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 United States presidential election debates, 2004#"You forgot Poland" per Robofish. Salix (talk): 19:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You forgot Poland → Polish involvement in the 2003 invasion of Iraq (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

It seems there once was a section "you forgot Poland" in Polish involvement in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, but now the article even doesn't contain a "forgot". Ibicdlcod (talk) 14:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant talk page discussions are Talk:You_forgot_Poland#Merging_idea and Talk:Polish_involvement_in_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq. It appears the former article was merged into the latter, and then... an apparently offended Pole removed it entirely on the basis that it didn't support a worldwide view of the subject, or something. Actually now that I take a look at the history, the last edit of Polish involvement in the 2003 invasion of Iraq by an anonymous editor removed the entire section. So all we have to do is revert it. I'll do that now. --78.150.153.148 (talk) 15:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to a history subpage and delete the redirect. (attribution would be preserved by subpage) -- 70.50.151.36 (talk) 03:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is not only ((R to section)) and ((R from merge)), but an exact title match on the name as well. Unless and until the target evolves to lose the information present, the redirect should be kept. If and when that happens, the redirect should be sub-paged for history concerns. BigNate37_(T) 03:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Templates in above comment changed from transclusions to links by Thryduulf (talk) 07:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whoops. I saw that in a preview, thought I fixed it. Thanks. BigNate37_(T) 07:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The relevant content has been reinstated in the article. Keep. There's also related material at United States presidential election debates, 2004#"You forgot Poland". - Eureka Lott 00:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to United States presidential election debates, 2004#"You forgot Poland". This was a phrase from the presidential debates; the content belongs in the article on the debates, not in the article on Poland and the Iraq war, where it's of only tangential relevance. Robofish (talk) 16:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I was going to argue that the merge went to Polish involvement in the 2003 invasion of Iraq#"You forgot Poland", but the so-called "merge" was really just a redirection to pre-existing content (see the merging editor's April 2008 logs). Still, I'm inclined to favour the more comprehensive section for redirection. Changing the redirect to imply proper content location is a little bit cart-before-horse, but if the sections are refactored to reflect that the American debates are the proper home for that information then I have no objection to redirecting there and placing an appropriate hatnote at the other YfP section. BigNate37_(T) 18:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per BigNate and EurekaLott. benzband (talk) 19:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep since apparently it's still a well-known phrase and people are still likely to search for it. Per Robofish and BigNate (if I understand them correctly) I would be in favour of cutting the content from the Polish involvement article, pasting it in the Presidential debates article, and retargeting the redirect. Scolaire (talk) 07:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Robofish. A user searching for this phrase is more likely looking for its use in the presidential debate, not the actual involvement of Poland in the war. I'm tweaking that section to link to Polish involvement in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, so anyone well served by this redirect as is will only be minorly inconvenienced. --BDD (talk) 19:16, 15 August 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 Moot no longer a redirect at time of closing so wrong venue for discussion. Could be sent to afd if anyone want to. Salix (talk): 19:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Criticism of Wikipedia → Wikipedia:Criticisms (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

WP:XNR states: Currently, the general consensus seems to be that newly created cross-namespace redirects from the main (article) namespace to the Wikipedia: (project) namespace should be deleted and THIS redirect qualifies. Ibicdlcod (talk) 14:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• revert retargeting so it points at Wikipedia or Reliability of Wikipedia per consensus from less than 2 months ago. Then protect so we don't have to do this a third time. Thryduulf (talk) 18:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC). See below. Thryduulf (talk) 21:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: It seems that Guy Macon subverted the RfD closure with this edit, as the discussion carried on under the assumption that the original target was Wikipedia, and the closure then as keep preserved Guy's changed target as Wikipedia:Criticisms. BigNate37_(T) 21:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• keep something which is either critical (such as the February 2011 article) or points at criticisms (such as the February 2011 disambiguation page)--Rumping (talk) 21:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, a very similar dab page existed in June 2011 too, so that might be a better version to revert to. I think that reverting to a disambiguation page and protection will be the best way forward. As user:Marcus Qwertyus said at Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia/Archive 