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 all. A month has passed. Ruslik_Zero 18:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Sailing classification → Disability sailing classification (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Bowls classification → Disabled lawn bowls player classification (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Judo classification → Disability judo classification (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Template:Equestrian classifications → Template:Para-equestrian classifications (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Template:Rowing classifications → Template:Adaptive rowing classifications (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

I've closed RMs on each of these, and the redirects are the results. An IP initiated the RMs and indicated that these redirects should be subsequently deleted. Since the IP hasn't been active in about a month, I thought I'd list them. I am neutral on them all and will not be watching this discussion; please contact me on my talk page if I'm needed here. --BDD (talk) 20:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support deletion: All are linked to the recent paralympics and the renames are more accurate. I am only directly familiar with para-equestrian, but for that one, there is no confusion and no need for the redirect to exist as far as I know. Montanabw^(talk) 21:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep article-space redirects as these were the locations of the articles for at least a month they need to be retained both to avoid link rot (they will remain linked from external sites, bookmarks, etc for some time to come) and for attribution reasons. Further they are all likely search terms for their targets - any ambiguity in future can be solved by hatnotes or dab pages as appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 05:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all misleading, since it only covers a subset of classifications, those particular to the disabled versions of the sports, and only disabled classes, not gender or age classification at that (or weight classes). -- 70.50.149.56 (talk) 05:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now, to prevent link rot, mainly per User:Thryduulf. The new titles are better but lets give people some time to remove any links out there. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep: The moves done without consulting common name were improper and are inaccurate. These are used in the literature. These sports do not have comparables on the able bodied side. If Sailing classification is used for sailing, it needs to be included in the article.--LauraHale (talk) 01:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The articles redirected to are about the classification of disabilites as used in the named sports, not about cliassification in those sports generally. The titles are misleading. --Stfg (talk) 11:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural question: The same considerations apply to Racquetball classification and Table tennis classification. Should these be added to this RFD or made the subject of a new one? --Stfg (talk) 12:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also Powerlifting classification. --Stfg (talk) 13:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't object. They do appear to be in similar circumstances. I only didn't add them because, unlike the redirects already listed, the IP who requested these moves didn't mention that they should be deleted. Maybe that was pedantic of me, but I'm not really familiar with the subjects at hand, so he or she may have deliberately identified only a subset for deletion. --BDD (talk) 17:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also ((basketball classifications)) and ((athletics classifications)) -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 05:55, 28 October 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 17:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Mobile analytics → Mobile web analytics (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Mobile web analytics is redirected from mobile analytics, which is a wrong direction, since mobile analytics deals with monitoring and analyzing of mobile applications, which is very different from mobile web analytics. This redirection should be deleted Gorkemcetin74 (talk) 19:38, 4 October 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 18:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Victor Brännström → Piteå IF (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

