Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 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, 2015.

Fault(geology)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 December 20#Fault(geology)

Portal:Current events/2006 August[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget. --BDD (talk) 04:14, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Portal:Current events/August 2006 and Portal:Current events/September 2006 now exist, so the redirects should be retargeted. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:19, 12 December 2015 (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.

Brown Sequard[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 15:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Brown Sequard → Charles-Édouard Brown-Séquard  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  2. Brown Séquard → Charles-Édouard Brown-Séquard  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  3. Sequard → Charles-Édouard Brown-Séquard  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  4. Séquard → Charles-Édouard Brown-Séquard  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  5. Charles Edouard Brown Sequard → Charles-Édouard Brown-Séquard  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  6. Charles-Edouard Brown Sequard → Charles-Édouard Brown-Séquard  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  7. Charles Édouard Brown Séquard → Charles-Édouard Brown-Séquard  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  8. Charles-Édouard Brown Séquard → Charles-Édouard Brown-Séquard  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  9. Brown-Séquard → Charles-Édouard Brown-Séquard  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete using detailed rational at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_23#Alfred_Candidus_Ferdinand_Windischgratz Legacypac (talk) 05:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep {{R without diacritics}}/{{R from alternate punctuation}} "Charles Edouard Brown Sequard" variants with and without dashes and with and without accents should exist for all accented and hyphened topics. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 14:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think that's necessary now. The search engine seems insensitive to treat letters with diacritical marks except where two titles are distinguished by them (e.g. try searching for "malgré" and "malgre", same results) and hyphens as spaces (e.g. try searching for "boot-scrape" and "boot scrape"), but "bootscrape" gives different results). I looked a few days ago when I was translating a French article, but I couldn't find anything in WP:MOS to say do, or do not, create these alternatives: I no longer do. Si Trew (talk) 02:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Retarget the "Brown Sequard" variants to Brown-Séquard syndrome -- with all the variant accents and hyphenation. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 14:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. A clear case where the search engine works fine enough (which is not always the case). Searching for "Brown Sequard" gives "Charles-Édouard Brown-Séquard" and "Brown-Séquard syndrome" has the first two articles on the list (I get a template between them). The redirects work *against* helping to search, because then the next 7 'article' links are actualy this redirects. It is even worse on the live help on the search box, because it only shows a few pages, they are all reaaly the same two. So the redirects are hiding away some possible *partial matches* the reader was looking for without any real help in finding the main articles, that is, they are doing exactly the opposite of what redirects are supposed to do. - Nabla (talk) 21:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a WP:TWODAB situation, where we use redirects. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, that's a "we don't need them all variations" situation. Nothing relating to disambiguation. - Nabla (talk) 22:59, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 17:03, 12 December 2015 (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.

Islamic Arab[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.(non-admin closure) sst✈(discuss) 05:06, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFD#D2 confusing, could just as well go to Arab Islamic Republic as {{R from adjective}} per WP:XY. See #Arab Islam, below. Si Trew (talk) 21:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete part of a LONG list of redirects Neelix used to build links to his article. Legacypac (talk) 06:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And that's not, in itself, a legitimate deletion rationale. -- Tavix (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
maybe, but he created redirects using thousands of made up words and short phrases with no actual justification, so not much justification is needed to delete his nonsense. ANi vote was these can be deleted on sight if an Admin thinks they will fail RfD. Therefore I'm noting the creator so Admins can apply sppedy G6 if desired. Legacypac (talk) 01:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not much justification, yes, but all you said in your rationale was "Delete because Neelix created it" which is zero justification of the redirect itself. -- Tavix (talk) 23:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 16:16, 12 December 2015 (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.

