Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  (Redirected from Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion)
Jump to: navigation, search
Skip to current discussions. Skip to current discussions Skip to current discussions.
Purge this page to refresh If this page has been recently modified, it may not reflect the most recent changes.
Please purge this page to view the most recent changes.
Deletion discussions
Deletion policy

Process – log – tools
Guide – Images – Admins
Shortcut:
WP:RFD

Redirects for discussion (RfD) is the place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic redirects. Items sent here usually stay listed for a week or so, after which they are deleted by an administrator, kept, or retargeted.

Note: If all you want to do is replace a currently existing, unprotected redirect with an actual article, you do not need to list it here. Turning redirects into fleshed-out encyclopedic articles is wholly encouraged at Wikipedia. Be bold.

Note: Redirects should not be deleted simply because they do not have any incoming links. Please do not list this as a reason to delete a redirect. Redirects that do have incoming links are sometimes deleted as well, so it's not a necessary condition either. See When should we delete a redirect?

Old discussions are archived at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log.

Contents

[edit] Before you list a redirect for discussion...

...please familiarize yourself with the following:

[edit] The guiding principles of RfD

  • The purpose of a good redirect is to eliminate the possibility that an average user will wind up staring blankly at a "Search results 1-10 out of 378" search page instead of the article they were looking for. If someone could plausibly type in the redirect's name when searching for the target article, it's a good redirect.
  • Redirects are cheap. Redirects take up minimal disk space and use very little bandwidth. Thus, it doesn't really hurt things much if there are a few of them scattered around. On the flip side, deleting redirects is cheap since the deletion coding takes up minimal disk space and use very little bandwidth. In general, there is no harm in deleting problematic redirects that do not contribute to improving the encyclopedia.
  • The default result of any RFD nomination which receives no other discussion is delete. Thus, a redirect nominated in good faith and in accordance with RfD policy will be deleted, even if there is no discussion surrounding that nomination.
  • Redirects nominated in contravention of Wikipedia:Redirect will be speedily kept.
  • RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes. If you think a redirect should be targeted at a different article, discuss it on the talk pages of the current target article and/or the proposed target article. However, for more difficult cases, this page can be a centralized discussion place for resolving tough debates about where redirects point.
  • Requests for deletion of redirects from one page's talk page to another page's talk page don't need to be listed here, as anyone can simply remove the redirect by blanking the page.

[edit] When should we delete a redirect?

Shortcut:
WP:RFD#HARMFUL

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

  • a redirect may contain nontrivial edit history;
  • if a redirect is reasonably old, then it is quite possible that its deletion will break links in old, historical versions of some other articles — such an event is very difficult to envision and even detect.

Therefore consider the deletion only of either really harmful redirects or of very recent ones.

Shortcut:
WP:RFD#DELETE

[edit] Reasons for deleting

You might want to delete a redirect if one or more of the following conditions is met (but note also the exceptions listed below this list):

  1. The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine.
  2. The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so it should be deleted.
  3. The redirect is offensive, such as "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs", unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is discussed in the article.
  4. The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting Google to love.
  5. It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exception to this rule is the "CAT:" shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space but in practice form their own "pseudo-namespaces".
  6. If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to an article that does not exist or itself, it can be deleted immediately, though you should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first.
  7. If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful. Implausible typos or misnomers are potential candidates for speedy deletion, if recently created.
Shortcut:
WP:RFD#KEEP

[edit] Reasons for not deleting

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

  1. They have a potentially useful page history. If the redirect was created by renaming a page with that name, and the page history just mentions the renaming, and for one of the reasons above you want to delete the page, copy the page history to the Talk page of the article it redirects to. The act of renaming is useful page history, and even more so if there has been discussion on the page name.
  2. They would aid accidental linking and make the creation of duplicate articles less likely, whether by redirecting a plural to a singular, by redirecting a frequent misspelling to a correct spelling, by redirecting a misnomer to a correct term, by redirecting to a synonym, etc. In other words, redirects with no incoming links are not candidates for deletion on those grounds because they are of benefit to the browsing user. Some extra vigilance by editors will be required to minimize the occurrence of those frequent misspellings in the article texts because the linkified misspellings will not appear as broken links.
  3. They aid searches on certain terms.
  4. You risk breaking incoming or internal links by deleting the redirect. Old CamelCase links and old subpage links should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them.
  5. Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful — this is not because the other person is a liar, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways.
  6. The redirect is to a plural form or to a singular form.

