this, which will work from anywhere. Noel (talk) 00:02, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep this, people who suck down copies of the database wholesale can fix their own problems. SchmuckyTheCat 14:44, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Since this problem is the reason we get rid of cross-space redirects to Wikipedia (among others), I find your line of reasoning here unpersuasive. If it's a good enough reason to get rid of Wikipedia: redirects, it ought to apply here, too, no? Noel (talk) 14:54, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

March 12

March 20

  • "welfare capitalism" → Welfare capitalism - More "quoted" to unquoted redirects. – ABCD 19:17, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • The ones that are left have content history, and at least one of them was merged (i.e. the history contains info on the contribution of material used in an article), so it can't be simply ditched; will have to archive, or something. Noel (talk) 12:34, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep There is no good reason to delete this. Burgundavia 17:13, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

March 26

March 27

  • MPEG-4 Version 3 → MPEG-4 Layer 3 Delete because the "version 3" page seems to have been created by someone confused about the correct terminology. There really is no such thing as MPEG-4 Version 3, and if there was, it would be something else. Cat5nap 06:41, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • This may be an error, but Yahoo shows about 1,100 hits for "MPEG-4 Version 3". So maybe we need to turn that into a short article explaining that it's a mistake, and linking to the right place? Noel (talk) 14:44, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • MPEG-4 Layer 3 → MPEG-4 Part 3 Delete because the "layer 3" page seems to have been created by someone confused about the correct terminology. There really is no such thing as MPEG-4 Layer 3, although if there was, it might be something in MPEG-4 Part 3. The root of this problem seems to have been because some "parts" of MPEG standards include "layers" within them. (Most notably, MPEG-1 Part 3 includes a "Layer 3" that is now very widely known as MP3.) Someone got the impression that the "parts" were called "layers", and unfortunately started naming pages accordingly. Cat5nap 06:51, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

March 31

  • Ipod halo effect → Ipod - Redirects to a non-existent section of article. rae 21:25, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Section targets don't work in redirects anyway, so the question is "do we keep the redir anyway" (no idea, myself). Noel (talk) 00:23, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Preserve history. There was a stub [6] before it was merged into iPod [7] as a section. Then the section was moved to the introduction [8] and halo effect turned into gateway drug. It is now part of the history section of iPod. GFDL considerations may make deleting it difficult. And (ignoring capital letter errors) it is a common enough phrase [9] with 7,000 hits. My view is that it (the current redirect and history) should be moved to iPod halo effect, and the contents of the old stub should be merged into halo effect. I don't mind whether the redirect points to iPod or halo effect, but I think deletion of the history would be wrong. --Henrygb 00:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, we have to keep the history for Wikipedia:Copyright - content from this page was used on a live page. After looking into this, probably the right thing is to do just as Henrygb suggests - keep the page, move it to the correct capitalization, and redirect to Halo effect (redirecting to iPod it too diffuse a target - most of that article is not relevant). The other option would be to archive it as a Talk: subpage of iPod, and reference it on Talk:iPod. Any preferences? Noel (talk) 14:40, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 7

