[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November 18

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 18

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 18, 2013.

Dark Meat

[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 vandalism reverted. Non-admin closure Ego White Tray (talk) 03:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 20:01, 18 November 2013 (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.

Yums

[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 Speedy delete. [Non-admin closure] Ego White Tray (talk) 03:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As with Ryam; no mention at target. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 19:57, 18 November 2013 (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.

Ryam

[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 deleted by Yunshui. --BDD (talk) 23:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No mention at target; thus confusing to the reader. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 19:55, 18 November 2013 (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.

VCHZ Pardubice

[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) 18:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect points at the wrong club, the "correct club" does not yet have an article. C679 18:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2013 (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.

Jerry (vampire)

[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) 18:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - thoroughly implausible and not at all useful. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 01:13, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful to clarify whether this character is commonly known by his first name alone.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:18, 18 November 2013 (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.

Simple English Feynman diagram

[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 Speedy delete. G7: Author-requested deletion Yunshui 雲‍水 11:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see much of a point in having a redirect here go to simple:Feynman diagram. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I created it to preserve a hatnote from the main article. Defies convention, little used. Jamesx12345 16:58, 18 November 2013 (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.

T:WPTECH

[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. There was a great deal of unhelpful meta discussion about the use of T: prefixes in general, which is not relevant as the most recent consensuses in appropriate venues are that there is no prohibition against using T: redirects to the template namespace. Discounting all that there is virtually no discussion about the individual redirects, s>almost all some of which were not actually tagged for deletion so those using those redirects would not be aware of this discussion. Tagging them and relisting this discussion would seem mostly likely to generate only more meta discussion and not lead to any consensus.

Accordingly, I would strongly recommend that anyone who still feels these redirects should be deleted to nominate them individually or in small groups with the same target template, tagging each nominated template (per the instructions) and giving a specific rationale for each nomination. Additionally, I would caution against too many concurrent discussions.

Finally, if anyone wishes to discuss further a change to the current general consensus regarding either the use of T: as a prefix or the use of such prefixes in general, then they should start a policy discussion at the appropriate venue. Thryduulf (talk) 18:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This and several other cross-namespace redirects to templates have been put up for deletion a few times, however the batch nomination usually included all T:* redirects. The two I have found are:

Here I am excluding redirects to templates that editors actually visit regularly (such as T:ITN and T:DYK) and do not have a better shortcut already.

