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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Astroburn → Daemon Tools (links to redirect • history • stats) 

The article Daemon Tools have no mention of Astroburn at all. Plus, having visited www.astroburn.com, it seems Astroburn and Daemon Tools are two independent pieces of software. Astroburn does pretty much everything that Daemon Tools do. Fleet Command (talk) 20:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to MDX file where the use of the application is mentioned. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, no! The purpose of a redirect is to help users find information about their subject of interest. But MDX file article does not have any information about Astroburn (apart from mentioning it). So, this is not a good idea. Fleet Command (talk) 11:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The retarget explains what type of program Astroburn is, and the file format it uses; strikes me this is helpful. Bridgeplayer (talk) 11:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

      • I'm afraid I have two objections:

        1. You say this because you already know what Astroburn is. That's natural for you. But this is not the case for a normal user who does not know this and comes here for information.
        2. Article MDX file is in danger of being deleted. It is already tagged for lack of notability.

        Fleet Command (talk)

• Retarget at MDX file until/if there is an article on the program, otherwise an article can be created. I don't believe deletion is better than the current redirect. --SF007 (talk) 18:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm? But didn't you just tagged that article for failing notability? Fleet Command (talk) 09:04, 18 June 2010 (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The result of the discussion was Nomination withdrawn without any opposition from other. (Non-admin Closure) Fleet Command (talk) 10:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Layer 1 switch → Ethernet hub (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Layer 1 Switch ≠ Ethernet hub. In fact, there is no such thing as a "Layer 1 switch". Layer 1 is the Physical layer, so a Layer 1 switch would essentially be a simple switch that physically opens or closes the circuit (like a light switch). This is certainly not equivalent to an Ethernet hub, and furthermore, no one would ever call such a thing a "Layer 1 switch". SnottyWong talk 16:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - 'Layer 1' is described at a couple of places in the target. The term 'Layer 1 switch' is used in many external sources - here. The redirect is certainly a plausible search term and, on the face of it, doesn't seem misleading. Naturally, I accept that this may well not be the technically correct term but that is not a requirement for a redirect. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Are you suggesting it's ok to redirect Apple to Orange? If there is such a thing as a "Layer 1 switch" (which a Google search doesn't necessarily prove), it is certainly not equivalent to an Ethernet hub, and therefore Layer 1 switch should not redirect to Ethernet hub. SnottyWong talk 18:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - please don't use straw man arguments, they don't help your case. There is no suggestion that this, or any, redirect suggests equivalence between the subjects of the redirect and target. The purpose of a redirect is simply to help a reader to find information that they may be seeking. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - No straw man arguments here, please assume good faith. My point is that an Ethernet hub is not a Layer 1 switch. It is a Layer 2 switch. So, I am simply demonstrating that this redirect is equivalent to redirecting Apple to Orange. Apple ≠ Orange. Layer 1 Switch ≠ Ethernet Hub. It's as simple as that. Please see WP:R#DELETE item 5 for more information. SnottyWong talk 18:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close - Withdraw nomination Nevermind, I believe I've nominated this in error. Thanks. SnottyWong talk 19:05, 17 June 2010 (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Good Article → Wikipedia:Good articles (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Cross-namespace redirect with little value, per WP:REDIR ╟─TreasuryTag►estoppel─╢ 07:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - deletion would break many links so it would do more harm than good. Bridgeplayer (talk) 12:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  So fixing these mis-placed links would perhaps be in order, then? ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 15:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Certainly; if all the links are retargeted I would withdraw my objection to deletion. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:R#DELETE, item 5. The links that would be broken are all links on Talk and User Talk pages where users have incorrectly typed a link (i.e. [[Good Article]] instead of [[WP:Good Article]]). Keeping this redirect will encourage users to continue creating similar incorrect links. SnottyWong talk 17:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - we don't know whether the links were mistyped or deliberately used the redirect. Either way, the fact that they are on user pages doesn't mean that loads of red links are not harmful. The presence of the redirect is undesirable but preferable to introducing a whole bunch of red links. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  We don't know whether the links were mistyped or deliberately used the redirect. Can you suggest one plausible reason why anyone would specifically choose to use that redirect over a piped link to the correct location? Because I certainly can't. ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 18:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, bad cross-namespace redirect. We shouldn't be making holes in the encyclopedia where readers may accidentally fall into the projectspace, especially for terms which are not strictly Wikipedia only. --Taelus (Talk) 10:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—cross-namespace redirect, and also not old enough to precede the division of Wikipedia into namespaces. –Grondemar 03:45, 27 June 2010 (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Good Articles → Wikipedia:Good articles (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Cross-namespace redirect with little value, per WP:REDIR ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 07:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - deletion would break many links so it would do more harm than good. Bridgeplayer (talk) 12:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  So fixing these mis-placed links would perhaps be in order, then? ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 15:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Certainly; if all the links are retargeted I would withdraw my objection to deletion. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:R#DELETE, item 5. The links that would be broken are all links on Talk and User Talk pages where users have incorrectly typed a link (i.e. [[Good Article]] instead of [[WP:Good Article]]). Keeping this redirect will encourage users to continue creating similar incorrect links. SnottyWong talk 17:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - we don't know whether the links were mistyped or deliberately used the redirect. Either way, the fact that they are on user pages doesn't mean that loads of red links are not harmful. The presence of the redirect is undesirable but preferable to introducing a whole bunch of red links. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• We don't know whether the links were mistyped or deliberately used the redirect. Can you suggest one plausible reason why anyone would specifically choose to use that redirect over a piped link to the correct location? Because I certainly can't. ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 07:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, bad cross-namespace redirect. We shouldn't be making holes in the encyclopedia where readers may accidentally fall into the projectspace, especially for terms which are not strictly Wikipedia only. --Taelus (Talk) 10:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as above. Users could end up in project namespace accidentally. --tb240904 ^{Talk Contribs} 01:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - they might; however what they would find would be directly relevant to their search and might well assist in promoting Wikipedia's offerings. The alternative, if this redirect is deleted, is to create a pile of red links that would certainly be harmful. Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—cross-namespace redirect, and also not old enough to precede the division of Wikipedia into namespaces. –Grondemar 03:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Cross-namespace redirect. Immunize _{Contact me} Contributions 19:48, 28 June 2010 (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Good topics → Wikipedia:Good topics (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Cross-namespace redirect with little value, per WP:REDIR ╟─TreasuryTag►Regent─╢ 07:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the single link can (and should) be easily fixed. No reason to keep. Bridgeplayer (talk) 13:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:R#DELETE, item 5. The links that would be broken are all links on Talk and User Talk pages where users have incorrectly typed a link (i.e. [[Good Article]] instead of [[WP:Good Article]]). Keeping this redirect will encourage users to continue creating similar incorrect links. SnottyWong talk 17:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, bad cross-namespace redirect. We shouldn't be making holes in the encyclopedia where readers may accidentally fall into the projectspace, especially for terms which are not strictly Wikipedia only. --Taelus (Talk) 10:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—cross-namespace redirect, and also not old enough to precede the division of Wikipedia into namespaces. –Grondemar 03:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Cross-namespace redirect. Immunize _{Contact me} Contributions 19:52, 28 June 2010 (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Featured topic → Wikipedia:Featured topics (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Cross-namespace redirect with little value, per WP:REDIR ╟─TreasuryTag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 07:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - deletion would break many links so it would do more harm than good. Bridgeplayer (talk) 13:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  So fixing these mis-placed links would perhaps be in order, then? ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 15:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Certainly; if all the links are retargeted I would withdraw my objection to deletion. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:R#DELETE, item 5. The links that would be broken are all links on Talk and User Talk pages where users have incorrectly typed a link (i.e. [[Good Article]] instead of [[WP:Good Article]]). Keeping this redirect will encourage users to continue creating similar incorrect links. SnottyWong talk 17:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - we don't know whether the links were mistyped or deliberately used the redirect. Either way, the fact that they are on user pages doesn't mean that loads of red links are not harmful. The presence of the redirect is undesirable but preferable to introducing a whole bunch of red links. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• We don't know whether the links were mistyped or deliberately used the redirect. Can you suggest one plausible reason why anyone would specifically choose to use that redirect over a piped link to the correct location? Because I certainly can't. ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 07:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, bad cross-namespace redirect. We shouldn't be making holes in the encyclopedia where readers may accidentally fall into the projectspace, especially for terms which are not strictly Wikipedia only. --Taelus (Talk) 10:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—cross-namespace redirect, and also not old enough to precede the division of Wikipedia into namespaces. –Grondemar 03:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Another cross-namespace redirect that should never have been created. Immunize _{Contact me} Contributions 19:50, 28 June 2010 (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Find or fix a stub → Wikipedia:Stub (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Cross-namespace redirect with little value, per WP:REDIR ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 07:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the few links can (and should) be easily fixed. No reason to keep. Bridgeplayer (talk) 13:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:R#DELETE, item 5. The links that would be broken are all links on Talk and User Talk pages where users have incorrectly typed a link (i.e. [[Good Article]] instead of [[WP:Good Article]]). Keeping this redirect will encourage users to continue creating similar incorrect links. SnottyWong talk 17:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not a plausible search term, nor should we encourage bridging from the mainspace to the projectspace like this. --Taelus (Talk) 10:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—cross-namespace redirect, and also not old enough to precede the division of Wikipedia into namespaces. –Grondemar 03:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not only does this play havoc with maintenance lists, it's not even a plausible search term.--Fabrictramp(public) (talk) 03:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Implausible search term and cross namespace redirect. Immunize _{Contact me} Contributions 19:54, 28 June 2010 (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Five pillars of Wikipedia → Wikipedia:Five pillars (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Cross-namespace redirect with little value, per WP:REDIR ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 07:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Wikipedia#Rules and laws governing content where it is mentioned. Bridgeplayer (talk) 12:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, I'd be fine with that too. ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 15:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per Bridgeplayer. It is a plausible search term, but we should be directing it to an encyclopedic description of the five pillars, not to the project space. It's worth remembering that we have many many more readers than we do editors. --Taelus (Talk) 10:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yet the link in that section directs readers to project space anyway. -- œ^™ 14:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It offers more context to the reader, as is described briefly the purpose of the pillars, then goes on to mention connected topics. Directing users here would be more beneficial in my mind than just assuming they want the list without any further reading/context. --Taelus (Talk) 15:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. -- œ^™ 15:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose re-target: Retargeting this redirect confuses searcher. A searcher would search "Five pillars of Wikipedia", forgetting to append "WP:" or "Wikipedia:" prefix. He will end up in an article and will be confused as to why he is brought there. I say keep, but even deletion is better than retarget. That way, user ends up with nothing and soon discovers that he has forgotten the search prefix. Fleet Command (talk) 16:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - If someone looking for Wikipedia:Five pillars misses out the prefix they would be taken to an article that links back to the project page. However, anyone carrying out such a search would have some experience of Wikipedia. I think that the risk with the present arrangement, that of an inexperienced user finding themselves unexpectedly in project space, is the worst of two undesirable outcomes. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmmm... I'm not convinced but let's see what other have to say and what the closing admin decides. Fleet Command (talk) 18:42, 24 June 2010 (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 to GNU Free Documentation License. NAC. —  Glenfarclas  (talk) 03:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• GFDL standardization → Wikipedia:GFDL standardization (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Cross-namespace redirect with little value, per WP:REDIR ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 07:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to GNU Free Documentation License. This redirect has some hits so it is a plausible search term. Bridgeplayer (talk) 12:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, I'd be fine with that too. ╟─TreasuryTag►international waters─╢ 15:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per Bridgeplayer. It is a plausible search term, but we should be directing it to an encyclopedic description of the topic, not to the project space, especially as in this instance it has non-wikipedia usages. --Taelus (Talk) 10:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Bridgeplayer, who found a very fitting target. This redirect has no links to it anyway. -- œ^™ 14:49, 17 June 2010 (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Feature topic → Wikipedia:Featured topics (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Cross-namespace redirect with little value, per WP:REDIR ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 07:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - nothing links here. No reason to keep. Bridgeplayer (talk) 13:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:R#DELETE, item 5. The links that would be broken are all links on Talk and User Talk pages where users have incorrectly typed a link (i.e. [[Good Article]] instead of [[WP:Good Article]]). Keeping this redirect will encourage users to continue creating similar incorrect links. SnottyWong talk 17:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, bad cross-namespace redirect. We shouldn't be making holes in the encyclopedia where readers may accidentally fall into the projectspace, especially for terms which are not strictly Wikipedia only. --Taelus (Talk) 10:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not much point in keeping a Cross-namespace redirect. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 14:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Redirects from article space to other spaces are evil, since they play havoc with maintenance lists. The incoming links wouldn't take long to fix with AWB, even less time with a 'bot, so if breaking links is the only objection, it's one that's easily solved.--Fabrictramp(public) (talk) 00:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—cross-namespace redirect, and also not old enough to precede the division of Wikipedia into namespaces. –Grondemar 03:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Cross-namespace redirect. Immunize _{Contact me} Contributions 19:55, 28 June 2010 (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Feature topics → Wikipedia:Featured topics (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Cross-namespace redirect with little value, per WP:REDIR ╟─TreasuryTag►high seas─╢ 07:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - nothing links here. No reason to keep. Bridgeplayer (talk) 13:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:R#DELETE, item 5. The links that would be broken are all links on Talk and User Talk pages where users have incorrectly typed a link (i.e. [[Good Article]] instead of [[WP:Good Article]]). Keeping this redirect will encourage users to continue creating similar incorrect links. SnottyWong talk 17:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, bad cross-namespace redirect. We shouldn't be making holes in the encyclopedia where readers may accidentally fall into the projectspace, especially for terms which are not strictly Wikipedia only. --Taelus (Talk) 10:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not much point in keeping a Cross-namespace redirect. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 14:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Redirects from article space to other spaces are evil, since they play havoc with maintenance lists. The incoming links wouldn't take long to fix with AWB, even less time with a 'bot, so if breaking links is the only objection, it's one that's easily solved.--Fabrictramp(public) (talk) 00:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—cross-namespace redirect, and also not old enough to precede the division of Wikipedia into namespaces. –Grondemar 03:48, 27 June 2010 (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Featured Article → Wikipedia:Featured articles (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Cross-namespace redirect with little value, per WP:REDIR ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 07:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Feature article which is directly relevant. Bridgeplayer (talk) 12:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Do we do redirects to disambig pages? ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 15:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see any reason why not particularly, as here, where the page is clearly relevant to searchers. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:R#DELETE, item 5. The links that would be broken are all links on Talk and User Talk pages where users have incorrectly typed a link (i.e. [[Good Article]] instead of [[WP:Good Article]]). Keeping this redirect will encourage users to continue creating similar incorrect links. SnottyWong talk 17:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Feature article. Redirecting this to a dab page is perfectly fine, considering it's just one letter off, and could probably be categorized as a redirect from alternative spelling. It would save a lot of links too (almost 500) from being needlessly broken. -- œ^™ 14:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Redirects from article space to other spaces are evil, since they play havoc with maintenance lists. The incoming links wouldn't take long to fix with AWB, even less time with a 'bot, so if breaking links is the only objection, it's one that's easily solved.--Fabrictramp(public) (talk) 00:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • But what's the point of mucking around with AWB fixing links when we can just retarget to the same title (minus 1 letter) in mainspace? It doesn't make sense to delete this when we have such an obvious and viable alternative target already in mainspace. And the fact that it's a dab page doesn't make any difference. -- œ^™ 18:10, 28 June 2010 (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Featured list → Wikipedia:Featured lists (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Cross-namespace redirect with little value, per WP:REDIR ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 07:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - deletion would break many links so it would do more harm than good. Bridgeplayer (talk) 12:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  So fixing these mis-placed links would perhaps be in order, then? ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 15:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Certainly; if all the links are retargeted I would withdraw my objection to deletion. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:R#DELETE, item 5. The links that would be broken are all links on Talk and User Talk pages where users have incorrectly typed a link (i.e. [[Good Article]] instead of [[WP:Good Article]]). Keeping this redirect will encourage users to continue creating similar incorrect links. SnottyWong talk 17:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - we don't know whether the links were mistyped or deliberately used the redirect. Either way, the fact that they are on user pages doesn't mean that loads of red links are not harmful. The presence of the redirect is undesirable but preferable to introducing a whole bunch of red links. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• We don't know whether the links were mistyped or deliberately used the redirect. Can you suggest one plausible reason why anyone would specifically choose to use that redirect over a piped link to the correct location? Because I certainly can't. ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 07:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, bad cross-namespace redirect. We shouldn't be making holes in the encyclopedia where readers may accidentally fall into the projectspace, especially for terms which are not strictly Wikipedia only. --Taelus (Talk) 10:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Redirects from article space to other spaces are evil, since they play havoc with maintenance lists. The incoming links wouldn't take long to fix with AWB, even less time with a 'bot, so if breaking links is the only objection, it's one that's easily solved.--Fabrictramp(public) (talk) 00:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—cross-namespace redirect, and also not old enough to precede the division of Wikipedia into namespaces. –Grondemar 03:49, 27 June 2010 (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Featured picture → Wikipedia:Featured pictures (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Cross-namespace redirect with little value, per WP:REDIR ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 07:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - deletion would break many links so it would do more harm than good. Bridgeplayer (talk) 12:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  So fixing these mis-placed links would perhaps be in order, then? ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 15:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Certainly; if all the links are retargeted I would withdraw my objection to deletion. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:R#DELETE, item 5. The links that would be broken are all links on Talk and User Talk pages where users have incorrectly typed a link (i.e. [[Good Article]] instead of [[WP:Good Article]]). Keeping this redirect will encourage users to continue creating similar incorrect links. SnottyWong talk 17:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - we don't know whether the links were mistyped or deliberately used the redirect. Either way, the fact that they are on user pages doesn't mean that loads of red links are not harmful. The presence of the redirect is undesirable but preferable to introducing a whole bunch of red links. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• We don't know whether the links were mistyped or deliberately used the redirect. Can you suggest one plausible reason why anyone would specifically choose to use that redirect over a piped link to the correct location? Because I certainly can't. ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 07:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, bad cross-namespace redirect. We shouldn't be making holes in the encyclopedia where readers may accidentally fall into the projectspace, especially for terms which are not strictly Wikipedia only. --Taelus (Talk) 10:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Redirects from article space to other spaces are evil, since they play havoc with maintenance lists. The incoming links wouldn't take long to fix with AWB, even less time with a 'bot, so if breaking links is the only objection, it's one that's easily solved.--Fabrictramp(public) (talk) 00:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—cross-namespace redirect, and also not old enough to precede the division of Wikipedia into namespaces. –Grondemar 03:50, 27 June 2010 (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Featured pictures → Wikipedia:Featured pictures (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Cross-namespace redirect with little value, per WP:REDIR ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 07:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - deletion would break many links so it would do more harm than good. Bridgeplayer (talk) 12:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  So fixing these mis-placed links would perhaps be in order, then? ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 15:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Certainly; if all the links are retargeted I would withdraw my objection to deletion. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:R#DELETE, item 5. The links that would be broken are all links on Talk and User Talk pages where users have incorrectly typed a link (i.e. [[Good Article]] instead of [[WP:Good Article]]). Keeping this redirect will encourage users to continue creating similar incorrect links. SnottyWong talk 17:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - we don't know whether the links were mistyped or deliberately used the redirect. Either way, the fact that they are on user pages doesn't mean that loads of red links are not harmful. The presence of the redirect is undesirable but preferable to introducing a whole bunch of red links. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• We don't know whether the links were mistyped or deliberately used the redirect. Can you suggest one plausible reason why anyone would specifically choose to use that redirect over a piped link to the correct location? Because I certainly can't. ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 07:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• R5 is "makes no sense, as redirecting apple to orange." That doesn't apply; there is no better mainspace alternative suggested. Many users are aware of the featured picture series and wish to access it. The redirect enables access by entering a search query or directly typing a URL. Potatoswatter (talk) 19:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, bad cross-namespace redirect. We shouldn't be making holes in the encyclopedia where readers may accidentally fall into the projectspace, especially for terms which are not strictly Wikipedia only. --Taelus (Talk) 10:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, casual users are likely to use the redirect not knowing or caring about namespaces, such as from the Firefox search bar. Changing current events to redirect to news works because a header template at news informs such users and sends them along properly. If a suitable destination can be found for this, I'd be for that, but deletion will do more harm than good. Potatoswatter (talk) 18:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Casual users are unlikely to search for the term "featured pictures" – WP:XNR is pretty clear on this. ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 21:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• According to the first "argument for keeping a redirect" on WP:XNR, it's an unlikely *encyclopedic search term* but a likely *query*. A casual user who is aware of featured pictures will ask for "featured pictures" and not stop to think about namespaces. This is a perfect example of WP:XNR's first argument to keep the redirect. Potatoswatter (talk) 09:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Redirects from article space to other spaces are evil, since they play havoc with maintenance lists. The incoming links wouldn't take long to fix with AWB, even less time with a 'bot, so if breaking links is the only objection, it's one that's easily solved.--Fabrictramp(public) (talk) 00:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—cross-namespace redirect, and also not old enough to precede the division of Wikipedia into namespaces. –Grondemar 03:51, 27 June 2010 (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Featured portals → Portal:Featured portals (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Cross-namespace redirect with little value, per WP:REDIR ╟─TreasuryTag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 07:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - nothing links here. No reason to keep. Bridgeplayer (talk) 13:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:R#DELETE, item 5. The links that would be broken are all links on Talk and User Talk pages where users have incorrectly typed a link (i.e. [[Good Article]] instead of [[WP:Good Article]]). Keeping this redirect will encourage users to continue creating similar incorrect links. SnottyWong talk 17:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Redirects from article space to other spaces are evil, since they play havoc with maintenance lists. The incoming links wouldn't take long to fix with AWB, even less time with a 'bot, so if breaking links is the only objection, it's one that's easily solved.--Fabrictramp(public) (talk) 00:18, 27 June 2010 (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 to DAB. Lenticel ^(talk) 01:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Dab page → Wikipedia:Disambiguation (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Cross-namespace redirect with little value, per WP:REDIR ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 07:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to DAB where searchers should find what they are seeking. At present, it is likely to be confusing since readers might expect to find Digital Audio Broadcasting, for example. The stats show that this is a plausible search term. Bridgeplayer (talk) 13:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to DAB per Bridgeplayer. New target has a handy selfref hatnote link to Wikipedia:Disambiguation anyway so readers will still be pointed to what they're looking for in any case. -- œ^™ 15:00, 17 June 2010 (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleting an article → Wikipedia:Deletion policy (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Cross-namespace redirect with little value, per WP:REDIR ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 07:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - deletion would break many links so it would do more harm than good. Bridgeplayer (talk) 13:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  So fixing these mis-placed links would perhaps be in order, then? ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 15:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Certainly; if all the links are retargeted I would withdraw my objection to deletion. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:R#DELETE, item 5. The links that would be broken are all links on Talk and User Talk pages where users have incorrectly typed a link (i.e. [[Good Article]] instead of [[WP:Good Article]]). Keeping this redirect will encourage users to continue creating similar incorrect links. SnottyWong talk 17:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - we don't know whether the links were mistyped or deliberately used the redirect. Either way, the fact that they are on user pages doesn't mean that loads of red links are not harmful. The presence of the redirect is undesirable but preferable to introducing a whole bunch of red links. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• We don't know whether the links were mistyped or deliberately used the redirect. Can you suggest one plausible reason why anyone would specifically choose to use that redirect over a piped link to the correct location? Because I certainly can't. ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 07:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Only editors would find this useful, not readers, and although I can see how this would be helpful to new editors who are not yet familiar with navigating to project space, being new users they have no business knowing about deleting articles anyway. There's also not a whole lot of links to this redirect, and with no viable page to retarget to it's better of Deleted. -- œ^™ 15:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Redirects from article space to other spaces are evil, since they play havoc with maintenance lists. The incoming links wouldn't take long to fix with AWB, even less time with a 'bot, so if breaking links is the only objection, it's one that's easily solved.--Fabrictramp(public) (talk) 00:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Cross-namespace redirect. Immunize _{Contact me} Contributions 19:56, 28 June 2010 (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Bypass your cache → Wikipedia:Bypass your cache (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Cross-namespace redirect with little value, per WP:REDIR ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 07:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - deletion would break many links so it would do more harm than good. Bridgeplayer (talk) 13:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  So fixing these mis-placed links would perhaps be in order, then? ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 15:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Certainly; if all the links are retargeted I would withdraw my objection to deletion. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:R#DELETE, item 5. The links that would be broken are all links on Talk and User Talk pages where users have incorrectly typed a link (i.e. [[Good Article]] instead of [[WP:Good Article]]). Keeping this redirect will encourage users to continue creating similar incorrect links. SnottyWong talk 17:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - we don't know whether the links were mistyped or deliberately used the redirect. Either way, the fact that they are on user pages doesn't mean that loads of red links are not harmful. The presence of the redirect is undesirable but preferable to introducing a whole bunch of red links. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• We don't know whether the links were mistyped or deliberately used the redirect. Can you suggest one plausible reason why anyone would specifically choose to use that redirect over a piped link to the correct location? Because I certainly can't. ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 07:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia has nothing to do with bypassing a write-back cache 70.29.212.131 (talk) 04:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Redirects from article space to other spaces are evil, since they play havoc with maintenance lists. The incoming links wouldn't take long to fix with AWB, even less time with a 'bot, so if breaking links is the only objection, it's one that's easily solved.