April 10

  • Prussian Holocaust - POV term of very limited usage. A significant parst of google hits is from several wikipedia's artices and mushroomed mirrors. It is proposed to discuss this issue at the VfD page Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Prussian Holocaust for broader participation. Mikkalai 23:05, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • This is currently the subject of a VfD debate - should this listing be deleted, in favour of the one there? Noel (talk) 01:12, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I have closed the VfD. The result was no consensus. This article will not be deleted as a result of the VfD discussion. I suggest that the RFD also be closed (I've left the RFD tag there for now). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:54, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. The result of VfD-debate was 12 delete (as redirect or article), 5 keep, 2 no vote. Some of the arguments the "Keep"-votes were based on turned out to be wrong. How big the majority has to be? Jesusfreund 20:11, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • The redirect does no harm and might conceivably be useful. Nobody managed to create a consensus contradicting this, or present convincing arguments. The redirect stays. — Helpful Dave 22:03, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. I closed the deletion process and determined that there was no consensus to delete. My criterion is that something clearly over 80% is definitely deletable, over 75% I'm looking hard at individual votes, 75% or less I usually determine to be no consensus. And it does not seem right to me that a redirect should be subject to two deletion processes, but if we're going to rerun I will exert my vote on principle to keep, because that seemed to me to to be the result of the earlier process and I think this should be reflected somehow in the votes on this much more exclusive venue. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:19, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Weakish keep. Not only does this not seem to me to fit any of the qualifications or precedents for deleting a redirect, but it could be useful under reason not to delete #2 (preventing accidental article duplication). The term is used in reality (well, a little bit) and is mentioned in the article redirected to (well, a little bit). Nickptar 22:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • User:Helpful Dave's opinion I find obnoxious (manipulating Wikipedia for the purposes of any political propaganda is harmful, and the harm is multiplied x100 when the political ends the propogands serves are neo-nazi ones: were there encyclopedic value to the term there would be a case for an NPOV article documenting the term's usage would have value, but since there is no such value this point is moot, a redirect is in any case POV), but I think it is out of order to use this as a second referendum. Since the page was not a rediect at the time of any votes, I propose firstly keep and that we interpret the keep votes as indicating a brief article summarising the facts along the lines of It appears that some editors with sympathies for neonazi causes wish the term Prussian Holocaust to be regarded as a synonym for Evacuation of East Prussia, although at the time of writing this term is not used outside of Wikipedia. This motives of these editors appear to be to ground a moral equivalency argument between this event and the Shoah, a strategy used elsewhere such as with Bombing of Dresden in World War II. Note that most of the keep votes in the VfD process were ambiguous, and a plain redirect would be inconsistent with neutrality. In three months or so, we can start the VfD process again, hopefully with a more useful-idiot-proof formlation of the case for deletion. --- Charles Stewart 08:17, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep, and I agree strongly w Chammy Koala. Sam Spade 11:49, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. The worh "holocaust" is abused in numerous other cases; Jews did not happen to put a trademark upon it, and I am sure over time more "microholocausts" will appear. The fact that the term is someone's propaganda effort it irelevant. Want it or not, neonazis are visible, and their terminology must be known. (BTW, I don't know whether the "PH" is nenonazi's invention. It is obvious that there are quite a few Germans who have direct reasons to genuive feelings of this kind) Mikkalai 17:37, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually the term pre-dates nazism, and was used to describe a WWI library burning. I quote:
      German troops marched into Leuven, which was shortly before declared an open city. On the 25th of august, the Belgian army launched a counterattack. The Belgian army broke through the German defence lines at certain points, and pushed them back towards Leuven. There anxious civilians and German soldiers listened to the thundering gunfire. In the evening, when the battle was over, German troops marched back into Leuven. And then disaster happened. The German soldiers in Leuven who had been waiting for their comrades to return from the battlefield, mistook them for Belgian soldiers and commenced firing. Several German soldiers were killed or wounded. As soon as they realised what really happened, they falsely accused the civilians of Leuven of having cowardly shot German soldiers. Revenge was swift and brutal. During the next days hundreds of civilians were murdered or deported, more than a thousand houses and public buildings were destroyed. Our university library unfortunately went up in flames. Not one book or manuscript survived the inferno.
      The destruction of Leuven and especially its library provoked an international scandal. Amongst many others Sir Arthur Evans protested in a letter to The Times:
      'Sir, may I be allowed to voice the horror and profound indignation at the Prussian holocaust of Louvain. (…) The holocaust of Louvain should at least have the effect of electrifying all the more intellectual elements of our country with a new vigour of determination to overthrow the ruthless regime of blood and iron imposed by Prussian arrogance on 20th century Europe.' (The Times, september 1st , 1914).[10]
      Sam Spade 21:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 11

  • Warschau -> Warsaw. This is the English Wikipedia, we don't need a redirect to every place in the world from evey language's version of the name. Besides, Warschau is being used in some weird German nationalist campaign to get the Warsaw article renamed to Warschau on the specious grounds that it's a German city. RickK 01:08, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep - it doesn't hurt and IMHO the more redirs we have the better. Halibutt 07:19, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
      • Halibutt is the User who created the redirect. So, then, are you going to create redirects for the spelling of Warsaw in every other language in the world, or are you limiting your redirect creation to the German nationlist version? And have you created a redirect to "Warsaw" and "Warszawa" in the German language Wikipedia? RickK 19:42, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. Basically harmless and potentionally useful for German speakers. As for POV campaign, it is easy to make sure this stays as a redirect, instead of being expanded. I wouldn't mind seeing more redirects derived from List of European cities with alternative names. jni 05:56, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • We do have some redirects from city names in foreign languages (e.g. Beyrouth -> Beirut), but in general we don't do them unless they are forms that have had (at some point, at least) some amount of use in English-language writing. I don't think Warschau passes this test - I've never seen it referred to as anything except "Warsaw" in English. Noel (talk) 01:18, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep.If you look up warschau on google there are 74,000 English pages. Can't see a good reason not to keep it. It's only a redirect.--Chammy Koala 16:06, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete, POV-pushing. A redirect from Warszawa is proper, since the native language of the city is Polish. —Korath (Talk) 17:04, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. Absolutely no reason to delete this potentially useful redirect. It is no more POV-pushing than Warszawa. — Helpful Dave 18:23, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. I'm not a German nationalist and I found this vote by trying to reach Warsaw from Warschau, having just seen The Pianist. Call me stupid for not remembering the "proper" English name if you must. JRM 19:08, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)

