Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 January 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 15[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 15, 2014.

Total Exposure[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep, but anybody can turn this into a disambiguation page, if there is another article to disambiguate against. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 19:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was created in 2009, pointing to the TV show Total Xposure. The show ended that year. There is also the independent film Total Exposure produced in 1991 by Kent L. Wakeford. I recommend disambiguating with a redlink to the movie. Morfusmax (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an article for the film, and if so, where? If there's no article, there is nothing to disambiguation. If someone writes an article, they can overwrite the redirect. Ego White Tray (talk) 02:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Total Exposure (book): no incoming links
Total Exposure (novel): no incoming links
Total Exposure (album): no incoming links
Total Exposure (song): no incoming links
Total Exposure (methodology): no incoming links
Total Exposure (method) no incoming links
So these entries on any such DAB page would fail MOS:DABRL, and removing them would leave nothing to disambiguate, i.e. the one-entry DAB would be turned into a redirect, which is what it is already. The redirect is a perfectly plausible misspelling and should be kept until circumstances change, per WP:CRYSTAL. Si Trew (talk) 08:46, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment CRYSTAL does not apply since the topics already exist in articles. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 04:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - disambiguating with the red link would fail MOS:DABRL. It's fine at the moment and can be overwritten by a page on the film (or other usage) if considered appropriate. The Whispering Wind (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment you don't need a topic to have a redirect, to have a topic appear on the disambiguation page, since you can create the redirect to the article that covers the topic later. The dab page can point to pages that cover topics called "Total Exposure" without other articles with that title existing prior to dab creation, since the topics themselves already exist in articles. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 04:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, but you said "disambiguate per nom" and the nom said "I recommend disambiguating with a redlink to the movie", so I inferred you also wanted that. Si Trew (talk) 22:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I've modified by stance, removing "per nom"; per DABRL. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 01:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I notice I also missed Total Exposure (film) from my list above, which while not important is presumably the redlink intended by the nom. Si Trew (talk) 22:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. I wasn't as concerned about the film as I was about there being more than one resolution to "Total Exposure", including one actually using that string, so that it seemed inappropriate that a TV show (which, honestly, I'm not concerned about either) with an alternative spelling was hogging the redirect. That there are at least six other references over and above the film merely seems to strengthen that idea. Morfusmax (talk) 23:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Si Trew, until there's another article to disambiguate against. --BDD (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

It Is What It Is (film)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete per request of sole author below. — Scott • talk 18:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. This is a reference to an apparently nonexistent film (from the author's comment: "Film is not started filming or production yet so redirect to its lead actor"), and the target page does not reference it. There is also a reference to a 2001 film by that name in Jamie_Anne_Allman#Filmography; the presence of this redirect may cause confusion and hampers searching for it. Morfusmax (talk) 17:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As it was one of my disruption edits by creating poor redirects, I'm sorry. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 18:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