Amphibium[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. Since no one wants this kept as is, though, I'm retargeting to Amphibian. --BDD (talk) 04:12, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt this is useful as a misspelling redirect - Current target doesn't make sense, and previous target was an unhelpful link to wiktionary. Seems like deletion is the best option Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete redirects from species epithets to one particular species bring up ambiguity issues. Readers are better served by no redirects and search results. Plantdrew (talk) 05:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question/Comment. @Plantdrew: Amphibia redirects to Amphibian. I wonder if this could also redirect there as a sorta {{R from singular}}; whether the species name has "amphibia" or "amphibium" seems to depend on the grammatical number agreement (e.g. Polygonum amphibium) but I am no expert in Linnean naming. My gsearch doesn't find any results where "amphibium" is used as a misspelling of "amphibian" (most results are dictionary definitions, some being Wiktionary mirrors). It would seem to me we should either target both to amphibian or delete both. Si Trew (talk) 05:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not an expert in Greek grammar, though I have some familiarity with use of Greek/Latin in Linnean names. There's a grammatical gender issue as well as a grammatical number issue here. In the context of species names, amphibia (disambiguation)/amphibius/amphibium are adjectives with an ending that agrees with the grammatical gender of a genus (amphibium is the neuter gender form). In another context, amphibia is plural noun that is the scientific name of the class of organisms commonly known as amphibians, with amphibium as the singular form of that noun.
      As the scientific name/noun form, we should keep Amphibia (it has several thousand incoming links). The adjective form that was at amphibia (disambiguation) was deleted today. Redirecting amphibium to amphibian with {{R from singular}} is a viable option. I'm not sure that it is a likely search term that will be useful to our readers, so I still am leaning towards deleting.
      My main concern is not having common species epithets arbitrarily redirecting to one of the (potentially) dozens of species that share the epithet. That's the worst outcome for readers. Redirect to arbitrary species < redirect to wiktionary < disambiguation page. But Oiyarbepsy and other disambiguation editors don't like the dab pages. Fair enough, I'm not a big fan of the dab pages either. Let's delete the lot. I'll nominate epithet redirects for deletion as I come across them (barring some exceptional cases, such as japonica actually being a common name for Chaenomeles japonica and perhaps amphibium as a singular form of the scientific name Amphibia). Plantdrew (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, and to follow up on the nominator's comment that the current target doesn't make sense, Persicaria amphibia was previously classified as Polygonum amphibium (which redirects to the current title). Note that the ending of the genus matches the ending of the species (although not all genera so clearly indicate their grammatical gender). It makes perfect sense to anybody familiar with scientific nomenclature who is inclined to think that creating redirects from species epithets to species articles is a good idea (but it's not a good idea). Plantdrew (talk) 16:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • No Greek required, all Latin :P. I agree we shouldn't direct to one particular species; my only remark was delete both or none. It wasn't the nominator but me who gave the example of P. amphibium. Si Trew (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, Neo-Latin. The etymology is firmly Greek. Gender agreeement is certainly Latinate, but I'd look to how English deals with Greek words for plural versus singular constructions. Plantdrew (talk) 17:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • English-speaking people are hopeless at Greek plurals, which is how I end up crying at things like phenomenons and schemas (schemata, please) and Tombolas (okay, I made that last one up).
          I guess it comes under WP:COMMONNAME but we quite often reverse the R's between the Linnean name and the English name; probably plants more often, with that rather odd English tendency of the mid-twentieth century to prefer the Latin name as a common name so that the wonderful name of snapdragon goes to Antirrhinum rather than the other way around (as I think Orwell notes somewhere). It's understandable from a scientific point of view, and DABs are sometimes the right thing to do for common names in both the animal and plant kingdoms (and perhaps fungi) because different species go by the same common name in different places (the robin being a good example maybe); but we can cut most of their throats with Occam's razor; and often I think it would help the hapless reader's search were we to do so. Si Trew (talk) 18:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • REtarget WP:CHEAP to Amphibian per amphibia redirect -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it. Deletion is a better option than a cheap retarget because of search results that can catch the WP:PTM's. -- Tavix (talk) 16:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:05, 12 December 2015 (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.

Polakis[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Pavlos Polakis. (non-admin closure) sst✈(discuss) 15:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This should be either retargeted to Pavlos Polakis or turned into a dab page. The Traditionalist (talk) 10:49, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Pavlos Polakis, and probably a hatnote from there to the minor planet list, as the politician is surely more important than the minor planet. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:01, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Pavlos Polakis per ἀνυπόδητος --Lenticel (talk) 00:13, 13 December 2015 (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.

Heather Simmons[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 closure) sst✈(discuss) 15:58, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the name of a non-notable pageant winner. Not the name of the swimmer it seems. Redlink it? Legacypac (talk) 10:18, 12 December 2015 (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.

