Biocrawler:Redirects for deletion

From Biocrawler, the free encyclopedia.

For other meanings of rfd see RFD (disambiguation)

Deletion Tools

Articles {{vfd}} Templates {{tfd}} Images {{ifd}} Categories {{cfd}} {{cfr}} Stub types {{sfd-t}} {{sfd-c}} Copyvios {{copyvio}} Undeletion Mergers {{merge}} {{mergefrom}} {{mergeto}} {{mergedisputed}} Redirects {{rfd}} Page moves {{move}} Speedy {{delete}} {{db}} Patent {{nonsense}} Unfree images {{pui}} {{PUIdisputed}} {{nonfreedelete}} {{no source}} {{unknown}} {{Move to Wiktionary}} {{Move to Wikisource}} {{Move to Wikibooks}} {{Move to Wikibooks Cookbook}} {{Move to Wikiquote}} Deletion policy Deletion log Deletion watchlist (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Recentchangeslinked&target=Template%3ADeletiontools) | . (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Template:Deletiontools&action=edit)

Sometimes, we want to delete redirects. (If you are here because you want to swap a redirect and an article, but are not able to move the article to the location of the redirect, please use Biocrawler:Requested moves to request help doing that.)

To delete a redirect without replacing it with a new article, list it here. It isn't necessary to delete a redirect if you just want to replace the redirect with an article, or change where it points: see How do I change a redirect? for instructions on how to do that.

If you think a redirect page should simply be deleted, you have to do two things.

First, please insert {{rfd}} at the top of the redirect page. (Note that a bug causes any text in the lines that follow the #REDIRECT line to be discarded, so do not put it there. If the {{rfd}} is on the same line as the #REDIRECT, but after it, the redirect continues to work, so that people clicking on links to it will not see the warning message unless they choose to view the redirect page itself. Only if the {{rfd}} is inserted before the #REDIRECT will people see the message that warns that the page is being considered for deletion.)

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

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

Please comment on existing entries as shown above. Also, always use the bottom subsection, even if it's not that date where you are, because this page runs on Biocrawler time, not your local time. Finally, please make sure to leave a blank line between listings, to make it easier to find the end of the entry, so that comments are easier to add!

Please sign and date all contributions, using the Biocrawler special form "~~~~", which translates into a signature and a time stamp automagically. You can make the → symbol by typing →.

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

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

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

Contents

1 When should we delete a redirect? 2 Notes for admins doing requests 3 Current list 3.1 April 24 3.2 May 24 3.3 May 29 3.4 May 30 3.5 May 31 3.6 June 2 3.7 June 5 3.8 June 7 3.9 June 12 3.10 June 14 3.11 June 16 3.12 June 17 3.13 June 18 3.14 June 19 3.15 June 20 3.16 June 21 3.17 June 22 3.18 June 23

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. (see m:redirects in search results — proposed software changes for proposals to lessen this impact)
2. The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so it should be deleted.
3. The redirect is offensive, 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 [[Pink elephants painting daisies]] to love.
5. It is a cross-space redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Biocrawler namespace.
6. If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to an article that does not exist, it can be deleted immediately, though you should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first.

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, either by redirecting a plural to a singular, or by redirecting a misspelling to a correct spelling, or by redirecting a misnomer to a correct term, or by redirecting to a synonym, etc.
3. They aid searches on certain terms.
4. You risk breaking external or internal links by deleting the redirect. There is rarely a reason to delete historical CamelCase links.
5. Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful — this is not because the other person is a liar, but because you browse Biocrawler in different ways.
6. The redirect is to a plural form (or to a singular).
7. The redirect is from an old article subpage which has been moved to a top-level page, particularly the various standard country subpages.

For example, redirecting Dubya to George W. Bush might be considered offensive, but the redirect aids accidental linking, makes the creation of duplicate articles less likely, and is useful to some people, so it should not be deleted.

See also: Policy on which redirects can be deleted immediately, and /Precedents for precedents that are followed with regards to redirects.

