Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 September 23

2788:- There have been several attempts to find a "home" for the title "Preston-Webb" over the last few weeks, none of which have been appropriate. The problem isn't where the title redirects to... but with creating the initial title to be redirected. There is no such animal as the Preston-Webb ritual (there is a Preston ritual and there is a Webb ritual... but they are two seperate things). Two seperate things have been improperly put together by the creating editor. No wonder nothing fits. 2844:(which is what the term is) as a standalone term - it is used as "Antients and Moderns" because that juxtaposition is where the name cam from historically. Furthermore, the first point notwithstanding, it is ambiguous for the uninformed - is "Modern Grand Lodge" simply just an article on how a contemporary Grand Lodge works because old ones were different, is it the name of a contemporary Grand Lodge, or what? It's too error-prone to be helpful. 457:- if "cable" doesn't appear in the target article by itself, how does the Knowledge reader connect "cable tow" to "Masonic ritual and symbolism"? If the connection is simply not apparent, the redirect should be deleted as confusing. On the other hand, should the originator write a cited standalone article on the term (which, in quotation marks, has over 22,000 Google hits), I would have no objection... considering that the 3171:"fishing"? Is that an irregular verb. "I am trying to find a solution, you are fishing"? Redirects have a useful place in Knowledge and when they point to an article where a legitimate term should be covered. If there is a better destination then it should be pointing there. That is what this is supposed to be about, not backing up your friends or winning at all costs. 1160:

you can force it through on technicalities the actual informational value of the redirect is minimal, if not non-existent. If you can neither create an article, or include the information in any legitimate way into an article, then it's not justifiable. I recognise that we do take very different approaches to the ruleset.

1937:- if the original author tags it CSD G7, it would be the appropriate thing to do, per MSJapan's writeup above. The original "cannot be typed on a standard English keyboard" justification is really not a valid one for deletion, for diacritics are available below the editing window - just pull down and click "Latin." 3559:... although in that case both are notable enough for their own articles. In this, we have a non-notable confederation with a notable member organization. That means that ultimately we are dealing with an issue of inherited notability. Unfortunately, notability is not inherited. Finally, when a Knowledge 4018:

Unhelpful search term. This is the name of a Masonic Lodge in Brussels in the 18th century. That's all we know about it. and the extent of its coverage is a list entry in the target article. Not only that, this is also in French. Why anyone would be searching for a French name of this sort on the

3020:

Three men and their dog have so far failed to achieve the notability required to justify an article in WP. The redirect itself is wholly inappropriate as the philosophies of the two bodies are somewhat different, the only apparent reason for the target is their mutual recognition. Unfortunately the

245:

for the time being, for two reasons: 1) it was created by a pagemove, and 2) have you ever "accidentally" hit the Caps Lock button while you were writing something or entering data on a computer? Side note: should someone take the target article to AfD, it might not survive - if that's the case, then

3140:

Here's a handy rule of thumb that I've learned at RfD over the past year or two: if you have to go fishing for a target for a redirect, the redirect should be deleted. It can be recreated whenever the appropriate article is written. Sorry, but keeping for the sake of keeping is not enough; the title

1159:

From an information architecture perspective your extensive use of conspiracy websites essentially disallows either the creation of an article, or the inclusion of the material in a credible article. Whilst a purely legalistic interpretation of the rules, taking each one in isolation, may mean that

826:, and 2) legitimate redirects should be saved; illegitimate ones should be purged. MSJapan has been here at WP:RfD for quite some time now, and I can tell you (despite my being unable to sign in at my work computer) that he/she is not one to violate WP:POINT with his/her edits and Knowledge actions. 2585:

But this is not pointed toward the Masonic article: it's pointed to an article of one of the two people whose last name is mentioned in the title. So it's not a valid redirect as there are two potential redirect targets, not one (it could conceivably be a standalone article per my comments above...

2724:

might help here. Is the term specifically mentioned in the target article, or is this a case in which it is simply trying to preserve a redirect that is better deleted (see my comment above)? Find an article on a person with the last name of Preston-Webb and redirect this there... or find two such

2090:

POV redirect that does not occur on the target page, and has nothing to do with the target. The only place this term occurs is in Catholic sources on Freemasonry. Not one relevant Google hit shows where the term even occurs in Masonic ritual (because it doesn't; the hits imply that the usage is

1327:

Not mentioned in target article. Top hit for this on Google is a Knowledge user talk page, and the rest of references to a book written by an anonymous author. I guess the idea is that this appears in the ritual someplace, but it's news to me, and there doesn't seem to be any RS to support it..