MOS: HEAD[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unused redirect with a space after the colon. It points to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Section headings, which is a different target to MOS:HEAD, which points to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Section management. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget one. This actually is used, with 10-20 hits each month (at least double background noise), but the two redirects should point to the same place. I'm thinking that MOS: HEAD (i,e. with the space) should be the one retargetted but I'm open to reasoning to the contrary. Thryduulf (talk) 11:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldnt dare retarget a MOS shortcut without obtaining lots of confirmation from the MOS regulars. I suspect the MOS:_HEAD one was created because MOS:HEAD was re-targeted. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How is 10-20 hits per month explainable? How is the space even plausible? And why is there a need for the proposed redirect under this name? How can one know that a hit means a succesful hit (i.e., it is what one expects?). And as a sidenote: if the 10-20 hits per months are a support for useful usage, how would a retarget not be frustrating that alleged usefullness? A lot of interpretive steps from typo, hits, search assuptions. -DePiep (talk) 12:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"How is 10-20 hits per month explainable?" Very easily - 10-20 visits were recorded to the page each month. Around 3-4 of these were probably bots or other automated edits, the rest probably humans. It is not possible to know whether this was one person or 16 people, nor whether they intended to reach the page they did. I don't understand your sidenote, sorry. Thryduulf (talk) 12:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-common shortcut naming. Space as a typo very weird, and then again we do not cover typos in shortcuts. -DePiep (talk) 12:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Weird typo. Should not be encouraged by being maintained. — Scott • talk 18:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Randy from Boise[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CNR to a Wikipedia essay. Redirect created in December 2013. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. While CNRs to essays are not always going to be undesirable, this is not one that has any benefit to those not familiar with the project. If it becomes a notable phrase then redirecting somewhere like Criticism of Wikipedia would be appropriate, but as it isn't mentioned there it isn't a good target at this time. Thryduulf (talk) 11:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redirect from mainspacve without prefix (let alone pseudo-namespace). -DePiep (talk) 12:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This was listed on WP:TOPRED, indicating it was a common search term that was not found. I defer to the consensus, as always, however. JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @JoeSperrazza:, @West.andrew.g: I dont see it on the 2013-12-08 edition of WP:TOPRED. Am I looking on the wrong page, or wrong date? John Vandenberg (chat) 15:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find it through the past several red link reports; "what links here" also comes up empty. West.andrew.g (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great question. In the future if I do a similar redirect, I'll embed a comment, or put a note on the talk page. I believe I created it the week the report came out, so let me poke around and look. JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a topic for a mainspace search result. — Scott • talk 18:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to an article about distrust of experts, if we have such a beast. If not, delete per WP:REDLINK so as to encourage someone writing such an article. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 05:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – this is an inappropriate mainspace-to-projectspace redirect. Besides, it isn't notable as a separate article. Epicgenius (talk) 02:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

CAT: COPYEDIT[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CNR with a space after the colon. Created in March 2011. The same redirect exists without the space: CAT:COPYEDIT. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No typo's covered in shortcuts wikiwide, so especially not from XNR mainspace. -DePiep (talk) 12:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as there is no reason to delete. The existence of shortcuts using a space, with records of people using them, indicate that DePiep's argument is factually incorrect. Thryduulf (talk) 12:25, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Malformed. Unnecessary. — Scott • talk 18:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Palatine Forest/Leading Articles[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. WJBscribe (talk) 13:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CNR to Portal subpage with a '/' and without a prefix. It also doesnt include 'portal'. Portal subpages are linked to with 'P:X/Y', and Portal pages without prefixes are 'X portal'. This is the only one that doesnt stick to those adhoc naming conventions, as far as I can see from browsing Wikipedia:Database reports/Cross-namespace redirects (page 4 & 5). Created in October 2013. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete XNR from mainspace without prefix (let alone pseudo-namespace). -DePiep (talk) 10:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is not in the way of any other page and portals are repositories of reader-facing pages so there is no danger of "falling through the cracks" or any of the other reasons some CNRs are bad. Thryduulf (talk) 10:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Target is not content. -DePiep (talk) 12:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The target is a reader facing page serving as in index to content in exactly the same way that disambiguation pages, set index articles and navigation template, etc. are. If portals were in the mainspace as e.g. Palatine Forest portal rather than Portal:Palatine Forest you wouldn't be objecting to the redirect, which is why I bang on about a redirect being cross-namespace not being a justification for deletion in and of itself - the reason why some CNRs are bad does not apply in this case, so it's utterly irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 12:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Inconsistent with existing naming conventions. Mess. Unnecessary. — Scott • talk 18:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The whole reason for not having cross-namespace redirects is so that readers aren't unintentionally sent to non-readers area of Wikipedia. Portals are for readers, so this prohibition simply does not apply. Ego White Tray (talk) 02:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:SUBPAGEs in mainspace are not to be used. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 05:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • They shouldn't be used for articles indeed, but this is not an article so that isn't relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 10:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Subpages are a feature of a namespace - this feature doesnt discriminate between articles and redirects within that namespace. One of the many reasons why 'we' disabled subpages for mainnamespace is so that their talk pages dont get mixed up together. See Talk:Palatine Forest/Leading Articles where you can navigate 'up' to a talk page of a different thing. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • The same thing happens at Talk:OS/2, Talk:A/B testing, etc, etc. If it was actually a problem it would have been fixed years ago. That a harmless redirect should be deleted because of a software feature that is trivially subobtimal and will go unnoticed by almost everyone (not many people look at the talk pages of redirects in the first place) is most straw-clutchingly desperate rationale I've seen in years! Thryduulf (talk) 10:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • The software limitation exists. You have point out a few that are obviously important pages where the use of '/' in the page name is extremely important. We also have Talk:9/11 - there will be more. There is no need to have lots of extra cases of this problem to support redirects with unnecessary use of '/' that receive sub 10 pageviews per month, like this one. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deletion is no benefit. 193.159.238.85 (talk) 15:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and DePiep. P:Palatine Forest/Leading Articles (or something more concise, like P:PFLA) would be fine. --BDD (talk) 18:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Requests for unblock[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. WJBscribe (talk) 13:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last of the Wikipedia administrative category WP:CNR without a prefix. All others are deleted or listed on this page. (There are lots of category WP:CNR that go to content categories; I cant see where that is documented as accepted, but it is a regular outcome of AfDs, especially list AfDs)