Regarding T:S see that the first two revisions were redirects to different articles, and then there was Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 October 30#Template:S about it pointing to two different templates. It is a wonderful example of why use of pseudo-namespaces should be limited to names that are extremely unlikely to conflict with real world names and abbreviations. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: In this list, only T:TT is truly cross-namespace (from T: to WP:). -DePiep (talk) 08:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All T: pages are cross namespace. All T: pages are in article space. list. T: pages do not expand to Template space. Example: check T:WPTECH. Compare: WP:MEDICINE expands the Wikipedia namespace, and opens directly in Wikipedia space (its "redirect" page is only virtual). Same for MOS:NAMES, CAT:COORD) More in my comment below. -DePiep (talk) 10:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, DePiep – not sure what you mean by "expand", but as Mr. Stradivarius points out below, even the T: shortcuts can be transcluded to "expand" to the target template by using a leading colon like this: {{:T:WPTECH}}. Also, all pseudo-namespace shortcuts are "in article space", not just the T-colons, and all pseudo-namespace shortcuts are "cross namespace", not just the T-colons. Just a friendly reminder. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 10:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Click the T: and WP: examples, and see how the existing R page is actually called. See my comment below. This place is supposed to be for factuals, not arguments. -DePiep (talk) 10:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Moved Paine Ellsworth discussion to below: again, this is the place for factual notes, not advocacy. -DePiep (talk) 11:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete T:OU (I was involved with): couldn't even remember what is stood for ("Other uses" hatnote, it must have been). By extrapolation of the logic, all listed here could go. I write a lot in template space, but I never use the T: psuedo namespace, and --more important-- I never met people who do. Those All these cross-namespace have a more forceful argument to be cleaned. -DePiep (talk) 15:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
T:FAUNA (February 2012) and T:R from (August 2013) are created recent in the timescale of this "namespace" trick. For these there is no valid argument of "habit of typing" or "links expected". Such new pages can can be deleted for polluting mainspace. There is always an alternative outside of mainspace, and we are not supposed to reduce keystroke-counting at all costs for everyone. -DePiep (talk) 13:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All T: redirects are cross-ns, so all better go. See my comment on T: below. -DePiep (talk) 12:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is very difficult to decide these "batch" proposals. I can pick one out and describe it in terms that would not appear in page views or on the What links here page. I use T:R from in page previews while categorizing redirects to bring up {{R template index}} for reference. Also, I will sometimes reference that template from the search-engine field by typing "T:R from" in the field. Neither one of these methods of reference would show up on page-view statistics, or if it does show up, it's hard to understand. Do such statistics indicate that the shortcut itself has been viewed? or do they indicate that the shortcut has been used to view the target? How many other of these shortcuts are used in the same manner? And to what other uses do editors put them? The final truth is that some of these are probably deletable while others are still useful. So I would have to agree with contributors like œ (OlEnglish) in past discussions that redirect shortcuts like this should be proposed and analyzed on a case-by-case basis. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 15:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Anomie – First procedure is I temporarily disable the redirect and type in "[[T:R from]]". Then I click on "Show preview". Then I right-click the "T:R from" link to bring up {{R template index}} in a new tab. I get and apply the info I need, and then delete "[[T:R from]]" and enable the redirect before I click on "Save page". The 2nd procedure, which I use just about as often as the first one, is to open a new tab, open my user page in the new tab, type "T:R f" in the search field and click on "T:R from" in the dropdown box. Of course, now when I do this I'm taken to the disabled shortcut, but usually this takes me directly to the target, {{R template index}}. Also, maybe you can clear this up for me. Do these sorts of procedures give both the shortcut and the target a "page view"? or does it just give the page view to the target? – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 23:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand how the hit counter works, that should indeed count as a view for T:R from when you open the link to that page. Anomie⚔ 03:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anomie, I'm going to alter the first procedure above, because thanks to Mr. Stradivarius (see just below), I find that I can transclude [[T:R from]] by the use of a leading colon, like this: {{:T:R from}}. That way, it can be used just like any of the template shortcuts, such as {{R with}}, which can bring up the short list at {{R template index}} right on the preview screen. I'm pretty sure that kind of usage would not increment any page views for either "T:R from" or for "R template index", because they are deleted before "Save page" is clicked. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 02:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that this version wouldn't count as a page view. But there's absolutely no point in using {{:T:R from}} when you can save three keystrokes by using {{R from}} to do the exact same thing without the cryptic ":T:". Anomie⚔ 03:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Point well taken. Well, if editors really want to delete all these harmless shortcuts, then who the heck am I to stand in the way. I realize that WP:CNR is "just" an essay, but it's been around for awhile, and the lead has for a long time stipulated that "the general consensus seems to be ... that pseudo-namespace redirects (CAT:, P:, MOS:, etc.) may be used freely." I have not heard that this has changed, so this submission appears to go dead against community consensus, but as I said, who am I? – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 07:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would also object to most deletion requests relating to CAT:, P:, MOS:, and even the H: prefix which some people don't like because it only saves a few characters. Those prefixes are in common use for shortcuts. WP: and WT: were also pseudo-namespaces, but they have become namespace aliases when the developers did some magic. CAT: would also have been a WP:namespace alias, except there is a technical limitation preventing it. OTOH, the T: prefix is not as well accepted by the community, as they are rarely used for their intended purpose except by the creator, 'T:' is quite ambiguous (Talk:, Template:, Template talk:, Transwiki:). I have excluded T: shortcuts which have gained widespread usage as I think precedence says that the cost/benefit of T: CNRs tips in favour of keeping them if they are in regular use and point to template pages that are suitable for readers, like WP:ITN. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. None of them have any transclusions, and I generally disapprove of pseudo-namespace pages unless they are well-established. I agree with Paine Ellsworth that we shouldn't be deleting pseudo-namespace pages indiscriminately, but the ones nominated here seem to have been well-chosen. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 15:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. S., we might want to keep in mind that none of these will work if transcluded because all you get is {{T:WPTECH}}. These all have to be linked, as in T:WPTECH, to be used as shortcuts. My god! I can't believe how so many want to delete these. They are harmless and most have been around for awhile. This should be a SNOW-KEEP disposition! Has everybody all of a sudden turned deletionist? – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 00:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, that does explain why they aren't transcluded; I was forgetting that. It is actually possible to transclude them by using a colon before the template name, e.g. {{:T:WPTECH}}, but not that many people are aware of that trick so it stands to reason that it wouldn't be used that much. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 01:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware of that trick, so thank you! That actually makes the first procedure I described to Anomie above archaic, because now I would just transclude ":T:R from" in the same manner I can transclude {{R with}} and bring the short index right up on the preview screen. I'm pretty sure that there would be no page view increments when that is done. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 02:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, only T:TT is cross namespace (translating from WP space as a template ... will make editors happy). Now, when that word would be removed from the discussion, what is your opinion on the other shortcuts? -DePiep (talk) 08:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I must correct that. See my comment below. -DePiep (talk) 10:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have done some investigation into this T: namespace (T:ns).
1. First, T: pages are not in template space at all. They are in article space, just a page name beginning with "T:". Being there, when they Redirect, they are Redirecting cross-namespace, from Article space. (There can be content articles that start with a "T:": like this one. Hilarious: would this be in pseudo template space?).
2. Second, T: redirect "templates" do not transclude like other, regular redirects in template ns do. Never, when using {{...}} code to transclude, do T:-pages produce the same outcome. Examples with {{hatnote}} and T:OU are in my demo page: User:DePiep/T pseudo ns. Conclusion: T: ns is misleading and therefor complicating usage.
3. Third, they do not behave like a ns. When we add a : (colon) or the namespace as a prefix, we get weird results. There is a page T:OU, but no page Template:OU. Sometimes not even a template link, but an article (see my demos I linked to)! While, in other ns we write prefixed colons like [[:File:...]] and [[:Category:...]] with similar and predictable results.
Background: "T:" pages were used in the early days of wikipedia, before Template space existed. Possibly the same for P: namespace. I can see no reason why we would maintain that archaic pseudo-namespace, that doesn't look like nor behave like a ns. For sure T:-ns must be deprecated, and better all these Redirects can go. -DePiep (talk) 10:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. Also the talk pages of these redirects are 'odd' (T:WPTECH talk is Talk:T:WPTECH and not Template talk:WPTECH). John Vandenberg (chat) 11:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good point - confiscated as #4. -DePiep (talk) 11:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(moved discussion from top post to here -DePiep (talk) 11:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)) Well, {{:T:WPTECH}} is not a good example because it has been disabled. {{:T:SINGLE}}, also listed above, has not been disabled and will transclude its target just as well as if you had transcluded the target directly. Every "argument" you make for the T-colons applies to all the other pseudo-namespaces, too. But you're right, I am totally tired of arguing with you. I'm going to bed. Joys! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 11:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good decision to go away. Your on-topic civility saves me typing a response. -DePiep (talk) 11:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Technical note, since there seems to be some confusion: The syntax {{foo}}, without any namespace prefix, will transclude the page Template:Foo. If you do give a namespace, as in {{Wikipedia:Foo}}, it will transclude Wikipedia:Foo instead of trying to transclude Template:Wikipedia:Foo. If you want to transclude a page from the article namespace which has no namespace prefix, you just use a bare colon: {{:Foo}} will transclude Foo. That's the reason you need a leading colon for these "T:" pseudo-namespac redirects: {{T:Foo}} would try to transclude Template:T:Foo, while {{:T:Foo}} transcludes the mainspace page T:Foo. For transclusion, it will almost surely make more sense to create the redirect in the Template namespace (e.g. Template:R from instead of T:R from) so you don't need to include the cryptic ":T:" prefix. Anomie⚔ 12:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That confusion is the midst of the "T:" construct. Not on my side. T: behaves different from "Template:" space. From there, details or technical background do not matter. Glad you agree that it is better to have the R in tempalte space. -DePiep (talk) 13:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. Fifth: lazyness into mainspace disturbance. See for example T:POV. The template (producing the POV notice) is not in continuous editing, so not often one would need to go there using a shortcut (typing "T:POV" instead of "Template:POV"). Now when putting it on a page, one needs to type {{POV}} -- why would anyone ever type the "short"cut {{T:POV}}? The T:template was created in 2011. -DePiep (talk) 12:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didnt list T:POV as it has more usage that those I did list, and my guess is editors are using it to find the documentation, especially section T:POV#Alternatives, which is useful information to quickly read before tagging an article in order to pick the best template. I am sure that benefit can be achieved another way, like creating CAT:POV to point to Category:Neutrality templates or adding a shortcut to Wikipedia:Neutrality templates. In any case, it deserves a separate discussion where we can learn why people are using it. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. Sixth. Mislead Redirects allowed. Behold the glory of T:-space: T:AD and Template:AD redirect to different templates. -DePiep (talk) 13:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Before clicking, think what page (and namespace) this one links to. Ready? Go: T:MP. -DePiep (talk) 13:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7.. Seventh. Let's not forget: these are pages created in mainspace, mostly for user conveniance/lazyness (hell, I can not even create a temporary testpage in mainspace to test some issue).Simple: these pages should not be in mainspace. There are even shortcuts created for spelling variants and what you have (T:P2 in the list), in regular shortcuts (like the WP: series) unheard of. I find is curious that the WP:DYK and WP:ITN communities are going free so uninterrupted with this, while showing no intention to move to other solutions. Like creating a simple overview template or docpage that gives them acces to their links. That is what every other user & project has to do. Another related strange fact is that of the pages in the list here, only two were created in 2006/07 (when template space already existed). In 2008/09 eight were added, freely in mainspace. Then in 2011/12/13(!) three more were added. All these years there were alternatives, and all I hear is that "I use it, so we can't miss them". The fact that they were created so recently & long after Template space was introduced, is a reason to delete them. They could have been deleted from article space on day one, actually. -DePiep (talk) 00:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We can delete individual pages right now, can't we? -DePiep (talk) 16:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, these shorcuts do not seem to be widely used or very useful — {{tl}} seems sufficient for internal discussions. T:S may be retargeted to whichever mainspace page is appropriate. Abstain with regard to T:TT, though — it seems to stand out. Keφr 19:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. One more little comment and then I'll hush. Long ago (and not so far, far away) the community consensus became that all pseudo-namespace shortcuts may be "used freely". No distinction among them was mentioned. All of them, including the T: pseudo-namespace shortcuts could be freely used. The type of usage was not established and may include usages that did not increment page-view statistics. Nothing new has been stated in this discussion compared with past discussions that resulted in keep decisions. It really should be considered way too "deletionist" to get rid of these harmless shortcuts. Especially when one considers that for those editors who do use these shortcuts, the deletion of the one they use will only incite them to either recreate the deleted shortcut or create a brand new similar one. To discuss the deletion of these shortcuts is as much a waste of breath as I feel this comment may turn out to be. I'm outta here. Joys to all! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 00:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"use T: freely"? What would happen if I created a dozen T:-pages in article space? -DePiep (talk) 03:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Create a dozen or a gross – ALL pseudo-namespace shortcuts are in article space – the community consensus is that ALL of the existing pseudo-namespaces can ALL be used freely. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 08:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PS. If you do create more such shortcuts, please be sure to categorize them appropriately. PS added by – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX!
Does "may be used freely" really mean that people can arbitrarily create them and no one may delete them, or does it just mean they may be created without being summarily deleted under WP:CSD#R2? Anomie⚔ 11:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Anomie, I think "may be used freely" clearly applies to the pseudo-namespaces, which means that editors may use them freely by creating redirect shortcuts in those pseudo-namespaces for their use and possibly for use by other contributors. From time to time, editors have tried to create other pseudo-namespaces without consensus, and those have been summarily deleted. However, those redirects, old and new, that are created in existing pseudo-namespaces should be exempt from deletion under the existing community consensus. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 19:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Having said that, it should also be noted that the community consensus applies only to the pseudo-namespaces and not to individual redirects that happen to exist in those pseudo-namespaces. This venue has power over those individual redirects, so we editors who watch over Rfd can come to consensus about individual redirects and delete them. However – I feel it should be taken into account that editors may well be using these particular shortcuts in ways that we cannot track nor sense. If those editors try to use one of these and finds it deleted, that editor may very well recreate the shortcut or create a new one that is similar. That, basically, is the "real world" of pseudo-namespace shortcuts: If three editors use just one of the above, and then they find that it has been deleted, then we have the distinct possibility that there could be three new shortcuts where before there was just one. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 19:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think what you quote can be called a "community consensus", or any "consensus".
The essay(!) you link to says, in the lede: "Currently, the general consensus seems to be ...". That is a lot of inconcreteness to build upon. It sure is not the "consensus" conclusion you read it to be.
Already there is this telling editsummary (from May 2007), and the quote you rely on was entered September 2007, over six years ago. The history of that essay shows that it is not even a beginning of a guideline. Today, it is plain sane to keep such non-content out of mainspace. This is not the place to decide on general rules, but I found no serious reason to keep T:'s in mainspace. -DePiep (talk) 19:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Today, it is plain sane to keep such non-content out of mainspace. This is not the place to decide on general rules, but I found no serious reason to keep T:'s in mainspace.
Yes, Depiep, you have made it very clear that you are against all T: shortcuts. And I think you realize that this is not the venue to discuss the deletion of an entire pseudo-namespace. Policies, guidelines and some essays are all created to reflect what the community thinks should be done or not done. You and I are but individual volunteer contributors who get a !vote in the melee once in awhile. But just for a second try to envision what can happen with my final example above. We have here 13 T: shortcuts. If the average usage is three editors per shortcut, and all those 13 are deleted, then there remains the distinct possibility that 39 editors who have lost a shortcut they use will just create new T: shortcuts to replace the ones they lost to Rfd. Now, instead of just 13 T: shortcuts, there could be as many as 39 T: shortcuts to replace the 13 that were deleted. And that's just if there is an average of 3 editors per shortcut. For all we know, the average usage might be ten editors per shortcut or more! It just makes good sense to keep shortcuts like these. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 20:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we are only deciding on the listed RfCs here. And above I stated that there is no strong guideline or consensus governing that rules a "keep them" or even "keep those where the situation is x". OTOH, I in looking around in T:-trickspace for the first time, I found a lot of sloppyness (counter is at 7, see below) that does support deletion. Since there is no guideline or policy, these arguments keep returning. So be it. -DePiep (talk) 06:13, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How many of those can be associated with WP:RFD#DELETE? Certainly #6 that reads: The major exception to this rule are the pseudo-namespace shortcut redirects,..., eh? – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 09:33, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Long story short (after reading all of the comments above), I think that all of the proposed redirects should be deleted since I do not see a proposal to make "T:" a true shortcut for the "Template:" namespace being successful. Steel1943 (talk) 18:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's already a done deal, Steel1943 – the T: pseudo-namespace was created quite awhile back to act as shortcuts to template or talk space. I have gone through them all – twice – to ensure they are correctly catted, and I can tell you: the vast majority of T: shortcuts go to template space. Most users probably use them just as shortcut links on talk pages and such. As I learned above from Mr. Stradivarius, they can also be transcluded just like any template, so they can also be used in "Show preview" edit screens to bring up a test template for reference. Then the editor just deletes the test template before s/he clicks on "Save page". That kind of usage, according to Anomie above, will not increment page-view stats, nor will it show up on "What links here" pages. If we delete these 13 shortcuts, and 10 editors use each shortcut on the average, then there is a good possibility that up to 130 new T: shortcuts will be created to replace these 13. So where before we had 13 T: shortcuts, then we'll have as many as 130 T: shortcuts. It just makes good sense to keep harmless shortcuts like these. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 20:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Paine Ellsworth: I think you might have misunderstood what I stated, or I had stated my point incorrectly. I know and understand that "T:" is a consensus-supported "pseudo-namespace", but it is not a namespace shortcut (such as "WP:" or "Project:"). In other words, "T:Example" does not automatically link to "Template:Example"; To make "T:Example" link to "Template:Example", "T:Example" would need to be created as a redirect pointing towards "Template:Example". (There's a page in the Wikipedia namespace that refers to what I am talking about, but I am not able to find it at the moment.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do get that. There was a time when WP:, Project:, WT: were also pseudo-namespace, and then their proposals were accepted and they became "true" shortcuts by your usage above. There have been similar proposals over the years, especially for CAT:, to do the same, but consensus seems to be happy with leaving them as pseudo-namespace shortcuts to category namespace. So, yes, I do understand your rationale. And unfortunately, this is not the venue to discuss the disposition of the entire T: pseudo-namespace. If these 13 shortcuts are deleted, then a mountain of new shortcuts will probably be created in their place. That's not that big a deal to me, because I'll eventually find them all and make sure they are categorized correctly. I'm just trying to spread a little common sense here, that is all. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 21:16, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Paine Ellsworth: I understand and agree to all of the points that you mentioned above; after I realized that, I realized what I meant to add to my original point (a "what if" situation of sorts): what if in the future, another Wikimedia project is created that utilizes the "T:" shortcut? If for some random reason that happened, the technical problems that would be caused by the existence of these shortcuts (or the fact that the new project was decided to be given a shortcut that is the same as a pseudo-namespace in this Wikipedia) could be problematic. Who's to say that some other project will not exist in the future with similar naming, such as Wikitext, Wikitales, Wikitangents, or Wikitaco!?!?!? (I didn't mean for that last sentence to go out on the tangent that it went on, especially since some of those projects have names so ridiculous that they will never exist, but I think that kind of states what I mean.) Also, I would assume that if T: was to be used as a shortcut for another project, whoever files the bug on Bugzilla to get "T:" associated with the new project would realize that "T:" is being used as a pseudo-namespace on the English Wikipedia (or that someone who sees/works the bug would realize this technical conflict at some point), but one never knows.
On a related note, to sort of show an example of what I am saying, if Wikidata did not exist, I could see someone creating a proposal to have "D:" refer to the soon-to-be-created Draft namespace, but "D:" has been set up to refer to Wikidata. However, if the Draft namespace existed before Wikidata, who knows what might have happened. (This is just an example to reinforce the point of this comment; I have no intention to start a discussion regarding renaming or changing the "D:" shortcut.) Steel1943 (talk) 01:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
: what if in the future, another Wikimedia project is created that utilizes the "T:" shortcut?
That is a valid question that impacts all of the pseudo-namespaces. Is that what this is all about? Let's one-by-one or dozen-by-dozen get all the T: shortcuts deleted so the prefix can be used for a new sister wiki? Well, there are only 65 left, so we're not far from it. I joke, of course, because it would be difficult to keep something like that under the radar. But it is a valid question that has already come up. I can't remember the ?: letter of the most recent debate subject, but I do seem to recall that at one time, the C: was targeted for use with Commons. I think at that time the C: was already being used as shortcuts to category space, so the pseudo-namespace prevailed. To this day there is no shortcut to Commons. It's [[Commons:Category:IamaCommonscategory]] or nothing. Besides, it doesn't take that much to make a two-, three- or even four-letter interwiki shortcut ("Wikt" for example). The devs would come up with something.
...if the Draft namespace existed before Wikidata, who knows what might have happened.
The devs might have come up with something like "wd:" for Wikidata. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 02:11, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is a valid question that impacts all of the pseudo-namespaces. Is that what this is all about?
That is somewhat correct. I prefer to find ways to create seamless transitions from old methods to a new methods in all aspects, but not at the risk of knowing that someone who uses the old method vehemently disagrees with using the new method, etc. As I have found over time, consensus is rather necessary for anything on-and-off Wiki. :)
I can't remember the ?: letter of the most recent debate subject, but I do seem to recall that at one time, the C: was targeted for use with Commons.
I would have to imagine it was either about that, or trying to make "C:" a shortcut for "Category". Steel1943 (talk) 07:42, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete these particular examples, which do not seem to be useful or widely used, unless there's any particular objection to any specific examples from those who use it. However, this should not count as a precedent for other T: redirects, which are almost always harmless and often useful. Continued hounding over the exact behaviour of the namespaces is bureaucratic and unproductive. Furthermore, I don't think a raw count of page views is a good way to judge these - there are examples that don't have a huge hit rate, but are very useful in edit summaries etc. Modest Genius talk 01:01, 21 November 2013 (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.

