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, but a dab page may be created instead. Ruslik_Zero 18:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Refinery Town → Richmond, California (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Makes no sense to single out this one city as a "refinery town". What about all the other cities around the world with refineries? Canuck^{89 (converse with me)} 21:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not, the redirect is for the nickname and proper noun "Refinery Town" not for the sum of parts adjective+noun "refinery + town", and it is cited. There are many nicknames that refer to more than one item but if there happened to be any other cities called "Refinery Town" and it is a noun then a disambiguation is in order.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or disambiguate nicknames are capitalized, generic terms are not, and many refinery districts are nicknamed refinery towns. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 04:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is capitalized.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per LuciferWildCat. bobrayner (talk) 06:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment  The argument for deletion seems to be based on an uncited personal opinion that we should not allow disambiguation pages.  And since this page might need to be turned into a disambiguation page, therefore this redirect should be deleted.  The creator of the redirect asserts that the name is cited, but provides no citation.  The next editor is not clear about the intended meaning regarding the mention of capitalization.  IMO, the !vote of the last editor is more inflammatory than substantive.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would be fine with the creation of a Refinery town disambiguation page. All we need to do is make a collection of the world's refinery towns. Canuck^{89 (talk to me)} 09:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It is cited in the article at the bottom of the intro, here is the linkLuciferWildCat (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But, is that link a reliable source? Canuck^{89 (have words with me)} 09:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the link is credible for the purpose as represented.  My problem is, "Why is it so hard to find additional references?"  Unscintillating (talk) 01:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because I think that article being linked to was actually written in more of an opinion style, thus the author of that article himself feels like the town is a "refinery town". Thus, additional references can't be found simply because they don't exist. See my Google search argument about Brega below. Canuck^{89 (click here!)} 03:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment However, a Google search for "Refinery Town" reveals that the term is not only used specifically for the city it currently redirects to (in fact, I seem see more results for Brega than anywhere else). Canuck^{89 (talk to me)} 09:39, 28 April 2012 (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.

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 pending disambiguation. Consensus is clear that redirecting this title to any one specific pier is inappropriate, and that a disambiguation page would be better. Nobody has yet created the disambiguation page, but as this discussion has been open over a month it's time something was done and leaving this as a redlink until the dab page is created seems the best option. When a dab page is created, an admin will happily restore the history on request. Thryduulf (talk) 00:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Municipal Pier → Navy Pier (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

This redirect should not exist, or should be a disambiguation page, as there are many different piers which are known as "municipal pier" or are named "Municipal Pier". For example, a Google search comes up with municipal piers at the following locations (in that order, only from first page of results):

• San Francisco, US
• Chicago, US
• Ocianside, US
• Fairhope, US
• Santa Monica, US

If the vote goes for a disambiguation page, it may be worth mentioning why it is common for piers to carry this name. Kat (talk) 19:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You make a compelling argument to disambiguate. Be bold. Rossami (talk) 21:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Make it a disam page. Navy Pier is likely not the primary topic for that name pbp 02:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate, for the same reasons as above. There are many by that name, but no defining one. --V2Blast (talk) 19:42, 14 May 2012 (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.

