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 Template:User Computer Scientist. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 16:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:User Computer Science → Computer science  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Misleading, considering that the target is a mainspace article and not a userbox. It would not be good if a user attempted to transclude it. There may be a better target. If not, we should delete to encourage creation. Mr. Guye (talk) 19:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete anyone attempting to use this template would transclude an entire article, and make whatever page it was used in categorize into inappropriate categories. This is clearly a harmful redirect -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 08:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to template:User Computer Scientist or delete. The current target is clearly inappropriate per both above. Thryduulf (talk) 09:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Template:User Computer Scientist per everyone above. Ivanvector (talk) 12:32, 2 April 2015 (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 speedied. DrKiernan (talk) 19:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:MANCHESTERMAFIA → User talk:Eric Corbett  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

I don't mind a bit of humour, and shortcuts like WP:Great Dismal Swamp and WP:You can see Hell from here tickle my funny bones. However, when it goes into userspace, unless Eric Corbett is in on the joke (and I'm not 100% convinced that he is), then I'm not sure its suitable. Even then, project -> userspace links can be contentious and editors who supported WP:KAFFEEKLATSCH over opposition of the same may find this a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This apparently refers to the notion that Eric Corbett is effectively untouchable due to the chorus of editors who come to his defense whenever issues with his conduct are raised at any of the drama boards. He called it "the myth of the Manchester Mafia". I would say delete per WP:RFD#DELETE #3 (meant to disparage) but consider my !vote null if EC is fine with it. Doesn't bother me in the slightest that it's a CNR from project to user space. Ivanvector (talk) 18:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I wasn't aware of that page and I don't find it at all funny. Eric Corbett 19:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In that case my !vote is changed to speedy delete WP:G10. Ivanvector (talk) 19:03, 1 April 2015 (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 procedural close. The redirect has been converted into an article that, at a glance, looks like it's going to stay. Either way, it's out of our hands for now. --BDD (talk) 20:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Andrew Getty → Gordon Getty  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

deletion, they are not the same person. Andrew has since died which can lead to even more confusion. David chamberlain (talk) 13:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:NOTNEWS and should probably be WP:CSD but too late for that I imagine. He only died this morning. Depends on when the redirect was created. We also have WP:BLP to consider, patently, he is dead, but his family is not, and it affects their biographies. And BLP tends to be the trump card in these kinds of things. Quite rightly. His family have asked for privacy, and that includes Wikipedia, if you have any respect (I doubt it). We can do it two weeks' time, when we have the facts, the world will not end. Si Trew (talk) 13:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • er, excuse me, this was created today by User:Czar after his death. I have listed at CSD but we have to toss a coin on what happens. Even so @Czar: why did you create it? Patently he was not notable during his life so why redirect it on his death? Morbid. Si Trew (talk) 13:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page was created as a redirect to his father as a valid search term. Regardless of whether Andrew himself is notable, his father currently has a page and Andrew is mentioned in the infobox. Given the amount of secondary source reports on Andrew's death, there will be at least one sentence added to the father article on how the line of succession has been affected, so the redirect is for a related topic that isn't notable enough for its own page. Not sure what part of BLP you think is relevant here. Also it's not "morbid" to have a redirected page for a newsworthy topic. WP is, foremost, an encyclopedia.  czar ⨹ 14:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep in a way per WP:REDLINK to discourage article creation, per WP:BLP1E via WP:BDP (whew!) and as a valid search term. I'm tempted to lean delete because there is practically nothing written about Andrew at Gordon's article, but I'm not convinced that the redirect is in itself a violation of WP:BLP; it goes where it should and it does no harm. Ivanvector (talk) 16:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Protip: WP:BIO1E is suitable for non-living persons. (I frequently did the same before discovering that shortcut.) --BDD (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know ;) However BLP applies to recently deceased persons and is a more strict policy. Ivanvector (talk) 18:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: as non-notable redirect, IMO. Quis separabit? 19:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Create his own page. Sorry, I am not sure if you want me to say 'keep' or 'delete' here, but there are many obituaries in the international press. He was not only an heir, but also a filmmaker of horror movies. So removing the redirect and creating an article would make sense. Can I remove the redirect and start a referenced article, or do I need to wait?Zigzig20s (talk) 21:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Zigzig20s: no, go ahead. If you make an article, just write it at the (current) redirect, and we'll procedurally close it here as no longer being a redirect. That's fine, happens all the time. Si Trew (talk) 04:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:SimonTrew: Sounds good; I could do it tonight (it's the morning here).Zigzig20s (talk) 06:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful that you don't run afoul of WP:NOTMEMORIAL, though. And WP:BIO1E as noted above: if his only claim to notability is his relation to his father, a separate article is probably not suitable. Ivanvector (talk) 14:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep redirect, per my fuller comment above. There's no way the page will remain its own article—dearth of sources apart from the obits, not known for anything big apart from his connection to the family wealth. I don't think it's wise to work on a dedicated article. czar ⨹ 04:33, 3 April 2015 (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 per WP:RFD#DELETE, reason 2. Just Chilling (talk) 02:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Elizabeth Hanover → William IV of the United Kingdom  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

