Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 January 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 5[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 5, 2014.

Quark (cryptocurrency)[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 to make it a redlink. JohnCD (talk) 20:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

People looking for Quark (cryptocurrency) are not looking for Cryptocurrency. This should be a redlink. --Surfer43_¿qué pasa? 19:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not helpful, and the redlink with deletion log will tell people (at least the ones who care) that we actively don't think it a good topic for an encyclopedia, at least at this point. Nyttend (talk) 19:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:R#DELETE #10, "If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject, it is better that the target article contain a redlink than a redirect back to itself.". I've added Quark to the article (I believe it is not an undue or non-notable addition. If the consensus here is that the addition is still "virtually no information", then follow the process. My attempt was to satisfy this condition, making the redirect useful. Best regards, JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The info has been removed from Cryptocurrency. --Surfer43_¿qué pasa? 23:01, 13 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.

Law, crime, and punishment[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) 11:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While these are certainly related topics, not all areas of law deal with crime and punishment, and this is a rather unwieldy search term for law anyway. --BDD (talk) 19:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looking over the talk page of the creator, it looks like he's been indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing related to redirects, among other things. Whether this is ad hominem or relevant to the case I leave to you. --BDD (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a common phrase [1]. Category:Justice has sub-categories Criminal justice, Law, and Punishments‎, among others. Retarget? —rybec 04:22, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To where? Crime? Punishment? Not everything can be a valid search term. --BDD (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 17:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In response to BDD: I was trying to suggest that it be retargeted to Category:Justice. —rybec 21:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I still think deletion is the best option, but if we're retargeting, why not to the mainspace Justice then? --BDD (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the redirect, whether with its present target or retargeted to another article. I don't think it's a particularly helpful redirect, and I would never have created it, but it is doing no harm, and nothing would be improved by deleting it. Also, since it has existed for well over a year and a half, it is just possible that someone may have a link to it somewhere. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "X, Y, and Z" redirects are rarely useful, for the reason of question of target, as BDD points out. — Scott • talk 14:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, displaying search results is more useful for this search term. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:14, 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.

Portals/contents[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. JohnCD (talk) 20:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a typical WP:CNR. 2 pageviews in November 2013. Unlikely typo or shortcut. The target (Portal:Contents/Portals) lists WP:PORT & P: as shortcuts, but there are many more, including WP:8 for some unknown reason. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I started a discussion about treating explicitly allowing article to portal redirects at Wikipedia talk:Redirects, but got very few comments - my edit to that effect was reverted, no by someone who actually opposed this, but by someone who felt there wasn't enough discussion. Portals are more like articles than the other namespaces, since they are intended for readers rather than editors. That considered, it goes exactly where anyone would expect. No comment on any other of the shortcuts mentioned. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Ego White Tray, that issues has been moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 112#RFC: On the controversy of the pseudo-namespace shortcuts, and I hope you will contribute to that discussion. I agree that 'P:' should be a namespace alias, and I also don't mind the many 'X portal' aliases in mainspace, for the reasons you give. This nomination is just about the one redirect named 'Portals/contents', which I dont think is a sensible redirect to keep because we many other ways a person can reach Portal:Contents/Portals. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Other ways to get there is never a valid reason to delete a redirect. Ego White Tray (talk) 18:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, as little-used CNR. --BDD (talk) 18:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is a CNR and not plausible. While Ego White Tray is right that article to portal redirects are not necessarily always bad, no reason has been provided to keep this particular CNR. 5.70.154.132 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:54, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Participants are reminded that neither being a cross-namespace redirect from the mainspace to the portal namespace, nor appearing little used are not valid reasons in and of themselves to delete a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 17:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 17:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The "not" looks unintended. —rybec 21:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good spot, now fixed. Thanks! Thryduulf (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While Thryduulf may be right in saying that the reasons he refers to are not "in and of themselves" sufficient reasons for deletion, cross-namespace redirects from mainspace to other spaces are on the whole to be avoided in the absence of good reasons for having them, and nobody has shown any good reason for this very rarely used redirect to be kept. It has little value as a shortcut, as there are shorter redirects to the same target page. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not enough reason to keep. — Scott • talk 14:32, 13 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.

