This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 27, 2014.
Obama Derangement Syndrome
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Involved close per
WP:IAR/
WP:NOTBURO, given the backlog, and with unanimous consensus after a full listing period. Contact me with concerns. --
BDD (
talk)
16:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)reply
This was previously discussed at the target page, but it isn't anymore. I'm not sure whether it would be better to restore that content or delete the redirect. It's
ASTONISHing and misleading as is.
BDD (
talk)
19:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete. The content was only tangential to the page in question; the redirected phrase is a short-lived neologism. It had a brief period of limited currency, but we don't need to have a redirect for every phrase of bile produced by the toxic mudslinging of USAnian politics. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
12:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete per BrownHairedGirl and
WP:ASTONISH. Not mentioned at target, I am not sure if BDD meant there was content on the article page, or discussed on its talk page – it's unfortunate that discussion is lost (which is why I tend to abstain from changing article content while things are under discussion, tempting though it sometimes is).
Si Trew (
talk)
07:36, 6 April 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
;qjkxbmwvz
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
::Delete. Doesn't seem to to me; wbhatever keyboard layout you use (and I struggle with several) the aim surely is o come out with something sensible not
gibberish. Sure we all make typos but this is just nonsense.
Si Trew (
talk)
22:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep. Well strike me down and I better get my
Queen of Sheba costume on. We do actually have
qwertyuiop, which redirects to
QWERTY.
azertyuiop is a DAB (probably unnecessarily) to the
AZERTY layout and a horse so called: I would deete the dab and hatnote under
WP:TWODABS but don't like to do that kind of thing while things are under discussion. But since other keyboard layouts are mentioned one way or another, so this is perfectly reasonable on that score. Were it just sitting on its own with no comparisons, I would say delete, as I initially did.
etaoin shrdlu also has an article (the layout for
Linotype machines) and is mentioned in the lede at
SHRDLU which is about something else but properly kinda cross-referenced.
Si Trew (
talk)
22:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Страдание
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete this is a generic topic with no particular affinity for Russian over other languages.
WP:NOT a translation dictionary.
WP:UE this is the English Wikipedia, not the Russian one, so no utility is given to Russians trying to find information written in Russian unless they are using English Wikipedia as a translation dictionary to find the Russian. --
70.50.151.11 (
talk)
04:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)reply
keep - directs readers to the content they're looking for. No one has suggested a reason to delete this, nor are any obvious. I suspect none exist. Certainly actively screwing over the readership would require a compelling reason, and there's no evidence of such a thing.
WilyD09:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep - If I was looking for people to find this term, I'd make a redirect so
Lighthouse01 and others searching on Google will FIND OUR PAGES... but I guess that outcome is unimportant to those confusing deleting cheap redirects with actually editing usefully in this project. // FrankB22:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Er, you are aware that we have whole other editions of Wikipedia in different languages, yes? And the first Google hit I get for Страдание is... wait for it...
ru:Страдание. —
Scott•talk22:56, 29 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete. We have redirects for concepts closely related to a foreign language for a simple reason: they deserve to be mentioned in the article. How could we have a comprehensive article on Moscow without including the local name, "Моcква"? Someone who knows this can take an unfamiliar term and use our search function for it, and it will reveal the relevant article. If we have no redirect, it's a good indication that it's not a term for a concept related to the language. If we have a redirect to a topic that's not specific to the language in question, we confuse the searcher, who's basically left to wonder whether it's a local term or not. Just remember: if a comprehensive article wouldn't mention it, a foreign-language redirect isn't a good idea, and in this case we have no reason to mention cтрадание in our article on suffering.
Nyttend (
talk)
13:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete This is written in Russian, I think (not Bulgarian). We can't have a million redirects for every article in every foreign language. --
Kndimov (
talk)
21:45, 30 March 2014 (UTC)reply
We certainly can't, given the total number of languages is at most several thousand. But that fact is apparently unrelated to the redirect at hand, so why would you favour deletion?
WilyD10:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete per Scott and BDD. THe place to find Russian articles is the Russian Wikipedia. The place to find Bulgarian articles is the Bulgarian Wikipedia. We have Interwiki links and I find them, when I translate an article,far more of a fiddle than when we just stuck them at the bottom after the categories. than the new Interwiki database thing, but hey ho that is my problem. It is indicative, therefore, that if there is not an Interwiki link the article doesn't exist at RU:WP so what is the point of having its Russian name in EN:WP?
Si Trew (
talk)
23:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
США
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. The consensus is that
WP:FORRED applies in most cases of foreign language redirects, and it has not been shown either that there is a strong connection between the Russian language and the USA, or that there is a reason for this to be an exception to the general case.
Thryduulf (
talk)
10:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete the USA is an English speaking country that does its official business in English and uses English in the main. There is little affinity for Russian --
70.50.151.11 (
talk)
04:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)reply
To clarify: English is not an official language of the United States: it does not have one. Nor does the United Kingdom. But de facto, most business is done in English, but where I lived in the US a lot was done in Spanish.
Si Trew (
talk)
22:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep - directs the reader to the content they're looking for. No argument has been presented for deletion, nor do any seem to exist. (And America's liable to be Russian soon enough ;) )
WilyD10:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Природне освітлення
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Deletepryrodne osvitlennya means "natural light" which could mean fire or other things that are natural... and this topic has no particular affinity for Ukranian over other languages. --
70.50.151.11 (
talk)
04:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Template:Wpcy
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Useless redirect that points to WikiProject Country Music. Redirects are cheap, but should not be used as grass seed to make as many redirects with as few letters as possible. The Bannertalk14:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC) So much for today, and this was only the harvest for March.reply
Strong Keep - "C" and "Y" are the first and last letters in the word "country". This RfD is extremely similar to the
2013 RfD about Template:Cop and the
2014 RfD about Template:wprk, which I am incorporating by reference for the sake of brevity. There are several templates like this, such as {{Tb}} which is not about tuburculosis, {{pot}} which is not about cannabis, {{hat}} which is not about headwear, etc.
WP:R#D8 does not apply as this is not an article space redirect.
WP:R#D2 does not apply as confusion is less likely to occur in other name spaces.
"Unless a WikiProject [or anyone else, for that matter] has actually expressed interest in usurping [these redirects], I don't see [them] doing any harm." To date, no other use for {{wpcy}} has been suggested at all. Per
WP:R#KEEP, "If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do".
"Many, possibly most, templates with names starting "wp" (in any capitalisation) are associated with WikiProjects and including a W for the Wikipedia namespace is at best very uncommmon. This means that the alleged confusion is not very plausible at all. So absent evidence of any harm there is no reason to delete."
"There seems to be no evidence of confusion, just conjecture on the part of nominator, and no argument grounded in WP:R. Laziness is the exact purpose of redirects, to be perfectly honest, and the creator of a useful redirect that saves one or two characters should be commended. We don't delete redirects based merely on conjecture. Someone obviously found these useful given they were created."
"One of the lowest things one can do is steal another mans tools. So you have no use for it. That it's being used on two dozen talk pages is good enough, and there is zero reason to take away something that has no higher use. Such Nominators should be required to be the one to hand edit and remove any deleted tags."
"
Redirects are not only cheap but this is a redirect from and to template namespace. That would tend to indicate to me that anyone using it is an editor rather than a general reader and they are hardly likely to get it confused with
cop. There are lots of little abbreviated things pulled up over the years such as {{
tlc}} or {{
tlx}} or whatever as useful
shorthand for editors." --
Jax 0677 (
talk)
14:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete. "
CY" is short for many things, but "country" is not one of them. Also, "steal another mans [sic] tools"? Give me a break. How about, "if it ain't broke don't fix it"? Because I can't for the life of me see what problem Jax was attempting to solve by creating all these badly-named and redundant shortcuts. —
Scott•talk15:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep per there being no benefit to deletion. If someone wants to retarget it somewhere they should start a discussion about a specific proposal. The redirect is not broken and does not need fixing.
Thryduulf (
talk)
16:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete. A useful redirect is a redirect that one would use for themselves. Why would someone need to create so many redirects to the same target and find each useful for themselves? "Hmm, for this one I'll think I'll use WPCY. Oh, this one should have C&W." No one is taking away your tools, Jax, but you don't need 5 different hammers for one nail. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me04:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Reply - While I may have gone overboard with the number of redirects, each redirect should be decided on its own merits. If there is a better target for the redirect, I am all for it. {{C&W}} is the shortest redirect to {{WikiProject Country Music}} so far, is much shorter than any of the redirects that existed previously and is analogous to {{R&B}}. {{wpcy}} is analogous to {{wprk}}, which was kept.
Speedy keep. Frivolous,
POINTy nomination. Start an RfC if you want to codify an alleged consensus that these sorts of template redirects don't belong. —/
Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/
06:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete. There is harm in non-intuitive abbreviations, shortcuts and redirects.
1. Because when used (as is the intention, right?), any other editor ends up with an inexplicably strange template name (for transclusion or linked). That is a mental load one should prevent, that is 'helping' others into confusion.