Margaret Palermo[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) 04:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was a result of an AfD of a self-created autobiographical article that was closed as redirect even though the majority (3 out of 5) of the !votes were "Delete". The subject is not mentioned in the target article and has zero notability. Softlavender (talk) 06:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment why isn't the mother of the target not mentioned in the article? (assuming that the info prior to blanking about being her mother is accurate) Frequently biographical infoboxes would list the parents. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:48, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep WP:MAD/WP:CWW the material was merged into the target. The edit history will need to be kept. I find the deletion of the target article's biographical infobox a poor decision, instead of removing the objectionable material from the infobox. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, given that we have an apparent sockpuppet situation on hand, I have removed my "delete" comment. It would be helpful for the article history to be retained for an SPI investigation. Softlavender (talk) 07:33, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the redirect isn't helpful because she isn't mentioned there and there isn't any information from the previous article that is still at Venus' article. Since the AFD happened in May, I would hope any subsequent SPI investigations have been resolved. Even if there's one that takes place in the future, all it would take is an admin to look into it. -- Tavix (talk) 22:24, 18 December 2015 (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:Covert[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) 15:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:RFD#D2 confusing and WP:REDLINK "covert" is nowhere near a synonym of "convert". I've marked it as {{R from typo}}, but there were only twenty transclusions so it made more sense just to fix them to use {{convert}} directly (as the doc at {{R from typo}} recommends).

This redirect was relatively recently created (9 September 2015) by User:Rich Farmbrough). I guess before its creation its transclusions were red, but there were only twenty, so I fixed them (I presume the instructions at {{R from typo}} trump WP:NOTBROKEN). About half of them were injected after the creation of this redirect. The only few uses left, outside this discussion, are in talk space for a GA review; I don't want to rewrite history by changing them.

