Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 December 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 19[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 19, 2015.

Papadopoli[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 December 25#Papadopoli

Template:Nobots[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. --BDD (talk) 15:13, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nobot and Template:No bots were deleted, so this one should also be deleted. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. Template:Nobots has over 2000 transclusions. The transclusions have to be resolved first before deletion can even be considered for this redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 17:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even if you successfully orphaned the template, it would exist all over the project's history and subject to return whenever someone reverts a page. There is no good reason to break pages.
    As a side note, it appears that the 2009 deletion decision for Template:Nobot was probably in error and certainly should not have been closed speedily and that the 2015 speedy-deletion of Template:No bots was patently in error since no clause of G6 actually applied. While I do not feel strongly enough to reopen those debates, they do not work as precedent for this discussion. Rossami (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You are correct that the rationale for deleting nobot and no bots does not apply here, but I disagree that the deletion of those two was an error. If they exist, editors might think they work, when they will not: most bots will recognize only {{nobots}} and happily edit a page bearing {{nobot}} or {{no bots}}. –xenotalk 03:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Unlike {{no bots}} and {{nobot}}, all exclusion-compliant bots are trained to look for {{nobots}} — there's no reason to break the exclusion-compliant system just because of the deletion of templates that weren't related to it. Nyttend (talk) 16:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @GeoffreyT2000: There seems to be no reason given to even consider deleting "Template:Nobots". GeoffreyT2000 would need to tell us what "Nobots" does that might be bad, and then either tell us why that is bad-- or why it is in some way like what "Nobot" and/or "No bots" did. Since we do not delete things for having similar names, unless and until GeoffreyT2000 does this, it all looks like a speedly close. tahc chat 17:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Should this even be here? It looks to me like this would need to be at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion instead. tahc chat 18:02, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, this is the right place; Template:Nobots is a redirect, not a template, just as Wikipedia:RFD is a redirect, not a project page, and jimbo wales is a redirect, not an article. This would be the place to discuss any of them, because RFD is namespace-agnostic. Nyttend (talk) 20:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — {{nobots}} - ban all compliant bots (shortcut) and {{bots}} - allow all bots (shortcut) are simple incarnations of this template easily used without the need of parameters which other variations require. @Xeno: As long as this template doesn't suffer from the same issue as Template:Nobot and Template:No bots did of course (discussion, pinging the nom of those).—Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was pinged. This template should not be orphaned, nor deleted, it will cause all manner of mayhem if you do so. The rationale for deleting nobot and no bots does not apply here, as {{nobots}} is precisely what exclusion-compliant bots will look for. Replacing "nobots" with bots|deny=all is not a better solution either. The template is only a redirect because the target of the redirect contains the instructions for both templates, not because they are functionally identical. –xenotalk 03:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I would suggest that this be unredirected and the documentation directly transcluded instead to avoid this situation in future. (the /doc page can be made a redirect) -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 11:26, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per above points. --Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 13:22, 21 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.

Fma characters[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 December 28#Fma characters

Other characters ...[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) 15:01, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Several redirects that are circular references to their target articles. If a reader is on these redirects' target article, then tries to find "other characters", they will be redirected back to the article they were on already. So, the redirect fails to answer the question "Other than what characters?" Steel1943 (talk) 05:19, 19 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_19&oldid=1037882359"