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 per nom. Ruslik_Zero 16:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• United Nations General Assembly resolution 67/17 → United Nations General Assembly resolution 67/19 (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

It should redirect to List of resolutions at the sixty-seventh session of the United Nations General Assembly, which is where the content on resolution 67/17 is. One editor insists on redirecting it to resolution 67/19, so I'm bringing it here. WilyD 21:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• A/RES/67/19 which "APPROVED Status of Palestine in the United Nations." was mislabeled 67/17.
• Why would we redirect it to a page where people will think it is: A/RES/67/17 "APPROVED Sport as a means to promote education, health, development and peace."??

I have corrected all the incorrect article talk page links, and there are just a couple user talk page links. See here.] So it is now ok to DELETE the redirect. CarolMooreDC 22:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per nomination statement. This should not redirect to an incorrect location, and there is no benefit to deleting it as it's doing no harm if redirected to the list. If the misunderstanding was wider than Wikipedia (I've not looked) then we're doing readers a service by educating them about the error. Thryduulf (talk) 23:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 00:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Retarget per nom. The fact that it was initially misnamed is no reason to suspect that anyone will know about this mistake. If anyone is hypothetically looking for 67/17 in the future, they will NOT expect to find an article solely about 67/19. If there is to be no separate article on 67/17, then it should either be deleted or redirected to the main article about the session. --Jayron32 19:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Im guessing you mean redirect to the list of resolution and not the UNGA 67 page? As that is more appropriate (and similar to non-notable UNSC resolutions)Lihaas (talk) 05:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Keep. Ruslik_Zero 16:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:SPIDER → Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Surely better a redirect to WikiProject Spiders? Rcsprinter (shout) @ 21:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as is. If were were starting from scratch, then yes it probably would be better to point this at the spiders WikiProject. However, whenever the retargetting of a WP shortcut is proposed it is most important to see what existing uses of it are. In this case there are hundreds, if not thousands, of links and every single one of them that I looked at was clearly intending to link to the current target, and changing it would break links going back to 2006. With this level of entrenched usage, even if all the existing uses were changed new ones would continue to be added. Thryduulf (talk) 21:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget: A WP layman would never get this redirect. Redirects are supposed to help laymen pbp 06:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a purpose of article redirects, yes. WP: shortcuts though are for the convenience of editors in referring to project pages, and this redirect has long been established as a link to the present target - changing this would break links now and in the future (as many people will continue to expect it to refer to the present target for many years). Anyone looking for the spiders WikiProject only has to click the link in the hatnote at the target. Thryduulf (talk) 15:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Wikipedia:WikiProject Spiders; incoming links can be fixed. The WikiProject should not be deprived of its most likely project redirect for what amounts to a joke. bd2412 T 02:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • WP:SPIDER (current target) is not a joke, but simply a humorously presented piece of serious advice - don't take things too seriously. A WikiProject is no more or less deserving of a given redirect than any other page, particularly when changing the target would disrupt hundreds or more of up-to 6-year old discussions. Show me a significant number of uses where people are using this redirect thinking it's the Wikiproject and I'll reconsider, but in two sessions of looking I've not found a single one - strongly suggesting that the disruption and future confusion would bring no benefit, particularly as the project has not seen it desirable to create WP:SPIDERS. Thryduulf (talk) 14:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It was and still is valuable advice, and afaik referred to rather commonly. And: what Thryduulf said. Lectonar (talk) 14:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I just actually followed a link from somewhere and got this silly proposal instead. Retargeting a shortcut will cause immense confusion. Yes, the existing links can be fixed but people will continue to use the shortcut for a long time without checking where it goes (why should they, they already "know" where it goes) and will end up saying something they really didn't intend. SpinningSpark 21:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the three keeps above me. I attempted to use this earlier, and click through it (both intended for REICHSTAG, not WPSPIDERS) and ended up at this page due to the now soft-redirect and RfD nature of the page. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 07:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 16:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Taurus Bike → Segway PT (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