Abel's Ark[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 no consensus. --BDD (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion. Content was merged into https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_terms_in_Xenosaga&oldid=130020605 but that was redirected without merger per AfD in 2009, and "Abel's Ark" is not mentioned in the current target article. – Fayenatic London 23:21, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 16:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's reasonable to redirect the names of terms and characters to articles about the fictional place(s) in which they appear. This isn't particularly problematic, especially since most people looking up this term will be familiar with Xenosaga already. If you're not already familiar with it, the redirect will tell you that the ark has something to do with Xenosaga, so at the minimum you'll know how better to search. Nyttend (talk) 19:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • They can use Google to find that out. IMHO it's misleading and confusing to keep a redirect when the target does not mention it; it suggests that the encyclopedia is more extensive than is now the case. Keeping the redirect in Wikipedia doesn't tell anyone whether, for example, Abel's Ark was a device, ship or planet. – Fayenatic London 15:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep this page was merged to a page that still exists, and for which the history of the merger still exists. Therefore WP:MAD ; if we delete this, then the edit history of List_of_terms_in_Xenosaga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) also needs to be deleted -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 02:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Recreate once the target mentions the term. This term is also used in other ways, including two different museum displays/bequeaths[2][3][4][5] John Vandenberg (chat) 22:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment then we could turn it into a set index article. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 05:50, 16 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.

National symbols of Poland[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 Symbols of Poland. Appears uncontroversial. --BDD (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CNR to a template, with many incoming links from other mainspace articles. Readers shouldnt be landing in template space unexpectedly, and looking at template instructions. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:20, 5 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.

Medway watermills/Diagram[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) 14:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CNR to a template using subpage naming. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking about the redirect only, right? No objection to deletion of the redirect from me. Mjroots (talk) 15:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, just the redirect.  ;-) The redirect was deleted by user:RHaworth and restored by user:Nyttend in August. John Vandenberg (chat) 16:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. The content has been accessible from this title since creation in 2009 and every month for the past 13 months at least it has been consistently getting a significant number of page views. I'm not entirely sure why anyone would want to delete this redirect and inconvenience people, but it can't be for the benefits of doing so as there appear to be precisely zero. Thryduulf (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. Not particularly problematic, and its continued uses demonstrate that deletion will be unhelpful. Now that it's 2014, this has been a useful target for 4½ years; we shouldn't delete a target of this age when there are no real problems bigger than being a CNR. Nyttend (talk) 18:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Malformed CNR. No useful incoming links. "Has existed for a few years" is meaningless. — Scott • talk 21:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note we also have the same redirect at Medway watermills diagram, which is the name where this content resided for two years until user:Frietjes moved it to template space in May 2013 while also improving the template code.[6]. This redirect using subpage syntax ('/'), when one exists without the '/', is an implausible typo. The incoming redirects are all wikimedia content[7]. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that WP:Subpages are a problem for redirects as well, as redirects have talk pages too, for discussion and increasingly also used for templates and maintenance categories. See [8] and Talk:Palatine Forest/Leading Articles. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a theoretical problem that is not actually a problem in reality. If it caused problems at major pages like talk:OS/2 it would have been fixed. It hasn't been, and so we must conclude that it is irrelevant to the location of a page. The talk pages of redirects are visited by very few people anyway - the redirect Recent deaths has been viewed 34,575 times so far this month. It's talk page has been visited 12 times in the same period. Thryduulf (talk) 11:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    There is also 9/11. Yes, there are some unavoidable problems due to the software and our title policy and guidelines, caused by pages with many thousands of hits per day. That doesnt mean we should allow more of the same problem cases, such as this redirect which was viewed 7 times in all of November 2013. I had hoped you would see this is relevant to this discussion. Apparently not. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't matter to me whether we benefit one person or 10,000 people with a redirect - if the benefits of deletion do not outweigh the the disruption and inconvenience it will cause then it should not be deleted. In this case you have yet to convince me that deletion will have any benefits. Thryduulf (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, no incoming links, and we have another redirect which can do the same job as this one if someone were to search for "medway watermills diagram". Frietjes (talk) 13:47, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The existence of another redirect is irrelevant to whether this one should be kept or deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 16:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Frietjes is pointing out that the other redirect is only one character different, and it does 'the same job', which is relevant. Even in the very unlikely scenario that someone searches using the term "Medway watermills/Diagram", if the redirect Medway watermills/Diagram is deleted, the first search result will be "Medway watermills diagram". The functional difference is that the autocomplete results will be different, and IMO better, if the redirect Medway watermills/Diagram is deleted. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Autocomplete is relevant only for those people using the search box who have javascript enabled. Please explain why forcing some people to view search results and others being invited to search and some invited to create a page rather than all of them getting directly to the content they are looking for benefits Wikipedia? Thryduulf (talk) 11:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; the redirect naturally implies a subpage of a mainspace page, which we generally wouldn't have anyway. --BDD (talk) 19:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:SUBPAGEs should not be used in mainspace. -- 70.50.148.248 (talk) 04:37, 31 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.