This redirect has slightly higher pageviews than 'Images with no source', at 54 in the last 90 days. Still, I think it is cleaner if category redirects without a prefix are restricted to content categories as their targets. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - clearly sends the editor to what they're looking for, and no rationale has been presented for deletion. Given the high probability that new editors, who are unfamiliar with our practices, will find this, it's a particularly bad case to give them rude and hostile treatment for no reason whatsoever. WilyD 09:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Block/unblock is channeled through blocked user's talkpage for sound reasons. Any user looking for this topic would skip the first option, the search for & end up at unblock really? -DePiep (talk) 10:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Wily, your argument here doesnt support your decision. You talk about new users, yet you say 'keep' for this redirect pointing to an administrative category. Would you at least consider pointing this to unblock, which has a hatnote that takes the reader to a page tailored for blocked users. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the suggestion below it be retargetted to Wikipedia:Appealing a block makes a lot of sense, yes. WilyD 10:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. XNR from mainspace without prefix (let alone pseudo-namespace). Implausible search term. Confusing with contant. -DePiep (talk) 10:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Appealing a block, which is the page that people wanting to be unblocked need to read. This includes people who have been caught by a range block, and so will have no message on their talk page. We do nobody any benefit by making this page hard to find, so it should be accessible to those who don't understand namespaces yet. The current category is more relevant to editors and doesn't need a mainspace shortcut, but putting a hatnote at the Wikipedia page wouldn't be a bad idea for those that currently use this. Thryduulf (talk) 10:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Malformed, lacking prefix, implausible search term, contaminates mainspace search results, encourages bad practices of looking in the wrong place for documentation and of creating malformed CNRs. — Scott • talk 18:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you regard tidy namespaces as more important than new editors? I'm glad editor retention and recruitment is in better hands. Thryduulf (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I work for cross-project consistency and maintainability in the long-term, both of which will do far more to make it easier for new users than randomly gluing ad-hoc hacks into our database. So in fact, editor recruitment and retention are in my hands. You clearly live in that fantasy land inhabited by people with no real-world experience in designing systems for users (the Kingdom of Just Making Stuff Up). If you want to make things better for new users, stop pretending that goofy namespace patches are any kind of long-term solution and start working on our core structures - interface, documentation, and social culture. — Scott • talk 12:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Thryduulf: what do you think of redirecting to unblock? John Vandenberg (chat) 10:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I favour it over deletion, but I don't think it's as helpful as directly pointing at the Wikipedia page. Excluding the hatnote Unblock doesn't use "unblock" in any way where "requests for unblock" makes sense, so someone searching on that term isn't going to be looking for one of those articles (Wikipedia is not a good place to find a plumber except this one). Thryduulf (talk) 10:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the suggestion to retarget to benefit our new users is admirable. Could I suggest those advocating that approach consider retargetting it to unblock, which I've beefed up with more keywords[1]. To inject some facts into that debate, the top three results for google:Requests for unblock are Category:Requests for unblock, Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System, and Wikipedia:Requests for unblock. The first result is the worse result, being an overly complicated. The third page was junk, which I have now redirected to Wikipedia:Appealing a block. The more likely search is google:Request unblock, which returns Category:Requests for unblock, Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks and Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System as the top three hits, and google:Wikipedia unblock returns Template:Unblock, Template:Unblock-auto, Category:Requests for unblock and then Unblock. The first result is a terrible page for a newbie. I've put in a request to neaten it up at Template talk:Unblock#Hide the template on the template page. If this redirect is deleted, the first and second result will be perfect. The top six results for the MediaWiki internal special:search using 'Requests for unblock' or 'Request unblock' (after this redirect is removed) are CAT:RFUB, C:UNB, CAT:UNBLOCK, CAT:RFU, CAT:UNB, and CAT:RUB, all of which redirect to Category:Requests for unblock. So we seriously need to improve that page. I've made a start on that by providing better information for blocked users.[2]. Hopefully others who care about blocked users will also help. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete WP:XNR pipework redirect that is not for use by people wanting unblock since it leads to a category of people requesting unblock, therefore this will only be used by administrators and bureaucrats. This is not a redirect for use by general Wikipedian editors. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 05:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per IP; not too keen on the retargeting proposal since it doesn't seem like a particularly likely search term, especially compared to "unblock" itself. Users familiar with our "Requests for..." format (e.g., Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, Wikipedia:Requests for permissions) will know to include the prefix anyway. --BDD (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Images with no source[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CNR. Created in 2005. It now receives roughly 10 hits per month, which is the level of pageviews I attribute to 'it exists; what the heck is it' activity (bots, people browsing categories, etc) A shorter shortcut CAT:NS was created later that year, and receives triple the number of pageviews. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - clearly sends the editor to what they're looking for, and no argument has been presented to support deletion. WilyD 09:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. XNR from mainspace with no prefix. Improbable search route; confusing content with WP-backoffice issue for the reader. -DePiep (talk) 10:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Improbable search term, contamination of mainspace search with internal Wikipedia gunk, totally unused in any practical sense. — Scott • talk 18:25, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This should not be here for readers to stumble across and as the nom has shown this is of little use to editors. It's a cross-namespace redirect so WilyD's claim that there is no argument presented to support deletion is incorrect - there are loads of reasons. Unless a compelling reason is provided to keep a cross namespace redirect, it should be deleted. 5.70.108.248 (talk) 23:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is not about images without sources, (anonymous images, etc), which an encyclopedic article might be written about per WP:REDLINK, it is instead a wP:XNR pipewwork redirect which is not about images with no sources, instead it is housekeeping about images missing sourcing information on Wikipedia, which is quite different. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 05:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to encourage creation of article.--Lenticel (talk) 00:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • For those that prefer to keep redirects rather than create redlinks, the closest article I can find is anonymous work. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