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. While the keep !votes here are far from unanimous, those calling for deletion have advanced only the argument that it is misleading for a page other than a current policy or guideline to have a shortcut. Those on the keep side of the discussion have demonstrated that this is not supported by any policy or precedent - indeed it is explicitly noted in policy that shortcuts do not go solely to such pages. That there are many pages with shortcuts that are not policies or guidelines further supports the case against deleting as no reason was given why this redirect in particular is confusing or misleading. If anyone wants to change the status quo acceptance of shortcuts to pages such as this then they should start a discussion at an apropriate talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 00:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:TENNISNAMES → User:MakeSense64/Tennis names (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Proposal seems to have been thoroughly rejected by the community (and moved back into userspace). Failed proposal shouldn't have a cross-namespace redirect like actual guidelines and policies; it could easily mislead casual readers into thinking that it's a valid rule. bobrayner (talk) 18:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree. Probably should have been vetted in user space as opposed to a subheading of Tennis to begin with. The only problem is people still seem to be commenting and referring to it in other ongoing discussions and they will suddenly have no link to refer to. Not all the editors will know of the original user page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:17, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Converting to a soft-redirect with an explanation that it was rejected by the community will help keep the context of past discussions akin WP:NOTNEWS. Obviously the wording of the soft redirect will need to be discussed. Agathoclea (talk) 08:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC) Delete as misleading. Agathoclea (talk) 12:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you explain in what way this redirect is misleading? It does lead to an essay about tennis names, doesn't it? You can agree or disagree with the essay itself, but this is a discussion about deleting the shortcut to it. How is the shortcut "misleading" ?MakeSense64 (talk) 05:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• It isn't a failed proposal since it has never been proposed to become a guideline. It is an essay, and per WP:ESSAYS : Essays are the opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors (such as a WikiProject) for which widespread consensus has not been established. They do not speak for the entire community and may be created and written without approval. And per WP:SASC: essays can have one or more shortcut links, in fact it is part of the standard essay template that is put at the beginning of the page. So what exactly is the rationale for deleting the shortcut to an essay that still exists? MakeSense64 (talk) 10:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • To stop essays from using shortcut links will require a more central discussion, because potentially 100s of essays will be affected. Here is a long list of essays using WP redirects: User:Largoplazo/WP Redirects. - MakeSense64 (talk) 11:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - absolutely misleading. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 11:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you explain how this shortcut is misleading? Otherwise this is just another "I don't like it" vote. MakeSense64 (talk) 05:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • A number of inexperienced people believe that all-caps shortcuts always and only lead to official policies and guidelines. It isn't true, and we have an official policy warning people of this fact, but it's not an uncommon error. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I have no strong opinion on this particular redirect but the statements above that redirects to failed policies or unpopular essays are not or should not be allowed is absolutely false. Many such redirects exist, many of them to the project's benefit. Rossami (talk) 17:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it is overspecialized. Would we create "ballet names", "bobsleigh names", etc? The same guidelines should be broadly applicable across many domains. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 07:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  PS, re: the core claim that tennis players' names must be anglicized, see comments here. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 07:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment. This discussion is about whether the redirect to the essay/proposal should be kept, not about whether the target should be kept or deleted, nor about the merits or otherwise of its content. Thryduulf (talk) 09:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, you're right. I shortened and struck out that part. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 10:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per WhatamIdoing above. The redirect is still used in discussions, giving the false impression that this is an official guideline, policy, essay or whatever, which is very misleading. Nymf _hideliho! 06:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply. I think you are misreading what WhatamIdoing is actually saying. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - there's no rule which says 'only accepted policies can have shortcuts', and rightly so because it would be silly. There are plenty of user essays with shortcuts (e.g. WP:LAWS) and plenty of rejected policies with them (e.g. WP:BADSITES). The only criterion for keeping a shortcut should be whether it's being used; it's clear from the incoming links that this one is (or has been), so it should be kept. Robofish (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2012 (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.

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. Cross-namespace redirects from the main namespace to the Wikipedia namespace are allowed to exit only if they are: (i) shortcuts and (ii) have existed for a very long time and become a part of the history of Wikipedia. No clear arguments has been advanced why we should make an exception for this particular redirect and not to many other similar redirects. The argument that this case is "very special" (from the creator of the redirect) is unpersuasive as any case is special from the point of view of the creator. Another argument that Wikipedia is somehow responsible for the hoax and should remedy the situation is without merit because there a lot of such cases when a hoax or vandalism is not timely deleted. The result will be that we will end up with thousands of meaningless redirects. Finally there is WP:DENY as was pointed out in the last !vote in this discussion. Ruslik_Zero 19:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Glucojasinogen → Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

This fictional substance was the subject of a hoax, as explained on Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. It is currently a cross-namespace redirect to that project page. That redirect was speedily deleted per WP:CSD#R2, which prohibits cross-namespace redirects from mainspace. In the ensuing discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 April 14, no clear consensus emerged about what to do with the redirect. Options proposed include retaining it because it helps inform readers about the hoax, deleting it or covering the hoax in mainspace. To resolve this, as the DRV closer, I am nominating the redirect for discussion here, although I refrain from expressing an opinion of my own.  Sandstein  07:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually a fictional condition, not a substance. Not sure if that matters but I thought I'd mention it.Equazcion ^(talk) 08:16, 22 Apr 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. Either the hoax is notable or it is not. If it is notable it belongs in mainspace. That project page should not be allowed to exist as alternate article space, which it does if mainspace sends readers to it for information. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It would be preferable to move Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia to mainspace, where it then must continue to be compliant with core content policies. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to give the least possible oxygen to this type of thing. If you mean to apply WP:GNG to each list item, then I would support not oppose the creation of the list article. But that would mean deleting glucojasinogen. I'd still like the poor reader reading those scientific papers, or anyone encountering the term on the web, to go straight to a page explaining the situation. I feel we have a responsibility to shoulder here. Possibly a redirect to a page in Wikispace saying something like