2974:

Grossly inappropriate subversion of procedure to retain the possibility of forking of deleted content, and an unhelpful and incorrect search term to boot. The All England article was AfDed and deleted. This redirect was then created to a Masonic group in France that recognizes All England but

2457:

Delete... does not pass the "Huh? why am I here?" test. Anyone searching for this term would expect to find an article on the website in question, and would wonder why they are being redirected anywhere else. Being redirected to the references section of an article that uses the website as a

2010:

It's not been restored in a much shortened form and so the context argument is not really valid. It does seem to be an issue that the context is quite often consigned to the history section just before or while a deletion argument is going on. This is inadvertant but it can muddy the waters.

4084:(1) Unhelpful? It existed so is helpful and legitimate by definition. (2) Searching for Foreign language terms is a perfectly acceptable activity on a site (en.wikipedia) with many articles with foreign language text and article names. (3) Notability does not count for redirects. 3515:

I'm uncomfortable with the suggestion that the federation is only the one body within it. If the term is notable enough to justify a redirect then it seems reasonable to try to substantiate an article. If an article can't be created then there isn't the notability to justify the

2863: 2552:

as unlikely search term in this context (if "Webb-Preston" is important enough in its own context for a standalone article, just write it!). Author of contested redirects is urged to provide context in the target article to help establish their legitimacy. As I often write in

3535:

as it provides useful information. If the Confederation is notable in itself (I have my doubts as it looks like an Amity list for the Grande Loge de France) then the alternative is to split out the section being redirected to. Delete would simply be unhelpful to readers.

87:

As with the related Masonicinfo redir discussed below, I can think of no reason for this redirect to go somewhere a) not about the topic in question (which the article is not); and b) to a reference section of said article. The website itself doesn't meet WEB.

1555:

I'm not convinced that the target is appropriate, the Due-Guard is neither ritual nor symbol. That said, I'm not entirely sure what the appropriate target would be. I think the difficulty is that there is little to say about it, so any target probably isn't

3802:

term when the body has an accepted name in English already redirected to the same section? As with some of the other noms, this cannot even be typed properly on a standard English keyboard. This is just asking to be turned into a POV fork in the future.

1696:

who is apparently a scholar on Freemasonry, as a leading reason for the split between the French and English forms of Freemasonry, and so could well be notable enough for its own article. This article is second (after the wikipedia entries) in a

2650:

William Preston (1720s in England) and Thomas Smith Webb (1790s or so in the US). As such, it is not accurate to redir to either one of them alone, and it is likely that neither of them had anything to do with the creation of this directly.

4274: 440:- not what I expect, and what casual readers would expect, to see at the end of the search term - of the first page of google hits few refer to masonic ritual - most go to links talking about water skiing and other things involving cables - 2510:

Inaccurate for the reason below (nothing to do with Webb himself), and also wrong. No one who knows what this is to search for it would ever flip the term. It is "Preston-Webb", always has been, and has always been referred to as such.

875:

Sourcing is inadequate to either standalone or be included in the target article. Whilst notability may not be an issue in the purely legalistic sense, the actual usability of the term is not likely to be persistent in the knowledge

1493:

Not mentioned in target, and has nothing to do with ritual content or symbolic content. Etymologically, it might come from French, but there's no proof. So the term is not in the article, and the relevance hasn't been established.

2458:

reference does not make sense. We end up with a loop... anyone comming from the website, looking for more information about it, is being redirected to a page that simply cites the website and points the reader back to the website.

3550:

Delete - I too am uncomfortable with redirecting a general term to a more specific one, usually we would go the other way around (redirecting the specific term to an article on the general one). I like the analogy of redirecting

3413:

Incorrect redirect. The Confederation is exactly that, and therefore consists of multiple Grand Orients/Lodges all over Europe. Redirecting it to one member's article where it only has a one-line mention is not appropriate.

