Skip to current discussions

Administrator instructions Purge the cache to refresh this page

Redirects for discussion (RfD) is the place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic redirects. Items sent here usually stay listed for a week or so, after which they are deleted by an administrator, kept, or retargeted.

Note: If all you want to do is replace a currently existing, unprotected 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.

Note: Redirects should not be deleted simply because they do not have any incoming links. Please do not list this as a reason to delete a redirect. Redirects that do have incoming links are sometimes deleted as well, so it's not a necessary condition either. See When should we delete a redirect?

Old discussions are archived at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log.

Before you list a redirect for deletion...

...please familiarize yourself with the following:

• Wikipedia:Redirect — our general policy on what redirects are, why they exist, and how they are used.
• Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion — our policy on which pages can be deleted without discussion. The "General" and "Redirects" section apply here.
• Wikipedia:Deletion policy — our deletion policy that describes how we delete things by consensus
• Wikipedia:Guide to deletion — whose guidelines on discussion format and shorthands also apply here

The guiding principles of RfD

• The purpose of a good redirect is to eliminate the possibility that an average user will wind up staring blankly at a "Search results 1-10 out of 378" search page instead of the article they were looking for. If someone could plausibly type in the redirect's name when searching for the target article, it's a good redirect.
• Redirects are cheap. Redirects take up minimal disk space and use very little bandwidth. Thus, it doesn't really hurt things much if there are a few of them scattered around.
• The default result of any RFD nomination which receives no other discussion is delete. Thus, a redirect nominated in good faith and in accordance with RfD policy will be deleted, even if there is no discussion surrounding that nomination.
• Redirects nominated in contravention of Wikipedia:Redirect will be speedily kept.
• RfD is not the place to resolve most 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. However, for more difficult cases, this page can be a centralized discussion place for resolving tough debates about where redirects point.
• Requests for deletion of redirects from one page's talk page to another page's talk page don't need to be listed here, as anyone can simply remove the redirect by blanking the page.

When should we delete a redirect?

1. The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine.
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, 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 redirecting Google to love.
5. It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exception to this rule is the "CAT:" shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space but in practice form their own "pseudo-namespaces".
6. If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to an article that does not exist or itself, it can be deleted immediately, though you should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first.
7. If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful. Implausible typos or misnomers are potential candidates for speedy deletion.

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, whether by redirecting a plural to a singular, by redirecting a frequent misspelling to a correct spelling, by redirecting a misnomer to a correct term, by redirecting to a synonym, etc. In other words, redirects with no incoming links are not candidates for deletion on those grounds because they are of benefit to the browsing user. Some extra vigilance by editors will be required to minimize the occurrence of those frequent misspellings in the article texts because the linkified misspellings will not appear as broken links.
3. They aid searches on certain terms.
4. You risk breaking external or internal links by deleting the redirect. Old CamelCase links and old subpage links should be left alone in case there are any existing external links pointing to them.
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.
6. The redirect is to a plural form or to a singular form.

Neutrality of redirects

Note that redirects are not covered by Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. This covers only article titles, which are required to be neutral (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Article naming). Perceived lack of neutrality in redirects is therefore not a valid reason for deletion.

Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:

1. Articles that are created using non-neutral titles are routinely moved to a new neutral title, which leaves behind the old non-neutral title as a working redirect (e.g. Dalmatian Kristallnacht → Dalmatian anti-Serb riots of May 1991).
2. Articles created as POV forks may be deleted and replaced by a redirect pointing towards the article from which the fork originated (e.g. Barack Obama Muslim rumor → deleted and redirected to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008).
3. The subject matter of articles may be commonly represented outside Wikipedia by non-neutral terms. Such terms cannot be used as Wikipedia article title, per the words to avoid guidelines and the general neutral point of view policy. For instance, the widely used but non-neutral expression "Attorneygate" is used to redirect to the neutrally titled Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. The article in question has never used that title, but the redirect was created to provide an alternative means of reaching it.

