October 11
The nominated redirect was
Deleted --
Cyde Weys 00:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
[reply]
Second test did not happen - may cause confusion to people looking for information about the 'second blast' in the target article. -- Chuq 03:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.The nominated redirect was :
deleted all except 11 through 14. These are currently used in articles, they assist in directing the reader to the article on the subject, and are minor spelling/capitalization differences between each other. Note that 18 and 19 are ambiguous and less used. —
Centrx→
talk • 04:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
[reply]
Each of the following redirects are from possibly inappropriate titles, on the basis of the use of POV terms such as "murder" or "genocide", or for other reasons as explained. All titles included in this nomination:
- Boer murder (POV. "Boer" is either regarded as a direct Afrikaans translation for "farmer", in which case it's N/A to English Wikipedia, or as a certain culture of people (namely, Afrikaners), in which case it's a "misdirect" to redirect to a farm phenomenon, since not all farmers are Afrikaners nor are all Afrikaners farmers. In addition, the title advocates a POV that "boers" (in the second sense of the term) are under attack.)
- Boer murders (POV. "murder" and per 1. above)
- Boer genocide (POV. "genocide" and per 1. above)
- Boer killing (Per 1. above)
- Boer killings (Per 1. above)
- Afrikaner genocide (POV. "genocide". "Afrikaner" is a term used to describe a culture of people, and has no correlation with farming. Not all farmers are Afrikaners, and not all Afrikaners are farmers.)
- Afrikaner murder (POV. "murder" and per 6. above)
- Afrikaner murders (POV "murder" and per 6. above)
- White genocide (POV. "genocide" and completely nonsensical. "White genocide" --> "South African farm attacks"?)
- South African Genocide (POV. "genocide" and per 9. above)
- South African Farm Murder (POV. "murder", and duplicate of correctly capitalised "South African farm murder" below)
- South African farm murder (POV. "murder")
- South African Farm Murders (POV. "murder")
- South African Farmer Murders (POV. "murder")
- Farm attacks (General term redirecting to a more specialised phenomenon. There are such things as farm attacks in other countries (e.g. Zimbabwe). This is akin to redirecting "crime" to "crime in South Africa")
- Farm killings (as above)
- Farm killing (as above)
- Farmer murders (POV. "murder", and as above)
- Farm murders (POV. "murder", and as above)
- Delete all per arguments presented. Zunaid 12:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all per POV pushing. ~ Flameviper 14:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all per nom - any user searching for these terms would not be served by this redirect, but rather would be misled into thinking the inaccurate, pov terms have any validity. Lionchow - Talk 14:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except one: 19) Farm murders) , because this is the literal translation of the Afrikaans word Plaasmoorde, which is an established term in that language and mind you, most commercial farmers are Afrikaners. --Jvb – October 11, 2006
- Per reasoning below, keep #13, #14, #18, and #19; delete remaining. --Jvb – October 16, 2006
- Delete all per nom. Mikker (...) 21:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all per nom. Deon Steyn 07:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all but #19, as per Jvb. --Rbraunwa 14:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all but #18 and #19 per Jvb; edit: also weak keep for #13 and #14. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 16:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all but #18 and #19 per Jvb and CP/M. Gavia immer (u|t|c) 17:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC) Per reasoning below, keep 13, 14, 18, and 19; delete remaining. Gavia immer (u|t|c) 16:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to CP/M and Gavia immer - while I don't agree with the vote to keep #19, I can at least see logic in the argument (actually #13 seems more appropriate in that regard). But I do take issue with the vote to keep #18. The specific problem is the word 'farmer' as opposed to 'farm.' Not only farmers are the victims of farm attacks, workers and visitors to farms also are victims. While 61% of the victims of farm attacks have been white, 39% of the victims have been non-white, and we can safely assume that most of those 39% are not farm owners. Calling the phenomenon 'farmer murders' creates a case of 'black negationism,' privileging the white victim (farmer) over the black victim (farm worker). The word 'farm' is more neutral towards the victim and more appropriate in this regard. Thus, I urge your to reconsider your vote. Any questions, let me know. Cheers, Jason Lionchow - Talk 19:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I understand the concerns, but we are discussing not the name or the article, but just redirects. If it was about article's name, I'd surely be for "Farm attacks", but a redirect is only supposed to get reader where he's going. So it's not like "farm attacks" are redirected to farmer attacks; rather, "farmer attacks" are redirected to farm attacks. However, I think #13 and #14 could be kept as well. Remember, it's just about redirecting the editor, not endorsing terms. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 20:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I agree that we are just discussing redirects, not the name or the article. So I support the idea to keep #13, #14, #18 and #19 as redirects, only to show the way, not to give a pre-judgement about the discussion concerning the possible “overkill” and possible “racist” undertone of the farm owner killings. BTW, did somebody already consider what happens to the workers if the farm owner is murdered? --Jvb – October 13, 2006
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.The nominated redirect was
delete as incorrect and misleading.