590:- nowhere to be found in target, no context to help here. The vast majority of Google hits on "Lions grasp" are sports related (as part of a sentence like "Can the Nittany Lions grasp the momentum and win the championship?"). 3655:

of questionable reliability (and that's being generous) indicates that this term probably doesn't have sufficient notability to justify, and given the lack of underlying substance I would question the appropriateness of the

4162:. I noticed that a recent edit to "orator" removed the phrase, but Google searches indicate a widespread use (246,000 hits with "grand orator" in quotation marks), thus indicating more than just a meaning in freemasonry. 1533:

is a quotation about the "sign and dueguard of fellowcraft" (from Joyce's Ulysess). In case MSJapan, who claims to be a Freemason, does not get the reference to the second degree of Freemasonry known as fellowcraft, the

1524:

when it is written. Some sort of constructive alternative suggestion rather than a knee jerk delete would have saved everyone's time as it is clear from the above that MSJapan accepts that this is a Masonic term. The

4140:

this position. Google shows hit #1 being a WP article where it was described incorrectly (so I rm'ed it), four relevant hits before a reference to Barack Obama, and hit #11 is already a repeat of an earlier hit.

1720:

as this is much too long to be a worthwhile search item. Its absence from the target is another reason not to have it. To the person who wrote "... could well be notable enough for its own article": if it passes

2998: 2888:

Delete: "Modern Grand Lodge" can have multiple meanings... While it might refer to the group known to Masonic historians as the "Moderns" it can also refer to a Grand Lodge in the modern era (as opposed to a

2997:, so by definition a legitimate search term. It's not notable enough for its own entry, but it's a legitimate search term and is mentioned in the target article. As a matter of interest the Afd is here: 950:

Again, not strictly true. The majority opinion was merge or redirect. Since consensus is a fallacy in binary decision making it was a reasonable action, but I standby for hours of legalistic wrangling.

110:

that you can get without posting it as an external link. This - and many of the others posted today - seem to be redirects in search of legitimate targets... or, rather, legitimate reasons for keeping.

4323: 3309:

The retargeting mentioned above doesn't solve the problem (still no mention in the target article). On the other hand, Lion's Paw is the name of an Algonquin whose name is featured in the legend of

1271:

s - nomination was missing a bracket for the template nominating the second redirect here. It's been added (apologies to nom if he/she objects), and both nominated redirects have been retargeted to

3053:

I don't have any strong feelings either way about either body, and any suggestion of otherwise strikes me as a somewhat disingenuous effort to undermine me, rather than the position I've stated.

3873:

As below, an unhelpful search term. This is a Masonic lodge in Alost in the 1700s, and is barely covered in the article it redirects to. What compounds the problem even more is that this

1954:

MSJapan doesn't really summarise what I said with any accuracy (as should be apparent from looking at the discussion he cites). I haven't read the book but it is one that a German user (

4065:

Sorry, when you say that "this is not the correct name", do you mean that this is not the correct translation or that there was not a lodge named this? The second reason is incorrect.

39: 34: 3613:

Unhelpful and incorrect. Tubal-cain is not (and never was) mentioned in the target article, and it is not a "Masonic password", but a name in the Old Testament mentioned in Genesis.

3276:

No mention of redir in target article. Simple attempt to create false linkage for an article by creating a superficial blue link that will show nothing of value for the search term.

1698: 1885: 1354:. It is interesting that MSJ used google for this (probably without the inverted commas) but apparently not for anything else where the Google results are not mentioned at all. 3471:

We're not talking about that though. We're talking about by far the largest and oldest component. I also noticed that MSJapan got another fact wrong, it is a whole section(

3432:

Legitimate and useful search term. It's mentioned on the page of it's largest member. Will probably in time have it's own article, but until then can serve as a redirect.

2862:

Legitimate and useful search term. This is one of the worse argued entries as the "Antients and Moderns" was one of the defining splits in Freemasonry. Never does not mean

1787:

Too ambiguous to be helpful. The only reason "tyling" redirs to "tyler" is because the redirector knows it does. It could just as well be a misspelling of "tiling", or

1377:

to support the existence or appropriateness of this redirect suggests that it lacks sufficient notability, if valid. No evidence of credible sources for a valid target.

2893:

Grand Lodge.) I understand what the creator was trying to do, and the intent is valid... but he used the wrong term... the historic GL of England is called the "Modern

786:. A serious question is whether MSJapan has reviewed the terms for RfD before this mass entry. He should have attempted one or two entries. Otherwise it looks like 3492:- It's still a component as opposed to the whole (which indicates that the redirection is tenuous at best), and your "section" is simply one line and a bullet list. 2346:

was about to be deleted as spam (as it is, the latter should also be up for RfD for the same reason)! Thus it is an inappropriate redirect that should be removed.

3821:

as some people may know it only by the Belgian French name. There is plenty of precedent for redirecting an original non-English name to its English translation.