[edit] Neutrality of redirects

Note that redirects are not covered by Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. This covers only article titles, which are required to be neutral (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Article naming). Perceived lack of neutrality in redirects is therefore not a valid reason for deletion. Non-neutral redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term.

Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:

  1. Articles that are created using non-neutral titles are routinely moved to a new neutral title, which leaves behind the old non-neutral title as a working redirect (e.g. Dalmatian Kristallnacht → Dalmatian anti-Serb riots of May 1991).
  2. Articles created as POV forks may be deleted and replaced by a redirect pointing towards the article from which the fork originated (e.g. Barack Obama Muslim rumor → deleted and redirected to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008).
  3. The subject matter of articles may be commonly represented outside Wikipedia by non-neutral terms. Such terms cannot be used as Wikipedia article title, per the words to avoid guidelines and the general neutral point of view policy. For instance, the widely used but non-neutral expression "Attorneygate" is used to redirect to the neutrally titled Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. The article in question has never used that title, but the redirect was created to provide an alternative means of reaching it.

If a redirect is not an established term and is unlikely to be used by searchers, it is unlikely to be useful and may reasonably be nominated for deletion. However, if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources (as defined by Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources), it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms. Please keep in mind that RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes.

See also: Policy on which redirects can be deleted immediately.

[edit] Closing notes

Details at: Wikipedia:Deletion process#Redirects for discussion page. See also Administrator instructions for RfD.

Nominations should remain open, per policy, about a week before they are closed, unless they meet the general criteria for speedy deletion, the criteria for speedy deletion of a redirect, or are not valid redirect discussion requests (e.g. are actually move requests).

[edit] How to list a redirect for discussion

To list a redirect for discussion, follow this two-step process:

I.
Flag the redirect.

  Enter {{rfd}} above the #REDIRECT on the redirect page you are listing for discussion. Example:

{{rfd}}
#REDIRECT [[Foo]]
  • If the redirect is to a category or image, make sure there is a colon ( : ) before "Category:" or "Image:".
  • Please do not mark the edit as minor (m).
  • Please include in the edit summary the phrase:
    Nominated for RFD: see [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]]
  • You can check the "Watch this page" box to follow the page in your watchlist. This allows you to notice if the RfD tag is removed by a vandal.
  • Save the page.
II.
List the entry on RfD.

 Click on THIS LINK to edit the section of RfD for today's entries.

  • Enter this text below the date heading:
{{subst:rfd2|redirect=RedirectName|target=TargetArticle|text=The action you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for that action.}} ~~~~
  • Put the redirect's name in place of "RedirectName", put the target article's name in place of "TargetArticle", and include a reason after text=.
  • If the redirect or its target is a category or an image, make sure there is a colon ( : ) before "Category:" or "Image:".
  • Please use an edit summary such as:
    Nominating [[RedirectName]]
    replacing RedirectName with the name of the redirect you are nominating.
  • To list multiple related redirects for discussion, provide a separate link for each listing under a single heading and detail your listing reasons below the last redirect (example).
  • Please consider using WhatLinksHere to locate other redirects that may be related to the one you are nominating. After going to the redirect target page and selecting "What links here" in the toolbox on the left side of your computer screen, select both "Hide transclusions" and "Hide links" filters to display the redirects to the redirect target page.
  • It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the redirect that you are nominating the redirect. To find the main contributors, look in the page history of the redirect. For convenience, the template

    {{subst:RFDNote|RedirectName}}

    may be placed on the creator/main contributors' user talk page to provide notice of the discussion. Please replace RedirectName with the name of the redirect and use an edit summary such as:
    Notice of redirect discussion at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]]

[edit] Current list

[edit] January 8

[edit] List-of-company-name-etymologies → List of company name etymologies

Unlikely title - only "List of" title with dashes instead of spaces or underscores JaGatalk 04:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Paper Planes → Paper plane