UNSLO[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CNR created in August 2009. The target category has shortcut CAT:UNSLO. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unassessed WPSolvenia articles is not an encyclopedic subject for the readership. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 06:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. XNR from mainspace without prefix (let alone pseudo-namespace). -DePiep (talk) 10:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The target is not relevant to readers, and the title is not unlikely to be needed for a mainspace article or redirect at some point ("Unslo" is a name, and "UNSLO" is quite possibly the name of some UN mission). Thryduulf (talk) 10:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per above. --Eleassar my talk 11:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No relevance to existing in mainspace. — Scott • talk 18:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Start (WP:biography article class)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CNR created in December 2013 for in-universe non-newbie target. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:XNR to the innards of Wikipedia that is no useful to the general readership. And this isn't even the guide for assessing WPBIO articles as "Start". -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 06:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Absolutely misleading page titles, title not covering target, prefix missing, not helpful for any search. btw, that first redirect is coded wrong. -DePiep (talk) 09:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a cross-name redirect; no indication of usefulness or explanation of its purpose given. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 13:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Internal Wikipedia gunk that should not appear in mainspace search results. — Scott • talk 18:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The Independent (Uganda)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to List of newspapers in Uganda. --BDD (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CNR; target doesnt mention the redirect name, and neither does List of newspapers in Uganda, and a quick google didn't indicate whether it should be included in our list. Delete per WP:REDLINK unless a good target can be found. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no content at target page related to this topic, also not listed at List of newspapers in Uganda; as the target is a category page, and the category page lacks a description section, the redirect essentially points to nothing. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 06:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - hopefully redlinking can encourage creation, but there's no reason to send readers somewhere with no information on the subject in either case. WilyD 09:25, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of newspapers in Uganda. I have added this newspaper. -DePiep (talk) 10:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per DePiep. It's not much, but it's something. — Scott • talk 18:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's enough. Just a within-mainspace redirect. -DePiep (talk) 13:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

