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The result of the discussion was Withdrawn. Mhiji 18:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• What Wikipedia is not → Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Unnecessary cross namespace redirect. Mhiji 17:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep this one can't mean anything else plausibly and it has 300 hits a month so is clearly heavily used. Also per arguments for Wikipedia neutral pov -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep again. This has been repeatedly discussed and decided. This is the place where the Wikipedia policy existed before the creation of the separate namespaces. It still has many inbound links both internally and, more importantly, external to Wikipedia, all referring to the policy page. There is no possibility of confusion and a great deal of harm to breaking all those links. Rossami (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Hadn't noticed the high page stats. Keep for now. Mhiji 18:16, 9 January 2011 (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 and histmerge [1] into Timeline of liberal and radical parties in Chile. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Liberalism history Chile → Timeline of liberal and radical parties in Chile (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Ruodyssey (talk · contribs) mistakenly nominated this redirect at MFD. Renominating here to get this discussion in the right place. The original nomination statement by Ruodyssey was: "This was never made into a template. Instead, it is a redirect to another redirect in article space." Personally, I also support deletion of this redirect as the unnecessary leftover of an old page move. RL0919 (talk) 15:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for moving this for me! - Ruodyssey (talk)

• Delete. No longer necessary. Should have been R3'd after move really. Mhiji 21:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fairness to the editors of that time, the current R3 was not a documented CSD back in August 2004. But if the page had been created more recently, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. --RL0919 (talk) 01:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because it documents pagemoves from before the MediaWiki software was changed to automatically record those moves. History is important to the project.
  Note: Even if this pagemove had been executed today, it would not have been eligible for speedy-deletion criterion R3. The original title was not implausible but, more importantly, it was not a typo. It was a deliberate decision to put the page at that title and even though the decision was later changed, the original intent should be respected. Rossami (talk) 05:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and hist-merge this revision into the target article. Ruslik_Zero 20:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and hist-merge the appropriate revision into the arget article, per Ruslik0. (It's worth noting, perhaps, that both pages list User:Wilfried Derksen as the initial author.) The portion of Wikipedia's history which relates to pagemoves is addressed at Wikipedia:Moving a page#Page histories, and there is no need to retain a page which, after a history merge, will serve no function and can only cause confusion. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:15, 1 February 2011 (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: arguments on both sides, while those, specific to this example, for keeping might outweigh the negative of this being a CNR from any other namespace, in this case they fall short since this is an article space to project space redirect. Rich Farmbrough, 20:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

• Wikipedia neutral pov → Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Unnecessary cross namespace redirect. We already have WP:neutral pov, WP:NPV and WP:NPOV and others - we don't need this too. Mhiji 15:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per nom. "Pov" is wikispeak and has no place in the article space. (I speedied this and was forced to restore it. Do we really need to bother with this discussion?) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep having cross-namespace redirects from a term that is extremely unlikely to be used for anything else is useful, and POV is a term used outside of Wikipedia to mean point of view. Additionally I believe by default that searches don't include pages in the Wikipedia namespace. On the other hand it isn't particularly heavily used. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're arguing we should keep this because by default searches don't include pages in WP space, you should be proposing that we change the search to show WP namespace pages by default, rather than creating redirects from main space. So your suggesting we should have a redirect from main space for all of these?! That's ridiculous. If you're concerned about users not being able to find WP: namespace pages, propose that the search mechanism is changed instead, we shouldn't be creating thousands of redirects from mainspace because of that. Mhiji 17:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No because including all Wikipedia pages in searches for all readers would be wrong for the vast majority of them, but there are some users who want to become more involved for which they are useful. I'm also certainly not suggesting that all Wikipedia namespaced pages need a redirect - there is no need to go overboard. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • So why this one any not the others? Why is WP:NPOV so special? Mhiji 18:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • In this particular case its a core policy. For the others listed below, well why not? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This has no possibility of confusion and is an aid to readers. The argument that it is "unnecessary" is a value judgment based on the way that you navigate the wiki. It was created in good faith by a user with a history of positive contributions. Unless you can articulate some specific harm that this redirect creates, our policy requires us to assume good faith and to recognize that others do not necessarily navigate the wiki the same way you do. Rossami (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The redirect is in article space. If someone navigates to somewhere in article space they expect to see (and should see) an article. See WP:CNR#Arguments_for_deleting_CNRs. We have Wikipedia:Neutral pov, what added benefit do we have from having Wikipedia neutral pov? This has no links and very low page stats. The author isn't too bothered if it goes, so evidently they don't use it (any more). I realise users navigate the wiki in different ways - if this is an issue, as I said above, we should be changing the default on the search to show WP pages instead, not creating extra CNRs. Mhiji 18:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • How do you think that anyone would navigate to this page and expect to still be in the article space? See WP:CNR#Arguments for keeping CNRs for all the reasons why this could be kept. There is no possibility of confusion here and some marginal potential for benefit. Rossami (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a redirect that is useful to the project (helps people find the policy page), is not going to get confused with (or linked to from) main namespace articles, and as such there no reason to delete it. Simply being a cross-namespace redirect is not a reason to delete something, but a reason why a redirect might be harmful (but that doesn't mean it is). Thryduulf (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I do not see any reason to keep a cross-namespace redirect created just two weeks ago. Ruslik_Zero 20:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it wasn't created 2 weeks ago, it was created ages ago, but as it was moved that part of the history has been lost. It was actually created back in April 2009. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I concur with the nom since no evidence has been offered to support the assertion that this redirect is useful in any fashion. It has no incoming links, is practically unused (less than 20 pageviews per month), and is not useful as a shortcut (in light of the auto-fill function of Wikipedia's search engine and the existence of WP:neutral pov and WP:NPOV). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by default stuff in the Wikipedia namespace isn't shown to users directly. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, you're right, I'd forgotten that. I've struck that portion of my comment. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:17, 1 February 2011 (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 as a disambiguation page (subsequently moved to v-neck, the singular form). Rossami (talk) 05:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• V-necks → V-neck sweater (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Delete or disambiguate. There are both V-neck sweaters and V-neck shirts, and possibly other V-neck upper body coverings. The redirect is misleading, and recently created, although not by the editor who first created a substub. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguated. Please close as resolved. (Needs to be renamed to "V-neck", but I don't want to confuse matters further.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep until such time as more than one article exists, then disambiguate. Thryduulf (talk) 10:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  There's more than one topic; shirt notes that v-neck is an option. Even so, and even if all v-necks were sweaters, a redirect to sweater would be misleading, and, as v-neck sweater redirects to sweater (rather than sweater#V-neck), the double-redirect would be "corrected" by a bot to a misleading redirect. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  There is a difference between multiple topics and multiple articles. If you think that we are missing coverage of these garments then feel free to write article(s) about them. Thryduulf (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Exactly. We have multiple topics, which requires disambiguation if not all in the same article. Hence, we have multiple articles here to disambiguate. Perhaps there are more. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you aware there's not an article at V-neck sweater? (The nom's rather misleading...) That's just a redirect too. Mhiji 21:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Thryduulf. Unless there's more than one article, there's not an issue. Mhiji 15:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, didn't realise there wasn't an article at V-neck sweater. Disambiguate per Arthur Rubin. Mhiji 21:09, 10 January 2011 (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 (non-admin closure) →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 15:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Manual of style register → Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Register (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Unnecessary cross namespace redirect. Mhiji 05:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per my argument for Wikipedia neutral pov. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the arguments made above. "Unnecessary" is a value judgment and not a valid grounds for deletion. Rossami (talk) 17:51, 9 January 2011 (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. This is a relatively recently created cross-namespace redirect, which was not a result of a page move. Such redirects are routinely deleted if there is no specific reason to keep them. Ruslik_Zero 13:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• WPCSU → Wikipedia:WikiProject California State University (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Unnecessary cross namespace redirect. WP:CSU already exists. Mhiji 05:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep per my argument for Wikipedia neutral pov. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - same arguments as above. Rossami (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, likely to conflict with the article namespace. See also my reasoning at #WPNPA. Thryduulf (talk) 00:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an unnecessary cross-namespace redirect. Typing one extra character (":") is not enough of a burden to justify this cross-namespace shortcut. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:57, 1 February 2011 (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 (non-admin closure) →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 15:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• WPMILHIST → Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Unnecessary cross namespace redirect. WP:MILHIST already exists. Mhiji 05:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see nothing wrong with a cross namespace redirect, as long as it does not have the potential to confuse, Sadads (talk) 16:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per my argument for Wikipedia neutral pov. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - same arguments as above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rossami (talk • contribs) 17:52, 9 January 2011 (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 (non-admin closure) →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 15:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Metalocalypse → Wikipedia:WikiProject Cartoon Network/Adult Swim task force (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Redirects to the Adult Swim task force. WikiProject Metalocalypse is no longer active. JJ98 (Talk) 05:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This seems like a perfectly good redirect to me that maintains edit history, "No longer active" is not a reason to delete a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 10:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No valid reason to delete. Mhiji 14:10, 10 January 2011 (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 (non-admin closure) →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 15:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• WikiWorld → Wikipedia:WikiProject WikiWorld (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Unnecessary cross-namespace redirect. The WikiProject it links to is now defunct. Mhiji 04:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my argument for Wikipedia neutral pov, this one has some good numbers too. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - same arguments as above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rossami (talk • contribs) 17:52, 9 January 2011 (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. Unused and potentially confusing cross-namespace redirect. Ruslik_Zero 19:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• AEREL → Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Egypt/Religion work group (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Unnecessary cross namespace redirect. Mhiji 04:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - same arguments as above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rossami (talk • contribs) 17:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Wikipedia namespace exists for a reason, as does the WP: pseudo-namespace. Many cross-namespace redirects similar to this have been deleted in the past, and there is nothing special about this redirect compared to those others. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as this could be realistically confused with an actual article - for example, I could see a military weapons system having an acronym like this. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: AcronymFinder.com finds no current uses for that particular acronym. Not saying that's definitive but it's proven a pretty good tool in the past. Google finds a couple of companies, none apparently meeting our generally accepted inclusion criteria. Of course, if any of them do become notable someday, the redirect can be easily overwritten. Rossami (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2011 (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 Retarget to Wikipedia:ASK →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 15:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• WPASK → Wikipedia:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Unnecessary cross namespace redirect. WP:ASK redirects to Wikipedia:Questions so this is potentially misleading/confusing. Mhiji 04:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Mhiji. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - same arguments as above. No opposition to a better targetting, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rossami (talk • contribs) 17:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per arguments for Wikipedia neutral pov - I've re-targeted this redirect to WP:ASK which is now a disambiguation page which points at both items. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:24, 9 January 2011 (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 20:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• WPAFRICA → Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Unnecessary cross namespace redirect. WP:AFRICA redirects to WP:Africa-related regional notice board so this is potentially misleading/confusing. Mhiji 04:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Mhiji and lack of use. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - same arguments as above. No opposition to a better target, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rossami (talk • contribs) 17:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • So which is the best target then? Mhiji 18:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • For this one the best target is especially unclear. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since WP:AFRICA has long been used for the Wikipedia:Africa-related regional notice board, I think we should leave that as it is. But this one is cross namespace, only recently created, has never been used (apart from on the day the creator made it) and if anyone did happen to use it, they would probably be intending to go WP:AFRICA anyway, so it's misleading too. Mhiji 14:14, 10 January 2011 (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 (such as the template'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 Delete. Recently created unused cross-namespace redirect. Ruslik_Zero 19:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipolice → Wikipedia:WikiPolice (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Unnecessary cross namespace redirect. Mhiji 04:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a helpful redirect for those who like to do shorthand. I believe this was also redirected from a similar police page that was a failed policy several years ago so it's put to better use here. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 11:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my argument for Wikipedia neutral pov. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - same arguments as above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rossami (talk • contribs) 17:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The topic of "Wikipolice" is Wikipedia-specific, and not of interest to general readers. Furthermore, this is a self-referential redirect. Many cross-namespace redirects similar to this have been deleted in the past, and there is nothing special about this redirect compared to those others. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete clearly in disuse and only recent; look at the stats. Unless shown otherwise, these CNRs should be deleted. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 02:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Normally I favor keeping useful cross-namespace redirects, but this one is an exception. We must keep in mind that the mainspace is supposed to be an encyclopædia. Bwrs (talk) 05:03, 21 January 2011 (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 (non-admin closure) →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 15:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• English Wikipedia Internal Account Creation Interface → Wikipedia:Request an account/Guide (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Unnecessary cross namespace redirect. Mhiji 04:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my argument for Wikipedia neutral pov, this one has reasonable numbers and is specifically aimed at new users. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - same arguments as above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rossami (talk • contribs) 17:54, 9 January 2011 (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. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Violates WP:FU → Wikipedia:Non-free content (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Unnecessary cross namespace redirect. WP:FU already exists Mhiji 03:57, 9 January 2011 (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. Recently created cross-namespace redirect that in the future may conflict with encyclopedic content. Ruslik_Zero 19:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• WPNPA → Wikipedia:No personal attacks (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Unnecessary cross namespace redirect. WP:NPA already exists Mhiji 03:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - same arguments as above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rossami (talk • contribs) 17:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as this could very easily conflict with encyclopaedic content in the future. Although the first page of a Google search didn't bring up anything obvious (indeed it thought I meant to search for WPPA), there is nothing stopping something like a West Point National Park Authority or Welsh Pecan Nut Producers Association gaining notability in the future. Thryduulf (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would seem to me to be a better argument to overwrite the current redirect with a better target if and when such a better target presents itself. (Or, more likely, turning the page into a disambiguation list for the multiple uses of the acronym.) In the meantime, though, we are only aware of this one use. The value may be marginal but the benefit to deleting it is even smaller. Rossami (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • We wouldn't create a disambiguation page between encyclopaedic content and project meta content, we'd use a ((selfref)) hatnote. However, I don't think that waiting until there is a conflict between this low-value redirect (low-value because it is not in the standard pattern) and the encyclopaedia is a sensible course of action. If the notability of "WPNPA" gradually builds (e.g. it's a company that grows slowly) then we'll have time to move this out of the way in a controlled manner. However if the notability arrives with a big bang (e.g. it's the result of a natural disaster) then we don't want to have the hassle of sorting it out in the rush and confusion that often arises in such circumstances, especially as relatively inexperienced users are often over-represented (compared to normal) at these times. Thryduulf (talk) 15:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmmm. I suggested disambig because you can't hatnote a redirect. I should have remembered that the preferred solution is to hatnote the acronym on the page with the full title. Apologies. I take your point about potential future uses but still believe that we should err on the side of known current benefit (however small) over theoretical future benefit. Retargeting a redirect is pretty easy and rarely controversial. Rossami (talk) 22:52, 17 January 2011 (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 Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• WP; SAY → Wikipedia:Manual of Style (words to watch) (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Unnecessary cross namespace redirect. WP:SAY already exists. Mhiji 03:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - same arguments as above. Semi-colon for a colon is a reasonable typo. While I would never advocate the preemptive creation of such redirects, there is no benefit to the project to deleting it once created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rossami (talk • contribs) 17:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • But a semi colon and a space?! WP;SAY doesn't even exist, so why should this?! I normally have no objections to redirects from typos but this is cross namespace too. Mhiji 18:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Mhiji, this is implausible. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Someone would have to go through the whole lot of WP:s if this passed. (Aside: Interesting little policy - I wish some writers and publishers would take note of it. When you're writing conversations, and need to distinguish the speakers, 'said' gets boring - but what do you use instead? Not easy... Here, of course, one is only reporting statements.) Peridon (talk) 22:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an implausible typo. Thryduulf (talk) 00:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Why do we need a redirect for a typo? We wouldn't do this for something in article space. Instead, a search window would suggest "Did you mean...". - Ruodyssey (talk) 03:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete implausible typo and I would strongly oppose a plethora of redirects starting WP; —Anomalocaris (talk) 09:05, 20 January 2011 (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 closed as moot since the page has been rewritten with content. Rossami (talk) 05:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Paul Rafaelovich Amnuél → ru:Амнуэль, Павел Рафаэлович (links to redirect • history • stats) 

After removal of PROD and discussion on Talk page, I'm bringing this here for discussion. Do we keep cross-wiki redirects? I can't find anything definite, but if it was policy to keep them I'd have expected to see some by now, and this is the first I've seen. I doubt anyone searching the English Wikipedia would have much use for a Russian article -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've recently seen one to a Spanish article. I thought it was acceptable in the absence of an English article, but I've never seen anything to say either way. In this case, there is a link on the Russian article to the English one so I feel that a translation might be in the pipeline. He appears to be a Russian-Israeli physicist who has written quite a bit. As with a lot of foreign language Wikipedias, the referencing seems scanty, but I would think notability might be establishable. BTW the creator of this redirect is also the adder of the English link on the Russian page, so I think translation might well be on the cards. Peridon (talk) 22:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have seen a few of these. It would be preferable if authors would write a stub article in English (with the usual inter-wiki link) rather than place an inter-wiki redirect. I have written a few stub articles myself, removing inter-wiki redirects in that way. Unfortunately, my Russian is non-existent... Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Like I mentioned on my talk page and i'll restate my rationale here, there's no policy agaist "cross-wiki" redirects that I can find. Are we thinking "cross-namespace" redirects? Referring to WP:CNR, the argument for deleting such redirects is because "Namespaces were created for a reason, so that the encyclopedic content would be separate. CNRs work against this." First just to clarify, by "cross-wiki" we mean from one language-specific wiki to another. In all language-specific wikis, the encyclopedic content is in the main namespace. When redirects point from one language-specific main namespace to a different language-specific main namespace, the redirection can still be said to reside in the same main (encyclopedic content) namespace. In this particular case, en:Paul Rafaelovich Amnuel is redirected to ru:Амнуэль, Павел Рафаэлович which are on the same main namespace. The primary reason for the redirect from the english to the russian wiki is because there is a well constructed article in russian and no article in english. The secondary reason for the redirect is because there are categories for the article in the english wiki that would have pointed to an otherwise redlink english article name. If the redirect either aids searches on certain terms or someone finds them usefulWP:RFD#KEEP, then the redirect should stay. Again, in this particular case since there is no english article for the search term "Paul Rafaelovich Amnuel" and an average english-speaking user would not likely search using the russian "Амнуэль, Павел Рафаэлович," we can presume such a redirect under the english term in lieu of a redlink would "aid searches" on those particular terms especially if the topic is proper in the russian wiki. Additionally, the presence of a redirect that goes to the analogous article in a different language wiki would be "useful" to a future editor of the english article where reliable citations or wiki commons resources may be found where a redlink and a blank page lends no such help. All things considered, I think this is a case of improving wikipedia and ignoring what at first seems incongruent with an english-speaker's expectation of an english wiki WP:IAR. The question to be asked here is not "would the user be terribly frustrated not seeing what they normally expect?" but "would the user appreciate finding raw unintelligible data that could be processed into information (i.e. third party translation) instead of the information void of a redlink?." I believe this particular redirect link makes a strong case for endeavouring to point all sign posts to knowledge, be it the wooden stake or the redirect variety. If such was a global wiki policy, it seems