Scw,c

[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) 18:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one, save for maybe the creator and/or a few active editors on the page, is going to type in "scw,c" intending to get to the target page. This is not a plausible redirect. Killiondude (talk) 05:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. It is used hundreds of times in a template, as well as elsewhere. To save typing errors, and (hopefully) to effectively reduce the template size, so that it functions better.
If it is deleted, the template will cease functioning, and there will be hundreds of contributors, and possibly thousands of users very upset.
That is a typical use of a shortcut redirect.
By the way, did you even look at the comment in the redirect ? André437 (talk) 07:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you understand the purpose of a redirect in the mainspace. Please see Wikipedia:Redirect. The redirect is used less than a dozen times. See Special:WhatLinksHere/Scw,c. Also, I don't think you understand the concept of piped linking. See Wikipedia:Piped links.
The comment in the redirect is ridiculous. It's obvious what the intended purpose is, but it's not inline with Wikipedia's expectations for redirects (WP:R#DELETE #8). Killiondude (talk) 07:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not plausible SCW could refer to many things, and the additional comma with the C doesn't mean absolutely anything, especially for what it is redirecting to. Redirects aren't here to just be shorthands for long article titles. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 07:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For your information, this is a shortcut redirect, essentially to be used by editors of the project page.
I suggest you both look up WP:SC, as well as rereading the item shortcuts on the WP:REDIRECT page.
There is no suggestion that it is inappropriate to use shortcuts on regular pages, nor in templates. There is however a suggestion that shortcuts used on regular pages should use display text. which in itself suggests that shortcuts on regular pages can be appropriate.
Killiondude, this shortcut is indeed used hundreds of times, not just a few dozen times. Apparently your what-links-here function does not detect links in templates.
As well as reducing typing errors, it reduced the size of a template considerably, about 20% if I remember correctly.
Since you say it is obvious why the shortcut was used, why are you proposing deletion ?
Please see WP:R#KEEP item 5, just below the WP:R#DELETE section that you referred me to. And that page is not even focused on shortcuts.
Try focusing on helping make Wikipedia better. Not how many pages you can get deleted.
Moe, a shortcut does not have to mean anything to those who are unlikely to use it. However, "scw,c" is meaningful to those editing a page on Syrian Civil War Cities, even though they just need know what shortcut to use.
The comma was inserted partly to ensure that it would never conflict with an acronym that might be introduced in the future. (Programmers like myself think ahead.)
Before introducing this shortcut, errors in typing the long title were common and very difficult to find. André437 (talk) 08:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that http://stats.grok.se/ says that on 2013-11-15 this shortcut was used 2651 times. André437 (talk) 08:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stats mean absolutely nothing, if you are the one who inserts [[Scw,c|]] into high profile articles and templates. It doesn't mean it was being searched for. Scw,c is meaningless outside of Wikipedia, and that is where it matters. "A shortcut doesn't have to mean anything to this who are unlikely to use it" is patently false and the exact reason why they are deleted, otherwise Wikipedia would be filled with more crap that only applied to a select group of editors. If you don't understand what redirects are for, I suggest you stop creating them. They are to guide readers to what they are probably looking for and to point them in the right direction. The disambiguation page SCW, right this minute, doesn't even link to the Syrian civil war. I can't even tell if the letters SCW are common enough to associate it with the war. All I can find is "Syrian Crisis Week" on the internet. So, I think Scw,c has no meaning whatsoever other than to you and a couple other editors who happened to be using it. Now if there are issues with a template where it's getting too big because of all the information on it, I would recommend that the template be changed, not to go creating redirects that no one knows about. Not only that, templates should be providing direct links to articles, not redirects. And if you're going to suggest I read anything next time, read for yourself, that the page you linked me to, is right under Purposes of redirects at WP:REDIRECT says: "Shortcuts (for example, WP:V redirects to Wikipedia:Verifiability). This is commonly done in project space, but not in article space." Emphasis mine. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 09:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"[A] shortcut does not have to mean anything to those who are unlikely to use it." Like, um, readers who want to check to which page a link points, and scratch their heads thinking "WTF is 'scw,c'?"
The template can be changed to simply link to the cities' names, which may then redirect to the "Syrian civil war cities" article; those redirects may be later converted into articles in their own right, if desired. And may I say, the mere size of the pages linking to it makes me want to at least slap {{overly detailed}} on them. And at worst, bring to AfD (per something along WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTDIR and/or WP:RAWDATA). Keφr 19:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Random non-standardized shortcuts for convenience in article space do not strike me as a particularly good idea. Templates should typically use direct links instead of redirects, so I don't see the relevance of this. Also, the template in question seems to be used by only one article (which I am unable to view at this moment), so it is not clear to me that it has to be a template. While having a clickable huge map is nice, it seems to be difficult for the software/servers to keep up with it, so it should probably be replaced by a static map plus clickable list anyway. I think the redirect should be deleted and an alternative way to display the data should be developed. —Kusma (t·c) 09:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Moe Epsilon's most recent comment (which I was essentially going to say in the first place, but I wanted to post the link to the discussion that led to the redirect's creation first.) Steel1943 (talk) 10:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the reason for this sequence of characters as a redirect hasnt been explained - it seems an arbitrary choice John Vandenberg (chat) 15:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Moe. Pretty much sums it up. Ansh666 01:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep according to WP:R#KEEP item 5, "Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways. [[2]] can also provide evidence of outside utility."
