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). Acather96 (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• ISO 3166-1:US → United States (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Another implausible redirect. Only one article linked to it although there are a few user pages. Not an intuitive link to US. Kumioko (talk) 21:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Implausible CTJF83 22:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, an ISO 3166 title. Are you going to nominate Category:Redirects from ISO 3166 and all of its contents for deletion? Nyttend (talk) 02:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, someone may want to know what country that ISO is associated with. Typing in an ISO should redirect to the country.AerobicFox (talk) 02:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, what harm is this doing? How would deleting it benefit the encyclopaedia? Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 20 March 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). Acather96 (talk) 18:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• EEUU → United States (links to redirect • history • stats) 
• EE.UU. → United States (links to redirect • history • stats) 
• EE. UU. → United States (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Recommend delete. Implausible redirect to United States. Not sure what this even has to do with the United States. Maybe an abbreviation for Estados Unidos but not sure. Links to several pages mostly american movies and actors but will fix those today. Kumioko (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Implausible CTJF83 22:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)\[reply]
  • Now that I understand what it means I retract the delete. CTJF83 04:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment EEUU (and variations of) is the Spanish equivalent abbreviation of US (and variations of). Is a potential, though perhaps unlikely, search. I have actually searched it myself. Unless its preventing another article from being created I'd think per WP:CHEAP it should be kept. Ravendrop 02:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. This is how the U.S. is abbreviated in all Latin American nations. EEUU is extremely common.AerobicFox (talk) 02:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would agree if this weren't the English WP or if the articles with this and other variations of EEUU related to Spanish articles. Since this is the English Wikipedia IMO it should use the common English variations (since the article is written in english if they Don't know US then they probably would not be able to read the article anyway) and all the articles that these variations link too are US movies and actors. --Kumioko (talk) 02:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many people that speak spanish live in the US and use the English wiki which is far better than the Spanish wiki. One third of the world uses this acronym including all the Latinos here in the U.S.AerobicFox (talk) 03:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough but again there were less than a dozen articles with it and all related to US movies and actors and I have already changed most of them to United States so the only place this appears are on a few talk pages. --Kumioko (talk) 03:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-English redirect to an English-language topic. Are we going to create the name of the United States in every language of the world as a redirect, and then for every country of the world, every name in every language as well? 184.144.166.85 (talk) 05:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Plausible that english speakers could see this out of context and be searching for it. No obvious conflict with any other title, nor is it deliberately harmful or confusing. The low number of uses in whatlinkshere is explicitly not a reason to delete - in an ideal world, all our redirects would be orphans. The argument that "allowing this means we have to allow redirects for every language and every topic" is a logical strawman. We keep the redirects that are helpful and delete the ones that are harmful. Redirects are cheap. Rossami (talk) 13:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment then I guess you want to keep 美 as well? 184.144.166.85 (talk) 03:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just for info there are redirects to United States in at least 10 different languages (Spanish, Dutch, French, German, Icelandic, Farsi, and a few more I don't read or recognize) plus most have more than one version of the redirect. I know that redirects are cheap but thats a little ridiculous. --Kumioko (talk) 03:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why is it ridiculous? Surely helping people find the article they are looking for is a Good Thing? Thryduulf (talk) 10:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep EEUU is the standard Spanish abbreviation for the United States and it gets millions of Web hits. It's not "implausible" when hundreds of people are using this redirect every month. There must be thousands of non-English redirects on English Wikipedia. Does the nominator plan to go around deleting them all? This is a waste of everyone's time. Kauffner (talk) 07:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please WP:AGF, this isn't Spanish Wikipedia. CTJF83 11:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that being helpful is a good thing but I don't think its necessary to create dozens of improbable redirects just in case someone accidentally puts it in. I understand that there are probably some spanish speaking (and other languages too) and its ok to cater to some but I think its unnecessary to have 10 or 15 different redirect variations for just the spanish version of the United States. If this were the Spanish Wikipedia I would agree they are needed but since this is the english Wikipedia I think its overkill and I also think that if the people don't know United States then more than likely they are not going to be able to read the article anyway. --Kumioko (talk) 13:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EEUU gets 400 views a month. That's a lot for a redirect. In what sense is it "improbable"? There are many thousands of foreign language redirects on English Wikipedia and new ones are being created all the time. You will get rid of them through one-at-a-time deletion votes? They are not creating any trouble where they are. Are you trying to save memory? This discussion uses up more computer resources than the redirect does -- and