If a redirect is not an established term and is unlikely to be used by searchers, it is unlikely to be useful and may reasonably be nominated for deletion. However, if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources (as defined by Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources), it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms. Non-neutral redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term.

See also: Policy on which redirects can be deleted immediately.

Closing notes

Details at: Wikipedia:Deletion process#Redirects for Discussion page

Nominations should remain open, per policy, about a week before they are closed, unless they meet the general criteria for speedy deletion, the criteria for speedy deletion of a redirect, or are not valid redirect discussion requests (e.g. are actually move requests).

How to list a redirect for deletion

To list a redirect for deletion, follow this two-step process:

• It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the redirect that you are nominating the redirect. To find the main contributors, look in the page history of the redirect.

Current list

July 27

July 26

Euroeco → European Environment Agency

No evidence that "Euroeco" is used as a common abbreviation to refer to the "European Environment Agency". Google search on ""European Environment Agency" "Euroeco"" does not return anything convincing. Edcolins (talk) 09:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

See also Euro eco, Europlant, Euro just, Euro med, Euro plant, Euro lang, Euro food, Euro mar, Euro air, Euro satnav, Euro rail, Euro train, Euro front, Euro fish, Euro chem, Euro sex, Euro sat‎ and more redirects created yesterday by User:Jkliajmi, see Special:Contributions/Jkliajmi. They should probably be reviewed as well. I am not going to list them one by one here. --Edcolins (talk) 09:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Security-As-A-Service → Security as a service

superfluous; varies only in case samj (talk) 09:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. It's not clear to me what's being nominated here — the listed redirect has never existed, and the RfD tag is on Security As A Service, which is a redirect to Security-as-a-service, which is itself a redirect to Security as a service. Meanwhile, all of those look fine to me, including the one above that doesn't exist but should. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, probably should create the redirect that's nominated and doesn't exist (irony?). And I fixed the double redirect mentioned above.

Evolutionary tree/Sarcoptergii → Sarcopterygii

The redirect is useless. Liopleurodon93 (talk) 21:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Outdated, nobody will be looking for it in userspace after 5 years. --UsaSatsui (talk) 22:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

