Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 February 4

February 4
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion on February 4, 2008

Template:Ship Table → Template:Infobox Ship
The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 00:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC) The template was initially created due to an article move; however, the target template is now deprecated and members of the WP:SHIPS project have eliminated all articles that utilized this redirected template name. - Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete - unless I'm missing something, this seems pretty obvious. --Hyperbole (talk) 22:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Parsecboy (talk) 01:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Deprecated, no reason to use it. Bart133 (t) (c) 02:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Good work cleaning these up. TomTheHand (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Just one of several yet to go. --Brad (talk) 20:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

History of modern India → History of the Republic of India
The result of the debate was Kept. There is not a consensus for deletion so it defaults to keep. I would also note that the History of India uses modern to refer to the Republic so the redirect is consistent with the primary article. -- JLaTondre (talk) 03:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC) Delete "Modern India" refers to "post-Medieval India", not "post-Independence India". The sense "modern" used in this redirect is wrong. The article is about the history of Republic of India, i.e. history from 1947. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Nitpick: I am not sure that this change will strictly result in the meaning that you intend. The Republic of India dates from January 1950, not from independence in August 1947. How are you going to describe the intervening 29 months? -- Arwel (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The constitution came into effect in 1950, but history of Republic of India starts from 1947 as you can see from the article itself: "The History of the Republic of India began on August 15, 1947 when India became an independent Dominion within the British Commonwealth." Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep - This seems like a better target than either Colonial India or History of India, and it definitely seems like a better target than no target at all. But if anyone better-versed with Indian history than I am really thinks this needs to go to History of India instead, that would also be okay with me.  --Hyperbole (talk) 23:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Raichase → Railpage Australia
The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 00:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC) Title of the redirect is the username of a user on the forum given by the target of the redirect. Wongm (talk) 06:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete - Looked through the edit history; no evidence exists that Raichase is even notable to Railpage Australia, let alone notable in any other context. --Hyperbole (talk) 23:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Forum users aren't notable. Bart133 (t) (c) 17:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Redirects to User:Doczilla/Template:Uw-vandalism4x
The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 00:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Template:uw-vand4x → User:Doczilla/Template:Uw-vandalism4x
 * Template:uw-vandal4x → User:Doczilla/Template:Uw-vandalism4x
 * Template:uw-vandalism4x → User:Doczilla/Template:Uw-vandalism4x
 * Template:uw-v4x → User:Doczilla/Template:Uw-vandalism4x

"You have been reported" templates have been discussed previously at WT:UTM and consensus was that they are more likely to lead to WP:BEANS than anything useful. Anomie⚔ 02:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's previous consensus over a template that's not the same thing. Let the discussion over the new template proceed before addressing its redirects. While discussion is in progress this is premature, and this is not the place to discuss the merits of the template itself. Doczilla (talk) 10:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC) P. S. Couldn't you have done these as one group nomination instead of four separate nominations?
 * Well, I can't see what Template:Vandrep said, but the discussion linked from the discussion I linked to includes a subst of a template which said (paraphrasing) "You vandalized too much, so I reported you to an admin and you may be blocked." Your template says (paraphrasing) "You kept vandalizing after a final warning, so I reported you to the admins and you may be blocked." As for waiting for discussion, the only discussion I was aware of (WT:UW) ended on the 29th. I'm not about to search the bazillion other pages on Wikipedia to attempt to determine where else you may have started discussion, and at any rate the WikiProject user warnings does not seem to want this template and thus to avoid confusion it would be best if these redirects (which imply acceptance by that project) were removed; I have not proposed that your template itself be deleted, which would be at WP:MFD instead of WP:RFD. If there were instructions on how to nominate the templates all at once, I would have followed them, but as it is, I followed what instructions were there. Anomie⚔ 13:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Comment:I went ahead and combined the above nominations. The text of all four discussions was basically identical (see?) an there was no need for separate discussions. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Anomie⚔ 03:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, not because of any issue with the target (that would be an issue for MfD), but because redirects from template space to userspace are generally the wrong thing to do, especially if someone has objected. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete no foreseeable consensus for these. If there is, then move to template space rather than have misleading redirects. –Pomte 16:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - these are in userspace rather than template space for a reason - that reason being that these templates should not be used. --Hyperbole (talk) 23:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Don't delete the targets here - as Gavia immer said, that's an issue for MfD. However, the redirects from template space to user space should be deleted. Bart133 (t) (c) 17:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Pixie (F.O.P.) → The Fairly OddParents
The result of the debate was Kept as no consensus for deletion. -- JLaTondre (talk) 03:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC) procedural nomination, found WP:PROD-nominated&mdash;PROD nominator stated "Bizarre anagram will not be used". User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 02:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete, that was me, the F.O.P. means Fairly OddParents. AnteaterZot (talk) 04:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - redirects are cheap. We usually delete the misleading ones and leave the useless ones alone.  --Hyperbole (talk) 23:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sanjay (The Fairly oddParents) → The Fairly OddParents
The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 00:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC) procedural nomination, found WP:PROD-nominated&mdash;PROD nominator stated "Unusual capitalization not likely to be used". User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 02:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete, there is already a Sanjay (The Fairly OddParents) redirect. AnteaterZot (talk) 04:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - see reasoning on Pixie (F.O.P.) --Hyperbole (talk) 23:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm neutral about keeping the above one, but this one comes sufficiently close to CSD R3 to warrant deletion. Bart133 (t) (c) 20:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)