December 18

Canadian Forces Base Bagotville Cold Lake

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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasdelete.Courcelles19:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Canadian Forces Base Bagotville Cold Lake →Canadian Forces Base Cold Lake(links to redirect •history •stats) 

Redirect makes no sense. CFB Bagotville is a base in Québec and CFB Cold Lake a base in Alberta.19:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, appears to be a renaming error.117Avenue (talk)20:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as confusing.Bridgeplayer (talk)22:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Bagotville != Cold Lake. --DQ (t)(e)23:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—not a useful redirect. Doesn't seem like it would even make a useful DAB page.–Grondemar00:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a confusing, unuseful redirect.DARTH SIDIOUS 2^(Contact)13:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pixelante

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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasDeleted. We shouldn't confuse our readers. There is no content at this article explaining this so anyone searching on it is left scratching their heads unless they already know what it is. If they already know, then they don't need the redirect. If they don't know, it's better we tell them we don't have any content on it upfront. --JLaTondre (talk)14:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Pixelante →Jack Thompson (activist)(links to redirect •history •stats) 

Last RFD closed as no consensus, only myself and one other user participated. The problem is this: this was originally an article, it was decided in 2007 atthis AFD that it be redirected, but that is a curious decision since there are not anyreliable sources that discuss this term, so there is no content on this term in the article because it can't be properlyverified. So, a person typing in thisneologism to the search bar will be directed to an article that does not mention the term. The purpose of redirects is to assist readers in finding the content they are looking for, this one fails to do that and without any sources it's not a problem that can be fixed by editing. Only incoming link from an article is a "see also" inInternet vigilantism.Beeblebrox (talk)18:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the stats show that this is a regularly used search term and it getswide coverage. The problem is that the publications used in gaming circles are likely not to be considered reliable sources though we havethese, for example. Having said all that there is no doubt that Jack Thompson coined and used this phrase. There is also an important procedural issue. This redirect was originally an article that was redirected as a result of an AFD. The AFD participants decided against deletion. Deleting, at RFD, a redirect created as a result of AFD is not a good practice. Since the nominator is unhappy with the AFD result then recreating the article and taking it back to AFD would be an option.Bridgeplayer (talk)21:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can and does change. We are not permanently beholden to the three-year-old decision to redirect. I'm not debating or even doubting that Jack Thompson coined this neologism. At the risk of repeating myself, there are stillzero reliable sources andno actual content on Wikipedia related to this term. The link you have provided goes to a list of blogs related to Mr. Thompson. A search on that site for the actual subject of this discussion, the term "pixelante," returns but one result, which uses the term but does not define or discuss it in any way, so I still don't see anything that could actually be used to base actual content on. Deleting it would actually be preferable to misdirecting readers to an article that does not mention the term.Beeblebrox (talk)01:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Woodlawn Station (disambiguation)

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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasKeep. --RL0919 (talk)00:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Woodlawn Station (disambiguation)Woodlawn Station (disambiguation) →Woodlawn Station(links to redirect •history •stats) 

Bot-created redirect to a dab page I recently created when I realized, while expandingWoodlawn (IRT Jerome Avenue Line), that there were three other transit or rail stations that have that name, as well as a fourth, no longer in use but sometimes known by that name. Since we have no article with the specific name "Woodlawn Station", I didn't feel the parenthetical was necessary as I wasn't sure that any of the four stations would necessarily receive more traffic than the others. Apparently the bot had not been programmed to make this assumption, and as a result we now have a page with the "disambiguation" disambiguator that now redirects to an actual disambiguation page. Alittle unnecessary, I think, and it should be deleted.Daniel Case (talk)17:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Foo (disambiguation) redirecting to Foo is quite normal and has uses perWP:INTDABLINK. Such redirects are only deleted when harmful, which this isn't, and not for administrative neatness.Bridgeplayer (talk)22:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the reasons for this and I respectfully disagree with them. I understand the concept, but it seems to have been far too broadly applied. If the goal is to make it easier to clean up links to dab pages, it makes sense to redirect common terms via a "(disambiguation" pagewhere the set of uses is likely to grow to a limit that cannot currently be estimated, i.e. in the case of a common first name-last name pairing. (There will always be newJohn Smiths to write about, for instance). However, while there may be another Woodlawn Station at some point in the future, it's not likely that there will be a lot. To take another example from my watchlist, we don't seem to feel a need to do this withThe Devil Wears Prada, since there's only four things that disambiguates and there are not likely to be more (in fact, we took one off the page when it was apparent that the TV pilot would never be picked up as a series).