This person's name does not appear on the target page. The name does appear on several "list of deaths..." pages and should remain a red link indicating a potential article. Senator2029 • talk 15:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete to facilitate searching. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 18:22, 1 November 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Who was joseph katofa → Joseph Katofa (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Original title of article moved to target. I don't think this rediect is of any use now. TheLongTone (talk) 12:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The search term for a biographical article is the person's name. Adding "who was" serves no purpose . Senator2029 • talk 16:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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. With the actual issue of bird naming controversial and the title seen as implying a normative convention, this discussion here tends toward not redirecting it any longer to the Wikiproject’s page but rather target it inside the current naming convention structure, that is to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna) where then any special treatment of birds or disagreement can be explained or linked further. This creates some discontinuity with respect to links in discussion, but the disputed matter is clear enough and future discussion will just have to take account of the new anchor.Tikiwont (talk) 20:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (birds) → Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Delete, the WikiProject naming preference is not a Wikipedia-wide naming convention. Perennial discussion about the difference (not the redirect) has blossomed again at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (capitalization)#Proposal: bird names and following sections. JHunterJ (talk) 11:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The target page holds the naming guidelines of bird species are they are currently used in wikipedia articles, so the redirect is not misleading anyone. The goal of redirects is to direct people to the material they are looking for, and this redirect performs this goal correctly. Some editors disagree with a certain provision of the guideline, but this is not a reason for deleting a useful redirect. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The target page hold the naming guidelines for articles within the Birds Project. If they are Wikipedia naming conventions, they should be moved to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (birds). -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  What current problems would be solved by this move? --Enric Naval (talk) 15:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Removal of misidentification of a Birds project guideline as a Wikipedia naming convention. -- -JHunterJ (talk) 18:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Yep. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 19:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "?" was my first thought on reading this. Whatever the outcome of any debate, there should only be one place where the convention is laid out, and what links to it should be a redirect, so if the scope of this debate is whether there should be one locale or two...there should be one plus a redirect. Hence....keep....I guess....Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  If it's a Wikipedia convention, it shouldn't be owned by the Birds project. If it's in the Birds project, it shouldn't appear to be a Wikipedia convention. I agree that there should be only one place for it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The current redirect is not a naming convention and contains no content that would give any editor cause to think it was. The naming convention is found in only one place: Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds. We want editors to find naming conventions when they are considering article titles, either at article creation or for article moves--thats the goal. Obscuring the ability to do so because someone feels a particular redirect gives more credibility to a naming convention (which it doesn't) is just silly. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Then let's move the Wikipedia naming convention information out of the Birds project and into the naming convention structure. There's a lot of silly stuff going on over bird naming, but putting the guidance in the correct place isn't one of them. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus that the advice given in that wikiproject essay is naming convention material, however. It's one of the most lengthily and hotly debated topics in WP history. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 19:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I'm against promoting the essay to naming convention. Or leaving the redirect making its promotion done in all but name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:24, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And by "move out of" if you mean "take out the silly stuff", I am guessing that you would create a guideline that is not used by anyone. The RM to move Siberian Crane failed because "doing them piecemeal will not ...ahem... fly". Doing them all against the protestation of the only people who have a clue what to put into those articles is also not going to fly. What first has to happen is to get the consensus of the people who edit bird articles that bird names should not be capitalized, and I can assure you that is not going to happen unless the IOC itself changed its policy and renamed all birds to lower case, and the chances of a snowball in somewhere hot is more likely than that happening. No one edits any article or chooses any title just because they want it to be silly (excluding vandalism), they choose it because they think it is correct. Just my opinion.

Nobody owns any article, and no project owns any article. All articles are an addition to the common knowledge of the encyclopedia. No articles are a "part of" a project. We identify articles on their talk pages with a project so that editors can tell that a Snowy Owl is a bird and not Pokemon, a rock, or airplane, and there are editors who have grouped themselves into a project to work on that particular type of article, but that does not give them ownership over those articles, nor does the presence of a guideline on a project page give ownership of that guideline to that project. Apteva (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A better example of course is if there was a project owl, or even a project snowy owl, we would use that on the talk page instead of project animals. Apteva (talk) 16:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Birds points out:

This WikiProject is an offshoot of WikiProject Tree of Life.

WikiProject Biology

WikiProject Tree of Life

WikiProject Animals

(WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, and then

WikiProject Dinosaurs, if you're a cladist)

