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 Taelus (Talk) 06:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• 973 (New Jersey bus) → Wheels (New Jersey Transit) (links to redirect • history • stats)
• 978 (New Jersey bus) → Wheels (New Jersey Transit)#978/979 (links to redirect • history • stats)
• 981 (New Jersey bus) → Wheels (New Jersey Transit)#981 (links to redirect • history • stats) 

These bus routes are gone, and there is no history section in the WHEELS article to which to redirect these.Train2104 (talk) 23:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and restore mention of them - these routes were removed by this edit, without explanation. If there was a massive cull of routes surely some mention in the page, with a source, is appropriate? Having a history section to archive former routes also seems normal, and looks a better way forward than deleting the redirects. If people are interested in these routes, then I should have thought they would be interested in major changes to them. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Change 981 back to 981 Port Liberte-Grove Street and restore the historic information to Wheels. Wikipedia is "timeless"; it doesn't only deal with current topics. --NE2 01:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I amend my recommended action, above, to retarget this route. I don't know why it was changed. This page should be linked from the main article. I also don't know why the nominator removed 976/612. Bridgeplayer (talk) 13:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Part of the reason I proposed these for deletion is because they are orphans. Just like with NYC Bus redirects, those for discontinued routes are usually orphans. 981 Port Liberte-Grove Street is also an orphan. Train2104 (talk) 00:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirects are simply search and navigation aids so being orphaned not only is not a problem, but is quite normal. 981 Port Liberte-Grove Street is an orphan because there is no history section in Wheels (New Jersey Transit) from which it can be linked. If we are to have an article, then a history of the main route changes is essential. If the page is simply going to record the current routes we may as well have a one-liner linking to a pdf of a route map. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have put some of the history back --Rumping (talk) 00:15, 16 July 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 no consensus. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Blah/version 2 → Blah (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Please delete this. It was created by a user in good faith but it serves no useful purpose. Richard Cavell (talk) 05:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the page history is large, and documents the creation of an article that discusses the word 'Blah', but that has been turned into a soft redirect to wiktionary. - Richard Cavell (talk) 05:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There is a substantial page history that must be kept somewhere for GFDL reasons. This is a harmless redirect, that doesn't meet the deletion criteria, so keeping this seems the most convenient way to go. BTW, looking here Blah version 2 isn't without search plausibility. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Just for the record, the page history documents the creation of a page about the word 'Blah', which has subsequently been deemed inappropriate for Wikipedia and replaced with a soft redirect. - Richard Cavell (talk) 04:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge the page histories and delete the resulting redirect. bd2412 T 13:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

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. There was a strong consensus that the current target is unsuitable, however there was debate over whether to delete it outright, or retarget it. From my analysis of the discussion at this RfD, I would say there is consensus to delete as the search term may not be fully relevant to the retarget suggestion. However, as pointed out, this topic could eventually be written into Wikipedia, thus there is no prejudice against recreation if a suitable target becomes available, or if an already suggested target becomes suitable at some point. --Taelus (Talk) 06:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Destruction of Israel → One-state solution#Modern background (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Delete as POV misleading and inappropriate — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this is POV I have no idea what POV it is supposed to represent. The phase is frequently used in Wikipedia and in Arab and Muslim rhetoric, and has a distinctive meaning in the Arab community. I do not exactly know what the Arab plans for the settlement of the "Zionist problem" where, but clearly they should be presented somewhere in Wikipedia. Does this mean genocide? ...or the One-state solution? I have now redirected it to One-state solution#Modern background

