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The result of the discussion was Withdrawn by nominator (NAC). It's pretty clear that there's nothing to discuss here. pablo 17:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Agneepath (disambiguation) → Agneepath (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Nothing links to this page; Agneepath is itself a dab page.  pablo 22:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Um, so what? Is the redirect harmful in any way? Keep. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 22:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, so I've mentioned it here because I wasn't sure whether it was a redirect that needed discussion, and I believe this is the venue for that. But thank you for your input, such as it is. pablo 22:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think discussion is a fine thing, and this is indeed the venue for that. Cheers! --R'n'B (call me Russ) 00:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: keeping such links allow easy mnemonics: if you know there is a DAB on topic X, the link to topic X (disambiguation) is a safe choice. Actually there was a similar discussion about that back in January. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:INTDABLINK 70.24.251.71 (talk) 07:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dmitrij and Russ. Rossami (talk) 17:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Russ, WP:INTDABLINK. Always better safe than sorry with these links. bd2412 T 04:58, 21 February 2012 (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.

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 This debate was heading towards noconsensus, until Rich Farmbrough came in at the last minute with a workable solution. Retarget to This year listing current year in various calenders. Keep This century but repurpose in the same way.--Salix (talk): 10:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This Year → 2012 (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• Present Year → 2012 (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• Current Year → 2012 (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• This century → 21st century (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Per the same reason This decade and This year were deleted. Implausible search term and it would need to be changed every century. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt: these redirects are potentially harmful, as they can be linked from the articles on current events either creating cases for otherwise unneeded cleanup or confusing future by-passers. As these redirects get re-created over time, salting seems to be a right measure. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't care what you do with this redirect, I made it years ago. Do whatever you want with it. I'm no longer active on this site anyway. BlazeTheMovieFan (talk) 01:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep current year, present year, this year as per discussion on November 30, excluding "This century" which is unnecessary and should be deleted, Anyone whom uses a non Gregorian calendar system and is not familiar with our use of years may actually find these helpful. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 01:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You think someone aware of Gregorian calendar will find it more useful to probe for This Year instead of looking at Gregorian calendar or Main Page or just scrolling down to see the date at the bottom line? I don't think such users can navigate to Wikipedia at all. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not everyone is even aware of the name of our calendar system, even those who use it, I'd say a good percentage of Americans know its 2012, but have never heard the term "Gregorian" or even the closley related "Julian". In Armenia its 1461, in Iran its 1390, in Ethiopia its 2004, in China its 4648, in Saudi Arabia its 1433, now lets say someone from one of these places comes into contact with a computer, and has knowledge of the english language, this could be a possible search term for one who may think they know the year but are not entirely sure. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 17:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't think that these people will ever watch that on Wikipedia; if not, don't think it'll be English Wikipedia; if not, don't think they would capitalize both words. Together all these issues make such use of these redirects absolutely impossible. And even if I'm wrong, there's no guarantee these redirects will get updated soon enough not to do a bad job for this purpose. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then we could rename these to be lower case, or delete these and create new lower cased ones, and if you are really worried about a once a year update lets all right it down to check on December 31, we don't need a robot to do everything, do we? What is wrong with updating something so simple, manually? We manually change all the information on the year pages when the year changes, we manually change the articles relating to senators, governors and presidents when elections and inaugurations happen, right? I feel a big deal has made over these little simple search tools. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Will you remember to do that? Will you take care of tracking down and changing all the wrong and misleading uses of this redirect? Each year? I would, but I will forget it in a couple of days. Are you sure you won't? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • A fellow wikipedian of ours created this list page around the time of the last discussion, I will do some searching in the What links here for other ones that may be out there, Thryduulf has given us prior permission to add any such time sensitive redirects to the list, this list archives time sensitive redirects for us all, US meaning Me, Thryduulf, the creators of some of these links and anyone else whom wishes to maintain the order of things. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 04:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Thank you for bringing up that list, it could do with being higher profile to help everyone keep such links up to date. I've run out of wiki time to do more to it now, but I never managed to finishing adding all the redirects I found looking at Special:PrefixIndex/Next. Thryduulf (talk) 15:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2011_November_30#Current_Year. — This, that, and the other (talk) 02:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the recent consensus that these are not harmful. Thryduulf (talk) 10:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• My views remain unchanged from the previous discussion. It is not clear to me that the fact that someone can speak English to some more than minimal extent necessarily implies that they are both aware of the Gregorian calendar and know what it is called. Whilst the current date is included on the main page, it is not positioned so as to make it strikingly obvious. I had not previously noticed that it was present. James500 (talk) 12:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do you think, would it happen if you were familiar with Gregorian calendar? I also want to share the observation: all the Wikipedias use Gregorian calendar: I take it as a hint that everybody is familiar with it. And even if I'm wrong, I don't think that anybody unfamiliar with Gregorian calendar would search for This Year with such capitalization on English (not local) Wikipedia. These four points make these redirects very much implausible for such a case. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am unable to comment on what other editions of Wikipedia do. The article Gregorian calendar does, however, describe it as the "internationally accepted civil calendar". James500 (talk) 16:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• What about Current decade and Present decade? --84.61.139.62 (talk) 17:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Temporal links of this sort are actively harmful. The arguments in favour concerning alleged ignorance of the present calendar by readers are so specious as to be nearly impossible to take seriously. Any consumer with such limited ability to obtain the present date is likely to be reading our articles from some clone of the canonical online source where the redirect is either irrelevant or certain to be out of date. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 00:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please cite your source for temporal links being "actively harmful". It is unlikely that people are using them to find the current date, but whyever they do so people are using them. Far from being harmful, I'd say that these redirects provide a useful way to find (via whatlinks here) articles such as those you cite which need improvement. Thryduulf (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt per Chris Cunningham. Bringing up the Gregorian calendar argument isn't upholding WP:NPOV, it's being ridiculous. To fight fire with fire, please bring me some WP:RS showing that there exist Internet users who do not know that the current year is 2012. The subset of that group who also consult English Wikipedia is likely to be even smaller and there's a very good chance that both groups are nonexistent. Delete, as harmful. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless of why people do so, all of these redirects are well used - varying from 30 hits/month to 1700 hits/month. No evidence has been presented to show they are misleading or harmful, and history shows that they are kept up to date. Why then do you want to make navigating Wikipedia harder for those people who use these redirects, and how is doing so benefiting Wikipedia? Thryduulf (talk) 17:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and re-target to a new kick-ass page stating what the current year is in various calenders. Rich Farmbrough, 09:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  