4#Dab? Or article-stub? "Reliability may be our greatest weakness but it isn't our only one." and the dab page directs users to where different types of criticism are discussed. Thryduulf (talk) 21:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Revert to DAB from 21:41 25 June 2011 (UTC), on the assumption that the article's ~125kB of content was competently merged (I have not personally checked that we did not lose substantial and valuable information, and I take it on good faith that the merge was competent). I've looked over the DAB pages, and while the one I suggest isn't the most recent, it is the cleanest version to start from, and is not missing any links that appear in later versions. Reverting to an article version would require un-merging lest we end up with a lot of forked material, and since its contents were merged to several articles, disambiguation is the natural extension of the common practice of redirecting pages to their merge targets. I'm not sure if it's too far outside RfD's scope to be making full protection decisions where they are not simple saltings, but I agree with Thryduulf that protection is a good course of action in this case. BigNate37_(T) 00:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the page is changing. Revive the previous article as it now is is less horrible than XNR. Ibicdlcod (talk) 05:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Silver seren (talk · contribs) has unilaterally reverted this page to an article stating that the NPOV discussion was the wrong venue and that they oppose it. In my view this was incorrect but I don't want to get into a revert war - it underlines my belief that protection is needed though. For the record I still think this should be a disambiguation page, but as it's now an article how about we take this to an AfD and get a definitive answer once and for all? Thryduulf (talk) 10:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and send to AfD I don't know why this wasn't done in the first place. The article was made into a dab page a year ago by one user in a NPOV/N discussion, with one other user agreeing with them and no one else responding to the action. The article was then changed into a redirect from the DAB page without any intervening discussion, it appears. Both of these actions were inappropriate, not to mention that the stated "merge" never appears to have happened. Some info was merged over to other articles, but the majority of it appears to have just been erased for no reason. All of this culminates in an appearance of trying to hide criticism of Wikipedia with out of process actions, which is just stupid. Silverseren^C 11:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• NOTE I have mentioned this saga at Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents#Criticism of Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 11:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as an article. The redirect isn't appropriate, but the article looks fine to me. Anyone who wants to get rid of it and turn this page back into a redirect should take it to AFD, as there clearly isn't a consensus to do so. Robofish (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• the old RfD states that the content was already merged in other articles. the merge discussion in the talk page states that there was consensus to merge, and that no information appears to be lost. I suggest making a disambiguation page, pointing people to the various places where the information has ended up. I don't see the need for a new AfD unless someone provides new reasons for restoring the article. The blanket restoration of the whole article appears to be WP:POINTY and not based on the needs of the readers. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Revert to disambiguation page. It receives a fair number of daily hits and is a likely search term judging by the number of "Criticism of…" articles. benzband (talk) 07:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Revert to disambig page as per Thrydulf. Gives the reader a wide variety of choices, and prevents the coatrack style article that we don't really need (regardless of subject). --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as an article. Sourcing needs to improved, but it's certainly a notable topic. --JN466 16:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's such a notable topic that different aspects of it are discussed in a balanced way in at least the 5 articles listed here. Per WP:NPOV#Naming,"Descriptive titles should be worded neutrally, so as not to suggest a viewpoint for or against a topic, or to confine the content of the article to views on a particular side of an issue (for example, an article titled "Criticisms of X" might be better renamed "Societal views on X").". Reliability of Wikipedia is one such better named article, but it focuses only on one aspect of criticism of Wikipedia, the disambiguation page gives users the best chance of finding what they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, article is clearly notable with significant coverage given to specific sections of the article, sufficient to pass WP:GNG and warrant their own standalone articles. However, as this appears to be an amalgamation of all those sub-topics of the general criticism of Wikipedia it can be argued that such new articles would be content forks unless one can argue that the article itself meets WP:LENGTH. If one does not believe that the subject of the article meets notability requirements, the article should be tagged (the tag should remain for a certain period of time to allow interested editors to edit the article) and if sufficient sources are not found to warrant passage of notability requirements, then the article should be brought up in AfD. Redirecting to a WikiProject, if the subject is notable is not the answer.