Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 October 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 10[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 10, 2014.

George Smith (football coach)[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 George Smith#Sportsmen. --BDD (talk) 15:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

misleading redirect, as there is also a George Smith active as football coach (Association football, that is.) Better a red link than a wrong redirect. The Banner talk 21:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I might be mistaken, but I think this is a left-over from the moving of the article to its current lemma. The old one sure can be deleted. --bender235 (talk) 21:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to George Smith#Sportsmen (where there are some other football coaches mentioned, e.g. George Smith (footballer, born 1915)) and tag {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. Deletion won't solve the problem as these kinds of redirects get recreated quite frequently to point to one overly-specific target by people who aren't aware of the other potential targets. 61.10.165.33 (talk) 23:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it should not be a redlink, since we already have a football coach article. If the soccer coach ever gets an article, we can retarget "football coach" to the disambiguation page. But as there does not seem to be such an article, this is the proper target for this redirect. As there is an actual topic for this disambiguaiton, a redlink is wrong because the topic already exists. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 02:51, 12 October 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.

구르주프[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) 15:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The city is Crimean, not Korean. Gorobay (talk) 20:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia:Redirect#Reasons for deleting point 8. Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - directs readers to the content they're looking for, no argument presented for deletion. WilyD 10:58, 22 October 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.

공작석[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) 15:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not specifically a Korean topic. Gorobay (talk) 20:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia:Redirect#Reasons for deleting point 8. Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Directs readers to the content they're looking for. No reason has been presented for deletion. WilyD 11:03, 22 October 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.

나치[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) 15:06, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nazism is not related to Korean. Gorobay (talk) 19:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia:Redirect#Reasons for deleting point 8. Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - directs readers to the topic they're looking for; no rationale has been presented for deletion. It would be a needlessly hostile act to our readers, and our goal of writing an encyclopaedia. WilyD 11:02, 22 October 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.

남경 영국 국제 학교[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) 15:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a school in China. It is not Korean. Gorobay (talk) 19:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia:Redirect#Reasons for deleting point 8. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:00, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - directs readers to the page they're looking for. No reason has been presented for deletion. Such a deletion would be a needlessly hostile act towards our readership. WilyD 11:00, 22 October 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.

단어[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) 15:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This Korean word means ‘word’. Every language has words; they are not specifically Korean. Gorobay (talk) 18:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia:Redirect#Reasons for deleting point 8. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:00, 11 October 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.

Ὀλιγαρχία[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. The fact that the concept of oligarchy is cross-cultural is not particularly relevant if English speakers are trying to look it up using one of these Greek spellings because that's how they encounter it. -- Beland (talk) 23:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep - I've taken political philosophy courses which use the Greek words for concepts such as oligarchies, since a lot of the thought on forms of governance came out of ancient Greece. This doesn't seem to be the ancient Greek word, but at the same time might be worth keeping. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Oligarchia (common typo), delete the other ones. � (talk) 18:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - directs readers to the content they're looking for, no reason has been presented for deletion. WilyD 10:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Harmless and not new. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC).
  • Delete The concept of an oligarchy isn't specific to any language or culture. --BDD (talk) 16:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears to be of Greek origin and influence. --Mr. Guye (talk) 04:13, 19 December 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.

눈사람[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) 15:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Snowmen are not specifically Korean. Gorobay (talk) 18:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There seems to be a Korean comedy show with this title, but we currently don't have an article about it. --- TheChampionMan1234 09:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or redirect to VisualEditor.. to help the Korean speaking Wikipedians using it...? ;-) John Vandenberg (chat) 11:29, 16 October 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 breweries in Nebraska[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 procedural close. No longer a redirect and so not within RfD's scope. Thryduulf (talk) 16:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This list has been repeatedly redirected. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of breweries in Connecticut decided that these brewery lists should be kept. The correct process here would be to take it back to AFD. In the meantime, the redirect should be undone. SpinningSpark 17:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy close The guiding principles of RfD state that this process is not for most content disputes. The page was moved to Brewing in Nebraska because there was no reliable list content that did not fall afoul of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. If there is valid list content, I have no problem speedily moving the page back to List of breweries in Nebraska. The nominator raises Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of breweries in Connecticut, but this was a mass AfD which lumped very different articles together. In nearly every other case there was at least some salvageable material linked to reliable sources that covered the entries in depth. It is also worth noting that this is the only list where a directory-only, unreliable reference seems to be acceptable. It is important to consider the broader norm with regards to these pages as a point of consensus. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support speedy close. My position is that this should be referred back to AfD. That is the result I am looking for from the closer. Are you willing to go down that path? SpinningSpark 20:32, 10 October 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.