WP:R#KEEP item 4 is also important, as deleting the shortcut will affect hundreds of links in a number of pages. Most of the links being to specific sections or anchors in the target page.
Note that WP:R#KEEP exceptions override WP:R#DELETE reasons, according to "You might want to delete a redirect if one or more of the following conditions is met (but note also the exceptions listed below this list)" at the beginning of the WP:R#DELETE section.
As well as taking less space, this shortcut reduces typing errors, as there are constant changes requiring retyping links to this page.
BTW, it has become apparent to me that few commentators here seem to understand that the shortcut was only intended to be used by editors in edit mode. In that context, any argument about meaning is essentially irrelevant, as long as the editors are aware of what to type. Since most usage of this shortcut was implemented by other editors, and not myself, they don't seem to have a problem it.
In the process of conversion, many cases of mistyped page names were found, explaining why many links had not worked previously. Further justifying the use of this shortcut to reduce typing errors.
Note that in most instances the link is to a section or anchor in the page (and not the page in general), regarding information about a specific locality. The link text is not very visible to the user (only if their browser shows a status bar), compared to a very visible popup with the name of the locality. As well, the user is not necessarily concerned about the destination page, as for a number of locations, it is on a different page.
The purpose of the guidelines is to facilitate useful contributions to Wikipedia, and it is recommended to not be overly restrictive in interpreting these guidelines. (In this case the guidelines clearly support the shortcut.)
The arguments for deletion essentially reduce to "the shortcut doesn't mean anything to me" or "ordinary users won't use it". Neither of which is a compelling argument to delete the shortcut in question, particularly in light of WP:R#KEEP item 5.
Killiondude, I am quite aware of "piped links" (or text descriptions in links, since they are not technically "piped" in the Unix sense). However as well as the fact that most affected links were created and modified by other users, the somewhat visible links are being used as template arguments where that option isn't available.
BTW Kusma, the template is used as such by at least 2 pages. If you have an idea for an alternate equivalent method for displaying a clickable map, that could be considered, but deleting the shortcut before such an alternate method is discovered, found useful, and implemented would be premature.
(As an aside, variables definable local to a page would be a useful alternative, and my initial preference. But my search of Mediawiki help indicates that such a feature is not available. If it were to become available, I don't think contributors to the associated pages would object to such a change.)
Moe, you cite "This is commonly done in project space, but not in article space." According to normal English usage, that means "not [commonly] in article space", rather than "never in article space". It is useful in this case, even if such usage may be less than common.
John Vandenberg, the meaning of the shortcut has indeed been explained, in my previous comments. But, as noted above in this comment, since the shortcut will only be used by editors in edit mode, "meaningful" is a moot point.
BTW, I have been contributing to Wikipedia on and off for over 10 years, as well as documenting a conversion to Mediawiki about 3 years ago. It is disappointing to see such resistance to what could be seen at most as a minor (but useful) innovation, if not a more or less normal usage. André437 (talk) 17:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. As stated before, it is supported by the policy WP:R#KEEP item 5 : "Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways. [stats.grok.se] can also provide evidence of outside utility."
  2. The shortcut is implemented by editing clickable links. It replaces the page name part, (almost always) followed by a reference to an anchor or section in the target page.
  3. When the user clicks on a link, the shortcut is then read, the page is read, pointing to the target location. The user never types the shortcut name, and never sees it. Thus any discussion of "meaningful" is irrelevant.
  4. The shortcut name was chosen to never conflict with a probable acronym or template name. Thus the ",". It has been successfully used by many editors without problem, so they find it at least memorable.
  5. Initially the main reason for introducing the shortcut was to reduce the size of the main page using the shortcut (in hundreds of such links). It initially did correct display problems. (Unfortunately ongoing additions to the page re-introduced problems.)
  6. Another reason was to reduce problems typing the long page name, since there are frequent changes to the page. Before, there were many links that didn't work. That is no longer a problem.
  7. Is a template useful to replace a shortcut ?
  1. Unlike a shortcut, templates are read and all replaced when a page is loaded.
  2. This requires much more processing user side.
  3. If the user doesn't click a link, the shortcut is never read. Any template is always read.
  4. The main page using this shortcut has hundreds of such links. By replacing the shortened name with the full page name, the size of the loaded page is greatly increased. This agravates the existing page size problem.
  5. I had already considered a template, and no, it is not a useful replacement for a shortcut.
Hopefully those objecting will now understand the utility of this shortcut redirect. André437 (talk) 11:16, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate vote struck. --BDD (talk) 18:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8. A further point, WP:R#DELETE item 8 says "If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful. ...". In this case the redirect is not (even attempting to be) a synonym (or semantic equivalent) for the page name, so this item doesn't apply. Instead, it is an abbreviation hard-coded in pages, used only in clickable links, and generally invisible to the user. (In most cases the user sees only the name of a town associated with the point clicked.) Effectively, this is an argument about a variable name in program code. Which any of you with programming experience should readily recognize. André437 (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2013 (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.