July 24

Pig Empire → American Empire

While Abbie Hoffman may have used this obscure phrase, that fact alone does not make it a widely-enough used phrase to exist as a redirect on the project, per #3 and #7 in the criteria for deletion of a redirect. Additionally, it was created by a now-indeffed editor, who was indef-ed for just this type of thing. His userpage is littered with anti-establishment userboxes, and the initial creation of the redirect was itself apparently little more than a pointy exercise. The fact that Abbie Hoffman once called America a "Pig Empire" does not constitute a legitimate reason for making that a redirect, especially (but not only) becuase that phrase wasn't even considered notable enough to make it into any part of this project. S. Dean Jameson 17:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Redirector here. For full context regarding the history of this redirect, it might benefit editors to see here and here. Regarding the deletion criteria cited in the nomination; I don't think #3 is really a concern, and with regard to #7 , the redirect is quite obviously neither a misnomer or an implausible typo. As the linked example illustrates, #3 is primarily to protect living people from gratuitous disparagement. My rationale in proposing a previous redirect to United States for deletion was that it was a malicious neogolistic redirect, but after the creator explained that far from a neologism, the term was widely used by influential countercultural figure and critic of United States foreign policy Abbie Hoffman. After some research, I discovered the term reached wider use in reliable third party sources (cf. Harris, Randy (1993). The Linguistics Wars. Oxford Oxfordshire: Oxford University Press. ISBN 019509834X. , Dorff, Elliot (2008). Jewish Choices, Jewish Voices: Money. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America. ISBN 0827608616. , Mcdonogh, Gary (2001). Encyclopedia of Contemporary American Culture. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0415161614. , among others). A cursory examination of traffic stats indicates that the redirect is a plausible search term, useful to dozens of readers (contra #7). Redirects are cheap, and this one is well-founded. Skomorokh 17:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Edit-conflicted response to refactored nomination: the merits of a redirect are completely independent of the merits of its contributor; this redirect ought not be tarred by association with User:Lenerd. It is completely circular to cite 'not being considered notable enough to make it into the project' as a relevant reason to delete new content; consider the nonsensical rationale of "Sorry, the article you created has been deemed unsuitable for inclusion and deleted as non-notable, as if it had been notable, it would already have been included" on new pages. Skomorokh 17:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • This isn't an article. It's a redirect, using a term that is mentioned in neither Abbie Hoffman nor American Empire. If anything, the term should be redirected to the Hoffman article, and a sourced mention made of it in that article. It's clearly not a widely-used term of reference for America or the "American Empire", so would that (redirecting to the person who coined the phrase) be an acceptable alternative? S. Dean Jameson 17:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
    • That is a false dilemma, as it is not a widely used term to refer to Hoffmann either. The relevant question is: what is someone who searches for "Pig Empire" looking for? Examining the third party references, none of them fail to mention Hoffmann, so few of the searchers wouldn't know the association. Therefore, if they were looking for info on Hoffmann, they would search for "Abbie Hoffman". Much more likely is that they are looking for info on the "empire" in question. If the choices were between United States and Abbie Hoffmann, I would probably agree with you that the latter would be more appropriate, but we do have an article on the "empire": American Empire. (Please continue discussion here rather than on my talkpage, thanks). Skomorokh 18:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• Nominator's proposal S. Dean Jameson proposes to create a section in the Abbie Hoffman article on "Pig Empire" and switch the redirect there. If such a section were appropriate for the article, and linked to American Empire, I would support this. I'm not convinced the term deserves that much weight, but I'm prepared to co-operate with an effort at working this through. Skomorokh 18:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• I'm working up a short, sourced article on the term off-line. This could either be merged somehow into the Hoffman article, or stand alone as a stub. I think this might solve the problem, as my main concern is that the current redirect seems to say "Pig Empire = American Empire, objectively", when it's a much more fluid issue of how Hoffman and his contemporaries viewed America, combined with what the phrase means today, and how widely-used it might or might not be today. I'll place the sourced text at Pig Empire, and then defer to you on whether or not to merge it into the Hoffman article, or simply leave it as a stub. S. Dean Jameson 18:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • As someone who generally leans toward inclusion, I would say having examined the sources that the phrase/concept itself would fail WP:N. I recommend you sandbox a paragraph in your userspace and we will see how it might fit into the Abbie Hoffmann or perhaps Steal This Book articles. I don't think negative redirects are necessarily concerning; see The Governator, Butcher of Baghdad as negative nickname redirects for example. Skomorokh 18:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

    Y DoneI've placed a short section in the Hoffman Steal This Book article, and will be retargeting Pig Empire to that shortly. S. Dean Jameson

    • Looks good, great work. Skomorokh 20:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• Retarget to the Hoffman article or delete. This phrase has no significant usage that connects with the topic of the current target article. It was a fairly trivial pejorative targetting US society as a whole, not a substantive commentary. Given the triviality of its use, I'm leaning more toward delete unless someone can come up with more compelling evidence that this phrase was significant. Rossami (talk) 19:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I have to agree with Rossami on this one and suggest delete. It's an adolescent throwaway pejorative. Eusebeus (talk) 20:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• The redirect has been WP:BOLDly retargeted to the satisfaction of editors of the page. No need to continue this discussion for process' sake. Skomorokh 20:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• Retarget looks good to me. -- Ned Scott 00:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: I have reverted the closure by both Skomorokh & S. Dean Jameson. It is inappropriate for an editor to close a debate they have participated in. This is especially true when there are contrary opinions given in the debate. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Completely, totally, and utterly unhelpful. The one person who mentioned "delete", also said "retarget." What you're doing is wildly inappropriate, and process-wonky. I will be reverting (per consensus here) shortly. I ask you to bow to consensus, and not process wonkery. S. Dean Jameson 00:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Please read the debate again. Eusebeus's opinion is for a straight delete. -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Good lord, this is surreal. He said "agree with Rossami" who suggested delete or retarget. And one editor (even if he was an overt delete) doesn't derail an overwhelming consensus. You really need to stop now. S. Dean Jameson 01:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Yes, it is surreal. But it is your actions that are surreal. He doesn't say re-target & specifically says delete. -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
          • Nope, it's on you. Look at my contributions to the discussion before you stomped in. I and the other editos had worked out an amicable solution. Then you blew in like a hurricane, undoing our work, and for what, exactly? S. Dean Jameson 01:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
            • Because of this. Had you just let the discussion continue, there would not be an issue. Instead, you are trying to silince an editor's opinion and that is just not right. -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
              • And still you persist in your drama. He said "agree with Rossami" who also suggested "retarget." There's no debate that you raised the drama quotient, when everything had died down, and been resolved. S. Dean Jameson 01:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: Please stop trying to close this discussion early. If the problem is truly solved, let it sit here for the 5 days or so that the process normally runs and confirm it. If not, well, that will give others the opportunity to find the discussion and agree or disagree with what's already been said. Closing the debate early is creating the drama, not the other way around. Rossami (talk) 05:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