I found a link for Taurus bike at http://www.designbuzz.com/taurus-bike-no-paddle-no-seat-no-cushiness/ and it looks nothing like a Segway. I have no idea why this is redirect here Ego White Tray (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The history can almost certainly be explained by [1]. I'm not sure either concept is notable enough for an article though? Thryduulf (talk) 18:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, this over-promoted gizmo is "like a Segway"? That's a really tenuous connection. I don't see any notability for this bike and no evidence that the one you linked to is the primary Taurus bike, and this redirect is probably best deleted. It won't make any sense to most people and there's no reason to include it in the Segway article. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, the redirect was almost certainly created for the product I linked to created by the company that makes Segways as that would be a logical use of the redirect. The product you found just happens to share the same name. I agree that neither seems to be notable. Thryduulf (talk) 07:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 16:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• British Columbia general election, 2011 → British Columbia general election, 2013 (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Delete. There was no general election in 2011, and that year falls half way between actual general elections. 117Avenue (talk) 08:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• retarget to List of British Columbia general elections, it seems there is no fixed schedule for the general elections so it's not as implausible as it might be. The title does get hits, so I think retargetting is better than deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 13:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hits are likely coming from people looking for the Vancouver-Point Grey by-election. Template:Infobox Canada electoral district is not set up to handle by-elections. 117Avenue (talk) 00:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as noted by 117Avenue. The article, such as it was, should never have been created in the first place. PKT(alk) 16:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I take exception to "should never have been created in the first place". There was a good reason to create it, and it was a redirect, not an article, but that reason no longer exists. -Rrius (talk) 17:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there was no election that year, there was no reason to create the thing. PKT(alk) 00:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's just wrong, as discussed below. Redirects aren't articles. -Rrius (talk) 09:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy? If I recall correctly, I created this because, at the time, there was significant press speculation that a snap election would be called shortly after the Liberal leadership election so I created the redirect to funnel searches based on mistaken information to the correct article. In the event, there was no snap election and it is hard to see how anyone would search for a non-existent 2011 general election. -Rrius (talk) 17:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there was notable speculation at the time then it seems possible that someone reading contemporary sources will search for this now as they did then. Thryduulf (talk) 17:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But if it was based on speculation, then it violated WP:NOTCRYSTAL. PKT(alk) 00:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The creation of the redirect in 2011 was not wrong, many people were expecting an election. This is also why the article was moved from 2013 title, and the discussion on its talk now stands as an establishment of a new naming convention, where we don't predict the stability of the current assemblies. However, the election wasn't called, and 2011 now stands half way between actual election years. How do we know that people won't enter it looking for the election that elected the members of the assembly that sat in 2011? 117Avenue (talk) 00:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe PKT doesn't understand, but the page was created as a redirect. CRYSTAL doesn't apply to the creation of redirects. Creating British Columbia general election, 2011 as a redirect is not a prediction that the election will happen in 2011 (as moving the page there would be); it is merely a prediction that under the circumstances that existed then, people might have searched for it. The point of a redirect is to get people who search for a thing to the right page. It seemed obvious to me that the persistent speculation would give rise to a mistaken impression among enough people that the redirect might be useful. To Thryduulf's point, I don't think so. And if they did, searching for a 2011 election would bring up the 2013 election as the first hit. The same did not seem to follow for "42nd general election", which is why I created the redirect. Maybe it would have, maybe it wouldn't have. But the important point is that it is unlikely anyone is now or in the future going to search for a 2011 election based on a 2011 article speculating that an election might happen. The same was not true when the speculation was still live. -Rrius (talk) 09:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So then why are there consistently 20-40 people viewing this redirect each month? What harm does having this redirect to either the 2013 article or the list of general elections do? (note I'll mark it with ((R from incorrect title))). Thryduulf (talk) 10:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Due to a bug in an infobox, it is incorrectly being linked to from Vancouver-Point Grey. 117Avenue (talk) 22:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per 117Avenue. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 00:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

mov pre precedence on these things when there is no general election but content on it, we can move it to Next British Columbia general election and wen the date is known then we can fix it. Ah! so its 2013, not sure wha the 2011 content is on then..Lihaas (talk) 05:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete outright: No election, so probably not a likely search term pbp 06:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 16:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• What you need to know about a fuel cell → Fuel cell (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