He's not called this. People with this name are non-notable [1][2]. The redirect is assuming that Princess Elizabeth of Clarence (who lived for less than 3 months) is called Elizabeth Hanover, but she is not called this in any reliable source. Neither are Princess Elizabeth of Great Britain or Princess Elizabeth of the United Kingdom. DrKiernan (talk) 09:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as confusing. While ~Her Majesty is distantly from the Hanoverian line, she is never known as that. you would think there would be one of the rather prodigious Hanoverian family that one of them would be called Elizabeth, but I can't find it. It's just possible to redirect to Elizabeth Stuart, Queen of Bohemia, but that seems quite a stretch. Delete and let the search engine do it. Si Trew (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, unless I am mistaken (and I usually an) Bill the Fourth was not from the Hanoverian line anyway. Si Trew (talk) 14:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am mistaken. He was, according to his infobox, King of Hanover. We could take it over to House of Hanover but I I am not sure how much that would help. Si Trew (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2015 (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 deleted per this and previous discussion. DrKiernan (talk) 11:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Eginyn → cy:Wicipedia:Eginyn  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Delete WP:XNR, WP:ENGLISH cross-wiki and cross-namespace redirect to non-English pipework content that isn't even a template. This is useless and unusable and unused, and should never be used, as we already have a {{stub}} for stubs on English Wikipedia. English Wikipedia is not a place to create cross-Wiki redirects to the Welsh Wikipedia, nor the place to create Welsh-language redirects to general topics or English Wikipedia administration topics. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE Eginyn was deleted earlier in March -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • For a related prior RfD discussion, see Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_March_5#Eginyn -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 13:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there is no need to have a Welsh-language version of Template:Stub on the English Wikipedia. Ivanvector (talk) 16:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• NOTE the creator of this redirect deleted the RfD banner and converted it into a template. So, this now also appears as Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_April_2 -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 12:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE that I wanted to help Llusiduonbach improve his article so I created this template. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 14:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Welsh articles should be written on the Welsh Wikipedia, where Llusiduonbach (talk · contribs) can create a sandbox in his/her userspace there. user:Llusiduonbach/sandbox was rejected because English Wikipedia does not publish non-English articles. So, it wasn't all that useful for you [3] to submit their draft article for submission into English Wikipedia. They can choose to submit or not submit their sandboxes to the appropriate language Wikipedia. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 14:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A worthwhile effort no doubt, but as everyone here keeps saying, English Wikipedia is for English articles. Llusiduonbach will be quite welcome to contribute their article at the Welsh Wikipedia, and they will probably find more help from Welsh-language editors if they work on it in that Wikipedia's user or project space. It seems very much as though they would appreciate the help. If they haven't already, they can unify their accounts across all Wikimedia projects so that they won't even have to log in when they switch over to the other language. Ivanvector (talk) 14:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• NOTE. A user with WP:TPE rights has rolled back the template into a redirect and closed the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_April_2#Template:Eginyn, listing his or her reasoning as being in the wrong venue. That does not appear to make sense. Anyone can revert the edit and relist the discussion at TFD? <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 20:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy; having the same discussion at two different places is counterproductive. The crunch of the issue remains that we've got a Welsh stub template - be it a soft redirect - on en-wiki. Since the page started out as a redirect and was first nominated here, I elected to close the TfD. Alakzi (talk) 02:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedily delete and I've just submitted it as G4, since we went through this at tremendous length a month ago at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 March 5#Eginyn. —Largo Plazo (talk) 10:50, 3 April 2015 (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. Frivolous nomination. Redrose64 (talk) 15:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Samuel Clemens → Mark Twain  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

"Samuel Clemens" is not a nickname for "Mark Twain"! Makes NO sense! Possibly created as Vandalism. ^{[April Fools!]} Mr. Guye (talk) 03:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Change target to Samuel Langhorn Clemens. Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 03:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Poisson d'Avril Delete as twained marks are not proper samming of cements. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Poisson d'Avril tu, si tu veut, je suis peut-etre fou, mais je ne suis pas grand fou. Mark Twain, I think it probably says at the article but is usually known, to be him shouting "Mark Twain", that is "take two measures", as he rode the boats down the Mississippi. This seems an incredibly likely typo to me for his real name. Si Trew (talk) 13:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh by the way British tradition has it that it only is April Fool's Day until noon and then you can call the other people fools. So, I am! Si Trew (talk) 13:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr. Guye: got me. I assumed it was a typo that was listed and couldn't see it, but it isn't of course. Bastard, I catch you next year. Si Trew (talk) 13:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• ..but some good may come of it. We have Samuel Clements for example; i am not sure that is marked as R from misspelling, if it isn't I shall do it. Si Trew (talk) 13:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've marked it as {{R from incorrect name}} and {{R from misspelling}}. You owe me a Anerican penny. Si Trew (talk) 13:40, 1 April 2015 (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 Procedural close. April Fool's joke which nobody fell for. Not funny, I checked it all and it is now a waste of my time and bandwidth. Find something better to do, such as making Wikipedia better. (non-admin closure) Si Trew (talk) 14:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete → Deletion  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

It has delete in the name even!! ^{[April Fools!]} Bobherry Talk Edits Happy April Fools Day! 02:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Why not just delete the redirect yourself? Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Keep. Wgolf (talk) 02:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Without delete, nobody can delete more BJAODN! Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 03:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Poisson d'Avril Trasnwiki to MediaWiki -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC) (Luke I am your Father)[reply]

..har har har, and I am trying to tie things together to make an encyclopaedia better, play the jokes on your mates down the pub, not here.

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.