|
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
|
Administrator instructions Purge the cache to refresh this page
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.
Before you list a redirect for deletion...
...please familiarize yourself with the following:
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.
- 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.
When should we delete a redirect?
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.
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):
- The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine.
- 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.
- 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.
- The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting Google to love.
- 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".
- 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.
- 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.
Reasons for not deleting
However, avoid deleting such redirects if:
- 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.
- 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.
- They aid searches on certain terms.
- You risk breaking external or internal links by deleting the redirect. Old CamelCase links and old subpage links should be left alone in case there are any existing external links pointing to them.
- 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.
- The redirect is to a plural form or to a singular form.
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 are commonly created for three reasons:
- 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).
- 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).
- 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. Non-neutral redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term.
See also: Policy on which redirects can be deleted immediately.
Closing notes
- Details at: Wikipedia:Deletion process#Redirects for Discussion page
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).
How to list a redirect for deletion
To list a redirect for deletion, follow this two-step process:
| I. |
Flag the redirect.
Enter {{rfd}} above the #REDIRECT on the redirect page you are listing for deletion. 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=Reason the redirect should be deleted}} ~~~~
- 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:".
|
- 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.
Current list
August 7
This was created when the place name Savovo was correctly capitalised in 2007. I say we don't need this redirect any more. De728631 (talk)
- Keep first because it helps to document the pagemove to the correct capitalization and second because redirects to support alternate or mistaken capitalization are routine. The new search engine is capitalization-neutral but our wikilinks and other forms of navigation are not. Rossami (talk) 16:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
User:EarlyBird appears to have made a handful of joke redirects in April 2007. Ian Manson has no relation to Mr Blobby, or even Noel's House Party. He also (confusingly) created:
- Ian Manson → Socrates
On the same day he also made:
- Thomas Manson → Marilyn Manson (which now redirects to Pob's Programme
- Celia Meade → Cilla Black (which now redirects to Tina Turner
None of these make sense to me. Nor can I see how they can be made in to something useful. I hope its OK to lump these all in to one report. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 06:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - I saw the Socrates redirect too back in June and asked User:EarlyBird about it, but never got a reply (and forgot to do anything about it myself - sorry!). I don't think the creator had a good reason for these redirects, and I think they should go. Gonzonoir (talk) 19:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
This page links to the Na disambiguation page, on which the only relevant information is:
- n/a or N/A, short for not available or not applicable, used to indicate the deliberate omission of information
This seems to me to be just another excuse for people to link to an irrelevant disambiguation page, nothing links here ATM (I just removed the only 4 or 5 links) Playclever (talk) 20:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
August 6
Redirect to a section of Spanking that no longer exists, and for content (namely, information about a "Punishment horse") that was contentious and may have been OR in the first place.
See the old version of Spanking. Also see Fastifex' Talk page, the user who created the redirect, who had received complaints about the information at the time of its addition. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep and restore that section of the article. Seems some babies got thrown out with the bath water. -- Ned Scott 22:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Arguably, yes, the recent changes do look like they're eliminating a bunch of good information, but the article as it was had been little more than a coatrack article, biased towards "why spanking is wrong". But that aside, which version of the Position section would you prefer to see re-added? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 03:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
August 5
More housekeeping such as the other redirects listed below. Only the move is in the history. - LA (T) 19:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- No incoming links, you seem to have made most of these, and preformed the move, so I would just tag them all for speedy deletion G6, housekeeping. -- Ned Scott 22:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Fictional series was moved to Media franchises a long time ago, and all subpages moved. The only thing in this page's history is the move, and nothing is linked to this. The redirect from WikiProject Fictional series is being kept, since it is more widely used. There is further housekeeping here.- LA (T) 19:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Same as Wikipedia:WikiProject Fictional series/Assessment with one talk page discussion linked to this. - LA (T) 19:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Same as Wikipedia:WikiProject Fictional series/Assessment with one talk page discussion linked to this. - LA (T) 19:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Same as Wikipedia:WikiProject Fictional series/Assessment with one talk page discussion linked to this. - LA (T) 19:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Same as Wikipedia:WikiProject Fictional series/Assessment with one talk page discussion linked to this. - LA (T) 19:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Confusing as users are looking for WP:Huggle GtstrickyTalk or C 15:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- This page has been discussed at least twice that I know about. The original version was AfD'd in Jan 07 (here) and was deleted. It was recreated as a redirect and RfD'd in Apr 07 (here) but no consensus was reached. It has since been variously repointed to Hug, Physical intimacy and Wikipedia:Huggle (and briefly vandalized). The inbound links are all user Talk pages and fall into two clear categories - the references on the anon pages are vandalism warnings about abuses to the "huggle" page itself (before the AfD deletion) and the logged-in user page uses are all references to the "WP:Huggle" tool (both before and after the AfD. I see no reason to overturn the AfD decision and defer to that judgment that the term is a non-notable neologism. You could argue for a soft-redirect to wikt:huggle as a way to discourage the recreation of the dictionary definition but looking at the inbound links, it appears that our readers/editors most use this link as a typo of "WP:Huggle" (forgetting the WP: prefix).