As the redirect name is BOTH an alternate capitalization and plural of the target page (unlike Paper planes), there is less reason for it to redirect to the Paper plane. Instead, it could EITHER get redirected to the M.I.A. song at Paper Planes (song) OR deleted so that Paper Planes (song) can be moved there (with a hatnote about the Paper plane article). IF the consensus is to EITHER leave the redirect as is OR change the redirect to Paper Planes (song), I'd suggest having the page fully protected from editing to prevent any edit wars over where it should redirect to. I'm listing this for discussion as I'm not 100% sure what should be done in this case. Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 01:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] January 7

[edit] Kelly haprer → Kelly Harper

The result of the discussion was Speedy delete (WP:CSD#G8) as redirect to a deleted page. --Allen3 talk 22:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Obvious misspelling. -- smurdah[citation needed] 21:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Stereotypes of Africans → Stereotypes of African Americans

A ridiculously americocentric redirect. Africans do exist, and are subject to stereotyping, outside America. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Fallon, Oliver → User:Opfallon

The article redirects to a user page. Redtigerxyz Talk 16:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

  • CSD R2 will take care of that. Tagging. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 00:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Joey Jo-Jo Junior Shabadoo → Homer Simpson

No mention of Joey Jo-Jo Junior Shabadoo in target article. David Pro (talk) 13:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC) David Pro (talk) 13:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep - deletion would just encourage creation of the article. WilyD 20:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Moe's Tavern as that is where Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo, a similar title, redirects. In fact, Joey Joe Joe was seen in Moe's Tavern drinking in the episode "The Last Temptation of Homer". Search "Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo" on YouTube and find the video to prove my point is spot on. Thanks. -- MISTER ALCOHOL T C 20:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Nepalmonarchy → Nepalese monarchy

[edit] A lex → Alex (Street Fighter)

Should this redir be retargeted to List of characters in the Street Fighter series#Alex or retargeted to Alex? David Pro (talk) 12:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Gloucestershire → Wikipedia:WikiProject Gloucestershire

Nominating for deletion as unused cross-namespace redirect. Stifle (talk) 09:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete - cross namespace. WilyD 20:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sozza → Estivation

Redirect should be deleted. No reliable source uses the word "sozza" to mean estivation. As far as I can tell, the original article (later turned to a redirect) was a joke. It was created by Teddtucker (talk · contribs), who did nothing else but create the joke(?) article. Eubulides (talk) 06:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep for now. -- MISTER ALCOHOL T C 20:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Can you please explain why this should be kept? —dgiestc 07:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - too many uses for "sozza" or "Sozza" listed in a google search to be worthwhile (not one reflecting anything to do with aestivation) - I've seen it used as the name of an Italian village, a surname, a given name, the name of a French actress (Julie Sozza-Barbier), and the feminine form of sozzo (a one-word Wikidictionary entry: "filthy"). 147.70.242.54 (talk) 01:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ինչպես խմբագրել էջը → Demos Shakarian

The redirect should be removed because it is irrelevant and it prevents others from editing ALL articles that are written in Armenian language, which is a huge problem. Sndik16 (talk) 01:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D4%BB%D5%B6%D5%B9%D5%BA%D5%A5%D5%BD_%D5%AD%D5%B4%D5%A2%D5%A1%D5%A3%D6%80%D5%A5%D5%AC_%D5%A7%D5%BB%D5%A8

Sorry, I do not know how to use the Wiki very well to report this problem. So I attached the link above to the comment, so you will see what is going on.

  • Can you please clarify how it "prevents others from editing ALL articles that are written in Armenian language"? Stifle (talk) 09:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete - the only Web pages that have both "Ինչպես խմբագրել էջը" and "Demos Shakarian", according to Google search - without the language filter - are all Wiki pages... all 13 of them. If the former is the transcription of the latter, it should be incorporated into the article in the same fashion as transliterations of Greek, Chinese, Japanese, and Russion (for example). But the search results imply that it is not; thus this should be quickly deleted as an improbable typo. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] January 6

[edit] Hide the sausage → Sexual intercourse

Someone tell me how Hide the sausage could survive more than three years...--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 23:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

To keep things short, a native speaker should have a look at: [1] [2] [3] and [4] --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 23:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Grow a pair → Testicle

Just to keep you busy and the trend alive.--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 22:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete both. the tread continues... Tavix (talk) 23:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Stereotypes of Africans/Blacks → Stereotypes of African Americans

I found this redirect with a {{prod}} tag on it with the explanation "not the same topic". I agree with the nominator's deletion rationale (there are, believe it or not, a significant number of Africans/Blacks who are not American), but have brought the case here because redirects are not eligible for WP:PROD deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete Not all blacks are American. Tavix (talk) 23:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NAME: a redirect with a name that implies it to be a subpage of the article Stereotypes of Africans, which it is not (in fact, the latter is a redirect with the same target. Should it also be deleted?). 147.70.242.54 (talk) 00:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Instruction manual (computer and video games) → Instruction manual (video games)

As with the previous redirect, it's too long and complicated to merit a redirect page. ZXCVBNM 22:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Combo (computer and video games) → Combo (video games)

People will probably not type (Computer and video games) in parenthesis, they will just search for "Combo" instead and be directed to the page it's redirected to. This redirect is unnecessary. ZXCVBNM 21:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Creatures in the Metroid series → Metroid (series)

  • Just like the entry right below this one, this article was part of a general idea of creating a sest of orderly articles to document features of the Metroid series of video games. I was the one to come up with this (and Areas in the Metroid series as well). Unfortunately, Wikipedia has chosen to pare down the fancruft, and in doing so, has basically compressed everything about Metroid into one page per game and a main page for the entire series. In doing so, this link is now pretty much useless. I'm still not going to vote for its deletion; in fact, in defense of my own intentions, I'm going to vote to keep (even though I'm quite certain it's gonna be deleted anyway). (For more information on my philosophical differences with Wikipedia, see my userpage.) ~GMH talk to me 06:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

PS: To be honest, I'm more saddened at the article for Ridley being deleted. Ridley is too awesome. ~GMH talk to me 06:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Creatures in Metroid Prime 2, Metroid Prime Hunters, and Metroid Prime 3 → Metroid (series)

Since this article was deleted for being too crufty, it's implausible that anyone would type in this title. ZXCVBNM 21:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

  • This should have been CSD G6'd two years ago as housekeeping. Delete. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 00:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Samus Aran's gunship → Samus Aran

I doubt anyone will type in "Samus Aran's gunship" rather than use the search function for "Samus+Aran+gunship". This redirect is implausible. ZXCVBNM 21:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete per above. Tavix (talk) 04:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Rock q Roll Train → Rock 'n' Roll Train

The result of the discussion was speedy deleted by NawlinWiki. --Amalthea 00:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete - very obscure. Can't even imagine why this was created. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete swiftly - this was the result of a flurry of activity (at least two moves and three retargetings in the space of 13 minutes) by an apparently indecisive editor. For one minute, this was a blank page. All of this occurred on 5 January 2009, so the only significant history is that of the moves and retargeting. B.Wind (talk) 04:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Edmund Wells → Monty Python

No reference to name in target article (A Google search finds the name was used in one of the comedy group's many skits). Delete as confusing, making search for other Edmund Wells unreasonably difficult (an article for Judge Edmund W. Wells, "Arizona's first millionaire", is currently under development), and as a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name. --Allen3 talk 20:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak delete - Edmund Wells is a fictional author that figures prominently[5] in a lesser-known Monty Python skit ("Bookstore Sketch") that was performed on Monty Python's Contractual Obligation Album. While Wells receives repeated mentions in the skit, the skit itself is not a notable one. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 00:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 28 redirects → American Idol seasons

There are 28 redirects that exist from contestants in seasons 4, 5 and 6 of American Idol that did not make the top 24 (and therefore have little or no mention on their season pages). Most or all should be deleted.

  • Note 1: Emily Neves (twice), Rhonetta Johnson and Marisa Rhodes have former AfD discussions that resulted in redirection. That was before information on those who did not make the top 24 were removed from the articles.
  • Note 2: If well-written, Sarah Burgess may warrant an article based on large numbers of Google searches and radio airplay. The disambiguation is necessary regardless as an article already exists for another Sarah Burgess.