Notes for admins doing requests

Note: When you delete an entry from this page, please make sure to put in the edit summary for that deletion a message indicating i) the name of the removed entry, and ii) the date it was placed here (i.e. the header it was listed under). This makes it easy for people looking through the page history to find when a particular request was dealt with; since this page gets so much traffic it can otherwise be a lengthy binary search to track something down.

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

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

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

Another option, useful for pages which were merged (for example), is for redirect pages with significant history to be archived into a talk namespace, and a link to them put into an article's talk page.

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

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

Current list

Older unfinished requests are at Biocrawler:Redirects for deletion/Old.

April 24

• Low-budget freeway → RIRO expressway - the former is a neologism, and the latter isn't much better (but a move to RIRO or right-in-right-out will fix that). --SPUI (talk) 01:10, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • The target article uses the term, and in any event seems to cover roads with more characteristics than just RIRO. Maybe the two should be swapped (i.e. put the article at LBF?) Noel (talk) 22:51, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
    • The whole situation is messy, but "low-budget freeway" is a neologism that shouldn't have an article or a redirect. --SPUI (talk) 19:44, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm going to agree with this deletion. The terms seem unrelated. humblefool® 22:59, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

May 24

• Algaesave --> Algae. "Algaesave" gets zero web hits. Unlikely to ever be used. SWAdair | Talk 05:55, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Seems to be an old temporary page. Need to check to see if the content (in the history) was used in preparation of the article. Noel (talk) 03:39, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

May 29

• Prime Ministers of the Government of Spain, A list of Prime Ministers of the Government of Spain, Presidents of the Government of Spain, President of the Spanish government → Prime Ministers of the Spanish government - I've just fixed all double-redirects to Prime Ministers of the Spanish government, and nothing links to these redirects. Talrias (t | e | c) 13:09, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep these are valid alternate names in English. - SimonP 22:14, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and tidy further. Personally I think there should be one article at President of the Spanish government. Instead there are bits at Prime Ministers of the Spanish government and Prime Minister of Spain --Henrygb 20:19, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

May 30

• Hans Nusslein, Welby Van Horn, Clark Graebner, Vinnie Richards, Howard Kinsey, Karol Kozeluh, Joe Whalen, Charles Wood, John Nogrady, Frank Kovacs, Butch Buchholz, Hans Gildemeister, Gene Mayer, and Mel Purcell → Professional Tennis Championships - these tennis players have been linked to an article listing results for three tennis tournaments they played in. when a page is named with the name of a person one presumes page's content will be an article on the player's biography, not a redirect to a tournament they happened to play in. -Mayumashu 02:59, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, these players are deserving of articles. - SimonP 22:16, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
    • Also delete Tony trabert, which is another one. - SimonP 23:51, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
      • I have written articles about Nusslein and Vinnie Richards, so the redirects should stay. There *is* an article about Tony Trabert, which you'd see if you bothered to capitalize his last name.... Hayford Peirce 19:46, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per SimonP.--Nabla 15:28, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