Sentencing guidelines[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 10#Sentencing guidelines

"."[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, and tagged with {{R restricted}}. --BDD (talk) 16:14, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why we have scare quotes around a period. I'm guessing this redirect might exist because [[.]] is a bad title, but we typically avoid special characters (incl. ") in titles, and I dont see other bad titles which use quotation marks to bypass the bad title rules. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I don't see why this is scary in this usage. I do realize we don't generally have inquoted titles, but I think in this case it is reasonable to have one for this. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 11:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is it reasonable? John Vandenberg (chat) 23:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You pointed it out yourself, it's a banned title without quotes. And people frequently indicate single grammatical characters with quotes when not using them as their function. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 03:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete implausible typo. � (talk) 18:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed it is an implausible typo, but that is not the reason for this redirect's existence. Thryduulf (talk) 21:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per 67.70.35.44. Thryduulf (talk) 21:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Harmless. Also plausible. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC).
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.

!xbile[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) 14:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (name alias?) not explain in the article, no response on talk page Talk:Russell Peters#!xbile, and even the fans are confused. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A quick Google search shows that !xbile and xbile are associated with something that he has done (on Facebook at least), so I think there is valid reason to keep the redirects. They are cheap, after all. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There appears to be no association between the redirect and the target - the Facebook pages exist because of this redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 08:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - So I believe the story behind this can be explained by a specific bit from his standup, where he talks about someone named !xobile. However, I can't see the use of a misspelling of an already rather minor redirect, especially considering the only context one would know the term from is one in which he specifically spells out the term.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:50, 20 October 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.

Korean copycat product[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) 14:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely and rather racist redirect. Was an article, which was unwisely merged (by original author, so no attribution needs to keep this redirect). I have removed the merged section, making the redirect useless as well. Fram (talk) 08:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fram, It was not in any way meant to be racist (that it was meant to have implied South Korean behavior was inferior to other cultures or be an insult to them.) It was meant to be based on observation of something based on overwhelming representational evidence, and a cultural business phenomenon or practice. A set of decisions. These products do not appear to be inferior to the originals, as would "cheap knockoffs". What is also interesting about it is that South Koreans are expected to dislike Japan because of WW2, and dislike Chinese because of cold war era politics, and yet this happens anyway. When you go into Indian supermarkets there appears to be no attempt whatsoever to imitate directly other products, but in a Korean supermarket such as H Mart (Hanahreum), it really stands out dramatically. If the ultimate consensus is to avoid this topic because people feel uncomfortable with it (as opposed to that there are not a lot of newspaper or magazine articles about the phenomenon, which also appears to be true. Through there are some articles online that appear to be a kind of "fluff" that say Korean car companies used to copy X or Y car company but does not anymore), I will consent to that. I wish there was a way to address it that did not inspire anyone to assume it was racist, and instead helped enrich understanding of history and cultural and business behavior, and in turn affect creative business decisions South Koreans make when they make new products. That is what Wikipedia exists for.--Radical Mallard (talk) 21:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom . John Vandenberg (chat) 09:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • retarget to Counterfeit consumer goods which is what someone using this title is most likely looking for. The general Copycat product doesn't exist yet, but I'll create it to that target if others agree it would be usefull. Thryduulf (talk) 09:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there any evidence that "korean copycat product" is especially common as search term, compared to e.g. Japanese, Belgian, Mexican and so on? We could end up with a long list of redirects, adding things like "Chinese rip-off"[1] which is way more common (the term) than "Korean copycat product"[2]. The chance that someone is actively looking for this term is rather small... Excluding Wikipedia, this really is barely in use[3], so adding such a potentially insulting redirect does more harm than it actually helps people, IMO. Fram (talk) 10:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - too ambiguous, and even if there wasn't any racist intent, it comes off that way. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete may be better off as a redlink. It might be a different story if we have articles for counterfeit products for both Koreas.--Lenticel (talk) 05:04, 13 October 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.