I have not marked the redirect with {{R with possibilities}}, as this is clearly unsuitable as a title of an article. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The POV is in echoing the trope that calling for a single-state solution is the same as calling for the destruction of Israel. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The POV that calling for a single-state solution is the same as calling for the destruction of Israel is in fact well presented in the article, see for example One-state solution#Isratin and One-state solution#Criticisms. The redirect however does not propose that POV, as it is the other way around (from destruction of Israel to single-state solution). The possible "POV" here is that when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is calling for the "Destruction of Israel" he may in fact be calling for some form of a one-state solution. Are you proposing that he is calling for genocide? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. - Another option for the redirect target could be Policide or Policide#Israeli usage – if the term itself was not a neologism and an Israeli coatrack for a POVish argument. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Calling for a single-state solution is not the same as calling for the destruction of Israel. Marokwitz (talk) 06:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Malik Bridgeplayer. Bridgeplayer is correct, WP:RNEUTRAL prevents redirects being deleted because of perceived non-neutrality; the point is to redirect the biased term to the properly-titled, neutral article. It's not mentioned in the article however, and there's no evidence that "destruction of Israel" is actually a plausible redirect. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as POV. Agree with Malik's argument. JPetersen (talk) 08:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - POV does not apply to redirects - see WP:RNEUTRAL - so arguments based on POV have no valid policy basis. However... Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ... since this term is not referred to in the target, and a one-state solution is not not necessarily concomitant with 'The destruction of Israel', this redirect is potentially confusing and misleading to a reader. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Anti-Zionism (which is currently where Anti-Israel targets, BTW). This is not an implausible search, and we owe it to find a neutral and informative target, which surely exists. The mere existence of a redirect doesn't raise a POV issue, and Anti-Zionism is perfectly reasonable place to send the user.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 17:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't retarget, delete altogether. This redir does not serve any of the purposes that redirects are supposed to serve. It obviously only exists for political reasons. Zero^talk 00:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Anti-Zionism per Glenfarclas. It's a reasonable search term for what we discuss there. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ASAP. It's obvious POV that will cause search engines a lot of unnecessary confusion. Retargeting to Anti-Zionism is not quite right - Anti-Zionism is not the same thing as destruction of Israel. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 10:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Looking at Anti-Zionism, I don't see this as calling for the destruction of Israel. Anti-Israel, a current redirect there, is fine because that is a different concept. If we are looking at a short-term retarget then Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine would be an option because this is their avowed aim. It is, however, an encyclopaedic topic and I can see an article called Calls for the destruction of Israel, or similar, being viable. Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - After reading through the article on Anti-Zionism I, the creator of the original redirect now agree (with Glenfarclas) that the redirect should go to Anti-Zionism#Anti-Zionism outside the Jewish community or more specifically to Anti-Zionism#Secular Arab. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Use of the term implies that Israel has been destroyed, which is obviously not the case. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Anti-Zionism. - Richard Cavell (talk) 00:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Anti-Zionism, as explained above.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:19, 20 July 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 Converted to dab page. No longer in scope of RfD, and further discussion should take place on the disambig's talk page. œ^™ 12:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Eating pussy → Cunnilingus (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Corrected listing for discusion that has been copied here. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from WP:ANI

 – _→AzaToth 01:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• [1]

