Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion/Archive 3

message: People are voting to delete redirects on the grounds that the search box compensates for capitalization.
Except, I don't use the search bar to navigate, I type article titles directly into my browser's address bar, and I'm willing to bet I'm not the only one. Capitalization redirects are very helpful. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: You're far from the only one. I find it fairly maddening trying to navigage the search engine. -- nae'blis (talk) 21:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What about all these very common typo with a capitale at the last letter of words? I wanted to propose AlchemY but maybe these type of redirect aren't a problem. --Alink 21:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization 

message: It would be easier to use headers in . This would bring it in line with other *fd pages and be easier to use scripts on it. Sceptre (Talk) 10:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While that may or may not be a good idea, I don't think it was wise to change the existing ones you closed without first discussing it. Also, when you closed in that manner, you messed up a couple of the previous ones that had been closed (Gori (city in Georgia) and Allied atrocities). I have fixed those. I have mixed reactions to your new format so I'll hold off commenting on that for the moment. -- JLaTondre 11:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headers 

message: I entered  above the #REDIRECT as recommended at How to list a redirect for deletion. But the expanded text says, “Please do not subst this template. Using  rather than  provides a convenient default reason summary for the deleting administrator.” Which is right, Redirects for deletion or Template:rfd? --teb728 06:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The directions and the template are consistent. Please check (i.e. Redirects for deletion#How to list a redirect for deletion) again. I'm not sure where you got  as the directions say to use . They haven't been changed lately either. Short-term deletion templates should not be subst per the explanation at Wikipedia:Template substitution. -- JLaTondre 12:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually Freakofnurture made the change in Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion/Header this morning. “” had been in Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion/Header#How to list a redirect for deletion since the section was created 11:00, 21 December 2005. (Until I discovered that the header is in a subpage, I thought I was going crazy, not being able to find any history of what I knew I saw just last night.) --teb728 20:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. I didn't realize that's a subpage either. Sorry for the confusion... -- JLaTondre 21:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To subst or not to subst 

message: "junk it" like that lady in mystery men but: where can I find out more about conventions regarding redirects like say "steve mcqueen" (last name uncapped)? I'm sure it depends somewhat on the prominence of the person. I kinda thought martin king should obviously exist at first. then I noticed it doesn't. can anyone tell me where people debate this kind of thing if not here? thanks, Kɔffeedrinksyou 17:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Martin King exists as soon as you redirect it. However, the name "Martin Luther King" is worldwide recognized, which might not be the case of "Martin King". Tazmaniacs 17:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm sure if I ask someone here you'll be like 

message: There are several pages that have a RfD tag on them, but aren't listed here. Some of them even have deletion debate that should probably be moved. They are Bio-diesel, Bio-power, BioDeisel, BioDiesel, and Biodeisel. Ardric47 05:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biodiesel redirects 

message: When you go to the Grand Masters of the Teutonic Order, there was no info on lots of them.
Someone redirected some of the Grand Masters back to the Teutonic Order. This is a circle.
There was no info and someone redirected them back to square 1.
This is the list of the Grand Masters that need to have the redirects deleted:
-Konrad Zöllner von Rotenstein 
-Michael Küchmeister von Sternberg
-Paul von Rusdorf 
-Konrad von Erlichshausen
-Ludwig von Erlichshausen
Because of these bad redirections, I am unable to add any information about the above Grand Masters. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Norum (talk • contribs) .
:This is a little confusing, but I think you want to create articles for those five folks? If so, simply edit their pages and create them. Since they currently don't have articles, the redirects should remain until articles are created. If you are having trouble editing the redirects, simple go their page (ex. Konrad Zöllner von Rotenstein) and when it takes you to the Teutonic Knights page, you'll see a "(Redirected from Konrad Zöllner von Rotenstein))" at the top. Click on the "Konrad Zöllner von Rotenstein" link and it will take you to the redirect instead of following it. Please also sign your posts (see Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages). Let us know if you have more questions. -- JLaTondre 22:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made many of the redirects from the name to the TO article, in order to "catch" different spelling start a "network" that connects other mentions in articles about battles, treaties etc. That Norum wants to replace them with proper articles is good, that he simply deleted the redirects first is not (blanking, vandalism). Also, I suggest to remove the numbers and use the most simple name, eg. Konrad Zöllner von Rotenstein instead of Konrad III Zöllner von Rotenstein.--Matthead 21:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Teutonic Order 

