The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 11:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Over the years, a number of spoiler redirects have been created as a result of mergers, mistakes, or redirecting subject-specific templates to the main template. Many of these templates have gone unused or very little uses for some time, even before the cleanup of the usage of Template:Spoiler. I believe that all of these redirects just creates more confusion instead of reducing it and are entirely unnecessary.

• Template:SPOILER → Template:Spoiler
• Template:Spoiler2 → Template:Spoiler
• Template:Spoiler top → Template:Spoiler
• Template:Minorspoiler → Template:Spoiler
• Template:Character Spoiler → Template:Spoiler
• Template:Spoiler warning → Template:Spoiler
• Template:Spoil → Template:Spoiler
• Template:Spoiler bottom → Template:Endspoiler
• Template:End-spoiler → Template:Endspoiler
• Template:Spoilerend → Template:Endspoiler

These three redirects have been in extensive use until recently. But in order to reduce confusion, they should be deleted as well.

• Template:Spoilers → Template:Spoiler
• Template:End spoiler → Template:Endspoiler
• Template:Endspoilers → Template:Endspoiler

The remaining two redirects were also in extensive use until recently. However, they should probably stay.

• Template:Spoiler-start → Template:Spoiler
• Template:Spoiler-end → Template:Endspoiler

--Farix (Talk) 15:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all to reduce confusion. Kusma (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all including the last two. YechielMan 17:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 19:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - if for no other reason than to reduce the number of spoler variants out there. -- Gavia immer (talk) 20:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - per nom. Completely redundant. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 23:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I would be very careful in deleting old learned tags names just because someone came up the newest and the bestest terminology. People tend to use what they learned first and are very unwilling to re-learn, especially if they do not see clear reason for it. Pavel Vozenilek 00:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  That's why I separated them into three groups. The first group weren't used or were rarely used. The second and third groups were extensively used, but included to gain other editor's comment on if they should be kept or deleted as well. --Farix (Talk) 17:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all --Tony Sidaway 05:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Move request. Move requests belong at WP:RM and not here. -- JLaTondre 03:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary redirect - article needs to be moved here Vox Humana 8' 14:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Wow, I'm voting a lot of keeps here today. Anyways, it isn't unnecessary, in my opinion. I would have typed in "Church of St. Paul, Brighton" instead of the other one. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 19:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Exactly. The article needs to be there, not some stupid redirect caused by a spurious page move.--Vox Humana 8' 19:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Then file a request at Wikipedia: Requested moves.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)}20:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep-No reason to delete, move problems should go to WP:RM.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Kept & tagged ((R from misspelling)). -- JLaTondre 02:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are an infinite number of typos. The internal search engine will catch this. It's unnecessary, and disrupts Wikiproject Disambiguation Milton 03:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral Not a plausible typo, but redirects are cheap. YechielMan 13:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral - Face 14:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Then make an infinite number of redirects... Really, you'd have to put all of the items in Category:Redirects from misspellings to slightly convince. (And I'd still probably oppose ;) ). Cool Blue^{talk to me} 19:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A google search sadly reveals that this misspelling isn't as rare as it should be.--Húsönd 01:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Húsönd. lol. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 23:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The typo may happen more frequently for non-English speakers. Pavel Vozenilek 23:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Non-admin closing. ~ Wikihermit 01:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are an infinite number of typos. The internal search engine will catch this. It's unnecessary, and disrupts Wikiproject Disambiguation Milton 03:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm not sure how it disrupts the Wikiproject. To me, this is a very plausible typo, since the second "u" is not phonetic. YechielMan 13:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm Dutch, and I frequently misspell Portuguese as Portugese, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. - Face 14:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Plausible typo, and per my other entry above. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 19:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is probably the single most common misspelling of "Portuguese". -- Gavia immer (talk) 20:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is an extremely frequent typo, not to mention that a lot of people think that's the way "Portuguese" is spelt.--Húsönd 00:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Redirects of commonly misspelled variants actually facilitates searching. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)}
• Keep, easily made typo. Pavel Vozenilek 23:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Kept to aid intentional links to disambiguation. -- JLaTondre 02:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page only exists to redirect to Portuguese, and no articles link to it. It's unnecessary, and disrupts Wikiproject Disambiguation (just to be clear, this is a page title "Portuguese (disambiguation)", not a disambiguation page. Milton 03:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'd cite CSD G6. This is not needed. YechielMan 13:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral - Face 14:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, tag (( R to disambiguation page)). See Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Links_to_disambiguation_pages. Kusma (talk) 14:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Sometimes I type in ______ (disambiguation) to avoid the main article, as I can type pretty fast, also, per Kusma above. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 19:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not needed.--Húsönd 00:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Typing "(disambiguation)" after a link directly is implausible unless the user already knows that the disambig page actually exists. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 00:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  This is not a type-in redirect, it has a special use for people doing disambiguation link repair. We try to avoid links to disambiguation pages; this kind of redirects is there to show that you deliberately want to link to a disambiguation page and not replace the link by something more specific. Kusma (talk) 05:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, disambiguation redirects are useful for templates and explicit linking, as mentioned by Kusma. The fact that this one has not yet been used does not mean it won't be, and redirects are cheap. Deletion would require more effort than it's worth. Xtifr _tälk 09:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Who the heck is going to type in Portuguese disambiguation? I'm not sure how it disrupts that WikiProject though. ~ Wikihermit 01:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, nobody, and that is not what it is supposed to be used for. See the "administrative and miscellaneous" section at WP:R. Actually, per the instructions at the top of WP:RFD, this redirect qualifies for speedy keep. Kusma (talk) 06:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 11:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

