Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 December 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 18[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 18, 2012

Template:USA City infobox[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 both. Ruslik_Zero 13:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not plausible redirects. Violate MOS:INFOBOX#Consistency between infoboxes. All similar non-US redirects have been deleted: Template talk:Infobox settlement/Other templates up for TfD#Deleted: Template:Bosnia and Herzegovina municipalities Zenica, Template:Bosnia and Herzegovina municipalities02, Template:CoDepartment infobox, Template:Community area, Template:Croatian County, Template:District data of Japan, Template:India UT capital infobox, Template:India UT infobox2, Template:Infobox Autonomous community, Template:Infobox Belgische deelgemeente, Template:Infobox City in Afghanistan, Template:Infobox city in the Republic of Macedonia, Template:Infobox city in the Republic of Macedonia (dual language), Template:Infobox City of Moldova, Template:Infobox city of Panama, Template:Infobox City Ukraine, Template:Infobox Crimean town, Template:Infobox deelgemeente Belgium, Template:Infobox divisions of Sarawak, Template:Infobox District Cambodia, Template:Infobox District CZ, Template:Infobox District of Moldova, Template:Infobox districts of Selangor, Template:Infobox England district, Template:Infobox Estonian County, Template:Infobox Federal Territory of Malaysia, Template:Infobox French hamlet, Template:Infobox Luxembourg, Template:Infobox Luxembourg canton, Template:Infobox Micropolitan Area, Template:Infobox Moldovan Location, Template:Infobox Montenegro, Template:Infobox Municipalities of Portugal, Template:Infobox Municipality in the Republic of Macedonia, Template:Infobox Municipality portugal, Template:Infobox Municipality pt, Template:Infobox Pakistan district, Template:Infobox Pakistani location, Template:Infobox Political Division, Template:Infobox Province of Kazakhstan, Template:Infobox Region of Georgia, Template:Infobox Romania Villages, Template:Infobox Settlement 1, Template:Infobox Settlement (Serbia), Template:Infobox Statistical Regions of the Republic of Macedonia, Template:Infobox Subdivisions of Malaysia, Template:Infobox Tehsil Pakistan, Template:Metropolitan cities of India, Template:Place in Mexico, Template:Romanian regions infobox, Template:Statistical region of Slovenia, Template:Tokyo-Infobox, Template:Tokyo-Infobox/Idea 1, Template:Union councils of Pakistan, Template:Village in Ukraine So speedy delete these two left-overs. NVanMinh (talk) 02:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as entirely plausible. Redirects of this nature also facilitate later splitting of templates if required without harming anything in the meantime. Thryduulf (talk) 07:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1) Why then not have Infobox USA city, Infobox City USA, Infobox US city, Infobox City US, ...
  • 2) Why are ALL the non US templates deleted?
  • 3) How could they facilitate splitting - they are not used and their names don't follow the naming guidelines for infoboxes. They will never be used. NVanMinh (talk) 13:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1: WP:WAX. 2: WP:WAX. 3: "Not used" is transitory - populating them before splitting would be a workable first step, and naming conventions can change (and aren't the be all and end all anyway). Thryduulf (talk) 13:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • 1 WP:NOTWAX, 2 WP:NOTWAX. 3 MOS:INFOBOX#Consistency between infoboxes NVanMinh (talk) 13:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • 1 and 2: Your argument is that other similar templates have been deleted, so this redirect should be as well. How is that not a WP:WAX argument? Had redirects from those titles been nominated at RfD I would have recommended keeping them for the same reasons that I am recommending keeping these. I do not frequent TfD, but had I seen the nominations there I would likely have recommended keeping or redirecting them (but I have not looked at the arguments presented). 3: Infobox standardisation is the current preference, yes, but this may change. In the meanwhile these redirects do no harm and have some benefits, in contrast deletion offers no benefits. Thryduulf (talk) 15:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most infobox templates are prefixed with Infobox rather than having infobox as the suffix. Not likely to be used in new articles. -- WOSlinker (talk) 15:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, not plausible per WOSlinker. Frietjes (talk) 15:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WOSlinker. - Darwinek (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WOSlinker. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unused and unlikely to be used due to non-standard naming, and if there is ever a desire to split the infoboxes back up and use the old names (also unlikely), re-creating them would be trivial. --RL0919 (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - aids in writing the encyclopaedia, no rationale for deletion, other than to make life more difficult for those trying to author an encyclopaedia. WilyD 10:18, 24 December 2012 (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:Infobox County[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 Keep all. Tikiwont (talk) 10:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The redirects if used on articles break tools, one example is the official counter. Less redirects, less problems. This proposal here, does only suggest to delete upper case redirects. Whether for each name one wants a redirect is a separate issue. A current list shows the existing redirects. The list includes things like "aspirational state" and one can come up with many more, e.g. infobox redirects for oblasts, prefectures, republics, subprefectures, local government area, ward, barangay, urban district ... But if people want that, please don't duplicate it all with upper case versions. NVanMinh (talk) 02:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. If that is a bug on Jarry1250's template transclusion count tool, he should fix it. We have thousands of redirects for alternate names, alias, common misspelling, merges -- and yes, redirects from other capitalisations. Everything is all listed on what links here feature, including pages that use the redirect, and Jarry1250's tool should be reading from that. In this particular case, many of these redirects were the results of merging several templates to one common infobox name. We should not be setting a precedence here by mass deleting redirects solely because it is breaking something on the toolserver. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not a bug. The tool has one functionality and that is to show direct transclusions. Don't put extra burden on tool makers, if problems can be avoided much easier. And this proposal is not even about deleting all. It is only about deleting the upper case variants. NVanMinh (talk) 13:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • If something in the encyclopaedia breaks a tool then it is a bug in the tool. Redirects from alternative capitalisations exist and tools should be able to deal with them. This is not putting unnecessary burden on tool makers - if they want to make tools to work with Wikipedia (an entirely voluntary task) then their tools need to cope with what the encyclopaedia throws at them, we absolutely do not change the encyclopaedia to what the tool can deal with. Thryduulf (talk) 13:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes voluntarily. And now you see how bad tool support is. But instead of making tasks for tool designers easier, you blame them, and say their tools have bug. NVanMinh (talk) 15:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • No one is blaming tool makers and you're the one saying that the tool doesn't work right. If a tool doesn't work as expected and the platform is working as expected, the bug is absolutely in the tool. The tool creator isn't here asking for help, so there may even be a valid way to get the results with the current structure. We get that you want the tool to work, but the practical uses of these redirects are inscribed in our policies and guidelines; we don't make antithetical decisions to just to make a handful of developers' life easier unless there is a real benefit that the community has demonstrated. If you truly believe that these types of redirects are harmful, you may want to try to find support at WP:VP or even make an RfC. —Ost (talk) 18:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Nobody ever said what is the benefit of these upper case redirects. They bloat listings, they are absolutely unnecessary. Lower case versions exist. NVanMinh (talk) 00:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • The benefits come from the fact that Wikipedia page titles are case sensitive. Having both maximises the accessibility of the templates. Thryduulf (talk) 16:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • That means all Infobox templates that have a lower case name should have a redirect in your opinion? So, that people that already know that there is "Infobox xyz" can also type "Infobox Xyz"? And who is typing this anyway? NVanMinh (talk) 02:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep fix your tool. We shouldn't be making tools take priority over actual editors. -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 05:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not my tool. NVanMinh (talk) 12:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The principle still holds. Thryduulf (talk) 13:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Fix your tool" if it is not mine does not "hold". NVanMinh (talk) 14:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • The principle is that tf the tool doesn't do what you want it to do, fix your tool or get a new one. Thryduulf (talk) 16:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • One can also change the position of the nail, and try using the hammer again. NVanMinh (talk) 02:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • If all you have is a hammer, then every problem is a nail. So, get/make a different tool. Every problem is not a nail, fix your tools. -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 22:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Several of these are the results of mergers that we need to keep for attribution reasons, even those that are not are useful redirects. For example they will allow splitting of the template if it is later desired. They are doing no harm to the encyclopaedia and so deletion would not bring any benefits in the meanwhile. As others have said, if something in the encyclopaedia breaks a tool then that is a problem with the tool, not with the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 07:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Several of these are the results of mergers" - Which except for Town? What are the redirects useful for? For splitting one would use lower case. And yes, they are doing harm, they bloat WP. This is not the article name space. Why blaming the others (tool makers), why not fix? NVanMinh (talk) 13:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't believe in fixing what is not broken, and redirects from other capitalisations are not broken - even outside the article space. There is no size restriction or limited number of titles, so bloat isn't an issue. Thryduulf (talk) 13:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • But usage of these breaks tools. And bloat of course is an issue. Users' screens are limited in size. NVanMinh (talk) 14:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is just a problem with the tool, and these redirects are quite useful. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 11:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not just with the tool. It is a problem for those that use the tool. And for what are the Upper Case versions useful? NVanMinh (talk) 12:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the tool were fixed to deal with redirects from other capitalisations then users wouldn't have a problem. Thryduulf (talk) 13:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then users would have another problem with that tool, because if the displayed number changes, then it doesn't display anymore what it displayed before. Furthermore the current tool is already wrongly displaying "transclusion count" while it is only showing article count. And there will be more bad software. Make it easy for the tool designers. NVanMinh (talk) 14:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • That makes no sense. If the tool is saying it is displaying "transclusion count" when it's actually displaying a count of the articles it's transcluded in then that is a problem with the tool not the encyclopaedia. You then say that the tool isn't broken, when then entire reason for this nomination is that the tool is broken. It seems that you want two tools - one to show the transclusion count, and one to show the article count - we will absolutely not change the encyclopaedia so that the two figures are the same in a tool that may or may not be broken. Thryduulf (talk) 16:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is not only about that one tool. It is about all existing and future tools interacting with the wiki source. There are insufficient tools, and all some people here do is to blame tool makers. Why not make it easier for them, by fixing the wiki source code, where it does not hurt? The tool design is completely voluntary, and WP is already losing supporters. Make it easier for people. NVanMinh (talk) 15:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is that confirmed true that there is currently no valid way to code the feature that you want? Have you talked with the developer of the tool that you use? Perhaps they are unaware of the bug that you are having trouble with or perhaps they don't see it as a bug and intend the tool to be used differently than you are. Developers are used to working with the platform that they are given and adapting when it changes. If this is really a problem, the redirect policy would have to be changed; removing a small subset of valid redirects would be insufficient. —Ost (talk) 18:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is not a bug in any tool, it is just not part of the functionality of some tools. And some tools may never be able to follow redirects. Imagine you load the article contents of the 300 000+ articles into a database and want to analyse the data in the infobox. Then you have to do extra work for telling the program that "Infobox County" and all the others are just a redirects to Infobox settlement. Same for any AWB add on. NVanMinh (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • All the code needs to do is load the template in question. If the page text begins with the string #REDIRECT [[ then it is a redirect to whatever template page comes between there and the ]] or |, whichever is encountered first. Any tool that can't handle redirects in a defined manner is not fit for purpose when working with Wikipedia. That may sound harsh on developers, but if you want to develop tools for Wikipedia then you need to work with Wikipedia's data structures which will always include template redirects. If you are not prepared to do this then Wikipedia tool development is not for you. Thryduulf (talk) 16:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, it's not the redirects that are broken. Frietjes (talk) 15:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep redirects make it easier for editors to find the appropriate infobox and not create redundant ones. Where the transclusion count is already over 300,000, why do we need more precision in counting anyways? Don't understand the "bloat" argument. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding the bloat argument, see this, then imagine the list four times larger, because it does not contain things like "census designated place", "rural municipality", oblasts, prefectures, republic, subprefecture, "local government area", ward, barangay, urban district .... The list may grow to 100 or 200 items. And now, with no benefit at all, upper case variants are added. The lower case forms exist, so for finding the lower case forms are there. NVanMinh (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • If these are deleted, a new (or experienced) editor who types {{Infobox County.... (a very reasonable mistake) will have his/her template fail in the article. This is discouraging. I still don't see why having those entries on the what links here place is a problem. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Who actually types these, including all the parameters? Parameters aren't doubled either to allow for user Bill Random typing what he wants. People will mostly copy it. NVanMinh (talk) 09:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here is one more example of what is broken: Template talk:Infobox settlement/Other templates up for TfD#Statistics with having Infobox settlement and Infobox Settlement. And this is only listing two templates. Now add up all the random redirects - you have no control of what is going on. NVanMinh (talk) 02:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why do you need control? All you need to do is to program a tool that treats all redirects to template:foo as being the same as template:foo. Humans are not logical, and on Wikipedia the needs of human editors will always trump the desire for easier tool development. Thryduulf (talk) 16:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my comments on WP:BOTR and this which explains how your initial premise (and the one I thought was true as well) was faulty. Legoktm (talk) 06:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You still don't understand the issue. You see, you have been tricked into believing something that maybe is not true. Waste of time, would not have been an issue, if there redirects would not exist. And now, who knows that Anomie is correct? If you look at real data and not assumptions then you may doubt that Anomie is correct for every instance in time. 2009-06-22 with 137966 has a drop in usage shortly after the template was moved. And absolutely not addressed are tool breakages when one only has the article source code, knowledge about Infobox template, and no knowledge about redirects. When you open a page that transcludes Infobox settlement and there are two Infoboxes named A and B inside, how do you determine which one is a redirect. Failure. And not explained it the benefit of keeping these random upper case versions of various Infobox xyz. NVanMinh (talk) 09:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't understand what you are saying there at all. Thryduulf (talk) 16:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK. If you have any questions feel free to ask. NVanMinh (talk) 02:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia is a place where people edit, the tools don't create content for the encyclopedia. This is why Wikipedia is a wiki, and doesn't use straight HTML. Redirects are part of making it a user-editable place. If we took concerns of tool-makers first, then it would no longer be human readable (not being human editable as well) -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 22:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - useful for writing the encyclopaedia, no rationale for deletion, other than to make life harder for those trying to write an encyclopaedia. WilyD 10:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; redirects shouldn't be deleted unless they confuse readers or are otherwise unhelpful. I don't see how they could be construed as harmful, since transcluding a redirect to a template will have the safe effects as transcluding the template itself. Nyttend (talk) 13:59, 1 January 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:Sbsvg[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. Ruslik_Zero 13:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not used; implausible template shortcut; highly inconvenient for bots and scripts. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • That a redirect is not used is explicitly irrelevant to it's worth; that it is inconvenient for bots and scripts is also irrelevant - we do not alter the encyclopaedia or inconvenience editors or particularly readers for the benefit of bot/scripts or their authors. In one of the discussions at WT:REDIRECT recently the notion that template redirects are difficult to code for was explicitly rejected by people with experience in coding tools - your code should just read the redirect. In other words I see no benefits to the encyclopaedia from deleting this redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 07:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I could refute all those arguments, but I'll only respond to one: template redirects are different from those elsewhere in the encyclopedia. They exist only as a convenience to editors using the template in question. If they are not used and implausible, that is a fine reason to delete them, since the chance of them being used in the future is negligible. — This, that, and the other (talk) 02:30, 19 December 2012 (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.

Wikipedia:ADHERENCESTATS[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 Keep. Ruslik_Zero 14:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Pass a Method/Christian POV on Wikipedia - it is inappropriate to have a redirect in WP space going to an essay in user space. StAnselm (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Firstly there appears to be no discussion of the shortcut in the MfD (which resulted in a consensus to keep the target), and secondly there is significant precedent that user essays can have WP: shortcuts (see. WP:NERCH, WP:ATHEISM, WP:TANK, WP:DTSS, WP:SLAVE, WP:GOFISHING, etc, etc). I see no reason why either this redirect or its is inappropriate, and you don't give any rationale, so it's a clear keep. Thryduulf (talk) 07:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I second Thryduulf's points. As far as I know, of the namespaces where redirects are used, mainspace is the only one with restrictions on the matter of what other namespaces can be redirected to. I'm ambivalent toward the essay itself, but if it gets deleted, then G6 will take care of this redirect just like that; if not, then a sound deletion argument would have to explain what sets this redirect apart from the multitudes of similar ones, of which Thryduulf only skimmed the surface. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 22:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because of the nominator's incorrect premise. We should nominate all such redirects together or none at all, or have a discussion somewhere like the Village Pump. Nyttend (talk) 14:02, 1 January 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.

Wikipedia:CPOV[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 Keep all. Ruslik_Zero 14:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Pass a Method/Christian POV on Wikipedia - it is inappropriate to have a redirect in WP space going to an essay in user space. StAnselm (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all per my comments above. These were apparently not discussed at the MfD and WP shortcuts to user essays are fine as a general case. These don't seem at all inappropriate or incorrectly targetted to me. Thryduulf (talk) 07:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the discussion? At least four editors expressed the view that the redirects should be deleted, and there was no dissenting voice. StAnselm (talk) 08:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how I missed that, but nobody seems to offer any reasons why they are inappropriate beyond being WP: shortcuts to userspace. My contention is that such redirects as a general case are perfectly acceptable - what makes these specific redirects inappropriate? Thryduulf (talk) 10:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not, in general, "inappropriate to have a redirect in WP space going to an essay in user space". This is commonplace and acceptable. That some editors in the MfD suggested that the redirects were unnecessary is an argument of sorts, but by itself not a particularly strong one. The nominee should be prepared to present a stronger rationale for why these redirects are harmful. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 00:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is a solution in search of a problem. There is no conflict of interest here. Ignocrates (talk) 17:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because of the nominator's incorrect premise. We should nominate all such redirects together or none at all, or have a discussion somewhere like the Village Pump. Nyttend (talk) 14:02, 1 January 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/2012_December_18&oldid=1052843868"