Knowledge (XXG) talk:Redirects for discussion/Archive 13

2269:. To begin with, RfD doesn't work by precedent and so situations where you'd need to regularly refer to an older RfD are generally rare. And if you want to link to one, what you'd normally do is locate the discussion and then copy-and-paste the link. I don't think you would normally be able to type it off the top of your head (short or not) as that would imply remembering both the exact date of the discussion and the exact section header. Even if these redirects make it a little bit easier to type out a link, I don't think this would be a practice we'd want to be encouraging: typing stuff out of memory has a high potential for error that you don't get with copy and paste. – 2281:. I said in the RfD that a redirect such as the one presented allows for easy reference to a past RfD result. I'm not suggesting that a shorthand redirect is added for every month, but I can definitely see the worth in having one around, even if it is just for personal use. If there is a significant result that a user wants to link to multiple times, I wouldn't be opposed to them making a shorthand redirect for discussion purposes, as long as they all follow the same naming convention. To that effect, the redirect has a usage and cannot be misinterpreted. To Uanfala's point, I wouldn't suggest encouraging the creation of these redirects, but 3313:

can find all the necessary understanding with a single click. With a red link they will be taken to either (a) an edit screen to create the page after a summary of the deletion log (if they have the necessary permissions to do so), or (b) a page explaining there is no article at that title, and that they do not have permission to create it. The message invites them to search for a page with a similar title, or as the last of about 6 options, search the deletion log to see if it was previously deleted. If someone

1330:

about this supposed "issue", when there wasn't one in the first place. Closing discussions can be a daunting and challenging thing for anyone to figure out, regardless of the amount of time you have spent here, and I would hate for you to think you have to do that additional work when it's as easy as pressing a couple buttons on my end to formally close the discussion. My apologies if you took my comment the wrong way, but I absolutely think you did nothing wrong here. --

2597: 31: 668:: The general rule is that a discussion stays open for at least seven days after nomination or the most recent relisting. If you see a discussion that is still open (not marked as closed with an orange box), feel free to comment on it. Redirects for discussion are a low-traffic forum so the exact time of discussion closure depends on volunteer availability. Decisions are made by finding consensus in the discussion, not just counting heads. 2340:, who argued all similar redirects should be deleted without further discussion), I say: please be more careful when deleting pages (even lowly redirects), and do not delete an entire "class" of pages without linking to and checking all of them to see how deletion might affect "reader-facing content". I know that's annoying to do for hundreds of pages, but if something is worth doing, it should be worth doing right. - 2540: 3652:: some of these redirects were formerly articles (so there might be issues with preserving history and attribution), some are redirects from moves (potentially needed to preserve incoming links), so could have been created for ease of linking. Probably some are not needed, so deletion may be in the interest of the encyclopedia, but if your sole concern is the redirects' membership of 3473: 3442: 3097:

to a couple of years old. Do we have anything like a modern understanding of what "a significant length of time" means to us? If we have an estimate, then it'd be a kindness to all concerned if we actually wrote it down, instead of making editors guess whether "a significant length of time" is usually taken to mean approximately a week, a month, a year, or a decade.

2784: 2650: 2336:(through one of its "component" subpages) at the time of deletion, which is how I learned about it. Although the idea of breaking links was considered in the discussion, apparently it wasn't taken seriously enough for anyone to actually check each page (sufficiently carefully, anyway) for that possibility. To all relevant parties involved (including 2631: 2101:

and it has already caught on, it's rarely sensible to attempt to retarget it, as that would entail changing the following: incoming links from pages (laborious, though not impossible), habits of editors who've become accustomed to the shortcut (borderline impossible), and incoming links from edit summaries (properly impossible). –

1549:

discussion, removing of RfD tags without mentioning it in the discussion, etc, and we don't know how many people just don't . Just because very few people have explicitly complained does not mean that there isn't a problem. However, even if there isn't, what possible harm will result from adding the guidance?

3260:"if a redirect is reasonably old (or a redirect is created as a result of moving a page that has been there for quite some time), then it is quite possible that its deletion will break links in old, historical versions of some other articles—such an event is very difficult to envision and even detect." 3346:

Yes and no. We do always need to be careful when retargetting (and especially so for shortcut links, which are referenced far more often than they are read) but when a page is retargetted the link remains blue and hatnotes/disambiguation pages can give links back (with context) to the previous target

3096:

Given that the first edits to the English Knowledge (XXG) were made about 3.5 years before the creation of the rule, I don't think it's unreasonable to guess that this was meant to discourage deletion (though not changing the target of) of "unnecessary" redirects that something in the range of months

1406:

Overhauling that would be good but there would still need to be a sentence on the main page that notes you can withdraw by (a) commenting in the discussion that you've withdrawn it, and/or (b) following the closing instructions on the subpage. I'd also suggest renaming it from "Admin instructions" to

3336:

Well, if preserving the clickability of links in old revisions is so important, then imagine what grave consequences there might be when retargeting redirects. So a link that previously went to one article, now goes to a completely different one, and the meaning of the original text is turned on its

3241:

Do we ever strive to keep links alive in older revisions or in edit summaries? Whether a link is blue or red doesn't really change the communicative value of the text (and anyway, from a redlink, any logged in user should be able to get via the deletion log to the relevant RfD discussion). I take it

3226:

I think that the longer a URL has existed, the higher the likelihood of it being linked from somewhere – but "higher likelihood" is not at all the same as "actually happened in the particular case". Traffic statistics will probably show links from external sites (at least higher-traffic sites), but

2981:

I agree with Tavix that this is an improvement and that the "very" is not really needed (although I'm not opposed to it remaining). I would though expand the final sentence to: "...if such links come from older revisions of Knowledge (XXG) articles, from edit summaries, from other Wikimedia projects

2917:

if a redirect is reasonably old (or a redirect is created as a result of moving a page that has been there for quite some time), then it is possible that its deletion will break incoming links (if such links come from older revisions of Knowledge (XXG) articles or from the internet outside Knowledge

2889:

Now, the second bullet point and the paragraph that immediately follows it are all really about the same thing (breaking incoming links), so I think it's reasonable to merge them. Additionally, I think it goes to a greater than necessary length explaining external incoming links. And the presence of

831:

Due to a recent RFD about the title of our WP:RS guideline, it has come to my attention that we have no system of notification in place for RFD discussions. We have such a requirement for RM discussions... but not for RFD discussions. Is this an oversight, or something intentional? Should there be

108:

Scenario #1: There is a redirect from X to Y that an editors knows is appropriate (say, because they have special domain knowledge that X is another commonly used term for Y) but which is not explained in the article about Y. Should the editor redirect at X for deletion because of the risk that the

3312:

I agree completely with WhatamIdoing here. If someone sees a link and understands from the combination of context, their memory and experience what the target is and why it was referenced then all is fine. However, if any one of those four is missing or if they are unsure then with a blue link they

3279:

that templates that have formerly been used widely should always be kept for this precise reason, and I've almost always been a lone voice there), but that just doesn't make sense. The only difference that the existence of a redirect will make on the pages that link to it is the colour of the link,

3216:

that it might have had a higher likelihood of becoming entwined into the navigation network of Knowledge (XXG) and the wider internet, but then we have more direct proxy measure for that (like incoming links or traffic statistics). An argument can conceivably be made that the longer a page has been

2670:

Hi IP84, thanks for being bold! Editing policies is a valid way of testing and building consensus. I disagree that KEEP7 is obsolete, and the linked discussion doesn't give me reason to believe that consensus has changed. I totally understand your problem with K7 and D10, but disagree that it's one

2166:

as pseudo-shortcuts to daily log pages for XfDs? As of this writing, these two are the only ones in existence, and the consensus at the linked RfD is shifting in favor of keep. As several users suggest that there could be value in using these redirects as shorthand in edit summaries or perhaps even

119:

As always, "Redirected from X" will appear at the top of the page. Please assume for the sake of argument that the editor is unable add an explanation to the article because they have access to any sources or they don't have time; the only options are to delete or not delete the redirect. Assume

2100:

I'm assuming this is a shortcut. Is it used as intended? If there's a large number of incoming links where the intended meaning is something other than the current target, then that would be a strong argument for doing something about this redirect at RfD. On the other hand, if it's used correctly

1329:

I didn't think you have a fumbled withdrawal! It is not an issue at all for a RfD regular to "file the paperwork" after one withdraws in the way you did, and I am more than happy to continue to do so in the future. On the contrary, I'm confused why Thryduulf thinks it such a big deal to bother you

193:

The first action on discovering a redirect that might fall into either of these categories should be to fix it if you can. If you cannot, then your first action should be to post on the target talk page and/or on a relevant wikiproject page expressing your concerns. If after a reasonable amount of

3375:

With the recent changes, deletion is acceptable for "recent" (rather than just "very recent", which sounds more like weeks or a couple of months) redirects. Looking at this discussion, I think that about a year is probably "recent". This, of course, is unrelated to other considerations; elderly

2359:

redirects in a series of nominations, specifically so that incoming links could be checked in smaller, more manageable batches. While I support the subsequent decision to speedily delete all similar redirects on the basis of efficiency (nominating hundreds of redirects is quite time-consuming), I

1084:

I think the idea is more about finding people who might know what they're talking about. I dunno about "problematic", but there are occasional discussions (math, phylogeny, foreign languages) that the regulars aren't necessarily experts at; pagewatchers of the target might be helpful. Redirects

911:

It's almost never the best use of time to discuss redirects to targets that are currently at an XfD. If the target is deleted the redirect can be speedily deleted under criterion G8 and any consensus at RfD becomes irrelevant or moot depending which is closed first. With any other outcome for the

3135:

There are a host of exceptions however. For example, if a redirect is the result of a page move shortly after creation from a clearly incorrect original title (e.g. a typo) and the author(s) of the page before the move are (or should be) aware of the new location then it will almost certainly be

3041:

as it's the most specific: WP:EXTERNALROT doesn't seem to talk of the other types of incoming links, though of course, linking earlier in the text as Tavix suggests would in some ways be more natural. I'm going to update the project page with this provisional new version (obviously, feel free to

1548:

didn't know whether that was sufficient, whether she should comment at the top or the bottom, whether she could close it, etc. and over the years I've seen plenty of people asking in threads "can I withdraw this?" or "how can this been withdrawn?", striking out of nominations, striking the whole