2. Also, when another editor would like use that shortcut for a sensible template shortcut, they find it occupied. Understandably, not every editor would take it to RfD, so the more reasonable option is prevented.
3. Adding to the confusion are the uppercase/lowercase variants. Shortcuts are in uppercase with reasoned exceptions, full stop. What am I supposed to understand when I see WikiProject abbreviated to "Wp"? How does that help me? (and omitting the "WP" in the abbreviation is a sin for misleading).
4. Shortcuts don't do typo's & spelling constructs. This is not about content space. Is someone gonna learn the typo to use the template? Must note, I am quite convinced that these were created by Jax 0677 in good faith. -
DePiep (
talk)
07:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Reply -
There are many "inexplicably strange template [names]" which I mentioned above.
Several of my templates ({{wpk}}, {{pk}}, etc.) have already been renamed, and I have not opposed such redirecting.
"The whole shortcut casing issue is a Wikipedia namespace issue, and is one that is both an obvious extension of most of the
WP:R#DELETE reasons and the result of
longstanding convention. That is, when we actually use our alphabet soup links, we always type them in uppercase, and they're always recognized by their uppercase typings. Template redirects, on the other hand, have a longstanding convention of being lowercase." "They only work alike in some situations, not all, and having both of them is completely harmless. Which to use is therefore a case of personal preference, and that is not something that RfD should even contemplate prescribing".
"Anyone using it is an editor rather than a general reader and they are hardly likely to get it confused". The redirects should all be considered on a case by case basis, and if there is a better target for one of the redirects, again, I am all for it. --
Jax 0677 (
talk)
03:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Template:WPCY
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Useless redirect that points to WikiProject Country Music. Redirects are cheap, but should not be used as grass seed to make as many redirects with as few letters as possible. The Bannertalk14:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep per there being no benefit to deletion. If someone wants to retarget it somewhere they should start a discussion about a specific proposal. The redirect is not broken and does not need fixing.
Thryduulf (
talk)
16:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Retarget per Frietjes. Nonetheless, this is a frivolous,
POINTy nomination. Start an RfC if you want to codify an alleged consensus that these sorts of template redirects don't belong. I have individually reviewed this specific case and disagree that there are any independent reasons for deleting it apart from The Banner's spurious claim that WikiProject templates should be held to the same standards as articlespace redirects. —/
Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/
06:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Actually, I find your statement (per WP:POINT link) that The Banner is disrupting Wikipedia is unfounded, and more of a drive by capitalized yell. That is for the linked title. Had you read what you linked to, you'd know that the nom is exactly
WP:NOTPOINTy. Then, denying a discussion by sending others to start an RfC is an self-illustration of, well, you guess. -
DePiep (
talk)
01:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)reply
It is.
Mendaliv, you would do everyone involved in these discussions a favor by demonstrating a commitment on your part to civility and striking that accusation in every place that you've made it. —
Scott•talk10:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Template:C&W
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. There is a consensus that it is inappropriate for this title to redirect to a WikiProject banner. There was no consensus about whether it should redirect instead to
Template:Countrymusic (or some other target), so any alternatives should be considered through the usual
WP:BRD cycle. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
16:36, 5 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Useless redirect that points to WikiProject Country Music. Redirects are cheap, but should not be used as grass seed to make as many redirects with as few letters as possible. The Bannertalk14:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Neither should redirect to a wikiproject banner template, there being C&W music templates for content, and same with R&B. The existence of this redirect precludes mainspace usage for content. --
70.24.250.235 (
talk)
04:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete. Per 70.50, a WikiProject shortcut should begin with "WP". Also, WikiProject Country Music is not "WikiProject Country and Western" (you'll notice how
country and western is a redirect to
country music). Titles of shortcuts should refer directly to their targets, not synonyms or alternate names. —
Scott•talk15:20, 29 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep per there being no benefit to deletion. If someone wants to retarget it somewhere they should start a discussion about a specific proposal rather just vaguely handwave that "C&W" might refer to other things as well - no evidence has been presented that anybody actually is or has been confused by this.
Thryduulf (
talk)
16:46, 29 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep Frivolous,
POINTy nomination. Start an RfC if you want to codify an alleged consensus that these sorts of template redirects don't belong. I have individually reviewed this specific case and disagree that there are any independent reasons for deleting it apart from The Banner's spurious claim that WikiProject templates should be held to the same standards as articlespace redirects. —/
Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/
06:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Weak keepRedirects are cheap, and I don't see how this is confusing, so no
deletion criteria are met. At the same time, it's a recently created and not very useful redirect, so deleting it wouldn't really harm the project either. It's true that "redirects should not be used as grass seed to make as many redirects with as few letters as possible"... but once that has already happened, there's no benefit to undoing it.
Sideways713 (
talk)
10:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Reply - Why is {{R&B}} not at
RFD? Without a better target, I feel this can stay. On a side note,
TFD and
RFD are backlogged with items from February, and should be attended to promptly. --
Jax 0677 (
talk)
04:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Stay on topic. Your side note is inappropriately demanding and extremely rude to a volunteer community, and a bit hypocritical from one of the laziest editors I've ever come across here. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me07:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Template:C&w
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Useless redirect that points to WikiProject Country Music. Redirects are cheap, but should not be used as grass seed to make as many redirects with as few letters as possible The Bannertalk14:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Neither should redirect to a wikiproject banner template, there being C&W music templates for content, and same with R&B. The existence of this redirect precludes mainspace usage for content. --
70.24.250.235 (
talk)
04:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete. Per 70.50, a WikiProject shortcut should begin with "WP". Also, WikiProject Country Music is not "WikiProject Country and Western" (you'll notice how
country and western is a redirect to
country music). Titles of shortcuts should refer directly to their targets, not synonyms or alternate names. And as John notes, mixed case is wrong. —
Scott•talk15:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep Frivolous,
POINTy nomination. Start an RfC if you want to codify an alleged consensus that these sorts of template redirects don't belong. I have individually reviewed this specific case and disagree that there are any independent reasons for deleting it apart from The Banner's spurious claim that WikiProject templates should be held to the same standards as articlespace redirects. —/
Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/
06:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Why do you claim a speedy when there is a discussion rolling in front of your eyes, and without referencing a speedy criteria at all? It looks like you use the word "frivolous" a bit too ~. -
DePiep (
talk)
07:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Reply - Why is {{R&B}} not at
RFD? Without a better target, I feel this can stay. On a side note,
TFD and
RFD are backlogged with items from February, and should be attended to promptly. --
Jax 0677 (
talk)
04:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Template:Wcy
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Useless redirect that points to WikiProject Country Music. Redirects are cheap, but should not be used as grass seed to make as many redirects with as few letters as possible The Bannertalk14:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete Nowhere would "cy" mean country music and WikiProject banner shortcuts typically start with WP. If the creator is looking for shortcuts to use for himself, he should just stick to one and use it. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me18:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep per there being no benefit to deletion. If someone wants to retarget it somewhere they should start a discussion about a specific proposal. Despite not being an obvious shortening, the redirect is not broken and does not need fixing. Nowhere is it required that redirects be obvious, just that they be plausible and this clearly is.
Thryduulf (
talk)
16:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)reply
If someone wants to retarget it somewhere they should start a discussion about a specific proposal. You think an editor embarks upon an RfD that easy? To replace a nonsense-shortcut with sense? I don't think so. That is where we loose improvements. -
DePiep (
talk)
08:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Retarget per Frietjes. Nonetheless, this is a frivolous,
POINTy nomination. Start an RfC if you want to codify an alleged consensus that these sorts of template redirects don't belong. I have individually reviewed this specific case and disagree that there are any independent reasons for deleting it apart from The Banner's spurious claim that WikiProject templates should be held to the same standards as articlespace redirects. —/
Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/
06:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Template:Pk
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete per Frietjes. I repointed this one to the current target as PK as can mean too many things and
WP:PK redirects to a Pakistan-related page. This one doesn't even use the typical "WP" shortcut expected for the original target. Not sure why anyone would think something that start with a P should point to the Korea WikiProject. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me18:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep. There can be no benefit to the encyclopaedia brought be deleting this redirect, so we should not do that. If the current target is not the best then propose retargetting it to the template that is, but Pakistan seems to be the obvious target to me.
Thryduulf (
talk)
16:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)reply
{{Pk}} and {{PK}} have different targets. You know and support that. In other places uc/lc redirect to the same page. That does not help anyone at all. Why should someone have to learn the difference? (don't forget, "WP" is missing. Another help idea?) -
DePiep (
talk)
08:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)reply
There is no requirement for "WP", despite your repeated claims to the contrary (just because you shout it loudly and often does not make something true). There is equally no requirement for UC and LC versions to have the same target, but if you want to standardise them then you should be nominating one or the other for retargetting not nominating both for deletion. I also note again that there is no evidence of any actual confusion.