On 7 October 2007 an editor inserted the word "glucojasinogen" into the Wikipedia article Diabetic neuropathy. The word has no meaning in science, or anywhere else. The edit was corrected on 29 February 2012‎.

--Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could we put that at the bottom of Diabetic neuropathy? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would inform readers at our article, Diabetic neuropathy, but not the readers of these 5,000 Google hits. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it is in the article, I would be very happy to redirect to it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd want those redirected from "Glucojasinogen" to Diabetic neuropathy to see the glucojasinogen explanation clearly and easily in their first screen. Even then, it's a less elegant and efficient explanation than simply taking them to a dedicated page, and it would give more prominance to the hoax than it deserves - 700 readers/day of Diabetic neuropathy vs. two per day at Glucojasinogen. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As creator of the redirect and the one to bring its deletion to DRV, here is a reiteration of my initial discussion about the background for this page given at the Deletion Review:

• This redirect to Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia was created as a result of a discussion on Jimmy Wales talk page, User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 99#Glucojasinogen on March 3, in premeditated contravention of the injunction against cross-namespace redirects from the main namespace, and that rule was also the reason given by the administrator who speedily deleted it. Following a Deletion Review we are now discussing what to do about it.
• I claim this to be a very special case and that WP:Ignore all rules can be invoked as justification for its existence in the face of other policies. The discussion on Jimmy Wales' talk page lays out the history of an editor discovering how a vandal's adding fictitious information to the diabetic neuropathy article led to no less than two peer-reviewed journals plagiarizing the information about an invented medical condition, glucojasinogen, into their papers. I believe this is an incident that will surely remain a notable anecdote in the history of Wikipedia, and I thusly commenced creating a redirect from the term, as if it were a real search term, to Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia which has a table entry for this incident. __meco (talk) 12:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As I said at DRV, it's just a redirect, and one that helps convey arguably verifiable information, despite it not agreeing with the letter of "the law" (and we're not supposed to have those here anyway). The opposition to this is purely technical, and on Wikipedia that's never a good reason; although we tend to forget that. Equazcion ^(talk) 14:17, 22 Apr 2012 (UTC)
• Keep the redirect. Given that wikipedia is at fault for editors missing the subtle but serious vandalism and the subsequent hoax that occurred I believe that we have a duty to explain this hoax. I believe that the redirect is harmless and will help to debunk this hoax term.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Change the redirect to redirect to a mainspace article discussing reliability in Wikipedia and the careless adoption of Wikipedia text in other publications, which can surely discuss this remarkable incident. Dcoetzee 23:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be in favor of this as a long-term solution, but I just don't see it happening as a result of this particular process. In the shorter term, assuming consensus can't be established for this, would you settle for keeping the redirect as-is (assuming the only other option is to delete)? I'd like to know the same from everyone who !votes this way. Equazcion ^(talk) 05:14, 23 Apr 2012 (UTC)
  • We can't present this discussion yet in the article mainspace for lack of reliable sources. That would be original research and synthesis. Given the spectacular nature of the matter I'm sure there will be such media coverage in the future though (the incident is a pre-eminent anecdote to be brought up by Jimmy Wales, who is aware of the affair, and others when being asked about the reliability of Wikipedia or its use in scientific research). __meco (talk) 10:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This hoax is not notable. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good thing this isn't WP:AFD then. Equazcion ^(talk) 12:16, 24 Apr 2012 (UTC)
    • It's much worse than not notable. It seems to be not worth a single mention anywhere in mainspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure where you're getting that from. The not-notable argument was probably better, even though it too doesn't apply. I get that udontlikeit, but aside from personal opinion, there's no criteria we can point to to actually make that call. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:41, 25 Apr 2012 (UTC)
        • Where am I getting that from? A Wikipedia article space search of "Glucojasinogen" returns only the redirect that is being discussed here. The most likely page to make a mention would be Diabetic_neuropathy, but editors decided that no mention was warranted. There is sort of a discussion at Talk:Diabetic_neuropathy#Funny_situation. My objection is that Wikipedia should only cover things that others have already covered. Anything else is original research. We need to maintain a firm stance on original research. This corss-namespace redirect to factual content is a loophole around WP:NOR. The project page is not subject to WP:NOR. Any number of hoaxes (stories of wikipedia hoaxes) can be introduced to that page based on internal referencing, with maybe some primary source only referencing, as is the case with Glucojasinogen.

