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 Polyethylene glycol. Thryduulf (talk) 10:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Tetraethylene glycol → Diethylene glycol (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Redirect is misleading. Please delete 143.97.2.35 (talk) 13:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The two chemical substances Diethylene glycol and Tetraethylene glycol are 2 different molecules. These are close enough in structure to be confused with each other but not the same. Tetraethylene glycol is mentioned in the article Diethylene glycol but does not give any explanation of the differences that would justify to redirect a user looking for tetraethylene glycol to the article about Diethylene glycol.

• Delete to encourage creation of new article.--Lenticel ^(talk) 14:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Polyethylene glycol, which does handle this case, even though this is an oligomer. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Pentaethylene glycol should also be retargetted there -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and retarget to Polyethylene glycol; it would never stand as its own article. — |J~Pæst|  18:03, 15 July 2013 (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 retarget to Anti-abortion movements. Thryduulf (talk) 10:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Anti-choice → United States pro-life movement (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Anti-choice is a POV redirect to United States pro-life movement. I am aware that non-neutral redirects are expressly permitted and I am not requesting that this be deleted. The term "anti-choice" is highly notable and needs to stay. I am merely trying to make it redirect to a more discerning article or section. There seem to be two main problems:

1. This pejorative redirect is going against a trend (if not a policy) in Wikipedia that I brought up in another RfD. Of the 13 pejorative redirects I could find, only 2 took this approach of "redirecting, no questions asked." The other 11 had some way of presenting the user with a disclaimer upon redirecting which I think is better.
2. The idea that "pro-life = anti-choice" is a mistruth. As mentioned in the abortion debate terminology section and various articles about opinion polls, many people who condemn the morality of abortion still wish for it to remain legal (full disclosure: I consider myself part of this group). A possible refutation of this argument is that the redirect is not implying "pro-life sentiments = anti-choice", it is implying "pro-life movement = anti-choice" which is different. A pro-life person associated with the movement is much less likely to be one of the "pro-choice and pro-life" people than an average pro-life person. Nevertheless, I think anti-choice should link to some place that makes this distinction.

There used to be an article called Opposition to legal abortion. This would have satisfied problem 2 above because the article (or at least the title) is already making it clear that it is not all pro-life people being referred to but the subset of them who also seek to ban abortion. However, because the article on Opposition to legal abortion was written almost exclusively about the United States pro-life movement, it was renamed to this in November 2012. At the very least, this makes it uncertain as to whether the result of the December 2011 discussion concerning this redirect still applies.