• retarget per Rich Farmbrough. the "Year" ones should all redirect to a single article indicating what year it is in various calendar systems. The "decade" ones should redirect to another, indicating what decade or similar sized time interval it is in various calendars (I say similar intervals, because the Chinese calendar uses a 12 year cycle). The "century" ones should redirect to yet another, indicating what century or similar sized time interval it is in various calendars (I say similar intervals, since the Chinese calendar uses a 60 year cycle). 70.24.251.71 (talk) 14:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The 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 , Tag with ((unprintworthy)). Significant number of hits, not harmful.--Salix (talk): 11:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• CALM, Campaign Against Living Miserably → Campaign Against Living Miserably (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Delete. Unlikely search term. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This was the title for the content for over 2 years prior to the pagemove. Again, the pagemove was to a name more in keeping with the Manual of Style but the original title is neither confusing nor harmful to readers. Tag with ((unprintworthy)) and leave it per WP:CHEAP. Rossami (talk) 21:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per standard practice. It is covered by the CALM disambig page. We do not need the compound title. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep neither new nor harmful. Rich Farmbrough, 22:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The 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 As the period the article existed at the previous target was small, there is little benefit in keeping the redirect which is an unlikely search term.--Salix (talk): 11:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• National Association of Credit Management (NACM) → National Association of Credit Management (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Delete -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - identical rationale as the Credit Managers' Index (CMI) discussion immediately below. Rossami (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per standard practice. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The 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 As the period the article existed at the previous target was small, there is little benefit in keeping the redirect which is an unlikely search term.--Salix (talk): 11:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Credit Managers' Index (CMI) → Credit Managers' Index (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Delete -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This redirect is an artifact of a pagemove. The pagemove was executed the same day as the article's creation but the title, while inconsistent with the Manual of Style for pagenames, is not confusing or harmful to readers. Tag with ((unprintworthy)) and leave it per WP:CHEAP. Rossami (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per standard practice. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The 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 shortish history, not many hits does not come out as enough reason to keep.--Salix (talk): 11:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Radiographic Supporting Bone Index (RSBI) → Radiographic Supporting Bone Index (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Delete. unlikely search term. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This redirect is an artifact of a pagemove. The content was at this location for 3 months prior to the move. The title, while inconsistent with the Manual of Style for pagenames, is not confusing or harmful to readers. Tag with ((unprintworthy)) but there is no valid reason to delete it. Redirects do more than merely support the search engine. Rossami (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per standard practice. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The 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. Ruslik_Zero 18:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• List of dental schools in Australia and New Zealand → List of dental schools in Australia (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Delete. I removed the one NZ entry and moved the page to List of dental schools in Australia. There is no reason to link the subject and and countries. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete: the current situation is rather misleading. DABification could help, but it is IMHO an overkill. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  How is it confusing? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  When the reader follows a link about "Australia and New Zealand", he expects to see the information about New Zealand. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  That is why I want to have the redir deleted. There is no need for a dab page that contains an Australia and New Zealand link since there will probably never be a List of dental schools in New Zealand page. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  That is why I voted this way... — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah. Yes. I misread your intent. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment if there's only one dental school in NZ, then shouldn't List of dental schools in New Zealand redirect there (with ((R with possibilities)) ) being as part of a series, one would expect to access a list of such schools for any given country, being as there's only one, a redirect would get a person to the right place. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 08:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. New Zealand is a separate country to Australia. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please reread my statement. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 05:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh,. Yes. I now see what you are saying. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Let's not overthink this, folks. List of dental schools in Australia and New Zealand is fundamentally a silly article title and not one that people will type in, just like List of dental schools in Germany and Italy. Now that we no longer have an article for this fundamentally silly subject, we need not have a redirect at the title either. That's all there is to it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The 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. Ruslik_Zero 18:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Tunisian general election, 2014 → Next Tunisian general election (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Delete. Nothing indicates that the next Tunisian general election should take place in 2014. As the Constituent Assembly has put itself a time limit of one year, it is rather probable that the election will be in late 2012 or early 2013. RJFF (talk) 15:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as confusing. Futhermore, Google returns 1240 hits with almost all of them coming from Wikipedia and mirrors. It would be unpleasant news to hear that Wikipedia spread the wrong belief. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The 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 established medical term--Salix (talk): 11:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Erinacine → Hericium erinaceus (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

No reference to "Erinacine" in target article, doesn't seem like a likely search term. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This redirect was created by the admin who closed this AfD discussion. If the last comment in the AfD can be substantiated, then the redirect is reasonable regardless of the term's existence on the target page. Rossami (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Change my opinion to a solid keep per this medical publication substantiating erinacines as a family of chemicals with medical properties and derived from the Hericium erinaceum. It does seem that a stand-alone article could be made about the chemical family but until someone does that, the redirect is allowable. Rossami (talk) 17:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Rossami's findings. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:16, 20 February 2012 (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.