Thryduulf (
talk)
09:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete. We should really stay with the current shortcut convention for WikiProject templates, and the use of a two-letter redirect here is confusing, since PK has multiple meanings.
Plastikspork―Œ(talk)23:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Template:Wpk
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Useless redirect that points to WikiProject Korea. Redirects are cheap, but should not be used as grass seed to make as many redirects with as few letters as possible. With another template (PK) pointing to the Wikiproject Punk Music, I expected this to be another redirect to this WikiProject, so this is rather confusing and a recipe for mistakes. The Bannertalk14:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep Note that this originally pointed to Wikiproject Punk music and I changed it to the Korea WikiProject because project shortcuts start with WP not W, so it makes more sense to redirect to a WikiProject that start with "K".
Template:Wpr was
kept just because it wasn't being used for anything else, even though "R" can stand for lots of things. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me18:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep current target. WPK is conventional naming for a WikiProject to a topic beginning with "K" and Korea fits that bill perfectly. I don't see why either punk music or Pakistan would be inferred from this acronym (indeed they would seem rather implausible targets to me).
Thryduulf (
talk)
16:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete as confusing. WikiProject Punk music was never a great place to point this. I figured there would be a good place to retarget, but with
WP:WPK red, maybe that's not the case. I really don't see the benefit in moving this, either. It's not like there's any significant history that needs to be retained, so if anyone wants
Template:WPKO to redirect to
Template:WikiProject Korea, go ahead and be bold. --
BDD (
talk)
18:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete. We should really stay with the current shortcut convention for WikiProject templates, and the use of a three-letter redirect here is confusing, since it could have multiple meanings.
Plastikspork―Œ(talk)23:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)reply
The current convention is not breached here. The argument that abbreviations can have multiple meanings has been rejected as irrelevant multiple times previously because we use hatnotes to help people find what they are looking for (see
WP:SK for example).
Thryduulf (
talk)
09:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Template:Caw
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Useless redirect that points to WikiProject Country Music. Redirects are cheap, but should not be used as grass seed to make as many redirects with as few letters as possible. And to be true, I had never guessed that this template had something to do with country music... The Bannertalk14:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete I'm guessing the CAW is for 'Country And Western', for which '
C&W' is the much better known abbreviation. After a bit of googling, I dont see evidence of people using CAW to refer to Country and Western music. John Vandenberg(
chat)23:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete No one anywhere is going to know that CAW is supposed to mean a shortcut for the country music wikiproject. Deletion does know harm because these have only existed for a short time when dozens of these were created by a single person with no real rationale to do so, since reasonable redirects for most of these already exist. In fact, only one of the recent redirects to this target makes true sense: WPCM (nevermind: the Christian music or Classical music projects could usurp it). --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me04:32, 30 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep Frivolous,
POINTy nomination. Start an RfC if you want to codify an alleged consensus that these sorts of template redirects don't belong. I have individually reviewed this specific case and disagree that there are any independent reasons for deleting it apart from The Banner's spurious claim that WikiProject templates should be held to the same standards as articlespace redirects. —/
Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/
06:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)reply
My opinion is super duper important! Listen to me! Either that or complete ignorance of the appropriate use of the word "speedy". —
Scott•talk10:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Reply - If this is the case, why is {{R&B}} not at
RFD? Without a better target, I feel this can stay. On a side note,
TFD and
RFD are backlogged with items from February, and should be attended to promptly. --
Jax 0677 (
talk)
04:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Template:PD-Albania-extempt
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete. Not a common mispelling (e.g.
extempt isnt a mispelling redirect), and isnt a commonly used template with less than
50 uses which should all be moved to commons. The redirect currently received < 3 hits per month. Now that it has been categorised, that number will go up. :/ John Vandenberg(
chat)23:44, 28 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep I don't see a good reason to treat editors and readers differently, nor is there always a clear distinction between the two groups. --
BDD (
talk)
18:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Editing and reading the site are discrete modes, even if the people that participate in both modes are the same. Likewise, search input errors and programming errors may appear similar, but they are conceptually quite distinct and need to be treated differently. Specifically, tolerance to programming errors should be close to zero. Allowing redirects like this one encourages bad habits and creates
technical debt. —
Scott•talk10:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Wikipedia:REFLIN
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
A rather misleading title that suggest that it is about links in references, but is in fact a link to a template used when a section has no references. The Bannertalk14:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)reply
delete, WP:REFLIN will autocomplete to WP:REFLINKS; there is no search benefit in creating this redirect, and if someone is using the URLbar, they are ubersmart and should be able to get it right, or they can press Search to find the right page if they have forgotten the page name. John Vandenberg(
chat)00:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Template:CoP
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus; I'll leave to the discretion of the closer for
Template:Cop whether to delete this if there's consensus to delete that one as well. --
BDD (
talk)
18:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Useless redirect that points to template:Collapsible option. Another similar template is already under discussion (template:Cop). Redirects are cheap, but should not be used as grass seed to make as many redirects with as few letters as possible The Bannertalk14:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)reply
strong (speedy) keep. The rationale does not present any valid reason for deletion - perceived uselessness is no reason to delete a redirect, and as the redirect is used it is also factually incorrect. Deletion would not bring any benefits to the encyclopaedia, and the mass nomination of so many with such non-arguments is very pointy.
Thryduulf (
talk)
17:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep Frivolous,
POINTy nomination. Start an RfC if you want to codify an alleged consensus that these sorts of template redirects don't belong. I have individually reviewed this specific case and disagree that there are any independent reasons for deleting it apart from The Banner's spurious claim that WikiProject templates should be held to the same standards as articlespace redirects. —/
Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/
06:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Template:Whh
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Useless redirect that points to WikiProject Hip Hop. Redirects are cheap, but should not be used as grass seed to make as many redirects with as few letters as possible The Bannertalk14:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep. Deletion would be harmful. "uselessness" is subjective and not a valid reason for deletion of a redirect and, as this template is used it is by definition useful. If someone wants to retarget it somewhere they should start a discussion about a specific proposal.
Thryduulf (
talk)
17:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep Frivolous,
POINTy nomination. Start an RfC if you want to codify an alleged consensus that these sorts of template redirects don't belong. I have individually reviewed this specific case and disagree that there are any independent reasons for deleting it apart from The Banner's spurious claim that WikiProject templates should be held to the same standards as articlespace redirects. —/
Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/
06:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Reply - If there is a better target for {{whh}}, I am all for it. Each redirect should be judged based on its own merits. On a side note,
TFD and
RFD are backlogged with items from February, and should be attended to promptly. --
Jax 0677 (
talk)
04:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Template:Jz
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Useless redirect that points to WikiProject Jazz. Redirects are cheap, but should not be used as grass seed to make as many redirects with as few letters as possible The Bannertalk14:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep. Deletion would bring no benefits. "uselessness" is subjective and not a valid reason for deletion of any redirect. If someone wants to retarget it somewhere they should start a discussion about a specific proposal.
Thryduulf (
talk)
17:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep Frivolous,
POINTy nomination. Start an RfC if you want to codify an alleged consensus that these sorts of template redirects don't belong. I have individually reviewed this specific case and disagree that there are any independent reasons for deleting it apart from The Banner's spurious claim that WikiProject templates should be held to the same standards as articlespace redirects. —/
Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/
06:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Reply - Why is {{R&B}} not at
RFD? Without a better target, I feel this can stay. On a side note,
TFD and
RFD are backlogged with items from February, and should be attended to promptly. --
Jax 0677 (
talk)
04:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Template:Pnk
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Useless redirect that points to WikiProject Punk Music. Redirects are cheap, but should not be used as grass seed to make as many redirects with as few letters as possible The Bannertalk14:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep these nominations with invalid rationales ("uselessness" is subjective and not a valid reason for deletion of any redirect) are harmful to the project, and deletion would be even more so. If someone wants to retarget it somewhere they should start a discussion about a specific proposal.
Thryduulf (
talk)
17:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Reply - Why is {{R&B}} not at
RFD? Without a better target, I feel this can stay. On a side note,
TFD and
RFD are backlogged with items from February, and should be attended to promptly. --
Jax 0677 (
talk)
04:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Template:Wccm
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Useless redirect that points to WikiProject Christian Music. Redirects are cheap, but should not be used as grass seed to make as many redirects with as few letters as possible The Bannertalk14:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete. For various bads already mentioned. A WP shortcut should start with "WP". Nonsense abbreciation. No typos in shortcuts. -
DePiep (
talk)
15:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Template:WHH
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Useless redirect that points to WikiProject Hip Hop. Redirects are cheap, but should not be used as grass seed to make as many redirects with as few letters as possible The Bannertalk13:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete, just use {{WPHH}} - its only one letter less, and fits within the existing naming conventions (which are not all written down, but hopefully documentation is added after this batch of discussions). John Vandenberg(
chat)13:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete. The confusion and inconsistency caused by removing one letter from "WPHH" outweighs the "benefit" of the shorter title by a factor of approximately an umpty-jillion to one. —
Scott•talk15:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep. Deletion would be harmful. "uselessness" is subjective and not a valid reason for deletion of a redirect and, as this template is used it is by definition useful. If someone wants to retarget it somewhere they should start a discussion about a specific proposal.