April 12

  • Trigraph (computing) -> C_trigraph. Trigraphs are particular to C. I repointed existing pages to the new article; the old page is an orphan. Akihabara 13:42, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • C_Trigraph -> C_trigraph. Typo. I repointed existing pages to the new article, so the old page is an orphan. Akihabara 13:42, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Trigraphs are not particular to C, neither are computer trigraphs, neither is the topic of the page, termed a "trigraph sequence", which also occurs in SQL. I fear something is not quite right here. Aliter 16:46, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • C trigraphs (the subject of the new page) are particular to the C family of languages, which is how the link from the disambiguation Trigraph page is labelled. Any other meanings of trigraphs should get new pages linked from the Trigraph disambiguation page. I see little point in keeping the redirects. Akihabara 23:05, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • I mixed something up there. I don't think it's supposed to be SQL, but I can't recall what the other use for that type of trigraphs is. It does simplify the discussion, though. In C, this type of trigraph is called a "trigraph sequence", not a "C trigraph". Apparently the link from the disambigation page is less than correct. Creating a redirect from C trigraph to trigraph sequence seems like a good idea, though. Anyway, let's see which pages we can give content rather than just redirects. Aliter 21:44, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. Helps prevent accidental re-creation, causes no harm. jni 05:59, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 14

  • George Grey (British Politician) and George Grey (British politician). Before we had a naming convention for baronets, the former page (or was it the latter?) held the article presently at Sir George Grey, 2nd Baronet. There's no way anyone will ever look for Grey in such a manner, and no pages link to either of these redirects anymore. Mackensen (talk) 01:43, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep they have a long history and it is never a good idea to break links without good reason. - SimonP 03:46, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
      • I simply regard this as good housekeeping. There's no reason for these links to exist, and I doubt seriously we'll break anything in the process. Certainly, there's no reason for both of them to exist. Mackensen (talk) 01:23, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep I see no good reason to delete this. Burgundavia 17:11, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

April 18

April 20

  • Baron Dunn. The original content of the page has been moved to Dunn Baronets, where it belongs. The redirect was created by the move. The title Baron Dunn should not link to Dunn Baronets. That would be factually incorrect. There are no hereditary barons named Dunn. The only life baron named Dunn is female and is thus a baroness. No articles link here. No articles will ever link here. No article with any content could ever exist here. No external sites could possibly link here. No one will ever look for something called "Baron Dunn." This article should never have existed under this name ever, for any reason. Mackensen (talk) 16:55, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 23

  • False hellebore -> Indian poke - double redirect since I have moved Indian poke to Green false hellebore - #redirect is inappropriate, because it causes a plant genus to redirect to a single species (when I created it, I wasn't aware that false hellebore was the correct vernacular name of the genus, not simply hellebore) Circeus 16:35, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • Gone --Henrygb 01:54, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 24

