Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mike Rosoft (talk | contribs) at 18:57, 26 September 2004 (Added the damn signature.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Shortcut

Sometimes, we want to delete redirects. If you think a redirect page should be deleted, please insert {{rfd}} at the top of the page and list the redirect at the bottom of this page. Note that a bug causes {{rfd}} to be ignored if it follows #REDIRECT.

List articles to be deleted in this format:

Deletion tools
Policy (log)
Articles (howto · log)
Templates (howto · log)
Categories (howto · log)
Mergers
Page moves
Speedy
All speedy templates
Unfree files
Transwiki (howto · log)
All transwiki templates

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, 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 and/or POV, 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 [[Pink elephants painting daisies]] to love
  5. It is a cross-space redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace.
  6. If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to an article that does not exist, it can be deleted immediately, though you should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first.

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. You risk breaking external or internal links by deleting the redirect. There is rarely a reason to delete historical CamelCase links.
  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.

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.

See also: Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion#Redirects for policy on which redirects can be deleted immediately, and Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Precedents#Redirects for precedents that are followed with regards to redirects.

If you delete one of these pages, don't forget to delete any accompanying talk page.

June 19

[[Ås<caron>rÄ«mÄ?lÄ?-sÅ«tra]] -> Srimala sutra. RickK 06:07, Jun 19, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete the entry with cur id:736339, if it's still there. How does one link there ( [[<i_>Å&#154;rÄ«mÄ?lÄ?-sÅ«tra</i_>]] ) -- User:Docu
    • Special:Whatlinkshere/Srimala_sutra has nothing linking to it, which suggests 736339 doesn't exist. Angela. 10:30, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • I just ran SELECT cur_title, cur_text, cur_namespace FROM cur WHERE cur_id = 736339
        on a more recent version, and it still shows up. --User:Docu

July 25

  • [[L. S<caron>arounová]] This redirect page should be deleted because the S caron in the title is not ISO-8859-1 (and thus won't show correctly on some machines, such as Macs). As for the "mistake", my understanding is that the redirection entry would work only for Windows users (which do include the S caron in their ANSI character super-set). I'm not completely clear yet on how redirects work with non ISO-8859-1 characters. Let me be clear: the proper name of the astronomer in question is "L. S<caron>arounová". Links within pages could be in either long or short ("L. S<caron>arounová") form, with or without accents (so there are eight link forms total). The target page cannot be titled "Lenka S<caron>arounová" because the S caron isn't kosher. What's the correct solution? Urhixidur 12:12, 2004 Jul 25 (UTC) (moved here from vfd by Graham ☺ | Talk 22:23, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC))

August 3

  • Joaquín Phoenix -> Joaquin Phoenix. Although his name is Hispanic, he does not spell it with an accent. The accented version is not a valid redirect and is unlikely to be searched for. RickK 04:58, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • Unlikely to be searched for, but not impossible. The odds are even lower that we'll ever need the accented version for an article about someone else. Isomorphic 14:24, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

August 23

  • Sultan of the Ottoman Empire -> Ottoman Empire, position of Sultan is deserving of its own article. - SimonP 18:12, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
    • So? When someone edits the page to put real content in there, it will cease to be a redirect. Noel 17:23, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Because it makes it far more difficult and unlikely for an article to be created. In theory almost every red link could be redirected to some related topic, but the problems this would cause are obvious. - SimonP 17:47, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
      • Good point. Noel 11:15, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

September 6

  • Monedula has been adding dozens of redirects for common words like and, when, but, often, and the list goes on and on. There is no reason for these redirects. I would like to see them removed. Danny 14:59, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC) (moved from (WP:VFD)
    • I see no harm in them, especially since some seem well linked (Special:Whatlinkshere/And). I think we need to know which redirects are specifically being discussed here. -- Netoholic @ 15:16, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