more importantly, it uses up human time. Kauffner (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to stop discussing it at any time, you choose to "waste" your time by continuing to post here. CTJF83 20:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it isn't doing any harm, so there is now benefit to deleting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tideflat (talk • contribs) 03:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it is even conceivable that an english speaker might come across the phrase and not realise what it meant. I don't think we should do this sort of redirect generally, but it does no harm selectively for country names and similar really major topics. It isn't confusing, takes more effort to remove than to keep. Bytes are cheap, time spent discussing this soft of thing is not cheap. We have actually bad stuff to get rid of , and 90% of the articles need major improvements. why should we bother removing things like this? May possibly not have been worth the effort of making, but certainly isn't worth the effort of removing. DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't that what Wiktionary is for? 65.93.12.101 (talk) 05:57, 24 March 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). Acather96 (talk) 18:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Unitesd states → United States (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Recommend delete. Improbably redirect based on a typo. These sorts of links had some validity years ago when the Search required an exact match. With the relatively new search functionality that shows links like what is entered in the search box these are no longer needed. Also, all links to articles have been fixed. Kumioko (talk) 16:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• keep according to Google is isn't that improbable. [1] Also per WP:CHEAP, there is no reason to delete them unless they are harmful. Tideflat (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• Comment. The search box is not the only method used to search Wikipedia, almost all the other methods do not have the benefit of suggestions. 22:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thryduulf (talk • contribs)
• Keep: it's a plausible typo.AerobicFox (talk) 03:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not only is it a plausible typo, it's fairly common (as evidenced by the need to clean up the articles). and as the previous comment notes, redirects do far more than merely support the search engine. Redirects are cheap. Rossami (talk) 13:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, plausible typo CTJF83 20:17, 20 March 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. Thryduulf (talk) 09:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• United States, USA → United States (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Recommend deletion. Only linked to one page that I already fixed. Implausible redirect. Kumioko (talk) 15:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, this one is pretty implausible....CTJF83 16:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Implausible. The vast majority of users would type one or the other. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 18:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Will likely choose one or the other.AerobicFox (talk) 03:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Implausible. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:07, 20 March 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). Acather96 (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• United Stats → United States (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Recommend deletion. Implausible redirect based on a typo. Only links to a couple user pages and a couple of archived talk pages Kumioko (talk) 15:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, plausible typo. CTJF83 16:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a note. Your right years ago these were needed because the Search box required a direct match. With the upgrades to search that allow similar links and recommendations to display these are o longer needed. --Kumioko (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • True...but it doesn't do any harm....CTJF83 18:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well partially it does. If a user creates a link in an article with this it will show up as a blue link as though its correct. If it shows up as a red link then it stands out that it needs to be fixed. --Kumioko (talk) 19:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Tag as ((Redirect from misspelling)) and it becomes maintainable. Rich Farmbrough, 17:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
          
• comment If without it, the Wikipedia search engine will redirect it anyway, then delete it. If not, leave the redirect. (what I say goes for the other redirects listed in conjunction with this one). Kingturtle = (talk) 20:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well it doesn't automatically redirect it. To clarify, in the old days if you typed something into the search box it had to be an exact match or search wouldn't find it. Now if you type something that isn't exact it brings up a page with things that are close or shows things to choose from. In the old days these misspellings had some purpose because if someone typed something wrong it would at least redirect them to the right one. A problem with having these redirects is that mispellings are harder to identify in the articles as I mentioned above. If I put United Stats it shows up as a blue link because a redirect exists so an editor may not notice it if they preview it. If the link shows up as a red link though its much easier to notice that something is wrong and therefore more likely to get fixed. --Kumioko (talk) 20:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, a plausible redirect. Navigation is improved if we don't need to use the Search box for common typos. Nyttend (talk) 02:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: we keep typo redirects.AerobicFox (talk) 03:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Plausible typo that has proven helpful to some readers. It is not obviously confusing or harmful. Redirects are cheap and do far more than merely support the search engine. Rossami (talk) 13:08, 20 March 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 no consensus. Rossami (talk) 13:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• What is american → United StatesAmerican (disambiguation) (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Recommend deletion. This is an implausible and in my opinion inappropriate redirect for one user page. Kumioko (talk) 15:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete implausible search term CTJF83 16:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a question and answer FAQ. Besides American (disambiguation) is the more logical target. 184.144.166.85 (talk) 05:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Doesn't make sense; implausible. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Gets a regular trickle of hits http://stats.grok.se/en/201102/What_is_american Rich Farmbrough, 17:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  