May 31

• Cut-put split → Phonemic differentiation - Zero Google hits for this phrase [1] (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22Cut-put+split%22+-wikipedia) created by anon user. Unverifiable. JamesBurns 08:43, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Article is the source of text that was merged into phonemic differentiation and is still there even now. Keep, for GFDL compliance. Uncle G 09:20, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
  • Keep per Uncle G Kappa 09:27, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
    • We don't need to keep the redirect to keep the history - these are completely separate questions. The usual approach is to archive the article into the Talk: space (as a Biocrawler:Sub-page of the article's talk page), and put a pointer to it on the article's talk page. Noel (talk) 19:57, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • OK, keep to avoid pointlessly cluttering the talk page. Kappa 00:31, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't understand; how is one line saying 'See [[Talk:Phonemic differentiation/Cut-put split]] for an article which was merged into this one' "cluttering the talk page"? Noel (talk) 02:06, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Where are you going to put it? At the top, so everyone has to read it, or in a section somewhere, where it will probably get archived and lost. Kappa 22:30, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • In general, we put it in an italicized one-liner at the top of the talk page; it's no more obtrusive than the archive links. This procedure of putting articles kept for history in the Talk: space, and linking to them from the relevant Talk: page, has been used for a long time, see e.g. Biocrawler:How to fix cut and paste moves#A troublesome case, and the more recent Biocrawler:Requested moves#Major history, as well as the header here (#Notes for admins doing requests). Noel (talk) 05:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for history and harmless redirect --Henrygb 20:05, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The plot thickens. I went to deal with this, and discovered that all that content had been deleted (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phonemic_differentiation&diff=prev&oldid=10836642) by Angr, and apparently not moved anywhere. Not sure why, there's no useful edit summary on that change, and no discussion (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Phonemic_differentiation&diff=10897252&oldid=10760814) about it on the talk page. Talk:Phonemic differentiation#Deletion of unsourced sections might provide some insight, though. So should we just delete it? Noel (talk) 17:35, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

June 2

• 00-xx → wikispace - seems like a strange redirect – ugen64 01:08, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Oleg Alexandrov 01:23, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Has history, which likely was used in preparation of the target; will have to check more carefully. Noel (talk) 02:03, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• 00Axx — should probably go the same way. Oleg Alexandrov 01:23, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Ditto. Noel (talk) 02:03, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Anal eroticism → Category:Anal eroticism - I don't think redirects to categories are a good idea, chances are it will just confuse people. Is there any policy on this? --W(t) 04:11, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
  • I don't think there's any policy against it, and if we don't have an article at this title, a redirect to the category seems like an OK idea to me. Noel (talk) 15:00, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirects to categories are an extremely bad idea and here's why: If you make a redirect from another namespace to the category: namespace, the page will only show the article part of the category page, not the articles in the category. It's a bug [2] (http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=710), but on the MediaWiki 1.5 test wiki (http://test.leuksman.com) this is, contrary to Bugzilla, not fixed ([3] (http://test.leuksman.com/index.php/Gibberish), [4] (http://test.leuksman.com/index.php/Category:Gibberish)) -- grm_wnr Esc 21:43, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • If the bug were fixed, would this be OK to keep? Noel (talk) 18:06, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

June 5

• AL-FedRep → Template:AL-FedRep
• AK-FedRep → Template:AK-FedRep
• Cross-namespace redirects. cesarb 20:11, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Elimination of the 2 redirects above will create broken links on all 50 State templates for Congressional Delegations. Redirects for all 50 states exist in the format XX-FedRep, where XX is each state's two letter postal code. NoSeptember ^(talk) 20:57, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for the same reason mention by NoSeptember. --DuKot 22:22, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • As far as I can see, the only place the links need to be changed is on the meta-template Template:U.S.A. State Congressional Delegation. (Actually, I thought it was generally bad form to link directly to templates, but that's a separate matter.) If that is the case, delete cross-namespace redirects. sjorford →•← 15:10, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • There is a big problem if there is a direct link to templates. If you look at the history of Template:U.S.A. State Congressional Delegation you can see that intially the link was to state templates. But this caused some problems as noted by the user Vystrix Nexoth (see the discussion page for the template). If you try to edit any page using this template (say Template:MA-FedRep), wikipedia will show that all other 50 templates are used by the MA-FedRep, which is obviously wrong. This is the reason a link was made to a redirect page rather than directly to a template. --DuKot 16:12, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't see why that's a big problem, frankly. However, I think linking directly to templates is ugly anyway - the links on each template should go to actual articles listing congressional representatives. sjorford →•← 17:40, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

