Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jiang (talk | contribs) at 00:18, 3 December 2003. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

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

List articles to be deleted in this format:

When should we delete a redirect?

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

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

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

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

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

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

Redirects to be deleted

16 November


22 November

  • 2002 Gujarat pogrom -> 2002 Gujarat violence
    • Delete. Fundamentally wrong because it gives a lie to the whole NPOV thing by having a POV page name direct to a page which is NPOV- i.e. a pogrom is one of the speculations among others. The existence of this page means that there is a blatant suggestion that this is the conclusion, though the 2002 Gujarat violence professes to be/ aims at NPOV. Moreover, the matter is still in the courts (even yesterday there were some developments on the trial). Very inciteful, especially considering the other point of view.KRS 05:32, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • What does pogrom mean? Race riot? What exactly do you want deleted -- the redirect from 2002 Gujarat pogrom or the main article, 2002 Gujarat violence? I can't see any problems, but then again I'm not very close to the incident. Surely edits to the 2002 Gujarat violence entry should clear up any problems and would certainly be preferable to an outright deletion. The entry contains a lot of information. -- Tlotoxl 10:00, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • To me, having a redirect from a widely-used but possibly POV name for an incident to the NPOV actual title of the encyclopedia entry is not only NPOV but a very intelligent and sensible way of handling the issue. Someone who types in "2002 Gujarat pogrom" will find themselves at the right page with the right title (with a discussion of the controversy). Keep. -- VV 20:54, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • We don't use this terminology at all here in India, just refer to it as Gujarat riots or communal violence or something like that KRS 05:22, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I think this redirect is probably legit, though we want to avoid using the phrase in articles. Martin 23:31, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Google (case insensitive search) suggests that "gujarat pogrom" is used only half as often as "gujarat violence", and "gujarat genocide" is used three times less than "gujarat pogrom". However, IMHO this is still common enough for "gujarat pogrom" to be a useful term, with a redirect to "gujarat violence" as presently the case. Boud 01:07, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • It also seems to me that conditions 1, 3 and 4 of However, avoid deleting such redirects if: in When should we delete a redirect? are satisfied. This argues against deletion. IMHO, none of the suggested conditions for deletion seem to be satisfied, except possibly 3 if it is considered offensive to call the violence a pogrom. Boud 01:07, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Chip Row. Now has no content or page history, as per guideline 10 of the DGfA. Angela 16:10, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete (and thanks for listing the first one) Martin 23:08, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Daniel Quinlan 03:21, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)
    • Kingturtle removed this listing from VfD, claiming a redirect to [[Cardiff] resolved this, but I think that would be highly inappropriate. Cardiff just mentions that the city has a street that some people call Chip Row. It says nothing about what a chip row is, so there is no reason for such a redirect. It is misleading and meaningless. You could just as easily redirect to any English town with a chip street. Angela 22:53, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • That would be my feeling. I guess we could redirect to chip or fish and chip shop or something like that. Martin 19:15, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I don't think that would help. Fish and chip shop doesn't mention chip streets, and if any explanation of such a thing were to occur fish and chip shop would probably not be the place to write it. Chip streets just as commonly refer to kebab shops, not just fish and chip shops. As the article now has no content and no page history, I really can't see the benefit in keeping it. Angela 20:15, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • As I said, that would be my feeling. Just musing, really. Martin 20:23, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Pinko - dictionary def. Tuf-Kat 06:47, Nov 25, 2003 (UTC)
    • I just came here to suggest that one. Move to Wiktionary -- Pakaran 06:52, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I just added it to List of perjorative political slogans where it fits nicely, could maybe redirect the original article? ping 07:28, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • WP:Pump - use WP:PUMP instead. Only one page (an user talk page) links to WP:Pump. Noldoaran 05:10, Nov 25, 2003 (UTC)
    • Why does it need to be deleted? Maximus Rex 05:14, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • If I were to make a link to the Village Pump, WP:Pump would be a LOT more intuitive than WP:PUMP. Why should I expect the word to be in all caps? "Village Pump" isn't in all caps. Keep the redirect. Wiwaxia 06:42, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • For some reason, I dislike WP: redirects, but this is no worse than the rest. Martin 22:16, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

24 November

  • List of quasi-scientific speculative ideas - this "list" has only one entry, and even that is not even remotely scientific. --Wik 14:16, Nov 24, 2003 (UTC)
    • I wholeheartedly agree that Wikipedia would be happier without this kind of, erm, knowledge, however there should be some way to handle the stuff that all the 211.28.xxx.xxx anons keep adding - just reverting will not work, Wik. I created that page as a sort of dumping ground for total bogus. better ideas welcome. Kosebamse 14:38, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Agree with the above. Keep it just to please all the anons. --Raul654 15:43, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. The information currently contained in this article is duplicated in Gene Ray (and if there's any difference the info can be moved). We have enough lists as it is, without introducing new ones with fewer than two entries. Use Gene Ray to placate this alleged rampaging horde of anons. Onebyone 15:56, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • This is an exuse not to take the Gen Ray (see next article down) page down by having it be linked to by something other than 'crank'. -Litefantastic 8:39, 25 Nov 2003 (Eastern Time)
    • Redirected to List of speculative or fringe theories. If that keeps, will move to redirects for deletion. Martin 20:39, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

25 November

  • Shadow People -> ghost
    • With over 6,000 Google hits I would think seriously about keeping it. Redirect to Ghosts?
    • redirect to Ghosts DJ Clayworth 16:03, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Redirect is okay, but I'd be fine with deleting too, seems unnecessary. Daniel Quinlan 17:59, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)