Just saw this, from what previously appeared to be an established editor. User was already asked about it, at user's talk page. Thoughts? -- Cirt (talk) 13:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, Eating pussy does redirect to Cat meat (I'm not necessarily convinced it should, but since it currently does the above edit doesn't seem that weird). I'm still on the WP:AGF side of the fence with this one, waiting to see what happens next. TFOWR 13:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't see anything wrong here from either side. Redirecting sexual slang to accurate-but-not-what-the-kids-are-looking-for articles has a long precedent on Wikipedia (see Big tits). If this shocks you, you probably don't want to look at the hatnote at the top of Alex Rizzo. – iridescent 13:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Looks like a juvenile and not very funny joke. Eating pussy should redirect to Cunnilingus, and the disambig statement deleted from cat meat. Please. No comment on the editor who inserted the disambig statement in cat meat, prepared to AGF on that one. --JN466 13:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If "eating pussy" redirects there, then it's appropriate to place a hatnote on the page; I agree, however, that it should redirect to "cunnilingus". Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 14:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • • I have included the hatnote in User:Petri Krohn/Best hat texts :-)
    • You have to actually ask why Eating pussy or Big tits exist at all. I know there's a long history of juveniles looking up rude words in encyclopedias, but that doesn't mean we have to cater to it. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • • Oh, well, if an RfD was started, I'd !vote to zap 'em both. But since, for the moment, they're there... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 14:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Jayen466, these things are usually actually a way of preventing juvenile jokes. Black Kite and Salvio giuliano, the problem is that there are a lot of juveniles in the world, and we have to do a few things as purely preventative measures, to eliminate time sinks for editors, patrollers, and administrators such as endless cycles of creation-speedy-deletion-re-creation at such titles, which experience has taught us tends to happen otherwise. Redirects of this kind are not about catering to the juveniles, but about saving us from endless repetitious work when we have far better things to be getting on with. Redirects are cheap; prophylaxes are cheap. Uncle G (talk) 15:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, protection is cheap, too, so I'm not sure why we must have those redirects. T. Canens (talk) 17:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, protection is not cheap. Any editor with an account can enact such a redirect. There are lots of such people, so the cost of doing so is spread thinly. Uncle G (talk) 17:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, if we zapped 'em and WP:SALTed 'em, only admins could recreate those pages. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 17:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Which again would be taking the expensive route of consigning work to that small group of editors that have administrator tools. Don't buy into the exceedingly foolish thinking that administrators are the only people who can possibly edit, and that no-one else has the tools to fix problems. There are people here who are happy to share the burden of Wikignoming with us. The person whose actions caused this thread is one. Many such people don't even create accounts. Uncle G (talk) 17:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I think this was just a misunderstanding. No harm, no foul. Doc Quintana (talk) 15:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Hey, wait a minute. I didn't create that redirect. All you had to do was look at the history. Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition, I thought the redirect was a little juvenile too, but considering that Wikipedia is not censored as well as looking at the redirect's history, it appeared that no one had a problem with it. Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Erpert is correct, it was OOODDD (talk · contribs) who created the redirect to the slang term for a sexual act. The next edit was by an IP editor, who left an excellent rationale as to why (s)he retargeted it. IMHO, the edit was perfectly correct and should be allowed to stand, with the redirect being locked if necessary. Mjroots (talk) 19:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The edit summary which Mjroots called "an excellent rationale" was "In the tradition of Big tits → Great tit; this is just as appropriate a redirect topic, and may teach the prurient schoolchildren not to have dirty minds". If Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, slang terms should redirect to the most suitable and commonly understood definition (or to a disambiguation page). Isn't this what WP:NOTCENSORED is actually about, not for defending all the homemade porn and "art" images that litter this this site? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My goodness. All of this talk for what? The redirects are harmless, and may even steer the little monkeys who type "Big tits", etc. in a better direction. Absolutely nobody else will ever see them.

My objection is to hatnotes such as the ones previously on Alex Rizzo displaying ""Big dick" redirects here. For the size of one's penis, see Human penis size." and Cat meat that displayed ""Eating pussy" redirects here. For the sexual term, see Cunnilingus.". Written above is: "...If "eating pussy" redirects there, then it's appropriate to place a hatnote on the page; agreed..." Again, my goodness. No it's not.

If I'm getting this right: The invisible redirects are inappropriate per guidelines. The highly-visible hatnotes are appropriate per guidelines. This is like watching Brazil. Where's my 27 b stroke 6? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What if those "little monkeys" are adults who aren't native speakers of English or don't understand the idiom? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree; "cat meat" is a ridiculous redirect for "eating pussy": who exactly is going to search for "eating pussy" in the hopes of finding an article about cat meat? And can you provide any references which show that this phrase has ever been used to describe the act of eating cats? Cunnilingus is clearly the most appropriate and informative redirect. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delicious carbuncle: Then what would non-native English speakers be doing searching for "eating pussy"?

GiftigerWunsch: References? I'm not sure if you get the point here: Think of the only people who would ever seach "eating pussy". Follow the logic from there.