message: Recently User:JHFTC has created a number of cross-namespace redirects from articlespace to the Wikipedia namespace. Timrem 22:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nearly all of them were reposts, so they were deleted. --Rory096 03:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please Note 

message: There seem to be a lot of cross-namespace redirects out there, which are discouraged. Can they be speedied? SCHZMO ✍ 20:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, unfortunately. There are several problems that could arise, such as numerous redlinks that may have been overlooked if the page is speedied that could lead to further trouble, for example. There are also several arguments that deleting a redirect and orphaning it when it has many links may cause more server load than if it was left alone. See the precedents list for examples of those that were kept. Lately, however, it seems the community is taking a stronger stance on deleting cross-namespace redirects. While they are discouraged, there is no official policy that allows for the deletion of cross-namespace redirects either. WP:SELF is a style guide, and WP:RFD states that you 'may' want to delete a redirect if it is crossnamespace, but does not say must. There are sometimes exceptions, as explained, as well. Cowman109Talk 20:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that the precedents list doesn't actually mean anything, the community is free to decide to delete something after a keep consensus earlier. Wikipedia:No binding decisions. --Rory096 03:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but they at least serve as a reminder that sometimes it takes more than a simple speedy deletion of a redirect, as there may be broken redlinks to deal with. Cowman109Talk 02:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's with the crossnamespace deletionism? There are many redirects that couldn't possibly be confused with anything in the real world, I've seen them deleted when no real consensus was reached (like a tied 4-4 vote, after just a few days) Deleting them makes this thing less user friendly and harms the project. Not everyone spends hours of their days here... Tell me to get back to work! 08:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cross-namespace 

message: A recent edit to CSD R2 has changed it so that instead of applying to redirects from article space
to user space, it applies to all redirects out of article space.
If this change does not reflect RfD consensus, it should be reverted. Spacepotato 20:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been reverted. Spacepotato 21:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CSD R2 

message: Are they deprecated? SCHZMO ✍ 19:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cross-space redirects to Help pages 

message: Perhaps there's some bot or SQL script out there that could help list all the current cross-namespace redrects? It would help flush them out (at once), and save a constant stream of them here on RfD?? Thanks/wangi 23:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cross-namespce forever 

message: Currently when a nomination is closed, the closure heading is being put before the nomination title. Example:
 
  Result. --~~~~
 ====redirect → target====
 The discussion...
 
This means that if you edit a nomination prior to the closed one, the heading for the closed tag is at the very end of that section. Quite a few people don't notice this and put their comment (or ending closure tag) at the very end. This results in it improperly showing up inside the closure for the next nomination. I've been fixing quite a bit of these lately.
I'd recommend we switch to the way that WP:CSD does it. This would result in the closure heading being placed after the nomination title. Example:
 
 ====redirect → target====
  Result. --~~~~
 The discussion...
 
The Talk:STS-51-L nomination was recently closed in this manner so you can also refer to it as an example. 
While encompassing the nomination heading looks better to me, I think the CSD format is preferable to reduce errors.
Thoughts?
-- JLaTondre 15:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. The current version confused me, that's how  made it on WP:HIDE. -- Omniplex 13:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing Closure Formatting 

message: Could somebody kindly explain to me how it's either "misguided" or "bad faith" for this to have been nominated for deletion? It was a misguided/bad faith creation. Bearcat 18:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[King's Highway (Ontario)]]

message: So we appear to be quickly reaching an impasse on the cross-namespace redirects. Several editors are including boilerplate answers, which is a sure sign that we've gotten past the "useful discussion" stage and now we're just running numbers for the most part. Is it possible to include this on Centralized discussion or something so that we can get a broader perspective on the thousands of CNRs that we're talking about deleting, instead of doing them piecemeal? -- nae'blis (talk) 17:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't really call it an impasse; we have a few stubborn people who are trying to hold out in the face of WP:ASR, but the outcome is pretty inevitable.  All of the admins I know well are against XNRs, they just haven't gotten involved yet because the decisions being made are the correct ones.  --Cyde↔Weys 02:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  impasse on CNR 

message: It happened that a user added a new section to the current list, but there was a problem with the deletion of some text by accident that the user perhaps did not, in this edit. Actually, in addition, I found that the deletion of these characters were replaced with spaces. I've done fixing them. -- ADNghiem501 03:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unexplained deleted text 

message: Recently, the header for this page at Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion/Header was modified to indicate that discussions would be closed after two rather than seven days.  Since I was unable to find any indication that this change was discussed in advance (and it contradicted other statements in the header) I have restored the opening paragraph to its original version.  Interested parties are invited to participate in what appears to be an ongiong discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy#RfD_discussion_time.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page header discussion 

message: Where can I find RFD discussions that are too old to still be on the project page? I've been following some RFDs that I commented on and I wanted to see what the result was. BigNate37T·C 09:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion/Redirect Archives. --TheParanoidOne 10:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. BigNate37T·C 10:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archives? 

