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The result of the discussion was Withdrawn. The nominator has withdrawn the nomination and no one has argued for deletion. No single debate establishes a "definitive precedent." We already have a precedent for keeping these through numerous debates. If someone wants to codify it more than that, Wikipedia talk:Redirect is the better location. -- JLaTondre (talk) 02:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The Choir (disambiguation) → The Choir (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Keep. I am listing an incomplete nomination initiated by User:Walter Görlitz here. This nomination contrevenes policy set forth at Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Links to disambiguation pages, "How to link to a disambiguation page". bd2412 T 19:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• It was incomplete since it didn't show up earlier. It's empty, has no history, nothing substantial links to it, and it simply redirects to the real disambiguation: The Choir. If this page stands, then I suggest we move the content of that page to The Choir (disambiguation) and undo the move of The Choir to The Choir (alternative rock band) and restore the hatnote. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course you can say that "nothing substantial links to it" once you yourself have removed the existing link to the article. bd2412 T 19:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
• Keep, the redirect is in accord with the current guideline WP:INTDABLINK. No valid reason for deletion has been given. older ≠ wiser 19:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: The party who sought to initiate this deletion discussion has now sought to withdraw the nomination. Having completed the nomination, I would prefer to see it through to a conclusion, in order to establish a clear precedent. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Propose closing since the nominator has tried to withdraw this. I don't think a good precedent is made if no one is even support it. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nominator's attempted withdrawal consisted of blanking the section and declaring this to be a policy "by bureaucrats for bureaucrats". The fact that intentional disambig redirects are a wise and necessary policy, and should generally be kept, is what is at issue. If an admin who works on this page wishes to close this as a "keep", I have no objection. bd2412 T 20:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Wise and necessary? Stop being so full of yourself. Add a template to all disambiguation pages and follow whatever shows up in the template. That's wise. Adding a bunch of pages with the "(disambiguation)" in it just so a team of editors with a penchant for disambiguation articles can keep track of them and then have their bot go into other articles and change where the extant hatnotes redirect to (creating a double redirect, which is also against Wikipedia policy) is not necessary or wise. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The utility of such redirects has been much discussed and is well established. These redirects are harmless for users, but quite useful for editors.--ShelfSkewed Talk 20:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - useful for editors, harmless for readers, and in line with policy. (Incidentally there is currently no mention of this RfD at the redirect page itself). PamD (talk) 21:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was removed by the original initiator. I don't plan to waste the time to restore it. bd2412 T 23:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
    • But you'll waste time keeping this open. How kind of you. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm keeping this open to set a definitive precedent on the utility of this family of redirects. Whether the tag exists on the nominated page is no longer relevant. bd2412 T 00:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
        • First, it's not definitive. Second, precedent has been set in your misguded policy. Third, the only people who are watching this page are people interested in disambiguation pages. It doesn't make it any better that you don't actually know that a template could be inserted into every existing disambiguation page that would let you track it and that you don't actually need to create a second page, but I'm not going to convince you with logic since your mind has already been made up. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • How would insertion of a template on any disambig page inform disambiguators that an incoming link to that page was intentional, rather than accidental? bd2412 T 00:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. This type of redirect is invaluable when trying to resolve links to disambiguation pages. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• How does having a redirect page with "(disambiguation)" that points to the real disambiguation page help to inform disambiguators that an incoming link to that page was intentional, rather than accidental? This is particularly interesting when the real disambiguation isn't even the one in question. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Like this. Also, I should mention that for disambiguators with disambig javascript, disambig redirects show up as green highlighted in yellow. bd2412 T 01:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• That answers how you find what pages link to any page. It doesn't explain why we need a page called The Choir (disambiguation) that links to The Choir, which is the real disambiguation page. My suggestion for adding a template to pages like The Choir was so that we could get rid of "The Choir (disambiguation)" and yet allow disambiguation fans keep track of their disambiguation pages. Why are we using bullets to indent these things anyhow? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• On the "what links here" page, the indented section under "John Smith (disambiguation)" are links redirected through the intentional disambig link. A disambiguator looking at that page would know that they need not check those links. Feel free to unindent at any time. bd2412 T 02:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