I've not used {{rfd-t}} on the redirect, because it is not transcluded anywhere. See also Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_November_26#Template:J raised by User:Jimp, where redirects to templates are also currently being discussed. Si Trew (talk) 07:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per the above. It's unnecessary and confusing. Jimp 12:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the level of usage showed that it was making pages work which otherwise would be broken. It doesn't confuse anyone who wouldn't be more confused if it didn't exist. Absolutely it is fine to replace these occurrences, and it should be a General Fix for AWB - I will see that it is added. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    • It was making about ten pages work which would otherwise be broken. That's in the context of {{convert}} being used in "745,000+ pages". {{R from typo}}s (and {{R from misspelling}}s and so on) are intended to aid a reader's search, not as a sticking plaster for copy editing mistakes: the way to fix those is to fix those. That's easier done when they are red (I'm surprised at the ten or so that were around before creation of this redirect.) Si Trew (talk) 23:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also I can't see the point of the AWB fix. if we're going to replace the redirect with the target, we might as well delete the redirect and have it as a redlink: it's then easy to spot the typo. Si Trew (talk) 07:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete with R2 criterion. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:39, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plausible typo. Happy holidays! Paine  20:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • No doubt, but {{R from typo}} says "This redirect is made available to aid searches", and who is going to search for "Template:Covert"? (Not many, judging by the stats.) Who says that, if they do, they're not looking for {{hidden}} or {{secret}}?
      Unlike redirects to articles, the fact that it's a transclusion via a redirect is entirely invisible when previewing the page. Were it red, the typo would be more evident. {{R from typo}} is not marked as being confined to use in reader-facing space, though: perhaps it should be.
      In short, we shouldn't do redirects from typos in template namespace. Si Trew (talk) 00:10, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Still no reason to delete, Si. Honestly, if I were to come across this one (pre-RfD) I would likely retarget it to one of the more appropriate templates, probably {{Hidden}}.  Paine  18:58, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • And in doing so you would have broken the ten-ish links that meant {{convert}}; or you would have fixed those beforehand, making it unnecessary to link where it does, with none to where it might have gone; WP:CRYSTAL. Q.E.D. it is WP:RFD#D2 confusing, and WP:XY is a common outcome for such things. Si Trew (talk) 07:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the typo makes a "real" word, that has a definition unrelated to the function of this template, making this unreasonable.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 00:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete covert is something else entirely, and we have many espionage topics for which one might thing such a template is for -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:10, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Extremely implausible typo in context . It might be justified if it were a redirect to article space, but people for templates can be assumed to have some degree of wiki-competence. DGG ( talk ) 09:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • And editors of articles also; we wouldn't tolerate misspellings in an article's running text, so we should not tolerate it in transclusions. Redirects from typos/misspellings are kept to aid a search, not to save editors from correcting their spelling. Si Trew (talk) 07:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • There were twenty transclusions! How can you possibly say that it's implausible? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
      • Around half of which were created after the redirect was created, so can be discounted; the rest stem from archive copies of one GA debate where a GA reviewer typo'd. So the count of actual originally typed and uncorrected instances of this typo is one. But let us be generous and say twenty: against 745,000+ uses of {{convert}} it is still statistically insignificant, i.e., implausible. Si Trew (talk) 07:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 01:21, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as extremely misleading. Softlavender (talk) 06:10, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with others here, and why relisted? Legacypac (talk) 11:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deprecate/delete - we're dealing with the underlying code of the site with these templates, we should strive for correctness. Template names should be descriptive of the function of the redirect, and we should correct typos in code, not make these band-aid patches. Never mind the fact that "covert" and "convert" have very different meanings. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:51, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clear evidence that this is a plausible typo. It can be overwritten if someone ever does have a template about "covert" something but in the meantime, it does no harm and does some good. Rossami (talk) 02:39, 15 December 2015 (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:J[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 deprecate, and eventually delete. This redirect has clearly proven useful to some, but there's consensus that its opaque, ambiguous name makes it problematic. --BDD (talk) 15:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The intended purpose of this redirect was to provide a shorthand for {{nowrap|...}}. Yes, {{j|...}} is shorter but it makes the markup so much more obscure. The megre gain in brevity is not worth the loss of clarity. {{J}} has been around for about five years and hasn't caught on, gaining just over a thousand transclusions as compared to over 400 thousand transclusions for {{nowrap}}. I suggest {{j}} be replaced by {{nowrap}} and then deleted. Jimp 01:52, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete poor name for a redirect. salt to prevent use of such an ambiguous and poor name -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 04:49, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, against my own preference, I have to say it should beKeep per WP:RFD#K4, WP:RFD#RHARMFUL, but that would be pure WP:BURO. User:Jimp's nomination puts the cart before the horse; the transclusions need to be retargeted first. RFD#K4 says "You risk breaking incoming or internal links by deleting the redirect", and by Jimp's own nomination this is not merely a risk but a certainty. Even were it done it would be RHARMFUL, because "it is quite possible that its deletion will break links in old, historical versions of some other articles—such an event is very difficult to envision and even detect.".