I'd suggest repointing there as a plausible typo. Rossami (talk) 20:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC) Soft-redirect with hat-note per UsaSatsui's suggestion below. Rossami (talk) 23:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Retarget to WP:Huggle. While this does have a real-life meaning, and cross-namespace redirects are normally to be avoided, in this case I think it's justified: if someone types this in, the page they're arguably most likely looking for is WP:Huggle. If necessary, a hatnote can always be added to that page saying 'Huggle' redirects here; for other uses, see Hug. Terraxos (talk) 03:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as is, common term in the ~Real world~ to refer to hugs and a vandalism tool on Wikipedia should not take precedence over that. naerii 17:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- A quick google search on the word does not seem to support the claim that this is a particularly common term. Excluding Wikipedia, Wiktionary and their clones and derivatives (like Urban Dictionary and Everything2), none of the hits on the first few pages refer to hugs. What evidence do you have that this is a common usage that should take precedence over the evidence that we do have about how Wikipedia editors already use the term? Rossami (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- When it comes to redirects, we typically don't need a lot of evidence for such things. -- Ned Scott 22:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Excluding everything2 and Urban Dictionary? Where does the reasoning for that come from? naerii 00:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- You are right that we don't need a lot of evidence but I'd like to see some. I couldn't find any that didn't trace back to Wikipedia. Rossami (talk)
- Solution: how about a soft redirect to wikt:huggle and a hatnote with the "WP:HUGGLE" link? Seems like that solves all the problems. --UsaSatsui (talk) 23:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
U.S. broadcast stations do not begin with initial letter X 66.102.80.212 (talk) 00:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Also nominated with the same reasoning and target page were:
- Keep to preserve history. The first one in this set was originally an article talking about stations on Mexican soil but broadcasting in English to a US audience. Whether you call that a US station or a Mexican station is, in some regard, a matter of judgment. The page was moved in Aug 2005 by an anon editor to the Mexican title. The anon appears to have executed the move via cut-and-paste rather than through the move button. The redirect now preserves the only record to the attribution history of the original content which went on to become the Mexican list. At least one of the other redirects was the result of a prior pagemove of the content by user:Evice. (I'm guessing that Evice created the last two as variants of US.) History-merge is not worth the effort or risk of error. One of the core reasons for a redirect is to solve problems like this for us. Rossami (talk) 04:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
August 4
Lisa Druck is a living person, the redirect is to a work of fiction, a novel that the author states was inspired by Lisa Druck. A novel inspired by someone is the author's personal spin on a person, and a fictional treatment. The novel is about a coke-addled booze guzzling floozy. Novels do not have the same guidelines as Wikipedia's biographies of living persons; this redirect violates the "Do No Harm" policy on living people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macduff (talk • contribs) 14:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete for BLP reasons. We should consider removing the names from the article as well. Terraxos (talk) 02:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. The redirect should be edited to point to Rielle Hunter, not the fictional work. The Rielle Hunter article would have to be written. Rielle Hunter, née Lisa Druck, is a woman who has apparently gained some level of notoriety on the coattails of a political scandal. Binksternet (talk) 03:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
August 3
It is not the same, and the link could be misleading. Radon difluoride is a radon fluoride, but radon fluoride is not necessary radon difluoride There also exists xenon tetra- and hexafluoride. Grrahnbahr (talk) 22:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - could be potentially misleading. Midorihana みどりはな 23:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. As far as I know, only one radon fluoride is actually known (please correct me if I'm wrong). When only one compound is known, it is useful to have a redirect from an incomplete or ambiguous name. There was one claim of radon tetrafluoride once, but as far as I've seen it was controversial and never confirmed. Another alternative would be to move radon difluoride to radon fluoride and discuss all the issues there: the good, the bad, and the ugly (or rather the compounds with confirmed composition, the ones with unknown composition, and the controversial ones). --Itub (talk) 15:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Not mentioned in target page. Mad almost never uses "blecch", but rather "ecch". Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 12:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as a confusing redirect. Midorihana みどりはな 23:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as a confusing or nonsensical redirect, per the green flower. —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 21:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - I remember Mad magazine using the term 'Blecch' quite often when I used to read it, more than a decade ago. It's a neologism, but one that is notable and specific to Mad. - Richard Cavell (talk) 03:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
A series of words that is not mentioned in the article as far as I can find; it was previously CSD'd under R3, it was recently created because the creator claims it has to do with the novel it redirects to, yet I do not see any instance in which this series of words is mentioned — Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 01:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, unless someone can explain the meaning or use of this redirect. Terraxos (talk) 02:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
August 1
Nominated by 89.186.131.135 with edit summary of "typo?"