3676:

and only mass-nominate ones that are extremely likely to be non-controversial. If it has any incoming link other than possibly "historical" discussion or user-space page, if it or its talk page has any history or log history that isn't purely trivial or administrative, or if there is any other

1826:

spellings, some of which may appear unusual to an English speaker. In the past I did not include this detail in the edit summaries/internal comments/talk pages in the redirects. I am concerned that years down the line a person unfamiliar with this may file a redirect for discussion and get the

2865:

if a redirect is reasonably old (or a redirect is created as a result of moving a page that has been there for quite some time), then it is quite possible that its deletion will break links in old, historical versions of some other articles—such an event is very difficult to envision and even

3016:

if a redirect is reasonably old (or is the result of moving a page that has been there for quite some time), then it is possible that its deletion will break incoming links (such links coming from older revisions of Knowledge (XXG) pages, from edit summaries, from other Wikimedia projects or

2373:

That strikes me as highly irregular. Yes, occasionally IAR could be invoked to delete a class of redirects without a deletion discussion, but I'd normally expect the "precedent" to have had a decent quorum, something of the order of an RfC, or a lengthy and well-attended RfD. If I understand

686:

Any easy way to get a list of all redirects from the Knowledge (XXG) namespace to the Article namespace? Just speedied (as recently created) 4 where editors erroneously moved an article from Draft to the Knowledge (XXG) space, and then corrected by a second move from Knowledge (XXG) to the

114:

Scenario #2: There is a redirect from X to Y that could potentially be correct (e.g., X is plausibly an alternate term used for Y), but the editor has no domain knowledge and so is unsure. If the term X is not discussed on the article for Y, should the editor propose the redirect for

1827:

redirects deleted because other Wikipedians don't know about the fact it is a legitimate redirect spelling. I think RFD filers and participants should be familiar with the romanizations of say Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, etc. when a redirect in that subject area is discussed.

3217:

around the more likely it is to have gained some sort of tacit approval by the community, but this is applicable (within limits) to articles, and not to redirects (most of which tend to remain forever off peoples' radars: redirect gnoming is really a small corner of our garden). –

3203:

It really surprises me that length of existence should have been stated as relevant at all. Of course, I'm not referring to either extreme of the scale: redirects created in 2001 should be part of our hallowed heritage, no matter how silly they might be, while redirects created

1040:

I've commented there, generally in support, but I do just want to add here that it would be great if more RfD regulars could chime in. As the majority of RfD noms are done by Twinkle, such a thing would be a de facto change/addition to the RfD nomination procedures. ~

3376:

redirects that are actually harmful (e.g., insults) should still be nuked on sight. This will mostly apply to the harmless-but-pointless redirects. I think I'll go add that note to the page, so that nobody else will have to guess what our unwritten rules are.

3242:

we're not talking about retargeting (rather than deleting) WP space redirects (like shortcut for policies and guidelines), in which case a change of the status quo will obviously be a bad idea for redirects that have existed for any non-trivial period of time. –

1433:

for details on when withdrawing is appropriate. That being said, your (a) wouldn't be a closure though, so that would be inappropriate for closing instructions. I agree that a rename should happen, although it would need to be for all XFDAIs for consistency.

3337:

head. If old revisions are an argument for not deleting redirects, there are all the more an argument for not retargeting. If this logic is followed through, then redirects that have existed for a certain amount of time should never ever be edited again! –

3293:

and similar tools). If you delete an old redirect, then anyone reading will see a red link, and instead of reaching the article, if they click on it, they'll be taken to a wikitext editor to re-create the page. (There's a handy red link at the top of

1610:

is a vast and sprawling guideline detailing the purpose, scope and nature of redirects. Contravention of it is more likely to be a reason for deletion, rather than a reason for a speedy keep. Surely there is something more clear that can be said here.

1085:

only make sense if they end up somewhere, so I think of it sort of like TfM where the target is notified. Placing a template on the target is clearly overkill in this case, though, so a short talkpage note to awaken the watchers seems reasonable. ~

1289:

Hmm, after 120k edits over 12 years I can sympathise with newbies who find Knowledge (XXG) a hostile environment, being told I lack common sense because I wasn't aware of the correct process in an area where I don't spend a lot of time. Thanks,

1198:

templates, using "'''withdrawn'''" for the result parameter. You should then edit the redirect page to remove the rfd tag making it clear in the edit summary that the nomination has been withdrawn. On the redirect's talk page you should add the

935:

Not wasting time nominating a redirect to a target that might be deleted should be common sense, no? I doubt the people who nonetheless nominate such redirects are the ones who are likely to read in detail the guidance at the top of the page. –

3632:

In principle, you can mass-nominate these redirects using one of several ways: 1) use Twinkle to nominate each redirect individually, and at the end merge the nominations (if desired); 2) create a single nomination consisting in an instance of

687:

Mainspace, leaving a redirect. But those speedies were only after a manual search that got up to "Am". A systemic list would be better of course, with any non-recently created to be brought here rather than speedied. Thanks in advance.

492:

It's not possible to give a definitive answer for all cases, as it will depend on the circumstances of each term individually in exactly the same way as any other redirect. I shall comment on the specifics of "Popsicle" at the linked RM.

3167:, I'd really like to know how you interpret "a significant length of time" in the context of this criteria. Do you agree with Thryduulf that 6–12 months is approximately the right range, or would you pick a different length of time? 945:

It's common sense for most experienced editors but not necessarily for inexperienced ones (who don't realise it's not necessary for example). Some of these people will read guidance, but for the ones that don't see my point (b) above.

2218:. This was needed because AWB allows only 156 characters in edit summaries, compared with the 500 chars in the default source editor. This is a fairly common situation, and having these redirects in all cases would be very helpful. 1530:

One doesn't need guideline to leave a note at a discussion. PamD was able to do this just fine and there is no evidence of others having "issues" withdrawing their own nomination because they didn't know they could leave a comment.

3317:

choose to view the deletion log, there is no guarantee that the message will give any hints about the previous content meaning the reader is not helped. These are only some of the reasons why deleting redirects can be harmful and

596:

Back in 2015, there was a maintenance category that listed pages in the "File:" namespace that had the same name as a page on Wikimedia Commons, but I don’t know if that category still exists today, nor do I recall its name.

2387:

I agree that all of these redirects should have been individually tagged for deletion (doing so via AWB or similar is fine, it doesn't have to be done manually) and would support their undeletion. This should probably be at

2210:. As I mentioned at the RFD, this is something which I have been meaning to propose for ages, for the three CXFD venues which use a daily log page: RFD, CFD and TFD. It would allow much easier linking to XFD discussions. 1212:

Alternatively, you can simply add a note at the end of the discussion making it clear that you are withdrawing the nomination. An experienced closer will close the discussion and do the other steps for you when they see

1701:

The above redirect is up for deletion, but I can't seem to find the actual discussion anywhere. It's clearly a typo (the disambig isn't closed), however, I found it odd there was no link to the discussion. Best Wishes,

3677:

reason to give it individual consideration, don't put it in the mass-nomination. Ditto if it has more than a handful of pageviews in the last few months, not counting page views driven by discussion such as this one.

3647:

to "yes" for all except the first one), and then tag the individual redirects; 3) use AWB to automate the previous step. However, I don't think a mass nomination is a good idea in this case, it will likely result in a

915:

We should probably include something like this (but worded better) in the RfD guidance to (a) directly help people who read it before nominating and (b) have somewhere to point people to when we get nominations like

2471:

where I make a suggestion to mass-change a class of redirects. It has attracted no discussion so far, so I believe the logical next step would be to mass-nominate the redirects in question. My question is twofold:

2374:

correctly, the redirects concerned are all redirects from moves, and that makes it necessary to have a workflow for fixing incoming links before any deletion is carried out. But I think we really need to hear from

134:(If this is not the correct place to discuss abstract principles that ought to be applied when deciding whether to delete a redirect, could someone tell me where that is? The only other plausible page I found was 1356:" at both top and bottom because wasn't sure which was the right place. It would be useful to include something about withdrawing an RfD in the page which has instructions on adding and closing RfD discussions. 1902: 1014:

that Twinkle should put a notice on the talk page of the target article of a redirect up for discussion at RfD. Best to keep the discussion in one place, so do join in the discussion there if interested.

2264:

If an editor has created a few redirects to use in certain situations (like stringently short edit summaries in AWB), then sure, let them do that. However, I don't see a benefit in this type of redirect

2575:

clause 10, and while it is in theory still true, in practice deleting a redirect makes it more obvious on other Wikipedias that enwiki does not yet have a corresponding article. "Obsolete" as in "since

2167:

as shortcuts (to avoid typing long titles), I'm bringing this here for a broader survey. Should there be consensus in favor of mass creation, a new bot task could be requested for its implementation.

2079:

If a redirect in the Knowledge (XXG) namespace has lots of incoming links (I stopped at 1500), is it possible to retarget it to a more appropriate target? If not, I won't submit that for discussion. ―

1516:(a) is not closure instructions, it's: "if you want to withdraw just leave a comment at the end of the discussion saying so, or follow the instructions in this page that sounds irrelevant.". 3514:

is currently occupied largely by redirects whose sole purpose seems to be to force non-word things into that category. Each of the following articles simply redirects to the article on the

2759: 2506: 917: 788: 135: 2317: 2215:

The examples above were both created by me to allow linking to the discussion in edit summaries of a few thousand AWB edits which I made as a result of the deletion of the redirect, e.g.

2155: 1935: 1452:

constistency in closing instruction page locations, although I'm obviously not going to object to renaming others too (assuming there are closures at all of them that non-admins can do).

2328:, based on what currently links to that title. This is worrisome. Are deletions becoming so routine that they can't even wait for the affected pages to actually be nominated? Note that 1845: 2221:

If there is consensus to do this, I suggest that there should be a one-off bot task to do it for all the historical cases, and an ongoing bot task to do it for all new daily pages. --

978:) that might help some of those situations, but this would be good to point to. As above, the XfD of the target should almost always take precedence over the redirect discussion. ~ 154: 1721: 91: 86: 81: 69: 64: 59: 3298:

if anyone wants to try it out.) If you delete a redirect, a red link is the result, but the difference between a blue link and a red link goes well beyond the visible color.