Jimp rightly started a conversation at Template talk:J#deprecate and delete, and perhaps the discussion would be better continued there to get consensus: I realise part of the reason for listing here at RfD is to give it a wider audience, but nothing in the RfD guidance really says it need come here (WP:RFD#The guiding principles of RfD point 4 deals exclusively with retargets.) That's probably a deficiency in the RfD guidance, though, and I don't want to get all WP:BURO.
Perhaps it would be better to replace the R with a {{deprecated template}}. But even if deleted, I don't think salting is necessary or desirable; we don't tend to do that pre-emptively. The template has already been fully-protected since July 2011 (here) as in the class of Wikipedia:high-risk templates with no evidence of prior vandalism. Si Trew (talk) 07:52, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Definitely deprecate and then replace it first as was suggested on the talk page. I brought it here on the suggestion of another user, though, I didn't see it as really necessary. Old pages get broken all the time, I can't see the advantage in keeping a whole bunch of rubbish to maintain historical versions; in some cases it may be worth keeping a redirect but here I'd say the clean up outweighs the cost. I mean, take this rationale to its extreme and barely anything will get deleted leaving us with a myriad of poorly named, poorly maintained and poorly written templates for users to wade through. Jimp 12:20, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, taken literally together with "ït may break external links" it means we can never change anything; the only way to solve that would be to specify version numbers on links, which would have its own disadvantages! (If applied more widely it would also mean we could never delete a page, for example, or move it without leaving a redirect.) I agree with the maintenance headache that then ensues; in fact I think template redirects should generally be discouraged. We have been taught sicne the year dot that in computer programming we should use meaningful names (and templates are a form of computer programming). I've scrubbed my !vote above. Si Trew (talk) 05:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I had to go to the docs to learn that this is "j" as in "join". Coincidentally, Template:Join is also a bad choice for this template. Yes, the existing transclusions should be corrected before this is deleted, but it definitely should be deleted, it's much too ambiguous. I expected it to be someone sending Wikipedia an email with a smiley face but writing it with Microsoft Outlook, which among its many meaningless eccentricities is that it turns smileys into a graphic which is equivalent to the letter j in every other mail client. So you get emails from your girlfriend that are all like "i had a great time last night! j" and then you write back "what is j?" and then she gets all mad because you make stupid jokes but you're not joking, you want to know what j is, so then you get in a big fight and break up, and it's Microsoft's fault. ... Uh, anyway, delete. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so now Template:Join doesn't exist either? I read the docs wrong, you say? {{join}} was never created, there's just a note in the docs that j stands for "join". Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
May I point out that there are a whole bunch of shortcuts out there that may seem "too ambiguous" to some editors. Ambiguity doesn't matter to editors who use this template and others like it, because what matters where shortcuts are concerned is brevity (save those keystrokes)!  Paine  17:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ambiguity isn't the problem with this shortcut. -- Tavix (talk) 18:30, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps some those other shortcuts are also problematic. Other ones exist so we should keep this one is a pretty weak argument. Saving keystrokes at the expense of clarity is hardly a good thing. It's not all about those who use this shortcut; we've got to consider editors who come after and have to deal with the incomprehensible state that the mark up was left in. Jimp 03:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deprecate it. I agree that it's ambiguous and confusing, especially since "join" doesn't even make sense (I would think of "join" as concatenation). Someone is going to have to replace the transclusions though, and unless there's a volunteer I don't see this redirect being deleted anytime soon. Maybe it could be G6'd after the transclusions are replaced, a la TFD's practices. -- Tavix (talk) 16:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't there a bot that does it? (I don't run with the CfD crowd, I don't know) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:52, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. If a bot takes care of the transclusions before this RFD is over, consider my !vote one for deletion. -- Tavix (talk) 17:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
me too. Si Trew (talk) 05:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A bot could do it but with only about eleven hundred pages it would be an easy enough job with AWB. Jimp 09:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't mind how it's done (I've just manually edited about five hundred redirects to categorize them, but I have never got the hang of these new fangled tool things). Si Trew (talk) 06:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Concatenation" is precisely what "join" is – a "primitive notion" that relies on "intuition", which isn't always interpreted the same way by different editors. That should be okay for a useful template-shortcut redirect like this that is transcluded more than a thousand times by different editors. Useful redirects should not be deleted.  Paine  19:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know, but this isn't a concatenation template. -- Tavix (talk) 19:45, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is! It concatenates/joins two words together so there will be no line break between them, only a non-breaking space. This shortcut is well on its way to becoming a high-use template, which means it's already a medium-use template and becoming more and more useful day by day.  Paine  22:15, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's used more than a thousand times, sure, 1108 pages. This is actually a pretty small number really. Is it used by several editors? I doubt it. It'd be a small handful at best but I wouldn't be surprised at all if each transclusion was the work of a single user. Jimp 23:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your speculations about how many users trumps K5 and the fact that high-use templates are defined as 2,000 to 100,000 transclusions? 