June 7

• Welby Van Horn, Andres Gimeno, Clark Graebner, Cliff Richey, Howard Kinsey, Karol Kozeluh, Joe Whalen, Charles Wood (tennis player), Bruce Barnes, John Nogrady, Butch Buchholz, Jose Higueras, Gene Mayer, Mel Purcell, Hans Gildemeister, Eddie Dibbs, Kent Carlsson, Lawson Duncan, Libor Nemecek, Sjeng Schalken, Robert Ramillon, Martin Plaa, Albert Burke, → Professional Tennis Championships - delete these redirects because any page entitled with a tennis player's name should contain the player's bio, not a redirect to tennis tournaments. -Mayumashu 03:57, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree the redirects should be removed, but the page should be retained. But we should create atleast one line stubs like 'XXX is a Tennis player. --DuKot 04:57, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Objection. Until and unless a good non-stub article can be written on all of them, they are best left merged somewhere appropriate. Redirecting to a List of tournament tennis players instead may be useful. Radiant_>|< 07:42, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete redirects, concur with DuKot. Kappa 07:44, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, for each of them we could (with data on hand in the target page) create a stub of the form "tennis player whose victories included the {foo} championship in {bar}". Noel (talk) 05:35, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Exactly. And then, someone will find them as such and put them on VFD, and people are going to vote merge with Professional Tennis Championships. Thus, my vote stands to keep them redirected until and unless someone expands them. Radiant_>|< 12:26, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

June 12

• Cockbite → Red vs Blue. Someone made an article before they wikilinked Cockbite in one of the episode guides. That wikilink was since reverted, and the new article was made a redirect. It's an insult from the show, but no-one will search for this.--DooMDrat 20:39, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment (no vote): I turned the silly stublet definition into a redirect in an attempt to keep anyone from recreating an article on this bit of minutia. -- Infrogmation 22:47, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• AustriaLanguage → Austrian_language -- No one is ever going to look for the term "AustriaLanguage" and nothing links to it anyway. Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 22:21, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Probably an ancient artifact from the early days of Biocrawler when we used CamelCase linking. -- Infrogmation 22:47, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The history indicates that this is indeed the case. Noel (talk) 04:40, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• 1 Train, 2 Train, 3 Train, 9 Train → IRT Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line
• 4 Train, 5 Train, 6 train → IRT Lexington Avenue Line
• 7 Train → IRT Flushing Line
• A Train, C Train, E Train, K Train → IND Eighth Avenue Line
• B Train, D Train, F Train, V Train → IND Sixth Avenue Line
• G Train → IND Crosstown Line
• N Train, Q Train, R Train, W Train → BMT Broadway Line
• These redirects might cause confusion because they are generic terms that are being used to specifically redirect to articles pertaining to the New York City Subway system. In other words, they could be used to describe lines in many other train or subway systems. For example, when one looks for "1 Train", it is not clear that this user is necessarily specifically looking for that particular line on the NYC subway system. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:59, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Ugh, those don't even point to the right place (they should point to 1 (New York City Subway service) and the like). However, I'd vote for a disambiguation rather than a deletion - I'm willing to start off the disambigs. --SPUI (talk) 00:34, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • SPUI, if you can find a way to improve it, be my guest. However, remember that a disambig page with only one link is still useless unless you can find something else to link it too. My main concern here is that the pages I listed are too general and ambiguous. Good luck. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:38, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Well then if they only have one link, wouldn't a redirect be best for now? People do call these by those names. --SPUI (talk) 03:16, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmm, I guess I agree that these are names that people use, and we ought to have entries for them. Exactly what form the entries take, I don't have a strong opinion on. Let's remember that it's always easy to edit a redirect to turn it into a disambiguation, should the need arise in the future... Noel (talk) 04:40, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