!vote[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 21#!vote

Wikimedia secure server[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) 14:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cross namespace redirect from mainspace. See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 October 2#Wikipedia secure server John Vandenberg (chat) 08:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete. This isn't a topic that needs to be easily accessible for people who do not understand namespaces, and I cannot find an appropriate target in the main namespace (for example if secure servers were discussed in the History of Wikipedia article, I'd point it there but there is no mention). Thryduulf (talk) 09:02, 14 October 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/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 keep. --BDD (talk) 14:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible typo. This was created as a redirect in 2001[5], using a subpage-like title, which is no longer acceptable in mainspace. user:Graham87, it looks like this revision hasnt been imported... ;-)

The other redirects in Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia/ are nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 October 2. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very strong keep per WP:RFD#KEEP point 4 which explicitly mentions old subpage links. Additionally, this has been harmlessly existing for 13 years so there is precisely zero reason to delete it now. Thryduulf (talk) 09:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:RKEEP refers to encyclopedia articles which previously included '/' in the title, like Australia/People, as that was once the actual (and stable) content page title approved by policy/practise at the time; see the old wording.
    Wikipedia/History was never a wp:subpage (i.e. has content) - it was always a redirect to content. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    So? This title has been used to access content since 2001 - and given that the earliest edit recorded is by the conversion script my guess is that this didn't actually start life as a redirect (the pre-MediaWiki edit history is not complete). Deletion of the redirect is likely harmful (given the liklihood of incoming links) and brings no benefits (subpages in the mainspace are deprecated and do not function as subpages, and sub page naming is strongly discouraged for new creations, but they are not and have never been unacceptable) so keeping it is the only sane outcome. Thryduulf (talk) 22:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I've imported the edit, for what it's worth. I have no opion about the fate of the redirect. Graham87 11:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons explicated by Thryduulf. The page did *not* start life as a redirect. --The Cunctator (talk) 23:09, 14 October 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-Supported Software[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 Wikipedia#Software operations and support. MediaWiki is the main article from there at the moment but conceptually it seems like the point is to software section within the Wikipedia article. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect from mainspace. See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 October 2#Wikipedia tool John Vandenberg (chat) 06:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak retarget to MediaWiki which is the software that runs Wikipedia and can be said to be supported by it (as its development is largely driven by Wikipedia's needs). I'm prepared to be convinced that there is a better target though. Thryduulf (talk) 09:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That stretches the meaning of suffix '-supported software' beyond the reasonable. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. It is a stretch but it's far from an unreasonable one, and unless there is a better target available this is what will best serve people looking for this term. Thryduulf (talk) 22:36, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a misuse of the language. The two most common meanings of the redirected term are 'software that Wikipedia has tested and supports if bugs arise' (e.g. wikEd) and 'software which has support for Wikipedia, without any guarantee' (e.g. Kiwix). Your 'software which powers Wikipedia' meaning is very odd, and will be wasting people's time as it does not provide any answers for the common meanings of the term that is being clicked on. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because cool URIs don't change, an idea that was once widely accepted here. If a retarget is in order, as suggested above, Wikipedia:Supported Software should probably be changed at the same time. But in fact, I think that Wikipedia:Tools handles quite well the purpose of these redirects (which was software which has support for Wikipedia). —Toby Bartels (talk) 18:40, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Cross-namespace redirects are often deleted or replaced with redirects to mainspace, and that is called maintenance - it has been happening since day dot (or when redirects were first able to be created and deleted). Wikipedia software is an example of a 2002 redirect created by User:The Cunctator which was deleted by User:Cyde in 2006. User:Mathiastck recreated it as a redirect to Wikipedia in 2008, and it has lived happily ever after. I would be happy for "Wikipedia-Supported Software" to also redirect to Wikipedia, as I think that article has the most information closest to the typical readers objective. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    By "day dot", do you mean "day one"? In any case, your history is wrong. Redirects and page deletion are both older than namespaces, so it's not true that cross-namespace redirects were being deleted as soon as redirects could be deleted. On the contrary, cross-namespace redirects were being created as soon as namespaces existed. (Their purpose is to bring people going to an old, pre-namespace page to the new page in the correct namespace.) Later, people got the idea that they were inappropriate and needed to be deleted. (Of course, new cross-namespace redirects are unnecessary and should not be created.) I know that the prevailing policy is now to delete them, but since my opinion was asked, I gave it. —Toby Bartels (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I do think that a redirect to Wikipedia (or indeed, a redirect anywhere at all) would be much better than outright deletion. —Toby Bartels (talk) 20:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
agreed Keep Mathiastck (talk) 20:52, 24 October 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 main sandbox[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. --BDD (talk) 16:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect from mainspace. Sandbox already has a self-ref. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep what else could the 50-100 people using this each month be looking for? We don't want them to create their tests in the main namespace, so it makes sense to take them to the place where both we and they want them to reach. Thryduulf (talk) 09:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    False dichotomy. This redirect isnt needed for 50-100 people who are currently using it. If they are looking for the sandbox, this hit will turn up in the results, and they will use it, but is it necessary for them to get where they want to go? Will other hits take them to the same spot? As I said in the nom, yes, there are other hits which fill the void by deletion of this redirect. special:search/wikipedia sandbox has lots of hits which will take them to the Wikipedia Sandbox, often via a content page, and google:wikipedia sandbox is even better. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:53, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because other searches are useful does not mean this one isn't (a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument). If we delete this redirect we make it harder for 50-100 people a month to find what they are looking for without bringing any benefits to Wikipedia - indeed some of them may make their sandbox edits at this title or at another non-sandbox page that the search results may or may not find (remember search results are not predictable and are not shown for all methods that people use to arrive at a non-existing title on Wikipedia). The primary argument against CNRs is that they get in the way of encyclopaedic content and confuse people who fall into pipework when expecting encyclopaedic content. This topic however is unambiguously not an encyclopaedic topic and so people arriving here will not be expecting encyclopaedic content but Wikipedia's main sandbox - precisely what they get with the redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 08:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep - main-space only searches will find this. And the other searches find Wikipedia:Sandbox . for example. Remember too that a "go" hit is better than a search hit. Much as I dislike cross namespace redirects this one is worth keeping, and possibly adding Wikipedia sandbox. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC).
  • Keep