message: I believe I have a solution to the dispute concerning cross-namespace redirects. Please review it/leave comments at Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects. Thanks. --Zoz (t) 18:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CNR proposal 

message: I suggest we change this to a per-day listing format like DRV or CFD.  That way, rather than all of the content being directly on the page, it will be on subpages on a per-day basis.  It makes archiving them a lot easier.  If there are no objections I will start us off and we will phase out the old system by starting the new days on a per-page basis.  --Cyde↔Weys 17:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that makes sense. -- JLaTondre 18:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its current format encourages participation moreso, that is to say I'm less likely to weigh in on topics where I feel I have valid insight if I have to browse through five different pages twice a day rather than just one. Of course, the watchlist would track each day seperately so that would be a benefit of the proposed change. Not that I am dead set against a per day listing, just stating my preference. BigNate37T·C 18:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No no no, I'm not sure you understand.  Go look at WP:CFD and WP:DRV.  All of the current discussions are still displayed on the same page (through transclusion), it's just that each day's discussions are split off onto a separate page.  --Cyde↔Weys 18:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On second reading that still didn't make a lot of sense.  Just go look at the other examples, that's the best way to explain it.  --Cyde↔Weys 18:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it makes sense. That's (sort of) how AfD works, I know because there I'm only interested in AfDs I personally list; since each AfD has its own page so I can watchlist that but not the whole page of open AfDs. Of course, AfD transcludes each nomination seperately and you're proposing each day is transcluded on this one from what I gather. If this is the case (or better, do like AfD does) then you've got my albiet weak support. BigNate37T·C 18:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Seems like much more work than it would create as a benefit. I archived some the other day, and the only complaint I had was that I had to reverse the order of the days chronologically when sticking them in the July archive as a batch. I don't think the volume of redirects (under normal circumstances) warrants trying to split it off DRV/CSD-style, and would just lead to a plethora of subpages for a process than closers are already trying to streamline (including yourself, if I read your comments on Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy correctly). -- nae'blis (talk) 19:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The process would actually become easier as archiving would no longer be necessary - just remove the transclusion from the main page and you're done. The number of subpages doesn't impact the work so it doesn't go against streamlining. The biggest advantage I see is that the edit history of the nominations could be much more easily be accessed. At the moment, it is very difficult to find the history for a nomination in the archives. It's all in the main page's history and working your way through that is tough. If for some reason you had to figure out if the cut-n-paste archive was correct, it would be a chore. Hopefully, that is never needed, but why not make it easier? -- JLaTondre 20:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: JLaTondre's comments are making me like the idea of this more and more. BigNate37T·C 20:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmmm, good point about the edit history. I'm not sure it overrides my concerns about additional pages and edits, but I'm no worse than neutral on the idea now, for what it's worth. Would be good to get more eyes on the idea. -- nae'blis (talk) 22:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Per-day listings 

message: This was crossposted and has little to do with the specific workings of this page. Please discuss at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Informing the creators is being ignored. The comments have already been moved.  Please do not spam such complaints across multiple pages.  Rossami (talk) 18:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Informing the creators is being ignored 

message: The redirects into Wikipedia space should be covered by a guideline. Either formalized or speediable. Pavel Vozenilek 23:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been attempted (see Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects among other discussions). The final result has been that no one policy has reached consensus for all cases so we discuss them individually. -- JLaTondre 03:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  XYZ --> Wikipedia:XYZ 

message: Is there any set way to list multiple redirects for the same article? I feel many of the very obscure namings for Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha should be deleted. Charles 17:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is possible but is often a bad idea.  Individual redirects sometimes have different histories, different purposes, etc.  If there is a different fact-base, it should be discussed separately from the mass-nomination.  That said, I did a quick check of the inbound links to the page you mention and all of the redirects seem to be in use.  That would tend to argue that, however obscure, the redirects are serving a valid purpose and are successfully pointing readers to the correct title.  Before making your nomination, please read both the common reasons for deleting a redirect and the common exceptions to those reasons (the two 6-point lists on Wikipedia:Redirect#When should we delete a redirect?).  Rossami (talk) 19:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for the clarification. I think I mixed up Albert with another royal. I was editing something for his page and had many others open at the same time. I apologize for the error. Charles 21:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple redirects 

