Unusual spelling for a redirect that is unlikely to be a common spelling error. An appropriate redirect from "Foxford School" to "Foxford School and Community Arts College" is in place. Snowman (talk) 23:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Very weak delete. It is not unprecedented to keep a redirect with a title with improper capitalization, but in this case the improper case occurs in the middle of the word. Highly unlikely search term. B.Wind (talk) 03:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. See [1] for how this redirect came to exist: another author created an article about the school misnamed as FordFord School, which I first corrected to FoxFord School and then Foxford School. (That article has since been merged into the existing article for Foxford School and Community Arts College and is itself now a redirect.) This redirect was automatically created by the page renames I performed and I agree it serves no useful purpose whatsoever. Ros0709 (talk) 10:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual spelling for a redirect - not likely to be a common error. An appropriate redirect from "Foxford School" to "Foxford School and Community Arts College" is in place. Snowman (talk) 23:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not a useful redirect ("FordFord" vs. "Foxford") as it is a most unlikely search term. B.Wind (talk) 03:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. See [2] for how this redirect came to exist: another author created an article about the school misnamed as FordFord School, which I first corrected to FoxFord School and then Foxford School. (That article has since been merged into the existing article for Foxford School and Community Arts College and is itself now a redirect.) This redirect was automatically created by the page renames I performed and I agree it serves no useful purpose whatsoever. Ros0709 (talk) 10:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is a result of vandalism Chris! _ct 18:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Calling it "vandalism" is actually assuming bad faith as "Phœnix" is the actual name of the mythological bird, but nothing links to the redirect in question, and "œ" appears to be available only in the links below the editing window. Thus it is a highly unlikely search term. Delete. B.Wind (talk) 03:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the mythical bird is not related to the team and the word "Phoenix" on the team name is always spelled out like its namesake city, so this redirect is plain wrong. Sorry if I sounded mean, but looking at the high level of vandalism on the team article, it is quite logical to assume that this redirect is a result of vandalism. Chris! _ct 23:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects to an article that was merged per afd discussion.--Tdl1060 (talk) 03:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Fix redirect to point to the new article. JeremyMcCracken (talk) 03:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did exactly this already, so this can probably be closed. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is the fallout from a move-and-move-back exchange; I don't think anyone really wanted bad habit to redirect to anti-pattern, which doesn't make much sense. Anti-pattern is a term specific to computer programming, so links to or searches for bad habit are rather unlikely to intend the anti-pattern meaning. Trovatore (talk) 01:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "Bad habit" seems to be a good redirect, but to the wrong page. Redirect to self-destructive behaviour. B.Wind (talk) 01:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. Bad Habits is already a dab page.B.Wind (talk) 01:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I disagree that it's a "good redirect". Not every common phrase needs to be a bluelink. If someone wikilinks bad habit, that's almost certainly overlinking, because you can't write an encyclopedic article on bad habits, so let it come up red. And if someone searches for it, let the search engine do its magic. As to the specific target suggested, note that not all bad habits are per se self-destructive. --Trovatore (talk) 02:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• One can certainly write a good article about bad habits and I plan to do so. The anti-pattern material is just the start as there are over ten thousand scholarly sources to go through. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Secondary comment Self-destructive behaviour should probably be deleted as well -- it's not a good article in its current state, and not a very encyclopedic title even if someone wanted to work on improving it. --Trovatore (talk) 02:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Change Redirect to either Bad Habits (a dab page) or Habit (psychology), personally I would lean towards preferring the latter.--Tdl1060 (talk) 03:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Change redirect per B.Wind. Bad Habits wouldn't be a good destination as all of the items in the dab list are plural. JeremyMcCracken (talk) 03:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: One of the items on the bad habitsBad Habits page (the song by the band The Offspring) is singular; so having the singular and plural forms point to the same page seems to make sense to me. It should also be noted that the title Bad Habits implies a proper name, but some of the entries on that page aren't. But I don't have a strong opinion concerning the ultimate disposition. --EngineerScotty (talk) 04:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC) (moeified by editor)[reply]
• Moot This is now an article not a redirect and so this discussion is moot. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment The talk page for this now-article should be deleted, as it currently redirects to Talk:Anti-pattern. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 18:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I have fixed the talk page. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]