It's useful A8v (talk) 00:22, 14 November 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 bugs[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) 14:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect from mainspace. One would expect this title to describe web bugs used by Wikipedia, or notable software bugs in the deployed website. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:22, 10 October 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 almanac[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) 14:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect from mainspace. The target page was recently ripped to shreads by user:James500; see their explanation on Wikipedia talk:Almanac. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:14, 10 October 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 accountancy[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 "Wikipedia accountancy", keep the others. I boldly re-targeted as suggest, given there is no "Economy" section at all Nabla (talk) 11:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a real term in English. It used to point to this 'Economy' section. Also Economy of wikimedia foundation was created at the same time, and similarly is using the word 'Economy' in a way that is not typical English. Both have very low pageview counts. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment It could mean "accountancy" in the sense of "holding to account", but while that is one thing that Wikipediocracy claims to be about that is not covered in its article, and I don't think any other organsisations/sites that claim to do that have an article (Wikipedia Watch redirects to a section of the Criticism of Wikipedia article and isn't mentioned by name). Thryduulf (talk) 08:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the first as nonsense. Retarget the other two to Wikimedia Foundation#Finances. There's a difference between finance and economics, but readers may not know what it is. Hell, I don't know what it is. But this is probably what someone using these search terms would be looking for. --BDD (talk) 14:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only delete the first one as a term too ambiguous to use and as a term that might refer to different topics. --Mr. Guye (talk) 04:02, 19 December 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 chat[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. And re-salted, since its unsalting was in error. --BDD (talk) 14:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Undelete/Wikipedia_chat shows that this redirect was created by user:Graham87 when moving Wikipedia:Archive/Wikipedia chat into project space, and after the redirect was created it has been recreated several times, before user:JohnnyMrNinja redirected it to Wikipedia.

But there is no such thing as a 'Wikipedia chat', so it should be deleted, and probably salted. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. It was actually salted until I accidentally unprotected it in November 2009 while trying to do a history split (which I later decided against). Graham87 07:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as confusing redirect. --Lenticel (talk) 02:45, 23 October 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 is not finished[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) 14:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cross namespace redirect from mainspace. c.f. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 October 2#Wikipedia is not a finished project John Vandenberg (chat) 05:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per my comment in the previous discussion, being a CNR is not a reason on its own to delete a redirect. However, we have no relevant content to point this redirect to (although we probably should) so it should be deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 09:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not for the readership. - TheChampionMan1234 04:38, 14 October 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 World War I flying aces from the German Empire[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 World War I flying aces from Germany (non-admin closure) NickGibson3900 Talk 03:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This shouldn't redirect to the category. Instead, it should be left a red link to encourage someone to create an actual list. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:36, 10 October 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_October_10&oldid=1194275132"