          It's not that IDon'tLikeIt. I understand that some people feel we have a responsibility to right a past mistake. I understand that the "no cross-namespace redirects" thing is a mantra that in reality has caveats, holes and exceptions. However, this decision sets another example of a Wikipedia:Namespace#Pseudo-namespaces, and if that's what we're doing, at least be aware of what we are doing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. "Not notable"? Huh? This isn't an article.

(1) the redirect does no harm (2) it informs the one or two readers a day who encounter the term that it is a fraud and (3) we did the poop so we should clean it up, and this seems like the most efficient way of doing that. Perhaps there's a better solution than this cross-namespace redirect (but ignoring the hoax isn't it). Until a better, responsible solution is proposed and implemented, I support keeping this redirect. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete  As a non-notable topic, we consider WP:ATD and look for a target for the redirect.  There is none.  Nor is there WP:V reliable material with which to make a target.  If the hoax were notable, there would be sources.  This seems likely to change, but is not a reason now.  The cross-space redirect is classic WP:OR.  Keeping the redirect in main space will have the effect of creating the notability of the hoax, which compounds the problem we have already created.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As per the content guideline WP:Fringe theories, "Wikipedia is not and must not become the validating source for non-significant subjects."  Unscintillating (talk) 21:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DENY. Also, the idea that Wikipedia needs to correct morons who plagiarized a hoax is pernicious. It suggests that people who violate the Terms of Use are entitled to special treatment, and weakens Wikipedia's position regarding libel lawsuits. Speciate (talk) 21:34, 8 May 2012 (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.

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. Killiondude (talk) 05:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• U.S. Route 91 (Arizona-Nevada-California) → U.S. Route 91 (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Not a plausible search term; no incoming links except user page of editor that created the redirect. Minimal page history. LJ ↗ 06:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—redirects might be cheap, but this one is worthless in a scheme that would have separate ones for each state through which US 91 passes or passed. The search term just isn't plausible on that basis, and this editor has created dozens of questionable redirects based on "completing" his book, User:Morriswa/Books/United States Highways‎ which he is now pruning back to resolve article duplication issues in it. Imzadi 1979 → 06:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Unlikely search term. Dough4872 15:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Harmless. It's pointed to the right place and isn't offensive, so no need to get rid of it pbp 02:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. –Fredddie™ 23:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep How does it hurt anything at all? Not patently offensive, not really recent, not potentially confusing for readers (e.g. the Virgin Islands template just below this one), not causing issues with the software, not irrelevant to the subject, and not doing anything else that I can see is a problem. Nyttend (talk) 21:11, 5 May 2012 (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.

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 salt. Ruslik_Zero 12:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Country data Virgin Islands → Template:Country data U.S. Virgin Islands (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

For those unfamiliar, this template is used in conjunction with the ((flag)) and ((flagicon)) templates to produce, for example:

•  Virgin Islands
•  Virgin Islands.

With there being two countries going by the name "Virgin Islands", this redirect makes it easy for an editor to make an unknowing error. Both territories are commonly known as "Virgin Islands" depending on the perspective of the subject. The British Virgin Islands are officially known as "Virgin Islands", but the U.S. Virgin Islands are not. A redirect under this name to the British Virgin Islands would be slightly helpful for lists of IGO memberships where the member is listed under its official name, but the best outcome would be for this to be deleted so there aren't any unwitting errors. Osiris (talk) 04:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt per nom. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 04:19, 25 April 2012 (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.