1795:

which I created sometime earlier this month. I only became aware of the proposal after it was deleted (somehow I didn't see the notification) so I couldn't participate in

1484:

Why are instructions about how to withdraw an RfD nomination out of place on a page giving instructions about RfD discussions? Consistency is desirable but not essential.

854:, not sure I follow: each page subject to RfD is tagged, and nominators should be pinging the creator on their talk page, and the centralized discussions are linked from 2325: 477:. Leaving the decision to an editor/survey on whether or not Knowledge (XXG) should respect a book citation over easily verified live trademark ownership seems tenuous. 469:

whether to direct the trademark name to the trademark page or its generic equivalent page? Examples of both have been presented in comments and I see no guidance within

2733:

I think it is reasonable to wait for more participation, but fundamentally I agree with IP84 on striking K7. Incidentally, K7 appears the newest of the clauses; it was

2679:

to reconsider the close. It may well be that K7 has outlived its usefulness, but I'd want wider consensus than an RfD with 3 participants before removing it entirely.

1174:

If you want to withdraw the nomination for any reason, for example if you change your mind and there are no other editors advocating deletion, there are two options.

1384:

also doesn't have specific instruction for plenty of other common closures at RfD, including retargeting, disambiguating, soft redirects, etc. I like the way that

3781: 1975: 625: 2250:, I don't see the need. I don't mind these being created on a case by case basis, like your bot task, but situations like this don't pop up every single day. -- 1421:

I don't see anything wrong with the current setup on the main page, where it simply points to RFDAI with the exception of a couple general notes that apply to

1407:"Closing instructions" as only a subset of closes need to be done by an administrator and the instructions are applicable to everyone who closes a discussion. 3712:

at the appropriate articles). I'll leave any further cleanup to someone who has (A) the necessary credentials to WP:BOLD it, or (B) the patience to RFD it. --

2285:

point 5 says that we shouldn't delete a redirect if somebody finds them useful. And the only reason that these redirects would exist would be "to be useful".

1851:

Can someone please take a look at this? I'm reluctant to close it myself as I'm "involved" but clearly it's not conducive to have parallel discussions at at

3613:

I'd propose all of these redirects for deletion, if there were some way to do it speedily. Alternatively, if someone with the proper permissions could just

2468: 3212:

if implausible. But otherwise, I can't see why length of existence should get into the equation. Sure, if a redirect has been around for a long time, it's

1068:

I think this is overkill. Is there an example of a problematic RfD discussion that might have ended differently had the target's talk page been notified?

962:

I think I'd be in favor of this, although I think the larger issue is RfDs that point to subjects that are subsequently nominated. That is, the redirect

333:

a few times, I've closed or relisted all remaining nominations of 27th September or before, except "Stephni Meyer". Let's hope we can pull someone in from

123:

My intention is to discuss principles that should apply generally in these sorts of scenarios, but for reference the case the prompted this dispute was X="

120:

also that any proposed deletion is announced in the appropriate place and no other editors respond, so the original editor must make a judgement call.

3782:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Proposed new CSD criterion: R5, for redirects with malformed or misspelled (disambiguation) qualifiers

1660:

you should now see a new checkbox. If checked (default), Twinkle will leave a notice on the talk page of a redirect's target upon RfD nomination. See

47: 17: 2814: 3289:

If you keep an old redirect, then anyone reading will see a blue link and be able to reach the target article (either by clicking on it or by using

912:

target the original rationale may or may not still be relevant so it's much better to wait until outcome of the XfD before nominating the redirect.

2738: 2671:

or the other. Neither of them is an absolute truth, in every case we need to weigh the benefits of deleting and keeping an article (you may find

1171:. My initial suggestion is below but improvements, comments and copyedits are more than welcome - in particular this is possibly too detailed. 2110:

Kind of what I assumed, just wanted to be sure we didn't have some magic solution. I spot-checked a few and they are used as intended. It was

162: 2235: 1689: 2043:

as a good example of a useful redirect that should not be linked - it is a very plausible misspelling of the target article name. Similarly

1168: 1167:

has pointed out that there are no instructions for withdrawing an RfD nomination. With that in mind, I propose to add a short subsection of

3120:

regard being old as a factor tending to indicate a redirect should be kept ("old" here meaning more than, generally, 6-12 months). Others,

568:). But the latter two actually have local redirects pointing to a different file than their Commons equivalents, which means they're also 2486:

and which are redirects, ask for a bot-task to tag them, and put up a bundled nomination. But I do not know how to search for that list.

2047:

is probably a good redirect because it's the subjects name but in Western name order, which is how it will be rendered in some sources.

474: 1631: 3275:

Whoa! We should chuck that bit out. It's not that I don't care for preserving old revisions (quite the contrary: I've often argued at

2875: 2818: 2789: 2720: 2672: 2655: 2581: 2522: 1906: 1762: 1683: 1100: 1056: 993: 880: 2159: 2119: 2115: 1913:. This is a terminology conflict of sorts. I did not figure out how to post this on the project page. Vive the difference between 165:

to bring any interested editors to this discussion. At the time of nominating the redirect for discussion, the target page was in

2755: 405: 2741:. In addition to being inconsistent with D10, it also seems to highlight a loophole to (or promote bypassing) the long-standing 1253:

Well at least one person has failed to find that so we need some mention of withdrawing, even if not necessarily instructions.

2806: 2675:). I don't think the discussion shows that editors came to a decision on whether K7 or D10 is better in this case, so I asked 709: 315:

Deryck has now closed all except Stephni meyer (which they have contributed to), so we're down to just the one outstanding.

2707:. I don't care how it's arranged, I was only surprised by this "obviously wrong" argument, and folks convinced me that the 349:

Oh wow, it's already been on there for 33 days! I think this is one of the most involved RFD nominations I've ever seen...

251:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

3689: 2944: 1380:

And that's a perfectly acceptable way to do it! Back to the issue at hand, I think it would be relevant to point out that

448:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

3001:

Incorporating the above suggestions, and with a little tweak to the wording, the section could look something like that:

2469:

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Food_and_drink#Food_additives_codes_redirect_to_chemical_compounds_instead_of_E_number_article

3751:, the template used primarily on redirect creators' talk pages to inform them the redirect they created is nominated at 2069: 1898: 1606:

This text has been around since at least 2005, and perhaps it made more sense then. But what does it actually mean now?

128: 2305: 712:

is probably the list you are looking for, and it's from 2017. Most of the problematic redirects were taken care of via

789:

Knowledge (XXG):Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 31#Category:Canadian Research Publication academic journals

3477: 3465: 564:. I speedy deleted one but not the other two because the first one is an exact shadow (so completely uncontroversial 298: 2894:

in the last sentence seems to imply – using the common everyday meanings of the words – that we should only delete

1616: 655: 38: 2546: 2163: 1796: 1695: 516: 3073:. It was updated once or twice soon after (e.g., to include the old subpages – most editors won't remember when 2479:

If yes, how to do it? More precisely: I would want the list of all existing pages with a title full-matching the

2231: 2197: 1967: 1882: 1141: 1122: 1073: 863: 692: 124: 3793: 3770: 3721: 3695: 3660: 3626: 3491: 3458: 3420: 3406: 3385: 3356: 3341: 3331: 3307: 3284: 3270: 3246: 3236: 3221: 3190: 3176: 3159: 3145: 3106: 3046: 2995: 2976: 2948: 2826: 2797: 2749: 2728: 2690: 2663: 2622: 2589: 2530: 2495: 2456: 2435: 2401: 2382: 2368: 2349: 2294: 2273: 2259: 2240: 2201: 2141: 2105: 2094: 2056: 2026: 1987: 1955: 1928: 1868: 1839: 1808: 1779: 1733: 1710: 1665: 1643: 1620: 1558: 1540: 1525: 1511: 1493: 1479: 1461: 1443: 1416: 1401: 1375: 1339: 1317: 1284: 1262: 1248: 1225: 1145: 1133: 1126: 1106: 1077: 1062: 1034: 1011: 999: 971: 955: 940: 929: 898: 867: 841: 821: 770: 733: 696: 675: 659: 637: 612: 579: 530: 502: 486: 424: 410: 394: 374: 360: 344: 324: 310: 267: 239: 211: 188: 147: 3560: 795:

nomination involves several incoming "article"-namespace redirects to the categories that will be eligible for

3034: 3018: 2964: 2068:

I don't understand why you want to redirect all my redirects. They are legitimate redirects, see for example:

1467: 330: 2009:

page. but after i checked, there is no articles in wikipedia that linked to Yu Lang Lin or Lin Youlang (see:

3545: 3454: 2822: 2793: 1745: 163:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Redirect#Deletion principles for unexplained redirects of alternative terms

3649: 2986:)". It might also be worth mentioning offline sources as well, but I can't think how to elegantly do this. 2932: 520: 3701: 3653: 3511: 3498: 3402: 3381: 3303: 3266: 3232: 3172: 3102: 2724: 2659: 2585: 2526: 2333: 1758: 1679: 1113:

The I think those would be better served by one-off notifications rather than changing the process so the

1096: 1052: 989: 1344:

I looked for advice on how to withdraw an RfD and couldn't find anything where I expected to find it, at

470: 3789: 3738: 3717: 3622: 3607: 2712: 1878: 1835: 1612: 672: 665: 651: 576: 527: 458: 341: 143: 3295: 3082: 1814:

RFD filers and/or participants should consult a romanization list for alternate spellings (for example

1752:

came to my attention. If there is no reason for such a redirect, you can nominate this for discussion.-

1430: 1349: 1268: 1232: 3078: 2874:" anywhere on the Internet. If so, then those links might not show up by checking for (clicking on) " 2309: 139: 3022: 2983: 2919: 2769: 2608: 2337: 2222: 2193: 2172: 2022: 1976:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Redirects with database (e.g. Wikidata) identifiers

1925: 1137: 1118: 1069: 874: 859: 802: 704: 688: 558: 3290: 3062:

My question: Is there an agreed-upon understanding of what "a significant length of time" means?