View history[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CNR created in December 20142013. Recommend redirecting to Changelog, which includes a hatnote to Wikipedia help pages. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • really created in 11 months time :) this view history has remarkable features are you sure it should be deleted. :) Gnangarra 06:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Fixed; thank you. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fatuous redirect. Wikipedia page history is not the sum whole of all history. Too much navel-gazing involved in this redirect's name. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 06:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete XNR without prefix. -DePiep (talk) 09:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Malformed; encourages trying to find help material by searching mainspace; mess. — Scott • talk 18:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to History (disambiguation). This dab leads to various articles where "view history" can have plausible targets while keeping the old target, Help:Page history, still linked. --Lenticel (talk) 03:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
what Lenticel says (link to help page was there already) —rybec 08:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia ads[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CNR created in January 2014. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:XNR leading to non-encyclopedic content, which does not describe the situation of advertising on Wikipedia, but instead is a bunch of ads on Wikipedia. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 06:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. XNR from mainspace without / with wrong prefix. Unneeded pollution of mainspace content. -DePiep (talk) 09:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of Wikipedia controversies#2002 which is about advertising on Wikipedia. A hatnote can be provided to the current target. Thryduulf (talk) 12:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Malformed XNR contaminating mainspace search results. Suggested retarget is nowhere even near strong enough to justify the redirect. — Scott • talk 18:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

WCML map[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to West Coast Main Line. --BDD (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CNRs to a map template. A redirect to West Coast Main Line will give the reader the same information. The extra names pollute search results for other search terms. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:XNR pipework redirect; Templates are not articles, if this should be an article, it should be transcluded. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 05:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all to West Coast Main Line, which has the information the reader will be looking for. WilyD 09:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete XNR from mainspace without prefix. No objections to the retargeting WiliD mentions. -DePiep (talk) 10:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all (retarget as second preference) the template is a reader facing page that shows people exactly the content they are looking for, with a link to the main article, rather than having to scroll down past the infobox, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 11:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to West Coast Main Line. Articles should be for reading, not templates, that's what transclusion is for. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 18:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per TCNSV. Mainspace searches should not lead to templates. — Scott • talk 18:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all to West Coast Main Line per above. But a more general comment: these maps are essentially navboxes, and don't really don't belong in template space; they are just there so that they can be easily transcluded over several articles, like images can be. They are not templates that are parameterised for a general purpose. I think it would be better, in the longer term, to have a separate namespace for navboxes: but that is of course beyond the scope of RfD. Si Trew (talk) 09:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many of these route diagram templates (RDTs) are used only on one article but are in template space so as not to overwhelm the source of the section they are used in (take a look at the source if you haven't already and you'll see what I mean). There is a request for a separate namespace for tables and charts (see bugzilla:2194) that would be ideal for the RDTs (which also used for roads, rivers and canals, possibly more too), navboxes, timelines and the like too. Thryduulf (talk) 10:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Waimakariri District Template[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CNR from mainspace to a template using 'Template' as a suffix. Created November 2013. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:XNR pipework redirect; templates are not articles, if this is to be an article, it should be translcuded -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 05:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clearly sends the reader/editor to what they're looking for, and no rationale has been presented for deletion. WilyD 09:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. XNR from mainspace without prefix (let alone pseudo-namespace). Re WilyD: this "search" is not to be supported from mainspace. -DePiep (talk) 10:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redirecting "Blah Template" to "Template:Blah" is not a thing we do. — Scott • talk 18:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