Ducky is a Parasarolophus, and even if the species was correct, it should link to List of The Land Before Time characters. Also, it has nothing useful in its page history. --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 04:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete- I think it's highly unlikely anyone will be typing this into the search box. Reyk YO! 04:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral...I would say delete, but usually around this time someone comes by saying that it documents a pagemove...and it does...so I'll wait for that to happen. --UsaSatsui (talk) 06:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- I've boldly taken care of the nom's suggested retarget. I can't see any possible objection. --UsaSatsui (talk) 06:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- Weak delete, even though it's been retargeted, the nominator says it's incorrect so I propose delete. —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 01:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - aside from being incorrect, this is a highly implausible search term. Terraxos (talk) 02:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
July 31
Included in this nomination:
These are soft redirects to Narutopedia, a Naruto wiki, a non Wikimedia project. There are many, many of these (a list is here), I'm nominating the first ten to establish consensus and not overwhelm RfD. Delete per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 July 11#Akimichi clan. --Phirazo 17:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Redirects to a whole 'nother project. I believe that linking to another Wiki is generally not allowed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 20:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- You mean "redirecting to another Wiki", right? Because it's certainly allowed to link to other wikis. -- Ned Scott 09:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- These all appear to have older versions in history which redirected to existing Wikipedia articles (mostly List of minor Naruto characters from my spot-checks). Unless there is a reason not to that I don't see, revert to the internal redirects. Failing that, delete because we ought not to be redirecting outside of the MediaWiki family of projects. Rossami (talk) 22:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- Well, List of Naruto characters has only main characters, so I'm not sure a redirect would make sense. List of minor Naruto characters is now behind a redirect to List of Naruto characters. A redirect to the top article, Naruto, might make sense. --Phirazo 02:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- I had not realized that the "list of minor characters" was now a redirect to the "list of main characters". Was any content merged to the new target article? That is, do we have to keep it for GFDL compliance? I can't find anything that was merged I haven't verified every edit. If not, then I would not disagree with deletion. Rossami (talk) 21:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep for one more month, then delete. The original target was merged to the main character list on June 9th. [1] A little more time to help readers and editors find the content that was once there is no big deal, and helps us out in the long run. There's less hurt feelings, less attempts to re-create articles, and in some cases it stops retaliation vandalism. These links should never be a long term thing, but we shouldn't be acting like they're a bad idea. We've basically deleted this content, and there's going to be a lot of people wanting to know where it is. Allowing some form of explanation on that for a short while does not seem to be an unreasonable accommodation for our readers. -- Ned Scott 06:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep for two more months, then reevaluate. The main character is notable due to translation sites note able due to language issues. Thanks! --Inetpup (talk) 15:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete or retarget to the character list. 70.51.11.219 (talk) 05:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Redirects aren't intended to link to other websites, even it it is a wiki. —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 01:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Since when? Redirects are there to aid the reader, and that's what we're doing. It makes sense to at least allow this as a temporary measure, since it's likely to help us in the long run. -- Ned Scott 08:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete the lot of them. They have no viable targets on Wikipedia, and thus would be unhelpful as redirects. Simply rerouting them to a Naruto-related article, where there is no mention of the term, would only frustrate those looking it up. ~SnapperTo 03:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete We probably shouldn't redirect to something outside of Wikimedia; it may confuse someone to find a link to another site. Midorihana みどりはな 09:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- That would be fixed by using an alternative soft-redirect template. There would be no greater confusion than one would find with a normal EL link. -- Ned Scott 09:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- The decision to endorse redirects (hard or soft) outside of the MediaWiki family of projects really needs to be proposed and decided outside of the narrow confines of an individual RfD nomination. May I suggest that you write this up either as a Centralized discussion or as a Wikipedia:Village Pump proposal? I would be happy to help. Rossami (talk) 21:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - allowing redirects to other Wikia projects would take us down a very bad road. We allow soft redirects to Wiktionary to help people looking for dictionary definitions, but we don't need redirects like these; they could lead to off-wiki redirects being created for every fictional character who has a page on another wiki. That's clearly unhelpful, and frankly calls into question the very purpose of Wikipedia: it's not to link to other wikis, but to contain content itself. For those reasons, these should be deleted (or retargeted if there is an appropriate page on Wikipedia to redirect to). Terraxos (talk) 02:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
July 30