to me to be trivial to create automated scripts that would inform the user that the english search term failed to produce a matching english article and that the russian or chinese etc. article was available. Or we can just trust that the editors can insert the appropriate informational template tags. One last thing; of course a stub article would be preferable to a redirect to another language like how a GA is better than a stub and a FA is better than a GA. The factor is time and not all editors have enough to constuct even a stub that would pass basic scrutiny. Hence a redirect to a well written article, even if in another language, gives the user the most benefit.Kjmonkey (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment While I agree that a stub is better than a redirect to something in foreign (if you can't read the particular dialect of foreign), I do like the idea of a bot that could sort out searches for articles unavailable in English for those who can read foreign. Don't look at me - I have trouble with inline references and userboxes... In the meantime, I think a Keep is appropriate unless someone shows the policy that says it ain't done that way, no siree, nohow. In fact, I don't think a non-Russian reader would click the link, as it is written in, well, not wiggly writing, but something that would be Greek to many. I take it the translation (even in part) is not forthcoming, then? I perhaps assumed too much (and disregarded my own addition of links to English to Breton and Dutch articles - neither of which I speak). Peridon (talk) 23:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep seems useful, and once they get to the right page they can use Google Translate. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Stubbify. I think just a cross-wiki redirect is likely to put off the creation of an article more than a stub would. Thryduulf (talk) 00:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Create article/stub per Malcolmxl5 and Thryduulf. Cross-wiki redirects are likely to prevent an article being written on the en wiki. Having this restricts growth. A stub with a link to the other wiki is much better as then it persuades editors to add info to this wiki, but still provides a link to the other wiki if the user finds it helpful. If a user searches on the en wiki, they should get English results. If there isn't any guidelines about cross-wiki redirects already, there should be. Mhiji 14:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been bold and created a very short stub. My knowledge of Russian isn't great either, so please do add to it if you can. Also, I have no idea if the article should be at Paul Rafaelovich Amnuél or Paul Rafaelovich Amnuel? If anyone knows, please do move it if necessary. Mhiji 14:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd say make the one without the accent into a redirect - that's the way people will type it, but the accented version is presumably more correct. I might have a go at adding to the stub when I get a moment. Peridon (talk) 16:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • In what language would it be written with the accent? English doesn't use them, and neither does Russian. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • The original is "Амнуэль" a-m-n-y-e-l-'" and looks like a variant of "Emmanuel". The accented e is used in Czech for a sound like the French "fête" has, and it's possibly used here to indicate a longer e. (э is like our e, while the Russian e is a yeh sound.) It could even come from romanisation in France, although the Rafaelovich is romanised in English. (His first name Pavel becomes Paul in either English or French.) Peridon (talk) 18:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Interesting, thanks. I've just done a quick Google search, and the unaccented spelling gives what looks like 12 relevant hits, inc the Wikipedia one. But the accented spelling only gives one hit - the Wikipedia article. It's not exactly a very large sample size, but I'm seeing no support for the accented spelling. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Use it as a redirect to the English spelling then, or dump it. By the time anyone's typed 'paul rafael' it's going to show up anyway. Might be an idea to have a 'pavel...' redirect, in case anyone uses the correct spelling there. Peridon (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • I don't have the admin rights to move over a redirect - can anyone help? And yes, I agree a "Pavel" redirect would be good. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • WP:RM? Mhiji 05:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • It still appears to be under discussion - see below - so I'll leave it to those who know best. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Proposal of cross-wiki redirect (limited use) policy
  Like I mentioned earlier about time constraints on editors, my modest goal for this particular subject was to establish a reference point for future english-wiki editors to expand upon. I do not particularly like writing articles as the research and citation requirements are burdensome for me; however, as part of my focus the other day I did write stub articles for a number of subjects. Paul Rafaelovich Amnuel was unique among the subjects on my list because he had a substantial article written in the russian wiki and, being the last subject on my list and getting anxious to finish my goal, seemed to be a perfect candidate of a cross-wiki redirect. That redirect effort took all but a few minutes if even that. This defense of that redirect, on the otherhand, has taken much more time then I had wanted, or could afford, to invest and has directly affected the output of my editing efforts in other wiki articles and areas that seem more interesting to me. Therefore, to reinvest those arguments I have made in defense of a cross-wiki redirect in this particular case into an argument that will affect future uses of cross-wiki redirects, I will layout a case for a limited-use, cross-wiki policy here.
