Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 January 21

January 21
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 21, 2013

Wikipedia:Fire, Burn!



 * 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 speedily deleted per WP:CSD by RHaworth. Thryduulf (talk) 00:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * → Fire, Burn! (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Cross-namespace redirect that apparently was moved to the wrong namespace by accident. Satellizer talk  contribs 23:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * For future reference, redirects created when fixing a page moved to the wrong namespace are eligible for speedy deletion under criterion G6 and need not be nominated here. Thryduulf (talk) 00:18, 22 January 2013 (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:Wikitionary



 * 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

Kept (non-admin closure)  S ven M anguard   Wha?  16:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)}}


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

Typos in technical templates should be corrected at the time, so as to lessen the burden on future maintainers (as well as helping to keep bots' article-parsing code simple). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep harmless template that is in use on several articles (and is probably regularly replaced with the non-typo version), and was created by an explicit request. Yes it's an incorrect spelling, but far better that editors are not faced with a redlink in this scenario, and benefits to real editors always come higher than convenience to bot authors. Template redirects needn't be a coding hassle for bots anyway, an experienced bot author recently explained that they can easily check to see whether a template is a redirect, and if it is then just parse it like the target template. Thryduulf (talk) 00:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I meant bots (and other automated tools) that update articles by content-scraping, which means having to parse every possible name for a template. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. It just requires a single piece of code to treat template redirects identically to the template they redirect to. Thryduulf (talk) 15:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep very common typo; Wikipedia is not solely edited by bots -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 00:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ~30 transclusions in four years (compared to 37,000+ transclusions of the correctly-spelled title) does not suggest this is a "very common typo". Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It is a very common typo more generally than just this template. There might only be 30 transclusions currently, but there are many editors who replace template redirects like this with the target template directly so we don't know how many used to use this template. Thryduulf (talk) 15:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - plausible typo. I don't understand what burden this places on future maintainers. Wily D  10:41, 22 January 2013 (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.

Wikipedia:Clueless newbies



 * 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. Ruslik_ Zero 18:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * → New contributors& (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

This is a rather rude term towards new users, and who will search for this anyway? It's a silly and pointless redirect.  Rcsprinter  (natter)  @ 10:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not a redirect as such: it was the page's original name. I think it's fair to say that we no longer consider referring to new users as "clueless newbies" as appropriate even in jest, though, so it's probably not required any more. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Valid R from move. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * While it is a valid R from move, that does not make it an appropriate one. It is trivial to conjure up a case whereby a BLP is started at an inappropriate title and then moved to an appropriate one, for instance, which is the same as in this case. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per EHC and WP:RNEUTRAL. This is consistently getting 10-20 hits per month so deletion would inconvenience people. This is not a BLP, so comparisons are irrelevant, but even if it were then just because something is inappropriate as a title does not make it inappropriate as a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 15:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete for the reasons Chris has given above. I suspect the 10-20 hits are people coming across it as a "joke" redirect per WP:HAPPYPLACE and WP:Dramaboard. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   11:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Would seem to violate at least the spirit of WP:NEWBIES. Brycehughes (talk) 20:39, 2 February 2013 (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:PA-geo-stub



 * 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. Ruslik_ Zero 18:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * → Template:WBGS-geo-stub (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Template redirect due to multiple moves. Unused in articles. The Banner talk 00:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete not about Pennsylvania, therefore a highly confusing redirect. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 03:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Here "PA" means "Palestine" and "WBGS" means "West Bank and Gaza Strip", so that is perfectly logical. Thryduulf (talk) 14:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "WBGS" is unused in the wild, it is a novel creation of Wikipedia. "PA" means Pennsylvania, so this redirect should point to Pennsylvania-geo-stub if anything. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "PA" does not exclusively mean "Pennsylvania", it is also used for "Palestine" and "Panama", so "PA-geo-stub" redirecting to a template about Palestine is as logical as it referring to one about the US state or central American country. "WBGS" not being used in the wild is a good reason to change the name of the target, but a good reason to have redirects to it. Thryduulf (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We already have Palestine-geo-stub which isn't WBGS-geo-stub -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If there are duplicate stub templates then that is a matter for TfD. If the current target is deleted/redirected/merged in favour of the other then any "keep" recommendation here will automatically mean retargetting. Thryduulf (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Any keep/retarget-to-other-Palestine-template does not solve the problem of Pennsylvania. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 05:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete No need, there's already a Palestine-geo-stub and WBGS-geo-stub. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That is a good reason why this should not be a template, but the good news is that it already isn't - it's a redirect. Why do you think this redirect should not point to them? Thryduulf (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Because it is confusing. The Banner talk 16:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete It's existence is based around a highly ambiguous abbreviations (PA, that is) Ego White Tray (talk) 04:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment the actual template has been renamed to Template:PalestinianTerritories-geo-stub; the redirect remaining at Template:WBGS-geo-stub has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:39, 28 January 2013 (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.