Thryduulf (
talk)
17:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Reply - If there is a better target for {{WHH}}, I am all for it. Each redirect should be judged based on its own merits. On a side note,
TFD and
RFD are backlogged with items from February, and should be attended to promptly. --
Jax 0677 (
talk)
04:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Template:Win
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Useless redirect that points to WikiProject Industrial. Redirects are cheap, but should not be used as grass seed to make as many redirects with as few letters as possible The Bannertalk13:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete per Frietjes. Too much potential confusion. WikiProject Banner shortcuts like this should use "WP". --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me18:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep. If this is frequently confused with another template then retargetting one or the other to avoid that confusion should be proposed and discussed. Deleting a redirect that is in use harms the encyclopaedia, and should only happen when that harm is outweighed by any benefits. In this case, there would be no benefits to anyone from deletion - users confusing it for {{win}} (or anything else) still will not achieve what they are attempting and those using it correctly will be penalised for no reason.
Thryduulf (
talk)
17:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Reply - If there is a better target for {{win}}, I am all for it. Each redirect should be judged based on its own merits. On a side note,
TFD and
RFD are backlogged with items from February, and should be attended to promptly. --
Jax 0677 (
talk)
04:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)reply
One well-known contributor here who does a lot of the closures has unfortunately been away. I don't like to do it myself; I am not an admin but I could close off some (and hatnote the articles etc etc or whatever the outcome is, or propose them at CSD with a ref to here etc) for those that are uncontroversial as a bit of Wikignoming, if you want.
Si Trew (
talk)
07:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete but not salt. I am not suggesting to create a template for "Walruses in Nova Scotia" or "Windows in Namibia" but although it might be a common typo, mirabile dictu the Wikipedia search engine is good enough to cope with these typos now.
Si Trew (
talk)
07:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Template:Wind
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Useless redirect that points to WikiProject Industrial. Redirects are cheap, but should not be used as grass seed to make as many redirects with as few letters as possible The Bannertalk13:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep or retarget. "uselessness" is subjective and not a valid reason for deletion of a redirect because doing so brings no benefits. Arguments that "wind" could mean many other things are
WP:OTHERSTUFF and as such are not valid rationales for deletion either. If there is a desire for this to be converted to a template or retargetted elsewhere, then this should be discussed and then implemented if there is consensus, but it does not require deletion. In this case, BDD's proposed retargetting looks to be a good suggestion and one I am happy to support.
Thryduulf (
talk)
17:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete. We should really stay with the current shortcut convention for WikiProject templates, and the current use is confusing, since it could have multiple meanings.
Plastikspork―Œ(talk)23:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Template:IN
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Useless redirect that points to WikiProject Industrial. Redirects are cheap, but should not be used as grass seed to make as many redirects with as few letters as possible The Bannertalk13:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)reply
"This could easily be for
Indium or
India or some functionality template having to do with "in"" is an example of what I'm referring to. Just because a redirect could refer to other things than the present target is not a valid reason to delete it. 21:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
At most this would be a disambiguation page. Especially considering the more relevant uses of IN being Indiana and India, and the existing Indium infobox. --
70.24.250.235 (
talk)
04:45, 30 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Reply - If there is a better target for {{IN}}, I am all for it.
India is much larger than
Indiana, and better known on a global scale. On a side note,
TFD and
RFD are backlogged with items from February, and should be attended to promptly. --
Jax 0677 (
talk)
04:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Template:RK
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Useless redirect that points to WikiProject Rock Music. Redirects are cheap, but should not be used as grass seed to make as many redirects with as few letters as possible The Bannertalk13:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep per Jax 0677. "RK" is a well used abbreviation for "Rock music" (particularly by artists and fans at the heavier end of the genre), so this meets the "plausible" standard required of a redirect. On the other hand "uselessness" is not a relevant criteria on which redirects are judged.
Thryduulf (
talk)
17:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Reply - If there is a better target for {{RK}}, I am all for it. Each redirect should be judged based on its own merits. On a side note,
TFD and
RFD are backlogged with items from February, and should be attended to promptly. --
Jax 0677 (
talk)
04:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Template:PK
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Useless redirect that points to WikiProject Punk Music. Redirects are cheap, but should not be used as grass seed to make as many redirects with as few letters as possible The Bannertalk13:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete per JV. Malformed; should start with "WP" to distinguish it from an article space template. Also, "First letter/last letter" is an incongruous and
unexpected method of abbreviation. —
Scott•talk15:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Reply - If there is a better target for {{PK}}, I am all for it. Each redirect should be judged based on its own merits, but should not necessarily be identical nor different. On a side note,
TFD and
RFD are backlogged with items from February, and should be attended to promptly. --
Jax 0677 (
talk)
04:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Шмели
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete per nom. No reason to have a foreign language titled redirect. (unless stealing hits from other Wikipedia is now English Wikipedia redirect policy, which wouldnt surprise me TBH.) John Vandenberg(
chat)04:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep - redirects that direct readers to the content they're looking for is a necessary part of an encyclopaedia; if the users can't find the content, why bother having content at all? No one has suggested any reason we might want to delete this, nor can I make any up.
WilyD09:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Why would you argue for deletion based on a fact unrelated to the redirect under discussion? That doesn't make any sense.
WilyD10:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
C: article redirects
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Pointless . Assuming that this gets implemented, there's nothing we can do, and if something should prevent this from getting implemented, we might as well retain the redirects, since they're helpful. If you think that this is a bad idea, please try to keep it from getting implemented, since the tech people won't pay attention to an RFD.
Nyttend (
talk)
04:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)reply
The article formerly at this title (and the only article on the English Wikipedia to actually include "C:" in its title) has been moved to
C:Real, using the
fullwidth form of the colon. Our search backend treats the two forms of the colon as one character - try
testwiki:Special:Search/C:Real - so fullwidth colon entries will still appear in a search typed using the halfwidth form. Recommend deleting (and fixing incoming links).
Recommend renaming all to use the fullwidth colon.
Question: In re “Our search backend treats the two forms of the colon as one character”: I take it that future versions of
Special:Search will do some normalization of input. Is there any documentation of what characters will be considered equivalent?
Gorobay (
talk)
14:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Move these redirects to use fullwidth colons. By “fullwidth colon” I mean U+FF1A:FULLWIDTH COLON, and not U+FE30︰PRESENTATION FORM FOR VERTICAL TWO DOT LEADER (which is used in
C︰Real). In
Special:Search, a simple U+003A:COLON will match the former but not the latter (assuming it uses NFKC).
Gorobay (
talk)
13:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Oh dear. Thanks for discovering that. I think it derives from a comment I left at the talk page of that article containing the erroneous character - apparently a copy and paste error on my part. I've moved the article to
C:Real and fixed all the incoming links. —
Scott•talk14:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment. Alas that very
WP:INVOLVED closure of the Meta RfC has placed the convenience of editors above the needs of the readers of the encyclopaedia by forcing the use of incorrect titles where this is not necessary. A retrograde step for usability.
Thryduulf (
talk)
17:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Useless redirect, as it originally pointed to template:wpem that points to WikiProject Electronic Music. Redirects are cheap, but should not be used as grass seed to make as many redirects with as few letters as possible. The Bannertalk02:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete wikiproject shortcuts should use "WP" not "W", it is not about anything at
WEM (disambiguation), so is occupying a location potentially useful for an encyclopedic topic, and the shortcut already exists as {{WPEM}} --
70.50.151.11 (
talk)
04:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep. Deletion would bring no benefits, other potential uses are not relevant (
WP:OTHERSTUFF) until there is a specific proposal for a specific retargetting or repurposing (neither of which would require deletion).
Thryduulf (
talk)
17:35, 29 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Reply - If there is a better target for {{wem}}, I am all for it. Each redirect should be judged based on its own merits. On a side note,
TFD and
RFD are backlogged with items from February, and should be attended to promptly. --
Jax 0677 (
talk)
04:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Come However You Are
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Comment - indeed, you can certainly retarget a double-redirect to the end result without asking, bots do it all the time. Unless you're looking for something else?
WilyD10:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Part of the problem is that author is massively claiming article titles my creating redirects, while it is very doubtful if they will ever appear as articles what the summary ("temp") suggests. The Bannertalk13:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC)reply
I don't think I follow your thinking. If articles are very unlikely to ever be made, then a redirect makes a lot of sense. It's only where an article is likely to be made that deletion makes sense, because the red link calls attention to the fact that the article needs to be written.
WilyD18:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Retarget to "City Harbor (album)" - According to
WP:NSONG, "Songs that do not rise to notability for an independent article should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song". With that being said, why is this being nominated for deletion at all if the album and artist are not also being nominated for deletion (which I do not think they should be anyway)? --
Jax 0677 (
talk)
15:37, 29 March 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 27, 2014.