message: I am doing some work on Robert Dunsmuir and his son James Dunsmuir.  Although the father was a rich coal baron and mightily wanted to be knighted, for pretty good reason he never was.  Yet there were references to Sir Robert Dunsmuir on E and N Railway, Hurlford and James Dunsmuir.  I have corrected those entries to link directly to Robert Dunsmuir.  It may be because of the existence of the redirect that this error propagated.  Is that a reason to delete the redirect?
KenWalker | Talk 10:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is a mistake within Wikipedia, then it should be deleted. If it is a common misconception outside Wikipedia and can be sourced, then it should be mentioned in the target and kept. My 2 cents at least. -- JLaTondre 13:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should Sir Robert Dunsmuir redirect be deleted? 

message: Can we establish a definite rule for whether new nominations should be placed at the top or the bottom of individual day subpages? I've always thought they were supposed to go at the top, but I don't actually see a definite rule anywhere on Wikipedia:redirects for discussion, and at least 10%, if not more, of all new nominations are listed at the bottom of the day's subpage, in the style of afds. Thoughts? Picaroon9288 01:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They used to be added to the top when it was all one page. Now that they are individual subpages, I don't think it makes much difference. I think most people are used to adding additions to the bottom of the page so that's what I'd use as the nominal method, but I don't think we need a rule about it. -- JLaTondre 12:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It makes more logical sense to add new items to the top (so that there's an unbroken flow from newest to oldest on the main RFD page), but in practice I don't think it makes a huge difference so long as people add things with the correct date. It's not as if RFD is as busy as AFD or CFD; in practice the order of items on subpages doesn't really affect the order of resolution. (FWIW, I do think that moving things around after they've been commented on is a bad idea, regardless of other considerations - but what's done is done.) Gavia immer (u|t|c) 18:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definite rule on order of nominations 

message: I'm seeking consensus to change the text of the message on this template to "The result of the debate was" to bring it in line with the other deletion systems (and to avoid confusion).  What does everyone else think? Martinp23 14:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems reasonable to me. -- JLaTondre 15:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Sounds good, consistent and probably makes it easier to write up some of the rarer results. Gavia immer (u|t|c) 18:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{[[Template:rfd top|rfd top]]}} 

message: I don't want to create a metric goatload of work for RFD, but is wp: a protected pseudo-namespace prefix like WP:? It's used in a couple hundred odd redirects, which may or may not date back to the dark ages before namespaces existed, but it's a little...irregular in my mind. One specific case of confusion is where wp:sp redirects to one Wikipedia page, and WP:SP connects to another. -- nae'blis 22:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My personal slant on the lowercase wp: pseudospace is that it is only there as a typo for the WP: pseudonamespace. It should never be used in shortcut boxes, but if user creates a link such as proposed deletion then it would at least go to the right spot. I'm not sure whether there is any relevant policy or style guidelines, that's just my reasoning based on the policy I do have knowledge of. As an aside, it's not wp: but Wp:, since page names always start with a capital and they're technically in articlespace. BigNate37(T) 22:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  wp: (lowercase) a valid pseudonamespace prefix? 