This is surreal. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GiftigerWunsch is right about Eating pussy. Cunnilingus is exactly what it means, it is a likely and foreseeable search term, and we should just redirect it without comment. We aren't the mental hygiene police; if that redirect is mostly used by creeps and juveniles, that's an argument that it is used, which is the proper consideration. Really, though, discussions about redirects should be at the obscurely-named Redirects for discussion. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. I have no objections at all. My concern, once again, is with the hatnotes, which is obviously much more important. Any comments on that? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. If the relevant redirects were targeted properly, there would be no need for any hatnote, and thus no possibility of the hatnotes being objectionable. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Frodesiak, I'll provide two answers to your question and you can pick the one you prefer. (1) A non-native English speaker may have heard, overheard, read, or otherwise encountered the phrase "eating pussy" and be searching for it in Wikipedia to find out what it means. (2) It doesn't matter why, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(undent)If the primary concern here is "protecting the innocent" then we should remove the hatnotes from Cat meat and similar articles, since they will be seen and searched for by many people who have no interest in cunnilingus and, indeed, might be reasonably surprised to see a hatnote linking to it. Then we can decide how best to deal with such redirects as Eating pussy, but that is less important. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh, gleaming, razor-sharp, iron-clad logic. Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now, can we please get consensus on SHEFFIELDSTEEL's plan? Then we can get back to work. Then, after that, you can all raise the "existence-of-the-redirect-pages" matter in another ANI thread at which I will not be present. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the comment by SheffieldSteel (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 00:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Convert to disambiguation page - now done. In my experience, the way to take the sting out of mini-edit wars over redirects is to dabify them. However, if this were to be a redirect then, obviously, it should be to Cunnilingus but that would not stop reverts. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now, redirect pages aside for a minute, per SHEFFIELDSTEEL, is there a way to quickly find a large number of offending hatnotes and remove them before 9-year-olds see them? One suggestion is for me to take a long list of crude phrases and words that are slang and stick them on the end of a long list of "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/" and then see where they go. Is there someone around here with a mop who knows a more practical way to clean up this "spill"? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Cunnilingus one should not expect an adult to actually know the formal term for the sexual practice. Often enough, adults are ignorants who know little vocabulary. That is the meaning of the term, and it lets an adult who doesn't know the correct term, or how to spell the correct term, access to the correct article, which is what a redirect is supposed to do. As many studies have shown, many adults cannot read at a high school level. 76.66.192.55 (talk) 03:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Cunnilingus. A disambiguation page is not necessary in this case because "eating pussy" simply does not refer to eating cat meat, except as a novel (and unencyclopedic) pun. If indeed it has ever in history been used that way, I'd guess that the frequency of usage runs at least 100,000 to 1 in favor of the standard meaning. (The other two entries in the DAB are spurious.) "Cunnilingus" is not that well known a word, and may be difficult to spell. I appreciate the humor in things like Large breasts → Great Tit, but since the issue has been brought here we ought to settle it in accordance with legitimate principles.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 04:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Cunnilingus, and if necessary deal with other meanings with hatnotes or with Eating Pussy (disambiguation) Cat meat is totally implausible and the others currently listed on the disambig page at the moment appear to be a song and "guide" both referring to the sexual practice. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 06:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The disambiguation is fine - good job. As this is no longer a redirect, I hope this discussion of a redirect can be closed. To debate the new disambiguation page, if you wish, take it to AfD (but IMHO it is fine). To debate the article content if you wish—ie the hatnote issue—use the normal article talk page discussion / consensus process (but IMHO it is fine with no hatnote). So - can we close this before we hit WP:LAMEST territory?  Chzz  ►  11:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Given that there is one very clear "main" meaning of "Eating pussy", I think that the disambig page should be moved to Eating pussy (diambiguation) and this redirect's target should be restored to Cunnilingus with a hatnote; for now though, the disambig isn't a problem and a move discussion can take place on the disambig's talk page. I think it's pretty clear however, that Cat meat should not appear on the disambiguation page, and shouldn't have a hatnote referring to "pussy eating". GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:49, 12 July 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 no consensus. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Country data Micronesia → Template:Country data Federated States of Micronesia (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Delete. Improper naming device. See discussion thread. Night w (talk) 16:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I notice that in the discussion, prior to this RFD, that it was suggested that RFD was a better forum than TFD. I beg to differ on this; TFD is better equipped since we are not discussing the merits of the redirect but, in effect, whether the underlying template should be deleted. Meanwhile, since we are here, this a harmless redirect and deletion would produce a whole bunch of red links for no appreciable benefit. Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I had once thought TfD was the most appropriate discussion venue for these flag template aliases, but in one of my prior nominations, I was told that all redirects (even in template space) should be discussed here. So there you go. But I do question why you think this is "harmless"; keeping it around encourages editors to use {{flag|Micronesia}} in article markup, which is as inappropriate as changing Micronesia into a redirect to the FSM article. Also, the "whole bunch of red links" includes nothing in article space. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 04:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I cleaned up the links to the redirect prior to nominating this, so no redlinks are involved. Keeping it, as Andrwsc said, will (and did, prior to my cleanup) result in a whole lot of inappropriate {{flag}} transclusions. It's like having a {{Country data Central Africa}} template for the Central African Republic. Night w (talk) 04:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete In case it's not obvious from my comments above, I also support deletion. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]