Rageahol

[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 Rageaholic. WJBscribe (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking for information on rageaholics, which is a serious topic for the real world, when I came across this. I've just finished reading the entire target article and unless I missed it, the word "rageahol" is not in it anywhere. I like the Simpsons as much as the next person but this redirect does not lead to material that explains or even mentions this term. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Homer declares himself 'addicted to rage-ahol' during the episode, which prompted the creation of this redirect. Vranak (talk) 22:34, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's helpful thank you. However, without a reference in the target the reader would be confused as to why they were taken there. If a sourced reference to Hommer's addiction is added to the article then we can add a hatnote but Rageaholic still looks very much the best target. The Whispering Wind (talk) 23:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree. There is no physical substance that enrages the persons known as "rageaholics." There is no reference in either article to "rageahol" because it simply doesn't exist. the only incoming link to this redirect is from the rageaholics article and should probably be removed. It simply is not a plausible search term. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 05:00, 18 November 2013 (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:Relfist

[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. WJBscribe (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A misspelling of Reflist. I don't think we should encourage this kind of variations. We know have a better search system than in 2008. Magioladitis (talk) 17:06, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete. I agree with nom that this sort of misspelling should not be tolerated or encouraged. Normally I'd just say tag with {{R from misspelling}} so that any links can be cleaned from time to time, but this one is just too important. --NSH002 (talk) 18:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep; nominator makes no argument for deletion, demonstrating no way in which the encyclopedia is harmed by this redirect. None of the situations in WP:RFD#DELETE are met, but this is precisely the situation for WP:RFD#KEEP #5. Deleting this redirect would help nobody, but it would harm pages: right now pages with this template display everything properly, but if we delete it, such pages would be broken. Issues such as "should not be tolerated" are a matter for changing WP:RFD#KEEP. Nyttend (talk) 20:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well there is only one page linking to this redirect (BTW, it's broken by the RfD nom), so not a big deal. If someone does mistype it, then if deleted they'll immediately see their mistake, and have to correct it, which is a good thing. --NSH002 (talk) 22:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that since this title has been around for over 5 years deletion is quite likely break links in external sites (mirrors et al) and we have no way of determining all of those. The Whispering Wind (talk) 22:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a very good argument if this were a redirect to an article in mainspace. It's very unlikely that external sites would link to a redirect in template space, moreover one used purely for wikipedia internal purposes. --NSH002 (talk) 00:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are right of course. The Whispering Wind (talk) 15:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do that as well. While test-editing/previewing, one should be prepared for mistakes, so I don't see any problem here. --NSH002 (talk) 08:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yeugh; what a horrible redirect. Let me repeat what I usually say about template redirects: This redirect means that a reference list can be added to an article by typing {{relfist}}. Bots, scripts and the like that need to recognise reference lists in article wikitext now have to know about this stupid misspelling in addition to myriad other synonyms for reference lists (or else waste users' time, bandwidth, etc. finding out where the redirect points). Obscure and misspelt template redirects are evil and should be deleted to preserve the sanity and good order of scripts and bots. — This, that and the other (talk) 05:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 05:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am in full agreement with User:This, that and the other regarding the reflist template. To put it more bluntly, this template redirect costs money. Donor money. The WMF developers have truck loads of code to support references in the Visual Editor, and that means the code needs to know how to find {{reflist}} in the source text, and redirects complicate that. As the code grows to handle strange cases, the page download time goes up, and that hurts all editors who arnt on very fast broadband. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with This, that and the other. For articles, this kind of redirect could be useful, as it allows readers to get to articles they are looking for quicker. Template redirects, on the other hand, are primarily used by editors, and I think it is ok to demand more precision of our editors than we do of our readers for the benefits it brings to script and bot writers. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 16:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'd much rather see more of these redirects than less. (Please, for the love of God, let "susbt:" have the same effect as "subst:"!) I'm not convinced that this is going to be such a huge problem for scripts. What, can they not look at "What links here"? If it really is a problem, make a bot to fix instances of the misspelling. --BDD (talk) 17:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The discussion above suggests that it is time to revisit the guidance at WP:RFD#DELETE and WP:RFD#KEEP. Clearly different principles apply to template redirects than to redirects in mainspace, which is what the current guidance mostly addresses (roughly: the criteria for keeping template redirects need to be more stringent than for mainspace redirects). In addition, in this particular case, the recommendation at Category:Redirects from misspellings "Redirects from misspellings should be used sparingly" applies. --NSH001 (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unnecessary, hides the fact that there's a problem, and makes life more difficult for bot authors. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This redirect is now unused. As noted, many bots look for or add {{reflist}}. --  Gadget850 talk 12:04, 19 November 2013 (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/2013_November_18&oldid=1237238949"