  The problem is solved. But, by all means, let the process run its course anyway. S. Dean Jameson 23:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I can see both sides regarding the closing issue. I do have to agree that if you have cast your !vote then you should not close it. On the other hand, it appears to me that the WP:BOLD actions have been correct and that the new redirect is appropriate. I would say that if there is two more editors that agrees with the new redirect, it can be closed as a WP:SNOW --Pmedema (talk) 08:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• I also agree with the new redirect. Enigma ^message 16:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• 'Retarget to Steal this Book. Fits nicer there, not as POV. If one author uses the term to describe something, that "new term" shouldn't go to the term it is referring to, but to either the person or the work where it appears, with an explanation (link) to what it is referring to (American Empire). This appears to have been well done. I find it to be a valid redirect, per Skomorokh's additional references of the terms use. Keeper ǀ 76 15:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect/Retarget per S. Jameson's suggestion. Enigma ^message 16:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Emcore → Solar cell

Wikipedia:NOTDIRECTORY#DIRECTORY, WP:SPAM, company to product, we are not yellow pages Mion (talk) 15:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I'm not seeing the issue here. The article seems to note that Emcore is a major solar cell manufacture, and this seems to be the only article with any information about them. -- Ned Scott 00:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Unless Emcore is to have it's own article, the current redirect is fine. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Martifer Renewables Electricity → Martifer

Wikipedia:NOTDIRECTORY#DIRECTORY, WP:SPAM Mion (talk) 15:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep This does not appear to be spam at all, and "Martifer Renewables Electricity" has a section in the target article (Martifer#Martifer Renewables Electricity). -- Ned Scott 00:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

AutoblogGreen → Weblogs, Inc.

product to company, Wikipedia:NOTDIRECTORY#DIRECTORY, WP:SPAM Mion (talk) 15:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom.--S_RX 16:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment There's nothing more than an EL in the target article, so I would be fine with deletion, but I don't understand the directory/spam argument here. I don't know how many of them are reliable sources, but a quick search with Google news shows autobloggreen.com being cited in several articles. Seems better than your average run-of-the-mill/dime-a-dozen blog. -- Ned Scott 00:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

土 → Earth (classical element)

The redirect was previously discussed in Jan 2008. The decision at the time was "no consensus" but it stimulated a centralized discussion on the general topic of foreign redirects. Based on the consensus that was subsequently formed in that discussion, I would ask that the January decision be revisited. This redirect would appear to fall into the category of a "common word or concept" where a foreign-language redirect is discouraged. (In fact, it's specifically called out as an example, but if the consensus here does not ratify that decision, we'll have to change the example.) Thank you. Rossami (talk) 14:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• delete as per result of central discussion. −Woodstone (talk) 18:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hachiroku → Toyota AE86