List of WikiProjects featured in the Signpost[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was moved to W-space without leaving redirects. --BDD (talk) 18:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very similar redirects were discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 December 13#WikiProject * in The Signpost, however this one was created in November, so it didnt appear in the last Wikipedia:Database reports/Cross-namespace redirects, which were updated in October 2013 and then again today, and therefore wasnt included in that discussion. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, only an administrator can rename to namespace without leaving a redirect. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg (talk · contribs) is an administrator, though. I agree that this is very similar and is covered by the previous consensus. —rybec 23:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If I moved it without leaving a redirect, I would be using my admin tools while 'WP:involved' given that I am obviously not-'neutral' on CNR. Sometimes INVOLVED should be ignored, but I didn't think this is one of those times, especially as User:Ottawahitech's userpage indicates they may be quite sensitive about their edits being deleted. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Wikipedia space as per earlier redirects. — Scott • talk 18:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Toodyaypedia[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted by Gnangarra. Thryduulf (talk) 11:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CNRs to Wikipedia GLAM project created in October 2013. c.f.Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2013_December_10#Freopedia. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is something wrong with CNR? or what... satusuro 05:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See the justification that user:TeleComNasSprVen provided re Freopedia. If this can be converted to an article, great. If not, it is likely to be deleted. Many other GlAM projects have created mainspace redirects and they have been deleted. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seemed like a good idea at the time. However if there is a basic procedure of keeping mainspace wp en separate from wikipedia project space, so be it. satusuro 05:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • deleted - both no need for this nonsense . Gnangarra 05:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:XNR isnt a policy its an essay, Toodyaypedia is project that is bringing many new users here most of whom will be unlike to find the project in the Wikipedia:xxxx namespace... Gnangarra 06:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you think it is encyclopedic, then write an article on it. WP:REDLINK ; otherwise WP:NOTEVERYTHING -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 06:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I had already deleted the pages, I just highlighting that your link is to an essay not a policy that the essay indicates equally valid reason for both options.... Toodyaypedia fits within the valid reasons for retention. Gnangarra 06:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
True, though the essay provides reasoning for deletion, which apply to this redirect, as it is a redirect to "pipework" which is not filtered through a pseudonamespace indicator. Also, per WP:REDLINK being a suitable topic for retention should result in a stub or a redlink, instead of a redirect to the projectspace page. (per your concern about retainability, perhaps a stub should be emplaced) -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 06:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Now that they are redlinks, what is the status of this RfD? Early close? -DePiep (talk) 10:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

PHARMMOS[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CNR without a prefix per WP:Shortcut. Created November 2013. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:XNR using incorrect pseudonamespace format, should be MOS:PHARM or MOS:PHARMA if this acquires guidelines status, which it does not seem to have, so "MOS" is misleading, as it isn't part of the MOS, without guideline status. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 06:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No prefix. -DePiep (talk) 09:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Malformed. — Scott • talk 18:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

MOS:Does not have an article[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PNR that is an improbable WP:shortcut. The target section has shortcut MOS:DABMENTION. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember the exact turning of the redlink blue, but "It doesn't have an article" is/was a frequent justification for actions contrary to WP:DAB and therefore was useful at the time. But have no problem with it being deleted, the original Talk page discussion will be long buried now. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The history of the dab page says it was created in November 2013.[3] John Vandenberg (chat) 04:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Target does not match shortcut title obviously. -DePiep (talk) 09:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Massively improbable. Mess. — Scott • talk 18:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I've been commenting at RfD often, I noticed this shortcut not by looking at the RfD page, but because it was the second result when I searched for not an article. [4] —rybec 02:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rybec: did it help you find what you were looking for? (What were you looking for?) I'm very curious as this redirect target is mostly talking about topics which do have an article - with a bit about when the article does not mention a subtopic, which is where the 'not an article' must come from. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking for a template to put on a page to identify the page as not being an article. Instead of using Special:Search, I just typed my search term into the little box at the top of each page. Before I did a second search in the proper name-space, the shortcut caught my eye and I opened it just out of curiosity...probably not important. By the way, Wikipedia:Does not have an article, a shortcut to Wikipedia:Disambiguation (different target), also exists. —rybec 08:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

MEDANIMAL[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CNR without a prefix, created December 2013. WP:MEDANIMAL already exists. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not about animals used in medicine, instead it is an WP:XNR to some behind-the-scenes material that is not encyclopedic in content. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 06:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for being a XNR from mainspace without prefix. -DePiep (talk) 09:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Malformed. — Scott • talk 18:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

