Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

For other meanings of rfd see RFD

Shortcut

• [[:|WP:RFD]]

Sometimes, we want to delete redirects.

If you are here because you want to swap a redirect and an article, please use Wikipedia:Requested moves, which is the page for that.

If you think a redirect page should simply be deleted, you have to do two things. First, please insert {{rfd}} at the top of the redirect page. (Note that a bug causes {{rfd}} to be ignored - i.e. the redirect continues to work, so that people clicking on links to it will not see the warning message - if the {{rfd}} follows the #REDIRECT.)

Second, list the redirect to be deleted at the bottom of this page, in this format:

• this redirect → that article -- Delete because... ~~~~
  • Opinion #1
  • Opinion #2

Please comment on existing entries as shown above. Also, please make sure to leave a blank line between listings, to make it easier to find the end of the entry, so that comments are easier to add!

Please sign and date all contributions, using the Wikipedia special form "~~~~", which translates into a signature and a time stamp automagically.

To list multiple redirects in a single request, please use this format:

• redirect #0 → article #0
• redirect #1 → article #1
• .
• .
• redirect #N → article #N
• Delete because... ~~~~
  • Opinion #1
  • Opinion #2

Again, please make sure to leave a blank line between listings, to make it easier to find the end of the entry, so that comments are easier to add!

Deletion tools
Policy (log)
{{copyvio}}Copyvios (howto · log) {{subst:ffd}}Files (log) {{subst:rfd}}Redirects (howto · log) {{subst:mfd}}Miscellany (howto · log) {{delrev}}Deletion review
Articles (howto · log)
{{subst:relist}} · {{subst:prod|why}} {{subst:afd}} · {{subst:prod blp}}
Templates (howto · log)
{{subst:tfd|template}} {{subst:tfd2|template|why}} {{tfdnotice}}
Categories (howto · log)
{{subst:cfd}} · {{subst:cfdnotice}} {{subst:cfm}} · {{subst:cfm-speedy}} {{subst:cfr}} · {{subst:cfr-speedy}} {{cfl}}
Mergers
{{merge}} {{merge to}} · {{merge from}} {{merging}} · {{afd-mergeto}} {{afd-merge from}}
Page moves
{{subst:requested move|Newname}}
Speedy
{{db-author}} · {{db-web}} {{db-nonsense}} · {{db-test}} {{db-nocontext}} · {{db-empty}} {{db-attack}} · {{db-catempty}} {{db-band}} · {{db-banned}} {{db-person}} · {{db-notenglish}} {{db-copyvio}} · {{db-repost}} {{db-vandalism}} · {{db-talk}} {{db-spam}} · {{db-nocontent}} {{db-copypaste}} · {{db-filecopyvio}} {{db-animal}} · {{db-multiple}} {{salt}} All speedy templates
Unfree files
{{subst:ffd}} {{subst:nsd}} · {{subst:nld}} {{subst:nrd}} · {{subst:rfu}} {{subst:orfud}} · {{subst:orfur}}
Transwiki (howto · log)
{{Copy to Wikibooks}} {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} {{Copy to Wikiquote}} {{Copy to Wikisource}} {{Copy to Wikiversity}} {{Copy to Wikivoyage}} 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. 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 /Precedents for precedents that are followed with regards to redirects.

Notes for admins doing requests

Per Deletion policy#Lag times, pages need to stay here for at least a week before they are deleted, unless they are one of the four kinds of candidates for speedy deletion (non-existent pages, user pages, move targets, or recent uncommon typos). If a request is already somewhat older than a week, it has almost certainly been left for a reason (usually to try and spur further debate, or to try and reach rough consensus), so be cautious about deleting such entries.

Also, in addition to deleting the entry here, please make sure to put in the edit summary for that deletion a message indicating the name of the removed entry, and the date it was placed here (i.e. the header it was listed under) - this makes it easy for people looking through the page history to find when a particular request was fulfilled.

Note: Sometimes a redirect has history, and the history is significant - i.e. contains information about the addition of text. (This often happens because someone did a cut-and-paste "move", instead of using the "Move this page" button.) Never simply delete the redirect page, which we need to keep for copyright reasons. There are two ways to deal with such pages.

