Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 June 24

June 24
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 24, 2013

Template:Tianu



 * 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 no consensus. The reasons for the templates creation are speculation and not relevant, as Rossami notes this redirect needs to be discussed on its own merits. The arguments are about whether it is confusing, and there is no consensus on that. The target template was kept in a TfD discussion in May so consensus is the result of the is not confusing, which to me means that closing this as no consensus isn't going to be harmful. Thryduulf (talk) 09:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * → Template:This is a new user (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

User-unfriendly welcoming template redirect, created as replacement for the earlier removed template-redirect. "Dnbtu" See: Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 April 26 The Banner talk 18:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I'm not sure I understand your argument. Are you saying that a new user with tianu placed on their talk page is likely to see that text and be confused as to its purpose? It seems to me that the same could be said of any template, or indeed almost any aspect of wikimarkup. This one also seems better than dnbtu because it's fairly obvious that "tianu" is an abbreviation of "this is a new user", while "dnbtu"'s significance might be more obscure. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 04:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That the template causes confusion is perfectly illustrated by this edit where a confused newcomer asked for explanation about what purpose of the template. The Banner talk 21:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. I am the user mentioned above and after some reading i think i understand now. Is the discussion about placing tianu on a persons talkpage or user page instead of This is a new user?. This because of tianu is redirected to This is a new user and supposed to show the same thing? What confuses me is the redirect information and link to this discussion that appeared on my talkpage. Qed237 (talk) 21:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it supposed to work that way. Tianu is a redirect, but since it's under discussion here, it also has the rfd tag on it, which temporarily prevents redirects from working automatically. At the very least, no one should be putting tianu anywhere while this discussion is open, since it also transcludes the RfD notice where it's placed. --BDD (talk) 22:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The confusion caused by the redirect in that case was obviously caused by the existence of this RfD. I still don't see any reason to believe that this redirect, while not nominated for deletion, is unfriendly or likely to confuse. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 00:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 *  Weak delete Just what I said about dnbtu: " Essentially harmless, but too novel a search term to be useful." --BDD (talk) 21:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Upgrading to a full delete in light of the evidence presented by The Banner. In fact, there are several instances of confused users contacting Jax to ask about the meaning of tianu. The confusion caused by this redirect means it demonstrably meets WP:RFD #2. --BDD (talk) 21:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep primarily because no valid reason has been given for deletion. New users first see the embedded template, not the redirect code.  More particularly, if the template is applied via substitution, the new user/reader won't ever see this shortcut at all.  I see nothing inherently unfriendly about this shortcut.  And while obscure at first glance, the acronym makes some sense and is not in the way of any other better use.  If it's helpful to even one editor (and the fact that someone took the time to create it is evidence enough), then that is sufficient justification to keep it.  Rossami (talk) 00:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Update: Confusion would be a valid reason to delete but I'm not convinced that the examples cited above qualify.  They are artifacts of this deletion discussion, not problems with the template (or redirect) itself.  Unless someone can cite confusion that predates the addition of the deletion templates, I still see no valid reason to delete. Maybe the template should be updated with the addition of the "substitution only" code but that's a separate discussion.  Rossami (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * To me it looks like this template-redirect was solely created as replacement of template "dnbtu", deleted after discussion here. The Banner talk 21:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That is possible but irrelevant. In my opinion, the "dnbtu" decision was wrongly decided.  No valid reason to delete was given.  But I was on wiki-vacation and didn't see that discussion so it's water under the bridge.  The only relevant question is whether there is a compelling reason to delete this redirect.  Rossami (talk) 22:40, 12 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.

Paani



 * 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) 21:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


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

This is going to be a notable movie. This shouldn't easter egg trick readers into thinking we have an article about it, where all it redirects to is a list of films directed by the director. This should be red per WP:RED. 81.30.141.9 (talk) 16:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and WP:R #10. There's probably enough coverage on the first page of Google results for the topic to satisfy WP:GNG. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 04:49, 25 June 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.