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. --BDD (talk) 14:20, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:AFD Main Page → Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Shouldn't this redirect actually target Wikipedia:Articles for deletion since Wikipedia:AFD redirects there? Steel1943 (talk) 06:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because articles linked from the main page cannot be taken to AfD. "Main Page" when used on Wikipedia usually refers to the Wikipedia main page. SSTflyer 07:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• In that case, let's delete it. Since "AFD" means "Articles for deletion", "keeping" this redirect is misleading. Steel1943 (talk) 14:11, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• No, when used with the main page, "AFD" means "April Fools' Day". Add a hatnote if you wish, but the likelihood for confusion is low. This is a useful redirect as not many editors may know where the page concerning Main Page proposals for April Fools' is. SSTflyer 14:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Thought this would have something to do with the perennial April Fool's Day joke of trying to nominate the Main Page for deletion. (Incidentally, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Main Page has been salted since last year). 210.6.254.106 (talk) 14:54, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per nom. The pageview history would suggest that it is barely used even in the lead up to April Fools' Day. In any case anyone experienced to know/want to take part in April Fools' Day on Wikipedia can presumably find it by other means. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion per nom.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 22:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The 90 days beginning at the Ides of March yields a grand total of 5 hits, so there isn't any interest in this redirect. I chose this range to see if there'd be a jump in usage on AFD (April Fool's Day), but didn't see any. I do think this redirect is sufficiently confusing since IMO it seems to describe an WP:AFD of the Main Page, which we don't have (thanks 210). -- Tavix ^(talk) 06:40, 15 July 2016 (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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Help:Collapsing. → Help:Collapsing  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The full stop at the end of the redirect's title makes this seem like an unlikely misspelling. Steel1943 (talk) 03:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect was probably created as part of testing related to my book (Help:TMM); if so, it isn't particularly important to keep it.

Perhaps I'm missing something here, but I was under the impression that that unused redirects are totally harmless, and that deleting one not only doesn't save computer storage or processing [on a wiki, deleted pages still exist, they just aren't visible to most users], it actually increases both storage and processing (slightly, since there is now one more page version). What is the advantage of deleting a redirect for an unlikely misspelling, as opposed to just leaving it as is? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:43, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's been consensus in the past to delete redirects that end with periods if it's not part of the target's title itself, regardless of the namespace. (I cannot find a specific discussion right now, but I have participated in such a discussion in the past.) I do agree with the results though, that this redirect is unnecessary since it's unlikely. In my opinion, redirects only serve a useful purpose of it is a term looked up by readers. Steel1943 (talk) 20:48, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 3#Fly. is an example. I remember that one because of my comment, although there's been a few others. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Steel1943: I'm sure there is precedent; Tavix pointed to one such case. That wasn't my question, so let me try again (slightly reworded): What is the benefit of deleting a redirect for an unlikely misspelling. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@John Broughton: This is a question that should ideally be answered by the more experienced editors here. In the meantime it's worth having a peek at WP:COSTLY. In my view the most important reason for not keeping frivolous redirects is that they require maintenance: 1) it's generally more difficult to notice if they get vandalised; 2) they need to get classified; and 3) in the case of topic restructuring (like changes of primary topic or article splitting) they need to get retargeted. Listing them here is also a part of this maintenance burden and I'm wondering if there shouldn't be a quicker and easier way (similar to WP:PROD) for dealing with them. Not that WP:G6 would have been out of place here. Uanfala (talk) 12:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I have nothing additional to add to what Uanfala stated above which I can think of at this time. (I am also not sure how they disrupted the signature in their edit when they placed their aforementioned comment, so I fixed it in this edit.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Implausible redirect and makes the project more costly to maintain while basically getting no use (1 hit every 3 months). ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Why? Doing so is a straightforward housekeeping cleanup. Senator2029 “Talk” 14:12, 15 July 2016 (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 stubbify, using Suenti's content. --BDD (talk) 14:17, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Bedridden → Pressure ulcer  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Pressure ulcers are not being bedridden. They are symptoms which can emerge from being bedridden  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:46, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to The Bedridden, add Wiktionary box. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:54, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:AngusWOOF, that seems like an outright WP:EASTEREGG. Don't we want the least possible astonishment? And is a Wiktionary box appropriate on a hard redirect?— Gorthian (talk) 17:34, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Album doesn't appear to be primary topic though to override this so Wiktionary redirect will be a better option for now. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is no plausible target; it's basically a dictionary definition. — Gorthian (talk) 16:03, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Soft retarget over to this term's article at Wiktionary although I wouldn't really mind outright deletion as an alternative CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Soft redirect to Wiktionary per WP:NOTDIC and Template:Wiktionary Redirect. Gets 9 hits a day, and there isn't a good target on Wikipedia. Not sure redirecting to The Bedridden which is totally different from the meaning of the word "bedridden" and adding a Wiktionary box makes sense. The wiktionary redirect has a link to search Wikipedia for the title, so if they really were looking for the album, the search would presumably help them find it anyway. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 13:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Turn it into stub as written by Siuenti. It gets hits and now it has an article, and links to relevant encylopedic content. Second choice is still the soft redirect. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:06, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, though I would support retargeting this to patient or disease if the concept of being bedridden was discussed at one of those articles. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I made a tiny stub which links to bed rest and lying (position) which have relevant content. I think keeping it is better than the other options discussed, or maybe it could be merged to one of them. Siuenti (talk) 21:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Well OK that was reverted but I still vote to stubify with that content. Siuenti (talk) 09:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Not sure if anyone is following this but this is what the stub said: "Being bedridden is a form of involuntary bed rest. Medical risks are associated with long term lying down, see lying (position)#Long-term risks.