2557:: what you write in these discussions pales in importance compare to what you put in the articles themselves when it comes to whether or not they should be kept. 4049:

is. OBTW, redirects from the original language to their English translation generally are valid as many times the original name is more likely to be remembered.

1402:

in assuming that the connection is valid. "The dots" need to be connected, and as with most of today's nominees, there seem to be a definite lack of connection.

4136:

Not a helpful search term. It's not a Masonic Lodge position, it's not covered in the article it redirects to, and there are very few Grand Lodges that even

3285: 3272: 2688:

if a standalone article with this title cannot be written and survive here. A redirect with two equally important potential targets is not a viable option.

2342:- not only is "masonicinfo" nowhere to be found in the target article, the redirect (as discussed in the abovementioned user talk page) was created because 4231: 2034:- the book in question does seem to be the origin of many anti-masonic conspiracy theories. As such, it is appropriate to redirect it to Anti-Masonry. 3768: 3632:. Changed to "Tubal Cain (freemasonry)" for the sake of disambiguation page. I know you're suppsed to keep this secret, but wasn't that misdirection? 847:

reliance on a personal website as support for this being a legitimate search term is pretty tenuous and would suggest that it is unlikely to be notable.

1636: 899:

as previously stated, term appears nowhere in the target article, and there appears to be no context for it. Stated "keep" justification above appears

3746:

dab page). Since there appears to be no articles with that name, the disambiguated title is not only redundant but highly unlikely as a search term.

2387:. There are more but I stopped at A. The spam designation was a mistake by the admin who deleted it, as it does not appear on the spam blacklist. 1640: 2217:

Not strictly true. The decision was Keep as No Consensus. It was redirected by the nominator MSJapan after he didn't get the deletion decision.

1252:

Not strictly true. The decision was Keep as No Consensus. It was redirected by the nominator MSJapan after he didn't get the deletion decision.

936:

Not strictly true. The decision was Keep as No Consensus. It was redirected by the nominator MSJapan after he didn't get the deletion decision.

571:. I would disagree with the characterisation of the discussion on the talk page. There is no credible sourceing which supports the redirection. 2840:

Incorrect and ambiguous. The redirect title was not what the target was called; it was the Premier Grand Lodge, and it is never referred to as

21: 321:

per comments of closing admin of TfD. There is no need for disambiguation templates this specialized, and there is no need for the redirect.

2323:, it would be better to point to Freemasonry but an Admin has said that as it appears most in that section that's where it should point to. 3123: 2571:

Webb-Preston is used as a term in the connected Masonic article. It is perfectly possible for people to get the order wrong in a search.

4163: 4050: 3896: 3826: 3747: 3458: 3383: 3342: 3146: 3109: 3084: 2923: 2730: 2689: 2591: 2558: 2406: 2347: 2236: 2163: 1986: 1938: 1864: 1835: 1734: 1615: 1578: 1440: 1403: 1276: 1231: 1181: 974: 904: 827: 591: 462: 322: 247: 112: 2867: 1692:, and I'm not sure why it's been removed (that's not an accusation, as it was deleted by an unconnected user). It's also mentioned by 2944: 17: 207:

The result of the debate was keep. Even though case insensitivity is handled by media wiki, redirects are cheap. No need to delete. –

4316: 4308: 4267: 4259: 3851: 2759:

of the reasons for the redirect is a section that can be expanded (which seems to be ignored in another discussion). I also saw the

1230:- "Five points of fellowship" is nowhere to be found in the target article, and no "bridge" to the term can be found there, either. 3895:

as it is mentioned in the target article. Diacritics can be found below the editing rectangle - just pull down and click "Latin".

1985:

If there is no context, it is a confusing and therefore an unuseful redirect. There is no context for this in the target article.

670: 2760: 4235: 4027:. Therefore, there's no real reason to have created this as a redirect from the outset, which is exactly what has happened. 2814: 2763:

which seems to fit this particular case like a glove. If I'm missing something on that page then could you please quote it?