WikiProject Birds

Domestic pigeon task force

Apteva (talk) 16:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where WP:BIRDS fits into wikiproject topical categories has nothing to do with this RfD. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 19:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep, regardless of anything else this is the title where anyone not familiar with WikiProject Birds will look for the naming conventions for bird articles, and so deletion would imply we don't have any. Imo, naming conventions for every subject should either be at or accessible from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (foo) via a redirect or disambiguation page if necessary - it's a de facto naming convention for naming conventions. The hierarchy of WP:BIRDS is utterly irrelevant, as are claims of ownership - no person or project owns any page on Wikipedia (with the arguable singular exception of user talk pages). WikiProjects are groupings of editors interested and/or knowledgeable in a particular topic, the project banners simply inform editors of the existence of one or more projects relevant to that article. Thryduulf (talk) 05:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request to reconsider: Thryduulf, your idea that we could and should do this for every subject would nearly double the number of pages in Wikipedia. If you mean for major, overarching topic areas, that would be reasonable, but the link should, aye must go to something that is an actual naming convention, not an essay, proposal or something else. In this case, the redir should clearly be to WP:NCFauna, which is in fact a naming convention guideline under WP:AT policy, and which does in fact include birds, and is in fact the only AT/NC guideline that does so. PS: You may wish to review the evidence I've gathered of ca. 8 years of WP:BIRDS effective WP:OWNership of not only bird articles but even mention of birds in other categories' articles, until WP:MOS began to put a stop to it in 2008, a process that is still ongoing. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 18:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as is for now. When you have sorted out the dispute between naming conventions (and RfD is really not the place to do that) then retarget the if necessary (I say this for the sake of stability). I don't care what the guidelines are, just that whatever they are and wherever they are, I should be able to find them by following a link to/searching for Wikipedia:Naming conventions (birds). When I say "every subject" above I mean "every subject for which there are naming conventions" with redirects from other likely search terms (such as Wikipedia:Naming conventions (animals) → Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna)). Thryduulf (talk) 19:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • We've already done steps 1 and 2. This RFD is for step 3, to fix the redirect to reflect the stable "ceasefire" that resulted from the years-long dispute between naming conventions and some editors in the Birds project. The essay in the birds project is not a Wikipedia naming convention, and the Wikipedia naming convention is not an essay in the Birds project. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Useful redirect to important style guideline. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Refutation: It is not a guideline, as it never went through the guideline proposal process or otherwise became accepted as one, and it is certainly not a style guideline, since WT:MOS didn't vet it as such, and it didn't become one by some other site-wide consensus-making process. Please remember that en.wiki and nl.wiki do not have identical processes and terminology. It's a short essay (and in many places a good one, that I worked on quite a lot myself, as you will recall) on style in relation to birds. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 18:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Since when did MOS ever vet any guideline to make it a guideline? MOS is a guideline, and MOS has been "vetted" to be in compliance with the bird capitalization guideline (sort of, saying some editors is not appropriate). There may only be two references to birds in the MOS, but they use capitalization (Golden Eagle and Great Black-backed Gull). Apteva (talk) 18:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Um, WT:MOS regularly vets proposed style guidelines. There's an entire wikiproject, WP:WPMOS for managing this stuff. Please, you've been given a word-to-the-wise by several other editors now, in these related discussions, that you appear to be simply making noise and causing disruption without any apparent knowledge of how things work. I'm beginning to sympathize with someone else's view expressed either here or over at the redundant NCCaps discussion that maybe you're an intentional troll. This [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=518840304#JHunterJ has even been raised at WP:AN/I. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 22:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Change redirect or create guideline at this location. WP:NCFauna includes the naming convention for birds, so the redirect should either point there, or the guideline should be broken out to a separate guideline here. The guideline should not be in two places, and as JHunterJ points out, it should not be in a wikiproject space. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, WP:NCFauna covers it adequately, and this "guideline" at the project page, seems to be a back-door attempt to ignore the capitalisation rules therein. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NCFAUNA lists the same capitalization rules as the wikiproject page, so I'm not sure of what is being ignored. WP:NCFAUNA lists the general rules, then it refers to the wikiproject for topic-specific details, like the capitalization of hyphenated bird names. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, this is why the redirect should point to WP:NCFauna, as this is the guideline for naming bird articles. The project page is not the guideline, but is referenced at the guideline. Personally, I don't think that the project page should be referenced as it's just a way to circumvent the accepted Wikipedia style, but that's a discussion for another day. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete and replace with a redirect to WP:NCFauna: The current link is directly and blatantly misleading, and we already have a guideline that covers birds. There is no separate guideline for birds, and nothing at that wikiproject essay magically overrides extant policy (though it does provide some additional correct detail on how bird naming works where it doesn't conflict with extant guidelines). The content of the essay itself at WP:BIRDS does directly conflict with both WP:MOS/WP:MOSCAPS, the overriding guideline and (in attempting to usurp it) WP:NCFauna, the WP:AT policy sub-page that applies MOS (et al.) to titles of articles about animals; the essay would require that editors "always" capitalize the common name, which is simply not how WP does common names.

  MOS has an indication that WP:BIRDS desires an exception. This should be removed, too, as it was arrived at by a pattern of years of editing MOS against consensus to have this "exception", under threat of an "editing strike", even a "quit wikipedia" walkout campaign.

  A dozen or so participants in WP:BIRDS have for eight years running been trying to convince the rest of Wikipedia that capitalizing species common names makes sense in a general-purpose, broad-readership encyclopedia, and have failed to do so at every turn (not even all WP:BIRDS members agree with the idea!). Instead, MOS decided exactly the opposite in 2008 and has remained this way consistently, with its lower-case advice spreading to the related sub-guidelines and the naming conventions. These editors have resorted to an organized campaign of tendentious editing, canvassing, poll disruption and other tactics, to force all Wikipedia readers and editors to accept their ungrammatical quirk, borrowed from academic ornithology journals that, like journals on every other topic, have internal conventions that are of limited relevance outside those ivory towers. This disruption has cost the project literally tens if not hundreds of thousands of combined person-hours in editing productivity.

  Background: Proponents of capitalization claim that everyone having anything to do with birds uses a universal capitalization system, such as bird watchers, citing capitalization in field guides. But field guides on all animals and plants regularly capitalize common names of all species, as a form of emphasis, to make scanning of the text easier in the field. It predates the Intl. Orn. Union's capitalization rules by decades and is a coincidence. Furthermore, not all ornithological organizations even use the same capitalization rules. Worse yet, some WP:BIRDS members for several years have agitated that other biology wikiprojects take up their capitalization scheme [it should be noted that two branches of insectology and a couple of botanical disciplines were also capitalizing], with disastrous results like WP:MAMMALS moving thousands of articles to upper-casing, even though there is an official international standard against capitalizing the common names of mammals in the real world (a mess that is still being cleaned up). Same thing happened at WP:CETACEANS. WP:BIRDS does fantastic work. Unfortunately, it has a double-handful of editors who refuse to acknowledge that a reliable source about birds and what bird names are is not a reliable source on English-language usage in a broader type of publication (in this case, the broadest in world history, with the world's widest readership). WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is policy, and makes it clear that groups of editors (which is all wikiprojects are) do not get to make up their own rules against site-wide consensus. Setting up a redirect that misleads editors into thinking their anti-policy proposals is in fact policy is unconscionable. It's a weapon for disruptive editors who sometimes seem to be here to make WP conform to academe standards for ornithologists' comfort as much as to write an encyclopedia for everyone, and who coined the term "capitalization warriors" to describe themselves and people who disagree with them. Enough is way more than enough at this point. Evidence so far (there is a lot more): User:SMcCandlish/Capitalization of organism names.

  Disclaimer: I am a nontrivally contributing editor to the content of the WP:BIRDS wikiproject style essay myself.

  — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 18:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is my guess that it was an honest mistake to say that all animal species names are capitalized and it was not noticed for quite some time. The examples given were all bird names, so it could have been added by someone more familiar with birds than say foxes. Some of our editors actually read guidelines and follow them, which is why we are still finding animal species today other than birds that use all caps. Apteva (talk) 19:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Observation: See WT:Naming conventions (capitalization)#Organisms 3 for a "smoking gun" example of a WP:BIRDS activist, one of the two most tendentious, attempting to use and promote this redirect to mislead others into thinking that there is an actual WP naming convention on birds. QED. That's enough reason to delete this and redir the name to the actual guideline at WP:NCFauna. WP:BIRDS capitalization-promoters created this redir in an attempt to promote an essay at their project page that contradicts MOS and the naming conventions, and are demonstrably using it to do so. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 19:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Clarification. Delete and redir would be the same as change. But while Fauna says the same thing as Bird - that bird names are capitalized, bird names are complicated enough and specific enough, and dramatically different enough from most of the rest of Fauna species capitalization, that a separate guideline is warranted, in my opinion. Characterizing the suggestions at WP:Bird as an essay, though, is a bit of a stretch, as they are for all intents and purposes an actual guideline, even though they are not currently located at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (birds). I do not see any possibility of changing the guideline where ever it is located that bird names are capitalized. The recommendation to change that convention would have to come from those who are most expert in birds. Apteva (talk) 18:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  @SMcCandlish. I am looking at WT:Naming conventions (capitalization)#Organisms 3, and I don't see any smoking gun. That editor is quoting the text that WP:NCFAUNA has had since September 2009. It was added by someone who didn't belong to the bird wikiproject while reorganizing the naming conventions and trying to reflect the naming practices in fauna articles that were in use at that time. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  It was posted by Apteva (imagine that), 7:21 pm, 24 September 2012, Monday (UTC−7). In Apteva's quasi-defense, it wasn't his preferred version, but the preferred one (#4, below that one) still refers to the WP:BIRDS essay as a guideline, so my point remains valid. The essay at WP:BIRDS is a WP:ESSAY, by definition, since it is clearly and unmistakably not a guideline, and has been rejected again and again as one by the community, in every forum in which the idea has ever been raised, from WT:MOS to WP:VPP. Attempts to promote it as if it were a guideline, and WP:FAITACCOMPLI actions to force all birds articles to obey it, over many, many other editors' objections, as if it were a guideline, are what has led to eight years of "WP:BIRDS vs. Wikipedia" fighting. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 21:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete or alternatively, redirect to WP:NCFauna This page redirecting to WP:BIRDS is being this way just to promote WikiProject Birds's specialist naming convention. Hill Crest's WikiLaser! (BOOM!) 17:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete and redirect would be the same as change"