1997:

hi, i just found some new redirect pages that there is no articles link to that page. for examples:

1770: 1657: 380: 3766: 3352: 3327: 3141: 2991: 2685: 2452: 2431: 2397: 2052: 1983: 1729: 1639: 1554: 1521: 1489: 1457: 1412: 1258: 1221: 1192: 963: 951: 925: 894: 817: 766: 633: 608: 498: 420: 370: 320: 306: 294: 207: 3505: 3085:, because the idea of namespaces hadn't been invented yet), and it reached its current version in 1774: 1599: 967: 3550: 3450: 3112:

There isn't really a consensus. Those people like me who take the attitude that redirects should

3074: 2708: 2603:

The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to

2329: 2156:

Knowledge (XXG):Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 December 8#Knowledge (XXG):RFD/2018 November 18

2136: 2089: 1804: 837: 2810: 2802: 1499: 1426: 1389: 1385: 1381: 1236: 334: 278: 2885:

Therefore consider the deletion only of either really harmful redirects or of very recent ones.

3685: 3657: 3398: 3377: 3338: 3299: 3281: 3262: 3243: 3228: 3218: 3168: 3098: 3043: 2940: 2777: 2746: 2379: 2365: 2321: 2270: 2102: 1753: 1704: 1675: 1092: 1048: 985: 937: 462: 3614: 2763: 2192:

right now; the idea and its rationale look reasonable, but I'm not sure how necessary it is.

1766: 1272: 285:

active closing admin has commented on that one. I've invited very occasional RfD contributor

109:

user would be confused when they arrive at Y and cannot find the term X addressed explicitly?

3785: 3745: 3731: 3713: 3667: 3618: 3555: 2641: 2290: 1914: 1831: 1203: 1182: 669: 624:(the others are already aware) I've proposed moving that provision from G6 to a new R4, see 619: 587: 573: 524: 482: 338: 290: 3755:. Participants in RfD are invited and may be interested to participate in this discussion. 3752: 3276: 3255: 3056: 2847: 2840: 2773: 2704: 2577: 2514: 2510: 2389: 2364:

even when deleting hundreds of pages at once. Tedious, to be sure, but still important. --

2123: 2111: 1852: 1790: 1345: 918:

Knowledge (XXG):Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 23#Template:Liga 2 Group 1 table

855: 792: 776: 724:

created that list; in case you want an updated version, they might be the person to ask. --

199: 3575: 3530: 3519: 2772:

to catch stupid attackers, and at that point I'd think that the main purpose of enwiki is

2345: 2063: 2034: 2018: 2017:). anyone know which criteria should i tag in the redirect page for deletion? thank you -- 2014: 2010: 1971: 1922: 1918: 626:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Redirects in the File: namespace G6 → R4

512: 400: 286: 3227:

we have no easy way to find links in edit summaries or previous versions of an article.

3209: 2742: 1943: 1856: 1649: 1231:

There doesn't need to be instructions specifically for withdrawing. It's simply applying

796: 780: 713: 569: 565: 365:

I haven't looked to verify this, but my gut feeling is that this is not a record holder!

3059:

says that we don't delete "Links that have existed for a significant length of time".

2926:

Therefore consider the deletion only of either harmful redirects or of very recent ones.

2716: 256:

Several discussions from the 17th September remain unclosed and have not been relisted.

3756: 3673: 3565: 3540: 3348: 3323: 3137: 3090: 2987: 2902:

harmful, which I take to be obviously bad advice. I'm proposing the following version:

2754:"Loophole" or "Feature" is interesting, AFAIK it's a feature of redirects. I tested it 2682: 2442: 2421: 2393: 2180: 2048: 2039:

Just because no pages link to a redirect does not mean they should be deleted - indeed

1979: 1864: 1725: 1635: 1604:

Redirects nominated in contravention of Knowledge (XXG):Redirect will be speedily kept.

1550: 1517: 1485: 1453: 1408: 1366: 1308: 1293: 1271:

and have the common sense that withdrawing is the same as keeping, and maybe point out

1254: 1217: 1025: 947: 921: 884: 807: 756: 629: 598: 549: 494: 416: 389: 366: 355: 316: 302: 262: 234: 203: 179: 158: 104:

The following issue came up recently in a dispute over a proposed redirect deletion.

2282: 1799:. I have some points which weren't considered. Where is the right place to do this? -- 1607: 755:

is having issues again. (This isn't the first time something like this has happened.)

3637: 3570: 2776:

to be the biggest computer adventure of all time, otherwise I'd login and look for a

2676: 2607:. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. 2127: 2080: 1910: 1890: 1800: 1749: 1722:

Knowledge (XXG):Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 10#Droz (professional wrestling

849: 833: 274: 920:

rather than having to write a probably less-well phrased explanation out each time.

3678: 3602: 3535: 3446: 3434: 3251: 3029:

Therefore consider the deletion only of either harmful redirects or of recent ones.

2936: 2604: 2490: 2413: 1966:

I've started a discussion about the speedy deletion of this sort of redirect (e.g.

1823: 1815: 752: 740: 572:(because these are broken redirects anyway) but there may be other clean-up to do. 155:

Knowledge (XXG):Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 June 18#Hadamard-Gutzwiller model

2967:(or is there a better location?) in case someone does want more detail on that. -- 2879: 3672:

To avoid the "trainwreck" scenario, treat the request as if you were preparing a

3259: 453:

Policy question: Where should generic trademarks redirect? (Popsicle or Ice pop?)

3709: 3705: 3590: 3580: 3483: 3128:

recommend deleting redirects that don't have clear utility, and for them age is

3066: 2375: 2313: 2286: 2176: 2044: 2040: 2006: 2002: 1998: 1894: 1470:

across page titles is always desired unless there is a good reason otherwise. --

1466:

No, (a) shouldn't be on the main page, it would be out of place there. And yes,

721: 478: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

2959:

for the same reasons you removed really. Perhaps it may be a good idea to pipe

1720:

added the tag but never actually started the discussion. I've now listed it at

3584: 3412: 3390: 3182: 3164: 3151: 3121: 2968: 2417: 2341: 2251: 1947: 1939: 1886: 1532: 1503: 1471: 1435: 1393: 1331: 1276: 1240: 725: 591: 545: 1498:

Because the page that gives instructions about closing RfD discussions is at

1860: 1717: 1545: 1357: 1324: 1299: 1164: 1016: 384: 350: 257: 229: 170: 161:. I've just remembered that there is a Wikiproject so have added at note at 3322:

I recommend keeping so many redirects that have evidence of potential use.

718:

deleting pages unambiguously created in error or in the incorrect namespace

2766:

is simpler for the attacker, and CU is more expensive than NPP as defense.

3523: 2955:

I certainly see the rewritten section as an improvement. I'd also remove

650:

Is there a limit for how long after a redirect is nominated, for voting?

2580:

are managed on WikiData and not more a hopeless mess tackled by bots". –

1936:

Knowledge (XXG):Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 24#Coal trucks

966:

gets nominated for RfD, but two days later the target of that redirect,

3411:

That was intentional, I also disagreed with another recent addition. --

2158:, would it be good practice to routinely create redirects of the forms 1634:

about what types of non-administrative closures are permissible. Best,

1388:

explains all the common closes there, so perhaps it's time to overhaul

1209:

template, again including the word "withdrawn" in the result parameter.

508: 515:. It seems that these need to be considered case by case according to 399:

Closed as no consensus. I removed the log from the main page as well.

3595: 2480: 1664:. Also, the preview button now works for RfD! Other recent changes 787:

Editors who participate in RfD may be interested in participating in

3181:

I decline to give generalities because it depends on the context. --

3116:

be kept unless it's clear they are harmful or very clearly useless,

3077:

was the "correct" title for an article about Alice Expert, and that

1448:

That why I said (a) should be on the main page. I don't know why we

3150:

I don't appreciate you misinterpreting my redirect philosophies. --

3776:

Redirects with malformed or misspelled (disambiguation) qualifiers

2120:

Knowledge (XXG):Talk page guidelines#How to use article talk pages

100:

Deletion principles for unexplained redirects of alternative terms

3478:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:XFDcloser#Deleting redirects that are at RFD

3466:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:XFDcloser#Deleting redirects that are at RFD

2360:

also agree with you that it is important to check incoming links

1846:

Knowledge (XXG):Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 17#Sinai

2870:

Additionally, there could exist (for example) links to the URL "

1903:

User:Wavelength/Articles userfied/List of environmental topics/C

3065:

Concern for breaking internal and external links was added by

2871: 2534: 1789:

Hi. I would like to reopen the discussion of the Redirect for

25: 2982:

or from elsewhere on the internet, they will not show up in

2324:). The page was not actually nominated in that discussion, 3784:

which may be of interest to editors who follow this page.

3347:

and a user is never confronted with an apparent dead-end.

2416:

is down. (RFD subpages not being created or transcluded.)

1298:, for a more welcoming response to my fumbled withdrawal. 2695:

You should have something on public record that supports

1993:

Redirect page that there is no articles link to that page

1785:

How to propose re-opening a Redirect deletion discussion?