September 7

  • George Washingten - another redirect of a misspelling. Second one today. - Lucky 6.9 23:33, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Cheap, and harmless. -- Stevietheman 15:22, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • All of the creations of Users:
    • Callixtus
    • Topspeed
    • Bottomspeed
    • Upperlimit
    • Nolimit
    • Unlimited
    • Instantbreakfast
    • Slowbreakfast
    • Nobreakfast
      • Obvious vandalism, but Guanaco is stalking any and everything I do, so these users and anybody else with a similar name will have to be watched. RickK 23:37, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
      • These seem like perfectly valid redirects from a common misspelling (see Wikipedia:Redirect#What do we use redirects for?). Definintely no harm, and should be kept. -- Netoholic @ 23:41, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Given Wikipedia's well-known influence on Google results, we should not be encouraging misspellings. We're an encyclopedia, not a primary school. Washingten is no more a common misspelling than Woshingtin or Molke. Mackensen 00:01, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Misspellings are supposed to be kept. Keep. anthony (see warning) 14:03, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • There is no such policy. See Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Precedents#Redirects. Noel 22:11, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • That precedents page seems to ignore the fact that 95% of misspelling redirects are kept. In any case, that's not policy. What is policy is to avoid deleting redirects when "Someone finds them useful." Many people find redirects of misspellings useful. anthony (see warning) 04:13, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • So if I were to come along and mark every single redirect deletion request "I find this useful, keep", we're never going to deletet another one? Good, we can shut down this page. Somehow I don't think that would be the outcome. Also see Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion#Redirects. Noel 19:41, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Just fix the links pointing to the redirects. -- User:Docu
    • See "George Woshingtin" discussion. Redirect was created by a user who has no other edit history, and is thus almost certainly a sock puppet of the only person who thought "Woshingtin" was a good idea. Really should be deleted forthwith. Bearcat 19:39, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

September 9

  • George Woshingtin has been created again. As there seems to be some confusion about the matter, allow me to make several points. Woshingtin first appeared in the pages of wikipedia when I offered it as an example of an absurd redirect when trying to have Helmuth von Molke deleted. Later, User:33451, who has been under suspicion in the past of trolling, created it as a redirect. When I and several other users objected, he cited my post as the justification (see here for the discussion). For about the last eight days this redirect has passed from creation to deletion and back again - I'm not even sure how many times. Google reports four hits for "Woshingtin" - three of which come from discussions over this redirect. This is not a useful mispelling and, given the discussion above, I do not believe it was created in good faith. Could we please end the madness? Mackensen 19:50, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • See Vandalism in progress (cf Silver Proxy) for more activity related to this redirect. Mackensen 19:53, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • So just keep it. That'll end the madness. anthony (see warning) 00:29, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • I agree on this one: (1) redirects are cheap; (2) don't feed the trolls. • Benc • 22:19, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • I fail to see why we should either i) put up with trolls, or ii) encourage incorrect spellings. Nuke it. Noel 21:14, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • I fail to see how keeping a redirect encourages incorrect spellings. anthony (see warning) 03:38, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
          • A redirect based on an incorrect spelling? You don't see? Bearcat 07:18, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
            • That's what Anthony is asking—how does a redirect encourage bad spelling? By this logic, we also need to get rid of Hillary Duff so we don't encourage people to spell it with 2 L's. El Chico! Talk 17:01, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Support deletion. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 22:17, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. It's cheap. It's harmless. Further, why has it been deleted before the decision was made here? — Stevietheman 15:20, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • A decision was made. Then somebody who didn't like the decision decided that the discussion was insufficient, and recreated it. Then it was deleted again, after more discussion. Bearcat 07:18, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Just to end this madness once and for all. The only problem is, Bearcat seems to delete things like this without even looking at the discussion. He even deleted Queen/Band, which had an edit history, and when asked about it, refused to undelete. — i386 | Talk 18:45, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • I did this ONCE. Don't even try making it sound like I make a habit of inappropriate deletions. Bearcat 07:14, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • Yes, but you deleted a redirect with an edit history—Queen/Band—and when User:33451 pointed this out to you, you failed to undelete it. — El Chico! Talk 17:01, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. I fail to understand the reasoning going on here. People say "keep", because we aren't supposed to feed the trolls. Its creation (as I've noted repeatedly) was itself a trollish activity. To retain such a useless redirect, created in bad faith, is itself encouragement. Once we allow this one, there shall be precedent for keeping any odd redirect. We'll have crap like James Munroah and Coffee Annan. Realize that the links made in Wikipedia propagate throughout web because of mirror sites and Google. We have a responsibility to NOT pollute the pool, as it were. Mackensen 19:48, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • If its creation was a “trollish activity”, only you are to blame, as you suggested it in the first place. You are calling your own actions trolling. Of course, that assumes it was created in bad faith, but I don't see how a useful redirect is bad faith or trolling. — i386 | Talk 18:51, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • You've got a real problem reading for context if you think Mackensen was suggesting it as something that should be in the Wikipedia -- he was quite clearly suggesting it as something that shouldn't be here. Bearcat 07:05, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Why argue this entire thing out? There's no reason to keep fighting this. A determined user, SilverProxy, attempted to move pages in such a way that George Woshingtin would have to be kept becuase it had the edit history of the real article. Judging from how strong the support is here, I'm creating it and keeping it. — —WikiWatch (Talk) [[]] 19:01, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I've just a tiny suspicion that there's more than a little sock-puppetry going on in this debate. Delete under speedy deletion provisions. -- The Anome 19:40, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • I'm not a sock puppet. Look at my history. -- Stevietheman 05:16, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • This whole discussion is absurd. There's absolutely no valid reason for this redirect to exist, and even less for it to have been recreated and deleted and recreated again multiple times. Bearcat 07:11, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