GA criteria[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to GA. WJBscribe (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CNR created 2011 to a in-universe term. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:XNR pipework redirects concerning non-encyclopedic content ; it has nothing to do with GA criterions, GA==General Aviation, amongst other things. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 05:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clearly sends the reader/editor to what they're looking for, and no rationale has been presented for deletion. WilyD 09:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, an XNR from mainspace without prefix. Confuses or misleads reader. -DePiep (talk) 09:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Contamination of mainspace search with internal gunk. — Scott • talk 18:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:WilyD, likely search term. GA is already a DAB including General aviation ("amongst other things") and criteria already redirects to criterion; "criterions" is not a word. Si Trew (talk) 09:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you hate on 'criterions'...it is attested in OED to 19th century literature. ;-) The point that 70.50 is making is that if someone types in search term 'GA criteria', currently they are sent to this redirect. If the redirect disappears, the search results will list pages like 'GA' and pages like 'criteria'. Which will mean that the searcher finds the 'General aviation'. This redirect prevents those search results being shown. Now that you mention it, GA would be a good target for the people at RfD that hate deleting redirects, as it has a {{hatnote}} to Wikipedia:Good article criteria. For my part, I dont think that it is worth keeping this, as it isnt a likely target for newbies, and being created in 2011 doesnt count as 'historical' in my books. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to GA as General Aviation and the General American accent both have criteria to determine whether something is them or not. A couple of others could plausibly have them too (I've not bothered to look). Also for the record, I don't hate deleting redirects at all I just strongly object to deleting anything unnecessarily. Thryduulf (talk) 15:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to GA per Thryduulf.--Lenticel (talk) 10:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Since no criteria for general aviation or General American are mentioned on their respective pages, the retarget suggestion is just too clever. --BDD (talk) 18:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Living Paths[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CNR created in November 2013 to GLAM project. c.f.Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2013_December_10#Freopedia. No doubt it can be redirected to an existing mainspace topic. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:XNR pipework redirects concerning non-encyclopedic content -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 05:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. XNR from mainspace without prefix. Confuses reader. -DePiep (talk) 09:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Living Paths project (Full name: Llwybrau Byw! Living Paths!) is a wikiproject which attempts to train new editors in Wales in wiki editing skills, and release content on open licence. This simple, effective redirect takes the new user directly to the project portal, where training material and further instructions are found. It's much easier that remembering the full title: "Wikipedia:GLAM/Welcome to Llwybrau Byw! - Living Paths!". Llywelyn2000 (talk) 10:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Llywelyn2000, at least while the project is active this is a redirect that will help very new users and so deletion would be harmful. This should be revisited (but not automatically deleted) a couple of months after the project finishes to see whether it is still warranted then. I have no object to a retargetting if something appropriate exists, I can't immediately find anything but something is nagging at the back of my mind that this phrase has some significance to something related to Australian Aboriginal culture? Thryduulf (talk) 11:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Malformed XNR. Should not be a mainspace search result; this is internal material. Encourages creation of similar malformed and inappropriate redirects. Appealing to imaginary new users is unconvincing. — Scott • talk 18:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
XNR issues remains moderately controversial (See here. Please assume good faith for the next 5 moths. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 11:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere have I assumed any bad faith. This XNR is simply wrong. — Scott • talk 12:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
New users are not imaginary, although they might become so if we go out of our way to make things difficult for them. Thryduulf (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As for the Aboriginal connection I was musing about, it might be Songlines that I was thinking of, but I'm not sure. I don't think "Living Paths" would make a good redirect there, and I've not been able to find anything else, so it doesn't look like this is in the way of any content at all. Thryduulf (talk) 17:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Current Sci Tech Events[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect has gone through quite a few changes of the target due to discussions such as Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Current events/Science and technology, and is now pointing at a target which is no longer very relevant to the expectations of the person clicking on this link. A large number of these CNR to inactive current event portal subpages were deleted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November 5#Current events redirects, and there are many more that were speedy deleted since then. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 November 24#ANE Resources for a list of CNR that previously existed, but have since been deleted. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete "News" is the wrong target for such a page title. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 06:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Horribly-named redirect (In Unnecessary Title Case) with a totally unintuitive target. — Scott • talk 18:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_January_15&oldid=1166663992"