Proposed solution: We should retarget Anti-choice to United States pro-life movement#Controversies over terminology. This is almost the same; the user just has to scroll up if he or she wants to read from the beginning. However, this would bring Anti-choice in line with what the other pejorative redirects do by providing a description of the term itself. Moreover, I happen to like the description that is there because it mentions that not all pro-life Americans support having a legal ban. The only downside as I see it is the focus on the US. However, Anti-abortion movements, perhaps intentionally, does not have a section on terminology. Connor Behan (talk) 04:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure I have an opinion on the principle, but I oppose any solution that does not hit every redirect in this category, eg. pro-death, anti-life. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Pro-death and anti-life link to disambiguation pages because those terms also have to do with the capital punishment debate. The other term I can think of right now is pro-coercion. It redirects to abortion debate but it should be changed to redirect to the same place as anti-choice. Connor Behan (talk) 04:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Good point. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 11:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Retarget to Anti-abortion movements. The nominator's argument is entirely reasonable but seems steeped in a U.S.-centric perspective. The phrase "anti-choice" refers to anti-abortion movements in places other than the U.S. (for example, Google turns up numerous hits in Irish publications from the last six months), so having this point to an article concerned solely with the U.S does a disservice to the 95% of the world not resident in that country (see also WP:WORLDVIEW). An ideal solution might involve the addition of a section similar to United States pro-life movement#Controversies over terminology to Anti-abortion movements, but even in the absence of such a section I think placing a term in its global context is more important than pointing to a section dealing with the term rather than the movement(s). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Arms & Hearts. Keep and retarget to Anti-abortion movements to avoid bias from opinion-based redirection. This is the simplest and most neutral target. — |J~Pæst|  18:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have added terminology sections to Anti-abortion movements and Abortion-rights movements to give us more options. Connor Behan (talk) 08:00, 18 July 2013 (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 retarget to Gay–straight alliance. Thryduulf (talk) 10:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• LGBT... → LGBT (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Redirect created by a page move, possibly by a mistake. The user who moved this page reverted the move. Also, no pages link to this redirect. Cloudyjbg27512 (talk) 11:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I concur that the pagemove was an error. I can't tell from the history whether it was a new-user test, a mistake or a temporary name while edits were made to the former location. The old software sometimes resulting in screwy workarounds like that. The content existed at this title for only a few minutes. Nevertheless, the redirect has been in existence since 2006 without harm or controversy. The title doesn't obviously refer to any other concept and is not deceptive to readers. It doesn't meet any of the normal reasons to delete a redirect. Keep but tag with one of the ((unprintworthy)) templates. Rossami (talk) 20:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Harmless, and plausible as a shortened form of LGBTQQIA and other longer alternatives. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  |Then you might want to redirect to the same place as LGBTQQIA which is Gay–straight alliance. Siuenti (talk) 12:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It may not be "harmful" to keep this as a redirect, but it is certainly useless. Nobody is going to search "LGBT..." (or "LGBT ...", "LGBT…", "LGBT …", etc.), just as nobody would search "United States..." or "United Kingdom..." just because their full titles require more (though actual) typing. To keep such a redirect is nonsensical and pointless in every way. — |J~Pæst|  17:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Being a good search term is a reason to keep a redirect but the inverse is not true. Redirects do far more than merely support the search engine. "Useless" is a value judgement based on the way one person navigates the wiki and is deliberately not one of the valid reasons to delete a redirect listed above. Redirects really are so cheap that they must be some level of harmful to qualify for deletion. Rossami (talk) 19:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm very sympathetic to JPæst's position, but the fact is this redirect has been around for over seven years. If it were new, I'd say delete, essentially per R3, but as such, it should be kept. "United States..." isn't a good analogy though, since LGBT frequently has more letters added in where those ellipses are. --BDD (talk) 16:50, 17 July 2013 (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 retarget. --BDD (talk) 16:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Pro-life → United States pro-life movement (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Pro-choice redirects to Abortion-rights movements but pro-life does not redirect to Anti-abortion movements. Instead it redirects to United States pro-life movement, an example of regional bias. A possible reason for this is that a few of the people who took part in a large discussion seemed to think that the term "pro-life" is unique to the US. This is not true, it is easy to find "pro-life" mentioned in news articles, discussion threads, advocacy group homepages etc that are about other English speaking countries and hosted in other English speaking countries (.co.uk domains, .au domains and so on). Please make pro-life point to anti-abortion movements. Connor Behan (talk) 02:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• There was a huge discussion about this issue and the matter was settled after a month of debate which you can see at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage. This is not a trivial matter to be revisited by one editor initiating an RfD. It will take much more community input in a central location for any change to occur. Binksternet (talk) 03:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I was aware of the AAMC discussion. The subject of it was moving Support for the legalization of abortion and Opposition to legal abortion to United States pro-choice movement and United States pro-life movement respectively. Nowhere did it discuss redirects. The fact that Wikipedia should treat the pro-choice and pro-life redirects symmetrically is trivial. Connor Behan (talk) 05:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 11:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Retarget per nom. I agree that "pro-life" is not exclusive to the U.S. and that the RfC offers no guidance on how redirects should be treated. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and retarget to Anti-abortion movements in order to avoid any bias. This is the simplest and most neutral target. — |J~Pæst|  18:12, 15 July 2013 (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 soft redirect to Wiktionary. There was agreement that some sort of mention of the terminology would be useful, but that there aren't sufficient sources to add it to an article, which means retargetting it to Trans man#Terminology would leave readers with no information. It was noted that the page does get visited 10-20 times a day (which is a lot for a redirect) and so it is something people are looking for. Accordingly the consensus is we should redirect this to where there is information, but as there is none on Wikipedia I'm going to soft-redirect this to the Wiktionary entry, which would seem to tick all the boxes. This is a normal editorial action though and can be discussed on the talk page as such if people disagree. Thryduulf (talk) 10:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hefemale → Trans man (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Hefemale redirects to trans man (a female-to-male transgender person) without a discussion about whether people should or should not use the term. I have looked at all of the entries in Category:Pejoratives excluding Category:Reclaimed words and most of them have dedicated articles about the offensive words. Only 13 of them are redirects. Hefemale is one of the two pejorative redirects that Wikipedia seems to be implicitly legitimizing in this way (the other is anti-choice, a topic for another discussion). Either by consensus or coincidence, pejorative redirects are usually handled differently. The other 11 are:

1. A word - redirects to an article about a similar word
2. Chonger - redirects to an article about a similar word
3. He-she - redirects to a section about a similar word
4. L word - redirects to a section about a similar word
5. Lamestream media - redirects to a section discussing the term
6. Muzzie - redirects to a list of ethnic slurs
7. Name slur - redirects to an article about pejoratives
8. Quack - redirects to an article about a similar word
9. Russki - redirects to a list of ethnic slurs
10. Schemie - redirects to an article about a similar word
11. Soviet Canuckistan - redirects to a section discussing the term

I can think of two ways to resolve this. One is to write a sentence about "hefemale" in Trans man#Terminology and have it link to that section. The other is to delete the "hefemale" redirect if the term is not notable enough to be mentioned in Trans man. I'm no expert but it seems like this term is not notable at all. Wiktionary lists it as rarely used and Google turns up many forum threads asking if "hefemale" is even a real word. Connor Behan (talk) 02:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment: I will leave notes about this discussion at Talk:Trans man, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 11:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Comment I don't really know anything about RfD discussions or the process by which RfDs are decided, so I'll leave this as a comment rather than a !vote. I Googled for "hefemale". The vast majority of what I found is porn. Once I excluded "xxx" and "porno" from my search results, there wasn't much left. A few Yahoo! Answers questions of the form "is hefemale offensive?" and, of course, Wikipedia, and Wiktionary and Wikidata. Personally, I'd never heard of it before, and I've heard lots of homophobic/transphobic slurs. According to stats.grok.se, the redirect page 'Hefemale' usually gets about 10–20 hits a day, compared to 2–3k for 'Shemale'. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The problem with reclaimed words is that the reclamation is culturally dependent: words that are reclaimed in one country may no be reclaimed elsewhere. I agree that writing a sentence in Trans man#Terminology is a good approach. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree that it'd be best to add a sentence to the Trans man article, but I can't find any sources which would permit us to do so. As far as I can tell, literally all of the Google News/Books/Scholar hits for the term are mistranscriptions of "the female" or similar. I'll change my !vote if a source can be found, but otherwise the coverage in reliable sources seems so vanishingly insignificant that I think we can do without this redirect. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 01:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the existence of Shemale, the obvious counterpart of the term "hefemale". Either both are valid pages or neither can be kept. — |J~Pæst|  20:26, 15 July 2013 (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 soft delete. --BDD (talk) 16:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Guerrilla Jiu-Jitsu → American Kickboxing Academy (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Guerrilla Jiu-Jitsu currently redirects to American Kickboxing Academy, this made some sense when Dave Camarillo the founder of Guerrilla Jiu-Jitsu was the head grappling trainer at AKA. However with this no longer being the case the redirect should be deleted. Phospheros (talk) 23:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question Are Dave Camarillo and Guerrilla Jiu-Jitsu non-notable? Dave Camarillo seems to be mentioned a lot for someone non-notable. --Bejnar (talk) 06:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 11:17, 10 July 2013 (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 and tag with ((R from incorrect disambiguation)). Thryduulf (talk) 10:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Sanam Teri Kasam (2009 film) → Sanam Teri Kasam (2000 film) (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Wrong name. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It may be the wrong name but content was at that wrong title for almost three years. The redirect captures and resolves any inbound links, whether in the project history or external. The redirect is not harmful to readers, though it should be tagged with one of the ((unprintworthy)) templates. Rossami (talk) 22:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm! Interesting to know this. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: if kept, tag the redirect with ((R from incorrect disambiguation)) (shortcut ((R id))). — |J~Pæst|  18:24, 15 July 2013 (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 wrong venue see Wikipedia:Requested moves. Thryduulf (talk) 10:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Neuroreflexotherapy → Neurorreflejoterapia (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Would like to rename Neurorreflejoterapia to Neuroreflexotherapy, there are zero PubMed hits for "Neurorreflejoterapia" and there are hits for Neuroreflexotherapy, for en.wp the Spanish-named article should be moved to here. Need to delete this redir to make way for this move. Zad68 02:03, 10 July 2013 (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.