The "right" way is to merge the history into the appropriate page, using the procedure outlined here. This is a slightly fraught procedure, which on rare occasions doesn't work correctly. Once done, it cannot be undone, so don't pick this option unless it's definitely the right one for the case at hand.

Another option is for redirect pages with significant history to be archived into a talk namespace, and a link to them put into an article's talk page.

If you delete a redirect, don't forget to delete any accompanying talk page.

When you remove an entry from this page because people decided to keep it, don't forget to remove the {{RfD}} tag from the page (alas, this has to be done manually). It's worth periodically checking either Category:Redirects_for_deletion or here to see if any pages missed this step. Checking either of these regularly has the side-benefit of finding pages where people added the {{RfD}} tag to the page, but didn't realize they needed to edit WP:RfD as well.

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
    • Indeed. The current text of the oddly-named entry is "#redirect [[Srimala Sutra]]" (note, different capitalisation from RickK's initial entry). Alas, no 'what links here' entry there either. TB 13:48, 2004 Oct 29 (UTC)

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))
  • Just to be clear, the suspect redirect here is Lenka Šarounová, and the current page title is Lenka Sarounová. Both versions work fine for me, but if the accented S is going to cause people problems, someone needs to go through and correct all the backlinks, regardless of whether the redirect is kept. - IMSoP 23:31, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • This issue will cure itself as soon as Wikipedia in English switches to Unicode. Susvolans 10:17, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Well, don't hold your breath: I understand the French 'pedia's conversion was far from painless, and they have a fraction of the data this wiki has. So we may be "pending better conversion tools" for some time yet, I think. Besides, the conversion won't necessarily revive dodgy page titles like this; it may end up making them even more dodgy, for all I know. (And I just realised, the links don't seem to render right now). - IMSoP 14:32, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

September 22

• Irish Cream needs to be red so someone will write an article; shouldn't redirect to one brand. Gehirn
  • It could be redirected to Cream liqueur instead. sjorford 13:08, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Yes, but do we want an article about Irish Cream specifically, as opposed to cream liquers in general? If so, deleting it would be the right move. Noel 21:59, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • keep, and make it a {{R with possibilities}} or a short stub. There is no reason for a link to be read if there should be an article with this title. dab 15:14, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

October 5

• Jirga > Loya jirga. It's like redirecting Parliament to House of Commons. The Loya jirga is one instance of a jirga--in fact, not even the only one, but the (hiearchically) "highest" such body--in Afghanistan. Village jirgas have also been in the news in Pakistan.—iFaqeer | Talk to me! 20:39, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • You're absolutely right. Delete. (Side note: the best solution would be to get a Jirga stub set up with a link to Loya jirga. The trick is writing more than a dicdef, though. I'll see what I can do over the next day or so, unless anyone else wants to take a crack at it?) • Benc • 08:10, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Gone. Please create a dicdef though. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:30, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

October 13

• List of Biblical names starting with A
• List of Biblical names starting with B
• List of Biblical names starting with C
• List of Biblical names starting with D
• List of Biblical names starting with E
• List of Biblical names starting with F
• List of Biblical names starting with G
• List of Biblical names starting with H
• List of Biblical names starting with I
• List of Biblical names starting with J
• List of Biblical names starting with K
• List of Biblical names starting with L
• List of Biblical names starting with M
• List of Biblical names starting with N
• List of Biblical names starting with O
• List of Biblical names starting with P
• List of Biblical names starting with Q
• List of Biblical names starting with R
• List of Biblical names starting with S
• List of Biblical names starting with T
• List of Biblical names starting with U
• List of Biblical names starting with V
• List of Biblical names starting with Y
• List of Biblical names starting with Z
• I've combined all of these stubs into one List of Biblical names article. Deletion is necessary to simplify searching (these 26 articles clutter many internal and external search results). -- Netoholic @ 03:53, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose as this would destroy a lot of history. There are other solutions to this problem, such as marking redirect pages as no archive. Or, even better, we could introduce an archive flag that any user can set or clear for any article. anthony (see warning) 14:36, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Concur, keep. There is a ton of history on each of these pages, and merging them all into one giant history would be Very Bad (unreadable/unusuable). Noel 22:42, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Now that I think about it, there may be a good case for getting rid of them as redirs (I have no big opinion either way), but we can still keep the history, e.g. by moving them to the Talk: space, and linking to them from Talk:List of Biblical names. What do people think of that? Noel 20:44, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I checked down through J, and nothing links to them except Wikipedia:List of lists, which is built automatically and will drop them once they are gone. Noel 20:55, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Many of these redirects have no appreciable history, so I don't think there is any harm merging their histories back under the main List of Biblical names article. Really, the discordant histories are already unusuable in the present form, being spread out as they are. The individual edits in the history are not 'very' important, since few edits have been made to these since they were originally split off in Sep 2002. Really, this can be seen a returning the edit histories "home". -- Netoholic @ 20:53, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)
  • Regrettable that the edit history doesn't make the back and forth very transparent.
    We know the one letter that must have an edit history. This one should certainly be kept. As there isn't any harm done in keeping all the redirects, I'd keep them (as last time it was listed). --- User:Docu