  History (I list the following history to attempt to highlight my editorial process and subsequently my motivation to create a cross-wiki redirect. I looked at Requests for feedback 2011_January_9 to see if I could provide constructive feedback or editing for proposed articles. I came across the article for Edward Daniel Johnson. I noticed that one of the categories listed for the article Category:Fellows of the Royal Astronomical Society was a red link. I then looked to make the appropriate references so that the category would have appropriate parent(s). I reasoned that the best logical connection would be to find out the associated categories linked to Royal Astronomical Society. The corresponding category was Category:Astronomy organizations. I saw that there were no appropriate subcategory that would logically link to Category:Fellows of the Royal Astronomical Society so I created Category:Membership in astronomy organizations, then a subset Category:Fellowship in astronomy organizations and a further subset Category:Fellows of the Royal Astronomical Society. Having creating the proper links so that Category:Fellows of the Royal Astronomical Society was no longer a red link, I adventured to populate some of these newly created categories. I looked at several different articles under Category:Astronomy organizations to find an article that referenced members or a membership and found Eurasian Astronomical Society which referenced an external list. Working with this list I came to a process of finding matches, in reverse alphabetical order, based on the data available by last name, first initial and national affiliation. Thus I created Category:Members of the Eurasian Astronomical Society and found the Stanford E. Woosley article and worked my way up the list creating stub articles for Cristiana Dumitrache, Michael A. Dopita, and François Bouchet along the way when appropriate citations made such creation viable. Also, since I created those stub articles from a category-centric rather than list-centric foundation, one would have to wonder if articles would otherwise have been created at all for these seemingly notable figures. But I digress. The last name I came upon, which was the first on the list of members was that of Amnuel P.R. from Izrael. After looking and failing to locate any article on the subject, I proceeded to search for any references on the English wiki in other articles or citations. I found these articles [X-1 X-ray source], [Scorpius XR-6], [Lockheed X-ray source] cited the subject but led no further. However, the citations referenced Russian literature and so I thought it appropriate to search the Russian wiki to find more clues. Upon searching for the term "Amnuel," I came upon ru:Амнуэль, Павел Рафаэлович where I felt confident I had found the correct subject. After using Google Translation, I received my confirmation and the title for the English article. However at this point I was fatigued with the work and had other priorities to attend; seeing that the Russian article seemed well-written, I thought it was appropriate and helpful to those searching for this person to have an English search equivalent link to the Russian article.
  Justification There is no explicit policy against what we term here as the cross-wiki redirect. We define a cross-wiki redirect as a redirect that sends the user from one language-specific wikispace to another language-specific wikispace (i.e en:wikipedia.org to ru:wikipedia.org). It would be easy to say that since there is no explicit policy against cross-wiki redirects then we can justify its use by WP:IAR. However, as it has been shown, any instance of applying a cross-wiki redirect in practice can be challenged as being unfriendly to the user experience. Therefore we will try to justify a class of cross-wiki redirects that will be narrow in scope that follows Wikipedia's mission and does not violate any of the five pillars. As it states in the mission statement, "Wikipedia's articles provide links to guide the user to related pages with additional information." Accordingly, the purpose of a cross-wiki redirect is to provide the user with a link to another page with related information. For example, the article Tanakh describes the Jewish religious text and has a cross-wiki link to the text here http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%A7%D7%A8%D7%90. There is consensus that a cross-wiki link to a resource is generally acceptable however let us create a scenario for the moment where Tanakh has no article but is instead a red link. Imagine that the article is still in an editorial phase on some Users space but the term "Tanakh" with its significance as a religious text is being searched often. In such a scenario, an editor of the Tanakh article would contend with the choices of leaving a red link or a redirecting to either the written Hebrew article he:מקרא or the wikisource document http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%A7%D7%A8%D7%90. We argue here that users would be better served if Tanakh redirected either to the Hebrew article or the Hebrew religious text rather then leaving as a red link. One could say a majority of the english users would not understand the Hebrew text and would spoil their experience of wikipedia. We would argue that we remain true to the part of the wikipedia mission of providing links to related pages of information and that a redirect to a related page even if it is in a different language is compatible with the mission. We could also argue that a subset of the users of the English wiki will also understand Hebrew and so in lieu of an english article written to acceptable standards a cross-redirect to the Hebrew article would be helpful. Similarly, those users with a weak command of the English language (i.e. young children) may not understand what is written in the English articles but they can be provided with an explanation or summary of the articles whereas other users will have no difficulty reading and understanding the same articles. Therefore, cross-wiki redirects can be proper and should be used to redirect the user to a cross-wiki article that the user would reasonably expect to see (i.e. the same subject but in a different language) where it would otherwise be a redlink. Ideally, en:wikipedia.org should only contain articles in the English language where any reference to text of a different language is followed by a translation or explanation. However, wikipedia is not a written encyclopedia where the cost-to-benefit of having foreign text that may not be understood by the readership would be too expensive. As an online encyclopedia where printing costs are not a prohibitive factor, wikipedia is "continually created and updated, with articles on historic events appearing within minutes, rather than months or years." This ethos of quick information is what justifies cross-wiki redirects; in the span of seconds the user should be able to find the most relevant information even if it is in a different language. Keep in mind the www.wikipedia.org portal first introduces the user to a virtual compendium of information in different language volumes and does not initially assume a language preference for that knowledge.