No. Delete is the electronical term of the phrase "get rid of". On the "redirect" note, "redirect" does not mean "change", but the others meant "change the redirect".

"Fauna says the same thing as Bird"

WP:NCFauna says that because of a editorial ceasefire that went nowhere.

"The recommendation to change that convention would have to come from those who are most expert in birds"

That statement clearly clarifies that you are promoting the specialists' stuff on a general encyclopedia, two things that don't usually go together.

Apteva, please listen to this. I'm not saying this again, because I'm not feeding a disruptive editor. Hill Crest's WikiLaser! (BOOM!) 19:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Why some people say that this redirect is a shady maneuver by members of the bird wikiproject? It was created by User_talk:Kotniski who was not a member of that wikiproject, as far as I know. In September 2009 he created the redirect and 10 days later he created Template:Naming conventions with this redirect already included. Since then the template has been at the top of WP:Article titles without any complaint. It appears to be part of a reorganization of the naming conventions while people were writing a naming conventions draft. Can someone provide any actual evidence that this is a maneuver by the bird wikiproject, instead of repeating baseless accusations?? --Enric Naval (talk) 17:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Who created it is irrelevant. It is being used for, and only for, WP:BIRDS members trying to thwart existing consensus by tricking people into thinking this academic weirdness is now a WP guideline, which is certainly is not. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 21:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The redirect could have been changed, regardless of the creator. Hill Crest's WikiLaser! (BOOM!) 20:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to WP:NCFauna which is where the titling guidelines are discussed, including recognition of the birds project local consensus, and perspective on what that is. Dicklyon (talk) 00:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• retarget to NCFAUNA or possibly more specifically Wikipedia:NCFauna#Common_.28vernacular.29_names. NCFAUNA is a naming convention, unlike WP:BIRDS, so this seems more accurate. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment. From a technical standpoint there probably is enough information about birds that has nothing to do with other fauna that warrants a separate guideline from fauna, which is specific to birds. Of course whatever it says needs to be consistent up and down the ladder, though. Whether that guideline is a subpage of a sandbox or of an editor or anywhere else does not seem as important as the content. Is there any reason that an actual guideline page has not been created? Apteva (talk) 23:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  It warrants it only if the guideline for fauna is inadequate for birds. The reason that an actual separate guideline for birds hasn't been created is that the guidelines for fauna are adequate for birds as well. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I count about 600 words about capitalizing birds at WP:Bird#Bird names and article titles, and only about 120 at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna)#Use the most common name when possible, including the misleading sentence "However, this choice has led into numerous debates since its implementation." What has led to debates is not that choice but the choice to say that all animals use capitalization, and the opinion that no animals should. The fact is that the original choice made was to capitalize all animals. Since then there has been no decision to change the capitalization of birds. Saying since its implementation implies this is something new, when capitalizing birds goes back to the first bird articles. (a supposition, I have no idea what capitalization the first bird articles used) Apteva (talk) 18:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apteva, I put it there, and I was merely putting that "misleading sentence" to reflect the debates since, as guidelines reflect the majority of Wikipedians' preference on Wikipedia, for the most part.

