Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 10[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 10, 2014.

.app[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 5#.app

IPhone 6[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 20#IPhone 6

Numerical cipher[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. [No target available fo redirect to redirect to currently. No prejudice for recreation if this changes.] Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:17, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is not a equivalent term, numerical ciphers are a much broader topic, so this should be a WP:REDLINK. Was discussed at WT:MATH. 70.50.151.11 (talk) 08:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Agree, and I don't see a good target for the redirect. --Mark viking (talk) 13:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With this edit to 70.50's discussion at WT:MATH I just try to tie two discussions together in a way that won't linkrot. Si Trew (talk) 14:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then that's not a delete but a retarget, is that what you want? We can discuss here what is the best place to retarget it to. Si Trew (talk) 09:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It doesn't look like the subject is covered at Cipher or the dab. Delete per WP:REDLINK. --BDD (talk) 17:21, 6 March 2014 (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) 04:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Cipher (disambiguation) as I said above. To me it is perfectly adequately covered at the DAB. "The cipher" to mean "zero" is covered there, "Cipher" in the sense of a coding or encryption scheme is covered there, and those are the two main uses as a general term for what is meant by a mathematical or numerical cipher. But I might change my mind, because really it has little to do with number theory and more to do with symbolic logic so perhaps it should go elsewhere, but presuming it is kept at all it has to go somewhere and this is patently not the right target as a specialised mathematical article
I am going from memory but I think it was used of Neville Chamberlain, not by Orwell but some contemporary called him that, (Orwell just called him a "hole in the air)", I think Anthony Eden said of Clement Attlee "an empty taxi arrived at the Houses of Parliament and Clement Attlee got out"), and in that sense of a cipher as being an unworthy or unrecognisable or oxygen thief. But to my mind it seems perfectly covered by the DAB.
I am not sure if it is in order to make the same point twice so please remove this or slap me if to do so after a relisting is out of order and I will remove it. Si Trew (talk) 16:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Consider this: A reader knows nothing about "Numerical cipher". He searches it in Wikipedia. He is redirected to a page. If after reading and leaving that page, he know no more about the "Numerical cipher" than when he came, then the redirect is harmful as it has only wasted the reader's time. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Windows 9[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. Discussion has been going on for over a month with no clear consensus for either option. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 06:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it redirect to the Windows NT page?, this should be deleted, as there is not yet such thing as Windows 9 TheChampionMan1234 04:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, WP:CRYSTAL. Although it's unlikely that Microsoft will suddenly implode (but then we all get surprises), they do have a habit of changing the format of the names of their releases (Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows XP, Windows 2000, Windows 7, Windows 8 etc) so it is purely speculation what the next major release of Microsoft Windows will be called. Si Trew (talk) 05:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL.--Lenticel (talk) 07:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. When a person searches Wikipedia for something that does not exist, he must come to page that indicates "this topic does not exist", not a page that leave him surprised as to why he ended up there (especially, if he leaves the computer for while after entering the search term. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as re-direct for the time being. In a year from now, this will be released, and when we get close enough to then (perhaps by Christmas 2014) Windows 9 can have an actual article. Georgia guy (talk) 13:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. There is word going around about W9, and because of that, this has become a high traffic page. This redirect wont hurt. Perhaps redirect to Microsoft Windows, and mention something about it there? Rehman 14:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But at least my search on (insert name of favourite search engine) found just from the trade press and so on, not from Microsoft itself, not that I could find. I agree if it is common parlance it should stay, but what if Microsoft at the last minute decides to rebrand it as "Microsoft Pink" or "Microsoft Banana"? There is no mention of "Windows 9" at the target. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talk • contribs) 15:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Still, 9 might be a common search term used generally for the next version of Windows, until a new name gets well known at least. Per IP below. Rehman 11:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep MS Windows would cover the future development of Windows as part of its coverage, and people using "9" for the next version as shorthand should get redirected there. Possibly if retargetted, it would go to History of Microsoft Windows, not NT. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 06:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm changing my !vote to Retarget but have been persuaded by Rehman and 70.50 that yes, since it is a likely search term it should stay, and Microsoft Windows seems a perfectly likely target. But the nominator asked "why does it redirect to Windows NT"? In checking, it is actually an {{R to section}} to Microsoft_Windows#Windows_NT_family, and I am not sure that it is best being an R to section (and is not marked as such but that is easily fixed when the discussion closes). Sure, it is perfectly reasonable to assume "Windows 9" will be based on the Windows NT codebase, but I am not sure that it is better redirecting there rather than to just the article in general? Si Trew (talk) 13:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But that's exactly why it should be deleted. The high traffic that you see there is the number of people that are mislead to a dead end article; people sent after a wild goose chase, as one user once put it. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But if it were deleted, what would they find (what would the search engine come up with) instead? Doing a Special:Search mine comes up with Windows 92, Windows 98, Windows 9x etc all of which to me seem more unsatisfactory. Best regards to you too. Si Trew (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! Exactly! And the that tells the searching user the truth that we don't have an article (or even a verifiable sentence) on Windows 9. Redirecting it to anywhere else takes him to a page which he scrolls up and down looking for Windows 9 until finally realizing that it was a useless redirect.
Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. I changed my !vote back again (since I can see both sides of both sides). Yes it is a likely search term but nothing is menstioned at the target about it and it is pure WP:CRYSTAL and pure speculation what it would be called when it is released. Sorry as Churchill said an Englishman can't draw a line in the sand without blurring it :) Si Trew (talk) 22:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep Many people may go looking for this. This is a good redirect and should be kept. Ned1230|Whine|Stalk

  • Delete Not mentioned at target page or Windows NT, so the redirect is misleading. I note that there are readers looking for the topic, but we have nothing to say about it. We shouldn't imply otherwise. --BDD (talk) 16:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Windows 9 for anyone's guess could just be vaporware. There is not enough concrete and sound information about Windows 9 yet for an article to be written about it. Polloloco51 (talk) 01:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • hi please can you wait until after microsoft build. just in case they annouce windows 9 today. 5.66.149.185 (talk) 16:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Steve Austin[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. I am clearly and evidently WP:INVOLVED and so should not be closing this, but over 100 readers a day are arriving at Steve Austin and seeing this template (not the disambiguation page or the wrestler) and get scared off of Wikipedia because, let's be honest, it's intimidating. And it doesn't solve any of their problems. As an aside, I can see from this that WP:RFD is probably broken and should probably either be disbanded or rolled into something else. It is absurd that a simple yes-or-no question nominated two months ago has not been taken care of yet. If someone uninvolved would like to revert this, they are more than welcome to. Seriously. Go right ahead. But since nobody else is making a decision... Red Slash 05:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was disagreement at a recent RM as to whether this should point to the wrestler or the dab page at Stephen Austin (disambiguation). I thought the question merited discussion, but I am neutral at this time. BDD (talk) 23:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore the disambiguation page the disambiguation page was moved without discussion, it should be returned to "Steve Austin", most of the entries on that page are "Steve Austin" -- 70.24.244.161 (talk) 06:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yikes. Pardon my split personality here, but I'm thoroughly convinced by the arguments of that handsome devil, BDD of five months ago, at Talk:Stephen Austin (disambiguation)#Rationale for moving and redirecting. What a guy! --BDD (talk) 06:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It should be restored by principle of WP:BRD, the revert step should be done procedurally, and a new requested move opened to displace the disambiguation page off "Steve Austin" -- 70.24.244.161 (talk) 06:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and revert the bold move of the disambiguation page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per BDD. Only relevant information indicates Stone Cold Steve Austin is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --B2C 22:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • No information has been so provided to indicate the bold move was such. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 00:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore - Disambiguation page should have never been changed in the first place as discussion didn't include pages/editors that it would direction affect (Six Million Dollar Man and Steve Austin (fictional character)) Original "Steve Austin" goes back to the 1972 novels and the Six Million Dollar Man show and thus its obviously the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Its also crazy that the dab page is "Stephen" when all but one of the people on the pages are "Steve's", but I digress...Ckruschke (talk) 17:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WJBscribe (talk) 17:08, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore Dab No primary usage. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to Stone Cold Steve Austin due to strong primary topic claim. Stephen Austin is a poor location for the dab as the semi-founder of Texas deserves the primary topic there. I just moved that page to Stephen Austin (disambiguation); I don't think there's a problem of COI because even if the discussion here puts the disambiguation page back where it started, at Steve Austin, the semi-founder of Texas will still be the only Stephen Austin in our encyclopedia. Red Slash 21:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: This has already been relisted once, but at this point, the consensus still seems to not be clear in regards to Restoring the disambiguation page or Keeping the redirect. Hoping this relist will allow consensus to get somewhat clearer in that regard.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 04:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stet. It can't sit here forever, and if no consensus has been reached in three discussions, it better go back to the respective discussion pages. Si Trew (talk) 16:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We should just be following WP:BRD, by reverting the bold dab move and restoring the disambiguation page to the base name, and starting a new WP:RM discussion on the talk page. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 06:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Template:Cop[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was No consensus. A clear consensus on what to do with this redirect has not been formed after two months, and it doesn't seem like it will becoming clearer anytime soon. For a future nomination, it may be best to nominate all of the similarly spelled redirects at the same time {Template:COP, Template:COp, Template:CoP, and Template:Cop) for a clearer result. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 13:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is problematic for several reasons: (1) Here and on commons, Template:COP is a redirect to the Copyvio template, (2) Cop has many meanings, and (3) Two and three letter templates are frequently used as language icons in articles, or to indicate text in a particular language in files (e.g., {{en}}). Note that cop is the ISO code for Coptic. I just cleaned up a bunch of misuses of this template redirect about a month ago. I would suggest either redirecting it to the copyvio template, or deleting it. I would just boldly do this, but it has been attempted and reverted twice now. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. It is problematic and no obvious connection between "collapsible option" and "cop". {{COP}} redirects to {{db-g12}}, the speedy deletion template for copyright violations, which seems to make a little more sense. Either case, this redirected template only makes things more confusing. This was nominated once before last March (see WP:RfD/2013 Mar 18). --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It should most logically, refer to some policing template, as content templates should have priority on template names -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 05:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This template was discussed almost one year ago, and has been in use for more than one year. If there was a time to change it, the time has long passed. BDD, Thryduulf and Mendaliv have made important points about why this redirect should be kept, which I have incorporated by reference for the sake of brevity. The issue of exactly what has changed since April 2013 should be brought to the table before creating an RfD. Also, per WP:R#KEEP, "If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do". --Jax 0677 (talk) 08:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a template but a redirect. I guess the creator got tired of typing the full name "Collapsible option". It is only used in templates created by the same editor who created this. The Banner talk 10:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or retarget to match {{COP}}. Short redirects to commonly used templates are fine, so long as they don't cause problems. This short redirect isn't to a commonly used template, and it does cause problems, documented above. I'm not convinced that Template:COP redirecting to {{db-g12}} is a great idea, but if the redirect under discussion isn't deleted it needs to have the same target. 172.9.22.150 (talk) 12:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No evidence that anything has changed since the last time this was discussed and kept. Thryduulf (talk) 14:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful, convenient template redirect. WP:R#D8 doesn't really apply given this isn't an articlespace redirect, and WP:R#D2 doesn't really apply given confusion is substantially less likely to occur with users who are clueful enough to use other namespaces. {{hat}} isn't about headwear and {{cob}} isn't about maize. Furthermore, this nomination presumes without justification that {{COP}} is not the problematic redirect. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 16:50, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Furthermore, this series of templates, which includes {{hat}}/{{hab}}, {{cot}}/{{cob}}, and others, has existed long before even {{COP}} has here or at Commons. While this local {{cop}} is a relatively new creation, by analogy to the older templates, it's been part of a much older standard and should have been anticipated. Therefore, I suggest that once this template is kept, {{COP}} be nominated for deletion. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 16:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed, the two templates were created on the same day in February 2013 as a redirect to template:Collapsible option. The upper case variant was boldly retargetted by Frietjes in October 2013, introducing the inconsistency. Thryduulf (talk) 17:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or retarget to match usage on commons. I too have found myself cleaning up far too many incorrect uses of this redirect. Frietjes (talk) 17:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, lacking justification as to why the Commons usage is somehow correct. Why shouldn't Commons change their COP to something more sensible? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Commons and Wikipedia are different projects. If they had to have commonality in template names, which one should get to keep Template:Fair use in/Commons:Template:Fair use in? Once we've done that we'll have to standardise template names between here and Wiktionary - template:tl and Wiktionary:template:tl do very different jobs for example. Thryduulf (talk) 10:23, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep While confusion with Commons is a legitimate reason to rethink this template, we're not beholden to their practices, and misuse of this template is as good a reason to correct editors who do so rather than the template itself. The status quo when this and {{COP}} were created was fine; they should have the same target, at any rate, and I think the original target is best here. --BDD (talk) 00:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or retarget. Causes too many incorrect uses. Kaldari (talk) 04:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - One man's tools are his tools, and only the lowest of the low would take away man's tools. (THAT may be a bit too logical for the [self-delusionally] highly educated to follow) ... BOTTOM LINE: If it's getting used, let it alone unless its causing problems in article space on it's home project. Given that... II- the only good reason given by the nom is " Note that cop is the ISO code for Coptic..." —given experiences in Meta, Commons, Wikispecies, Wikiversity.... IMHO, reserving ISO three letter variants for language conventions is a worthy goal to standardize ACROSS ALL SISTERs... just like short template names... but that means both the commons and the en.wiki projects and the rest of the language projects need conform all at once... or eventually. Perhaps Jimmy Wales or the board could make an edict, but the status quo problem remains...
ASIDE, this is not the first discussion, nor the first thousandth discussion about why one project wants to change another's use of a short named template. Macros, mnemonics, uses are fairly consistent... but the players making the decisions on a wiki is an ever evolving cast of volunteers, and each younger crowd on arrival mistakenly thinks they have a lock on good ideas... wrongly, as it turns out. Many of you will remember admin CBDunkerson, who oft said: "If it ain't broke, don't even try to fix it." Same advice... mind your own business... will this matter in 5 years, 20? If not both, don't bring it up as you are just wasting others time!
The Commons and other sister projects have a long standing history of different uses for the same mnemonic strings. I spent six months or so back in 2008-09 (Hmmmm {{interwikitmpgrp}} doesn't even show up as a deleted page anymore!) along with a couple of others trying to rationalize and equate templates across nine sisterprojects. When a name was in conflict, we suggested merging the purposes or added redirects, and that template cross-linked templates namespace to namespace if there was a name difference in function to allow people from one project to use the equivalent tool in the other, after all, we all know when a template DOESN'T show what we expect...
unless we're the commons and the template is used in a WIZARD thus hiding the PROOF STEP in an edit preview. (Show me an editor that doesn't edit preview, and I'll show you a sucky editor that shouldn't be editing!)
NONE of the efforts we made to crosslink were much appreciated. Half the time we fought the local powers that be (Scarily, here that's people such as yourself! <g>) and eventually abandoned the Wikiproject (?Wikiproject:Template Sharing??? See I've repressed the whole unpleasant experience. Not sure!) entirely.
SO COMMONS crowd, simple, apply one BOT run to eliminate the name of the template 'misused from here' causing you problems', and subst a newer less conflicting name with more length. CPYVIO has 1/(26E03) less likelihood of being confused with three more letters, 1/(36E03)ths if you allow digits in names. IN SUM... Create a redlink for the 'name in conflict' template (commons:template:COP), or conform to the more common practice that sometimes spills over into your project and causes you aggravations. (Most editors can see the difference between 'COP' and 'Cop' after all, and the preview will provide a clue to others that can't. Do we need to plan to wipe their hienny when they do doo-doo in this nanny-state you want to create?)
The FIX you need is a redlink or a common use, Not to change the practices and uses here. (Some of you 'there' have recommended similar advice to me, follow it! If you can't gin up support locally for a BOT to make the changes, then why are you here asking for time from us?) In the process of running a BOT, you can likely subst quite a few template calls into less resource intensive (expanded templates) formats. Best regards, but leave the toolbox alone! It's not our problem if you can't keep three letters straight! // FrankB 16:15, 1 March 2014 (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) 04:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question. The User:Fabartus contribution above is a blockquote. Is there a reason or a meaning in that? Am I supposed to read & understand it differently? -DePiep (talk) 22:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC) [reply]
@DePiep: I just copied the entry "as is", so the blockquote must have existed on its previous listing. In fact, I went ahead and removed it as it seemed to distract itself from the rest of this discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 23:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, good cleaning. The format of blockquotes is getting bigger every week it seems. -DePiep (talk) 23:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Redirects are cheap. --Jax 0677 (talk) 06:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Redirects are not only cheap but this is a redirect from and to template namespace. That would tend to indicate to me that anyone using it is an editor rather than a general reader and they are hardly likely to get it confused with cop. There are lots of little abbreviated things pulled up over the years such as {{tlc}} or {{tlx}} or whatever as useful shorthand for editors. Jax quite rightly listed the previous discussion and by the same token {{hat}} and {{hob}} might be in a sense illogical but used as shorthand and nobody is going to confuse them with hat or hob because to do so requires insider knowledge of how the Wikimedia software works and requires someone to become an editor, and most users of Wikipedia are readers not editors. If there were confusion, II should say otherwise, but there is no confusion. I only found {{duck}} the other day while searching for something else, and where should that go? it can't go to Mallard or whatever, so stet. Si Trew (talk) 16:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The nom pointed out that Template:COP is not the same as Template:cop. That is the source of confusion. And one of these is a tag for speedy -- not the confusion we want. A redirect shortcut becomes less helpful (into unhelpful) if one must remember whether it was uc or lc. Like, when you have to write down the exceptions to those easy to memorise things. -DePiep (talk) 22:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. I myself have endless trouble with {{lang-fr}} versus {{lang|fr}} etc and never remembering which is which. Si Trew (talk) 13:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would take this concern more seriously were in not imposed by an editor who wants this template deleted in the first place. COP and cop were created on the same day with the same target. After Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars was unsuccessful in deleting the former, they unilaterally retargeted both. The creator reverted one of those retargetings. I don't want to suggest there aren't legitimate reasons to delete this redirect. Confusion with Commons is one, though it's one that I don't think carries sufficient weight. Inconsistency with the all-caps version, however, is not a good reason. --BDD (talk) 17:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You should get your facts straight. I didn't retarget both COP and cop. As mentioned above, Frietjes retargeted COP last October. I only came across this a month ago (my initial nomination was a year ago), and decided to retarget {{cop}} at that time to match because the new target made so much more sense. I surely didn't retarget anything because I didn't like the outcome of the first TfD. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me, you're right. I stand by the parts of my statement I haven't struck. --BDD (talk) 18:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) BDD Who do you refer to? And by which quote? Who is "imposing" a concern (and how does one do so)? -DePiep (talk) 18:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I mean the problem of inconsistency that you're referring to does not reflect the intent behind this redirect or its all-caps variant, both of which pointed to the same place at their creation. The fact that another editor has changed one of them is a good reason to restore that consistency, but not to delete, IMO. --BDD (talk) 18:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did not propose deletion. -DePiep (talk) 06:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You referred to the redirect causing confusion, in a manner similar to delete voters. If you don't want to see it deleted, you should clarify that position for the sake of the closer. --BDD (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am free to add arguments as I like. No need for you to glue your reasoning or associations to that. Also no obligation to !vote, because as you know arguments count, not !votes. And since you appear to have addressed me oblique, above (I asked to explain), next time please be more direct. -DePiep (talk) 08:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or retarget to the same target as {{COP}}. Too much potential for confusion. Nyttend (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, this presumes without justification that {{COP}} should not be retargeted here. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 04:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Correctly so. {{COP}} is not nominated here. -DePiep (talk) 10:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Nominating {{COP}} has been proposed in this discussion, therefore, it can easily be arranged (I believe, however, that it is easier to discuss in ONE section). Nominating {{cop}} when nothing has changed since the previous TFD equates IMO to an abuse of process. On a side note, TFD and RFD are backlogged with items from February, and should be attended to promptly. --Jax 0677 (talk) 05:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer I closed a deletion discussion for the similarly-named Template:CoP as no consensus. If you find consensus to delete this redirect, I leave it to you to decide whether that one should be deleted as well. --BDD (talk) 18:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • This discussion's closure should not impact the closure of any other discussion - if this is deleted (and I stand by my earlier comment giving reasons against this) then someone should be free to renominate it, but it should not be automatically deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 10:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_March_10&oldid=1090659083"