The result of the discussion was deleted. --Aude (talk) 03:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Also see:
  • Hanging out with chris
  • Riding the pony
  • Sex, Fucking and Making Love
  • The old in-out
  • Pareunia (seems to be legit)
  • Sex as exercise (seems to be legit)
• and other potential candidates

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

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

• There's plenty of evidence from a Google Books search that "hide the sausage" is a term for sexual intercourse. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all except hide the sausage (which, while silly, does appear to be widely used - see the comment above). I suppose 'riding the pony' could be acceptable as a redirect to equestrianism, but it's probably best deleted as well. Terraxos (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete would anyone really enter "hide the sausage" to read about sexual intercourse rather than to see that WP handles the redirect? I remember looking up dirty words in the big dictionary in 2nd grade, all having a laugh; is this what kids who have computers do instead? And why not hide the salame or making bacon or stuffing the turkey or doing the nasty or swimming the trouser trout down slippery street or any other eupemism ever come up with to describe the act. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I wonder how long those links will stay red now that they've bean^[sic] suggested :P. Oh, and delete all as implausible search terms. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 18:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• weak delete "hide the sausage" not on target article, possibly a non-notable term, if it's really notable then it should have its own article delete the rest, even less notable --Enric Naval (talk) 17:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was deleted. krimpet✽ 22:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Also see: Manberries
• and other potential candidates

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

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

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

The result of the discussion was deleted. --Aude (talk) 03:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete Not all blacks are American. Tavix (talk) 23:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Tavix Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was kept. --Aude (talk) 03:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Weak keep, for the same reason as below. Terraxos (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was kept. --Aude (talk) 03:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Weak keep, as this was the original name of the page, and documents a page move (it's still an unlikely search term, though). Terraxos (talk) 21:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was kept. --Aude (talk) 03:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Keep with the intent of recreating the article, because consensus is changing back. DGG (talk) 01:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per DGG's reasons, but please delete the other redirect below as improbable typo, it's just too complicated to be of any usefulness --Enric Naval (talk) 04:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

• This should have been CSD G6'd two years ago as housekeeping. Delete. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 00:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with the intent of recreating the article, because consensus is changing back. DGG (talk) 01:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if the article "Creatures" were to be recreated, this still would be an implausible typo.--_ZXCVBNM 21:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - most improbable search string. Probability of anybody putting in all 12 words (counting two numbers) of this string approaches zero - why not simply Creatures in Metroid Prime, for example? B.Wind (talk) 06:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Keep as resulting from a page merge.. Tikiwont (talk) 10:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete per above. Tavix (talk) 04:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - content on this page was merged into the Samus Aran article, and the redirect has been kept to preserve its edit history. This seems like a valid reason to keep the redirect. --Aude (talk) 07:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Delete swiftly - this was the result of a flurry of activity (at least two moves and three retargetings in the space of 13 minutes) by an apparently indecisive editor. For one minute, this was a blank page. All of this occurred on 5 January 2009, so the only significant history is that of the moves and retargeting. B.Wind (talk) 04:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nuked by User:NawlinWiki. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 00:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Retarget to Edmund Welles. (non-admin closure) Mastrchf (^t/_c) 01:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Weak delete (see below) - Edmund Wells is a fictional author that figures prominently[5] in a lesser-known Monty Python skit ("Bookstore Sketch") that was performed on Monty Python's Contractual Obligation Album. While Wells receives repeated mentions in the skit, the skit itself is not a notable one. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 00:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems that according to this, it actually originated in the ITV series At Last the 1948 Show (like "Four Yorkshiremen", which was often performed by the Pythons onstage). While the first performance of the skit was aired in 1967, the script was published in 1984 in The Golden Skits of Wing-Commander Murial Volestrangler FRHS and Bar. I still don't know how much relevance this has to the discussion, but it was worth noting nonetheless. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• (reconsideration) Retarget to Edmund Welles as a spelling variation. The full name of the group is Edmund Welles Bass Clarinet Quartet[6], but many sources simply refer to it as Edmund Welles[7] (and a handful misspell it as Edmund Wells). 147.70.242.54 (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Edmund Welles for the time being; if other articles are created with similar names, then this should be turned into a disambiguation page. Terraxos (talk) 21:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Edmund Welles per above. --Eivind (t) 12:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was No consensus so defaults to keep. -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirected to American Idol (season 4)):
  • Briana Davis
  • Dezmond Meeks
  • Emily Neves - see note 1
  • Gina McFadden
  • Leroy Wells
  • Marlea Stroman
  • Matthew Falber
  • Rashida Johnson
  • Regina Brooks