message: I've noticed a lot of separate nominations here are ones going to the same page for the same reasons. Why allow multiple pages to be nominated in one discussion. For example, we don't need sixteen separate discussions on whether or not to delete redirects related to the Price is Right games. In these cases someone either has to say the same thing repeatedly, or ignore all but one discussions. If someone wants vote differently on separate articles, they can explicitly say so - this page doesn't seem to get busy enough that the person closing the discussion couldn't sort it out. If someone groups discussions when they shouldn't have then it is a simple matter to separate them. Koweja 22:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends.  The unique circumstances of each redirect have to be investigated during the deletion discussion.  Sometimes one of the redirects will have different history or usage than the other(s).  When the circumstances are different, it is important to evaluate them separately.  This can be especially true if one of the redirects was automatically created as the result of a pagemove or merger.  Since those redirects can involve GFDL compliance, they are fundamentally different than redirects which are directly created by a user.  If, however, all 16 were created at about the same time and have similar usage, then it can make sense to evaluate them together.  Rossami (talk) 23:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Simple pagemove redirects don't need to be kept for GFDL reasons, though there are other arguements for keeping them—far too often editors think that GFDL is being compromised if a redirect with only one history entry (the move) is deleted, and this is not the case. Merges that don't have histories merged should have the resultant redirect kept to comply with GFDL. BigNate37(T) 23:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: To the original point, some nominations are for groups of categories/redirects/whatever (this is applicable to all XfDs, though more common in some) and some groups are nominated singly. As it turns out, some of the group noms end with no consensus and get relisted individually, and some groups of related but individual noms have only one real discussion which centers around the entire group. I'd say it's judgement as to whether certain pages should be grouped or dealt with seperately. It is easy to know which ones were best suited which way in hindsight, but I don't see a way process can be updated to reduce the number of incorrect groups/ungroups, certainly not in a way that's efficient enough to warrant the added instruction creep to RfD/XfD/whatever. BigNate37(T) 23:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple redirects per nonmination 

message: WAMU is the only name American University's radio station goes by. By redirecting that name exclusively to Washington Mutual, users cannot access the information they want, such as when I went looking for WAMU (the readio station) in Wikipedia. Denying users access to the information they seek does not make finding information any easier. Instead, it goes against Wikipedia's original aim, and any database's aim for that matter. In a Google search, WAMU as a radio station is displayed second, which suggests that at least by the standard of online bibliometrics, American University's radio station is reasonably well searched. At the very least, users should be directed to a page from which to choose their ultimate destination. Destitute 06:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WAMU

message: This list shows about a dozen "T:" shortcuts, to talk, template or template talk pages. Is this useful? >Radiant< 13:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, unless there's a precedent already for a specific shortcut type, the only useful pseudonamespace is WP:. BigNate37(T) 14:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps this can be brought up at centralized discussion or the village pump? I'd like to see us standardise which shortcut pseudo-namespaces we do and do not use. BigNate37(T) 00:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about T: ? 

message: Why isn't Redirects for Discussion called Redirects for Deletion? Kamope · talk · contributions 01:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the discussion further up the page. -- JLaTondre 03:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why? 

message: I'm not really familiar with what redirects are and are not speedyable.  Would completely stupid joke redirects like I just do what you can do -> Peter Petrelli and Hardest Working Man in Show-Business (and two other variations thereof) -> Stephen Colbert (character) qualify under G3?  I actually find the latter rather offensive, and I'm almost tempested to redirect it to James Brown, where it belongs, but I don't think it'll be any more helpful there, as there are no incoming links - it would just serve the same purpose as it does now; being a silly little in-joke.  Do these need to be formally listed?  -- Vary | Talk 05:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or can "Implausible typo" be interpreted to mean "there's no way in hell anyone's going to type "I just do what you can do" into the search box hoping to find "Peter Petrelli"? -- Vary | Talk 05:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: WP:CSD is quite specific on what can and can not be speedy-deleted. There are three specific cases which apply only to redirects and 12 general cases (though only a few of those can really apply to a redirect). In general, the kind of joke redirects you describe are not speedy-deletable since there is a chance that it's not a joke but is an obscure but real reference. As individuals, we're not very good at finding those obscure references. As a community, however, we are quite good at sorting out the garbage from the obscure.  On the other hand, if you looked at the user's contribution history and saw a very clear pattern of vandalism and other bad-faith entries, you would probably not be overturned if you deleted a redirect created by the vandal under case G3. If the redirect was unambiguously offensive and was clearly a personal attack, you could also make a case for G10 (but it would have to be a lot more obvious than the example you cite above).  The "implausible typo" clause is for typos and misspellings, not just for the search-engine argument.  Remember that redirects do more than just support the search engine.  Hope that helps. Rossami (talk) 05:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy Criteria? 