June 14

• "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex" → Santorum controversy. This was marked as {{db}} but it does quite qualify as such since this redirect was the result of a page merge. I abstain. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Still, needs to be deleted because no one would ever type this in and it sounds nasty to boot. I vote to delete. --DanielCD 21:26, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I vote to delete. --John Elder 22:27, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless we are going to add the medium thickness liquid that goes in the engine → motor oil --Phroziac (talk) 14:10, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Sigh, has history, will have to figure out whether content from it was used anywhere, and if so, archive. Noel (talk) 03:31, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Project HAARP → High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program - The "Project" is redundant and unneeded. It's the same bad form as used in referring to an "ATM Machine" and does not belong on WP. A HAARP and a haarp redirect already exist, so removing this badly worded redirect should cause no problems. John Elder 22:24, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, we do have Project HARP, even thought HARP stands for "High Altitude Research Project". This sort of replication is common in English. I'd say keep, to prevent someone thinking we don't have an entry, and creating a duplicate. Noel (talk) 17:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, perhaps that needs to be here, too. Anybody can find HAARP simply by searching on HAARP. Furthermore, if the Project HAARP redirect is deleted, HAARP will still show up on the search. Try this for yourself - run a search for Program HAARP. Furthermore, if some poor seeker enters HAARP Project, they will not find the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program link anywhere near the top of the results returned. By your logic we should create a redirect for them. Is that what we want to do on WP, spend time creating all sorts of possible, incorrect redirects for people who seem unable to formulate a correct search? John Elder 05:17, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• List of Microsoft products → Microsoft - no need for this. We have a more specific list, List of Microsoft topics with many (developing) lists underway. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:43, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

June 16

• Baddery -> Battery. Not my nomination, just a nomination that someone tagged VfD instead of RfD, and couldn't be listed there. See also comments at Biocrawler:Votes for deletion/Baddery. --Tabor 00:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: this article was originally created by an anon as "Slang for battery" - which no one had ever heard of, so it was redirected. Considering that battery is a disambig, and no one even knows which meaning of battery this was supposed to be slang for, this should certainly be deleted. -- BDAbramson ^talk 01:57, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
  • Keep it's a common enough misspelling, why bother deleting it if it points to a dab page? The misspeller probably isn't sure what they want either. SchmuckyTheCat 03:47, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete redirects are no excuse for allowing ficticious words into what is WP:NOT a dictionary anyway. We would have to redirect every permutation of all 26 letters in the Latin alphabet otherwise. The only sense in which it is 'slang' is that it is the way it is pronounced in some parts. -Splash 14:04, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Amongst allegations of embezzlement -> Embezzlement it seems like someone didn't notice Embezzlement was already an article and started a new one. It got made into a redirect, but it seems like a waste to redirect on a phrase like this -Mysidia 02:51, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Deerfield River, Massachusetts -> Deerfield River (Massachusetts). Poorly chosen name for original article. -- Fingers-of-Pyrex 02:53, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
  • If I'm not mistaken, "X, Y" is the syntax for cities/towns, not rivers, right? If so, this one is definitely confusing (and should be deleted). Noel (talk) 04:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Tcchung -> Chung Tat-chi. Was marked as {{db}} for "Incorrect and useless abbreviation of name" but that is not criterion for speedy deletion. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 09:35, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I abstain for now since Chung Tat-chi has been nominated for deletion. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 09:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Redirection -> Biocrawler:Redirect. Redirects out of article namespace. -FZ 16:10, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • No particular opinion either way, but check out /Precedents#Should redirects to other spaces be kept? for precedents on keeping such redirects. Noel (talk) 17:32, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Redirects from the article namespace to other namespaces should only exist if there's no other usage for the term. -Sean Curtin 03:02, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• North Dakota Constitution → North Dakota: The constitution of North Dakota is a separate topic from North Dakota. This also creates a misleading blue link on United States state constitution. Mateo SA | talk 22:13, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Why should United States state constitution have a red link instead? Instead of nominating to delete, I suggest you start writing it. It only takes a few sentences and a stub mark to get people interested. SchmuckyTheCat 03:50, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • United States state constitution contains a list of the individual state constitutions, linked to the corresponding Biocrawler articles. Currently, articles have been written for only a few of those constitutions, so most of the links on the page United States state constitution are red. Having a blue link on that page suggests that the article North Dakota Constitution exists, when it doesn't. Contributors will assume the article has been written, and so won't go there to start it. Mateo SA | talk 17:43, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with Mateo. The link should be deleted that way maybe somebody knowledgable will create the page. Falphin 13:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

