The result of the debate was Re-targted to WED. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking for a former Yiddish radio station with a callsign reminiscent of Eugene Debs. While WEDS may not have been the right call sign, I was a little baffled at where I ended up. It was originally a redirect to Weeds, which makes more sense, but "weds" is a form of the verb "to wed", and I'm not sure that out of the options of where this redirect is to go, there's any clear answer. Prosfilaes (talk) 22:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It's gotta redirect somewhere. I'm not sure about Yiddish stuff or not, but just make sure it actually redirects somewhere or at least to a disambiguation page, rather than just deleting it. JayKeaton (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The station I was looking for is actually WEVD, though I think that's a good example why that naming format for radio stations is not a good one. Not my wikiproject, though. Why does this have to redirect somewhere? If the search term doesn't match anything perfectly, and matches too much disparate stuff imperfectly, why not just leave it blank?--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It has to redirect somewhere because wed is used commonly in the English language, for example a Google search for the exact term "newly weds" brings up over eight million results. JayKeaton (talk) 00:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't understand why that means an arbitrary redirect is better than no redirect. Is there an essay or policy I'm missing?--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• This should be a dab page. This could mean a variety of different things such as an abbreviation for Wednesday. Should be a dab page. I'm frankly a bit perplexed by it being a redirect to the show. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Dabify as "wed" as a verb could mean either "have a wedding" or "enter into marriage". It is also a common abbreviation for Wednesday (although not as common as Wed). 147.70.242.40 (talk) 01:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Unless someone can come up with a radio station with this callsign, I recommend restoring it to the version that redirected to weeds (which was actually a double-redirect and should have pointed to weed (disambiguation)). There are no current inbound links to give us clues but I think it is more likely that this will be intended as/used as a plausible typo of "weed" than either the verb from of "wedding" or the abbreviation for "Wednesday". Rossami (talk) 03:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually think a dab page is a good idea. I didn't think of Wednesday as Wed, or Wednesdays as Weds. As well as Wedding, and weeds. Certainly I think it was over zealous to bleet out "delete delete" when there are a few VERY common uses. JayKeaton (talk) 04:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's over zealous to ask for the deletion of a redirect when the consensus is the redirect should go away?--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[deindent] The redirect will go away, only instead of being deleted it will be turned into a disambiguation page. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 16:06, May 13, 2008 (UTC)

• • • • But the nominator didn't say he wanted the redirect to go away or to be moved, he said "why not just leave it blank" which means deleting it. JayKeaton (talk) 00:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • And you said "it's got to redirect somewhere", which doesn't include turning it into a disambiguation page. There, I can play the overly literal interpretation to make an argument game, too.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Regardless, I think we have consensus that the page will not be beleted but will be dabbed. JayKeaton (talk) 01:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Dabify as per the IP above, the redirect as it stands doesn't make sense [there are far more likely meanings] but a dab page with the various meanings that have been mentioned certainly would be helpful. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 16:00, May 13, 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to WED, which seems to be what Richard and the IP who voted to Dabify had in mind but already exists. Olaf Davis | Talk 09:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to WED - a disambiguation page which contains most of the links already suggested. Creating another disambiguation page would also be possible, but difficult as there is no actual primary meaning for 'Weds'. Terraxos (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the debate was Withdrawn by nominator Richard0612. Non-admin closure. Midorihana^{~いいですね? はい!} 07:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very unlikely search term given the change in capitalisation. No links. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 21:53, May 12, 2008 (UTC)

• I have seen this usage outside of Wikipedia where the convention is to capitalize the whole "wiki" prefix to delineate it from the rest of the name. It seems plausible and harmless. The creator seems to have a generally positive contribution history so I am inclined to assume good faith and trust that he/she finds it useful even though it is non-standard. Keep. Rossami (talk) 03:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. What is richard doing? JayKeaton (talk) 08:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw - It has been demonstrated that these redirects have some [albeit minimal] use and therefore should be kept as redirects are cheap. Sorry if I have wasted people's time here. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 15:57, May 13, 2008 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the debate was Withdrawn by nominator Richard0612. Non-admin closure. Midorihana^{~いいですね? はい!} 07:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very unlikely search term/typo, no links. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 21:48, May 12, 2008 (UTC)

• keep single letter off from correct spelling and therefore a reasonably plausible typo. This is especially the case since n is close to k on the qwerty keyboard. google also shows thousands of examples of this typo. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just as a side note, it is actually two letters off: winkepedia. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 22:10, May 12, 2008 (UTC)
• Again, seems like a mildly plausible typo created by an editor with a positive contribution history. While I'd be surprised if someone mistyped this with the logo right there on the page, I could see someone making a transliteration mistake from outside Wikipedia. Redirects do sometimes support the external search engine, too. Rossami (talk) 03:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw - It has been demonstrated that these redirects have some [albeit minimal] use and therefore should be kept as redirects are cheap. Sorry if I have wasted people's time here. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 15:57, May 13, 2008 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the debate was Withdrawn by nominator Richard0612. Non-admin closure. Midorihana^{~いいですね? はい!} 07:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikepidea (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) - Exactly the same with this one.