April 25

  • Matrixism → The Matrix or New religious movement --As per RfC, references to the alleged New religious movement "Matrixism" have been deemed non-encyclopedic and removed from The Matrix (see: Talk:The Matrix#RfC). Original VfD. Most "Matrixism" references in Wikipedia were originally, and repeatedly, added by linkspamming vandals. Keeping Matrixism as a redirect invites the attention of said vandals. Non-encyclopedic, probable hoax. One person setting up a website does not warrant recognition in Wikipedia. Obscure. Philwelch 06:12, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep as a redirect to New religious movement or New religious movement#Fiction-based NRMs, include appropriate reference to Matrixism there. The Matrixism faith currently claims over 500 followers according to their FAQ. May not be sufficiently significant to warrant its own article, nor an appropriate addition to the Matrix article, but it's a useful example of a Fiction-based New Religious Movement (especially one in its early development). Although it could be a hoax, there's currently insufficient evidence either way, therefore removing references to it on that basis constitutes religious discrimination and a violation of Wikipedia's NPOV. (This vote originally posted Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Matrixism (2nd nomination), see for further discussion.) KickAir8P~ 01:16, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)
      • If there's "insufficient evidence either way" about whether a purported religion even exists or not, the purported religion is not notable enough to warrant mention in Wikipedia--it is unencyclopedic. Philwelch 06:14, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • There is not "insufficient evidence" of the existence of Matrixism - the observable fact of at least one declared adherant shows it exists. There's insufficient evidence as to whether or not it's a hoax, and all of that's negative data (specifically, that there's nothing indicating its existence but the website and a number of posts on various boards from a few IP addresses) - I haven't seen one piece of affirmative information indicating it's a hoax (and I've looked), not even from any of those voting for deletion on that basis. Without affirmative data, any hoax assertion against a religion (even if it's a NRM) is POV. KickAir8P~ 15:45, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)
          • It it's a hoax, then it's a nonexistent religion masquerading as an actual religion. This is what I meant. Obviously, it exists as either a hoax or a religion, but there's insufficient evidence that it exists as a religion. Philwelch 17:01, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
            • The only evidence for the existence of any religion is people who stand up and say "This I believe" - everything else that can be considered evidence derives from that. The people who believe in Matrixism have done this on a website that's available for any Wikipedian to verify. That they've done so anonymously is no bar to the expression of their faith. Although this may be a hoax perpetrated by one person who's lying about his belief in Matrixism and is falsely claiming 500+ converts, without affirmative evidence of that the assertion that Matrixism is a hoax is POV. To say something like "Critics claim Matrixism is a hoax because _____" is NPOV, but that means including a reference to Matrixism in an appropriate article like New religious movement, which means this should be redirected there instead of deleted. KickAir8P~ 20:15, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)
              • Actually, if there are some 500 "Matrixists", you would expect far, far more widespread evidence of its existence from blogs, forum postings, etc. All the evidence that *does* exist could have easily been created by one or two people. Wicca is mentioned on thousands if not millions of independent websites by different practitioners, the Branch Davidians lived in an independently observable compound, and LeVeyan Satanism has a body of published literature. Matrixism has...one Geocities website, a series of forum postings, and a Wikipedia linkspamming campaign perpetuated by remarkably one and the same range of dialup IP addresses. Philwelch 20:39, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
                • That's all true. It's also all negative evidence. Does anybody have affirmative evidence? If not, the assertion that Matrixism is a hoax is POV. If so, then this redirect should point at Hoax, a reference to Matrixism should be added to one of the sections, a brief blurb on the reason should be included in the edit summary, details of the evidence should be included on the talk page, and this redirect still shouldn't be deleted. KickAir8P~ 01:16, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
                  • Matrixism isn't a notable hoax, it isn't a notable religion, and it isn't a notable anything. — Phil Welch 08:17, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Also, "unencyclopedic" is not an absolute - a fiction-based New Religious Movement with between one and a bit over five hundred adherents may not warrent it's own article, but a reference to it can be encyclopedic in the proper context, such as an example in New religious movement#Fiction-based NRMs. KickAir8P~ 15:45, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)
          • Except such a reference, in order to be NPOV and factual, would have to have qualifiers indicating that there's no evidence whether or not it's a real religion or not, which would make it sort of a useless example. Philwelch 17:01, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
            • The [website] is evidence of it's existence, the lack of other evidence can be presented to maintain NPOV. This doesn't hurt it as an example of a New religious movement, that's a common criticism of NRM's. KickAir8P~ 20:15, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)
              • Until we can be reasonably certain that it's an actual religion, it's useless. Any point you may want to make about Matrixism showing a trend of fiction-inspired new religious movements falls apart if we aren't certain whether it actually is a religious movement. Philwelch 20:39, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
                • You're setting the bar unreasonably high for a NRM - adherants of minority non-traditional religions have a vested interest in hiding their identities to avoid persecution and ridicule, making verification difficult - and that lack of high-level verification can be noted to maintain NPOV. And I wasn't trying to establish a trend, I don't think there is one. In New religious movement#Fiction-based NRMs I indicated three unrelated examples of a rare-but-notable (IMHO) subset of New religious movements. KickAir8P~ 01:16, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
                  • Nonsense. There are plenty of new religious represented on Wikipedia. Of course, these are only the new religious movements we know to exist. — Phil Welch 01:51, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete per vfd (which really was the proper place to bring it back to after the merge was rejected). —Korath (Talk) 12:03, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
      • I wasn't sure - there are two "Delete and Redirect" votes there, both of which qualify as "Keep" since the article now is a redirect. Moving it here seemed to be the wiki-appropriate way to clear up the confusion. KickAir8P~ 15:45, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)
    • Delete. Nonsense, not a real religion, not notable. RickK 04:14, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
      • This makes three votes for "delete", counting the original listing as a vote, opposed to one "keep" vote. — Phil Welch 05:52, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep - no harm. If someone looks up "Matrixism", they'll wind up at "The Matrix". Makes sense to me. - Pioneer-12 06:16, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • If you've checked the edit histories of The Matrix, List of religions, and New religious movement, you'd see that it invites linkspamming vandals. They use the redirect as rationale for linkspamming these articles. In the interest of stopping vandalism, deletion is the best option--"Matrixism" doesn't refer to anything notable and reported in the Wikipedia. — Phil Welch 06:28, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 26