Obama Derangement Syndrome
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Involved close per
WP:IAR/
WP:NOTBURO, given the backlog, and with unanimous consensus after a full listing period. Contact me with concerns. --
BDD (
talk)
16:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)reply
This was previously discussed at the target page, but it isn't anymore. I'm not sure whether it would be better to restore that content or delete the redirect. It's
ASTONISHing and misleading as is.
BDD (
talk)
19:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete. The content was only tangential to the page in question; the redirected phrase is a short-lived neologism. It had a brief period of limited currency, but we don't need to have a redirect for every phrase of bile produced by the toxic mudslinging of USAnian politics. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
12:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete per BrownHairedGirl and
WP:ASTONISH. Not mentioned at target, I am not sure if BDD meant there was content on the article page, or discussed on its talk page – it's unfortunate that discussion is lost (which is why I tend to abstain from changing article content while things are under discussion, tempting though it sometimes is).
Si Trew (
talk)
07:36, 6 April 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
;qjkxbmwvz
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
::Delete. Doesn't seem to to me; wbhatever keyboard layout you use (and I struggle with several) the aim surely is o come out with something sensible not
gibberish. Sure we all make typos but this is just nonsense.
Si Trew (
talk)
22:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep. Well strike me down and I better get my
Queen of Sheba costume on. We do actually have
qwertyuiop, which redirects to
QWERTY.
azertyuiop is a DAB (probably unnecessarily) to the
AZERTY layout and a horse so called: I would deete the dab and hatnote under
WP:TWODABS but don't like to do that kind of thing while things are under discussion. But since other keyboard layouts are mentioned one way or another, so this is perfectly reasonable on that score. Were it just sitting on its own with no comparisons, I would say delete, as I initially did.
etaoin shrdlu also has an article (the layout for
Linotype machines) and is mentioned in the lede at
SHRDLU which is about something else but properly kinda cross-referenced.
Si Trew (
talk)
22:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Страдание
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete this is a generic topic with no particular affinity for Russian over other languages.
WP:NOT a translation dictionary.
WP:UE this is the English Wikipedia, not the Russian one, so no utility is given to Russians trying to find information written in Russian unless they are using English Wikipedia as a translation dictionary to find the Russian. --
70.50.151.11 (
talk)
04:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)reply
keep - directs readers to the content they're looking for. No one has suggested a reason to delete this, nor are any obvious. I suspect none exist. Certainly actively screwing over the readership would require a compelling reason, and there's no evidence of such a thing.
WilyD09:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep - If I was looking for people to find this term, I'd make a redirect so
Lighthouse01 and others searching on Google will FIND OUR PAGES... but I guess that outcome is unimportant to those confusing deleting cheap redirects with actually editing usefully in this project. // FrankB22:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Er, you are aware that we have whole other editions of Wikipedia in different languages, yes? And the first Google hit I get for Страдание is... wait for it...
ru:Страдание. —
Scott•talk22:56, 29 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete. We have redirects for concepts closely related to a foreign language for a simple reason: they deserve to be mentioned in the article. How could we have a comprehensive article on Moscow without including the local name, "Моcква"? Someone who knows this can take an unfamiliar term and use our search function for it, and it will reveal the relevant article. If we have no redirect, it's a good indication that it's not a term for a concept related to the language. If we have a redirect to a topic that's not specific to the language in question, we confuse the searcher, who's basically left to wonder whether it's a local term or not. Just remember: if a comprehensive article wouldn't mention it, a foreign-language redirect isn't a good idea, and in this case we have no reason to mention cтрадание in our article on suffering.
Nyttend (
talk)
13:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete This is written in Russian, I think (not Bulgarian). We can't have a million redirects for every article in every foreign language. --
Kndimov (
talk)
21:45, 30 March 2014 (UTC)reply
We certainly can't, given the total number of languages is at most several thousand. But that fact is apparently unrelated to the redirect at hand, so why would you favour deletion?
WilyD10:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete per Scott and BDD. THe place to find Russian articles is the Russian Wikipedia. The place to find Bulgarian articles is the Bulgarian Wikipedia. We have Interwiki links and I find them, when I translate an article,far more of a fiddle than when we just stuck them at the bottom after the categories. than the new Interwiki database thing, but hey ho that is my problem. It is indicative, therefore, that if there is not an Interwiki link the article doesn't exist at RU:WP so what is the point of having its Russian name in EN:WP?
Si Trew (
talk)
23:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
США
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. The consensus is that
WP:FORRED applies in most cases of foreign language redirects, and it has not been shown either that there is a strong connection between the Russian language and the USA, or that there is a reason for this to be an exception to the general case.
Thryduulf (
talk)
10:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete the USA is an English speaking country that does its official business in English and uses English in the main. There is little affinity for Russian --
70.50.151.11 (
talk)
04:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)reply
To clarify: English is not an official language of the United States: it does not have one. Nor does the United Kingdom. But de facto, most business is done in English, but where I lived in the US a lot was done in Spanish.
Si Trew (
talk)
22:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep - directs the reader to the content they're looking for. No argument has been presented for deletion, nor do any seem to exist. (And America's liable to be Russian soon enough ;) )
WilyD10:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Природне освітлення
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Deletepryrodne osvitlennya means "natural light" which could mean fire or other things that are natural... and this topic has no particular affinity for Ukranian over other languages. --
70.50.151.11 (
talk)
04:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Template:Wpcy
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Useless redirect that points to WikiProject Country Music. Redirects are cheap, but should not be used as grass seed to make as many redirects with as few letters as possible. The Bannertalk14:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC) So much for today, and this was only the harvest for March.reply
Strong Keep - "C" and "Y" are the first and last letters in the word "country". This RfD is extremely similar to the
2013 RfD about Template:Cop and the
2014 RfD about Template:wprk, which I am incorporating by reference for the sake of brevity. There are several templates like this, such as {{Tb}} which is not about tuburculosis, {{pot}} which is not about cannabis, {{hat}} which is not about headwear, etc.
WP:R#D8 does not apply as this is not an article space redirect.
WP:R#D2 does not apply as confusion is less likely to occur in other name spaces.
"Unless a WikiProject [or anyone else, for that matter] has actually expressed interest in usurping [these redirects], I don't see [them] doing any harm." To date, no other use for {{wpcy}} has been suggested at all. Per
WP:R#KEEP, "If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do".
"Many, possibly most, templates with names starting "wp" (in any capitalisation) are associated with WikiProjects and including a W for the Wikipedia namespace is at best very uncommmon. This means that the alleged confusion is not very plausible at all. So absent evidence of any harm there is no reason to delete."
"There seems to be no evidence of confusion, just conjecture on the part of nominator, and no argument grounded in WP:R. Laziness is the exact purpose of redirects, to be perfectly honest, and the creator of a useful redirect that saves one or two characters should be commended. We don't delete redirects based merely on conjecture. Someone obviously found these useful given they were created."
"One of the lowest things one can do is steal another mans tools. So you have no use for it. That it's being used on two dozen talk pages is good enough, and there is zero reason to take away something that has no higher use. Such Nominators should be required to be the one to hand edit and remove any deleted tags."
"
Redirects are not only cheap but this is a redirect from and to template namespace. That would tend to indicate to me that anyone using it is an editor rather than a general reader and they are hardly likely to get it confused with
cop. There are lots of little abbreviated things pulled up over the years such as {{
tlc}} or {{
tlx}} or whatever as useful
shorthand for editors." --
Jax 0677 (
talk)
14:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete. "
CY" is short for many things, but "country" is not one of them. Also, "steal another mans [sic] tools"? Give me a break. How about, "if it ain't broke don't fix it"? Because I can't for the life of me see what problem Jax was attempting to solve by creating all these badly-named and redundant shortcuts. —
Scott•talk15:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep per there being no benefit to deletion. If someone wants to retarget it somewhere they should start a discussion about a specific proposal. The redirect is not broken and does not need fixing.
Thryduulf (
talk)
16:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete. A useful redirect is a redirect that one would use for themselves. Why would someone need to create so many redirects to the same target and find each useful for themselves? "Hmm, for this one I'll think I'll use WPCY. Oh, this one should have C&W." No one is taking away your tools, Jax, but you don't need 5 different hammers for one nail. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me04:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Reply - While I may have gone overboard with the number of redirects, each redirect should be decided on its own merits. If there is a better target for the redirect, I am all for it. {{C&W}} is the shortest redirect to {{WikiProject Country Music}} so far, is much shorter than any of the redirects that existed previously and is analogous to {{R&B}}. {{wpcy}} is analogous to {{wprk}}, which was kept.
Speedy keep. Frivolous,
POINTy nomination. Start an RfC if you want to codify an alleged consensus that these sorts of template redirects don't belong. —/
Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/
06:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete. There is harm in non-intuitive abbreviations, shortcuts and redirects.
1. Because when used (as is the intention, right?), any other editor ends up with an inexplicably strange template name (for transclusion or linked). That is a mental load one should prevent, that is 'helping' others into confusion.