Redirected to current target after a nonsense page was created there; unlikely typo and no links. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 20:45, May 12, 2008 (UTC)

• Richard, neither of those are reasons to delete it. Please stop filling up this page. -- User:Docu
  • Those are perfectly valid reasons for deletion. There is no reason to keep redirects from unlikely typos or ones containing Unicode characters that people are unlikely to search [ones with diacritics, etc. are valid if they are from a different language]. Also, there is quite a precedent for deleting such redirects, see here, here or here. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 21:40, May 12, 2008 (UTC)
• keep Minimally plausible typo which has occurred a few hundred times at least on the internet according to google. Let's stop wasting our time with these redirects which aren't doing any harm. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• This one appears to have been first created as a user-test. I don't see a reason to keep it but I don't see a reason to delete it either. The best answer for the project is simply to ignore these redirects. (Which you should interpret as "keep because the costs of deleting, trivial as they are, are greater than the more trivial costs of keeping".) Rossami (talk) 03:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Possible typo, and these redirects don't really cause any harm either. Midorihana^{~いいですね? はい!} 07:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw - It has been demonstrated that these redirects have some [albeit minimal] use and therefore should be kept as redirects are cheap. Sorry if I have wasted people's time here. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 15:57, May 13, 2008 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the debate was Withdrawn by nominator Richard0612. Non-admin closure. Midorihana^{~いいですね? はい!} 07:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem to be from another language, unlikely search term given the special characters & capitalisation. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 20:33, May 12, 2008 (UTC)

• Keep; a careless Turkish user might very well type in Wikipedia in all caps, which using the capitalization rules in Turkish would be WİKİPEDİA (i -> İ, ı -> I). It's not hurting anything.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. (Barely) plausible mistake for a user from that culture/language. Rossami (talk) 03:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw - It has been demonstrated that these redirects have some [albeit minimal] use and therefore should be kept as redirects are cheap. Sorry if I have wasted people's time here. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 15:57, May 13, 2008 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 23:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Doesn't seem to be a redir. from another language, no relevant Ghits, possible nonsense. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 19:46, May 12, 2008 (UTC)

• Richard, don't worry about redirects, they don't need much resources, but they are a problem if they are missing. If one is not used, just forget about it. For this one, besides its creator, also google considers it a possible variant for Wikipedia, it should stay. -- User:Docu
• Delete as an unlikely typo. Google does recognise it, but Google recognises a lot of rather silly typos. Olaf Davis | Talk 20:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Minimally plausible typo which is all we need to keep a redirect. Frankly, attempting to have these get deleted borders on disruptiveness. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a redirect from a foreign version of the same title. We don't create foreign redirects preemptively but once they're created, it's easier and cheaper to ignore them than to clean them up. Rossami (talk) 03:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw - It has been demonstrated that these redirects have some [albeit minimal] use and therefore should be kept as redirects are cheap. Sorry if I have wasted people's time here. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 15:57, May 13, 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: This was closed as withdrawn. However, another user has recommended deletion so it does not qualify for speedy closing as a withdrawal unless that user also withdraws their recommendation. As such, I've re-opened. -- JLaTondre (talk) 11:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as implausible typo. Mike R (talk) 23:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it's not a typo, and extremely unlikely that "Wiekiepiedia" is a word in any language. So, it's nonsense. B.Wind (talk) 02:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - just too implausible a misspelling to be a common typo, therefore an unnecessary redirect. Terraxos (talk) 00:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per B.Wind. In my opinion, this is more likely to be a Hawaiian phrase than a misspelling of "Wikipedia". Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 23:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Overcategorisation gone mad. It is much better to use 'As of <year>', this is vague. If it is ever needed, [[2000s|As of the 2000s]] can be used instead, this doesn't need a redirect. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 18:46, May 12, 2008 (UTC)

• Interesting it points to pages needing updates. Keep. - User:Docu
• Delete per nom. and lest we set a precedent and end up needing to create dozens of redirects from things like "As of 1270s" because people follow such a pattern and link to them. Olaf Davis | Talk 20:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Olaf Davis. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 04:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Olaf Davis. Not only is there the issue of a precedent, but "as of 2000s" is grammatically incorrect and should not be linked. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This template/redirect has not been needed since Wikipedia started using Unicode years ago. I suggest we delete it so that people will never be confused and use it or confuse others by using it. Instead, just use Template:Wrongtitle directly. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 04:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Looking at its talk page at Template_talk:Titlelacksdiacritics, it seems the problem was solved around 2005. This redirect serves no purpose and could be confusing. It's currently only used on some talk pages and userspace pages. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.