message: User:Interiot/cross-namespace redirects was recently updated. Before killing anything on this list, make sure that:
#incoming links have been dealt with
#edit history has been merged if need be
#a speedy criterion is actually met
I think nearly all of the ones that can be speedied have already been deleted. We need to come up with a plan or guideline to deal with the rest of them. The mainspace -> portal redirects seem like the easiest group to target first, with minimal grunt work required before a few mass nominations. --- RockMFR 08:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cross-namespace redirects 

message: Based on the title of this page, the purpose of this page is to discuss not only the deletion of redirects, but also their destination.  However, in reading this page it rarely mentions retargetting and Template:RFD only mentions deletion. Shouldn't the wording of this page and the template be changed to reflect it's to discuss what to do with the redirects, be it deletion or retargetting. --Bobblehead 18:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Retargetting does not have to be decided on this page.  Retargetting decisions are traditionally worked out by the editors involved on the respective Talk pages.  The title of this page was changed to reflect that decisions from this page may sometimes result in retargetting rather than deletion, not to imply that all retargetting discussions must be conducted here.  Rossami (talk) 19:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Purpose?

message: About 9 months ago now this process was renamed from deletion to discussion.  I fully support this decision.  At the top of the article, it states: "Redirects for discussion (RfD) is the place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic redirects."  To me, this means that you can discuss not just whether a redirect should be deleted, but also if it should be directed to a different target.  Oddly, however, at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#The guiding principles of RfD, it states "RfD is not the place to resolve editorial disputes. If you think a redirect should be targeted at a different article, discuss it on the talk pages of the current target article and/or the proposed target article.  So, is this intentional or is it just a leftover from before the process name was changed.  I believe that this process is exactly the correct place to have the sort of discussion that is currently started at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 April 14#Las Vegas → Las Vegas (disambiguation).  I would normally be bold and just make this change, but since there is a current discussion which would be affected by this change, I would like to solicit consensus before proceeding.  --After Midnight 0001 15:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion vs. Deletion 

message: Is it propoer to place the  template at the top of the redirection page?  Doing so breaks automatic redirection and when there are thousands of redirects, this leaves too many users at an unexpected location.  Vegaswikian 02:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but if the template is put at the bottom, A popularly used redirect could be deleted without any of the people using it actually taking notice that it has been nominated for deletion, attracting input only from those who hover around RFD all the time. — CharlotteWebb 02:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfD template used to break redirection 

message: I created Template:Oldrfd (modelled after Template:Oldafdfull) for use on surviving redirects' talk pages. For example, see Talk:2007 Martian invasion of Earth -- JHunterJ 17:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  oldrfd talk page template 

message: There are instances where an article would mention a pseudonym for the subject. It seems reasonable to have the pseudonym as a redirect to the article in question.
However, there are certain redirects up for discussion whose connection to the article in question is far from obvious. For this reason, I propose such redirects be justfied on the talk page for the redirect. If the argument for creation holds water, it would probably cut down on the number of redirects brought up for discussion.
Comments? --Aarktica 14:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a bad idea, but it probably needs to be brought up on WT:R rather than here. -- JHunterJ 14:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks very much; I reposted my proposal there. --Aarktica 16:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Justification on talk pages. 

message: It just occured to me that I unintentionally closed an rfd I had voted in. I undid the action, and would like for another user to close the discussion for a redirect to The Secret. --Aarktica 18:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As you were not the one who deleted it, I don't see an issue. You were simply documenting that it had been deleted. If an admin deletes a page being debated, but forgets to close the debate, I don't see an issue with you putting the tags on the debate as it's over at that point. The best thing to do is to document who actually did the deletion in your closing note. I've gone ahead and taken care of this one. -- JLaTondre 19:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the info. I will remember to practice that when closing IfDs as well. --Aarktica 19:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for action. 

message: Is there any kind of precedent regarding what to do with redirect pages that include "(disambiguation)" in their title (e.g., Foo (disambiguation) redirects to Foo). In most of the cases I've encountered, the redirect had no useful edit history and no significant incoming links (often only from list of pages from database dumps) and the target was an actual disambiguation page. Would these kinds of redirects be deleted or is Foo (disambiguation) a plausible search term when looking for Foo. I know that this is technically an issue to be resolved in an RfD itself, but I don't want to nominate hundreds of pages in a series of bundled nominations only to find out that there is no consensus to delete such pages.
So, essentially, I want to solicit opinions regarding the matter. If there is an overall positive response, I'll do a test nomination of a few cases and see how that goes. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 07:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The guidelines for disambiguation pages used to specify that such a redirect be created, for use when intentionally linking to the disambiguation page.  After a recent reviewed RfD (see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 6#HIPC (disambiguation)) ended in deleting one of them that had no incoming links, the disambiguation style guideline has been modified to suggest creating one only when such a link is needed. -- JHunterJ 11:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your response. In that case, it's probably not worth doing except on a small scale (or perhaps even on an individual basis). Thanks again, Black Falcon (Talk) 19:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirects from disambiguation pages 

message: Through VF, I discovered a lot of redirects to numbers going up. (i.e. 455 -> 400 (number)) 
Is this even a good idea? -wizzard2k (C•T•D) 21:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea, as I understand it, is to avoid having individual articles about numbers about which there's not too much interesting to say, and treat them in articles covering ranges of numbers. Of course past a certain point that doesn't work either, but it makes a certain amount of sense for a while. I won't take a position on whether this is the best possible solution, but you might talk to the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers, who seem to be interested in this sort of thing. --Trovatore 07:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Every number? 

