Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 July 15

July 15
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 15, 2013.

Template:R of old road to history section of present road



 * 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. Although it is harmless there have been no objections raised to its deletion so I'll treat the nomination as uncontroversial. Thryduulf (talk) 07:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * → Template:R from former name (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Delete as nonsensical (reason 5). I assume that the word "of" is supposed to mean "from", but even so, the redirect is practically useless. Not a single redirect uses this Rcat, and the subject of the Rcat is so narrow that even a correctly worded version of the redirect is not worth keeping. Its deletion will reduce the clutter, confusion, and pointlessness that were brought about by its existence.&emsp;&mdash;  | J  ~  Pæst  | &#8202; 20:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Far from nonsensical, this redirect has been used to target the history sections of renamed article titles of roads from their old, no longer used names. At one time, I suppose these were good search redirects, but it appears that they are no longer tagged with this Rcat redirect, and editors probably now use the R from former name template directly.  This redirect does no harm, but I see no problem with its deletion. –  Paine Ellsworth  C LIMAX ! 02:04, 16 July 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:R to sort name



 * 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 and replace with  on the pages that transclude it. Thryduulf (talk) 07:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * → Template:R from sort name (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

The redirect template R from sort name is used on redirects from names that are sorted by surname first and given name second, separated by a comma (e.g. "Smith, John" for a redirect to John Smith). However, it is completely irregular and likely nonexistent for actual articles to be titled in such a way (if one were to be, it would be speedily moved), and therefore redirects to sorted names are just as nonexistent as these articles. Every redirect that uses this Rcat seems use it as a mistake, since their target articles are not titled as sorted names. Even if there were such articles titled as sorted names, this template would not be used for redirects to them anyway, since it only deals with (the existing) redirects from sorted names. For these reasons, the redirect should be deleted, and thus it will be changed to  on each redirect that uses it as an Rcat.&emsp;&mdash;  |  J  ~  Pæst  | &#8202; 04:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Wasn't there a time awhile back when some articles did begin with surnames and end with given names? That's what I think may have happened – that the article-name convention became given name first, then surname, and this template's category led editors to the articles that needed to be renamed.  Once the cat was emptied it was probably deleted, and since this redirect does no harm it was just redirected to its sister template.  There are only 55 transclusions, so it wouldn't take long to retag them.  No opinion; keep or delete. –  Paine Ellsworth  C LIMAX ! 02:21, 16 July 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.