Navbox Zen[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) 13:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CNR to template created in June 2013. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:15, 5 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.

ITU prefix/List by nation[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) 19:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CNR to a template, using an unlikely search term. The target also has another CNR List of ITU prefixes by nation. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep. This is a harmless CNR - the template is reader facing and is not in the way of anything else. There has been content at this title since January 2007 when the target was created here and it still gets at least ten hits every month. No benefit will be gained for making it harder for people to find the content they are looking for - this is exactly the sort of information that people will bookmark for future reference. Thryduulf (talk) 16:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:SUBPAGE; XNR. If this should exist in articlespace, it should be transcluded by the page instead of being a redirection, at List of ITU prefixes by nation. Though, why does this even exist in templatespace? It's only transcluded by one article. -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 02:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above. — Scott • talk 14:20, 13 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.

England FH Squad 2012 Champions Trophy[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. There's only a thin consensus here, but the fact the keep !votes seem to boil down to "it's useful" tips the scale. The Bushranger One ping only 02:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CNR to a template. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • So? The template is reader facing, and the redirect has been consistently getting 5-10 hits a month since it was created and inconveniencing people using it will not bring any benefits. Keep. Thryduulf (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Templates are placed on articles, so in that sense they are reader facing. However a template page is not reader facing on its own. It contains template documentation which is not beneficial to the reader. It does not provide sources, as required for articles. This should be a WP:REDLINK, if it is within the notability standards of this discipline. If it isnt within notability of this discipline, the redirect is bypassing notability rules, and should be redirecting to Great Britain national field hockey team, which should be expanded to cover the 2012 team as it was when it placed 8th.
    google:"England FH Squad 2012 Champions Trophy" links to mainspace redirect first and the template second. google:England Squad 2012 Champions Trophy links to the template first and the mainspace redirect second. If the redirect is deleted, the search results will consistently place the template as the first result, as it does for the other templates in Category:England national field hockey team navigational boxes. See google:England FHW Squad 1987 EuroHockey, or google:England FH Squad 2005 Champions Challenge. This redirect is only confusing people; if it is deleted, the traffic will go in one direction to the template instead of two.
    As repeated many times, CNR have a cost. All CNRs break Wikipedia mobile apps, they pollute search results, etc, etc. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm not familiar with the guidelines on namespaces (I'm not even sure I know what a namespace is), but readers wouldn't care about any of that - they would ask if it is useful. I would argue that it is, particularly based on Thryduulf's comments. Boleyn (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A list article would be easier to read: one would be able to see the players' full names without mousing over the players' names in the nav-box. Mouse-over doesn't work on printed pages, nor with screen-reading software, nor on some touch screens. —rybec 12:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's OK, this redirects existence doesn't prejudge against creating that list. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — Scott • talk 14:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 5-10 hits a month is noise. I wanted to find an article to retarget this to, but the squad isn't listed at 2012 Men's Hockey Champions Trophy, and England national field hockey team already has a more recent squad. Too implausible to be helpful. --BDD (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Boleyn, the reader wouldn't care about namespacees, he'd just care if the target is useful, and for the reader who looks up "England FH Squad 2012 Champions Trophy" it is. The template is certainly less then ideal, but it's better then nothing. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CROSS and WP:NOTDUP. If this is a notable subject, create a list article, if not, it should not be in article space. As the creator admits, they do not know what namespaces are so clearly does not understand how CNRs can be harmful. 5.70.112.176 (talk) 11:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Users should not be being redirected to template space, which results in confusion, especially as new editor might expand the content beyond what should be in a template. This is the sort of cross-namespace redirect that I think should definitely be avoided and the evidence of use is minimal. WJBscribe (talk) 11:59, 9 February 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.

