Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 October 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 9[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 9, 2009

Siberians[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 as retargeted (non admin close).B.Wind (talk) 03:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure about the accuracy of this redirect, since "Siberians" is not necessarily a synonym for the country's indigenous peoples. Currently Siberian redirects to Siberia, since there is no article on "Siberian people" (it was PRODded and deleted a few months ago, since the subject is apparently nonexistent). I'd be in favor of re-targeting to Siberia, or perhaps deletion, although input from others would be good since I'm not an expert on the subject. JamieS93 23:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Apparently you believe it should be to "Siberia". However, "Siberians" refers to the Indigenous Peoples of Siberia, not the region itself. "Siberians" is a plural noun that refers to people of Siberia, not Siberia. I would like to hear your reason for moving it to the name of the region. Thanks, ---GooglePedia12 23:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)GooglePedia.

If an article about a nation's people (usually titled "[national] people") does not exist, I believe the term is usually redirected to the country itself. Like I pointed out above "Siberian" currently redirects to Siberia, so I'm thinking that the plural should direct there as well. While there is an "indigenous peoples" article, there is no page for "Siberian people", so I'm not sure the term is synonymous. JamieS93 00:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a rule, the singular and the plural should point to the same location (see WP:PRECISION), but if repointing it to Siberia (where the singular is) is controversial, I wouldn't lose any sleep if the redirect is deleted instead. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 18:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)== Maybe "Siberian" should be re-pointed to "Indigenous peoples of Siberia"? ==[reply]

Remember that "Siberian" is a singular noun AND an adjective; I think the reason it points to Siberia is because in the redirect it is being used as an adjective. ---GooglePedia12 00:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)GooglePedia12.

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Urban Wear[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete with no prejudice against a proper article at Urban wear. Tikiwont (talk) 17:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or revert to article (and consider AfD). The redirect is unsupported, although it's been in place for over 20 months. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It's been a long time since it was a piece of spam generated by a now-banned editor. I can see this being a standalone article if this is covered by reliable sources independent of the people who produce and sell this line of clothing, but until then... deletion would be best. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 18:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Mr. Entertainment[edit]

The result of the discussion was Retarget to Sammy Davis, Jr.. Ruslik_Zero 18:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speculated album title of American recording artist Usher. Never came to be and leaving this redirect in tact seems misleading. — ξxplicit 22:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

True or false no word has more than 4 vowels[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 by User:NawlinWiki (non admin close). B.Wind (talk) 00:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term. To the max. GrooveDog • oh hai 21:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I redirected it, as a joke, while on WP:NPP. Feel free to speedy it. :-) MuffledThud (talk) 21:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Bhopal - Indore Intercity Express[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 13:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This title redirects to a completely unrelated train; the routes of both trains don't even intersect and the closest they get to each other is about 500km apart. -SpacemanSpiff 03:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Barnes (Family Name)[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 (non admin close). B.Wind (talk) 02:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it has an implausible disambiguation qualifier. Tavix |  Talk  17:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep, seems a harmless redirect. It may be unlikely to be used as a search term here, but remember that it may be used as a search term externally, or used in external links. The page views are rather low, but not low enough to suggest it recieves no real use. --Taelus (talk) 09:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - Per Taelus. Also, Smith (family name) exists which implies, at least to me, that the (family name) suffix has been/is used in some places, making this redirect more useful. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 04:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not the "family name" in general that really makes it implausible for me. It's that combined with the capitalization of the qualifier that puts it over the top in my opinion. Tavix |  Talk  00:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:Somefootnotes[edit]

The result of the discussion was Keep. Ruslik_Zero 19:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned template redirect; unused, and I really can't see any reason why it would be. Also would mess with most bots who work with {{More footnotes}}. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made it because I felt it was a valid way of looking at the nofootnotes spectrum which could be used - there are articles which have no footnotes which use {{no footnotes}}, and you have articles with some footnotes. Does it really 'mess with most bots'? Do template redirects typically mess with bots? --Malkinann (talk) 08:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the time, bots are programmed to recognize certain templates and highly-used redirects to them, but the less-used redirects typically won't be programmed in. Then, if the bot is, say, dating the tag, it would probably miss any uses of the template through a redirect.
As another comment, a short article can have "some" footnotes but not need "more" footnotes. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not causing any harm. If the bots are broken, fix them. causa sui× 22:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:Indiscriminaterefs[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 13:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned template redirect; unused, and I really can't see any reason why it would be. Also would mess with most bots who work with {{No footnotes}}. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unnecessarily strong language could be perceived as bitey. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Mostly for the issues that it may have with the bots. The issue of it being aggressive is a bit unfounded in my opinion. "Indiscriminate" is a perfectly valid way to describe a reference. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 04:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, the reason this may be taken as bitey is that common interpretation of the term would be a direct reflection on the contributor. Even considered as an objective description of the references, the primary connotation would be that they are not germane or are superfluous, which is not what the template is about. It is about lack of specificity, not lack of discrimination. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see that being an issue. Thank you for clarifying. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 17:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

"Citation needed" redirects[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete all except Template:Proveit. Ruslik_Zero 18:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned template redirect; unused, and I really can't see any reason why it would be. Also would mess with most bots who work with {{Citation needed}}. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've merged multiple nominations together here. If comments differed in individual discussions, I've added a note after the "delete" or "keep" to indicate which template was being discussed. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Proveit. Use of the imperative mood can be perceived as bitey. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Geofacti, Template:Histfact & Geofact-inline. Potentially confusing, as it indicates specificity not present in the target. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fct - "fct" could be an abbreviation for either "fact" or "fiction." B.Wind (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Proveit, Delete Geofacti, Geofact-inline and Histfact as they dont do anything different as their name suggests. Delete Fct, per disambiguation problems. Also, I don't think merging the nominations was a good idea, although that is just my personal opinion as I don't like them. Makes it more complex to close with concenses, especially as we now have several !votes which are out of context with this merged RfD. --Taelus (talk) 09:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete except for Proveit which seems reasonable enough. DGG ( talk ) 03:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:Refplease[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 (non admin close).B.Wind (talk) 00:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned template redirect; unused, and I really can't see any reason why it would be. Also would mess with most bots who work with {{Citation needed}}. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep it matches the naming of {{unref}}, fix the bots if they're broken. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 04:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, i see no harm. There's already a ton of template redirects to {{Citation needed}}, i don't see how one more is a problem. I thought we shouldn't worry about performance. This one was suggested in the move discussion when {{fact}} was renamed to {{Citation needed}} and i liked the sound of it. And it's a lot less cryptic than, say {{cn}} or {{an}}--ospalh (talk) 15:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It isn't efficient to code every bot to include redirects to templates in addition to the templates themselves, so removing redirects that aren't very highly used seems like a logical course of action to me. That having been said, I see your reasoning that this one may be more worth keeping than some of the others, so I haven't collapsed it into the discussion above. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not causing any harm. causa sui× 22:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, harmless. The bots can be adjusted I am sure. --Taelus (talk) 09:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
{The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:Refstyle[edit]

The result of the discussion was Withdrawn; this is a good redirect. My bad. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned template redirect; unused, and I really can't see any reason why it would be. Also would mess with most bots who work with {{Citation style}}. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Is this really unused? I use this tag, so someone must be going around and replacing it. It matches the naming of {{unref}} 76.66.197.30 (talk) 04:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

"Citation style" redirects[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete Template:Consistent references. Keep all other. Ruslik_Zero 19:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned template redirect; unused, and I really can't see any reason why it would be. Also would mess with most bots who work with {{Citation style}}. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep If the bots are broken, fix them. causa sui× 00:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all except {{Consistent references}}, which seems to be a muddle that begs the question "What is meant by 'consistent references'?" The other three have been in use too long not to keep. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:Cleanup-citation[edit]

The result of the discussion was Withdrawn, name is inline with similar templates (hadn't thought about that when nominating; my bad). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned template redirect; unused, and I really can't see any reason why it would be. Also would mess with most bots who work with {{Citation style}}. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep it matches the naming of several cleanup templates/shortcuts. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 04:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:Fact-check[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 19:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned template redirect; unused, and I really can't see any reason why it would be. Also would mess with most bots who work with {{Refimprove}}. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - name of redirect implies something other than the fact that the article is lacking in references. B.Wind (talk) 16:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:Fact check[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 19:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned template redirect; unused, and I really can't see any reason why it would be. Also would mess with most bots who work with {{Refimprove}}. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - name of redirect implies something other than the fact that the article is lacking in references. B.Wind (talk) 14:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Name of redirect implies that a reliable reference should be found to support anything stated in the previous sentence which may be factually inaccurate. Nevard (talk) 05:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:Cleanup-verify[edit]

The result of the discussion was Withdrawn; this one does seem to be valid on second glance. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned template redirect; unused, and I really can't see any reason why it would be. Also would mess with most bots who work with {{Refimprove}}. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:Notverified[edit]

The result of the discussion was Keep. Ruslik_Zero 18:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned template redirect; unused, and I really can't see any reason why it would be. Also would mess with most bots who work with {{Refimprove}}. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the fact that it is an orphan is insufficient reason for deletion of a redirect. This one is sometimes used as people not acquainted with the often-used abbreviations that make up some template names actually use this. Deletion in this case would be unnecessarily WP:BITEy. B.Wind (talk) 16:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as potentially useful to some. We don't want to go around deleting lots of such redirecting templates, otherwise it becomes more difficult and less flexible to learn how to use them. --Taelus (talk) 09:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:Improve-references[edit]

The result of the discussion was Keep. Ruslik_Zero 18:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned template redirect; unused, and I really can't see any reason why it would be. Also would mess with most bots who work with {{Refimprove}}. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the fact that it is an orphan is insufficient reason for deletion of a redirect. This one is sometimes used as people not acquainted with the often-used abbreviations that make up some template names actually use this. Deletion in this case would be unnecessarily WP:BITEy. B.Wind (talk) 15:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wind. Tavix |  Talk  17:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as potentially useful to some. We don't want to go around deleting lots of such redirecting templates, otherwise it becomes more difficult and less flexible to learn how to use them. --Taelus (talk) 09:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:Improve-refs[edit]

The result of the discussion was Keep. Ruslik_Zero 18:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned template redirect; unused, and I really can't see any reason why it would be. Also would mess with most bots who work with {{Refimprove}}. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the fact that it is an orphan is insufficient reason for deletion of a redirect. This one is sometimes used as people not acquainted with the often-used abbreviations that make up some template names actually use this. Deletion in this case would be unnecessarily WP:BITEy. B.Wind (talk) 15:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per wind. Tavix |  Talk  17:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as potentially useful to some. We don't want to go around deleting lots of such redirecting templates, otherwise it becomes more difficult and less flexible to learn how to use them. --Taelus (talk) 09:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:Improvereference[edit]

The result of the discussion was Keep. Ruslik_Zero 18:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned template redirect; unused, and I really can't see any reason why it would be. Also would mess with most bots who work with {{Refimprove}}. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you bundle up nominated templates in the same category? --Caspian blue 04:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please do this because I want to vote keep on all of them. causa sui× 04:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, bundling would be inappropriate as some have attracted "delete" recommendations. B.Wind (talk) 16:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've now tried to bundle related nominations which had similar !votes. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the fact that it is an orphan is insufficient reason for deletion of a redirect. This one is sometimes used as people not acquainted with the often-used abbreviations that make up some template names actually use this. Deletion in this case would be unnecessarily WP:BITEy. B.Wind (talk) 16:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as potentially useful to some. We don't want to go around deleting lots of such redirecting templates, otherwise it becomes more difficult and less flexible to learn how to use them. --Taelus (talk) 09:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:Few refs[edit]

The result of the discussion was Retarget to {{morefootnotes}}. Ruslik_Zero 18:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned template redirect; unused, and I really can't see any reason why it would be. Also would mess with most bots who work with {{Refimprove}}. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the fact that it is an orphan is insufficient reason for deletion of a redirect. This one is sometimes used as people not acquainted with the often-used abbreviations that make up some template names actually use this. Deletion in this case would be unnecessarily WP:BITEy. B.Wind (talk) 15:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, maybe this should be redirected to {{morefootnotes}} instead... if an article doesn't have many references, it needs more refs, not improved ones. I'd accept that as a good alternative to deletion. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • New editor, I was having a problem with external reference to some changes I made to Border Television as my External Link opened to an empty New Statesman page. I have practiced, sought advice from my adopter and re-done the link and it works. The link does not appear all blue like the two above (there are three links with mine), BUT it does work. Do I need any further advice or is this link saisfactory as it is. Many Thanks.-Angliaman (talk) 01:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:Georefimprove[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 19:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned template redirect; unused, and I really can't see any reason why it would be. Also would mess with most bots who work with {{Refimprove}}. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Potentially confusing, as it indicates specificity not present in the target. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree, it is misleading as the template name suggests it is different to the standard refimprove, but it simply redirects. --Taelus (talk) 09:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:Cleanup cite[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 (non admin close).B.Wind (talk) 01:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned template redirect; unused, and I really can't see any reason why it would be. Also would mess with most bots who work with {{Refimprove}}. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I use it because it's easier to remember. causa sui× 04:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as potentially useful to some. Being unused doesn't mean they will never be used. --Taelus (talk) 09:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:Factual[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned template redirect; unused, and I really can't see any reason why it would be. Also would mess with most bots who work with {{Refimprove}}. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - name is vague; much more likely one would stop after the letter "t" ({{fact}}). B.Wind (talk) 16:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, personally when I see that template I think of it redirecting to [citation needed]. I doubt others agree with me though, so changing the redirect target probably isn't suitable. Best to delete as potentially misleading. --Taelus (talk) 09:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:Cleanup-cite[edit]

The result of the discussion was Withdrawn; hadn't thought about how this is named the same way as other cleanup templates. My bad. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned template redirect; unused, and I really can't see any reason why it would be. Also would mess with most bots who work with {{Unreferenced}}. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep it matches the style used for several cleanup templates/shortcuts. If the bots need fixing, then fix them. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 04:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per anon causa sui× 04:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:Additional[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. JamieS93 17:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned template redirect with a really ambiguous name; unused, and I really can't see any reason why it would be. Also would mess with most bots who work with {{Refimprove}}. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - additional what? Vague to the nth degree. B.Wind (talk) 16:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Confusing causa sui× 22:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as confusing redirect. User:B.Wind summed up the problem here perfectly. --Taelus (talk) 09:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:RI[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 19:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned template redirect; unused, and I really can't see any reason why it would be. Also would mess with most bots who work with {{Refimprove}}. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete potentially confusing redirect as "RI" can have several meanings. B.Wind (talk) 16:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as potentially confusing. When I saw the name I initially thought of the state of Rhode Island, and there is no shortage of other meanings for this abbreviation. --RL0919 (talk) 13:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:Cite sources section[edit]

The result of the discussion was Keep. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned template redirect; unused, and I really can't see any reason why it would be. Also would mess with most bots who work with {{Unreferenced section}}. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "I don't find this useful" is not a rationale to delete something causa sui× 04:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the fact that it is an orphan is insufficient reason for deletion of a redirect. This one is sometimes used as people not acquainted with the often-used abbreviations that make up some template names actually use this. Deletion in this case would be unnecessarily WP:BITEy. B.Wind (talk) 16:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, does what it says on the tin, potentially helpful and usable for some editors especially newer ones. No reason for deletion. --Taelus (talk) 09:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:Nocite section[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 (non admin close).B.Wind (talk) 00:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned template redirect; unused, and I really can't see any reason why it would be. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep "I don't find this useful" is not a rationale to delete something that isn't otherwise causing any trouble. causa sui× 22:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it does what it says, and is potentially useful to some editors. No real reason to delete. --Taelus (talk) 09:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:Notverifiable[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 17:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned template redirect; unused, and I really can't see any reason why it would be. Also, is something is "not verifiable", then it should be removed, not tagged. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as potentially confusing as "Not verifiable" is different from "I cannot find any references from reliable sources." B.Wind (talk) 16:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as confusing, it seems too set in stone to simply say something is not verifiable... Other templates and their redirects do this better, in a more appropriate way. --Taelus (talk) 09:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:Uncited-article[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 (non-admin close).B.Wind (talk) 00:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned template redirect; unused, and I really can't see any reason why it would be. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep "I don't find this useful" is not a rationale to delete something that isn't otherwise causing any trouble. causa sui× 22:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, does what it says on the tin. No real problems with it. --Taelus (talk) 09:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:Unrefarticle[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 (non-admin close).B.Wind (talk) 00:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned template redirect; unused, and I really can't see any reason why it would be. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I really don't see why you'd nominate it. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 04:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is just as easy to type {{Unreferenced}} for one thing, and the latter seems more intuitive than an abbreviated form that I doubt would ever really be used. Not even a newcomer would probably use "Unrefarticle", and anyone who has been around for awhile should know the actual template name. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Me either. "I, personally, don't see why someone would want to use this" is one of the worst possible rationales for deleting something that isn't otherwise causing any trouble. causa sui× 22:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it does what it says it will, and some users may find it useful. Better to have a wide option of {{tags}} than to give new users a list saying "Learn these." --Taelus (talk) 09:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

"Unreferenced art"-style redirects to "Unreferenced"[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. Jafeluv (talk) 08:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned template redirect; unused, and I really can't see any reason why it would be. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Potentially confusing, as it indicates specificity not present in the target. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unreferencedart & Unrefart –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC). "Art" could also mean "file" or "image" in the Wikipedia sense. B.Wind (talk) 16:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unreferenced art –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC). No need for the second word; furthermore, potentially confusing as "art" could also mean "image" in the Wikipedia sense. B.Wind (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as misleading redirects, they make the user assume they are more specific and different to the standard unreferenced template, but are not. --Taelus (talk) 09:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Ciara: Untitled[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 17:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Basically equivalent to this. The title of the album, Fantasy Ride, was revealed quite some time ago and the album itself was released back in May. No reason to keep this redirect around. — ξxplicit 00:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this temporary placeholder. There is no Ciara recording named Untitled, and when it was released it had a name.B.Wind (talk) 00:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_October_9&oldid=1142587953"