1,100+ transclusions places Template:J more than half-way there. If that does not prove this shortcut's usefulness, then what else will?  Paine  02:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind the purpose of this definition of "high-use template". The intention was to determine when to put up a specific warning about how to go about editing the template. A far better measure of the volume of use in this context would be to compare it to the over 400 thousand pages {{nowrap}} is transcribed onto. From this perspective, we're looking at less than 0.3% of the transclusions of {{nowrap}} going through {{j}}. This cannot be described as anything but exceedingly low use. Jimp 03:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please Keep! This is an excellent template shortcut redirect that stands for "join", as explained in the page history. It is well used, it saves five key strokes ("j" vs. "nowrap") and it conforms with the standard of so many other shortcuts and template shortcuts: extreme brevity for ease of quick typing and getting on with the task! {{-r}} better not be next! All these types of shortcuts are used all the time by many editors. I cannot believe you all want to delete this!  Paine  17:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but "join" makes no sense with this template, and "j" even less so. If the only thing that matters to you is brevity, then may I suggest creating a shortcut that actually makes sense? I noticed that {{nw}} is available, create that and start using it. -- Tavix (talk) 18:30, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please rethink this, Tavix, because "j" for "join" makes every bit as much sense now as it did to the editor who created it. Be prosperous! Paine  18:45, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't. In my mind, a template with "join" would mean to concatenate something, which isn't happening here. I really don't see what the issue is. I'd much rather promote a shortcut that makes sense, like {{nw}} than this. This is a collaborative project, so we need hold clarity above brevity, and I've offered a compromise that I believe accomplishes both. -- Tavix (talk) 19:31, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever, because such a point is moot when we consider that editors are completely ignoring WP:RFD#K5 as proven by its transclusion count. This is a useful template to those who use it – those who care nothing about clarity when they're busy trying to finish and move on to other edits. Those in this collaborative project who want to work with templates like this can either use the template directly or use the shortcut. This template shortcut is stipulated as a shortcut on the /doc page and other editors may use it or ignore it as it suits them. That option should not be removed at leisure.  Paine  21:59, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, indeed, consider "those who care nothing about clarity" when their busy trying to go and stuff other pages up. Such editors should slow down and take the time to edit in such a way as others can understand what they've done. Saving a few keystrokes and leaving a mess is hardly what we should be encouraging. Jimp 23:46, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What mess? Editors are not stupid, Jimp. If they can save over 80% of their keystrokes, then that is what matters to editors who use this template. No muss, no fuss, just sane and good editing practice.  Paine  03:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Editors are not stupid", well, that would be debatable but it's not a debate worth having since this has nothing to do with stupidity but clarity and simplicity. Where are you getting this 80% figure from? We're only talking a few keystrokes here and there. Using obscure and illogical mark up is anything but sane and good editing practice. Jimp 03:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My bad! I just noticed your question (apparently drowning in this sea of useful-shortcut malplaced hatred). When an editor chooses to apply a shortcut like this instead of the target, there is a saving of keystrokes. In this case it is one letter, "j", vs. six letters, "nowrap", a savings of 5 over 6 strokes or about 83%. Eleven hundred translusions just means that more than 900 keystrokes were eliminated by use of this shortcut. Over time, that's a lot of unstroked keys! and that's just one shortcut of many hundreds of thousands of others just like it. Happy holidays! Paine  18:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, the percentage goes down when you consider all the rest that the editor will be typing. In fact it becomes quite negligible. Jimp 02:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Jimp, but that sounds like the same ill-conceived logic you used to begin this nomination. Please focus – it's the only way. Happy holidays! Paine  04:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deprecate and subsequently Delete per Tavix. This abbreviation is not generally associated with nowrap text formatting, it is either uncommon or the creation of a contributor. {{nw}} (suggested above) is would serve as a proper abbreviation and make more sense. {{-r}} (mentioned above) = "negative redirect" or "minus redirect" is correct, whereas {{j}} = "join" is technically incorrect.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 00:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There has been no firm justification here from the RfD page except the one that gives us a firm reason to keep this redirect: WP:RFD#K5 – Nothing else said here trumps the fact that this is not a "no-use" nor even a "low-use" template shortcut. It is transcluded more than a thousand times, so it is more than halfway there to being a "2000+" high-use template. I'll say it again, I cannot believe that editors are staring K5 in the face and then turning their backs on it. You want a mess, Jimp? That's your mess: to completely ignore the usefulness instructions on the main RfD page. Unreal.  Paine  02:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Paine Ellsworth: I can see plausible WP:RFD#D2, WP:RFD#D5, and WP:RFD#D8 rationales for deleting this, the spirit of which is asserted above in certain points to certain extents. That aside: "A redirect is a page that has no content itself but sends the reader to another page, usually an article or section of an article." the first sentence from Wikipedia:Redirect; WP:R (WP:R#KEEP etc.) is mainly written with the article namespace in mind, it is a bit different when it comes to the pages in other namespaces ("behind the curtain" if you will), that don't aid readers in navigation. Best Regards,—Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Much of this trouble is due to the listing of such things here rather than at TFD. This is really more of a TFD issue than a RFD one. I only put it here because this is where it officially belongs. Personally I'd change this rule and have redirects to templates discussed at TFD rather than RFD. Anyhow, you'd probably be wondering what my point is by now ... or maybe you'll have guessed. RFD#K5 says the following.