If we wish to really cut down on the workload of boring and repetitious yet wholly necessary tasks, we ought to just mandate the use of "disambiguation" in every page title meant for that.Daniel Case (talk)18:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It might be unnecessary, but it's harmless - none of thereasons to delete apply, so no reason to delete.Redirects are cheap.Mhiji (talk)17:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I guess it'sharmless. I think it makes no sense, whichis a reason to delete it, or else I wouldn't have nominated it. It is likely to confuse new editors when they start trying to figure out how to edit from the wikisource. Essentially, it assumes that editors are lazy and will continue to be so in the future. Is this a development we'd like to encourage?Daniel Case (talk)06:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Landshark (Transformers)

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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasdelete.Courcelles19:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Landshark (Transformers)Landshark (Transformers) →List of Autobots(links to redirect •history •stats) 

Delete the redirect since target article has no section on Autobots fromTransformers: Timelines, which is what this character is from.NotARealWord (talk)13:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It should be ADDED to the list, not have the redirect deleted.Mathewignash (talk)14:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• But Timelines, might not even be notable. We shouldn't have character lists for things that aren't notable. Even if they just share said list with other stuff.NotARealWord (talk)15:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The line Transformers: Timelines was removed for not being notable enough by itself, but Tranformers itself is notable, and these are a part of Transformers.Mathewignash (talk)16:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, it makes no sense to redirect a character to a list where the character's entire subseries does not appear. |Talk16:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Landshark and Timelines is now on the list.198.51.174.5 (talk)17:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it has no place to be redirected and non notable classic example of inclusionist keeping mediocre works at all costs.Dwanyewest (talk)18:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heatwave (Transformers)

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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasdelete.Courcelles19:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Heatwave (Transformers)Heatwave (Transformers) →List of Decepticons(links to redirect •history •stats) 

Pleasedelete the redirect since the target article has no section on Decepticons fromShattered Glasswhich is part of the likely non-notableTransformers: Timelines.NotARealWord (talk)13:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It should be ADDED to the list, not have the redirect deleted.Mathewignash (talk)14:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• But Timelines, the parent franchise of Shattered Glass might not even be notable. We shouldn't have character lists for things that aren't notable. Even if they share said list with stuff thatis.NotARealWord (talk)15:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, it makes no sense to redirect a character to a list where the character's entire subseries does not appear. |Talk16:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That's that's because until recently the sub-series had it's own page. It should now be ADDED to the new page it's redirecting to.198.51.174.5 (talk)17:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Heatwave and Timelines is now on the list.198.51.174.5 (talk)17:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it has no place to be redirected and non notable classic example of inclusionist keeping mediocre works at all costs.Dwanyewest (talk)18:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers: Timelines

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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasmoot givenWikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 17.T. Canens (talk)15:53, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Transformers: TimelinesTransformers: Timelines →Transformers(links to redirect •history •stats) 

Deleting the redirectmay be appropriate, since it's not really covered at the target page.NotARealWord (talk)13:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's because up until yesterday it was covered on it's own page that got deleted thanks to efforts by you. If it got redirected, some of the information should be added to the main Transformers page.Mathewignash (talk)14:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete... this ridirect. The two "articles" have nothing to do with each other and There is no assertion or demonstration of any real-world relevance.Pasupgalo (talk)03:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sock of banned user. –MuZemike03:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete it has no place to be redirected and non notable classic example of inclusionist keeping mediocre works at all costs.Dwanyewest (talk)18:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kunat kalifee