This seems like an unlikely search term, and it was created by someone "deleting" a badly written article. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 01:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep whether you think it unlikely or not it gets more hits than background noise (not suprising given the length of time this has existed) and is harmless, so there is no benefit in deleting. Thryduulf (talk) 13:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 8 hits last month, 3 the month before - looks exactly like background noise to me. I doubt any of those people actually found this redirect useful, rather they just randomly stumbled across it. 82.132.217.233 (talk) 20:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - old, and therefor likely to be externally linked. Useful for navigation. No argument has been presented to advocate deletion, nor can I imagine one. 09:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilyD (talk • contribs)
• Delete Search page clutter, so not harmless. I wish we had a way to set a redirect to be excluded from the search page. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 10:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well ((unprintworthy)) should partly do that (it's currently broken though, see Help talk:Searching #Unprintworthy redirects are not being excluded from the search dropdown as expected). Beyond that would require developer action, and they wont do anything without community consensus that a feature is desirable. If you are interested in pursuing it then I'd float the idea at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) (drop me a note if you do). Thryduulf (talk) 15:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Readers typing "what you need" in the search box (e.g. trying to find information about the TV episode, song or album) should not be presented with this as a suggestion in the drop-down. This should have been an A10 deletion at the time and if created today I'm sure everyone would agree it should be deleted. There is no chance this is externally linked as the article only existed for 3 minutes before being redirected so the fact that it is old is not an issue. This is of no use to anyone. 82.132.217.233 (talk) 20:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you ever clicked on a link and got lead to a 404 error? Your first instinct is probably to blame the website that has the link, but the blame is misplaced. The target website is the one that deleted content, it is the target's fault that you found a dead link. There are likely links from elsewhere on the web pointing here (and we have no way of knowing) and there is no reason to kill this link for other web pages. Ego White Tray (talk) 22:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand that link rot is an issue we must consider but why would anyone have linked to this? People link to articles not random redirects like this. You think that someone linked to it in the 3 minutes that it was an article?! I suppose it is possible but by that theory we would have to keep every bit of crap ever created forever. If we do that Wikipedia will get very cluttered and unmanageable. We shouldn't keep useless crap just because it is old. 82.132.248.44 (talk) 02:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOTFAQ -- 70.24.245.172 (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - [2] 'Nuff said. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 23:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Far too clunky, so I think I have to call WP:IAR on this one. Yeah, it gets a few hits, but I think we're letting technical data overrule common sense. WP's purpose is to "tell you what you need to know." If I came to WP to find out "what I needed to know about a fuel cell," I'd simply type in "fuel cell" to get to the article and state reading. MSJapan (talk) 03:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The purpose of redirects is to allow people to find articles. That you do not use this redirect is irrelevant - some people do and there is no reason to inconvenience them. To me the common sense course of action is to keep a redirect that is useful to some people and which does no harm. Thryduulf (talk) 14:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:NOTFAQ certainly applies. Also, this reads like someone's personal opinion rather than an unbiased title for an encyclopedic article. Last but not least, any argument for keeping could be applied to a title where only the topic is changed, leading to nothing but clutter. Nageh (talk) 16:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are correct that this would not make a good article title, but this is not an article. Redirects exist to enable people to find articles, see WP:RNEUTRAL for an explanation of why redirects from non-neutral titles are acceptable. I wouldn't recommend creating any other redirects from this title, but there is no benefit to be gained from deletion. Marking the redirect as ((unprintworthy)) (which it is) should remove it from the search drop-down (although this feature is currently broken for an unknown reason) meaning there is no clutter. Thryduulf (talk) 14:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seriously, nobody who is going to look for information on fuel cells will enter "what you need to know about a fuel cell". In fact, it is close to certainty that a person starting to enter "what you need to know..." is looking for something else. As such, this redirect is in fact rather unhelpful than helpful, and should be deleted. Nageh (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with the previous sentiment. I see someone typing "what you need to know about a fuel cell" would be more likely be interested in building, purchasing, or repairing a fuel cell (info that won't be in the target article) and not looking for general information on the topic.--70.49.81.44 (talk) 03:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.