Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 27

< Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion | Log

March 27

edit

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 27, 2014.

Obama Derangement Syndrome

edit
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]

I'm curious, why hasn't this page been deleted yet? It's old content seems like someone was writing a joke article. -- Kndimov (talk) 21:41, 30 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 concept was included at the target article at the time this was converted to a redirect. --BDD (talk) 16:03, 7 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

edit
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. --BDD (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really a reasonable redirect to have? LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

::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]

We don't have qwertyuiop or azertyuiop for example. Si Trew (talk) 22:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:50, 27 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

edit
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. Thryduulf (talk) 10:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not especially Bulgarian or Russian. Gorobay (talk) 16:44, 27 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. // FrankB 22:08, 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 • talk 22:56, 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? WilyD 10:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FORRED. --BDD (talk) 16:39, 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

edit
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. Not Russian. Gorobay (talk) 16:42, 27 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]
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

edit
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. --BDD (talk) 19:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not especially Ukrainian. Gorobay (talk) 16:37, 27 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

edit
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. --BDD (talk) 19:09, 3 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 Banner talk 14:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC) So much for today, and this was only the harvest for March.[reply]

  1. "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".
  2. "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."
  3. "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."
  4. "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."
  5. "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 • talk 15:30, 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 me 04:41, 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.
On a side note, TFD and RFD are backlogged with entries dating back to February, which needs to be attended to promptly. --Jax 0677 (talk) 04:08, 3 April 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. —/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 -
  1. There are many "inexplicably strange template [names]" which I mentioned above.
  2. Several of my templates ({{wpk}}, {{pk}}, etc.) have already been renamed, and I have not opposed such redirecting.
  3. "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".
  4. "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

edit
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. --BDD (talk) 19:08, 3 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 Banner talk 14:21, 27 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 • talk 10:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mendaliv, Frietjes did not say Retarget. -DePiep (talk) 16:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale suggests a retarget. Hence retarget. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 16:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mendaliv you forgot to respond to Scott. -DePiep (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fancy that. — Scott • talk 17:38, 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

edit
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 Banner talk 14:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am. -DePiep (talk) 08:05, 31 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 keep Redirects 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]
Sideways, the "WP" is missing. Sending editors in the wrong direction. -DePiep (talk) 07:54, 31 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:C&w

edit
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. --BDD (talk) 18:55, 3 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 Banner talk 14:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am see my reply there. "WP" is missing. And don't expect confused editors to bring evidence to you. -DePiep (talk) 08:08, 31 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]
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

edit
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. --BDD (talk) 18:43, 3 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 Banner talk 14:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"WP" is missing. Confusion, mental load for the editor (every editor). -DePiep (talk) 08:09, 31 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]
Frietjes does not say Retarget. -DePiep (talk) 08:10, 31 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

edit
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 as confusing. Ruslik_Zero 19:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another confusing redirect that looks to point to WikiProject Korea or Wikiproject Punk Music, but suddenly sends you to Pakistan... The Banner talk 14:16, 27 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]
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

edit
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 as confusing. Ruslik_Zero 19:27, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 Banner talk 14:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adding another mis-abbreviation to the list. -DePiep (talk) 07:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That comment makes no sense at all! 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

edit
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. Ca-caw! --BDD (talk) 18:34, 3 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. And to be true, I had never guessed that this template had something to do with country music... The Banner talk 14:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you write "speedy" in bold below an eight-entry discussion? -DePiep (talk) 08:00, 31 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 • talk 10:19, 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:PD-Albania-extempt

edit
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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:58, 5 April 2014

Looks like a typo ? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:11, 27 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 (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Wikipedia:REFLIN

edit
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. --BDD (talk) 18:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 Banner talk 14:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The tool can stay. Not the name. -DePiep (talk) 08:24, 31 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

edit
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 Banner talk 14:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That explains the 'keep', but not the 'strong' or 'speedy' parts. -DePiep (talk) 08:22, 31 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

edit
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. --BDD (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 Banner talk 14:03, 27 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:Jz

edit
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. --BDD (talk) 18:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 Banner talk 14:03, 27 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:Pnk

edit
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. --BDD (talk) 18:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 Banner talk 14:01, 27 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:Wccm

edit
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. --BDD (talk) 18:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 Banner talk 14:00, 27 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

edit
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. --BDD (talk) 18:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 Banner talk 13:59, 27 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

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Retarget to Template:Won. Ruslik_Zero 19:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 Banner talk 13:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete and salt, frequently confused with {{won}} (see [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]). Frietjes (talk) 15:58, 27 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]
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

edit
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, without prejudice to re-creating it as a redirect to something else. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 Banner talk 13:58, 27 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:IN

edit
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. --BDD (talk) 17:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 Banner talk 13:58, 27 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:RK

edit
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. --BDD (talk) 17:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 Banner talk 13:58, 27 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

edit
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. --BDD (talk) 16:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 Banner talk 13:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to a totally different template proves that the original intent was useless. -DePiep (talk) 08:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So you approve of different targets by lowercase/uppercase shortcuts. I don't. -DePiep (talk) 08:19, 31 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

edit
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. --BDD (talk) 16:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not especially Russian. Gorobay (talk) 13:35, 27 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.

C: article redirects

edit
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]

Following the discussion below, these are article redirects beginning with "C:" that will shortly become unusable. — Scott • talk 10:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Direct title matches

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).

Other redirects

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]
Almost certainly, but pinging PiRSquared17, who knows more than I do about this. — Scott • talk 15:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According to mw:Unicode normalization consideration, MediaWiki uses [6]. Select Punctuation-Other and ctrl-F for "FF1A". I'm also not sure if NearMatchPicker.php comes into play here. I can probably get more info later. Maybe verdy_p knows more. πr2 (t • c) 17:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move these redirects (some are of very dubious value to begin with) to use fullwidth colons and delete all redirect titles beginning with 'C:'. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:18, 28 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 • talk 14:03, 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.

@Nyttend: Fair enough, but would you please mind finishing the job and removing the RfD tags from the redirects. Thanks. — Scott • talk 14:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

C: category shortcuts

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 14#C: category shortcuts

Template:Wem

edit
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. --BDD (talk) 16:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 Banner talk 02:17, 27 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

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to City Harbor (album). (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 07:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to a redirect, just to claim a title The Banner talk 02:07, 27 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_March_27&oldid=1136083268"