  • Deletionism ---> m:Deletionism. It doesn't work, and a redirect about a WP term shouldn't appear in the main namespace. Meelar (talk) 00:55, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. It works. It just doesn't automatically work. All redirect links to meta currently have the same problem. This should be fixed in the next software update. And I don't see why we shouldn't mention wiki terms in the main namespace. This is done all the time. See stub for example. If we didn't include links to wiki terms in the main namespace then if would be pretty hard to find out the maining of any wiki terms! This is currently a redirect, but could always be turned into a disambiguation page if another usage of "Deletionism" exists. - Pioneer-12 01:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Re. "This should be fixed in the next software update", I don't believe this is the case. Interwiki redirects were purposely disabled by the developers as an anti-vandalsim measure. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 16:31, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually, stub was listed above for deletion, and would be gone by now except that not all references to it had been fixed (last I checked - need to check again). Noel (talk) 13:44, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. Nonsense and un-encyclopedic. --Zappaz 03:21, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete, we shouldn't have redirects to meta in the article space to begin with, and this particular article fosters factionalism. RickK 04:14, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. Cross-namespace redirects are unpleasant enough. Cross-wiki redirects are just utterly unspeakable. Even when they're enabled, they don't work properly -- they don't leave behind the "redirected from" thingy under the article title, so you can't get at the original redirect unless you know enough to use the &redirect=no syntax. Not to mention the Inherent Badness of sneakily redirecting people off-site -- not an issue for m:, but some of the places on the Interwiki map are pretty iffy. —Korath (Talk) 07:40, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment. I don't understand the attitude against trans-wiki redirects. By deleting this you are just making it harder to find this information. Ask yourself... by deleting this, what do you accomplish? All it seems to accomplish is making things harder to find, thus increasing ignorance and confusion. - Pioneer-12 14:44, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. I don't see a problem with Wikipedia:Deletionism redirecting to m:Deletionism (if interwiki redirects are ever re-enabled), but an article in the main article space should not redirect to meta. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 16:31, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. I second what Taco said, but I doubt that they will enable interwiki redirects. Jeltz talk 17:03, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Belle River -> Belle River Township, Minnesota - Last edit summary before blanking was remove inappropriate redirect. Angela. 10:47, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep sicne I can't see anything wrong with it. Jeltz talk 17:26, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • The problem is that there are several North American rivers named "Belle River", and most of the links to this name are for them, so this really needs to be a disambig for them. Noel (talk) 17:49, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Then it should be turned into one. Jeltz talk 19:02, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 27

  • Male2female and Male2Female ---> Transwoman (originaly M2f. Together with the probably equally useless M2F those were created by one person, but have no history, and not a single article linking to them. While one might keep the abbreviations for search purposes, there seems to be little point in keeping the long versions, especially since there are more variations of those, too (Male-to-female, male-to-Female, MtoF, m2F etc); not to mention that all of those exist in the Female-to-Male form as well (which were never created, and so far, not missed, either). -- AlexR 08:13, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Jerry-built ---> Jury rig. The current redirect suggests that the terms are related in meaning or etymology. However, the meanings are conceptually related but not the same, and there may be no etymological connection; Merriam Webster says "jerry-built" is "origin unknown" and American Heritage says "From dialectal jerry, defective, perhaps from the name Jerry." Finally, I can't think of anything useful for "jerry-built" other than a dictionary definition. Not that I'm taking this personally. —JerryFriedman 18:19, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 28

April 30

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion&oldid=13067466"