2. Also, when another editor would like use that shortcut for a sensible template shortcut, they find it occupied. Understandably, not every editor would take it to RfD, so the more reasonable option is prevented.
3. Adding to the confusion are the uppercase/lowercase variants. Shortcuts are in uppercase with reasoned exceptions, full stop. What am I supposed to understand when I see WikiProject abbreviated to "Wp"? How does that help me? (and omitting the "WP" in the abbreviation is a sin for misleading).
4. Shortcuts don't do typo's & spelling constructs. This is not about content space. Is someone gonna learn the typo to use the template? Must note, I am quite convinced that these were created by Jax 0677 in good faith. -
DePiep (
talk)
07:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Reply -
There are many "inexplicably strange template [names]" which I mentioned above.
Several of my templates ({{wpk}}, {{pk}}, etc.) have already been renamed, and I have not opposed such redirecting.
"The whole shortcut casing issue is a Wikipedia namespace issue, and is one that is both an obvious extension of most of the
WP:R#DELETE reasons and the result of
longstanding convention. That is, when we actually use our alphabet soup links, we always type them in uppercase, and they're always recognized by their uppercase typings. Template redirects, on the other hand, have a longstanding convention of being lowercase." "They only work alike in some situations, not all, and having both of them is completely harmless. Which to use is therefore a case of personal preference, and that is not something that RfD should even contemplate prescribing".
"Anyone using it is an editor rather than a general reader and they are hardly likely to get it confused". The redirects should all be considered on a case by case basis, and if there is a better target for one of the redirects, again, I am all for it. --
Jax 0677 (
talk)
03:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Template:WPCY
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Useless redirect that points to WikiProject Country Music. Redirects are cheap, but should not be used as grass seed to make as many redirects with as few letters as possible. The Bannertalk14:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep per there being no benefit to deletion. If someone wants to retarget it somewhere they should start a discussion about a specific proposal. The redirect is not broken and does not need fixing.
Thryduulf (
talk)
16:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Retarget per Frietjes. Nonetheless, this is a frivolous,
POINTy nomination. Start an RfC if you want to codify an alleged consensus that these sorts of template redirects don't belong. I have individually reviewed this specific case and disagree that there are any independent reasons for deleting it apart from The Banner's spurious claim that WikiProject templates should be held to the same standards as articlespace redirects. —/
Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/
06:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Actually, I find your statement (per WP:POINT link) that The Banner is disrupting Wikipedia is unfounded, and more of a drive by capitalized yell. That is for the linked title. Had you read what you linked to, you'd know that the nom is exactly
WP:NOTPOINTy. Then, denying a discussion by sending others to start an RfC is an self-illustration of, well, you guess. -
DePiep (
talk)
01:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)reply
It is.
Mendaliv, you would do everyone involved in these discussions a favor by demonstrating a commitment on your part to civility and striking that accusation in every place that you've made it. —
Scott•talk10:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Template:C&W
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. There is a consensus that it is inappropriate for this title to redirect to a WikiProject banner. There was no consensus about whether it should redirect instead to
Template:Countrymusic (or some other target), so any alternatives should be considered through the usual
WP:BRD cycle. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
16:36, 5 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Useless redirect that points to WikiProject Country Music. Redirects are cheap, but should not be used as grass seed to make as many redirects with as few letters as possible. The Bannertalk14:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Neither should redirect to a wikiproject banner template, there being C&W music templates for content, and same with R&B. The existence of this redirect precludes mainspace usage for content. --
70.24.250.235 (
talk)
04:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete. Per 70.50, a WikiProject shortcut should begin with "WP". Also, WikiProject Country Music is not "WikiProject Country and Western" (you'll notice how
country and western is a redirect to
country music). Titles of shortcuts should refer directly to their targets, not synonyms or alternate names. —
Scott•talk15:20, 29 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep per there being no benefit to deletion. If someone wants to retarget it somewhere they should start a discussion about a specific proposal rather just vaguely handwave that "C&W" might refer to other things as well - no evidence has been presented that anybody actually is or has been confused by this.
Thryduulf (
talk)
16:46, 29 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep Frivolous,
POINTy nomination. Start an RfC if you want to codify an alleged consensus that these sorts of template redirects don't belong. I have individually reviewed this specific case and disagree that there are any independent reasons for deleting it apart from The Banner's spurious claim that WikiProject templates should be held to the same standards as articlespace redirects. —/
Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/
06:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Weak keepRedirects are cheap, and I don't see how this is confusing, so no
deletion criteria are met. At the same time, it's a recently created and not very useful redirect, so deleting it wouldn't really harm the project either. It's true that "redirects should not be used as grass seed to make as many redirects with as few letters as possible"... but once that has already happened, there's no benefit to undoing it.
Sideways713 (
talk)
10:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Reply - Why is {{R&B}} not at
RFD? Without a better target, I feel this can stay. On a side note,
TFD and
RFD are backlogged with items from February, and should be attended to promptly. --
Jax 0677 (
talk)
04:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Stay on topic. Your side note is inappropriately demanding and extremely rude to a volunteer community, and a bit hypocritical from one of the laziest editors I've ever come across here. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me07:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Template:C&w
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Useless redirect that points to WikiProject Country Music. Redirects are cheap, but should not be used as grass seed to make as many redirects with as few letters as possible The Bannertalk14:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Neither should redirect to a wikiproject banner template, there being C&W music templates for content, and same with R&B. The existence of this redirect precludes mainspace usage for content. --
70.24.250.235 (
talk)
04:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete. Per 70.50, a WikiProject shortcut should begin with "WP". Also, WikiProject Country Music is not "WikiProject Country and Western" (you'll notice how
country and western is a redirect to
country music). Titles of shortcuts should refer directly to their targets, not synonyms or alternate names. And as John notes, mixed case is wrong. —
Scott•talk15:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep Frivolous,
POINTy nomination. Start an RfC if you want to codify an alleged consensus that these sorts of template redirects don't belong. I have individually reviewed this specific case and disagree that there are any independent reasons for deleting it apart from The Banner's spurious claim that WikiProject templates should be held to the same standards as articlespace redirects. —/
Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/
06:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Why do you claim a speedy when there is a discussion rolling in front of your eyes, and without referencing a speedy criteria at all? It looks like you use the word "frivolous" a bit too ~. -
DePiep (
talk)
07:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Reply - Why is {{R&B}} not at
RFD? Without a better target, I feel this can stay. On a side note,
TFD and
RFD are backlogged with items from February, and should be attended to promptly. --
Jax 0677 (
talk)
04:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Template:Wcy
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Useless redirect that points to WikiProject Country Music. Redirects are cheap, but should not be used as grass seed to make as many redirects with as few letters as possible The Bannertalk14:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete Nowhere would "cy" mean country music and WikiProject banner shortcuts typically start with WP. If the creator is looking for shortcuts to use for himself, he should just stick to one and use it. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me18:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep per there being no benefit to deletion. If someone wants to retarget it somewhere they should start a discussion about a specific proposal. Despite not being an obvious shortening, the redirect is not broken and does not need fixing. Nowhere is it required that redirects be obvious, just that they be plausible and this clearly is.
Thryduulf (
talk)
16:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)reply
If someone wants to retarget it somewhere they should start a discussion about a specific proposal. You think an editor embarks upon an RfD that easy? To replace a nonsense-shortcut with sense? I don't think so. That is where we loose improvements. -
DePiep (
talk)
08:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Retarget per Frietjes. Nonetheless, this is a frivolous,
POINTy nomination. Start an RfC if you want to codify an alleged consensus that these sorts of template redirects don't belong. I have individually reviewed this specific case and disagree that there are any independent reasons for deleting it apart from The Banner's spurious claim that WikiProject templates should be held to the same standards as articlespace redirects. —/
Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/
06:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Template:Pk
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete per Frietjes. I repointed this one to the current target as PK as can mean too many things and
WP:PK redirects to a Pakistan-related page. This one doesn't even use the typical "WP" shortcut expected for the original target. Not sure why anyone would think something that start with a P should point to the Korea WikiProject. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me18:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep. There can be no benefit to the encyclopaedia brought be deleting this redirect, so we should not do that. If the current target is not the best then propose retargetting it to the template that is, but Pakistan seems to be the obvious target to me.
Thryduulf (
talk)
16:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)reply
{{Pk}} and {{PK}} have different targets. You know and support that. In other places uc/lc redirect to the same page. That does not help anyone at all. Why should someone have to learn the difference? (don't forget, "WP" is missing. Another help idea?) -
DePiep (
talk)
08:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)reply
There is no requirement for "WP", despite your repeated claims to the contrary (just because you shout it loudly and often does not make something true). There is equally no requirement for UC and LC versions to have the same target, but if you want to standardise them then you should be nominating one or the other for retargetting not nominating both for deletion. I also note again that there is no evidence of any actual confusion.