October 19

• Matthew Smith (programmer) redirects to Matthew Smith The redirect was created by a move; I don't believe it is necessary any more. - Mike Rosoft 14:09, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I have just fixed all pages which link to the redirect. - Mike Rosoft 18:55, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. No reason to break inbound links. anthony (see warning) 19:06, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, and encourage people to use the long version. The short name may need to be a disambig page someday. Noel 22:35, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I have decided to move Matthew Smith (programmer) to Matthew Smith, because I believed that the programmer is the obvious first choice. The disambiguation page still exists in case it will be needed. I agree that the old name has existed for a while and may have been linked from outside; I am withdrawing my request. - Mike Rosoft 09:51, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I think this is a bad idea. See my reasoning on the McGuffey entry below. I would put the person back at Matthew Smith (programmer), and set Matthew Smith to point to Matthew Smith (disambiguation). Noel 17:22, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Either way, keep the redirect. This makes it easier to sort the links/disambiguate later. -- User:Docu

October 21

• McGuffey → McGuffey, Ohio - McGuffey is ambiguous (the city or the author?) and really should lead to a disambiguation page. DiGiT 01:36 GMT.
  • Keep. You can edit the redirect to make it a disambiguation page. (To access it, click on the link to it, find the blurb at the top of the target page that says Redirected from McGuffey, and clock on the link there.) Also, please be so kind as to make a stub about the author; I would if I had the least idea who this person is. --Smack 01:17, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • There already is a stub for William McGuffey. Why redirect to a disambiguation page when the search could automatically point there?
  • I am coming to the conclusion that all pages of the form "{foo} (disambig)" should be redirected to from the main foo ___location, with no article actually at foo, not even the main meaning, because it enables us to quickly check for articles which have linked to foo, without the writer checking to make sure they got the right meaning of "foo". I see so many instances of this with disambig pages that it's not true (I regularly 'clean' disambig pages I created, and I do other ones all the time - I just spent a couple of hours last night fixing all the links to Cracker). When you have a popular page like tree, it's impossibly painstaking to go click on every entry in "What links here", and look through the page to find the reference, to make sure it's legitimate. And before you ask, the reason for not putting the disambig page at foo is that only people who really want the disambig meaning will link to foo (disambig), and all links to foo will probably be wrong. And yes, I know a jillion pages already use the old way, but that's no reason to keep making more of them. Still pondering what to do about the existing ones. Noel 16:27, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Certainly keep. Feel free to make into a disambig, though. anthony 警告 19:38, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Made it a disambig. Sorry it took so long. --DiGiT 20:44, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

October 29

• Fujiwara clan -> Fujiwara family; to move the latter to the former (Fujiwara clan has two revisions). It is inaccurate to call it family. After moving, I will put Fujiwara family again as a redirect.--Aphaea 12:20, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • This is probably the right move; I'll check some of my reference books. Noel 16:50, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Done. -- User:Docu
  • This appears to have been a mistake. A Google search shows "Fujiwara family" is more common (2,080) than "Fujiwara clan" (915). In addition, the Britannica has them under "Fujiwara family". Noel (talk) 16:35, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • If so, the article should be updated, then moved back. -- User:Docu