Godwin Family Tree[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) 20:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CNR to a template. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. This redirect takes people to the content they are looking for, so why on earth would we want to delete it? Thryduulf (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Templates are not 'in' the encyclopedia, except as part of other pages. You are asking that re-uses of Wikipedia content must download an extra ~10 pages like this from the Template space in order to have a complete copy of 'Wikipedia, the encyclopedia'. Alternatively, we redlink it now and/or someone can create an article about this topic, and transclude this template, and the problem is resolved. John Vandenberg (chat) 18:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    What on earth are you on about? Templates are part of the encylopaedia, but if you believe that content pages not transcluded onto other pages must never be in the template namespace then what you should be doing is either (a) proposing to move this page to the article namespace, or (b) editing this template so that it can be transcluded rather than linked. Making it difficult for people to find content because you dislike how it is presented is actively damaging to the project. Thryduulf (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thryduulf, apparently there isnt a good writeup of what I am on about; see User talk:MZMcBride#Mainspace is the encyclopedia for a snippet of info about this. I have checked two mobile Wikipedia apps, and they both fail on this page. This page was moved from mainspace to template space - see the logs of the two redirects listed here, and the logs of Godwin family tree. These redirects are artifacts of several moves before it landed in template space. The page is very unsuitable for the mainspace in its current form, especially given the concerns at Template talk:Godwin family tree. I could have nominated it for deletion instead, but at present I am more concerned about the fact that this redirect is in mainspace. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The redirect isn't the problem though - the target page is what you have a problem with (not unreasonably so) so it is the target page that needs to be fixed. Whether that is by deletion, improving and/or moving it doesn't really matter, but deleting the redirect will not help anybody. Thryduulf (talk) 08:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The redirect makes it a mainspace problem, which should be our first priority. Project space has lots of junk. Maybe it can be fixed; that discussion and improvement can happen more slowly. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the content is always the first priority. Making the content harder to find makes it less likely the content will be fixed and so is counter productive. Thryduulf (talk) 18:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget after making article at Godwin family tree, where the target template was originally created. —rybec 21:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rybec:, I doubt an admin would move this back to mainspace; that would require a lot of work otherwise the page will be sent straight to AFD. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't trying to suggest moving it, but rather the creation of a stub article in which the template could be used as a template. However, if there's no intention to incorporate the template in other articles then 76.65.128.112's idea may be better: a template only used in one article may be merged into the article. Either way, more people are likely to work on and improve the content if it's in the form of an article, or an article and template, than if it remains purely a template. —rybec 11:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this template is unused so is not a template at all, it is an unreferenced article masquerading as a template. There should be no redirects to this, as it should reside in article space. Move the template out of templatespace into an article name (Godwin family tree) and delete all the XNRs, or target the new article. -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 02:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above. — Scott • talk 14:19, 13 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.

AB1120[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 - requested by sole substantive author below. — Scott • talk 20:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CNR to a template. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. I wouldn't have thought that this was a particularly useful redirect, but the stats show otherwise with evidence of use beyond background noise all the way back to at least June 2013. So given that the template is reader facing, and I can find nothing else encyclopaedic that would take this title (although I'm willing to be proved wrong on this) there is no benefit to deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a roads directory and this a non-notable route.--Charles (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would seem to be an argument to delete the template, not the redirect to it. Thryduulf (talk) 20:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is an argument to delete both but this is about the redirect.--Charles (talk) 21:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: neologism as applied to UK roads, and people may search for the term when looking for something else [9] [10] [11] —rybec 20:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate to A1120 road and B1120 road, and any articles on Assembly Bill 1120 -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 02:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    AB1120 is not commonly used to refer to either A1120 road or B1120 road. 'AB1120' is a NEO to refer to them both together, not individually, and template space is full of these NEOs, which is fine. But surely WP:NEO applies to dab pages and redirects in mainspace ..? Linking to Assembly Bill 1120 isnt a bad idea, if a dab or redirect like that can be constructed within the various related policies. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I've no objection to a dab page if there are things to disambiguate. As for WP:NEO, it doesn't exactly apply to redirects - redirects should ideally be plausible search terms, a record of history, or useful in some other way. Neologisms can be good search terms in some cases, and where they are they can be (and normally are) kept/created. As I noted I wouldn't expect this to be a good search term for the target, but it is being used and thus demonstrates usefulness. Thryduulf (talk) 09:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"AB1120" or "AB-1120" aren't mentioned in Wikipedia articles; my point was not that there should be disambiguation, but that this redirect hinders searching--even just by hindering someone from seeing that there are no search results. —rybec 00:07, 7 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.