• Keep If it gets hit, then as redirects are cheap, we may as well keep it. Acather96 (talk) 15:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as retargeted to American per the stats. Nyttend (talk) 21:17, 11 April 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). Acather96 (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Unites States of America → United States (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Recommend deletion. Implausible redirect based on a typo. All articles that linked to it (other than a couple user pages and an archived talk page) have been fixed. Kumioko (talk) 15:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep does no harm. CTJF83 16:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:CHEAP, it does no harm. Tideflat (talk) 21:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, a plausible error for United States of America. Common typos are good reasons for redirects. Nyttend (talk) 02:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep:Spelling typoAerobicFox (talk) 02:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Another entirely plausible and unharmful redirect. Rossami (talk) 13:10, 20 March 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 speedy delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:"Hong Kong finds melamine in two Cadbury products" → Cadbury Dairy Milk (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Mistakenly created redirect to Cadbury Dairy Milk that was then transcluded onto that page, causing a duplication of that page, etc. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 06:43, 19 March 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 Disambiguate and move to I Need a Miracle. There are at least 5 songs with this title mentioned in Wikipedia. It should also be at the proper name case. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I need a miracle → Deadhead (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Not sure why this redirects here, change to Toca's Miracle which is from a song, (and the lyrics in this song repeat over and over) "I need a Miracle" CTJF83 02:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I Need A Miracle is a 1978 song by the Grateful Dead. Redirects from a song to the author/band/etc are an accepted use of redirects and preempt the endless re-creation of pages with little more than copyrighted lyrics. I have no particular opinion on which song should take precedence. The Grateful Dead song predate the Toca's Miracle mashup by quite a bit but I have no data on comparative notability. If kept as a redirect to GD, the double-redirect must be resolved, perhaps by retargeting to Shakedown Street, the album where the song was first released. Rossami (talk) 07:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deadhead has no mention of the song. I would presume actual articles have higher redirect priority over mentions on a broader page. CTJF83 08:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, in digging through this one, I lost track of where the redirect was really pointing. You are right that pointing to the band's fans is an inappropriate target (though it's not a double-redirect like I first said). The band itself would be better but in this case the best answer is probably the notable album that actually mentions the song. Note: I would be more inclined to give precedence to Toca's Miracle if that were the actual name of the song but it's not, merely a line in it. Rossami (talk) 13:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • "I Need a Miracle" is the song that the lyrics are from. "Toca's Miracle" (which has a different instrumental track) was released later and was more successful. The original song was also a hit, but it only reached #39 in the UK chart and possibly doesn't need a separate article. Without an article, it should still have a redirect, hatnote or disambiguation page linking to the relevant article (Toca's Miracle or the singer Coco Star). Peter E. James (talk) 21:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• If there are multiple songs, make it a dab page. Rich Farmbrough, 17:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  
  • The Greatful Dead song doesn't have a page. CTJF83 20:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Shakedown Street per Rossami.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A redirect should link to the most popular or common, not an album when a song can be linked. CTJF83 01:00, 21 March 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 as per Rossami. TexasAndroid (talk) 15:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Derping → HerpingDerp. Idiotic vandalism.--KiloByte (talk) 17:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteAerobicFox (talk) 03:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The user who created this redirect has made exactly three edits to the encyclopedia, each 2 years apart. The first two were positive contributions but this one is suspicious. Urban Dictionary suggests that "derping" is either a form of trolling or a joke derived from the South Park TV cartoon. That's hardly a reliable source but google turns up nothing more helpful. It appears to be a nonsense phrase. Regardless, it should probably be retargetted to Derp, a disambiguation page with several legitimate links. Rossami (talk) 13:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: herp and derp are apparently a meme, Google points at sites like Art of Trolling(sic), Durr Derp and that kind. Ie, intentional trolling and, in this case, devoid of even a modicum of being funny or witty. Nuke them from orbit, that's the only way to be sure.--KiloByte (talk) 19:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Derp, per Rossami. Readers who actually want to learn more can then follow the "Mr. Derp" to List of staff at South Park Elementary#Mr. Derp. Melchoir (talk) 23:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]