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. The nominator has withdrawn the nomination and no one has argued for deletion. No single debate establishes a "definitive precedent." We already have a precedent for keeping these through numerous debates. If someone wants to codify it more than that, Wikipedia talk:Redirect is the better location. -- JLaTondre (talk) 02:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delirious (disambiguation) → Delirious (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Keep. I am listing an incomplete nomination initiated by User:Walter Görlitz here. This nomination contrevenes policy set forth at Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Links to disambiguation pages, "How to link to a disambiguation page". bd2412 T 19:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• It was incomplete since it didn't show up earlier. It's empty, has no history, nothing substantial links to it, and it simply redirects to the real disambiguation: Delirious. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the redirect is in accord with the current guideline WP:INTDABLINK. No valid reason for deletion has been given. older ≠ wiser 19:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: The party who sought to initiate this deletion discussion has now sought to withdraw the nomination. Having completed the nomination, I would prefer to see it through to a conclusion, in order to establish a clear precedent. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Propose closing since the nominator has tried to withdraw this. I don't think a good precedent is made if no one is even support it. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nominator's attempted withdrawal consisted of blanking the section and declaring this to be a policy "by bureaucrats for bureaucrats". The fact that intentional disambig redirects are a wise and necessary policy, and should generally be kept, is what is at issue. If an admin who works on this page wishes to close this as a "keep", I have no objection. bd2412 T 20:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Wise and necessary? Stop being so full of yourself. Add a template to all disambiguation pages and follow whatever shows up in the template. That's wise. Adding a bunch of pages with the "(disambiguation)" in it just so a team of editors with a penchant for disambiguation articles can keep track of them and then have their bot go into other articles and change where the extant hatnotes redirect to (creating a double redirect, which is also against Wikipedia policy) is not necessary or wise. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The utility of such redirects has been much discussed and is well established. These redirects are harmless for users, but quite useful for editors.--ShelfSkewed Talk 20:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - useful for editors, harmless for readers, and in line with policy. (Incidentally there is currently no mention of this RfD at the redirect page itself). PamD (talk) 21:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also removed by the original initiator. bd2412 T 23:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
    • But you'll waste time keeping this open. How kind of you. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm keeping this open to set a definitive precedent on the utility of this family of redirects. Whether the tag exists on the nominated page is no longer relevant. bd2412 T 00:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. This type of redirect is invaluable when trying to resolve links to disambiguation pages. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 delete delete - original editor blocked as sock, it's all vanity and unverifiability and so forth. DS (talk) 13:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Jain Rolling Mills → Jagmandar Dass Jain (links to redirect • history • stats)
• Jain Group of Companies → Jagmandar Dass Jain (links to redirect • history • stats)
• Vidyut Jain → Jagmandar Dass Jain (links to redirect • history • stats)
• Dimple Jain → Jagmandar Dass Jain (links to redirect • history • stats)
• Vnsh Jain → Jagmandar Dass Jain (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Though the article is tangentally related to the subject of each redirect, there is no significant mention of any of the redirect subjects within the target article. The only incoming links are from the article to which the redirects, well, redirect. In my opinion, all should be deleted. -Addionne (talk) 19:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (for now) - the target has been put up for deletion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jagmandar Dass Jain, by the nominator. If the target gets deleted then the redirects should also go. However, if the target survives then the redirects would be potentially useful and should stay. The AFD needs resolving first. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I would fully agree that applies to the Jain Group of Companies and Jain Rolling Mills redirects, however the other redirects provide no value to the articles - as they are simply family members of the subject and are not mentioned in the article except where they are listed in the infobox, nor are they listed in any other articles as incoming links. If the AFD decides keep, then I would still highly recommend the deletion of those redirects. -Addionne (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I agree that that is the case for Dimple Jain and Vnsh Jain but Vidyut Jain has a mention in the body of the article. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amazingly, "There are 6 people with the name Dimple Jain in the United States", so someone might try to look the name up here. However, if the AfD goes against the subjects, then these all should go too. Peridon (talk) 21:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. Ruslik_Zero 18:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Collin Knox → Lester Coleman (links to redirect • history • stats) 

According to Off2riorob: "Google results return nothing for this name, it is a conspiracy theory and is not a viable search term. Off2riorob (talk) 18:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)" I speedily deleted it previously, but then realized the criterion wasn't really applicable after WhisperToMe's post on my talk page. Could you guys evaluate the propriety of this redirect? Thanks. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment:
• The sources that discuss the name "Collin Knox" include:
• Martz, Ron. "CONSPIRACY THEORIES: Outlandish claims can hit close to home." Atlanta Journal-Constitution. April 30, 2000. C5. "byline "Collin Knox," a pseudonym frequently used by Coleman." - According to the man who wrote the article (he was personally involved with Knox, and came to oppose him), Knox published some newspaper articles under the name "Collin Knox" - I have the full article, so if you want I can e-mail it to you if you like
• Byron, Christopher. "Conning the Media." New York Magazine. August 31, 1992. Page 34. - Tom Slizewski, the managing editor of Soldier of Fortune magazine, said that Coleman wrote two stories for the magazine using "Colin Knox" (slightly different from "Collin") as a pseudonym
• Even if Coleman disputes using this name, the name would have to redirect anyway because Wikipedia would then have to cover the dispute of "did Coleman use this name?"
• WhisperToMe (talk) 16:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It is not a useful realistic search term at all, it is conspiracy theory created by a person that was in opposition to him in a court case. Google results for the name return nothing, user Whisper to me, is almost using investigative reporting to claim a alias that is very weakly cited indeed and imo asserting that this name is the alias of a living person is close to a BLP violation. The allegation is so weakly claimed by an enemy of the subject as to be imo false and we should not give it any credence. Have a look at the Google search results, nothing that asserts it is or would be a realistic search term. Off2riorob (talk) 17:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Off2riorob, two people said this in two separate publications. And they were not self published, and they are reliable sources.