June 17

• Sammich -> Sandwich. There's no such word, or at best it's a neologism, which WP:NOT. Putting things into redirects is no excuse. -Splash 00:07, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep redirecting from a neologism is a perfect example of why redirects exist. (preceding unsigned comment by  SchmuckyTheCat 03:49, 17 Jun 2005)
  • Keep. Enough people write sammich (I routinely do, as Google will attest (http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&safe=off&c2coff=1&rls=en&q=+site%3Apenelope.uchicago.edu+sammich&btnG=Search)) to make this useful. Bill 10:40, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - that Google list makes my point - one person has used it a total of 19 times. Misspellings have no place in an encyclopedia. Nor in a dictionary, nor in any written format.-Splash 13:32, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • That link is restricted; it only searches his site. A Google search of the whole web produces about 90K hits; not all are for the sandwich meaning, but a lot are. Noel (talk) 03:37, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep- I'd generally agree with Splash about misspellings, but this is one that has become a neologism that actually is used deliberately in print (esp. advertising)- thus, I think it is a reasonable thing to redirect. -FZ 00:47, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Culture of Germany and German people, the redirects should be deleted in order to move the current miscapitolized pages to the above.(Culture of germany;German People). Falphin 00:31, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • you want WP:RM. SchmuckyTheCat 03:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • According to Help:Renaming (moving) a page I list them for deletion not requested moves since they are both miscapitolized. 1. move page B back to page A 2. list page B (now a history-free redirect) on your project's "votes for deletion" page, or (Admins only) just delete it. Falphin 13:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • That's because Meta: pages apply to all Wikis, not just the English Biocrawler, and most projects don't have a separate "Requested Moves" page. I'll update the Meta page to note this. Noel (talk) 17:18, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Both are fixed now. Radiant_>|< 21:52, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • German people was listed on WP:RM but then struck out without explanation; however, the page has still not been deleted, and German People has not yet been redirected. Russ Blau (talk) 18:14, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Transposition of the great vessels → Transposition of the Great Vessels: Corrected capitalization, doing a search with incorrect capitalization would return the second page without the aid of a redirect. bcatt 11:44, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Final Fantasy Legend > SaGa I plan to write at least a stub about just the game Final Fantasy Legend (and not the whole SaGa series) but I cannot since this article is a redirect to SaGa. You (Talk) 17:27, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC). Oops, I just found out that this is not necessary, I created an article in place of the redirect... You (Talk) 17:27, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

• 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816406286208998628034825342117068 → Pi; if this is not deleted, a couple of more trillion redirects will be created to the same page, completely ridiculous. -- Eagle^amn 22:00, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete — Then they'll start adding the links to e ...     Mateo SA | talk 22:25, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • We already deleted this - someone re-created it (several times, actually). I nuked it and protected it, this time. Noel (talk) 01:08, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

June 18

• π → Pi - Bletcherous abortion caused by the English Biocrawler's non-support of UTF-8 characters in article titles (click on the first entry to see where it takes you). Noel (talk) 04:23, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this one, and never mind what pops up when you try to edit the redirect. Most people will never see it, and like the nearly-as-bletcherous π (&pi;), it's potentially useful to link from. --Cryptic (talk) 07:15, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• More stupid pi tricks 3.14, 3.142, 3.1416, 3.14159 → Pi Noel (talk) 04:23, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • What amazes me is that they're all made by different people... Radiant_>|< 21:56, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

June 19

• Placeholder → free variables and bound variables. Most people would not think "placeholder" was a synonym for something connected to free variables and bound variables. ~~~~ 12:23, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmm. Well, I can see the rationale behind that link, although you're right, it's not the most obvious. I do think we need something there; several things do link here. Do you have a better suggestion for a target? (Placeholder name is not really appropriate; that's an article about the class of words used as placeholders.) Failing that, is there a potential article about this that's not a dic-def? Noel (talk) 17:23, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • A disambiguation page might be in order. -Sean Curtin 23:12, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