September 10

  • Male Genital Mutilation redirects to circumcision. That seems to fit the grounds of POV and offensive to me. --195.11.216.59 16:40, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Keep, but preferably not as redirect. anthony (see warning)
    • Keep, on the principle of minimum waste of time. Yes, the redirect is on the POV side, but it's not blatantly offensive. More importantly, would we rather leave the article name open for someone to come along later and write a POV rant about it? We'd VfD it, but it would be recreated eventually by some other ranter. Rinse, repeat ad nauseam. Besides, once the dispute at circumcision is resolved, the genital mutilation angle will be covered in an NPOV fashion, making the redirect acceptable. • Benc • 22:19, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • If it's going to be kept as a redirect, then the term needs to be discussed in the article. Apparently you are saying this is going to be done? If so, I support keeping the redirect. anthony (see warning) 03:50, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • Yes, that's precisely what I'm saying. :-) • Benc • 07:05, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Support deletion. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 22:17, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • ¡Keep! Male Genital Mutilation is real. Ŭalabio 18:07, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC) Besides, in deleted, such a common term will just reappear as an article or redirect in a little while. ¿How many times has an article or redirect existed with this name already? It has 1630 hits on Google.Com. Besides, you already have the president of female genital mutilation. If you delete one you will have to delete the other. Indeed, in the interest of neutrality, we should also have a redirect for human genital mutilation. In the interest of balance, I shall place female genital mutilation on { { rfd } }. If male genital mutilation and female genital mutilation]] survive, I shall create a redirect for human genital mutilation. Ŭalabio 23:18, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)
      • Looking at the google hits, I've been convinced to change my vote. This seems to be an actual term, even used in scientific contexts [1]. I'm not sure making it a redirect as opposed to a full article in its own right is correct, as male genital mutilation includes acts which are not circumcision (without even addressing the POV question as to whether or not circumcision is necessarily mutilation), but this can be resolved eventually. anthony (see warning) 03:50, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. POV and is debatable. Mike H 00:25, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. I don't think we should care if a redirect is POV. The point is that we want to prevent a full article on it, and further, some people may actually type this phrase in. It's harmless. -- Stevietheman 15:08, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Why do you want to prevent a full article on it? anthony (see warning) 03:52, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • I didn't say I want to, I said we want to. Circumcision is the term that covers this subject, and "Male Genital Mutilation" is decidedly POV. -- Stevietheman 05:19, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, if only to leave the recent wave of anti-circumcision protesters one less article to disrupt. --Ardonik.talk() 18:34, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • I've changed the redirect to point to genital modification and mutilation. -Sean Curtin 19:50, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

September 11

  • Alfred Ludlum - I created the article Alfred Ludlam here by accident, and moving it to the correct name has left an unnecessary redirect. -- Vardion 05:20, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • It's conceivable that a reader would mix up Ludlam and Ludlum. • Benc • 22:19, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Suppose we get a real Alfred Ludlum? Delete, before it spreads. Noel 21:40, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep until there's a notable Alfred Ludlum. On top of this, Ludlam is misspelled as Ludlum in the pointed-to article. -- Stevietheman 15:27, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. And stop listing misspellings here. anthony (see warning) 04:02, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

September 12

  • Dunstanburgh Castle is a redirect that points to Dunstanburgh, an article that deals only with Dunstanburgh Castle. Please delete the Dunstanburgh Castle redirect to enable a move from Dunstanburgh to Dunstanburgh Castle. Ian Cairns 12:13, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Tons of pages link to Dunstanburgh. Is there a village or town of that name, or what? Should that be a separate article, or a redirect to the article on the castle? Noel 16:46, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