Someone finds them useful. You might not find it useful, but this may be because you browse Wikipedia in different ways.

This is clearly referring to such things as redirects to articles, portals, help pages, etc. There is no browsing involved when a template or module is redirected to another. So, I cannot accept the accusation that I'm ignoring the usefulness of instructions since this one obviously does not apply in the context of redirects within the template space. Moreover, as mentioned above, taking RFD#K5 to its logical conclusion would mean that just about nothing gets deleted so why have an RFD at all? Jimp 02:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) See below... K5 applies to all namespaces until it says it doesn't. Be prosperous! Paine  02:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read D2, D5 and D8 again – they all pretty much refer mainly to mainspace redirects. There is nothing at K5 to tell us that it is for mainspace redirects only nor mainly. In fact, K5 applies across all namespaces and rather than being an aid to navigation, it is a template shortcut, which is mainly used to aid editors and reduce their workload by requiring fewer keystrokes to get the job done. It is K5, and it trumps all. Be prosperous! Paine  02:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You can't expect everything to be spelt out explicitly. On reading K5 it is clear that it is referring to browsing whereas this is a mark up issue. As Godsy and I have pointed out, K5 cannot be considered to apply to the template namespace. Pointing out that D2, D5 and D8 seem to apply to redirects to articles only adds strength to the point that RFD as a forum is a poor place to discuss redirects within the template space. I don't agree that the megre reduction in workload for the small fanbase of this redirect is a valid argument given the fact that it actually increases the workload for subsequent editors who have to deal with confusing and illogical mark up. Jimp 03:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment... really it's a case of WP:ASTONISH. Although that talks of "readers" and "articles", I think it reasonable to transpose it to talk of "template users" and "templates": more people usually transclude a template than edit it. It is better, I think, to use only one name (or an obvious synonym for it, such as Template:no wrap) rather than have cryptic abbreviations such as this, saving an amazing five key strokes, about the same number as is required to sign a post.
That being said, an example picked purely at random (ahem), {{convert}} has redirects Template:con (and that's not a concatenation, either) and Template:Covert (what's so secret?) and those perhaps are equally as astonishing. Si Trew (talk) 06:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I've listed the redirect Template:Covert here. Si Trew (talk) 08:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Ya'll can work your tails off until you're 103 and you won't get rid of all the shortcuts that are useful to editors like this one is. "Covert" is probably just a typo and shouldn't be deleted for that reason. Your argument for clarity in the code is justifiable, and yet still a feather in the windy gales of shortcutdom. They are called shortcuts for a reason, and they will always be useful to somebody. And your interpretations of K5 are arbitrary at best and disruptive at the worst. K5 applies across all namespaces, and especially in namespaces like templatespace where "usefulness" becomes very important. Happy holidays! Paine  20:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Shortcuts are called that for a reason. It is truly pissing in the wind to go after all the wonderful and useful shortcuts on Wikipedia. The sad truth is that there are thousands of redirects out there that really need to be deleted, and people are picking out useful shortcuts and wasting everybody's time at RfD. If an editor likes and uses a shortcut, and it's deleted, they'll just make another one that's perhaps even more cryptic. Go after the giants, please, and leave the little imps and elves alone. PS left by  Paine  20:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Paine Ellsworth: With that interpretation and description of K5 as presented above (which seems to ignore all other reasonings): WP:RFD might as well be nominated for deletion, and the criteria for speedy deletion in the redirect namespace (i.e. R2 and R3) should be deprecated, as every redirect created in good faith would meet the bar of someone finding it useful. That extreme statement to illustrate a point aside: due to jovial collaboration in the past, I've contemplated your opinion more than normal, but I still fundamentally disagree on the matter. Best Regards,—Godsy(TALKCONT) 06:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And I love that you disagree with me, Godsy, I do. Usefulness is really just one of many criteria, as you know. The point here is that regardless of what other editors may think, there is no (quick) way of knowing how many users are involved in this template's 1,100+ transclusions. If there are several, and their useful shortcut is deleted, then deleters will have caused the creation of several new shortcuts those editors will make to the same target where now there are fewer shortcuts. Most shortcuts are cryptic and are not designed to help future editors easily read markup. You can't expect everything to be spelt out explicitly. — Jimp (the nom.) That has been true from the beginning, which just means that there are a huge number of them out there, and the deletion of a useful shortcut will merely generate more cryptic shortcuts, especially when the deleted shortcut is used by more than one editor. I've had this discussion before about other similar useful shortcuts, so I know I'm just spittin' into the wind here. However, it is my humble opinion that if editors want to delete useful shortcuts, they're just spittin' into the wind like I am. Good thing Superman isn't around because ya'll would be tuggin' on his freakin' cape, too. Well, I'm gonna go pull some masks off some old lone rangers, so ya'll mess around with whatever you want. Happy holidays! Paine  07:09, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Paine Ellsworth: I approve of those Jim Croce references . "there is no (quick) way of knowing how many users are involved in this template's 1,100+ transclusions" [now amended] technically we could answer that question by delving into the page histories, but alas, there are many more productive things to do with the amount of time that would take.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, bottom line is that there's no telling how many new redirects may be made to replace this one if it's deleted. It's a good thing redirects are cheap, isn't it.  Paine  18:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 01:21, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "I can't be bothered to type five more keystrokes, I just want to type one so I'll create a template name with just one letter" is poor, lazy, obscure, and insufficient rationale. Softlavender (talk) 14:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I read the rationale on the talk page, and it makes sense. "Join" has a different meaning than "Nowrap". Deleting Template:J also frees this one-letter template for a possible reincarnation in more useful shortcut. Senator2029 “Talk” 04:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Senator2029: I'm open to the idea of finding a better candidate for this shortcut. RfD is the correct forum to discuss them. Deryck C. 23:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a template shortcut, a programming convenience. Because it isn't a reader-facing item, there's no harm in leaving it there so people can save keystrokes. Single-letter shortcuts are by implication not obvious, and that's fine. When one sees a template shortcut that one doesn't know, the right thing to do is to read the documentation, not to request deletion. {{J}} is no more or less unhelpful than {{!}} - the latter is much more widely used and less obvious. Deryck C. 23:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even if it is successfully deprecated, it will still live extensively in the project history. Keeping artifacts like this make future maintenance easier, especially if/when pages that we think are fully 'repaired' get reverted to a prior state in the process of cleaning up other, worse problems. None of the arguments to delete are compelling. Rossami (talk) 02:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find consensus to delete here, but I'm not willing to close without fixing at least the lion's share of the 1000+ transclusions. I suspect I'm not the only one who has faced this Little Red Hen situation. --BDD (talk) 04:17, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@BDD: Could you close it as deprecate? That'd probably be the best solution to the problem until/unless someone fixes the transclusions. -- Tavix (talk) 04:39, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@BDD: You could put it in the TfD holding cell with an explanation that its transclusions need to be replaced. Over there we generally close the discussion and then do the cleanup, though. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:54, 20 December 2015 (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.