26 November

  • Posh Spice Takes it Up the Arse -> Victoria Beckham Football chant
    • Offensive and should not be a title of an article, but it can be in a soccer chants article (no redirect). --Daniel Quinlan
    • I can see the potential for offence, so consider deleting. I rewrote the text from scratch, so no need to keep history. Martin 21:20, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete (this is a duplicate of my vote on VfD. I've also moved the redirect to point to Football chant rather than Victoria Beckham. Remove the information from the Victoria Beckham page unless it really is the most notable thing in her book.Onebyone 03:11, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete this pointless, unencylopædic redirect. If someone wants to find it it will show up as a link to an internal text elsewhere. It is grossly irresponsible to use an offensive, utterly unencyclopædic chant as a page title, even with a redirect. It is shades of the sick Aids kills fags dead rubbish. Do we want wikipedia to be the net's main source on nasty stupid moronic redirect pages? Delete. FearÉIREANN 01:07, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. orthogonal 04:04, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, with only 12 google hits it doesn't even seem like a very important chant. Maximus Rex 19:47, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I want Wikipedia to be the net's main source on all historical information, whether nasty stupid moronic or not. For one thing, the most important lessons of history are those about the cruelty and foolishness of mankind. Eliminating the offensive is hiding the truth. Keep. --The Cunctator
      • Hmm, but it's not eliminating the offensive - the informative content is already at Victoria Beckham and Football chant. It's more a case of categorising the offensive - will that put the lessons of history in danger? Martin 00:06, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • HmmMMMM. What is the female case of "Ipse dixit?" Well the fact is that she did feign to whisper the words to Ali G during the Red Nose Day interview with her bender husband. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 15:36, Nov 29, 2003 (UTC)

27 November


  • Bailobog - Just a misspelling of Bialobog by the original page creator. Have rewritten the page and moved to Bialobog, but original needs to be deleted. Anjouli 04:55, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I have re-inserted the above. Kingturtle, please don't just delete my requests if you do not agree with them. Post your reasons and let's discuss them. It may be valid to keep certain common misspellings or alternative spellings as redirects, but Bailobog certainly is not one of them. It's fairly obscure! Anjouli 05:19, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • It is policy not to delete redirects.We generally keep all misspellings unless there is absolutely no chance that any other person could make the same mistake. This is because someone could misspell the word in google. By keeping the redirect we get their traffic. Kingturtle was right to remove IMO. There is nothing to discuss and this page gets far too long as it is. theresa knott 05:37, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • I respect but disagree with your argument concerning redirects. I cannot agree that it is ever correct to delete another editor's vote for deletion, without further discussion. This seems contrary to everything for which WP stands. I disagree with many of the above requests, but if I simply deleted them all, I am sure I would be robustly criticised and rightly so. Anjouli 06:11, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Bailobog should NEVER have been nominated to VfD. Answer #2 listed at Wikipedia:Redirect regarding the question of "What do we use redirects for?" is Misspellings. Keeping Bailobog here is a waste of our time, and a waste of this page's space. Kingturtle 07:40, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC) P.S. Bialobog might be obscure, but a simple inverted typo is NOT obscure. P.P.S. By the way, my bold and italicizations are to make a point, and are in no way meant to be directed to any individual. :)
    • I agree with your reasoned argument to let it stay. But please don't delete my remarks and I will not delete yours. No offense intended. Anjouli 08:08, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

28 November

  • Sexual love -> Sexual intercourse
    • Undeleted. Keep. Martin 19:43, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. No point linking a million other names for sex, it's not like it's hard to figure out. Redirect only problematic in that it's the thin end of a wedge, though. Onebyone 14:52, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. It's one of the major categories of love (related to romantic and platonic love rather than sex). Jamesday 04:18, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Extradimensional -> Dimension
    • Undeleted. Keep. Martin 19:43, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Dimension page is a red herring, it doesn't explain anything relating to "extradimensional". Hence this redirect is harmful. Onebyone 14:52, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Seems like a reasonable redirect, though maybe redirecting toUFO or science fiction would be of more use to those actually using the term? Jamesday 04:18, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Choreography (dance) -> Choreography
    • Undeleted. Keep. Martin 19:43, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. There's no need for disambuiguation, choreography only means one thing. Harmful because it's bad procedure. Onebyone 14:52, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. The choreogaphy article started out here, so someone actually used it. Jamesday 04:18, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Talk:2003 electricity blackout in New York -> Talk:2003 U.S.-Canada blackout
    • Undeleted. Keep. Martin 19:43, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Marginal. This is another case where you could easily have a few hundred variations on the same phrase. Delete if it's an orphan. Onebyone 14:52, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep - the series of blackouts of New York City are of specific interest and it's also inevitable that people will think in terms of their own ___location. Jamesday 04:18, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Sedan(car) -> Sedan (car)
    • Undeleted. Keep. Martin 19:43, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. History shows that the article it redirects to was created here. Jamesday 04:18, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • State President - South Africa is not the only country w/ a state president. --Jiang 00:18, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

29 November

  • Liat of television stations in Europe -> List of television stations in Europe
    • Marshman: "Delete a "typo"; Not a valuable redirect"
    • Not particularly valuable, but not causing any problems either. No need to break links here. Martin 00:40, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • It was only created today so it's doubtful there would be any links. I support deleting this one as it sounds confusing. People might think 'liat' means something. Angela 02:06, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Fair point - hadn't considered that. Martin 15:21, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Hamlet Mess - I am laughing in my chair at what has happened. We really don't need the first one at all, do we? Delete. Hamlet's soliloquoy should redirect directly to Hamlet. Problem solved. - Arthur George Carrick 21:03, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Actually, Angela has already fixed the redirects. Delete The first though. - Arthur George Carrick 21:07, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion&oldid=1864055"