Thryduulf (
talk)
09:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete. We should really stay with the current shortcut convention for WikiProject templates, and the use of a two-letter redirect here is confusing, since PK has multiple meanings.
Plastikspork―Œ(talk)23:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Template:Wpk
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Useless redirect that points to WikiProject Korea. Redirects are cheap, but should not be used as grass seed to make as many redirects with as few letters as possible. With another template (PK) pointing to the Wikiproject Punk Music, I expected this to be another redirect to this WikiProject, so this is rather confusing and a recipe for mistakes. The Bannertalk14:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep Note that this originally pointed to Wikiproject Punk music and I changed it to the Korea WikiProject because project shortcuts start with WP not W, so it makes more sense to redirect to a WikiProject that start with "K".
Template:Wpr was
kept just because it wasn't being used for anything else, even though "R" can stand for lots of things. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me18:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep current target. WPK is conventional naming for a WikiProject to a topic beginning with "K" and Korea fits that bill perfectly. I don't see why either punk music or Pakistan would be inferred from this acronym (indeed they would seem rather implausible targets to me).
Thryduulf (
talk)
16:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete as confusing. WikiProject Punk music was never a great place to point this. I figured there would be a good place to retarget, but with
WP:WPK red, maybe that's not the case. I really don't see the benefit in moving this, either. It's not like there's any significant history that needs to be retained, so if anyone wants
Template:WPKO to redirect to
Template:WikiProject Korea, go ahead and be bold. --
BDD (
talk)
18:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete. We should really stay with the current shortcut convention for WikiProject templates, and the use of a three-letter redirect here is confusing, since it could have multiple meanings.
Plastikspork―Œ(talk)23:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)reply
The current convention is not breached here. The argument that abbreviations can have multiple meanings has been rejected as irrelevant multiple times previously because we use hatnotes to help people find what they are looking for (see
WP:SK for example).
Thryduulf (
talk)
09:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Template:Caw
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Useless redirect that points to WikiProject Country Music. Redirects are cheap, but should not be used as grass seed to make as many redirects with as few letters as possible. And to be true, I had never guessed that this template had something to do with country music... The Bannertalk14:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete I'm guessing the CAW is for 'Country And Western', for which '
C&W' is the much better known abbreviation. After a bit of googling, I dont see evidence of people using CAW to refer to Country and Western music. John Vandenberg(
chat)23:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete No one anywhere is going to know that CAW is supposed to mean a shortcut for the country music wikiproject. Deletion does know harm because these have only existed for a short time when dozens of these were created by a single person with no real rationale to do so, since reasonable redirects for most of these already exist. In fact, only one of the recent redirects to this target makes true sense: WPCM (nevermind: the Christian music or Classical music projects could usurp it). --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me04:32, 30 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep Frivolous,
POINTy nomination. Start an RfC if you want to codify an alleged consensus that these sorts of template redirects don't belong. I have individually reviewed this specific case and disagree that there are any independent reasons for deleting it apart from The Banner's spurious claim that WikiProject templates should be held to the same standards as articlespace redirects. —/
Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/
06:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)reply
My opinion is super duper important! Listen to me! Either that or complete ignorance of the appropriate use of the word "speedy". —
Scott•talk10:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Reply - If this is the case, why is {{R&B}} not at
RFD? Without a better target, I feel this can stay. On a side note,
TFD and
RFD are backlogged with items from February, and should be attended to promptly. --
Jax 0677 (
talk)
04:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Template:PD-Albania-extempt
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete. Not a common mispelling (e.g.
extempt isnt a mispelling redirect), and isnt a commonly used template with less than
50 uses which should all be moved to commons. The redirect currently received < 3 hits per month. Now that it has been categorised, that number will go up. :/ John Vandenberg(
chat)23:44, 28 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep I don't see a good reason to treat editors and readers differently, nor is there always a clear distinction between the two groups. --
BDD (
talk)
18:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Editing and reading the site are discrete modes, even if the people that participate in both modes are the same. Likewise, search input errors and programming errors may appear similar, but they are conceptually quite distinct and need to be treated differently. Specifically, tolerance to programming errors should be close to zero. Allowing redirects like this one encourages bad habits and creates
technical debt. —
Scott•talk10:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Wikipedia:REFLIN
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
A rather misleading title that suggest that it is about links in references, but is in fact a link to a template used when a section has no references. The Bannertalk14:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)reply
delete, WP:REFLIN will autocomplete to WP:REFLINKS; there is no search benefit in creating this redirect, and if someone is using the URLbar, they are ubersmart and should be able to get it right, or they can press Search to find the right page if they have forgotten the page name. John Vandenberg(
chat)00:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Template:CoP
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus; I'll leave to the discretion of the closer for
Template:Cop whether to delete this if there's consensus to delete that one as well. --
BDD (
talk)
18:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Useless redirect that points to template:Collapsible option. Another similar template is already under discussion (template:Cop). Redirects are cheap, but should not be used as grass seed to make as many redirects with as few letters as possible The Bannertalk14:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)reply
strong (speedy) keep. The rationale does not present any valid reason for deletion - perceived uselessness is no reason to delete a redirect, and as the redirect is used it is also factually incorrect. Deletion would not bring any benefits to the encyclopaedia, and the mass nomination of so many with such non-arguments is very pointy.
Thryduulf (
talk)
17:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep Frivolous,
POINTy nomination. Start an RfC if you want to codify an alleged consensus that these sorts of template redirects don't belong. I have individually reviewed this specific case and disagree that there are any independent reasons for deleting it apart from The Banner's spurious claim that WikiProject templates should be held to the same standards as articlespace redirects. —/
Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/
06:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Template:Whh
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Useless redirect that points to WikiProject Hip Hop. Redirects are cheap, but should not be used as grass seed to make as many redirects with as few letters as possible The Bannertalk14:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep. Deletion would be harmful. "uselessness" is subjective and not a valid reason for deletion of a redirect and, as this template is used it is by definition useful. If someone wants to retarget it somewhere they should start a discussion about a specific proposal.
Thryduulf (
talk)
17:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep Frivolous,
POINTy nomination. Start an RfC if you want to codify an alleged consensus that these sorts of template redirects don't belong. I have individually reviewed this specific case and disagree that there are any independent reasons for deleting it apart from The Banner's spurious claim that WikiProject templates should be held to the same standards as articlespace redirects. —/
Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/
06:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Reply - If there is a better target for {{whh}}, I am all for it. Each redirect should be judged based on its own merits. On a side note,
TFD and
RFD are backlogged with items from February, and should be attended to promptly. --
Jax 0677 (
talk)
04:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Template:Jz
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Useless redirect that points to WikiProject Jazz. Redirects are cheap, but should not be used as grass seed to make as many redirects with as few letters as possible The Bannertalk14:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep. Deletion would bring no benefits. "uselessness" is subjective and not a valid reason for deletion of any redirect. If someone wants to retarget it somewhere they should start a discussion about a specific proposal.
Thryduulf (
talk)
17:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep Frivolous,
POINTy nomination. Start an RfC if you want to codify an alleged consensus that these sorts of template redirects don't belong. I have individually reviewed this specific case and disagree that there are any independent reasons for deleting it apart from The Banner's spurious claim that WikiProject templates should be held to the same standards as articlespace redirects. —/
Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/
06:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Reply - Why is {{R&B}} not at
RFD? Without a better target, I feel this can stay. On a side note,
TFD and
RFD are backlogged with items from February, and should be attended to promptly. --
Jax 0677 (
talk)
04:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Template:Pnk
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Useless redirect that points to WikiProject Punk Music. Redirects are cheap, but should not be used as grass seed to make as many redirects with as few letters as possible The Bannertalk14:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep these nominations with invalid rationales ("uselessness" is subjective and not a valid reason for deletion of any redirect) are harmful to the project, and deletion would be even more so. If someone wants to retarget it somewhere they should start a discussion about a specific proposal.
Thryduulf (
talk)
17:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Reply - Why is {{R&B}} not at
RFD? Without a better target, I feel this can stay. On a side note,
TFD and
RFD are backlogged with items from February, and should be attended to promptly. --
Jax 0677 (
talk)
04:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Template:Wccm
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Useless redirect that points to WikiProject Christian Music. Redirects are cheap, but should not be used as grass seed to make as many redirects with as few letters as possible The Bannertalk14:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete. For various bads already mentioned. A WP shortcut should start with "WP". Nonsense abbreciation. No typos in shortcuts. -
DePiep (
talk)
15:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Template:WHH
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Useless redirect that points to WikiProject Hip Hop. Redirects are cheap, but should not be used as grass seed to make as many redirects with as few letters as possible The Bannertalk13:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete, just use {{WPHH}} - its only one letter less, and fits within the existing naming conventions (which are not all written down, but hopefully documentation is added after this batch of discussions). John Vandenberg(
chat)13:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete. The confusion and inconsistency caused by removing one letter from "WPHH" outweighs the "benefit" of the shorter title by a factor of approximately an umpty-jillion to one. —
Scott•talk15:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep. Deletion would be harmful. "uselessness" is subjective and not a valid reason for deletion of a redirect and, as this template is used it is by definition useful. If someone wants to retarget it somewhere they should start a discussion about a specific proposal.