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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasdelete.Dabomb87 (talk)17:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Kunat kalifee →Amok Time(links to redirect •history •stats) 

I'd like to delete the redirect, it is confusing as the article it redirects to no longer seems to mention the subject.TeunSpaans (talk)10:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2011-2020

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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasDeleted. --JLaTondre (talk)14:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• 2011-2020 →2010s(links to redirect •history •stats) 

Delete. Misleading, recently created redirect. —Arthur Rubin(talk)08:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate with 2010's and related year articles.65.95.13.158 (talk)06:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it's necessary to create a list of years for just one decade. If not deleted, could beretargeted toList of years.Mhiji (talk)15:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as2010s is 2010–2019, a different decade. —Anomalocaris (talk)05:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endleofan

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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasdelete.Dabomb87 (talk)20:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endleofan →11 (number)(links to redirect •history •stats) 

Delete. Any ideas why it was created?Not even wrong. —Arthur Rubin(talk)08:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nonsense unless some properlysourced explanation of what this non-word means and why it should be redirected thus is forthcoming.Beeblebrox (talk)18:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Itkind of souds like eleven. Still quite a stretch.173.26.237.244 (talk)23:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. It didn't even occur to me that this could have been intended as an alternate spelling of eleven. I guess I parsed it out as "end leo fan" which means nothing as far as I know. If it is intended to represent a mis-spelling it is so far removed from any way that a person with even a passing understanding of the English language would spell this word that I still don't consider it a plausible search term.Beeblebrox (talk)02:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete perWP:CSD#R3, totally implausible search term.–Grondemar16:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'10

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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasDelete all.Courcelles18:58, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• '10 →2010(links to redirect •history •stats)
• '11 →2011(links to redirect •history •stats)
• '12 →2012(links to redirect •history •stats)
• '13 →2013(links to redirect •history •stats)
• '14 →2014(links to redirect •history •stats)
• '15 →2015(links to redirect •history •stats)
• '16 →2016(links to redirect •history •stats)
• '17 →2017(links to redirect •history •stats)
• '18 →2018(links to redirect •history •stats)
• '19 →2019(links to redirect •history •stats)
• '20 →1920(links to redirect •history •stats) Delete all. Arbitrary choice ofredirecttarget. —Arthur Rubin(talk)08:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. An unuseful redirect.--LTSC1980 (talk)09:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Couldn't '14 just as easily refer to 1914? 1714? Seems arbitrary.Noir (talk)10:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all the above.Beeblebrox (talk)18:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per above. Who is to say where the transition from the 20th century to the 21st century will occur? "'1x" might just as well mean the decade when the First world War took place as the decade we're just entering. |Talk16:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all as arbitrary and potentially confusing.–Grondemar00:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to their respective number articles (10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20) -—^{(t •c)}04:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per all above, unuseful and a bit of confusing redirects.DARTH SIDIOUS 2^(Contact)13:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Waifu

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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasDelete. Will monitor for recreation andsalt if necessary. --RL0919 (talk)00:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Waifu →Imaginary friend(links to redirect •history •stats) 

This redirect exists only as an in-joke among some members of an online community (the assertion being that "waifu" is a synonym for "imaginary friend"). This is inappropriate for an encyclopedia and very confusing to normal readers. The page history consists almost entirely of anedit war reverting the redirect back and forth. As the term itself is not a sensical English word, is completely absent on the linked article, and does not appear to warrant a reference to any other existing article, I simply propose its deletion.Noir (talk)07:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless "waifu" is proven to be appropriate enough to be mentioned at the target article. If it is appropriate to mention anywhere (as in the term's definition can be reliably sourced),Azumanga Daioh might be a better redirec target, being the source of the term.NotARealWord (talk)13:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently according to Google Translate "waifu" is Swahili for "chief."173.26.237.244 (talk)04:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems that the edit war still goes on, despite this RfD (see page history). Perhaps deleting and protecting from recreation may be best.NotARealWord (talk)18:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]