There are none pointing to seasons 1, 2, 3 or 7 other than semi-finalists or less-notable finalists (all of which should be maintained), due to fewer well-known or greater watch of contestants. Any other thoughts? CrazyC83 (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep All. These redirects look quite helpful to me and others. -- MISTER ALCOHOL T C 20:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep all -- seem to me to be perfectly sensible redirects. – ukexpat (talk) 04:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment - should more redirects be created for some of their peers who never had an article created or proposed and some from season 7 that were in the same position? CrazyC83 (talk) 05:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete All but Noted - Unhelpful redirects that users will not be looking for and have no significant edit history. A line should be drawn at articles for finalists of American Idol and redirects for semi-finalists so articles are not created while going through the semi-finals. People shown in one episode auditioning do not need a redirect since people will not be searching for them. Aspects (talk) 18:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Various pages → Leet

All are very unlikely search terms/link targets, and many were created from vandalism/nonsense pages which should really have been deleted to start with. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 18:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-notable and possibly invented words.--ZXCVBNM 21:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] SP:NU → Special:Log/newusers

Cross namespace redirect to the "Special" namespace using a fake namespace abbreviation. Borderline CSD R2. While "WP" is a namespace, "SP" is not (Try "[[WP:]] and SP: to see the difference). In essence, that means that these redirects are in the article namespace, which is not a good idea for many reasons (search results, database exports and web crawlers). -- lucasbfr talk 16:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep. Abbreviations can be helpful. -- MISTER ALCOHOL T C 20:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. This shortcut has high potential for use, and is overall very useful.DougsTech (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - there is not a SP: namespace (technically, Special: is in articlespace but in fact is a pseudonamespace that has been set aside by Wikipedia). The redirect (created by DougsTech mere hours before this nomination reached RfD) has no significant history and can be a harmful one as it can lead to false reports in the article search feature. From Wikipedia:Namespace#Virtual namespaces: A redirect to a Special page is not recommended because of its complications. B.Wind (talk) 04:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, recently created WP:XNR from article space. If a redirect like this is found useful then it should be at WP:LNU or WP:SNU, but not in article space. --Amalthea 14:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] SP:NP → Special:NewPages

Cross namespace redirect to the "Special" namespace using a fake namespace abbreviation. Borderline CSD R2. While "WP" is a namespace, "SP" is not (Try "[[WP:]] and SP: to see the difference). In essence, that means that these redirects are in the article namespace, which is not a good idea for many reasons (search results, database exports and web crawlers). -- lucasbfr talk 16:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep. Abbreviations can be helpful. -- MISTER ALCOHOL T C 20:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. This shortcut has high potential for use, and is overall very useful.DougsTech (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - there is not a SP: namespace (technically, Special: is in articlespace but in fact is a pseudonamespace that has been set aside by Wikipedia). The redirect (created by DougsTech mere hours before this nomination reached RfD) has no significant history and can be a harmful one as it can lead to false reports in the article search feature. From Wikipedia:Namespace#Virtual namespaces: A redirect to a Special page is not recommended because of its complications. B.Wind (talk) 04:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, recently created WP:XNR from article space, and there's already WP:NP. --Amalthea 14:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] War of Northern Aggression → American Civil War

Also applies to:

Propose retargeting above redirects to Naming the American Civil War. Redirects originally targeted Naming the American Civil War, since each title is an alternate name for the ACW itself, and the article explains why such names exist. The ACW article does not get into detail like the naming article does. Some consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/American Civil War task force#Redirect battle, as only one tenacious editor disagrees. Requesting a broader audience to gain a consensus for the target article. Tombstone (talk) 13:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep as is. All three redirects are search items for the war itself (note that NPOV does not apply to redirects). Links to the proposed new target are already in the American Civil War article, both in the first line of the lede and in the "See also" section below. This is one case in which retargeting could be confusing to someone who wishes simply to read the American Civil War article. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep as is Terms are synonyms to ACW, not Naming of ACW. Possibly add alternate names in intro, or put in lead sentence (also known by various names, see Naming of)--King Bedford I Seek his grace 17:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Change redirect as proposed These terms are not used as synonyms for the American Civil War by any reliable source and it is highly unlikely anyone would type those terms in when searching for general information about the war. Rather, they are notable as POV nicknames for the war which is the subject of Naming the American Civil War. That article is a daughter article of the main Civil War article, per summary style. If it were still a section within the main article, we would redirect to that paragraph, not to the top of the page. Since it has been budded off as its own article, there is no rationale for making the redirect less precise. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Change redirect - At least some of these terms are biased, and shouldn't be used as synonyms to the Civil War article. "Civil War" is too widely used to merit these terms being redirected to it.--ZXCVBNM 22:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Change redirect as proposed - This is the tip of the iceberg ([6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]). Each one of these should point at the Naming article, since the naming article covers most of the names and explains some of them. The slow motion edit warring on these redirects demonstrates a pettiness IMHO unbecoming to a member of the Military History project, much less a coordinator. BusterD (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment The official name of the book by the US Government about the war was The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies and Official Records of the Union and Confederate Navies in the War of the Rebellion. Numerous books include John Bell Hood and the War for Southern Independence, For Maryland's Honor: A Story of the War for Southern Independence, A History of the United States : The war for southern independence, 1849-1865., and so on for war for southern independence. The War of Northern Aggression in Western North Carolina is an example for modern titles using the name. Redirecting to "Naming" is asinine, and it appears that those seeking to redirect to Naming may have ulterior motives.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 01:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep as is. Gentlemen, these are all names by which the Civil War is known.Die4Dixie (talk) 04:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep as is. When a reader punches in "War Between the States", by far the most likely primary reason for doing that is to read about the American Civil War, not a list of alternative names for the conflict (the latter case would more likely prompt a search for Names for the American Civil War or List of names for the American Civil War. NPOV does not apply to redirects (see WP:RfD#DELETE); similarly, the "synonym" argument above is inconsistent with WP:REDIRECT). The Naming the American Civil War article has two links in the American Civil War article. This is a case where the proposed retargeting, while well-intentioned, would actually add to the confusion rather than ameliorate it, and it can also be interpreted as POV pushing, which is most highly discouraged here. B.Wind (talk) 05:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Naming article (not sure what "Keep as is" is supposed to mean for links that keep changing). The Wikipedia standards for article name synonyms does not address the situation where a lengthy article has been written to explain the derivation of the large variety of names. The aging term "War Between the States" could be a legitimate search target because it was widely used in the late 19th century and early 20th, so that is a reasonable redirect to the ACW article, but none of the other alternative names would be seen anywhere outside of obscure Southern partisan circles. Also, none of those alternative names (other than WBTS) are listed in the ACW article, so less confusion will result when the user is directed to an explanation instead of an article that does not mention the term. User Bedford's claim that "numerous" books use these titles omits the fact that there have been over 60,000 books written about the war, so citing a few with POV alternative names is unpersuasive. The overwhelming supermajority of books, articles, and magazines use the term [American] Civil War. Hal Jespersen (talk) 19:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Redirect War of Northern Aggression as proposed to Naming the American Civil War, 'neutral on the other two. Nobody in mainstream America calls it the War of Northern Aggression. I don't really have an opinion on the other two and could see it both ways. "War Between the States" is a pretty common term for the Civil War even for people who don't mean anything by it. "War of Northern Aggression" is only used in jest or by people who are still determined that the South shall rise again. --B (talk) 20:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Us simple southern folks use "will rise again" and reserve "shall" for jussive subjunctive translations, hortatory commands,and first person future indicative actives. I would say that most who live below the Mason-Dixon line don't believe anything about "rising". The fact is there is a large body of writing that exists today that uses this name. One reading that literature should be able to type the the name and arrive at the article. Pretty simple. Jes laik we laik it ;)Die4Dixie (talk) 02:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] January 5

[edit] Buckethead (band) → Buckethead

There once was a German band using this name [17] but they are not related to the guitarist. No links to the RDR.----Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 01:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete as a confusing redirect - unless a WP:BOLD editor decides to accept the challenge of writing an article about the band. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 17:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. The artice about the band can be written at any time, but until then, this is a misleading/confusing redirect. B.Wind (talk) 05:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Put a bucket over its head per above. (that means delete in case you aren't funny). Tavix (talk)

[edit] Κλειτορίς → Clitoris

Further human parts researc