3052:

Links that have existed for a significant length of time

2743:

restriction on article creation by unregistered accounts

289:(or anyone watching their talk page) to do the honours. 3394: 3086: 3070: 2734: 2571:

clause 7 as obsolete, it is not always compatible with

2216: 1626:

Changing when non-administrative closures are permitted

1425:

closures. At RFDAI it can be explained the same way as

1134:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Twinkle#Notifying redirect targets

1012:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Twinkle#Notifying redirect targets

748: 166: 136:

Wikipedia_talk:Redirects_for_discussion/Common_outcomes

3258:

indicates that it is one of two major goals for RFD:

2878:"—since those links might come from somewhere outside 1652:

can now notify a redirect's target upon RfD nomination

1169:

Knowledge (XXG):Redirects for discussion#Closing notes

1978:. Please comment there to keep discussion together. 2696: 1962:

Redirects with database (e.g. Wikidata) identifiers

907:

Nomination of redirects to targets currently at XfD

883:regarding more history pertaining to this inquiry. 459:

Talk:Popsicle (brand)#Requested move 10 August 2018

1661: 975: 805:, the nominator, to make them aware of this note.) 2312:ten years ago, was deleted on 3 November 2019 by 1934:I've created the RfD for you. You may find it at 1668:; please let me know if there are any issues! ~ 3013:a redirect may contain non-trivial edit history; 2476:Should I do this? (that is about 1000 redirects) 2114:which in my strong opinion should have targeted 779:discussion with incoming redirects eligible for 273:I've contributed to all of them, so can't help. 3005:The major reasons why deletion of redirects is 2914:a redirect may contain nontrivial edit history; 2906:The major reasons why deletion of redirects is 2898:harmful redirects, but keep redirects that are 2862:a redirect may contain nontrivial edit history; 2854:The major reasons why deletion of redirects is 2355:My original intention was to nominate all ~600 2326:nor apparently in any other deletion discussion 881:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Reliable sources#Page move 799:speedy deletion if the categories are deleted. 202:, linking to any discussion that has happened. 1630:Editors may be interested in participating in 3737:There is currently a discussion occurring at 3497:Nominating lots of redirects associated with 3447:Talk:Equinox#RfC on season-specific redirects 3435:Talk:Equinox#RfC on season-specific redirects 3132:not regarded as anywhere near as significant. 3037:, I've provisionally linked it from the text 3003: 2904: 2852: 465:, what threshold should we as editors use to 153:I have already expressed my views on this at 18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Redirects for discussion 8: 2441:...And looks like the bot is running again. 2185:pinging the participants of the linked RfD. 3033:I'm not sure of the best place to refer to 2762:(not done). As a potential "attack vector" 2758:(works), I suggested it as AFC accelerator 3476:You are invited to join the discussion at 3445:You are invited to join the discussion at 2930: 2711:is in fact better than what I recall from 2150:Shorthand redirects to XfD daily log pages 1648: 858:. What are you looking for specifically? 3617:all of these away, that would be cool. -- 3081:was what Knowledge (XXG) used instead of 2737:in May 2015, apparently unilaterally and 3656:, you can simply take them out of it. – 159:User talk:PamD#Hadamard-Gutzwiller model 1716:Thanks for the heads-up. It seems that 1275:which makes the process much easier. -- 751:. May need to keep a lookout to see if 198:you should feel free to nominate it at 3644: 3506:"Nominating lots of related redirects" 3038: 2960: 2956: 2891: 1603: 1267:Then that person should be pointed to 717: 539:File redirects with Commons equivalent 293:doesn't appear to have contributed to 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 2872:https://en.wikipedia.org/Attorneygate 1938:. Since you created and then blanked 970:, gets nominated at AfD. If Twinkle 7: 3700:Well, I just went ahead and removed 2781: 2647: 2463:Nominating lots of related redirects 2160:Knowledge (XXG):RFD/2018 November 18 2116:Knowledge (XXG):Talk page guidelines 247:The following discussion is closed. 138:but that seemed less appropriate.) 1822:I have created many redirects from 1724:where you can comment if you wish. 749:manually transclude 2019 January 27 475:Category:Redirects from brand names 2513:is obsolete and incompatible with 1907:William Galloway (mining engineer) 24: 3704:from all of those (and repointed 3395:broke something else on that page 2306:Knowledge (XXG):Books/Mathematics 554:Thanks for pointing out there is 3730:Discussion regarding wording of 3508:asked above and never answered. 3471: 3440: 3208:are immediately eligible to get 2918:(XXG), they will not show up in 2782: 2648: 2629: 2595: 2538: 972:leaves a notification of the RfD 444:The discussion above is closed. 281:since the 24th without success. 194:time the problem still remains, 29: 3741:regarding the wording used for 3397:when you reverted my changes. 2697:#Encourage new article creation 1348:. I didn't think to look under 1235:to the instructions already at 1178:Close the discussion using the 1117:target talk page is notified. 457:Please help with discussion on 299:Liberation Day (United Kingdom) 3780:I have opened a discussion at 3739:Template talk:RFDNote#Phrasing 3039:from elsewhere on the internet 3019:from elsewhere on the internet 2876:WhatLinksHere for Attorneygate 2501:Encourage new article creation 710:User:Nyttend/Project redirects 1: 3492:00:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC) 3459:17:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC) 3421:02:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC) 3407:02:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC) 3386:02:24, 11 February 2020 (UTC) 3280:and that's beyond trivial. – 3247:22:27, 31 December 2019 (UTC) 3237:22:08, 31 December 2019 (UTC) 3222:01:26, 31 December 2019 (UTC) 3191:01:07, 31 December 2019 (UTC) 3177:00:37, 31 December 2019 (UTC) 3160:00:06, 31 December 2019 (UTC) 3146:21:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC) 3107:20:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC) 2739:without associated discussion 2457:21:06, 16 December 2019 (UTC) 2436:21:04, 15 December 2019 (UTC) 2402:10:58, 10 December 2019 (UTC) 2383:02:21, 10 December 2019 (UTC) 2369:20:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC) 2350:10:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC) 2295:04:04, 10 December 2019 (UTC) 2274:02:15, 10 December 2019 (UTC) 2260:01:55, 10 December 2019 (UTC) 2241:01:46, 10 December 2019 (UTC) 2164:Knowledge (XXG):RFD/2018Nov18 2142:01:58, 21 November 2019 (UTC) 2106:01:50, 21 November 2019 (UTC) 2095:01:26, 21 November 2019 (UTC) 2057:00:34, 16 November 2019 (UTC) 2027:03:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC) 1146:17:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC) 1127:16:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC) 1107:16:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC) 1078:23:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC) 1063:12:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC) 1035:23:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC) 1006:Discussion about notification 1000:20:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC) 956:02:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC) 941:02:42, 23 February 2019 (UTC) 930:02:33, 23 February 2019 (UTC) 734:21:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC) 697:19:47, 13 December 2018 (UTC) 676:11:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC) 461:. When evidence exists for a 3643:for each redirect (setting 3047:23:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC) 2827:23:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC) 2798:06:19, 19 January 2020 (UTC) 2764:creating yet another account 2750:03:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC) 2729:23:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC) 2691:23:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC) 2664:21:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC) 2623:21:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC) 2590:21:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC) 2496:13:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC) 2301:Deletion without nomination? 