--Fabrictramp(public) (talk) 00:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Cross-namespace redirect. Immunize _{Contact me} Contributions 20:00, 28 June 2010 (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. Lenticel ^(talk) 01:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Article histories → Help:Page history (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Cross-namespace redirect with little value, per WP:REDIR ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 07:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the few links can (and should) be easily fixed. No reason to keep. Bridgeplayer (talk) 13:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:R#DELETE, item 5. The links that would be broken are all links on Talk and User Talk pages where users have incorrectly typed a link (i.e. [[Good Article]] instead of [[WP:Good Article]]). Keeping this redirect will encourage users to continue creating similar incorrect links. SnottyWong talk 17:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not much point in keeping a Cross-namespace redirect. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2010 (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Article length → Wikipedia:Article size (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Cross-namespace redirect with little value, per WP:REDIR ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 07:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - deletion would break many links so it would do more harm than good. Bridgeplayer (talk) 13:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  So fixing these mis-placed links would perhaps be in order, then? ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 15:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Certainly; if all the links are retargeted I would withdraw my objection to deletion. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:R#DELETE, item 5. The links that would be broken are all links on Talk and User Talk pages where users have incorrectly typed a link (i.e. [[Good Article]] instead of [[WP:Good Article]]). Keeping this redirect will encourage users to continue creating similar incorrect links. SnottyWong talk 17:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - we don't know whether the links were mistyped or deliberately used the redirect. Either way, the fact that they are on user pages doesn't mean that loads of red links are not harmful. The presence of the redirect is undesirable but preferable to introducing a whole bunch of red links. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• We don't know whether the links were mistyped or deliberately used the redirect. Can you suggest one plausible reason why anyone would specifically choose to use that redirect over a piped link to the correct location? Because I certainly can't. ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 07:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Redirects from article space to other spaces are evil, since they play havoc with maintenance lists. The incoming links wouldn't take long to fix with AWB, even less time with a 'bot, so if breaking links is the only objection, it's one that's easily solved.--Fabrictramp(public) (talk) 00:31, 27 June 2010 (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Articles for speedy deletion → Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Cross-namespace redirect with little value, per WP:REDIR ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 07:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the two links can (and should) be easily fixed. No reason to keep. Bridgeplayer (talk) 13:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:R#DELETE, item 5. The links that would be broken are all links on Talk and User Talk pages where users have incorrectly typed a link (i.e. [[Good Article]] instead of [[WP:Good Article]]). Keeping this redirect will encourage users to continue creating similar incorrect links. SnottyWong talk 17:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Redirects from article space to other spaces are evil, since they play havoc with maintenance lists. The incoming links wouldn't take long to fix with AWB, even less time with a 'bot, so if breaking links is the only objection, it's one that's easily solved.--Fabrictramp(public) (talk) 00:31, 27 June 2010 (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Block policy → Wikipedia:Blocking policy (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Cross-namespace redirect with little value, per WP:REDIR ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 07:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - deletion would break many links so it would do more harm than good. Bridgeplayer (talk) 13:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:SOFIXIT. ╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 17:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• My view is that those proposing deletion should fix the links! Whilst the redirect is undesirable, I am not sure of the harm that it causes so I am not pressing for deletion. However; if the links are all retargeted then that would meet my concern so I would withdraw my objection to deletion. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:R#DELETE, item 5. The links that would be broken are all links on Talk and User Talk pages where users have incorrectly typed a link (i.e. [[Good Article]] instead of [[WP:Good Article]]). Keeping this redirect will encourage users to continue creating similar incorrect links. SnottyWong talk 17:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - we don't know whether the links were mistyped or deliberately used the redirect. Either way, the fact that they are on user pages doesn't mean that loads of red links are not harmful. The presence of the redirect is undesirable but preferable to introducing a whole bunch of red links. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• We don't know whether the links were mistyped or deliberately used the redirect. Can you suggest one plausible reason why anyone would specifically choose to use that redirect over a piped link to the correct location? Because I certainly can't. ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 07:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Redirects from article space to other spaces are evil, since they play havoc with maintenance lists. The incoming links wouldn't take long to fix with AWB, even less time with a 'bot, so if breaking links is the only objection, it's one that's easily solved.--Fabrictramp(public) (talk) 00:18, 27 June 2010 (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocking policy → Wikipedia:Blocking policy (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Cross-namespace redirect with little value, per WP:REDIR ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 07:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - deletion would break many links so it would do more harm than good. Bridgeplayer (talk) 12:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  So fixing these mis-placed links would perhaps be in order, then? ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 15:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Certainly; if all the links are retargeted I would withdraw my objection to deletion. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:R#DELETE, item 5. The links that would be broken are all links on Talk and User Talk pages where users have incorrectly typed a link (i.e. [[Good Article]] instead of [[WP:Good Article]]). Keeping this redirect will encourage users to continue creating similar incorrect links. SnottyWong talk 17:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - we don't know whether the links were mistyped or deliberately used the redirect. Either way, the fact that they are on user pages doesn't mean that loads of red links are not harmful. The presence of the redirect is undesirable but preferable to introducing a whole bunch of red links. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• We don't know whether the links were mistyped or deliberately used the redirect. Can you suggest one plausible reason why anyone would specifically choose to use that redirect over a piped link to the correct location? Because I certainly can't. ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 07:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Redirects from article space to other spaces are evil, since they play havoc with maintenance lists. The incoming links wouldn't take long to fix with AWB, even less time with a 'bot, so if breaking links is the only objection, it's one that's easily solved.--Fabrictramp(public) (talk) 00:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Cross-namespace redirect. Immunize _{Contact me} Contributions 13:28, 29 June 2010 (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Asteroid pronunciation key → Wikipedia:Pronunciation respelling key (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Cross-namespace redirect with little value, per WP:REDIR ╟─TreasuryTag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 07:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Pronunciation of asteroid names which is directly relevant. This redirect gets hits so it is a plausible search term. Bridgeplayer (talk) 12:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Seems reasonable. ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 15:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per Bridgeplayer above. Robofish (talk) 00:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget for sure.--Fabrictramp(public) (talk) 00:30, 27 June 2010 (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

• Be bold in editing articles → Wikipedia:Be bold (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Cross-namespace redirect with little value, per WP:REDIR ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 07:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - deletion would break many links so it would do more harm than good. Bridgeplayer (talk) 13:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  So fixing these mis-placed links would perhaps be in order, then? ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 15:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Certainly; if all the links are retargeted I would withdraw my objection to deletion. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:R#DELETE, item 5. The links that would be broken are all links on Talk and User Talk pages where users have incorrectly typed a link (i.e. [[Good Article]] instead of [[WP:Good Article]]). Keeping this redirect will encourage users to continue creating similar incorrect links. SnottyWong talk 17:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - we don't know whether the links were mistyped or deliberately used the redirect. Either way, the fact that they are on user pages doesn't mean that loads of red links are not harmful. The presence of the redirect is undesirable but preferable to introducing a whole bunch of red links. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• We don't know whether the links were mistyped or deliberately used the redirect. Can you suggest one plausible reason why anyone would specifically choose to use that redirect over a piped link to the correct location? Because I certainly can't. ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 07:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Redirects from article space to other spaces are evil, since they play havoc with maintenance lists. The incoming links wouldn't take long to fix with AWB, even less time with a 'bot, so if breaking links is the only objection, it's one that's easily solved.--Fabrictramp(public) (talk) 00:18, 27 June 2010 (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Assume bad faith → Wikipedia:Assume bad faith (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Cross-namespace redirect with little value, per WP:REDIR ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 07:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - deletion would break many links so it would do more harm than good. Bridgeplayer (talk) 12:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  So fixing these mis-placed links would perhaps be in order, then? ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 15:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Certainly; if all the links are retargeted I would withdraw my objection to deletion. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:R#DELETE, item 5. The links that would be broken are all links on Talk and User Talk pages where users have incorrectly typed a link (i.e. [[Good Article]] instead of [[WP:Good Article]]). Keeping this redirect will encourage users to continue creating similar incorrect links. SnottyWong talk 17:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - we don't know whether the links were mistyped or deliberately used the redirect. Either way, the fact that they are on user pages doesn't mean that loads of red links are not harmful. The presence of the redirect is undesirable but preferable to introducing a whole bunch of red links. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• We don't know whether the links were mistyped or deliberately used the redirect. Can you suggest one plausible reason why anyone would specifically choose to use that redirect over a piped link to the correct location? Because I certainly can't. ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 07:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Redirects from article space to other spaces are evil, since they play havoc with maintenance lists. The incoming links wouldn't take long to fix with AWB, even less time with a 'bot, so if breaking links is the only objection, it's one that's easily solved.--Fabrictramp(public) (talk) 00:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Another cross-namespace redirect. Immunize _{Contact me} Contributions 13:30, 29 June 2010 (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Assumed bad faith → Wikipedia:Assume good faith (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Cross-namespace redirect with little value, per WP:REDIR ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 07:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - deletion would break many links so it would do more harm than good. Bridgeplayer (talk) 12:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  So fixing these mis-placed links would perhaps be in order, then? ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 15:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Certainly; if all the links are retargeted I would withdraw my objection to deletion. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:R#DELETE, item 5. The links that would be broken are all links on Talk and User Talk pages where users have incorrectly typed a link (i.e. [[Good Article]] instead of [[WP:Good Article]]). Keeping this redirect will encourage users to continue creating similar incorrect links. SnottyWong talk 17:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - we don't know whether the links were mistyped or deliberately used the redirect. Either way, the fact that they are on user pages doesn't mean that loads of red links are not harmful. The presence of the redirect is undesirable but preferable to introducing a whole bunch of red links. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• We don't know whether the links were mistyped or deliberately used the redirect. Can you suggest one plausible reason why anyone would specifically choose to use that redirect over a piped link to the correct location? Because I certainly can't. ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 07:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Redirects from article space to other spaces are evil, since they play havoc with maintenance lists. The incoming links wouldn't take long to fix with AWB, even less time with a 'bot, so if breaking links is the only objection, it's one that's easily solved.--Fabrictramp(public) (talk) 00:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Cross-namespace links should be allowed only in exceptional instances, in my view. This isn't one. Herostratus (talk) 04:52, 28 June 2010 (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Assume Good Faith → Wikipedia:Assume good faith (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Cross-namespace redirect with little value, per WP:REDIR ╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 07:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Good faith #Good faith in wikis which is directly relevant. Bridgeplayer (talk) 11:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, seems fair. ╟─TreasuryTag►high seas─╢ 15:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:R#DELETE, item 5. The links that would be broken are all links on Talk and User Talk pages where users have incorrectly typed a link (i.e. [[Good Article]] instead of [[WP:Good Article]]). Keeping this redirect will encourage users to continue creating similar incorrect links. SnottyWong talk 17:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Good faith #Good faith in wikis which is actually a very good target for this. Nice find Bridgeplayer. -- œ^™ 15:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Good faith #Good faith in wikis per those above. :) -Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Redirects from article space to other spaces are evil, since they play havoc with maintenance lists. The incoming links wouldn't take long to fix with AWB, even less time with a 'bot, so if breaking links is the only objection, it's one that's easily solved.--Fabrictramp(public) (talk) 00:18, 27 June 2010 (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Cross-namespace redirects → Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Beautiful irony, but should nevertheless be deleted as per WP:REDIR ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 07:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the few links can (and should) be easily fixed. No reason to keep. Bridgeplayer (talk) 13:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:R#DELETE, item 5. The links that would be broken are all links on Talk and User Talk pages where users have incorrectly typed a link (i.e. [[Good Article]] instead of [[WP:Good Article]]). Keeping this redirect will encourage users to continue creating similar incorrect links. SnottyWong talk 17:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not much point in keeping a Cross-namespace redirect. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Redirects from article space to other spaces are evil, since they play havoc with maintenance lists. The incoming links wouldn't take long to fix with AWB, even less time with a 'bot, so if breaking links is the only objection, it's one that's easily solved.--Fabrictramp(public) (talk) 00:29, 27 June 2010 (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikiblame → Wikipedia:WikiBlame (links to redirect • history • stats) 
• WikiBlame → Wikipedia:WikiBlame (links to redirect • history • stats)

XNR that would easily come up on a search results —Duncan^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 05:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—cross namespace redirect. ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 07:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or action as below - redirects from article space to project space are undesirable and there is no good reason to keep this. I also nominate WikiBlame, for the same reason. Bridgeplayer (talk) 10:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While I agree that cross-namespace redirects in article space are often undesirable, there are quite a few reasons when they are desirable and imho, this is one of them. Wikiblame is a often used tool by many editors and has been mentioned in a few news sources. As such, people expect to see an article about it here. As such, WP:R#KEEP #3 applies and imho so does #5: Usefulness is a valid reason to have a redirect (unlike articles) and this one is useful. It's irrelevant how many people find it useful, I for one do. I see no reason to delete this redirect based on WP:R since two keep-reasons exist. Regards SoWhy 12:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the target is arguably in the wrong namespace. If it is mentioned in news sources then it may be notable and it can be moved over to main space. However, this search draws a blank. Failing that, adding it to List of wiki software, and then retargeting the redirect, is a possible alternative. Either would preserve the utility of the redirect whilst bringing this software to a wider audience. Bridgeplayer (talk) 12:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - simply put, this redirect is not needed. It's not going to be mentioned in any article, and our shortcuts are things that fairly-established users are familiar with, so there's no risk of a new user wanting to WikiLink this redirect anyway. It's useless. It should have it's own shortcut. We'll find that. —Duncan^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 15:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as cross-name space redirect.--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:29, 21 June 2010 (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 all. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• DDR Freak → Dance Dance Revolution (links to redirect • history • stats)
• DDR Freka → Dance Dance Revolution (links to redirect • history • stats)
• DDR freak → Dance Dance Revolution (links to redirect • history • stats)
• DDRFreak → Dance Dance Revolution (links to redirect • history • stats)
• DDRFreak.com → Dance Dance Revolution (links to redirect • history • stats)
• DDRFreka → Dance Dance Revolution (links to redirect • history • stats)
• DDRManiaX → Dance Dance Revolution (links to redirect • history • stats)
• DDr Freak → Dance Dance Revolution (links to redirect • history • stats)
• DdR Freak → Dance Dance Revolution (links to redirect • history • stats)
• Ddr freak → Dance Dance Revolution (links to redirect • history • stats)
• Ddrfreak → Dance Dance Revolution (links to redirect • history • stats)
• DidderFreak → Dance Dance Revolution (links to redirect • history • stats)
• Freak of DDR → Dance Dance Revolution (links to redirect • history • stats)
• Freak of Didder → Dance Dance Revolution (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Delete all, unexpected redirect. I imagine at one point the articles for these DDR fan sites existed but they don't now, and I was the one who redirected them to Dance Dance Revolution two years ago expecting that I or someone else would immediately recreate them. I now view that as a mistake and think they should all be deleted until the articles come back. Most of these are unlikely search terms regardless.  æronphonehome  01:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It looks to me like these were created as redirects, not that they were ever an article, but I guess I'm missing something. Anyway, I'm guessing they were created to advertise the website, which is not currently mentioned at the target. Time to clean up.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 01:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - none of these are mentioned in the target and there is no other reasonable retarget that I can track down. Keeping them would be confusing to a searcher. Bridgeplayer (talk) 09:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all—drivelly and pointless. ╟─TreasuryTag►high seas─╢ 09:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]