Nov 9

• A bunch of redirects on Neon Genesis Evangelion articles, namely: List of Eva-Units in Neon Genesis Evangelion and Evangelion ancillary glossary. These all have no significant edit history (mostly being redirect pages from page moves), nothing links to them, and it's unlikely these are going to actually be useful to anyone. -Pyrop 02:02, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • In particular, most of the "List of" redirects redirect to something that's not a list. -Pyrop 03:32, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • I did most of these; the two that are left (above) have significant edit histories for the articles (someone did the cut'n'paste bogo-move), and will have to be merged or something. Do not delete! I will do the merges/whatever later, when I have more time. Noel (talk) 12:45, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

November 17

• SEGA M8 → Sonic Team — The developer Sonic Team was formerly named SEGA AM8 not SEGA M8. K1Bond007 02:38, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • SEGA M8 has some editing history on it; will need to figure out how to handle that. Please do not delete until that is handled. Noel (talk) 04:01, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

November 21

• Erica Kane Martin Brent Cudahy Chandler Montgomery Montgomery Chandler Marick Marick → Erica Kane. Because I'm so sure people are going to search for her by typing in all of her married names. Mike H 10:24, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • A bit over the top considering it's only a fictional character, weak Delete. --fvw* 11:12, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)

November 22

• Infatuation -> Limerence: a real word redirects to a neologism... something's wrong with that picture. --Joy [shallot] 01:10, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Yeah, it is a neologism, but it's one that is i) not super new, ii) not found only on Wikipedia, and iii) seems to have gained a certain amount of usage - Google shows 1,330 hits, some on serious pages (e.g. Yahoo health pages). Now, maybe the article should be at Infatuation, with a redir from Limerance, but if so someone needs to look at it to make any needed changes in the article text. Noel (talk) 14:49, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Regardless, I'm not arguing against the existence of the article on Limerence. I'm saying that infatuation should be relegated to non-existence (and an automatic link to wiktionary) because it's not the same thing. --Joy [shallot] 14:52, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • That's fine with me; I'll delete the redir in a little bit. Noel (talk) 23:55, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Now that I look at it, there are a number of pages which referenceinfatuation, and this page seems to describe that as well as limerence. Should we try and make a real infatuation article (perhaps using in part e.g. the last paragraph from this), or what? Noel (talk) 17:42, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

November 26

• AIDS Kills Fags Dead. Prevent google-bombing, and other obvious reasons.CheeseDreams 20:18, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • How often are we going to have the same discussion? "Obvious" reasons? What's that? It's no longer the title of the article (which I would prefer), and now you object even to a redirect?! <KF> 23:52, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • This topic has been discussed to death at Talk:AKFD and subpages, particularly Talk:AKFD/redirect. The end-result (with votes) on a whole raft of similar redirects seemed to be to keep only this one, and Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead'. I don't see much point to arguing it all over again yet one more time. I would particularly concur in this particular case, because of #avoid #2 above - it prevents the creation of a new article. With the increasing number of new editors here, that's a real issue. Noel (talk) 12:55, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

November 27

• Kumeyaay-Digueno -> Kumeyaay. This was a clumsy title for a Native American tribe, and the second name is misspelled (Diegueno). Article moved to Kumeyaay and all links adjusted, but misspelled redirect should be deleted. Willmcw 03:20, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment:It's actually a somewhat common alternative spelling, though not the accepted one. It is spelled that way in some references (including many early BIA records), so it could be a useful redirect. -FZ 17:33, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • In that case the redirect should simply be Digueno and not Kumeyaay-Digueno, which no one is going to type in. Willmcw 18:09, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Bases -> Base: I don't think we need redirects for all plurals. --fvw* 17:28, 2004 Nov 27 (UTC)
  • Why not? - SimonP 01:38, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • I think we do need redirects for plurals; doing away with them would give us far too many red links and bad search results. -Sean Curtin 02:01, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • This plural is ambiguous with Basis, though. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 10:39, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

November 28

• Irrelevant -> Renormalization group: Not really a logical link. Anything that links this is probably expecting a dictdef, which we don't do. So we might as well get rid of it entirely. --fvw* 04:53, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)
  • Redirected to relevance. -Sean Curtin 02:06, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