Redirect makes no sence. Hachiroku is not even mentioned in the article, is not a nick name or anything. I see absolutly no reason for this redirect. Pmedema (talk) 05:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, apparently Hachiroku is Japanese for "86", and used in Japan to refer to the Toyota AE86. -- Ned Scott 08:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Please cite/reference that because in a simple Google search [1] I find that there are more references to Drifting (motorsport) then to this Toyota vehicle...--Pmedema (talk) 09:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
    • The current article does mention "Hachiroku" (or Hachi-Roku) at the end of the lead paragraph, and has for a while. This seems like a good redirect. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• That's an odd coincidence - two foreign-language redirects nominated back-to-back... In keeping with the centralized discussion decision on redirects from foreign languages, this would appear to fall into category of "direct translation where the English title is the native/original form". That would suggest that deletion is in order unless there is affirmative evidence that the "foreign title is common use". My own google search returned 178k hits but a review of the first few pages of results seems to show that less than a quarter are relevant. (Unfortunately, I had to exclude a number of sites where the context was not clear to me. A better analysis by someone who speaks the language would be much appreciated.) Rossami (talk) 14:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• I don't speak Japanese, but it's a common term among some English speaking anime fans, due to Initial D. -- Ned Scott 00:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

July 23

Khojaly Genocide → Khojaly Massacre

613 dead is not a genocide. Using the term genocide for events that are not a genocide diminishes the term and hence is a great disservice to people and nations that actually have experienced a genocide. The term is used mostly by propaganda sites. google search. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 23:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Of course it's not a genocide, but it seems as though the Azeris do call it one. redirects are cheap and do not have to be completely NPOV (within reason). Moreschi (talk) (debate) 23:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Redirects don't imply a POV or the correctness of a term, they are used just to help the visitor reach the article. Since the name "Khojaly Genocide" is used by some sources, the redirect should stay. bogdan (talk) 23:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep because it documents a pagemove that the nominator made mere minutes before attempting to delete the redirect. Pagemoves automatically leave a redirect behind for many very good reasons. Most important among them is pointing the previous editors and readers of the page to the new title. When you delete the redirect, new users often think that the database "hiccupped" and they repost the moved content. This either results in a fork with the two versions drifting out of synch or another unexplained deletion and a bitten new editor. Neither is good for the project. As Moreschi said, redirects are not held to the same strict standards as article titles and content. Rossami (talk) 23:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. The term is by propagandist origin (some kinf of SOAPing) especially as reliable sources like NYT call the events Khojaly battle, not even massacres. silly propagand by Azerbaijani KGB of 1990's! Andranikpasha (talk) 12:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

iTLD → Top-level_domain#Infrastructure_TLD

unusual alias of .arpa 212.82.251.44 (talk) 11:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Being "unusual" is not a reason to delete a redirect. By the way, a quick google search suggests that it's not even all that unusual. (About a quarter of the ones I spot-checked were false positives but the other half appear to substantiate the use of this abbreviation.) Rossami (talk) 15:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The top hit is International TLD, not Infrastructure TLD. That can be confusing when folks look for the former. I found no hint for the WP:NEO acronym in the top hits, but there is always a chance to get mirrors of Wikipedia errors in a Google search. Just in case, no significant edit history to preserve here, and no energy to disambiguate dubious acronyms. --212.82.251.44 (talk) 16:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Interesting... You're right that most of the hits explain the abbreviation as "international ...". But when you look at the context, they all seem to be using it as if they meant gTLD or proposed top-level domain. How about if we just retarget to Top-level_domain and let our readers drill down to the subsection that applies to their question. Rossami (talk) 21:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Dana Falkenberg → sep11:Dana Falkenberg

Redirect to non-Wikimedia project. See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_July_11#Akimichi_clan_.E2.86.92_wikia:Naruto:Akimichi_clan. Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 02:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipeida is not a memorial. --UsaSatsui (talk) 05:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Though it should be noted that this is a different situation than the Naruto redirect. The September 11th wiki used to be an official Wikimedia wiki, but was eventually "spun out" to its own site. -- Ned Scott 08:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, wasn't wikia originally a WikiMedia project? Or was that just indirectly?--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Wikia was completely separate, though there is one or two wikis hosted on Wikia that were once hosted by the Foundation. -- Ned Scott 07:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Abstain. This was moved to another WikiMedia project via the transwiki process. The precedent cited in the nomination does not apply. At the time it was moved, transwiki did not automatically move the pagehistory. The assumption built into the transwiki rules at the time was that we would preserve the pagehistory (hidden behind the cross-wiki redirect) in order to help our sister project comply with the attribution requirements of GFDL. We had the option to instead move the attribution to the new project via copy-paste of the pagehistory but it was not required. Note: If someone takes the time to move the attribution history over to the new location, please change my opinion here to "abstain". Rossami (talk) 15:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • First off, it's not a "sister project" anymore. Second, there is -one- edit of any significance in this article, and that's what was copied over. The rest are redirects or minor. Quite simply, making sure an anon who made a page that shouldn't have been made 7 years ago gets proper attribution for his "contribution" in another wiki isn't our responsibility, it's theirs, and certainly not a reason to keep this page. --UsaSatsui (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • {edit conflict)Rossami, I think you're overlooking the fact that the sep11 wiki is no longer a WikiMedia project, so I don't think your reasoning applies here. WikiMedia is now under no obligation to help them comply with the GFDL, that's their responsibility, not ours.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I know that it's not longer a sister project but it was at the time that this page was moved. It is my opinion (and it's only opinion - there's no policy to back this up) that we should continue to help them comply with GFDL as a matter of good corporate citizenship. I'll also admit that my opinion was influenced by a concern that there were many more of these across the project and I didn't think it's worth the time to argue over them all. Having had more time to search for examples, I am now less concerned about the potential precedent. I'll move the attribution history of this one over to the sep11: site myself. Rossami (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Update: The sep11 wiki has been locked for maintenance for several days now. It may take longer than expected to move the attribution history. If the community is okay with a little patience, I will clean up this page myself once their wiki is unlocked. Rossami (talk) 01:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Fine by me. -- Ned Scott 06:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. Nsk92 (talk) 02:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. No prejudice against recreation as an independent article should she become posthumously notable by some strange twist of fate. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 03:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Ryan Eigenmann, et al. → Lobo (TV series)

The article does not tell anything about this person, just the character he plays. That also goes to the following redirects:

• Jerry Lopez Sineneng
• Dang Bagas
• Mark Anthony Bunda
• Annaliza Goma
• Katski Flores
• Eric Fructuoso‎
• Angel Aquino‎
• Timmy Cruz‎

上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 04:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep They are reasonable redirects. People go searching for character information all the time. Prsumably, these fictional characters are not notable enough per WP:FICT to stand alone. Having redirects will prevent people from creating these articles. hbdragon88 (talk) 05:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Those are are actors we are talking about, not the characters they play. I think you misunderstood, based from what I have read from your comment. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 09:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, perfectly reasonable redirects, if these people are only notable for their appearances in Lobo. Oh, and they're not fictional characters as far as I can tell, these are the names of the actors. Obviously it would be nice to get the articles created if any of them can be established as notable actors. --Stormie (talk) 05:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. It's standard practice to redirect non-notable actors to a project they're associated with. --UsaSatsui (talk) 05:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
• Note: I dunno but Ryan Eigenmann, Angel Aquino and Eric Fructuoso‎ shouldn't be solely redirected to Lobo (TV series), especially Fructuoso‎ since he was a part of a Filipino boy band back in the day which I think is also a red link. Eigenmann is also quite an accomplished actor (by accomplished I mean he has appeared in a lot of TV series/film. The others can be safely redirected to the Lobo page. --Howard the Duck 06:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. The actors (not fictitious characters, mind you) are more notable than just appearing on Lobo, especially the last three. Meanwhile, Jerry Lopez Sineneng (the series' director) has done a lot of programs for ABS-CBN and should have an article of his own than a mere redirect. Starczamora (talk) 07:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree, especially with Eric Fructuoso, whose was once a matinee idol during the early 90s together with Jomari Yllana and Mark Anthony Fernandez (I even met him around 1994 because he is a relative of an acquaintance). - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 09:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete The actors are neither non-notable nor fictional. I believe that they should not be a redirect on the grounds that they are not just known for their roles in this soap opera. Keeping these redirects is as insulting to a Filipino as redirecting Sean Connery to James Bond is for the English. I believe that we should keep the entries as red-links until Filipino Wikipedians could find the time to provide a decent stub or article.--Lenticel ^(talk) 14:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • If they're notable, stub them. Red links help nobody. And your example is very poor: First off, Connery has -clearly- played multiple roles, second, he's not the only Bond, and third, I wouldn't find that offensive in the least. --UsaSatsui (talk) 14:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
    • We're not exactly numerous here and very few are entertainment specialists. Also, online Philippine sources are hard to come by (one of my biggest frustrations actually). By the look of your reply I think I got my example head on (Analogy isn't the best thing to describe stuff especially when you have different cultures right?). These guys are notable not only because of Lobo as is Connery is not only notable because of Bond. Now would it piss you off if people simply talks about Connery as "that Bond Guy"?.--Lenticel ^(talk) 14:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Might piss -him- off. Myself, I wouldn't care one whit, nor would any rational person I can think of. If he were a redirect to James Bond and had other roles, I'd just create an article or stub about him and overwrite the redirect...which is what I suggested (and to me, he's "Indy's Dad"). --UsaSatsui (talk) 17:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Exactly what Lenticel points out. Those actors are not just the characters they portray on Lobo. Starczamora (talk) 16:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. As UsaSatsui said, this is standard practice for non-notable/semi-notable actors. If someone wants to expand the article, there is no need to delete the redirect before overwriting it with new content. Until someone does, a redirect is marginally more helpful to our readers than a redlink. (The argument that the redirect is somehow insulting or offensive is uncompelling.) Rossami (talk) 15:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that some of the actors listed are actually notable, as they have appeared in more television shows and movies than just Lobo. Starczamora (talk) 16:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The remedy is to write one-sentence substubs about actors with extensive acting credits. --Howard the Duck 16:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• I do not know Bagas, Bunda, Goma and Flores. The others, I can recognize, and I'm certain that they deserve to have their own WP articles (and hence, their redirects deleted). (I'm not at home right now, though, so I don't have the luxury of time to create new articles right now.) --- Tito Pao (talk) 03:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Josef Krämer → Josef Kramer

Josef Krämer is an athlete who won Olympic medals before Josef Kramer (the concentration camp kommandant) was born. Although there is no article written about Josef Krämer (unfortunately, I have no biographic information), the current redirect makes it appear as if the athlete was a Nazi to a casual reader not looking at the birth year. Kjetilho (talk) 16:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Disambig I think the solution here is just to add a disambig hatnote to the top of Josef Kramer (which I'll do in just a minute). Do you have any information at all? I.e. birth year, years he won medals, any more detail at all besides his name and the fact that he was a runner? If so, put it into a stub, or even a sub-stub would be acceptable.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: I think you got the redirect backwards, because the Nazi was Kramer, not Krämer, so I reversed the section heading and the names throughout Kjetilho's comments. If this was incorrect, please revert and let me know. --Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

July 22

Karl Pilkington (philosophy) → Karl Pilkington

Implausible redirect, unused. user:Everyme 06:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. This used to be a real article; it was a collection of humorous sayings by the comedian Karl Pilkington. The old version is still in the history. That material was prodded back in March, and someone tried to resolve the situation by making Karl Pilkington (philosophy) into a redirect to Karl Pilkington. The original comic material would (at best) have belonged at WikiQuote and is clearly not suitable here. Replacing the original with a redirect isn't a good idea either (most readers will just go to Karl Pilkington directly, and the term 'philosophy' isn't serious). EdJohnston (talk) 15:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. No other entry to disambiguate from, no edit history worth saving. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 01:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Middlesborough South and East Cleveland (UK Parliament constituency) → Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (UK Parliament constituency)

Serves no purpose. This was originally set up because apparently something did once link to it, but it no longer does. Checked with its originator: please see this: [2]. It's inconsistent to just have this one, when by the same token you could have a similar redirect for all the Middlesbrough political articles, or indeed every Middlesbrough article. It harms the process of trying to keep separate the spellings of Middlesbrough and Middlesborough, Kentucky by adding confusion to the two - at the moment it is quite easy to filter out the wrong spellings but if this practice were to grow it would become more difficult. DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 12:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. There is no Middlesborough South and East Cleveland in Kentucky. As a matter of fact, redirects for all Middlesbrough articles would be a good idea where they do not conflict with the town in Kentucky. Where they do, a disambiguation note at the top of the article about the Kentucky town (that is, a {{distinguish2}} template) is in order. Too common a typo. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 01:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm well yes you might be right actually. Tsk. It still troubles me a bit that there's a conflict as I see it between being nice to users and trying to get things spelt right! I think I'd rather hate it if in effect we were saying "spell Middlesbrough how you like, it doesn't matter, we will tidy up after your carelessness and provide the data you want" when spelling it wrongly is such a common piece of ignorance (or carelessness?) that the retired-colonel-type in me wants to resist! But I am in danger of becoming a single-issue fanatic (it is indeed true to say that this misspelling drives me nuts) and I think I should possibly just shut up and let it go now! Thanks for your input. Cheers DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 07:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

July 21

F♭ (musical note) --> E (musical note)

The article talks nothing about F flat. Georgia guy (talk) 14:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Technically, that is an alternate name for E natural in the diatonic scale. It is an unusual notation, in my experience most often used as an inside joke among musicians - though it is occasionally used for consistency when talking about minor scales like A-flat minor. The fact that it's not mentioned in the target article is a reason to expand that article, not to delete the redirect. Rossami (talk) 16:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. In some contexts, E is called F-flat, and in other contexts F is called E-sharp to simplify key signatures. The two are one and the same, and deleting the redirect would create a void. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 21:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• B♯ (musical note) and E♯ (musical note) should be created. --- RockMFR 22:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Done. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 22:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Concur with above arguments in favor of it. --Mwalimu59 (talk) 22:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, mostly per Blanchardb. E is sometimes referred to as F-flat. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, by agreement with others above, but surely it would make much more sense if it was either a brief article explaining that it's almost the same thing, and why it exists, or if the page to which it redirected did so. To avoid clutter, I suspect the former (article not redirect) would be better or else we'd have to explain lots of double flats and sharps too on every note page. But I don't think it helps people, if they already do not understand musical grammar, to simply redirect them, without explanation, from F-flat to E. Cheers DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 15:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC) (PS C-flat seems to have got left out of this brief debate ... poor C-flat! (Surely this area must have been debated already elsewhere???)
• Keep CHANGE!Undoubtedly, there are many musicians amongst us here that know the inside joke of F flat as being E. Yes it is the semi-tone lower from F. I don’t think this warrants its own article, so the redirect should remain… I think I’ll try and find some WP:RS regarding this and add an entry into the E article. I think the can be snowball closed. --Pmedema (talk) 05:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC) Total mistake... there is already an article out there for F flat. The redirect should go to F-flat major.--Pmedema (talk) 06:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Except that that's a key, not a note. The trouble with this is it's a bit of a can of worms, which is why I wondered if there isn't a WikiProject Enharmonic Changes or whatever that tries to sort this area out. And it's not quite right to suggest that say C-flat and B are always the same note - the F-flat major article makes this very point - it's to do with how you got there, and I think that in saying (or implying by a redirect) that it is the same is misleading. So in that sense I think the key article is better than the redirect, or nothing, but in the broader sense I worry that it's a policy issue which needs hammering out for the whole area. And not by me! Headache time. :( DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 07:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep except as suggested, something should be said about Fb in the article on E. I tried to add something, but got myself all mixed up since it's been too long since I did any actual music theory. Fb could be used if, say, you are in Bb minor and the chord calls for a diminished fifth, for example, right? Anybody got any WP:RS on this? --Jaysweet (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)