Also, please don't take this as "Wikipedia is a democracy". Hill Crest's WikiLaser! (BOOM!) 20:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason for not breaking out those 600 words and putting them at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (birds). Apteva (talk) 20:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of broad consensus for the local consensus of that capitalization style. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. And there's nothing at all "misleading" about noting the controversial nature of the spelling weirdness that some people at WP:BIRDS want to import from ornithology journals and force on everyone any time they write about a bird. Here's ample proof that it's controversial. Playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is not going to magically make this proof go away. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 21:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All that is is a chronology of the debates. We all know it's controversial so that is a circular argument. Also that page is notably lacking in external sources arguing a sentence case name regimen for birds. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:19, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That chronology has links to the discussions it lists. It is not an article. Hill Crest's WikiLaser! (BOOM!) 01:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And that page you mentioned isn't finished. Hill Crest's WikiLaser! (BOOM!) 22:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per ErikHaugen. There's something to be said for the strong WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that WPB maintains, but there's also something to be said for the strong opposition many editors, myself included, have voiced against it. Until the issue is settled with broad consensus, the redirect is misleading. --BDD (talk) 17:27, 27 October 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 Taken care of, reverted to Lonestar. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 11:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Cody Collins → Matchbox Twenty (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target. This seems like a common enough name that it shouldn't redirect there. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually my original and only contribution on this was a redirect to country band Lonestar, where he was a member. Also note that Cody Collins was formerly in yet another country group called McAlyster. But when Richie McDonald the then lead singer of Lonestar left, Collins became lead vocalist for many years, prior to leaving. About his authenticity as a member of Lonestar for 4 years, see http://lasvegasmagazine.com/2012/04/20/cody-collins/ I can understand a redirect to McAlyster, but Lonestar was more recent for him. I still can't figure out Cody Collins' relation to Matchbox Twenty though. The editor 75.21.100.149 who effected the change is a highly unreliable and not serious contributor. He made 5 edits in 1 day of Wikipedia in a span of 5 hours at most. That's all the track record he/she can claim. In one of his edits, he put Daniel Powter in the "associated acts" to Daniel Powter. This doesn't make sense either. See his edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Powter&diff=prev&oldid=515237619 He was also playing around with the Cody Collins redirect by amending my redirect by a new redirect of his back to.... Cody Collins.. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cody_Collins&diff=prev&oldid=515208045 . Yet in a third edit, he wikified Britt as Britt although the guy's real name is Michael Britt!! http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lonestar&diff=prev&oldid=515207826 I have name reinstated the redirect as Cody Collins → Lonestar , pending final decision. I am ready to revert back if proven wrong. Even better, Cody Collins could have his own page with expansion of his career with McAlyster, with Lonestar and his solo career. I also strongly suggest checking all 75.21.100.149's edits here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/75.21.100.149 All of them seem suspicious to me actually and done just to keep us busy... Look how much time I spent on this already... LOL werldwayd (talk) 06:26, 4 October 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, changing target uncontested. Tikiwont (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Geography of the Palestinian territories → Palestinian territories (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

• Delete to encourage article creation Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 01:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, no need for "geography of" article for an article on an a geographic area or "territory" (Pt is currently a geographic area, consisting of two separate geographic areas - West Bank and Gaza Strip).Greyshark09 (talk) 08:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compare the Geography of North America article to North America. The main articles are about land/country/whatever in general: it's people, history, etc. The "Geography of" articles are about the geography: the climate, the geology, etc. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • North America like Palestine, and arguably Palestinian territories, is a geography article, because it's an article on an a geographic area, but it's scope is deferent then Geography of North America. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 18:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Outline of the Palestinian territories#Geography of the Palestinian_territories. I was wrong, it turns out we have an article (or rather a section) about the Geography of the PT. it needs allot of work to make it anywhere near as complete as Geography of North America, or Geography of Israel, but it's there. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:57, 9 October 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.