Thryduulf (
talk)
17:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Reply - If there is a better target for {{WHH}}, I am all for it. Each redirect should be judged based on its own merits. On a side note,
TFD and
RFD are backlogged with items from February, and should be attended to promptly. --
Jax 0677 (
talk)
04:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Template:Win
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Useless redirect that points to WikiProject Industrial. Redirects are cheap, but should not be used as grass seed to make as many redirects with as few letters as possible The Bannertalk13:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete per Frietjes. Too much potential confusion. WikiProject Banner shortcuts like this should use "WP". --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me18:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep. If this is frequently confused with another template then retargetting one or the other to avoid that confusion should be proposed and discussed. Deleting a redirect that is in use harms the encyclopaedia, and should only happen when that harm is outweighed by any benefits. In this case, there would be no benefits to anyone from deletion - users confusing it for {{win}} (or anything else) still will not achieve what they are attempting and those using it correctly will be penalised for no reason.
Thryduulf (
talk)
17:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Reply - If there is a better target for {{win}}, I am all for it. Each redirect should be judged based on its own merits. On a side note,
TFD and
RFD are backlogged with items from February, and should be attended to promptly. --
Jax 0677 (
talk)
04:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)reply
One well-known contributor here who does a lot of the closures has unfortunately been away. I don't like to do it myself; I am not an admin but I could close off some (and hatnote the articles etc etc or whatever the outcome is, or propose them at CSD with a ref to here etc) for those that are uncontroversial as a bit of Wikignoming, if you want.
Si Trew (
talk)
07:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete but not salt. I am not suggesting to create a template for "Walruses in Nova Scotia" or "Windows in Namibia" but although it might be a common typo, mirabile dictu the Wikipedia search engine is good enough to cope with these typos now.
Si Trew (
talk)
07:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Template:Wind
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Useless redirect that points to WikiProject Industrial. Redirects are cheap, but should not be used as grass seed to make as many redirects with as few letters as possible The Bannertalk13:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep or retarget. "uselessness" is subjective and not a valid reason for deletion of a redirect because doing so brings no benefits. Arguments that "wind" could mean many other things are
WP:OTHERSTUFF and as such are not valid rationales for deletion either. If there is a desire for this to be converted to a template or retargetted elsewhere, then this should be discussed and then implemented if there is consensus, but it does not require deletion. In this case, BDD's proposed retargetting looks to be a good suggestion and one I am happy to support.
Thryduulf (
talk)
17:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete. We should really stay with the current shortcut convention for WikiProject templates, and the current use is confusing, since it could have multiple meanings.
Plastikspork―Œ(talk)23:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Template:IN
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Useless redirect that points to WikiProject Industrial. Redirects are cheap, but should not be used as grass seed to make as many redirects with as few letters as possible The Bannertalk13:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)reply
"This could easily be for
Indium or
India or some functionality template having to do with "in"" is an example of what I'm referring to. Just because a redirect could refer to other things than the present target is not a valid reason to delete it. 21:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
At most this would be a disambiguation page. Especially considering the more relevant uses of IN being Indiana and India, and the existing Indium infobox. --
70.24.250.235 (
talk)
04:45, 30 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Reply - If there is a better target for {{IN}}, I am all for it.
India is much larger than
Indiana, and better known on a global scale. On a side note,
TFD and
RFD are backlogged with items from February, and should be attended to promptly. --
Jax 0677 (
talk)
04:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Template:RK
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Useless redirect that points to WikiProject Rock Music. Redirects are cheap, but should not be used as grass seed to make as many redirects with as few letters as possible The Bannertalk13:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep per Jax 0677. "RK" is a well used abbreviation for "Rock music" (particularly by artists and fans at the heavier end of the genre), so this meets the "plausible" standard required of a redirect. On the other hand "uselessness" is not a relevant criteria on which redirects are judged.
Thryduulf (
talk)
17:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Reply - If there is a better target for {{RK}}, I am all for it. Each redirect should be judged based on its own merits. On a side note,
TFD and
RFD are backlogged with items from February, and should be attended to promptly. --
Jax 0677 (
talk)
04:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Template:PK
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Useless redirect that points to WikiProject Punk Music. Redirects are cheap, but should not be used as grass seed to make as many redirects with as few letters as possible The Bannertalk13:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete per JV. Malformed; should start with "WP" to distinguish it from an article space template. Also, "First letter/last letter" is an incongruous and
unexpected method of abbreviation. —
Scott•talk15:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Reply - If there is a better target for {{PK}}, I am all for it. Each redirect should be judged based on its own merits, but should not necessarily be identical nor different. On a side note,
TFD and
RFD are backlogged with items from February, and should be attended to promptly. --
Jax 0677 (
talk)
04:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Шмели
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete per nom. No reason to have a foreign language titled redirect. (unless stealing hits from other Wikipedia is now English Wikipedia redirect policy, which wouldnt surprise me TBH.) John Vandenberg(
chat)04:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep - redirects that direct readers to the content they're looking for is a necessary part of an encyclopaedia; if the users can't find the content, why bother having content at all? No one has suggested any reason we might want to delete this, nor can I make any up.
WilyD09:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Why would you argue for deletion based on a fact unrelated to the redirect under discussion? That doesn't make any sense.
WilyD10:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
C: article redirects
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Pointless . Assuming that this gets implemented, there's nothing we can do, and if something should prevent this from getting implemented, we might as well retain the redirects, since they're helpful. If you think that this is a bad idea, please try to keep it from getting implemented, since the tech people won't pay attention to an RFD.
Nyttend (
talk)
04:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)reply
The article formerly at this title (and the only article on the English Wikipedia to actually include "C:" in its title) has been moved to
C:Real, using the
fullwidth form of the colon. Our search backend treats the two forms of the colon as one character - try
testwiki:Special:Search/C:Real - so fullwidth colon entries will still appear in a search typed using the halfwidth form. Recommend deleting (and fixing incoming links).
Recommend renaming all to use the fullwidth colon.
Question: In re “Our search backend treats the two forms of the colon as one character”: I take it that future versions of
Special:Search will do some normalization of input. Is there any documentation of what characters will be considered equivalent?
Gorobay (
talk)
14:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Move these redirects to use fullwidth colons. By “fullwidth colon” I mean U+FF1A:FULLWIDTH COLON, and not U+FE30︰PRESENTATION FORM FOR VERTICAL TWO DOT LEADER (which is used in
C︰Real). In
Special:Search, a simple U+003A:COLON will match the former but not the latter (assuming it uses NFKC).
Gorobay (
talk)
13:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Oh dear. Thanks for discovering that. I think it derives from a comment I left at the talk page of that article containing the erroneous character - apparently a copy and paste error on my part. I've moved the article to
C:Real and fixed all the incoming links. —
Scott•talk14:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment. Alas that very
WP:INVOLVED closure of the Meta RfC has placed the convenience of editors above the needs of the readers of the encyclopaedia by forcing the use of incorrect titles where this is not necessary. A retrograde step for usability.
Thryduulf (
talk)
17:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Useless redirect, as it originally pointed to template:wpem that points to WikiProject Electronic Music. Redirects are cheap, but should not be used as grass seed to make as many redirects with as few letters as possible. The Bannertalk02:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete wikiproject shortcuts should use "WP" not "W", it is not about anything at
WEM (disambiguation), so is occupying a location potentially useful for an encyclopedic topic, and the shortcut already exists as {{WPEM}} --
70.50.151.11 (
talk)
04:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep. Deletion would bring no benefits, other potential uses are not relevant (
WP:OTHERSTUFF) until there is a specific proposal for a specific retargetting or repurposing (neither of which would require deletion).
Thryduulf (
talk)
17:35, 29 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Reply - If there is a better target for {{wem}}, I am all for it. Each redirect should be judged based on its own merits. On a side note,
TFD and
RFD are backlogged with items from February, and should be attended to promptly. --
Jax 0677 (
talk)
04:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Come However You Are
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Comment - indeed, you can certainly retarget a double-redirect to the end result without asking, bots do it all the time. Unless you're looking for something else?
WilyD10:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Part of the problem is that author is massively claiming article titles my creating redirects, while it is very doubtful if they will ever appear as articles what the summary ("temp") suggests. The Bannertalk13:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC)reply
I don't think I follow your thinking. If articles are very unlikely to ever be made, then a redirect makes a lot of sense. It's only where an article is likely to be made that deletion makes sense, because the red link calls attention to the fact that the article needs to be written.
WilyD18:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Retarget to "City Harbor (album)" - According to
WP:NSONG, "Songs that do not rise to notability for an independent article should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song". With that being said, why is this being nominated for deletion at all if the album and artist are not also being nominated for deletion (which I do not think they should be anyway)? --
Jax 0677 (
talk)
15:37, 29 March 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.