• Redirected to American Idol (season 5)):
  • Crystal Parizanski
  • Crystal Stark
  • David Hoover
  • Garet Layne Johnson
  • Joshua Royse (and Josh Royse)
  • Rhonetta Johnson - see note 1

• Redirected to American Idol (season 6)):
  • Amanda Coluccio
  • Anna Kearns
  • Baylie Brown
  • Jory Steinberg
  • Margaret Fowler
  • Marisa Rhodes - see note 1
  • Martik Manoukian
  • Nichole Gatzman
  • Perla Meneses
  • Sarah Burgess (singer) - see note 2
  • Sarah Krueger
  • Sherman Pore

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

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

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

• Keep All. These redirects look quite helpful to me and others. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^{T C} 20:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep all -- seem to me to be perfectly sensible redirects. – ukexpat (talk) 04:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - should more redirects be created for some of their peers who never had an article created or proposed and some from season 7 that were in the same position? CrazyC83 (talk) 05:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete All but Noted - Unhelpful redirects that users will not be looking for and have no significant edit history. A line should be drawn at articles for finalists of American Idol and redirects for semi-finalists so articles are not created while going through the semi-finals. People shown in one episode auditioning do not need a redirect since people will not be searching for them. Aspects (talk) 18:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all but the ones resulting from AfD merge. Sarah Burgess (singer) should be a redlink and be linked from the season article, to compel people to create a proper article on her. Agree with Aspects' assessment. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all to preserve red-links in case someone wants to write a stub on them in the future. Tavix (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete all.Tikiwont (talk) 10:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Haxxxor, No Longer Floppy
• Haxxxor_2,_Fear_of_an_8-bit_Planet
• Binary Babe
• Lady Debug
• Cool Spell
• Ownageism
• Nerds_use_"words"_like_7331
• Keiran McGowan
• Keekles
• Punktuation
• Icononerockism

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

• Delete as non-notable and possibly invented words.--_ZXCVBNM 21:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all as extremely unlikely search terms. Terraxos (talk) 21:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. --Eivind (t) 12:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. Lenticel ^(talk) 04:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Keep. Abbreviations can be helpful. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^{T C} 20:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. This shortcut has high potential for use, and is overall very useful.DougsTech (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there is not a SP: namespace (technically, Special: is in articlespace but in fact is a pseudonamespace that has been set aside by Wikipedia). The redirect (created by DougsTech mere hours before this nomination reached RfD) has no significant history and can be a harmful one as it can lead to false reports in the article search feature. From Wikipedia:Namespace#Virtual namespaces: A redirect to a Special page is not recommended because of its complications. B.Wind (talk) 04:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, recently created WP:XNR from article space. If a redirect like this is found useful then it should be at WP:LNU or WP:SNU, but not in article space. --Amalthea 14:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per B.Wind. --Eivind (t) 12:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. 98.192.158.144 (talk) 03:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the technical restrictions highligthed by B wind, ídem for the one below --Enric Naval (talk) 04:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete, the "keep" arguments are not enough to keep this redirect. Lenticel ^(talk) 04:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Keep. Abbreviations can be helpful. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^{T C} 20:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. This shortcut has high potential for use, and is overall very useful.DougsTech (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there is not a SP: namespace (technically, Special: is in articlespace but in fact is a pseudonamespace that has been set aside by Wikipedia). The redirect (created by DougsTech mere hours before this nomination reached RfD) has no significant history and can be a harmful one as it can lead to false reports in the article search feature. From Wikipedia:Namespace#Virtual namespaces: A redirect to a Special page is not recommended because of its complications. B.Wind (talk) 04:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, recently created WP:XNR from article space, and there's already WP:NP. --Amalthea 14:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per B.Wind. --Eivind (t) 12:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. 98.192.158.144 (talk) 03:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was redirect to Naming the American Civil War --Aude (talk) 00:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also applies to:

• War for Southern Independence → American Civil War
• War of the Rebellion → American Civil War
• War Between the States → American Civil War