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that there is also a lower-case spelling of the same redirect which also redirected to project space. [1] --JN466 16:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Turn into DAB and move the content over to those pages. Miscellaneous criticism should be moved to the main Wikipedia article. I will do this only if all of the content is preserved; otherwise, Keep the original article. Longbyte1 (talk) 17:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The content has already been merged to the various articles listed on the dab page. Thryduulf (talk) 08:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as article and send to AfD. If consensus is for deletion, it should not exist as a dab page or as a redirect; certainly not as an XNR. (and if consensus is for keeping, somebody should undertake to udate it and clean it up.) Scolaire (talk) 22:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The "Criticism" section of Community of Wikipedia now points to Criticism of Wikipedia#Criticism of the community, so that would need to be addressed if this page were turned back into a dab page. Scolaire (talk) 23:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: This article has not been a redirect, but a full article, since 8 August (almost a month ago). Should the Rfd/core template not be removed? It looks very strange at the top of a full article. Scolaire (talk) 22:51, 5 September 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 all but The painted lady which is retargetted to The Painted Lady Salix (talk): 19:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The boy in the iceberg → List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• The avatar and the firelord → List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes#Book_Three:_Fire_(2007–2008) (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• The beach (Avatar: The Last Airbender) → List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes#Book_Three:_Fire_(2007–2008) (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• The painted lady → List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes#Book_Three:_Fire_(2007–2008) (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• The Crossroads Of Destiny → List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes#Book_Two.3A_Earth_.282006.29 (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Bitter work → List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes#Book_Two.3A_Earth_.282006.29 (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Return To Omashu → List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes#Book_Two.3A_Earth_.282006.29 (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Delete. All of these are episode titles of Avatar: The Last Airbender with strange capitalization. Normal capitalization redirects exist for all of them. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 02:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Reason cited is not a reason to delete a redirect. Ego White Tray (talk) 07:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. None of the redirets is an implausible or random capitalisation and logical alternative capitalisations redirects are a good thing. They should all be tagged as unprintworthy by means of ((R from other capitalisation)) though. Thryduulf (talk) 07:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of them already are tagged as such, however Template:R from other capitalisation strongly insists that this template be used only for main article redirects, which to me says it must not be used for redirects to sections. BigNate37_(T) 21:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep probable redirects.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have a different opinion on "The painted lady" redirect, see below.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep everything but the pained lady redirect since there appears to be a consensus bellow to change that redirect but no suggestion to change or delete any of the others outside the original nomination which has received little support.--70.49.74.113 (talk) 23:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The painted lady[edit]

• Comment there are many uses for "the painted lady", and we have an article on one such use Painted Lady ; retarget to Painted Lady -- 70.50.151.36 (talk) 03:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually The Painted Lady is a different article from than Painted Lady so the painted lady should probably redirect there. I don't have any issues with the other redirects so they should be kept as is unless someone can find a better target for them.--70.49.81.140 (talk) 03:47, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In case that was a bit confusing I will clarify. I disagree with the idea that the current redirect should be targeted to the article about the butterfly (Painted Lady) but should in fact link to the article about the film (The Painted Lady) since the redirect up for discussion is exactly the same except for the lowercase lettering.--70.49.81.140 (talk) 03:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we could just repoint it to the dab page Painted Lady (disambiguation) -- 70.50.151.36 (talk) 06:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to The Painted Lady as ((R from lowercase)). That article and Painted Lady both have hatnotes linking to Painted Lady (disambiguation). If we are going to assert the necessity of disambiguating the title "The painted lady" we ought to be moving The Painted Lady to a disambiguator as well, and retargeting the resultant redirect to the DAB page; to me that seems overkill. BigNate37_(T) 18:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to The Painted Lady per BigNate37.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:08, 14 August 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.