September 13

  • Ukranian → Ukrainian language
    • Misspelled.
    • I fixed two links pointing at this redirect page; one remaining link seems to be some kind of link-stats page in User: space.
    • If not deleted, it should be pointed at the Ukrainian disambiguation page, to catch future misspellings. (added by User:Mzajac)
      • I've changed it to point at the Ukrainian disambig, as this is likely to be a common misspelling when searching. sjorford 09:22, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • I agree with pointing to Ukrainian dab page. -- Stevietheman 15:11, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. anthony (see warning) 04:03, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Per Google, seems to be a common typo, keep. Noel 20:59, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Bowser Jr. - this redirects to an article that's already been deleted. Marcus2 21:58, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • The page has significant history. Should we just turn it from a redirect back into its original content? Why was the target deleted? Noel 23:41, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Redirect to Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island. -- Stevietheman 12:28, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - target was undeleted as it hadn't been a candidate for speedy deletion. -Sean Curtin 19:54, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - target still exists. –Andre (talk) 09:15, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

September 14

  • Stephen LaBerge --> User:Stephen LaBerge - redirects to user namespace, and Stephen LaBerge is not a registered Wikipedia user. I think the article in the user namespace should be moved to the main namespace when this redirect is deleted. Exabyte 05:13, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete redirect. Only move user namespace content into an article if this person is notable—the content that's there now would suggest non-notability. — Stevietheman 16:26, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • The history is in the article space, and was copy/pasted into the user space. So I've restored the article (with a few touchups). Put it on VfD if you want to delete it. anthony (see warning) 04:08, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • If its the page history you're worried about, there's no reason to bother with VFD. Have an sysop first delete the existing user page, move the article, then delete the resulting redirect. Which is exactly what I recommend, BTW. • Benc • 07:04, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't see the purpose of making the move in the first place. Is this person even a user here? anthony (see warning) 12:12, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

September 15

  • Holy Ghost -> Holy Spirit
    • The whole purpose of the "Holy Ghost" article was to show why some groups (particularly LDS and some Charismatics/Pentecostals and Independent Baptists) insisted on the former term in preference to "Holy Spirit". The idea of "ghost" being an archaic use when refering to the human spirit rather than an "apparition" was noted. A link was sufficient. The former "Holy Ghost" article should be restored. Making it a redirect suggests that the difference is a silly quibble, which is very POV.
    • This is not the right place to be discussing this. Resolve the issue on the talk page. anthony (see warning) 04:22, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I believe that the discussion "Holy Ghost vs. Holy Spirit" should stay in the Holy Spirit article. The redirect should be kept. -- Mike Rosoft 18:57, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

September 16

  • The VfD on 3909 04 ended with overwhelming support for deleting the article outright, but SimonP chose to redirect instead. I'd like to see this deleted, unless someone thinks there's a possibility of the topic being looked for under this title. Austin Hair 21:02, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
    • If this redirect is to be kept, then the text needs to be merged (the article needs to at least mention what 3909 04 is. No vote, as I've not checked the accuracy of the original text. anthony (see warning) 12:16, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • It's mentioned here: RMS Titanic#The 'Titanic Curse'. Somebody really needs to do something about making redirects to sections possible. As for keeping it, well, yes, it seems to me that if I were looking for information on "whether it's true that the Titanic's registration number was 3909 04 because that looks like nO POPE when you read it backwards" that 3909 04 is one of the things I might look for. But it's all sort of weird anyway because finding things in Wikipedia is very hit-or-miss; the chances of finding information by typing in a correct guess at the article title is close to nil even if you know the naming conventions. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 12:56, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • The vote was for deletion, not for redirect. The redirect is in violation of the VfD consensus, and should go. RickK 05:04, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. The vote was five to three in favour of deletion, hardly consensus. Not to mention that my redirection should also obviously count as a pro-redirect vote. - SimonP 17:35, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Office automation -> automated attendant? Why? When I hear "office automation", I certainly don't think "automated attendant", whatever that is. RickK 05:02, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
    • delete, Ofice automation was a broad 1980s terms for dedicated word processing machines, blip enhanced digitally controlled microfilm systems, etc AlainV 07:39, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

September 18

  • Please delete Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. I'd like this because I want to move University of Thessaloniki on it, and then create an opposite redirect. Take a look at my talk page to see why I opted for this. Thank you in advance. Etz Haim 09:47, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Sounds reasonable, but a quick question: when people in the region talk about the Univsity, or write its name, do they use the full name, or do they just go with the short version? On Wikipedia, we try to put articles under the "common" names of things, with redirects from the full, formal name. Thanks! Noel 12:12, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Well, that seems OK. The problem is that Aristotle University of Thessaloniki has a lot of history. It would be good to merge that into the other page before moving it over. I'll do it eventually, or someone else could go ahead and take care of it. Noel 21:18, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • That shouldn't be a problem. This way, the names of the three contributors, User:Tupsharru, User:Sky and me are all going to appear to the page's history. As for me though, I wouldn't even mind if some attribution for my work gets cropped out; the final result is all that matters. :) Etz Haim 21:26, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Please delete Dún Laoghaire - Rathdown and especially Dún Laoghaire/Rathdown - these were probabily made by people who were under the mistaken impression that the adminstrative county of Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown is a ad-hoc suburb. I have edited all wikipedia articles so that they direct to the correct article. Djegan 13:51, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Leave as valid redirects. RickK 19:10, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
    • These redirects can only have one meaning, and that is the administrative county. There is no ambiguity. --Kwekubo 19:41, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