King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
[reply]
Kansai is a region of Japan, which is not Hong Kong Neier 12:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.The nominated redirect was
speedily deleted by
Petaholmes (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). —
TKD::
Talk 00:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
[reply]
"Evolutionism" isn't a word. ("Evolutionary" is what the person was looking for). A move made by a vandal and quickly reverted. It's inconceivable that anyone else would want to look for this phrase, given the invented word. Adam Cuerden talk 15:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- See Evolutionism: however why anyone would look for the word with "theory" added is beyond me. ...dave souza, talk 17:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete the redirect is a leftover from reverting a page move that was done without any discussion. I see no reason to keep it. I also don't see it as being a likely search term either. --64.229.73.241 21:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.The nominated redirect was
Kept --
Cyde Weys 00:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
[reply]
No such thing as Atomic Betty II. May thus qualify also as patent nonsense (WP:CSD G1) BlueSquadronRaven 16:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There are not many hits for "Atomic Betty II" (73), but it looks like it is on its way to TV. John Vandenberg 04:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I believe, given the numbers also listed after several other series, that that refers to the season number, not the actual series itself. This would be consistant with the cited website's date and the content of the comments in it. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.The nominated redirect was
Retargetted --
Cyde Weys 00:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
[reply]
Cross-namespace, one incoming link, no history. Khatru2 21:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.The nominated redirect was
Deleted --
Cyde Weys 00:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
[reply]
Cross-namespace. Khatru2 21:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.The nominated redirect was
Deleted --
Cyde Weys 00:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
[reply]
Cross-namespace, no history. Khatru2 21:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, self-referential redirect. — TKD::Talk 00:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as cross-namespace. --Rbraunwa 14:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as slightly misguiding XNR. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 16:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unneeded CNR. Gavia immer (u|t|c) 17:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Unlike the variations listed above, this one is in enough use to show that people feel a need for it. There is little possibility of confusion with anything other than a reference to the Wikipedia guideline. If/when someone wants to write a real encyclopedia article on this topic, simply replace the redirect with text. Deletion is unnecessary. Rossami (talk) 22:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Useful. --Lysytalk 19:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.The nominated redirect was
Retargetted --
Cyde Weys 00:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
[reply]
Cross-namespace, no history, potentially confusing. Khatru2 21:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.The nominated redirect was
Deleted --
Cyde Weys 00:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
[reply]
Cross-namespace, no history. Khatru2 21:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, self-referential cross namespace redirect. Guy 22:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, self-referential redirect. — TKD::Talk 00:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as cross-namespace. --Rbraunwa 14:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral: We need to check for external links to this. Not harmful anyway. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 16:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There is no possibility of confusion with an encyclopedia topic. Looking at the edit summary used when this was created and looking at the number of links using it, there is clearly a need, however small you consider it. Rossami (talk) 22:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. as above. Don't be a slave to process- step back and think, 'what else could they be looking for?' -Toptomcat 01:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Rossami and Toptomcat. Haukur 18:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete High likelyhood of interferring with encyclopedic search results. This gets returned for any results containing any words in the title, not just if you type the total phrase. (It's the first result when searching for "one school day", as one example) CNR, by definition, are of zero usefulness to the encyclopedia, so any advantages to the non-encyclopedic side of the project should be significant to outweigh the difficultly they cause to the encyclopedic side, which is not the case here. Regards, MartinRe 18:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Rossami and Toptomcat. --Wildnox 22:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Cross-namespace. Unlikely that editors will type out the full article name and not type the namespace prefix. --- RockMFR 20:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.The nominated redirect was
Deleted --
Cyde Weys 00:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
[reply]
Cross-namespace, no history, no incoming links. Khatru2 21:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.The nominated redirect was
Deleted --
Cyde Weys 00:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
[reply]
Cross-namespace, no history. Khatru2 21:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, self-referential redirect. — TKD::Talk 00:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as cross-namespace. --Rbraunwa 14:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep with BJAODN. Not confusing. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 16:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. No possibility of confusion. Heavily used. Prevents editors from accidentally creating broken links. The ommission of the leading "Wikipedia:" is a very plausible mistake. Rossami (talk) 22:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep per above. -Toptomcat 01:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete High likelyhood of interferring with encyclopedic search results. This gets returned for any results containing any words in the title, not just if you type the total phrase. CNR, by definition, are of zero usefulness to the encyclopedia, so any advantages to the non-encyclopedic side of the project should be significant to outweigh the difficultly they cause to the encyclopedic side, which is not the case here. Regards, MartinRe 18:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this is a pointer from something that is expected to be an encyclopedia article to something that is of internal use. Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 13:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per cross-namespace policy. I can see how editors might use BJAODN if they are too lazy to type WP:BJAODN or don't know of the other shortcuts, but it wouldn't make sense for editors to type out the full name and omit the Wikipedia prefix. --- RockMFR 20:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.The nominated redirect was
Kept,
regrettably. --
Cyde Weys 00:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
[reply]
Cross-namespace Khatru2 21:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, self-referential redirect. — TKD::Talk 00:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If this entry weren't here, I'd never have found Bad Jokes . . . . Fitzaubrey 07:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not the name of any possible encyclopedia article. --Rbraunwa 14:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the delete vote above: not the name of any possible encyclopedia article, so no possibility of confusion with encyclopedic content. Also has lots of incoming links that need to be updated if this ends up deleted. Kusma (討論) 14:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep to prevent creating internal and external broken links. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 16:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; not the name of any possible encyclopedia article. --Kuzaar-T-C- 19:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Kusma. Archibald99 21:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. No possibility of confusion with an encyclopedia article. Heavily used on Talk and project pages. Being a cross-namespace redirect is not inherently evil. Rossami (talk) 22:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I just landed on this page via search. What else would you have happen if the user types BJAODN in the search field? Kla'quot 17:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It helps many and hurts no one. -Toptomcat 01:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per CSD G4 See Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion/Redirect Archives/June 2006#BJAODN → Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense. Jesse Viviano 17:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I don't see any possibility of confusion. Someone typing this into the search bar is overwhelmingly likely to be searching for the target of the redirect. But if you do delete it then don't salt it as the salt template is also a self-reference. Haukur 18:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If you absolutely must delete it, redirect absolutely everything that links to it first. -Toptomcat 19:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I actually came to this page via that useful redirect. --20:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete; even if no encyclopedia article could be written (which is not something we can even know for sure), this is still a pointer from something that should be an article to an internal page (a page that is not itself part of the encyclopedia.) Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 13:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's mindless servitude to process. The reason that rule is there is to prevent confusion between encyclopedia articles and meta-wiki articles: in this case, there is a miniscule probability of that occuring. Acronym Finder [1] finds only the Wikipedia meaning. The first twenty Google results find only the Wikipedia meaning. If something concievably encyclopedically notable arises under that acronym or name, then we can delete the redirect as potentially harmful. As is, it harms no one and helps many. Leave it alone. -Toptomcat 02:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is one of the times where the cross-namespace redirect policy should be ignored. The acronym is much more likely to be linked than the full name (hence why I think this one should be kept and the others should be deleted). --- RockMFR 03:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per CP\M. - Sikon 14:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.Presumably the result was 'regrettable' in that the cross-namespace guidelines failed to apply to it, and thus demonstrated a hiterto unforseen weakness, rather in that the ineffiable God of Process was defied. -Toptomcat 01:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]