179: 3912:

This is true, but I'm working from the perspective that the editing box is not accessible via the search box, so unless the

3228:. There is no article and the mentioning at the current target is rather slim. The list entry provides no content either.-- 3292: 616: 1394:- no apparent connection in target article, no context. Author is relying too heavily on information that might not pass 4287: 4214: 4190: 4171: 4150: 4132: 4093: 4074: 4058: 4036: 4014: 3979: 3946: 3925: 3904: 3886: 3869: 3834: 3812: 3790: 3755: 3714: 3688: 3665: 3641: 3622: 3609: 3591: 3572: 3545: 3525: 3501: 3484: 3466: 3441: 3423: 3408: 3368: 3350: 3304: 3254: 3237: 3208: 3194: 3180: 3154: 3135: 3117: 3092: 3062: 3048: 3030: 3010: 2984: 2968: 2931: 2910: 2883: 2853: 2835: 2797: 2772: 2738: 2715: 2703: 2697: 2678: 2660: 2640: 2599: 2580: 2566: 2542: 2520: 2504: 2467: 2444: 2414: 2396: 2355: 2332: 2310: 2284: 2244: 2226: 2211: 2193: 2182: 2171: 2147: 2133: 2114: 2085: 2073: 2060: 2043: 2020: 1994: 1980: 1946: 1928: 1910: 1872: 1843: 1826: 1804: 1781: 1742: 1710: 1679: 1661: 1623: 1604: 1586: 1569: 1547: 1513: 1503: 1487: 1465: 1448: 1429: 1411: 1386: 1363: 1337: 1322: 1301: 1284: 1261: 1239: 1211: 1189: 1171: 1154: 1136: 1113: 1087: 1072: 1050: 1034: 1020: 999: 982: 959: 945: 930: 912: 885: 870: 856: 835: 798: 769: 754: 734: 715: 701: 682: 655: 641: 599: 580: 561: 539: 525: 504: 487: 470: 447: 432: 406: 388: 367: 350: 330: 312: 290: 255: 236: 224: 155: 132: 120: 97: 82: 760:

Not mentioned in article, and TBH, I don't even know where this comes from, because it has nothing to do with Masonry.

3957: 3847: 3563:

is the second hit (of about 8 total) listed on a google search... it tells you something is wrong with the redirect.

1046: 4019:

English WP is somewhat beyond me, but it has been established elsewhere that lodges fall under "local chapters" per

646:

Unhelpful search term; text does not appear in target article. No idea where this came from or why it is relevant.

3735: 3587: 1959: 900: 779: 305: 2590:

once the redirect is overwritten with a standalone article (don't retarget now - it would be a double redirect!).

1521: 1202:. I have tried to avoid wikilawyering all along here. Anon-IP, you are a rather one sided judge in all of this. 4300: 4251: 2007:

You proably didn't see, but the text was removed, inadvertantly, by Blueboar on the same day as the nomination.

1101: 2289:

Blatantly obvious. This is referring to a website used to source Masonic articles, and since redirecting it to

1670:

that gets all the hits), and it is therefore nn. The extent of its coverage is one line in the target article.

3552: 3450: 2320: 995: 549: 3731: 2293:

was considered not appropriate because it should redirect to an article about the website (which doesn't pass

1127:

site of questionable reliability does not suggest this term has notability or that the target is appropriate.

4167: 4054: 3996: 3900: 3830: 3751: 3462: 3346: 3330: 3150: 3113: 3088: 3021:

conflation of the two bodies demonstrates a weak understanding of the nature, and politics, of recognition.

2927: 2734: 2693: 2595: 2562: 2410: 2351: 2240: 2167: 1990: 1942: 1915:

Not in English (German), cannot be typed on a standard English keyboard. Additionally, the redirector, per

1868: 1839: 1738: 1619: 1582: 1444: 1407: 1280: 1235: 1185: 1177: 978: 908: 831: 595: 466: 326: 251: 116: 3953: 692:

Reliance on a selection of conspiracy websites as a source does not suggest this is a credible search term.

4110: 3933:

This is one I really don't understand. I disagree with others but understand them. Surely redirects are

3772: 3334: 1955: 1078:

This isn't the right title (wrong grammatical article), and again, it's not in the target article at all.

344: 2898: 2297:) and not its subject matter, the person who created the redirect pointed it at the reference section of 3472: 3387: 2948: 2810: 2091:

actually elsewhere, only once, in an 18th cent. non-ritual text), so it does not pertain to its target.