2202:21:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC) 1988:13:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC) 1956:14:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC) 1929:13:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC) 1899:Withdrawn British Rail stock 1893:appears to be an error. But 1874:Coal truck & coal trucks 1696:Droz (professional wrestling 1656:When RfDing a redirect with 899:22:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC) 868:22:13, 31 January 2019 (UTC) 822:21:56, 31 January 2019 (UTC) 771:10:09, 27 January 2019 (UTC) 660:20:31, 9 December 2018 (UTC) 638:15:34, 7 November 2018 (UTC) 613:15:55, 6 November 2018 (UTC) 580:15:44, 6 November 2018 (UTC) 531:15:45, 6 November 2018 (UTC) 3357:21:53, 1 January 2020 (UTC) 3342:14:23, 1 January 2020 (UTC) 3332:10:12, 1 January 2020 (UTC) 3308:06:24, 1 January 2020 (UTC) 3285:01:26, 1 January 2020 (UTC) 3271:00:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC) 3136:deleted regardless of age. 2996:21:59, 1 January 2020 (UTC) 2977:15:38, 1 January 2020 (UTC) 2949:14:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC) 2561:to reactivate your request. 2549:has been answered. Set the 2531:04:22, 7 January 2020 (UTC) 1968:Aisa Bint Ahmad (Q30904322) 1885:& others are linked to 1869:13:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC) 1840:19:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC) 1744:Upon researching to create 842:17:09, 3 January 2019 (UTC) 747:Posting here that I had to 503:13:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC) 487:11:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC) 425:22:06, 6 October 2018 (UTC) 411:21:57, 6 October 2018 (UTC) 395:19:47, 6 October 2018 (UTC) 375:19:20, 6 October 2018 (UTC) 361:18:56, 6 October 2018 (UTC) 345:15:10, 6 October 2018 (UTC) 325:14:47, 6 October 2018 (UTC) 311:13:34, 6 October 2018 (UTC) 268:12:40, 6 October 2018 (UTC) 240:22:13, 6 October 2018 (UTC) 129:Hadamard's dynamical system 3809: 3794:19:50, 31 March 2020 (UTC) 3771:21:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC) 3722:01:01, 12 March 2020 (UTC) 2627: 2308:, which was redirected to 1644:16:32, 22 March 2019 (UTC) 1621:11:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC) 974:on the target's talkpage ( 3696:17:24, 9 March 2020 (UTC) 3661:22:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC) 3627:21:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC) 2392:rather than here though. 2357:Knowledge (XXG):Books/... 2075:Retargeting a WP redirect 1942:, I deleted that one per 1883:Tennessee State Route 132 1809:02:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC) 1780:01:05, 18 June 2019 (UTC) 1690:15:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC) 1559:13:24, 9 March 2019 (UTC) 1541:22:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC) 1526:21:55, 8 March 2019 (UTC) 1512:18:38, 8 March 2019 (UTC) 1494:18:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC) 1480:18:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC) 1462:18:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC) 1444:17:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC) 1417:17:38, 8 March 2019 (UTC) 1402:16:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC) 1376:16:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC) 1340:16:09, 8 March 2019 (UTC) 1318:16:01, 8 March 2019 (UTC) 1285:15:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC) 1263:14:58, 8 March 2019 (UTC) 1249:14:38, 8 March 2019 (UTC) 1226:12:12, 8 March 2019 (UTC) 379:Maybe a new category for 212:21:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC) 189:08:30, 25 June 2018 (UTC) 148:19:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC) 125:Hadamard-Gutzwiller model 3561:Commonwealth (U.S. term) 3277:Templates for Discussion 2279:Support the existence of 1734:12:19, 10 May 2019 (UTC) 1711:08:30, 10 May 2019 (UTC) 1010:There's a suggestion at 446:Please do not modify it. 249:Please do not modify it. 3546:Bootstrap (word origin) 1746:Humera (disambiguation) 157:and on my talk page at 3702:Category:English words 3654:Category:English words 3512:Category:English words 3499:Category:English words 3031: 2928: 2887: 2673:this essay interesting 2605:edit the page yourself 2420:, any status on this? 2334:still linking to there 1429:, including a link to 467:definitively determine 3608:Trivia (English term) 2638:I anyway like DIY or 2521:clause for clarity. – 2362:to each affected page 1879:Indiana State Road 64 42:of past discussions. 3021:, do not show up in 2961:break incoming links 2517:: Please delete the 2126:. Ah well. Thanks. ― 743:may be having issues 2768:It could be a free 2267:in the general case 295:Windermere, Cumbria 277:has been listed at 3551:Catholicity (term) 2703:reason overruling 2509:folks argued that 2330:Portal:Mathematics 2122:, consistent with 1889:and a redirect to 1595:Guiding principles 1392:to follow suit. -- 1160:Withdrawing an RfD 250: 3694: 3693: 3522:is a redirect to 3210:summarily deleted 3083:Talk:Alice Expert 3023:"What links here" 2984:"What links here" 2951: 2935:comment added by 2920:"What links here" 2900:just a little bit 2805:feature example: 2565: 2564: 2515:#DELETE clause 10 2239: 1909:and redirects to 1778: 1688: 1352:, so I stuck my " 1105: 1061: 998: 806: 463:generic trademark 248: 97: 96: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 3800: 3763: 3750: 3744: 3732:Template:RFDNote 3683: 3682: 3671: 3646: 3642: 3636: 3556:Character (word) 3475: 3474: 3444: 3443: 3418: 3261: 3188: 3157: 3079:AliceExpert/talk 2974: 2787: 2786: 2785: 2689: 2666: 2653: 2652: 2651: 2645: 2633: 2632: 2620: 2617: 2614: 2611: 2599: 2598: 2556: 2552: 2542: 2541: 2535: 2493: 2485: 2449: 2428: 2310:Book:Mathematics 2257: 2230: 2228: 2226: 2184: 2139: 2134: 2092: 2087: 2067: 2038: 1953: 1915:American English 1756: 1707: 1672: 1671: 1662:discussion above 1613:Triptothecottage 1538: 1509: 1477: 1441: 1399: 1373: 1364: 1337: 1328: 1315: 1306: 1297: 1282: 1246: 1208: 1202: 1197: 1191: 1187: 1181: 1089: 1088: 1045: 1044: 1032: 1023: 982: 981: 891: 878: 853: 814: 800: 763: 731: 708: 666:Puzzledvegetable 652:Puzzledvegetable 623: 605: 595: 563: 557: 553: 517:WP:Primary topic 329:Yes, at risk of 186: 177: 78: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 3808: 3807: 3803: 3802: 3801: 3799: 3798: 3797: 3778: 3757: 3748: 3742: 3735: 3665: 3640: 3634: 3576:Islamist (term) 3531:Aardvark (word) 3520:Aardvark (word) 3502: 3472: 3469: 3441: 3438: 3413: 3183: 3152: 3054: 2969: 2880:Knowledge (XXG) 2844: 2783: 2680: 2667: 2649: 2639: 2637: 2635: 2630: 2618: 2615: 2612: 2609: 2596: 2554: 2550: 2539: 2503: 2491: 2483: 2465: 2443: 2422: 2410: 2338:UnitedStatesian 2318:this discussion 2303: 2252: 2224: 2223: 2194:ComplexRational 2173:BrownHairedGirl 2170: 2152: 2137: 2128: 2090: 2081: 2077: 2061: 2032: 1995: 1972:Aisa Bint Ahmad 1964: 1948: 1919:British English 1876: 1849: 1820: 1787: 1748:, the redirect 1742: 1705: 1699: 1669: 1654: 1632:this discussion 1628: 1597: 1533: 1504: 1472: 1436: 1394: 1367: 1358: 1332: 1322: 1309: 1300: 1291: 1277: 1241: 1206: 1200: 1195: 1189: 1185: 1179: 1162: 1138:UnitedStatesian 1119:UnitedStatesian 1086: 1070:UnitedStatesian 1042: 1026: 1017: 1008: 979: 909: 885: 875:UnitedStatesian 872: 860:UnitedStatesian 847: 829: 808: 803:UnitedStatesian 785: 757: 745: 726: 716:, specifically 705:UnitedStatesian 702: 689:UnitedStatesian 684: 648: 617: 599: 585: 561: 555: 543: 541: 513:Panadol (brand) 507:We've just had 455: 450: 449: 408: 253: 244: 243: 242: 228:All dealt with 225: 220: 180: 171: 102: 74: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3806: 3804: 3777: 3774: 3734: 3728: 3727: 3726: 3725: 3724: 3674:consent agenda 3663: 3658:Uanfala (talk) 3611: 3610: 3605: 3600: 3593:(redirects to 3588: 3583:(redirects to 3578: 3573: 3568: 3566:Fantasy (word) 3563: 3558: 3553: 3548: 3543: 3541:Anarchy (word) 3538: 3533: 3501: 3495: 3468: 3464:Discussion at 3462: 3437: 3433:Discussion at 3431: 3430: 3429: 3428: 