  • "It is not a useful realistic search term at all" - It's useful to the guy who reads an old issue of Soldier of Fortune and wants to know who "Collin Knox" is, or who he is supposed to be
  • And if we say "XX and YY says he did ZZ" It's A-OK, because what was said is 100% true, no matter how you look at it. We know Martz has an unfavorable view of Coleman (and he would, as he was accused in Coleman's work, as stated in the article). We know Hurley does too, as he sued Coleman in a court in London (I haven't found the result of his suit against Coleman, but he settled against the book publishers in terms that Martz describes as favorable). As long as the reader knows these things, and is told that they said it rather than it was said, it's A-OK.
  • We do NOT use "Google search results" as a barometer when we have reliable sources instead.
  • "is almost using investigative reporting to claim a alias that is very weakly cited indeed and imo asserting that this name is the alias of a living person is close to a BLP violation. " - No, not a BLP violation. No other users said this was a BLP violation in the BLP noticeboard/RFC thread. Investigative reporting published in the New Yorker with no retractions = reliable source.
  • If Coleman doesn't dispute the claims, then there is no controversy in regards to his using the alias. And if he does challenge it, then that simply needs to be sourced in. We include "Colin Knox" if he does, and we include it if he doesn't. Darned if he does, darned if he doesn't.
  • WhisperToMe (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as confusing; not referred to in the target. Readers following a redirect should not be puzzled as to why they have been taken to the target. If a reliably sourced reference is added to the article that this is the subject's alias, then I will change my !vote. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If all you need is a reliably sourced reference, I'll go ahead and add it now. :)
  • The sources, BTW, are all above.
  • EDIT: Added - It should not be reverted by anyone until everyone's had a chance to see it.
  • EDIT 2: Added source #2 - Silewski's statements in the New Yorker
  • WhisperToMe (talk) 20:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - change of !vote now that a sourced reference to this name has been added to the target. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 Speedy deleted by User:NawlinWiki per criterion R3: Recently created, implausible redirect. Non-admin closure.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC) [reply]

• Workplace Community → Intranet (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Redirect was created to replace original text that did not significantly expand on the material at Intranet. The Intranet article had recently been modified to add Workplace Community as a "see also", but this was based on a single mention of the term in a particular company's marketing literature. Since that "see also" has been deleted, this redirect seems to make no sense. (Even if the "see also" had not been deleted, this would simply have been a circular redirect which should be deleted anyway.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. Jafeluv (talk) 08:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Dgsd → Demi-Gods and Semi-Devils (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Repetition, since there's already DGSD. 暗無天日 _{contact me (聯絡)} 13:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - harmless; no deletion reason specified. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Bridgeplayer. bd2412 T 20:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - Article names are case-sensitive, thus, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, DGSD and Dgsd are not the same thing. We can't reasonably expect everyone to know that they should use all caps. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 Re-targeted to List of Demi-Gods and Semi-Devils characters#Kingdom of Dali. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Wanjie Valley → Demi-Gods and Semi-Devils (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Very low chances that people will search for this. 暗無天日 _{contact me (聯絡)} 13:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to List of Demi-Gods and Semi-Devils characters where it is mentioned. Used as a search term every month. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 18:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Nian Hua Monastery → Demi-Gods and Semi-Devils (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Not a useful redirect. There're very low chances that people will search for this. 暗無天日 _{contact me (聯絡)} 13:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not mentioned in the target so confusing. Bridgeplayer (talk) 16:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• TLBB → Demi-Gods and Semi-Devils (links to redirect • history • stats) 

"TLBB" may not only stand for "Tian Long Ba Bu", the Chinese title of the target page (a novel). 暗無天日 _{contact me (聯絡)} 13:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Please name two other things that it stands for. Uncle G (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The land's best burritos? Thermoluminescant Brigitte Bardot? bd2412 T 20:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - well used redirect. If another plausible meaning is found then we can disambiguate. Bridgeplayer (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I could find no plausible alternative meaning. bd2412 T 16:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
• New Page. TLBB is the well known abbreviation for the popular MMORPG published by ChangYou.com. I will happily fill in the required content Mole40k (talk) 11:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dragon Oath? 暗無天日 _{contact me (聯絡)} 05:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't redirect to Dragon Oath - it's not the same. Dragon Oath is the U.S. sub-division of TLBB and has a different site, content etc. TLBB is actually the original name of the game as played in China and the E.U. Mole40k (talk) 07:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Demi god and semi devil → Demi-Gods and Semi-Devils (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Not a useful redirect. The mere difference between the redirect page and the target page lies in the plural and singular nouns (god and devil). 暗無天日 _{contact me (聯絡)} 13:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - plausible typo as shown by getting hits every month. Harmless. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 Kept. Bridgeplayer sums it up well. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• North Cyprus Yeşilırmak → Limnitis (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Who would type this into the searchbox? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• A Turk might. Keep, basically harmless. bd2412 T 20:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - probably pointless but harmless and not confusing. Bridgeplayer (talk) 16:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeşilırmak already exists... just saying... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]