Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 September 12

September 12
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 12, 2012

Canadian Psycho



 * 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 both. Tikiwont (talk) 12:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

BLP issue, redirect from a media moniker. Skullers (talk) 18:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * → Luka Magnotta (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → Luka Magnotta (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * Delete or set index conversion. There have been many "psychos", not just this latest one. (Karla Homolka, Kimveer Gill, Robert Pickton, Valery Fabrikant and Marc Lepine comes to mind) -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 04:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per RFD Delete reason no. 3. It also might be a vague redirect as there might be a lot of Canadian criminals with psychological issues.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 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:US states and territories



 * 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 as per the TfD consensus and the drawbacks of having a cross-namespace redirect. Tikiwont (talk) 12:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * → US states and territories/map (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Delete Original template was deleted, see TfD, then moved without redirect to a subpage so it would not be use in articles. This was created two days later, against that consensus. JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 15:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. The consensus at TfD was clear that this should not be a template that can be used in articles. My template skills are limited, but my understanding is that it would be technically possible to code a template that produced an error in article space but worked in project space. While not strictly against the consensus at the TfD, that course of action should be discussed first. Regardless, a simple redirect, as we have here, does not have that functionality and has the effect (intentional or otherwise) of bypassing the TfD consensus. This meets the spirit of speedy deletion criterion G4, but as it does not meet the letter (even on a loose reading) it is not subject to speedy deletion for that reason. Thryduulf (talk) 15:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 *  Retarget  to Template:United States political divisions. Among other reasons, no reason to break historical versions of pages that used this template. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * My own experience is that redlinks to deleted templates (and categories, and articles) are common, or at least frequently encountered on old versions of pages. But those versions aren't meant for viewing or editing. And a red link better serves any editor wondering what the older version of the page looked like: they can follow the redlink and review the delete log entries, read the deletion discussions to see why it was deleted, even request undeletion to their userspace if they are especially curious. Substituting an entirely different template makes this much harder. And in this case United States political divisions was already on the pages in the proper place; making it appear also in the See also section will do far more to break the pages than a red link.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 20:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral Good point. I hadn't thought of that. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 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:CFact



 * 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 both. JohnCD (talk) 11:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * → Template:Reference necessary (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → Template:Reference necessary (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Now unused redirects with counter-intuitive names. Aren't helpful as shortcut, replaced with AWB anyway. Proposed action – delete. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 12:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. These have been around since 2009 so it is likely that people will continue to use them. They're not causing any harm, so making it harder for users will produce no benefits. Thryduulf (talk) 15:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I was considering this factor before nomination. Actually, I came up with this in a process of fixing format of Reference necessary, and I would note that these are either not used at all or at least not used recently. At least I didn't come across any of these with a date in 2011 or 2012. (I rewrote 2 or 3 cfact from 2009–2010, and there were no CFact at all.) — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Was listed in the original documentation and I note that the target has now been moved to citation needed span and that is by itself a reason not to throw out at the same time redirects to the initial target. I'm working with a cheat sheet created in 2007 and there may be others using their remembered or jotted names instead of trying to remember whatever the latest name is.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.