3427: 3426: 3425: 3424: 3423: 3373: 3372: 3371: 3370: 3369: 3368: 3367: 3366: 3365: 3364: 3363: 3362: 3361: 3360: 3359: 3339:Uanfala (talk) 3282:Uanfala (talk) 3256:WP:RFD#HARMFUL 3244:Uanfala (talk) 3219:Uanfala (talk) 3200: 3199: 3198: 3197: 3196: 3195: 3194: 3193: 3133: 3091:User:Thryduulf 3053: 3050: 3044:Uanfala (talk) 3035:WP:EXTERNALROT 3027: 3026: 3014: 2999: 2998: 2979: 2965:WP:EXTERNALROT 2924: 2923: 2915: 2868: 2867: 2863: 2848:WP:RFD#HARMFUL 2843: 2841:WP:RFD#HARMFUL 2837: 2836: 2835: 2834: 2833: 2832: 2831: 2830: 2829: 2800: 2767: 2628: 2626: 2625: 2567:Please remove 2563: 2562: 2543: 2511:#KEEP clause 7 2502: 2499: 2488: 2487: 2477: 2464: 2461: 2460: 2459: 2409: 2406: 2405: 2404: 2385: 2380:Uanfala (talk) 2371: 2302: 2299: 2298: 2297: 2276: 2271:Uanfala (talk) 2262: 2244: 2243: 2219: 2212: 2211: 2151: 2148: 2147: 2146: 2145: 2144: 2103:Uanfala (talk) 2076: 2073: 2072: 2071: 2059: 1994: 1991: 1963: 1960: 1959: 1958: 1875: 1872: 1848: 1843: 1819: 1812: 1797:the discussion 1786: 1783: 1741: 1738: 1737: 1736: 1698: 1693: 1653: 1647: 1627: 1624: 1596: 1593: 1592: 1591: 1590: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1585: 1584: 1583: 1582: 1581: 1580: 1579: 1578: 1577: 1576: 1575: 1574: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1570: 1569: 1568: 1567: 1566: 1565: 1564: 1563: 1562: 1561: 1468:WP:CONSISTENCY 1215: 1214: 1210: 1161: 1158: 1157: 1156: 1155: 1154: 1153: 1152: 1151: 1150: 1149: 1148: 1132:Refactored to 1007: 1004: 1003: 1002: 960: 959: 958: 938:Uanfala (talk) 908: 905: 904: 903: 902: 901: 832:notification? 828: 825: 784: 774: 744: 738: 737: 736: 683: 680: 679: 678: 647: 644: 643: 642: 641: 640: 540: 537: 536: 535: 534: 533: 454: 451: 443: 442: 441: 440: 439: 438: 437: 436: 435: 434: 433: 432: 431: 430: 429: 428: 427: 404: 254: 245: 227: 226: 223: 222: 221: 219: 218:September 17th 216: 215: 214: 191: 117: 116: 111: 110: 101: 98: 95: 94: 89: 84: 79: 72: 67: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3805: 3796: 3795: 3791: 3787: 3783: 3775: 3773: 3772: 3768: 3764: 3762: 3761: 3754: 3747: 3740: 3733: 3729: 3723: 3719: 3715: 3711: 3707: 3703: 3699: 3698: 3697: 3691: 3687: 3680: 3675: 3669: 3664: 3662: 3659: 3655: 3651: 3650:WP:TRAINWRECK 3639: 3631: 3630: 3629: 3628: 3624: 3620: 3616: 3609: 3606: 3604: 3601: 3598: 3597: 3592: 3589: 3586: 3582: 3579: 3577: 3574: 3572: 3571:Gothic (term) 3569: 3567: 3564: 3562: 3559: 3557: 3554: 3552: 3549: 3547: 3544: 3542: 3539: 3537: 3534: 3532: 3529: 3528: 3527: 3526:, and so on. 3525: 3521: 3517: 3513: 3509: 3507: 3500: 3496: 3494: 3493: 3490: 3489: 3488: 3485: 3479: 3467: 3463: 3461: 3460: 3456: 3452: 3451:Shhhnotsoloud 3448: 3436: 3432: 3422: 3419: 3416: 3410: 3409: 3408: 3404: 3400: 3396: 3392: 3389: 3388: 3387: 3383: 3379: 3374: 3358: 3354: 3350: 3345: 3344: 3343: 3340: 3335: 3334: 3333: 3329: 3325: 3321: 3316: 3311: 3310: 3309: 3305: 3301: 3297: 3292: 3288: 3287: 3286: 3283: 3278: 3274: 3273: 3272: 3268: 3264: 3257: 3253: 3250: 3249: 3248: 3245: 3240: 3239: 3238: 3234: 3230: 3225: 3224: 3223: 3220: 3215: 3211: 3207: 3202: 3201: 3192: 3189: 3186: 3180: 3179: 3178: 3174: 3170: 3166: 3163: 3162: 3161: 3158: 3155: 3149: 3148: 3147: 3143: 3139: 3134: 3131: 3127: 3124:for example, 3123: 3119: 3115: 3111: 3110: 3109: 3108: 3104: 3100: 3094: 3092: 3088: 3084: 3080: 3076: 3072: 3068: 3063: 3060: 3058: 3051: 3049: 3048: 3045: 3040: 3036: 3030: 3024: 3020: 3015: 3012: 3011: 3010: 3008: 3002: 2997: 2993: 2989: 2985: 2980: 2978: 2975: 2972: 2966: 2962: 2958: 2954: 2953: 2952: 2950: 2946: 2942: 2938: 2934: 2927: 2921: 2916: 2913: 2912: 2911: 2909: 2903: 2901: 2897: 2893: 2886: 2883: 2881: 2877: 2873: 2864: 2861: 2860: 2859: 2857: 2851: 2849: 2842: 2838: 2828: 2824: 2820: 2817:, ignition. – 2816: 2812: 2808: 2804: 2801: 2799: 2795: 2791: 2779: 2778:clan/alliance 2775: 2771: 2765: 2761: 2757: 2756:two years ago 2753: 2752: 2751: 2748: 2744: 2740: 2736: 2732: 2731: 2730: 2726: 2722: 2718: 2714: 2710: 2706: 2702: 2698: 2694: 2693: 2692: 2687: 2684: 2678: 2674: 2669: 2668: 2665: 2661: 2657: 2643: 2624: 2621: 2606: 2602: 2594: 2593: 2592: 2591: 2587: 2583: 2579: 2574: 2570: 2560: 2557:parameter to 2548: 2544: 2537: 2536: 2533: 2532: 2528: 2524: 2520: 2516: 2512: 2508: 2500: 2498: 2497: 2494: 2482: 2478: 2475: 2474: 2473: 2470: 2462: 2458: 2454: 2450: 2448: 2447: 2440: 2439: 2438: 2437: 2433: 2429: 2427: 2426: 2419: 2415: 2407: 2403: 2399: 2395: 2391: 2386: 2384: 2381: 2377: 2372: 2370: 2367: 2363: 2358: 2354: 2353: 2352: 2351: 2347: 2343: 2339: 2335: 2331: 2327: 2323: 2319: 2315: 2311: 2307: 2300: 2296: 2292: 2288: 2284: 2280: 2277: 2275: 2272: 2268: 2263: 2261: 2258: 2255: 2249: 2246: 2245: 2242: 2237: 2233: 2229: 2220: 2217: 2214: 2213: 2209: 2206: 2205: 2204: 2203: 2199: 2195: 2191: 2186: 2182: 2178: 2174: 2168: 2165: 2161: 2157: 2149: 2143: 2140: 2135: 2133: 2132: 2125: 2121: 2117: 2113: 2109: 2108: 2107: 2104: 2099: 2098: 2097: 2096: 2093: 2088: 2086: 2085: 2074: 2070: 2065: 2060: 2058: 2054: 2050: 2046: 2042: 2036: 2031: 2030: 2029: 2028: 2024: 2020: 2016: 2012: 2008: 2005:targeting to 2004: 2000: 1992: 1990: 1989: 1985: 1981: 1977: 1973: 1969: 1961: 1957: 1954: 1951: 1945: 1941: 1937: 1933: 1932: 1931: 1930: 1927: 1924: 1920: 1916: 1912: 1911:mineral wagon 1908: 1904: 1900: 1897:is linked to 1896: 1892: 1891:mineral wagon 1888: 1884: 1880: 1873: 1871: 1870: 1866: 1862: 1858: 1854: 1847: 1844: 1842: 1841: 1837: 1833: 1828: 1825: 1818:for Japanese) 1817: 1813: 1811: 1810: 1806: 1802: 1798: 1794: 1793: 1784: 1782: 1781: 1776: 1772: 1768: 1764: 1760: 1755: 1751: 1750:Humera Alwani 1747: 1740:Potential RFD 1739: 1735: 1731: 1727: 1723: 1719: 1715: 1714: 1713: 1712: 1709: 1708: 1697: 1694: 1692: 1691: 1687: 1685: 1681: 1677: 1667: 1663: 1659: 1651: 1646: 1645: 1641: 1637: 1633: 1625: 1623: 1622: 1618: 1614: 1609: 1605: 1601: 1594: 1560: 1556: 1552: 1547: 1544: 1543: 1542: 1539: 1536: 1529: 1528: 1527: 1523: 1519: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1510: 1507: 1501: 1497: 1496: 1495: 1491: 1487: 1483: 1482: 1481: 1478: 1475: 1469: 1465: 1464: 1463: 1459: 1455: 1451: 1447: 1446: 1445: 1442: 1439: 1432: 1428: 1424: 1420: 1419: 1418: 1414: 1410: 1405: 1404: 1403: 1400: 1397: 1391: 1387: 1383: 1379: 1378: 1377: 1374: 1372: 1371: 1365: 1363: 1362: 1355: 1351: 1347: 1343: 1342: 1341: 1338: 1335: 1326: 1321: 1320: 1319: 1316: 1314: 1313: 1307: 1305: 1304: 1295: 1288: 1287: 1286: 1283: 1280: 1274: 1270: 1266: 1265: 1264: 1260: 1256: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1247: 1244: 1238: 1234: 1230: 1229: 1228: 1227: 1223: 1219: 1211: 1205: 1194: 1184: 1177: 1176: 1175: 1172: 1170: 1166: 1159: 1147: 1143: 1139: 1135: 1131: 1130: 1129: 1128: 1124: 1120: 1116: 1111: 1110: 1109: 1108: 1104: 1102: 1098: 1094: 1082: 1081: 1080: 1079: 1075: 1071: 1066: 1065: 1064: 1060: 1058: 1054: 1050: 1039: 1038: 1037: 1036: 1033: 1031: 1030: 1024: 1022: 1021: 1013: 1005: 1001: 997: 995: 991: 987: 977: 973: 969: 965: 964:artical typoe 961: 957: 953: 949: 944: 943: 942: 939: 934: 933: 932: 931: 927: 923: 919: 913: 906: 900: 896: 892: 890: 889: 882: 876: 871: 870: 869: 865: 861: 857: 851: 846: 845: 844: 843: 839: 835: 827:Notifications 826: 824: 823: 819: 815: 813: 812: 804: 798: 794: 790: 782: 778: 775: 773: 772: 768: 764: 762: 761: 754: 750: 742: 739: 735: 732: 729: 723: 719: 715: 711: 706: 701: 700: 699: 698: 694: 690: 681: 677: 674: 671: 667: 664: 663: 662: 661: 657: 653: 646:Voting limits 645: 639: 635: 631: 627: 621: 616: 615: 614: 610: 606: 604: 603: 593: 589: 584: 583: 582: 581: 578: 575: 571: 567: 560: 551: 547: 538: 532: 529: 526: 522: 521:WP:SMALLDIFFS 518: 514: 510: 506: 505: 504: 500: 496: 491: 490: 489: 488: 484: 480: 476: 472: 468: 464: 460: 452: 447: 426: 422: 418: 414: 413: 412: 407: 402: 398: 397: 396: 393: 392: 388: 387: 382: 378: 377: 376: 372: 368: 364: 363: 362: 359: 358: 354: 353: 348: 347: 346: 343: 340: 336: 332: 328: 327: 326: 322: 318: 314: 313: 312: 308: 304: 300: 296: 292: 288: 284: 280: 276: 275:Stephni meyer 272: 271: 270: 269: 266: 265: 261: 260: 252: 241: 238: 237: 233: 232: 217: 213: 209: 205: 201: 197: 192: 190: 187: 185: 184: 178: 176: 175: 168: 164: 160: 156: 152: 151: 150: 149: 145: 141: 137: 132: 130: 126: 121: 113: 112: 107: 106: 105: 99: 93: 90: 88: 85: 83: 80: 77: 73: 71: 68: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 3779: 