Delete; any relationship between the redirect title and the target is a mystery. Russ (talk) 18:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete --eric (mailbox) 21:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- Note - I've just removed two rather nonsensical "redirect" lines from the code. Only the redirect pointing to the target mentioned above is left. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- Well, the deleted history (before the page was made into the redirect) suggests that she was "actress of Coco Bandicoot in Cortex Strikes Back." That's the full, text of the page, though. No sourcing, no proof and no assertion that her role was even slightly notable. I don't think it's nonsense but it's not an especially strong connection either. The only useful argument I could see to keeping the redirect would be as a preventative against the future recreation of inappropriate content. Rossami (talk) 15:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Barely even mentioned in the target article, unlikely search term. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 20:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, per TenPoundHammer. Nsk92 (talk) 22:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Unlikely search term. Midorihana みどりはな 23:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
A redundant redirect. An obvious typo was made during the creation of the redirect of WWE World Tag Team Championship. SRX 14:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed, Delete as per nom. --- Paulley (talk) 16:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral. Plausible typo, but unlikely to be repeated. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep because it documents a pagemove made back in 2004. The old redirect helps future editors find and trace those pagemoves when necessary. Note also that this move was executed before the latest change in the MediaWiki software to automatically record pagemoves in the edit histories of the pages. This is, from what I can tell, the only record still remaining of the pagemove. Given the subsequent history of the pages, a history-merger would be inappropriate in this case. Being "redundant" is not a good reason to delete a redirect - they really are that cheap. Rossami (talk) 17:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete --eric (mailbox) 21:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
That there is any relation between them comes from one source, which appears to be a self-published book. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Is known. Has been cited ... Lindemann, P. A. (1986). A history of free energy discoveries. Garberville, Calif: Borderland Sciences Research Foundation. J. D. Redding 12:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. No ISBN. No publisher's name. Disagreement among search results as to publication location. No match on amazon.com. Google books match also has no publisher, unless it's the BSRF. No indication there it's non-fiction. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. "Free energy" and "perpetual motion" are two terms that mean almost the same thing (extracting more work from a process than you put into it). Although "free energy" is a modern term intended to avoid the stigma attached to the term "perpetual motion", it's reasonable that someone would use this as a search term for historical matter. Bear in mind that this isn't an endorsement of "correctness" in the nominated redirect, only utility. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
-
- On the contrary, the Thermodynamic concept of Free Energy is closely related to the fact that peropetual motion is impossible. It is the antithesis of perpetual motion. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per Gavia. --eric (mailbox) 21:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, or maybe change the target of the redirect. To me the term "free energy" actually suggested something different, something along the lines of Alternative energy rather than anything to do with "perpetual motion". I would think that redirecting to the disambiguation page Free energy and including an extra link there to something to do with "perpetual motion" machines would be a better choice than the current redirect. Nsk92 (talk) 22:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete -- Ambiguous. Category:Free Energy has recently been redirected to Category:Thermodynamic Free Energy. Perpetual motion machines are contrary to the laws of thermodynamics. The inclusion of this redirect within a template implies the false view that perpetual motion is possible. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete The most common usage of the term "free energy" is in thermodynamics. This redirect just adds confusion, not clarity, and is unencyclopedic. Yilloslime (t) 18:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I see no connection between "hard tac" and "hardtack". Hard tac refers to the armor worn by riot control police [2], not the hard bread known as hardtack. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 03:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep for now. I think the redirect makes sense in terms of potential misspellings, although if there was ever an actual hard tac article, it should include a dab statement at the top for those looking for hardtack. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 04:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. No connection establish even though mispellings are common. --eric (mailbox) 21:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. "Hard tac" seems to have several possible meanings that are completely unrelated to "hardtack": a type of police armor (mentioned by the nom), some kind of hard candy (e.g. [3]), some sort of technical term related to commercial fishing (e.g. see the first few entries in the GoogleNews search[4]). The redirect in its current form is likely to cause too much confusion. Nsk92 (talk) 22:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Could it potentially be turned into a disambiguation page? Midorihana みどりはな 23:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
-
- Not at the moment (topics mentioned by Nsk92 don't seem to have articles). Calvin 1998 (t-c) 00:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Tesxt used in nom should be used to create this as an article, with a head note referring to hardtack. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
July 29