message: Howdy.  There's been an intermittent discussion at Talk:Jaguar (car) to move Jaguar (car) to Jaguar Cars (the name of the company itself, Jaguar Cars Limited).  Right now, the latter is just a redirect, but it does have one prior revision, which prevents said move.  Is it possible to have the extraneous revision deleted?  Thanks.    user:justen    talk   09:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Requested moves handles moves. List is there per the instructions on that page and it will be taken care of if there is consensus. -- JLaTondre 11:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Will do.  Thank you for the guidance.    user:justen    talk   11:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of specific revision at [[Jaguar Cars]] 

message: Well, I merged the discussions together for 1-18-08 and 1/18/08, where I probably shouldn't have. The former could be closed per WP:SNOW, it appears to be quite the popular redirect and therefore draws a lot of keep votes from non-RfD regulars. However, what should be done with the latter? Relisting seems like it might be a good idea. The closing admin could carefully examine comments to see if an editor expressed an opinion that applied to both or just one of the redirects, and make a decision based on the amount of discussion perceived to be targetted at 1/18/08 specifically... I'm just throwing ideas out there to try and help clean up the bit of mess I caused. BigNate37(T) 16:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cloverfield redirects 

message: Note: If all you want to do is replace a currently existing redirect with an actual article, you do not need to list it here. Turning redirects into fleshed-out encyclopedic articles is wholly encouraged at Wikipedia. Be bold.
:This needs tweaking.  Black Africa became a redirect to Sub-Saharan Africa after a merger.  The talk page remained behind.  It probably should have been changed into a redirect as well.  When the page got reused for the football club, the creator did not blank the talk page.
I like this replacement but I think it's too long.  Any ideas on trimming it?
:Note: If all you want to do is replace a currently existing redirect with an actual article, you do not need to list it here. Turning redirects into fleshed-out encyclopedic articles is wholly encouraged at Wikipedia. Be bold.  If either the existing redirect or its talk page has any significant history, move BOTH pages then create a new article.  This will preserve the history of the older version.  If the redirect is to a completely different article than the one you are writing, consider replacing the redirect with a disambiguation page instead.  This way links from outside Wikipedia won't mistakenly point to your article.  
:davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The situation that you describe is an exception and a fairly infrequent one.  Leave the existing wording of the policy alone but be bold in fixing them yourself when you stumble across those exceptions.  Rossami (talk) 16:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Being BOLD when a redirect has an old talk page 

message: There are several redirects that are for titles, etc., that have single quotations marks and redirect to the title; ex: 'Saint Louis Blues'.  Before I take the time to research each one and list them for deletion, is this something that qualifies for deletion, or would they be better off left alone?  My logic is, if someone is going to bother to type in quotation marks, who would use a single (') rather than a double (")?  I got these redirects from .--Old Hoss 19:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inquiry on redirects using single quotes 

message: Has there been any consistent handling of redirect of the form "Article" → Article ? If yes, are they kept (they are relatively harmless), or are they usually deleted ? I could not find any such situation in the recent listings, so I am asking here before listing the page. Schutz 07:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirects from quoted title 

message: Ok, I have been waiting too long, please go here. At the bottom of that page. I really need some discussion, since how the template is now, it simply isn't working. TheBlazikenMaster 17:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I really need a discussion on the template. 

message: See here. Melsaran 09:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleaning up RFDs

message: What's the policy regarding the alternate Main Pages, found here? I know that the regular Main Page and its backups, (i.e., Main Page/1, etc.) are allowed, but are the old redirects allowable? --MZMcBride 16:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main Pages 

message: I've closed the only nomination on this date's RfD log. However, I'm not delisting it yet so that more eyes catch what I did ( ); I'll assume de-listing by someone else constitutes acceptance of my early closure. BigNate37(T) 15:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 August 30]]