One Indian study of care given to bedridden individuals at home found that family members made up 82% of caregivers. A high rate of complications was reported, including pressure ulcers and urinary tract infections.[1]s.[1]" Siuenti (talk) 16:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Soft redirect to wikt:bedridden, because it provides information on the concept, as there is no good target locally.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 22:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Soft redirect per above. Thryduulf (talk) 12:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Revert to the stub written by Siuenti. This is a common issue; lots has been written on the effects of long-term confinement to bed for medical reasons. Nyttend (talk) 01:12, 18 July 2016 (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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Shadow Kirby → Kirby (character)  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:NOTWIKIA. Not mentioned at the target article. Apparently a concept from Kirby & the Amazing Mirror, though it's not mentioned there either. --BDD (talk) 21:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a game guide for Kirby. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:52, 16 July 2016 (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.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Coatbridge Irish → Coatbridge Irish  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The target of the redirect is not related to the Wikipedia project. The target is an article. (Per the redirect's edit history, this redirect was not created in error.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. I'd be interested in an explanation of why this was created, but as the creator has not edited since 2012 we may not get an answer. Thryduulf (talk) 12:02, 12 July 2016 (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. --BDD (talk) 14:14, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• 1995-96 Mid-American Conference men's basketball standings → Template:1995–96 Mid-American Conference men's basketball standings  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

See WP:R#D6. Stefan2 (talk) 21:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak retarget to List_of_Mid-American_Conference_champions#Basketball_.28men.27s.29 where at least the champoin is listed. Doesnt' look like there's a season page. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:35, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as there isn't a good retargeting option where someone can find the standings. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:30, 9 July 2016 (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 both.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Little keys → Clavicle  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Little key → Clavicle  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Another Neelix word-origins redirect. No one calls the clavicle "little keys" Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:XY AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 06:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Only four hits each over the last year, no links to either. — Gorthian (talk) 23:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There are several islands in Florida called "Little [something] Key" (e.g. Little Duck Key, Little Conch Key, Little Mullet Key, Little Torch Key) but I can find no evidence that any of them are referred to as "Little Key" or collectively as the "Little Keys". All other uses seem to be generic, non-notable businesses or related to New Zealand politicians Andrew Little (New Zealand politician) and John Key. Thryduulf (talk) 12:09, 12 July 2016 (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. --BDD (talk) 14:13, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Nontechnologically → Technology  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Nontechnological → Technology  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not quite sure if this is speedy-deletable Neelix garbage or if it might have some value. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unless there's going to be an article about non-technology businesses, you could throw non- in front of any noun and make that a term. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 06:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Soft redirect to Wiktionary per WP:NOTDIC and Template:Wiktionary redirect since both get just under 4 hits a month. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. These are obscure word forms that don't get any meaningful use. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:41, 16 July 2016 (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.