3759: 3758: 3736: 3612: 3603:Tatar (word) 3594: 3536:Allah (word) 3515: 3510: 3503: 3486: 3482: 3481: 3470: 3439: 3414: 3399:WhatamIdoing 3378:WhatamIdoing 3319: 3314: 3300:WhatamIdoing 3263:WhatamIdoing 3254:. In fact, 3229:WhatamIdoing 3213: 3205: 3184: 3169:WhatamIdoing 3153: 3129: 3125: 3117: 3113: 3099:WhatamIdoing 3095: 3064: 3061: 3055: 3032: 3028: 3006: 3004: 3000: 2970: 2931:— Preceding 2929: 2925: 2907: 2905: 2899: 2895: 2888: 2884: 2869: 2855: 2853: 2845: 2819:84.46.52.152 2790:84.46.53.192 2760:one year ago 2747:Black Falcon 2721:84.46.53.221 2709:ILL argument 2700: 2656:84.46.53.221 2600: 2582:84.46.53.221 2572: 2568: 2566: 2558: 2547:edit request 2523:84.46.52.210 2518: 2504: 2489: 2466: 2445: 2444: 2424: 2423: 2411: 2408:DumbBOT down 2366:Black Falcon 2361: 2356: 2322:Black Falcon 2304: 2278: 2266: 2253: 2247: 2207: 2190:weak support 2189: 2187: 2169: 2153: 2130: 2129: 2083: 2082: 2078: 1996: 1965: 1949: 1877: 1850: 1829: 1824:Kunrei-shiki 1821: 1816:Kunrei-shiki 1791: 1788: 1754:TonyTheTiger 1743: 1706:Lee Vilenski 1703: 1700: 1673: 1655: 1629: 1598: 1534: 1505: 1473: 1449: 1437: 1422: 1395: 1369: 1368: 1360: 1359: 1353: 1333: 1311: 1310: 1302: 1301: 1278: 1242: 1216: 1173: 1163: 1114: 1112: 1090: 1083: 1067: 1046: 1028: 1027: 1019: 1018: 1009: 983: 968:Article typo 914: 910: 887: 886: 830: 810: 809: 786: 759: 758: 746: 741:User:DumbBOT 727: 685: 649: 601: 600: 542: 471:WP:Trademark 466: 456: 445: 390: 385: 356: 351: 282: 263: 258: 255: 246: 235: 230: 195: 182: 181: 173: 172: 167:this version 133: 122: 118: 103: 75: 43: 37: 3786:Narky Blert 3714:Quuxplusone 3710:Mate (term) 3706:Rape (word) 3668:Quuxplusone 3619:Quuxplusone 3591:Rape (word) 3581:Mate (term) 3393:, you have 3296:WP:Red link 3075:AliceExpert 3071:August 2004 3067:User:Angela 3057:WP:RFD#KEEP 2846:Currently, 2412:Looks like 2320:(opened by 2045:Yu Lang Lin 2041:Lin Youlang 2015:Lin Youlang 2011:Yu Lang Lin 2007:Lin Yu-lang 2003:Lin Youlang 1999:Yu Lang Lin 1895:coal trucks 1832:WhisperToMe 1792:Speak Welsh 1431:WP:WITHDRAW 1350:WP:WITHDRAW 1269:WP:WITHDRAW 1233:WP:WITHDRAW 620:Deryck Chan 588:Deryck Chan 559:Db-redircom 415:Thank you. 331:supervoting 291:Deryck Chan 140:Jess_Riedel 36:This is an 3585:Friendship 3391:User:Tavix 3291:WP:NAVPOPS 2839:Rewriting 2551:|answered= 2507:recent RFD 2316:following 2227:HairedGirl 2064:Stvbastian 2035:Stvbastian 2019:Stvbastian 1940:coal truck 1923:Peter Horn 1887:coal truck 1771:WP:CHICAGO 1658:WP:Twinkle 1193:rfd-bottom 879:FWIW, see 783:if deleted 401:Ivanvector 381:WP:Records 287:Ivanvector 92:Archive 16 87:Archive 15 82:Archive 14 76:Archive 13 70:Archive 12 65:Archive 11 60:Archive 10 3760:Steel1943 3504:See also 3349:Thryduulf 3324:Thryduulf 3138:Thryduulf 3130:generally 3126:generally 3118:generally 3114:generally 3087:this edit 3042:edit). – 2988:Thryduulf 2699:as valid 2601:Not done: 2446:Steel1943 2425:Steel1943 2394:Thryduulf 2283:WP:R#KEEP 2181:Thryduulf 2049:Thryduulf 1980:Thryduulf 1926:User talk 1775:WP:WAWARD 1726:Thryduulf 1636:Barkeep49 1600:WP:RGUIDE 1551:Thryduulf 1518:Thryduulf 1486:Thryduulf 1454:Thryduulf 1409:Thryduulf 1294:Thryduulf 1255:Thryduulf 1218:Thryduulf 1136:. Oops. 976:see above 948:Thryduulf 922:Thryduulf 888:Steel1943 811:Steel1943 801:(Pinging 760:Steel1943 630:Thryduulf 602:Steel1943 550:Steel1943 495:Thryduulf 417:Thryduulf 367:Thryduulf 317:Thryduulf 303:Thryduulf 204:Thryduulf 127:" and Y=" 115:deletion? 3690:contribs 3524:Aardvark 3214:possible 3206:just now 2945:contribs 2933:unsigned 2770:honeypot 2686:a·po·des 2677:Rosguill 2634:Resolved 2236:contribs 2131:Mandruss 2084:Mandruss 1830:Thanks, 1801:DadaNeem 1500:WP:RFDAI 1427:WP:AFDAI 1390:WP:RFDAI 1386:WP:AFDAI 1382:WP:RFDAI 1354:Withdraw 1237:WP:RFDAI 850:Blueboar 834:Blueboar 682:Question 335:WP:ANRFC 301:though. 279:WP:ANRFC 224:RESOLVED 3746:RFDNote 3679:davidwr 3645:|multi= 3615:WP:BOLD 3587:: wat?) 3518:; e.g. 3007:harmful 2937:Uanfala 2908:harmful 2866:detect. 2856:harmful 2850:reads: 2646:better. 2642:sofixit 2492:Tigraan 2484:E1?{3}? 2414:DumbBOT 2208:Support 2188:I'm at 2179:, and 2162:and/or 1767:WP:FOUR 1650:Twinkle 1273:WP:XFDC 1204:old rfd 1183:rfd-top 791:. This 753:DumbBOT 509:Panadol 39:archive 3753:WP:RFD 3596:Raptio 2896:really 2892:really 2701:delete 2573:delete 2481:regexp 2390:WP:DRV 2376:JJMC89 2314:JJMC89 2287:Utopes 2248:Oppose 2232:(talk) 2177:Utopes 2124:WP:UTP 2112:WP:ATP 1905:& 1853:WP:Rfd 1346:WP:RfD 856:WP:RFD 793:WP:CFD 777:WP:CFD 722:JJMC89 670:Deryck 574:Deryck 525:Deryck 479:Lexlex 339:Deryck 200:WP:RFD 3516:thing 3165:Tavix 3122:Tavix 3009:are: 2963:with 2910:are: 2858:are: 2803:AFC/R 2745:. -- 2735:added 2555:|ans= 2545:This 2505:In a 2418:Tizio 2342:dcljr 2225:Brown 1974:) at 1944:WP:G7 1857:WP:RM 1670:Amory 1602:says 1115:every 1087:Amory 1043:Amory 980:Amory 797:WP:G8 781:WP:G8 714:WP:G6 592:Tavix 570:WP:G6 566:WP:G6 546:Tavix 406:Edits 383:? ;) 283:Every 16:< 3790:talk 3767:talk 3718:talk 3708:and 3686:talk 3638:rfd2 3623:talk 3484:Evad 3455:talk 3417:avix 3403:talk 3382:talk 3353:talk 3328:talk 3315:does 3304:talk 3267:talk 3233:talk 3187:avix 3173:talk 3156:avix 3142:talk 3103:talk 3093:. 2992:talk 2973:avix 2957:very 2941:talk 2823:talk 2794:talk 2725:talk 2717:2011 2713:2006 2683:Wug· 2660:talk 2619:elet 2616:Cart 2613:ura 2586:talk 2578:ILLs 2569:keep 2527:talk 2519:keep 2467:See 2453:talk 2432:talk 2398:talk 2378:. – 2346:talk 2332:was 2291:talk 2256:avix 2198:talk 2154:Per 2053:talk 2023:talk 1984:talk 1952:avix 1946:. -- 1917:and 1865:talk 1861:PC78 1855:and 1836:talk 1805:talk 1730:talk 1718:PC78 1666:here 1640:talk 1617:talk 1608:WP:R 1555:talk 1546:PamD 1537:avix 1522:talk 1508:avix 1502:. -- 1490:talk 1476:avix 1458:talk 1450:need 1440:avix 1413:talk 1398:avix 1336:avix 1325:PamD 1281:avix 1259:talk 1245:avix 1239:. -- 1222:talk 1188:and 1165:PamD 1142:talk 1123:talk 1074:talk 952:talk 926:talk 895:talk 864:talk 838:talk 818:talk 767:talk 730:avix 693:talk 656:talk 634:talk 609:talk 590:and 548:and 519:and 499:talk 483:talk 421:talk 371:talk 321:talk 307:talk 208:talk 196:then 144:talk 3688:)/( 3480:. 3449:. 3320:why 3252:Yes 3089:by 3069:in 2774:not 2719:. – 2705:#K7 2610:Sak 2553:or 2234:• ( 2118:or 1423:all 1361:Pam 1303:Pam 1213:it. 1020:Pam 511:vs 473:or 297:or 174:Pam 131:". 3792:) 3769:) 3749:}} 3743:{{ 3720:) 3641:}} 3635:{{ 3625:) 3487:37 3457:) 3405:) 3384:) 3355:) 3330:) 3306:) 3269:) 3235:) 3175:) 3144:) 3105:) 3025:). 2994:) 2947:) 2943:• 2922:). 2882:. 2825:) 2813:, 2809:, 2796:) 2727:) 2681:— 2662:) 2644:}} 2640:{{ 2636:– 2588:) 2559:no 2529:) 2455:) 2434:) 2400:) 2348:) 2293:) 2200:) 2175:, 2055:) 2025:) 2001:, 1986:) 1970:→ 1921:. 1901:, 1881:, 1867:) 1859:. 1838:) 1807:) 1773:/ 1769:/ 1765:/ 1761:/ 1732:) 1682:• 1678:• 1642:) 1619:) 1557:) 1531:-- 1524:) 1492:) 1460:) 1434:-- 1415:) 1261:) 1224:) 1207:}} 1201:{{ 1196:}} 1190:{{ 1186:}} 1180:{{ 1144:) 1125:) 1099:• 1095:• 1076:) 1055:• 1051:• 992:• 988:• 954:) 928:) 897:) 866:) 840:) 820:) 769:) 720:. 695:) 673:C. 658:) 636:) 628:. 611:) 577:C. 562:}} 556:{{ 528:C. 523:. 501:) 485:) 423:) 409:) 403:(/ 391:CL 386:JZ 373:) 357:CL 352:JZ 342:C. 337:. 323:) 309:) 264:CL 259:JZ 236:CL 231:JZ 210:) 169:. 146:) 3788:( 3765:( 3716:( 3692:) 3684:( 3681:/ 3670:: 3666:@ 3621:( 3599:) 3453:( 3415:T 3401:( 3380:( 3351:( 3326:( 3302:( 3265:( 3231:( 3185:T 3171:( 3154:T 3140:( 3101:( 2990:( 2971:T 2939:( 2821:( 2815:1 2811:2 2807:3 2792:( 2788:– 2780:. 2723:( 2715:… 2688: 2658:( 2654:– 2584:( 2525:( 2451:( 2430:( 2396:( 2344:( 2289:( 2254:T 2238:) 2196:( 2183:: 2171:@ 2138:☎ 2091:☎ 2066:: 2062:@ 2051:( 2037:: 2033:@ 2021:( 2013:, 1982:( 1950:T 1863:( 1834:( 1803:( 1777:) 1763:C 1759:T 1757:( 1728:( 1686:) 1684:c 1680:t 1676:u 1674:( 1638:( 1615:( 1553:( 1535:T 1520:( 1506:T 1488:( 1474:T 1456:( 1438:T 1411:( 1396:T 1370:D 1334:T 1327:: 1323:@ 1312:D 1296:: 1292:@ 1279:T 1257:( 1243:T 1220:( 1140:( 1121:( 1103:) 1101:c 1097:t 1093:u 1091:( 1072:( 1059:) 1057:c 1053:t 1049:u 1047:( 1029:D 996:) 994:c 990:t 986:u 984:( 950:( 924:( 893:( 877:: 873:@ 862:( 852:: 848:@ 836:( 816:( 765:( 728:T 707:: 703:@ 691:( 654:( 632:( 622:: 618:@ 607:( 594:: 586:@ 552:: 544:@ 497:( 481:( 419:( 369:( 319:( 305:( 206:( 183:D 142:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

talk:Redirects for discussion/Archive 13 - Knowledge (XXG)

Index