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:
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?
The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:
- a redirect may contain nontrivial edit history;
- if a redirect is reasonably old, then it is quite possible that its deletion will break links in old, historical versions of some other articles — such an event is very difficult to envision and even detect.
Therefore consider the deletion only of either really harmful redirects or of very recent ones.
Reasons for deleting
You might want to delete a redirect if one or more of the following conditions is met (but note also the exceptions listed below this list):
- The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine.
- 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.
- 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.
- The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting Google to love.
- 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".
- 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.
- 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, if recently created.
Reasons for not deleting
However, avoid deleting such redirects if:
- 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.
- 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.
- They aid searches on certain terms.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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:
- 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).
- 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).
- 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:
| I. |
Flag the redirect.
Enter {{rfd}} above the #REDIRECT on the redirect page you are listing for deletion. Example:
- {{rfd}}
- #REDIRECT [[Foo]]
- If the redirect is to a category or image, make sure there is a colon ( : ) before "Category:" or "Image:".
- Please do not mark the edit as minor (m).
- Please include in the edit summary the phrase:
Nominated for RFD: see [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]]
- You can check the "Watch this page" box to follow the page in your watchlist. This allows you to notice if the RfD tag is removed by a vandal.
- Save the page.
|
| II. |
List the entry on RfD.
Click on THIS LINK to edit the section of RfD for today's entries.
- Enter this text below the date heading:
- {{subst:rfd2|redirect=RedirectName|target=TargetArticle|text=Reason the redirect should be deleted}} ~~~~
- Put the redirect's name in place of "RedirectName", put the target article's name in place of "TargetArticle", and include a reason after text=.
- If the redirect or its target is a category or an image, make sure there is a colon ( : ) before "Category:" or "Image:".
|
- 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
August 28
August 27
A cross namespace redirect. For a similar discussion, see Cite web. Suntag (talk) 23:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Very useful as a search term for those confused about the name, and for those who don't know that it is called 'template ...', also useful as a time saver. AFAIK, there is no rule against cross namespace redirects, only that if there should be priority for content in the correct namespace. Additionally previous proposal to delete cite web failed.
A cross namespace redirect. For a similar discussion, see Cite web. Suntag (talk) 23:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Very useful as a search term for those confused about the name, and for those who don't know that it is called 'template ...', also useful as a time saver. AFAIK, there is no rule against cross namespace redirects, only that if there should be priority for content in the correct namespace. Additionally previous proposal to delete cite web failed.
A cross namespace redirect. For a similar discussion, see Cite web. Suntag (talk) 23:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Very useful as a search term for those confused about the name, and for those who don't know that it is called 'template ...', also useful as a time saver. AFAIK, there is no rule against cross namespace redirects, only that if there should be priority for content in the correct namespace. Additionally previous proposal to delete cite web failed.
The redirect is clearly a POV attack-type redirect, and I would challenge the truthfulness of it, as the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia hasn't been completely condemned due to its recognition by Russia (and with other countries expected to follow) Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 18:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep because it helps to document the resolution of the creation of a POV fork and then of a disputed pagemove. Redirects serve a number of technical functions and are not an endorsement of the title. In fact, they are generally considered a polite way to clearly direct users to the correct, neutral title. Redirects are deliberately not held to the same standards of NPOV as article content. Rossami (talk) 19:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
August 26
This redirect page is not displayed as a {{shortcut}} at the top of Wikipedia:Featured articles with citation problems. It is also pretty much orphaned, only linked to from one person's userspace subpage and (recently because I started a new section on the talk page) at Wikipedia talk:Featured articles with citation problems. If this redirect is not going to be acknowledged in a shortcut at the top of Wikipedia:Featured articles with citation problems, and is also not going to be linked to from anywhere else, it serves no purpose and should be deleted - for no one is going to be randomly searching for the term: WP:FAWCP in that case. Cirt (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
- Redirects are cheap. FAWCP is basically a janitorial page watched by Sandy and I. If the redirect aids her in getting to the page quickly then I say keep it, and link it from the top of the page. But this issue is as close to irrelevant as I can imagine. I don't know why you're wasting time on it. Marskell (talk) 08:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- Although I suppose argument two is just delete the thing. I'm not bothered either way. Marskell (talk) 08:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
-
- No need for it, don't care either way. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- My point is basically if there is a link to WP:FAWCP as a shortcut at the top of Wikipedia:Featured articles with citation problems, then keep it. If not, then it is silly to keep the shortcut and it should be deleted. Cirt (talk) 15:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Reasonably old. The number distinguished it when a different was scheme was employed, but now that's no longer used. —Markles 15:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
- I just now converted it from a Redirect to an embedded template (I think that's the term). That's because I couldn't use the RFD notice in the template without breaking the redirect. That's just until this RFD is completed. So right now it's not technically a Redirect, but that's what it is in principle. OK?—Markles 15:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
- It appears to still have a number of inbound links and historical references. I'm having trouble sorting out which were for the template itself and which are an artifact of the embedding you just did but it would appear to me that this should be kept as a redirect as an aid to editors who became used to the old scheme and need to find the new, preferred template. I'm not seeing any evidence that the redirect is confusing, harmful or in the way of some other use yet. Rossami (talk) 15:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Bismark should bring you to Bismarck (disambiguation). Not sure if I am requesting this on the right page but I think when you type Bismark on Wikipedia it sould bring you to Bismarck (disambiguation) and not an article with one sentence. --Npnunda (talk) 04:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Double boiler redirects to bain marie. These are similar, but different pots. (See the bain marie discussion page.) Double boiler should have its own article. 75.57.87.104 (talk) 13:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
- So be bold and revert the redirect to a version of the page that talked about the pot itself. Deletion of the redirect and the pagehistory is unnecessary (and, in this case, also clearly inappropriate since there is potentially useful history behind the redirect). I would, however, suggest that the page needs a cleanup and expansion, perhaps using some of the insights from the Talk page you cite. Rossami (talk) 15:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
August 25
Improper cross-namespace redirect, unlikely to be typed. MBisanz talk 03:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral - I created the redirect after accidentally typing it instead of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, but I have no argument either for or against it. — C M B J 08:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Not very likely search term for ANI. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. The accidental omission of the "Wikipedia" prefix is a very plausible mistake. Both because of the actual content and the use of the subpage, there is no possibility of confusion with an actual article title. The demonstrated benefits to our readers and editors outweigh the theoretical downsides of being a cross-namespace redirect. Rossami (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
While this is the title of a single from the album, 1.) I "doubt" that "anyone" would "type in" the "quotation marks" around the "title", and 2.) there's probably not enough material for a page on the song anyway. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete -- I redirected it because someone created the article, which wasn't a very notable single. On top of that, whoever made it the article only put in 2 sentences saying "its popular and the lyrics go like this <insert a couple lines of lyrics>" CloversMallRat (talk) 20:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Cross-namespace redirect --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 01:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why this redirect was created, especially since it was malformed. (The lack of a leading colon applied the category instead of activating the redirect. That's fixed now.) There are no inbound links, meaning we have even fewer clues than normal about what the creator intended or how the redirect might be used. Merely being a cross-namespace redirect isn't usually enough to justify deletion, though, unless it's a cross that will create confusion (like article-space to user-space). I'm not sure what else a reader would expect to see if following this link other than the category. We certainly would never have an encyclopedia article called merely "images of young people". Why should this be deleted? Rossami (talk) 01:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Cross-namespace redirect. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
August 24
Unneeded disambig, removal needed only to move Yun-seong (Soulcalibur) to that location.
Failed attempt to rectify the above--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
August 23
It seems this was tagged for deletion and then never listed here. I don't have any opinion on the matter. Gurch (talk) 22:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
While google does come up with Billy Ripken as a possible search of Fuck face, it seemed like 99% of the rest of the hits were immature people posting online. It seems highly unlikely to me that this would be a possible search term for Billy Ripken. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 21:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
- Oops! You put it in categories for discussion, not redirects for discussion. Moved. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 21:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
- It has to do with this baseball card. Billy snuck "Fuck Face" onto the bottom of the bat, and it got printed.
Neutral on the redirect itself, could be seen as an attack, but that's why it's there. --UsaSatsui (talk) 03:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- An interesting situation. I'm leaning towards keep. Even without the redirect, the connection seems to have already been well established, so it's not the same as other BLP concerns. *shrug* -- Ned Scott 03:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Connection seems established and as it is relatively harmless, it's good to see this title having a target so any future abuse will be easier to detect. __meco (talk) 07:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. I agree with meco that it's harmless. And it appears to be working; the redirect has been vandalized only once in the 20 months of its existence, redirecting to Totse (which may have something to do with some Totse member). As for search results, there are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and Google results. Here's what I saw:
- [ fuck face ] I'm Feeling Lucky → Ripken at Snopes.com
- [ baseball fuck face ] → 8 out of 10 on the first page are Ripken
- [ fuck face card ] → 8 out of 10 on the first page are Ripken
- But right now, Fuckface points to Fuck. Should these point to the same place? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 18:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I'm neutral as to whether to keep it as is, or to retarget to Fuck. Either one seems sufficient. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete: Somebody is very unlikely to search for Billy Ripkin with the term 'fuck face'. This could also be taken as an attack on Mr. Ripkin. I know I wouldn't be too happy if 'fuck face' forwarded to an article about me. -Brougham96 (talk) 21:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
- Whether or not it's an attack depends on how the words got onto the bottom of the bat in the first place. I seem to remember one of William Poundstone's Big Secrets books putting forth two hypotheses about "Fuck Face" on the Ripken card: one that he did it, and the other that a teammate pulled a prank on him. In the first case, it's not an attack. In the second, it would neutrally document a verifiable attack. I'll go dig up the page number if you want. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 02:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
- Modify: The redirect and the target form a loose association between each other. One could always search for the phrase if they are indeed looking for the article about the base ball player. The redirect should instead connect Fuck (similar to Fuckface). +mt 02:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Someone who types in the term may be looking for info on the card, which is given in the article. It certainly seems like a better target than the rather generic "fuck"...better to point towards a specific refrence. And who knows, some 8 year old looking for a giggle might learn something new to tell his parents while entering random swears into the search box ("Dad, did you know some guy has "Fuck Face" on his baseball card? I saw it on Wikipedia"...Hmmmm...maybe not). --UsaSatsui (talk) 03:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
- Refine target to Billy Ripken#1989 baseball card. Then the reason for the redirect is readily apparent upon landing. I think I'll be bold here... 147.70.242.40 (talk) 00:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Neologism originally created as POV stub. Flatscan (talk) 19:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
-
- Google results: humanprod 0 relevant of 22 total ignoring WP results of the page itself and this discussion; "human prod" 0 relevant in first 100; Taser "human prod" a few relevant (forum posts) of 59 total
- Originally created as a stub POV fork by an editor who contributed only to that article, redirected by another editor within an hour of creation; all incoming links related to RfD nom. Flatscan (talk) 23:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
The page that it redirects to has nothing to do with tubgirl! frogger3140 (talk) 18:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Tubgirl is a shock site. --UsaSatsui (talk) 03:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- It once had a section for tubgirl, but it seems it was removed. Regardless, the redirect makes sense to me. In the event someone ever does find sources for the info, it would probably be a good idea for them to be directed to Shock site and start it out as a section of that article. -- Ned Scott 03:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Precedent appears to point toward deletion. Case in point: NEDM, which redirected at times to YTMND and at times to Coburn (band) but was deleted when it became clear that there was no verifiable text in either of those articles to which the redirect could point. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 18:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: At the time I created the redirect, shock site contained information about Tubgirl. -- I need a name (talk) 18:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep: looking at the Shock site article, there is a section for tubgirl.com. -Brougham96 (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep if and only if Iamcuriousblue's re-addition of Tubgirl to Shock site doesn't get reverted. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 02:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
- If content was merged to the shock site article, keep to ensure our compliance with GFDL regardless of whether the content addition is reverted. Rossami (talk) 16:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I find this redirect to be culturally offensive, plain and simple meco (talk) 07:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Offensive or not, this is just plain wrong. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per CSD G3: Pure vandalism. --frogger3140 (talk) 19:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
- It does not appear to be vandalism... I'm confused by your statement. -- Ned Scott 03:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. I also can hardly see that this has to do with vandalism. Merely an ill-judged target select. __meco (talk) 07:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Clearly not vandalism, but it is indeed incorrect. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Western media should not redirect to the US. Monster Under Your Bed (talk) 03:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. The first version of this page was a POV rant (which could plausibly be considered a form of vandalism). Rather than properly deleting that first rant, the page was overwritten with a redirect. The redirect itself seems neither offensive nor vandalism but it is technically incorrect. And while that is not automatically a justification to delete a redirect, I can find no useful purpose to the redirect. Rossami (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Un-encyclopedic. -Brougham96 (talk) 17:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
August 22
Oromo Americans aren't just Ethiopian, they are also Kenyan, and are not notable enough to have their own article, so it should be deleted. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 21:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Unlikely search term. David Pro (talk) 18:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. I find this a most likely search term by people who have no idea what a colostomy means. __meco (talk) 07:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per above, sorta. I don't think it's "most likely", but likely enough. No need to be squeamish just because of "the S word", per WP:CENSOR. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Delete: WP:Profanity states that the use of profanity needs a good reason. More importantly, I agree with nomination that this is unlikely to be searched for. -Brougham96 (talk) 21:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Unlikely search term for a medical appliance. Term would be more commonly be used as a personal insult or to reference either a diaper or a bag of manure. --Allen3 talk 20:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
It's a very odd shortening of the book's proper title. I'm not sure if "All quiet" could describe anything else, but it doesn't really describe "All Quiet on the Western Front" either. 68.238.248.103 (talk) 01:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, implausible shortening of the book's name, no incoming links. nneonneo talk 01:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, if someone wants to use the page for another subject, they can always edit it. EVCM (talk) 17:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea how this even relates to the redirect subject, this seems to be Wikipedia:Patent nonsense. Knowledgeum : Talk 08:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete -- seems to be about a alias of the webcomic.[1]. Was present in the deleted List of Ctrl+Alt+Del characters, but is not in the main article Ctrl+Alt+Del. In any case it would just be the fictional occupation of a minor fictional character. --Tikiwont (talk) 14:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- I did this. "Beef Potato Wheelman" is one of the minor character's occupation as listed in the bio, I included it asa redirect on the off-chance that somewhere on the internet someone made an in-joke about it.Gaiacarra (talk) 15:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete -- Wow, that's... obscure. I think the chances of anyone needing to look up "beef potato wheelman" are kind of slim. It's related to the article, I guess, but it's not very important at all.--Thrindel (talk) 17:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. I think people will look up anything that they come across and "beef potato wheelman" should be no exception. I think this redirect should be kept, but obviously, the article should have a mention of the character. __meco (talk) 08:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
- Why??? --frogger3140 (talk) 19:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
- Why not?Gaiacarra (talk) 09:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per CSD G1/G3 --frogger3140 (talk) 19:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Speedy delete and the grounds that you provide seem utterly inapplicable in this case. __meco (talk) 09:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
August 21
Cross-namespace redirect. David Pro (talk) 20:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. This rule appears to be somewhat controversial (see Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects), and I have personally on numerous occasions found the lack of this particular type of redirect to a WikiProject page wanting. It does little harm in that there's negligible potential that this will cause casual users to confuse project namespace material with main namespace content. __meco (talk) 08:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
the text of the target article has been merged into Bakerloo line and the target article has now been made a redirect to that. No articles link to the nominated redirect. DavidCane (talk) 16:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep because it documents a pagemove and the subsequent merger. Please see the reasoning above in the discussion about The Cure's thirteenth album. This is a completely different redirect but the reasons for keeping it are the same. Rossami (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
No Halo 4 has is not yet being developed (and probably will never be made), and because nothing on the Halo (series) page says anything about Halo 4, the redir