There's a space missing between the name and the parenthesis (bad typography), and the redirect is unused. Since someone thought this aren't valid reasons for speedy: I'm open to discuss this topic in full length. 32X 04:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Since the redirect has no significant page history, it's an implausible typo as far as I see it. YechielMan 13:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It'd be useful if someone had already visited the article, and went to type it into the URL, and then... well, it would redirect them. That's what we have redirects for, and redirects are cheap. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 19:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We don't need redirects for every possible typo ... just the plausible ones. I don't find the argument to keep compelling as I doubt anyone would mistype the article name into address bar. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Non-admin closing. ~ Wikihermit 15:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As detailed at the RfD for WP:YESPRO. DrKiernan 06:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, useful and widely used redirect that expresses how we use this guideline. Kusma (talk) 10:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are fifty-two incoming links to the redirect. Do we really want to ruin all those links? YechielMan 13:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Raul654 15:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Kusma and YechieMan. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 23:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a very useful redirect that is used quite often. Keep in mind, this redirect remains broken so long as this discussion continues. - auburnpilot talk 02:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Kusma. Riana ⁂ 16:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment WP:YESPRO and WP:NOPRO need to rise or fall together. They are opposite sides of the same coin, and keeping one without the other isn't a neutral stance. ~~---- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ssbohio (talk • contribs) 19:57, 2007 June 16 (UTC)

This is simply not correct. One, WP:NOPRO is an accurate description of the contents of the target page. The other, WP:YESPRO, is not. Furthermore, the one that is not (WP:YESPRO) is being used inappropriately. It is perfectly reasonable to delete troublesome redirects without being forced to delete redirects that are not troublesome. -- Gavia immer (talk) 14:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 02:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prodded by me as a footballer who never got to play in a professional league, and now plays in the lower leagues. However, the entire article was redirected by someone to the club article - an unprecedented action and a bad idea because the club could change, and the club article is not really a relevant target. Punkmorten 07:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Either he's notable in his own right, or he's not. Redirecting to the club he plays for doesn't make much sense to me, especially since the club could change (as the nom pointed out). YechielMan 13:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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