Henrich Pette Institute[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 closure) -- Tavix (talk) 22:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Redirect is a misspelled lemma, only 1 link links to the Redirect. Compare also the history of the target article. marilyn.hanson (talk) 14:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess by the history you mean this move of 6 February 2008 by User:Tikiwont. Whatever linked there, doesn't when I just checked: no links outside this discussion. Stats average about 2 every 3 days (over 90 days). Si Trew (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:RFD#K4: "redirects resulting from page moves should not normally be deleted without good reason. Links that have existed for a significant length of time [...] should be left alone". I've marked is as {{R from move}} and {{R from misspelling}}. Si Trew (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 01:19, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No need to spread error. Legacypac (talk) 11:27, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Si. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:42, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article lived at this title for a year. Redirects from typos are not only not wrong, they are encouraged. This meets none of the criteria for deletion of a redirect. Rossami (talk) 02:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as plausible misspelling --Lenticel (talk) 06:35, 16 December 2015 (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.

The force awakened[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, delete, and delete, respectively. --BDD (talk) 04:05, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there is no chance anyone would spell the title those ways if they are looking for article on the latest Star Wars movie. I mean I never call The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, "the king returns", so these seems like just a pointless redirects. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for all of the same reasonings as Blaze The Movie Fan Officialjjones (talk) 00:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep unlike "the king returns" where there is a multitude of subjects pertaining to returning kings (such as Kahlessi from Game of Thrones, the wait for Arthur, etc ad infinitum), there isn't so for the wakefulness of "force" -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 04:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Sleeping policeman as {{R from antonym}}.Nah, not really. Si Trew (talk) 18:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 01:16, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we don't need such mistakes. Legacypac (talk) 11:26, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The force awakened given the aforementioned similarity between "awakened" and "awakens"... but I'd delete the other ones as more of a stretch and not that helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:49, 15 December 2015 (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.

Harry potter magic spell challenge[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) 17:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable game that isn't mentioned at the target. -- Tavix (talk) 05:16, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete it seems to be a non-notable part of the Pottermore website. Basically a short quiz about HP lore. --Lenticel (talk) 10:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is actually a handheld memory game that was crated by Tiger Electronics. There is not much in sourcing outside of product guides or eBay actions but it is sill mentioned at Simon (game)#Clones.--67.68.208.55 (talk) 04:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget there although the grammar is a bit squiffy and we haven't Harry Potter Magic Spell Challenge with the initial caps; no need to compound the felony. Si Trew (talk) 19:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 01:15, 12 December 2015 (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/2015_December_12&oldid=1037882167"