  Usage X-wiki or Cross-wiki redirects should abide by certain guidelines and be used only in certain circumstances.
  Growth Order (We shall tentatively call WP:GROW): This means search results should return the best results where red links are the least desirable. The growth procession for an article should be as follows: red link <(is less desirable than) cross-wiki article < stub < start < C < B < GA < A < FA where a red link provides no meaningful content, X-wiki provides potentially meaningful content, stub provides some meaningful content and FA provides the most meaningful content. This implies if there is a suitable well written article in another language wiki, the red link should replaced by a X-wiki redirect to that article. The growth order principle calls for wiki editors to replace the X-wiki redirect with a stub article but never revert to the redlink unless the X-wiki article is missing or unreliable. Editors should assume a X-wiki article is reliable and trust the X-wiki editors have checked it for the WP:5P. Keep in mind the wikipedia project is global in scope and we must rely on talents of many to succeed.
  Rosetta Stone (We shall tentatively call WP:ROSE): This means X-wiki articles hold a store of knowledge whether or not we understand it. Just as Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs were unclear until the discovery and deciphering of the Rosetta Stone, so too are articles that are found in different wikis. However, these articles may be of some value to the user by providing text for translation or picture resources in the wiki commons that otherwise may not be found at all.
  A x-wiki redirect should be used when the subject has no corresponding article in the user's preferred wiki and the subject would be more notable in another wiki. For example, before Karaoke became popular internationally, it drew popularity in Japan. In this case, assuming Karaoke was a red link, an editor may decide to create a X-wiki redirect to ja:カラオケ. Even if the user does not understand the text, often times there are pictures and other resources that will help inform the user. Or in the case of people, a person may be more notable in another wiki due to their nationality and the amount of local resources available for citations than would be in the user's preferred wiki. For example, Pablo Picasso may have been more notable in France fr:Pablo Picasso where he flourished during Paris' luminous years or in Spain es:Pablo Picasso because of his heritage. Certainly he is now internationally renown now but for sake of example, Pablo Picasso may not have been notable enough or have verifiable english language resources in his early years. In this particular case, we see the usage of the same sourced photo of Pablo Picasso in the English, French, and Spanish wikis. Thus, a x-wiki redirect can help future editors find resources to expand a stub article. A x-wiki redirect should redirect only into the main space of the other wiki; in otherwords, x-wiki redirects should only point to encyclopedic knowledge. Finally, a soft redirect should be used so that the user will know that wiki article does not exist and that they have been presented with a X-wiki redirect. Kjmonkey (talk) 18:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the wrong place for the discussion. The correct way to note that there is a good foreign language article is to make a stub (which has adequate information to avoid a speedy deletion) and submit an "Article for Translation" request.
    • Actually this is the right place for the discussion of a redirect. That's the subject. I made my case here for cross-wiki redirects. There is no general wiki policy on this subject. The question is whether it is even appropriate to have a cross-wiki redirect. I say it is. I wrote this lengthy argument so that editors who are confused about the subject and would like to create a cross-wiki redirect will have ample justification to do so. It was [User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] who had brought up the question to my talk page and now I answer here. Kjmonkey (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have spent myself on this subject so I won't likely add much more to the article, however, it seems there are a few of you that are actively contributing to the article and so I'd like to share what I've found out.
  I believe the main article name should be Pesakh Rafaelovich Amnuel and in the article body it should read Pesakh (Pavel) Rafaelovich Amnuel. I based this on information I gathered from his personal website and this secondary source: [2]
  ::I used the Amnuél spelling of his name before because there was a citation in another wiki article that had used it. However I believe Amnuel is more appropriate since that is used in his personal website. Also, it seems the Amnuél spelling was used on his early journal articles but have subsequently adopted Amnuel over the years. Evidence of that can be found here: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-abs_connect?return_req=no_params&author=Amnu%C3%A9l%27,%20P.%20R.&db_key=AST
  If you're more adventurous, you can find and add him as a Facebook.com contact with his email which can be found here:http://www.trizminsk.org/e/246006.htm
  I'll go to the local library and see if I can verify whether the secondary source listed on his website[3] for his biography is accurate; if I do, I'll post the citation information on the article discussion page in case someone is going to write the article based on the source. Kjmonkey (talk) 19:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]