1351: 309: 129: 3992: 3449:- redirecting a general term to a more specific one is generally a bad idea, somewhat like redirecting 2154:

No, but lack of a mention in the target article can be - and often is - here. I see no such mention in

1512:. Yet another legitimate and useful search term. An alleged funny handshake it probably best fits in 420: 53:

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 23, 2008

4046: 268: 4283: 3956:(ie the name without accent marks) is a legitimate search term, and thus a legit redirect... but not 2343: 1969:"cannot be typed on a standard English keyboard" justification is really not a valid one for deletion 199: 195: 167: 57: 4210: 4089: 4070: 3942: 3684: 3637: 3480: 3437: 3404: 3364: 3300: 3204: 3176: 3131: 3044: 3006: 2879: 2831: 2768: 2711: 2674: 2576: 2538: 2440: 2392: 2328: 2280: 2222: 2189: 2143: 2110: 2081: 2016: 1976: 1965: 1916: 1906: 1822: 1814: 1706: 1657: 1543: 1359: 1318: 1257: 1207: 1150: 1109: 1016: 941: 866: 794: 711: 678: 637: 557: 521: 444: 428: 393:

redirect does not appear in article. I would also note that this is the standard problem with the

384: 217: 78: 2871: 2616: 2587: 2480: 3975: 3825:, anybody? As far as the diacritics are concerned, see my notes both above and below this entry. 3710: 3568: 3233: 3190: 2906: 2793: 2463: 2298: 2263: 2259: 2207: 2039: 1919:

doesn't even really know what it is either. So how does he know it belongs where he pointed it?

1600: 1425: 926: 783: 500: 483: 175: 61: 1530: 1297: 1097: 363: 4146: 4032: 3921: 3882: 3808: 3618: 3541: 3497: 3419: 3281: 2980: 2849: 2656: 2620: 2516: 2484: 2384: 2306: 2096: 1924: 1855:. Unless someone finds a noteworthy person or two with the last name of Tyling (as opposed to 1800: 1775: 1675: 1499: 1481: 1461: 1333: 1083: 1066: 1030: 765: 730: 651: 535: 402: 339: 298: 272: 93: 2202:

The targeted article has itself been redirected per AfD... so now we have a double redirect.

822:. It's based on two premises: 1) there is no such thing that there is an editor who can know 1792: 1755: 1141:

The notability argument seems prevalent. Do you think that this is a criteria for deleting

665:. Suggest that it should be withdrawn. For reference it is supposed to be a password for 478:- "cable tow" could just as easily redirect to an article on different types of ski lifts. 106:- without any context other than simply having it as a Wikilink, this is about as close to 4279: 3076: 1759: 787: 666: 2401:

It doesn't need to be on the blacklist to be considered spam for Knowledge purposes. See

3916:

can type in the language needed, one will never actually hit this redirect from search.

4206: 4085: 4066: 3952:

MSJapan has a point... you can not type accent marks when searching. I would say that

3938: 3822: 3705:

Answer: That depends on the jurisdiction and ritual being used. There isn't just one.

3680: 3633: 3476: 3433: 3401: 3360: 3314: 3296: 3200: 3172: 3127: 3040: 3002: 2959: 2875: 2828: 2764: 2707: 2670: 2669:

Then suggest a better alternative. It was redirected there on the of another editor.

2631: 2572: 2534: 2495: 2436: 2432: 2402: 2388: 2372: 2324: 2277: 2218: 2185: 2139: 2106: 2078: 2012: 1972: 1903: 1818: 1722: 1702: 1654: 1539: 1355: 1315: 1253: 1203: 1146: 1105: 1013: 966: 937: 921:

The targeted article has been redirected per AfD... so now we have a double redirect.

862: 790: 745: 707: 674: 634: 612: 553: 518: 441: 424: 381: 209: 107: 75: 3794:

Unhelpful and confusing search term. If someone is going to search for this group on

3083:

here at RfD, and I'm sure that such belligerence would be unintentional in this case.

1595:

The targeted article has been redirected per AfD... so now we have a double redirect.

1420:

The targeted article has been redirected per AfD... so now we have a double redirect.

1248:

The targeted article has been redirected per AfD... so now we have a double redirect.

397:

on this page created by this same individual, which mostly point to the same article.

4330:

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

4186: 4127: 4020: 4009: 3971: 3864: 3785: 3706: 3661: 3604: 3564: 3521: 3310: 3267: 3229: 3186: 3080: 3072: 3058: 3026: 2922:

can be very confusing. Blueboar's suggestion seems much more appropriate and useful.

2902: 2789: 2726: 2554: 2459: 2435:

does it meet? And please don't say what an admin has said and then half-retracted.

2368: 2294: 2203: 2129: 2035: 1831: 1688:. Legitimate and useful search term that was until a week ago in the article. This 1667: 1596: 1565: 1421: 1382: 1199: 1167: 1132: 955: 922: 881: 852: 697: 576: 479: 285: 171: 147: 4225: