Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 December 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 12[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 12, 2013.

T:ITN BOX[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. Though keep voters constituted only a slim majority, their arguments were significantly more based in policy and RfD practice. Convention at RfD is to only delete redirects which are misleading, useless, or harmful, none of which have been demonstrated to apply to this one. --BDD (talk) 17:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem to be a need for this redirect as there is also T:ITNBOX. WOSlinker (talk) 13:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. In July and August this and T:ITNBOX got identical numbers of page views. In September, October and November this template got more page views (I've not looked at other months). They both consistently get more hits than just background noise. Thryduulf (talk) 14:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Should be kept in accord with the major exception in d6, as well as k3 and k5. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 16:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
k5 could apply to every redirect. -- WOSlinker (talk) 17:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...but k5 is abused as meaning "it is useful". The k5 says "I find it useful". In other words, it is used by people speaking for someone else. Incorrectly. -DePiep (talk) 06:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that k5 should mainly apply when other reasons to keep also apply. As a standalone, k5 is wanting; however, it is in the list for a reason and becomes more significant when one or more other reasons can be cited. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 10:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow what you agree with, and your introduction of "other reasons" is new. I repeat: k5 can not be used speaking in third person. -DePiep (talk) 20:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, if this is deleted, please link to T:ITNBOX in the deletion log message, so that anyone who tries to use T:ITN BOX will be thrilled to learn they can use a shorter shortcut. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another good reason to delete it, the other one is shorter. -- WOSlinker (talk) 07:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for not following shortcut naming convention. In our common capitalised shortcuts we never add a spaced-variant, whichever namespace or target page (e.g.). This name is not about a "plausible typo" as we would accept for regular named, non-shortcut R pages (hell, it is not even a typo). Also, good for mainspace cleanup: [1]. -DePiep (talk) 07:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even if mainspace cleanup were a valid reason to delete shortcuts, the Google page's link isn't vea a redirect, the Google page links directly to Template:ITNbox. Deleting the redirect wouldn't remove this from the Google page (applying {{noindex}} to the target would tough). Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Redundancy to T:ITNBOX, and not following shortcut naming conventions, are good arguments for not adding this to the target's shortcut box, but they're hardly reasons to delete. The shortcut is harmless, nothing is gained by deleting it, and presumably the creator thinks it's useful. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The creator hasn't edited for over 2 years. -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Someone else could find it useful for the same reason the creator did, and the creator could always start editing again. Besides, this has existed sense 2009, K3 applies (someone could have bookmarked this or something). What is to be gained by deleting this? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
K3 K5 is only valid for a user actually saying "I use it". Not as EHC says here: "because someone could find it useful". -DePiep (talk) 20:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC) Corrected into k5.-DePiep (talk) 20:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re: The redirect is not "harmless", because it is a non-content page with non-content name in mainspace. -DePiep (talk) 20:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By that standard all shortcuts that use pseudo-namespaces are harmful. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is off topic (because: no specific to this RfD). -DePiep (talk) 04:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No different from any other pseudo-namespace redirect, e.g. T:DYK, so it should be treated just like the rest. If you disagree with the idea of having pseudo-namespace redirects, please go to WP:VP/Pr and try to get consensus for deprecating them. Nyttend (talk) 03:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This RfD is about this one page. And there is a difference: we do not use spaces in those capitalized shortcuts. -DePiep (talk) 03:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's my point: don't nominate one page when there are tons just like it. An RFD about just one of these is a bad idea, since one little space is not significant. Nyttend (talk) 04:44, 17 December 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:Convert/lenbot[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 17:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute deletion to get rid of the "bot" suggestion. The redirects have no relevant content history any more. The target page has had little usage last years, and today is of less importance since {{convert}} has switched to using a lua module (Target stays and is not affected by this deletion). DePiep (talk) 11:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting: the 2009 XfD you linked to shows names like {{Kmbot}} with a saying that it does convert-related stuff. That suggests it is in a family of {{convert/old}} related templates, with this one. -DePiep (talk) 09:12, 16 December 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.

Wp@rfa[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 17:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary/unlikely XNR. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 02:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This was created in March of 2011 as a "common mistype" or typo. It is now tagged as such and will do no harm. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 05:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re Common mistype as argument for Redirect creation or existence. This reason is valid & smart for regular pagenames in the first place. In shortcut naming, we don't add mistype redirections (just reasonable variant abbreviations). This name is outside of Redirect naming convention. I also question the "common" in this situation. And, how is it a "mistype"? How & why would any internet user "mistype" the search target name this way? -DePiep (talk) 07:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not in a valid (pseudo) namespace at all for the redirect. Not "harmless" because it is in mainspace while not following mainspace concept. And most of all: is someone actually going to RFA (this is the right one!) by making this incorrect entrance typo? And how did WP got to use "@" this way at all? That editor then has more important things to do than being busy with adminship. For example, as a (future) admin they should learn & know to keep mainspace clean from such XNR garbage. -DePiep (talk) 11:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Only 6 pageviews in November, which is just bots and crawlers encountering this. '@' is not a common mispelling of ':', as they are on the opposite sides of the keyboard. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not on everyones keyboards, see QWERTY#United_Kingdom. But I agree with Delete. -- WOSlinker (talk) 07:42, 13 December 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:TT[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, noting that the DRV metioned in the discussion was also closed as no consensus (and was in turn brought in relation to a discussion of redirects including this one that was closed as no consensus). WJBscribe (talk) 13:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is not using T: as Template namespace or its WP:pseudo-namespace. No redirect to template space. Target not special for transclusion. Not associated with a template. Young history, and moved early so that the name is unrelated to the Redirect or its target topic, for years. Not a helpful abbreviation. Abuse of mainspace-concept. WP:UTT does the job, consistent. Earlier here: 2009, 2010, 2013 (also here). DePiep (talk) 01:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Suggest this be retargeted to {{TT Pro League}}. It will then once again redirect to template space as originally intended more than four years ago. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 05:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So for four years it was directed to somewhere else. Best proof that it is completely not needed as in the suggestion by PE. -DePiep (talk) 14:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. Let's just remember that of the reasons to delete and reasons not to delete, the only reason to delete that applies is d6 because this is a CNR, but then there's that nasty little "major exception" in d6 that applies to pseudo-namespace shortcuts like this one. There are two reasons not to delete that apply, k3 and k5. Nothing is in your rationale above that is a reason to delete, nothing. First of all, this pseudo-namespace like all the others can, by long-standing community consensus, be used freely, so it doesn't matter what it targets as a shortcut. Secondly, there is nothing in the guideline that suggests that these have to be "special for transclusion". Thirdly, there is nothing that suggests that these absolutely must be associated with a template. Additionally, it does not matter if it has a young history or old history, since redirects in a pseudo-namespace can be "used freely". There is nothing in the reasons to delete about being moved early and giving a redirect an unrelated name. These can be retargeted if possible. Also, it is a helpful abbreviation for the target I suggested. As for your final attempt, please explain how these shortcut redirects "abuse" the "mainspace-concept". Many editors have worked long and hard to get these tagged as "unprintworthy", and not being tagged is the only harm these might do. As long as they won't show up in a full, printed version of Wikipedia, what other abuse might they inflict? – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 16:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are contradicting yourself. Your 05:47 post concludes: we can do without this one. That is deletion, full stop (thanks for agreeing with me). (You then go on, still at 05:47, to invent another usage, of which I can conclude: "no need existed for four years"). Your 16:29 post is completely off-topic wrt this subthread from its opening words, so doesn't need response (for leaving the trail of reasoning). -DePiep (talk) 11:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No idea what you're on about.
You are contradicting yourself. Your 05:47 post concludes: we can do without this one.
The decision I posted at 05:47 on 12 Dec. did not contain those words at all. Please don't "put words in my mouth", DP!
Your 16:29 post is completely off-topic wrt this subthread...
You are more than entitled to your own opinion; however, your ignoring the facts won't make them go away. This is a harmless, useful pseudo-namespace shortcut that contributors may freely use. I have suggested a good retarget that makes sense. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 21:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You did actually write that we can do without the current targeting (at 05:47 here). That concludes removal, I wrote. That is: by logic. And in this I agree with you. -DePiep (talk) 08:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recommend withdrawing nomination pending DRV closure This was part of the 18 November batch nomination that is being reviewed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 November 26#T:WPTECH. I would recommend that this discussion be withdrawn without prejudice pending the outcome of that discussion (which is very overdue for closure). If the review endorses the no consensus closure then this discussion can restart, if it is overturned to delete then it is moot and if overturned to keep then a nomination for this redirect will just result in a speedy keep. Thryduulf (talk) 11:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No. -DePiep (talk) 11:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am therefore changing my recommendation to speedy close and defer to DRV. Thryduulf (talk) 12:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stop dragging this into a wikilawyering procedural energy sink. DRV is not about this RfD and can conclude. Only when DRV has closed, there could be an overlap in topics or outcome. It remains to be seen (i.e., after DRV closure), whether that would be a contradiction. Meanwhile, we behave as you advised some weeks ago on this very page. Now back to arguments and away from muddying the process. -DePiep (talk) 12:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is about the start situation. How does that lead to a "keep" conclusion at all? What is the connection to, for example, my nom arguments? -DePiep (talk) 11:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly advise to leave other stuff out of this ;-). People get distracted very easily. Thanks for the history details btw. -DePiep (talk) 11:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected regarding the move history; As John said this was originally a shortcut for Template:TestTemplates, but when that page was superseded by, and redirected to Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace, and its shortcuts followed suite. I mostly agree with Paine's argument, aside form his retargeting idea which I'm neutral on, so I won't repeat the all of points he's already made. We almost never delete redirects unless they're harmful or make no sense, and neither applies here. The primary argument for deletion is that "T:" is the presto-namespace for the template-namespace, not the Wikipedia-namespace. Normally a T-presto-space to Wikipedia-space redirect would (at least arguably) make no scene, but this is a shortcut for "Template:TestTemplates" a page that was itself was redirected. By the same standard we may as well say that "Template:TestTemplates" ought to be deleted because (under normal circumstances) a Template-space to Wikipedia-space redirect would make no sense. Besides, WP:TT was also a shortcut for Template:TestTemplates, despite using "WP" the abbreviation for wikipedia-space rather then template space; in fact WP:TT was was created years before T:TT despite using the wrong namespace abreaction.
Besides, while this may be the only "T:" redirect to Wikipedia-space, the reverse is not the case. There are a number of "WP:" redirects to Template space (see Category:Redirects to template from non-template namespace), and those aren't mere historic shortcuts, many are shortcuts that are in use and in their target's shortcut box (tough I disagree with this practice as "T:", not "WP:", is the abbreviation for template-space). I'd be against adding this (or WP:TT) to the target's shortcut box, it's a historic shortcut that no longer reflects the name or namespace of the target, but that's no reason to delete it. Besides, this has existed sense 2009, K3 applies (someone could have bookmarked this or something). Nothing is to be gained by deleting this, the redirect is harmless. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment re EHC. The arguments you use, after the partial endorsement of PE's points, are not about this page's XfD. Yes there a re examples of other situations, that could so should be similar, but then again one (like me) can state that they are different from this one so do not apply (in other words, this is other stuff exists). This XfD is explicitly about this one situation. Therefor I won't go into the parallels you mention at all. I expect these are not to be used as argument in the closing.
This: K3 is not to be used in third person speaking; it is about "I use it", not "someone might use it". -DePiep (talk) 08:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry John, I missed you're last sentence: "If 'T:' is to become a proper namespace alias for 'Template:' (like 'WP:' and 'WT:'), unfortuately T:TT and T:MP need to be deleted.". According to Wikipedia:Pseudo-namespace ""T: is usually used for shortcuts to the Template namespace, but may also be used for shortcuts to Talk namespace (e.g., T:MP) or Template talk namespace (e.g., T:TDYK)". That explains T:MP, and "WP" is the proper namespace alias for "Wikipedia:" despite the existence of "WP:" to Template-space redirects. Even if it weren't for that T:TT is a mere historic shortcut that shouldn't and doesn't prejudice against "T:" being Template's namespace alias. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"but may also...": not any more, again. [2] was only two weeks old. -DePiep (talk) 04:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
EHC, this is actually a circular reasoning. Today exists T:TT, that existence then is mentioned on a descriptive page, and now you use that mentioning as a reason. But such a mentioning is not an argument. -DePiep (talk) 05:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leave unmolested per Emmette Hernandez Coleman: in Internet time, 4.2 years is not young. I looked at some of the stats for this: it got a few tens of requests in each of the few months I looked at (after its creation). —rybec 00:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as confusing cross-namespace redirect. Paine's suggestion for retargeting isn't terrible, but I'd prefer not to establish template names (or redirects) which are ambiguous terms, or at least not WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, in mainspace. --BDD (talk) 17:37, 19 December 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_December_12&oldid=1138578745"