September 20

September 21

  • Putumayo -> Putumayo, Colombia. The reason is, the second article should be in the place of the first, and a redirect (or nothing) at Putumayo, Colombia. --Fibonacci 13:41, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Leave. There's also Putumayo the record company, an this may be useful in the future as a disambiguation page. Etz Haim 15:38, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

September 22

  • SUPER FIGHTING ROBOT -> Mega_Man. I've never heard of Mega Man being called a fighting robot, much less a SUPER CAPLOCK FIGHTING ROBOT! -- [[User:Bobdoe|BobDoe]] 18:59, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Irish Cream needs to be red so someone will write an article; shouldn't redirect to one brand.
  • Ass fucking, Scat fetish, Piss drinking and Crap eating. A bit on the iffy side. And I don't know why anybody would want to type these in. Denelson83 04:03, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. See more here which should be deleted - [2] Fuzheado | Talk 04:31, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. They're accurate and they're not really harming anything. And for those who don't know why anybody would type these in, well... I think you're giving the average Internet user too much credit. Rhobite 04:37, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
    • They weren't here for three years before this guy added them, so I think arguments that these are oft-searched-for terms are overrated. I think unnecessary redirects like this do a disservice to the Wikipedia. I can imagine people going to discussion boards and saying "heh. Type 'drinking piss' into the Wikipedia." Delete these sophomoric, scatalogical redirects. --Ardonik.talk()* 05:22, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
    • I hesistantly concur with Ardonik. If anyone can make a brilliant defense of these redirects, I may vote to keep. Mackensen 05:26, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. If we delete these redirects we might as well delete Arse shaggin', created by Sam Spade. How come no one complained about that one? I sense some bias against anonymous users. The redirects were created in good faith and are useful for someone who doesn't know the highly clinical terms "coprophagia" and "urolagnia". The only way one can see these redirects is by clicking "What links here" on the anal sex or urolagnia pages. And if you are old enough to read about anal sex or drinking urine, you are probably old enough to see the redirects. The redirects are consistent with Wikipedia's redirect policy. The fact that they are "scatological" is not grounds to delete them. Wikipedia is not bowdlerized. 63.159.128.38 05:50, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC) (Anon's first and only edit was here).
    • Keep. They're all good redirects. — El Chico! Talk 12:46, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep all, this is an obvious one. Heaven forbid we leave these article names open to be created by the type of newbie who would search for "ass fucking" in the first place. • Benc • 05:54, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep: Legitimate, if stupid. -Sean Curtin 01:22, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

September 23

  • Date management It was a misspelling of Data management. KeyStroke 06:16, 2004 Sep 23 (UTC)
    • I agree it's confusing and ought to go, but it has a talk page, some edit history (albeit fairly trivial), etc. I would still probably delete; what do people think? Noel 15:43, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes, that probably is confusing and not a good redirect. However, because it has an edit history, I'd say we need to keep it for GFDL purposes. The talk page redirects to Talk:Data Management, though, with no history, and I think that one should go. — El Chico! Talk 16:58, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Okay, I looked at the edit history again and I don't see anything worth keeping. I'd say delete. — El Chico! Talk 13:29, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, potentially confusing. The edit history is purely maintenance-related; no content was written or deleted. • Benc • 05:59, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Thomas Coke, 1st Earl of Leicester (2nd creation). This is a misleading article title created on the basis of a misunderstanding of what the creation of a peerage title is. No Thomas Coke has ever been an Earl of Leicester of the 2nd creation: there was a Thomas Coke who was the first Earl of Leicester of the 5th creation, and there was a (different) Thomas Coke who was the first Earl of Leicester of Holkham of the 1st creation, which some have considered nearly equivalent to a seventh creation of the Earldom of Leicester, but there's no system of numbering in which one would be called an Earl of anything of the 2nd creation just because there was a previous Earl with the same name. - Nunh-huh 03:34, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Agreed, this was my mistake. -- Chris j wood 13:18, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

September 24

September 26

Bergholt Stutterly Johnson -> Bergholt Stuttley Johnson (which redirects to Bloody Stupid Johnson)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion&oldid=6174343"