• BEEFSTEW → User:Dpbsmith/BEEFSTEW - Technically, this is a speedy, but I'm going to list it here because it has a modest amount of use. Maybe replace it with a link from Biocrawler:BEEFSTEW or WP:BEEFSTEW? Noel (talk) 17:27, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, very useful. Kappa 07:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete cross-namespace redirects, especially those leading to user namespace. -Sean Curtin 23:12, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

June 20

• Pro Tour Season 1996 (Magic: The Gathering), Pro Tour Season 1996-1997 (Magic: The Gathering), Pro Tour Season 1997-1998 (Magic: The Gathering), Pro Tour Season 1998-1999 (Magic: The Gathering), Pro Tour Season 1999-2000 (Magic: The Gathering), Pro Tour Season 2000-2001 (Magic: The Gathering), Pro Tour Season 2001-2002 (Magic: The Gathering), Pro Tour Season 2002-2003 (Magic: The Gathering), Pro Tour Season 2003-2004 (Magic: The Gathering), Pro Tour Season 2005 (Magic: The Gathering) -- Creator split these lists out of Magic: The Gathering Pro Tour, but we don't need individual articles, so I suggested re-merging them. That's done (List of Magic: The Gathering Pro Tour events), and these can be deleted. -- Netoholic @ 07:45, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

June 21

• Eduardo manalo, a more proper Eduardo Manalo (capital M) is already redirected to Eduardo V. Manalo
• Felix y. manalo, a more proper Felix Manalo is already redirected to Felix Y. Manalo
• Felix Malano, is a misspelling of Felix Manalo. Ealva 02:06, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) (preceding unsigned comment by  Ealva 02:06, 21 Jun 2005)
  • Sigh, the last one (normally a speedy) has history, will have to archive to Talk: space or something. Noel (talk) 03:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Sigh also. Whatever for? Google shows these are redirects to an extremely nonstandard form of the name. Felix Manalo (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Felix+Manalo%22&btnG=Google+Search) 2980 hits. Felix Y. Manalo (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&q=%22Felix+Y.+Manalo%22&btnG=Search) 266 hits. (preceding unsigned comment by  195.92.67.208 04:03, 21 Jun 2005)
    • I didn't say we were going to keep it at "Felix Malano" (if we keep it at all). Noel (talk) 03:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• "Mount Perry" → Mount Perry (itself a redirect to Mount Perry, Ohio). smoddy 21:33, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

June 22

• Anacletus, Saint → Pope Anacletus — Is the mere fact that a redirect is ridiculous and will never be used reason enough to delete it, or shall this just stick around? (Has history, but that history doesn't involve GFDL-able content.) --Quuxplusone 00:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, useful. Kappa 07:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Since we have Saint Anacletus, I fail to see the point of this one. In general, we don't have (or keep) redirects from "Loser, John Q." to "John Q. Loser", etc, etc. Noel (talk) 14:57, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• NS-tower, which is just a miscapitalization of NS-Tower. --Dantheox 06:50, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, useful. Kappa 07:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Source syncronous → Source synchronous — Source syncronous is a typo Koffieyahoo 14:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Iran(Persia) → Persia: delete because Persia is a disambiguation page, the primary meaning of Persia is Iran, nothing links to this redirect, and the redirect is unnecessary (since anyone who searches for either Iran or Persia will find the right article anyway). Russ Blau (talk) 19:47, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

June 23

• Payack is the last name of Paul JJ Payack. Even if he were notable (see Vfd discussion), why redirect his last name? That's only appropriate for very well-known people, e.g. Eisenhower, etc. Macrakis 08:26, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• The WordMan is another link to Paul JJ Payack. Again, even if he were notable (but see Vfd), why redirect this non-unique nickname? Google search shows many people called WordMan -- does he have any special claim to that name, except that he is particularly good at linkspamming so he gets good pagerank? Macrakis 08:51, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)