User:El Roih[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) 16:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect of userpage to mainspace article. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Convert to soft redirect. That way the users' desired link is still there but there is no confusion for people following a link to the user page. Thryduulf (talk) 10:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete provides no encyclopedic purpose. MilborneOne (talk) 15:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is irrelevant as the redirect is in userspace. Thryduulf (talk) 16:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Leave it: not prohibited by Wikipedia:USERPAGES#Categories.2C_templates_that_add_categories.2C_and_redirects and not obviously harmful —rybec 19:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Dont wanna encourage CNRs. Beerest 2 talk 20:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete XNR & WP:UP are not to masquerade as articles, this will lead people to leave messages to this user on the article's talk page, because the redirect will put people at the article, and then they click talk. This is clearly harmful. Alternately WP:BLANK -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 03:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit so that it's no longer a redirect but a simple wikilink: some people keep links on their user pages to their favourites, and there is nothing in WP:UP that says that you can't set up a user page as a list of bookmarks. Also drop a note on user's talk page explaining why redirects from user space to mainspace are undesirable. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a WP:CNR and WP:ASTONISH violation. If the user speaks up with a reasonable explanation here, I'll probably hold my nose and strike my vote. --BDD (talk) 23:11, 8 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.

!!m[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. Thryduulf (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wii is a featured article, and it does not mention !!m/!!M. We had this article about '!!M', but it was 'deleted' in August 2006 due to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/!!M. These '!!' redirects appear on the first page of Special:Allpages. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Note that !!M is Wii turned upside down; this isn't something that would warrant mention in the article on the Wii. Nyttend (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I read that '!!M' was mentioned in some patent or other design documents long before the release, however I couldnt find which document used that codeword for the product in development. John Vandenberg (chat) 18:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: the outcome of the AfD, favoured by six of the seven commenters, was to turn !!M into a redirect. The article formerly at !!M [12] cited an IGN story [13] which says "Tipped off by a story at Go Nintendo.com, IGN confirmed that Nintendo has registered WiiPointer, WiiCulture, and !!M with the Japanese trademark office today" (hyperlinks in original). The link to the Japanese trademark office isn't working for me, but in principle the existence of trademarks is verifiable/falsifiable; this could have been merged into an article. The registration of a trademark, even if unused, seems noteworthy enough for mention in an article about a company or a related product. —rybec 20:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If you can integrate that into the article, and it sticks, I'm voting keep too. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - No rationale is presented that would contradict the community's consensus established in the AfD that this title should redirect to Wii. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 08:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Salvidrim, if the AfD were last week, perhaps that might be more of a valid concern. As such, consensus can change. I've remarked a bit more on the AfD below. --BDD (talk) 22:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In reply to BDD, I !vote this should be kept and mentioned again in Wii's article, citing the source(s) presented above. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article Wii is one of the older ones on Wikipedia (dating back to at least 2005), and !!M was indeed registered and hypothesized. While I don't know when it was removed from the Wii page, it was likely reduced to a footnote after the "crystal ball" talk was cut, and was more than likely excised in a later cleanup.TheListUpdater (talk) 20:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The AfD conclusion wasn't a great one, and AfD was considerably more lax in 2006 than it is now. The term was redirected based on speculation, and over seven years later (!) it seems very unlikely that !!M will ever come to fruition. Also, ask yourself what sort of reader will be looking for this term. Most likely he or she is already familiar with the Wii, but even if not, he or she will learn literally nothing about the desired topic. It's not mentioned at the target article and it's speculative: that's a no-brainer delete. --BDD (talk) 22:55, 9 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.

GROHL, DAVID ERIC[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 January 22#GROHL, DAVID ERIC

GSAT-6[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 INSAT-4E. (NAC) NickSt (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion - As per WP:RFD#DELETE point 10; since it should actually be an article such as (GSAT-1 to GSAT-16). Also, no trivial edit history pertaining to GSAT-6 in article GSAT. Ninney (talk) 23:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to INSAT-4E. - Ninney (talk) 12:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - in my experience RFD#10 is more honoured in the breach than the observance, but in any case there is a small amount of content about the satellite in the GSAT article that just about justifies a redirect. That said, GSAT-6 should have its own article so I'll look into whether it is practical to create one now or whether we need to wait until it is closer to launch. --W. D. Graham 01:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to INSAT-4E. Seems the satellite already has an article under an alternative name. --W. D. Graham 10:36, 6 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_5&oldid=1136448271"