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

• Keep as is. All three redirects are search items for the war itself (note that NPOV does not apply to redirects). Links to the proposed new target are already in the American Civil War article, both in the first line of the lede and in the "See also" section below. This is one case in which retargeting could be confusing to someone who wishes simply to read the American Civil War article. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is Terms are synonyms to ACW, not Naming of ACW. Possibly add alternate names in intro, or put in lead sentence (also known by various names, see Naming of)--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 17:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Change redirect as proposed These terms are not used as synonyms for the American Civil War by any reliable source and it is highly unlikely anyone would type those terms in when searching for general information about the war. Rather, they are notable as POV nicknames for the war which is the subject of Naming the American Civil War. That article is a daughter article of the main Civil War article, per summary style. If it were still a section within the main article, we would redirect to that paragraph, not to the top of the page. Since it has been budded off as its own article, there is no rationale for making the redirect less precise. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Change redirect - At least some of these terms are biased, and shouldn't be used as synonyms to the Civil War article. "Civil War" is too widely used to merit these terms being redirected to it.--_ZXCVBNM 22:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Change redirect as proposed - This is the tip of the iceberg ([8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]). Each one of these should point at the Naming article, since the naming article covers most of the names and explains some of them. The slow motion edit warring on these redirects demonstrates a pettiness IMHO unbecoming to a member of the Military History project, much less a coordinator. BusterD (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The official name of the book by the US Government about the war was The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies and Official Records of the Union and Confederate Navies in the War of the Rebellion. Numerous books include John Bell Hood and the War for Southern Independence, For Maryland's Honor: A Story of the War for Southern Independence, A History of the United States : The war for southern independence, 1849-1865., and so on for war for southern independence. The War of Northern Aggression in Western North Carolina is an example for modern titles using the name. Redirecting to "Naming" is asinine, and it appears that those seeking to redirect to Naming may have ulterior motives.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 01:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is. Gentlemen, these are all names by which the Civil War is known.Die4Dixie (talk) 04:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is. When a reader punches in "War Between the States", by far the most likely primary reason for doing that is to read about the American Civil War, not a list of alternative names for the conflict (the latter case would more likely prompt a search for Names for the American Civil War or List of names for the American Civil War. NPOV does not apply to redirects (see WP:RfD#DELETE); similarly, the "synonym" argument above is inconsistent with WP:REDIRECT). The Naming the American Civil War article has two links in the American Civil War article. This is a case where the proposed retargeting, while well-intentioned, would actually add to the confusion rather than ameliorate it, and it can also be interpreted as POV pushing, which is most highly discouraged here. B.Wind (talk) 05:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is highly unlikely that anyone would type in "War of Northern Aggression" when they were simply looking for general information about the civil war. More than likely, they would want to know the origin of the term or its usage, information that they would not find if they were simply directed to the parent article. The proposed redirect makes much more sense and would be of greater benefit to the readers. Also note that nobody is proposing eliminating these redirects, and certainly not for NPOV reasons. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Naming article (not sure what "Keep as is" is supposed to mean for links that keep changing). The Wikipedia standards for article name synonyms does not address the situation where a lengthy article has been written to explain the derivation of the large variety of names. The aging term "War Between the States" could be a legitimate search target because it was widely used in the late 19th century and early 20th, so that is a reasonable redirect to the ACW article, but none of the other alternative names would be seen anywhere outside of obscure Southern partisan circles. Also, none of those alternative names (other than WBTS) are listed in the ACW article, so less confusion will result when the user is directed to an explanation instead of an article that does not mention the term. User Bedford's claim that "numerous" books use these titles omits the fact that there have been over 60,000 books written about the war, so citing a few with POV alternative names is unpersuasive. The overwhelming supermajority of books, articles, and magazines use the term [American] Civil War. Hal Jespersen (talk) 19:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect War of Northern Aggression as proposed to Naming the American Civil War, 'neutral on the other two. Nobody in mainstream America calls it the War of Northern Aggression. I don't really have an opinion on the other two and could see it both ways. "War Between the States" is a pretty common term for the Civil War even for people who don't mean anything by it. "War of Northern Aggression" is only used in jest or by people who are still determined that the South shall rise again. --B (talk) 20:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Us simple southern folks use "will rise again" and reserve "shall" for jussive subjunctive translations, hortatory commands,and first person future indicative actives. I would say that most who live below the Mason-Dixon line don't believe anything about "rising". The fact is there is a large body of writing that exists today that uses this name. One reading that literature should be able to type the the name and arrive at the article. Pretty simple. Jes laik we laik it ;)Die4Dixie (talk) 02:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to naming article for simple reason that this is most likely what readers are interested in when trying to discover something about these names. It's on-point, and of course someone who genuinely didn't know about the ACW itself will find it amply linked to at the naming article. SnowFire (talk) 17:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to naming article per SnowFire (talk · contribs). -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^{T C} 20:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
• Change all redirects as proposed. Naming the American Civil War seems to me the logical target for these redirects, as that is the page that actually mentions all these alternate names; and anyone looking for the main Civil War page would surely think to try searching American Civil War first, anyway. Terraxos (talk) 21:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect but we really do need to rework the naming article so these terms are more prominent. alternatively, redirect to the specific sections of that article discussing the term. There is a special problem here that the official US term for the war records is still "War of the Rebellion" The publication of the historical documents was "The War of the Rebellion: a Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1880–1901"DGG (talk) 01:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to naming article. Readers entering that term will be better served by being informed of the origins of that name, and can easily reach the war article from there --Enric Naval (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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