• WOL → WOL (AM) - missing target.
  • Seems to have talk page, significant edit history? Noel (talk) 03:50, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Well it was once a user page in the article space (says "This is a user page, not an encylopedia [sic] entry"), and it looks like the User:WOL page was created by a straight copy and paste from this page, rather than a move. Given that the user page hasn't been updated in over 2.5 years since 29 Apr 2002, and was never encyclopaedic to being with, I'd personally say don't worry about it (i.e. just delete this page, and lose the history). Also the talk page just redirects to User talk:WOL, and hasn't been touched in 2.5 years either, so again I'd say delete. -- Nickj 23:45, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Virgin prunes → Virgin Prunes - missing target.
  • Has edit history - seemingly a duplicate article, other copy now gone? Noel (talk) 04:46, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Both it and the redirect target look like they were a copyvio (a straight text rip from this page) - the target was probably speedy deleted, but I'm guessing they forgot to delete this redirect too. I've added a substub at The Virgin Prunes (band) and pointed the redirect to this, so this redirect is no longer a candidate for RFD. -- Nickj 00:03, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Y.Mohamed & A.Mokhless Search → Y.Mohamed & A.Mokhless "The First World War" - vanity redirect (the names are the names of the authors of the article it points to) + a double-redirect.
• Y.Mohamed & A.Mokhless "The First World War" → The First World War - vanity redirect (the names are the names of the authors of the article it points to).
  • Delete. Noel (talk) 05:11, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Inclusionist -> meta:Inclusionist. Articles should not redirect to the meta namespace. RickK 21:17, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • What do you recommend? Duplicate the meta:Inclusionist article to Inclusionist? Surely not. --Rebroad 00:06, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I think he's recommending deleting the redirect entirely, unless there's a non-redirect article created at Wikipedia:Inclusionism to which it could point - and even then, I'd dispute the utility of such a redirect. -Sean Curtin 02:06, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Yes, I recommend deleting the redirect entirely. We should not be referencing Wikipedia in the article space. RickK 05:20, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • So we want anyone who searched for "Inclusionist" to find no matches? Why? It's a word used in many places on Wikipedia currently. --Rebroad 12:07, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • A search for "inclusionist" should turn up Wikipedia:Inclusionist, which should redirect to meta:Inclusionist. We shouldn't a) limit the term to Wikipedia context, or b) redirect from the article namespace itself to meta. The redirect at Inclusionist does both. Amusingly, the meta:Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians is the #1 Google hit for "inclusionist", and a page on Wikipedia itself gets into the top ten results as well. -Sean Curtin 01:01, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, articles shouldn't redirect to other wikis. -- User:Docu

November 30

• Water pressure → Water - water article does not have any information about water pressure. I don't see any other obvious targets for a redirect. Sietse 12:43, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Pressure doesn't have any pertinent information either. I agree with deletion, though this really should be an actual article (so whoever deletes it should list it at requested articles). -Sean Curtin 23:18, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Should be turned into an article - I'll make a stub when I get a chance (if nobody else steps up before I can get to it :-). Noel (talk) 14:23, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

December 1

• Restrictive covenants → Restrictive covenant -- I just made the redirect page so that a plural Wikipedia link I made would work. Then I learned how to make a plural expression into a Wikipedia link that would go straight to the singular noun, and did it. Now the redirect page is just wasted space. Rico 22:24, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm generally OK with keeping plurals, and there seems to be a fair amount of agreement (see other plural entries above). (Is there a formal policy, does anyone know?) Noel (talk) 23:53, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Would Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(pluralization)#Redirects qualify as formal policy ? I hope so, because a redirect where there's any chance of confusion seems a good idea to me, and that includes plurals. -- Nickj 23:26, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

December 2

• CombinaTorics → Combinatorics; no significant history, and if it was gone all the same links would still work. -℘yrop (talk) 03:36, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • This is an old CamelCase link; see #avoid above, number 4. I'm personally OK with ditching it, though. Noel (talk) 14:08, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

December 3

• Nine named storms → 2004 Atlantic hurricane season named storms; no one will ever look for it through that name, and the latter is up for VfD anyway. --Golbez 06:31, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

• SPCC → St. Paul's Co-educational College;
• St. Paul's Co-ed → St. Paul's Co-educational College
  • (a local primary / secondary school in Hong Kong) : causes confusion and not a well known acronym beyond a small circle. -Hlaw 10:48, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete both. The second one is well-known in Hong Kong but is only used orally. -wshun 10:59, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)