Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 September 1

Template:Re



 * 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 retarget per nom. Ruslik_ Zero 18:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


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

Unused (in main namespace) alias for reflist, would be much more useful aliasing reply to. Matma Rex talk 18:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, good idea. –Quiddity (talk) 19:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 September 22 shows a previous discussion about this redirect and about template shortcut RE, which also targets Reflist.  The usefulness of these shortcuts cannot be measured any way I know of, because they are mainly useful on preview pages.  When one edits a section of a page, there is no access to the References section to check one's edits to inline citations.  So one types  below an edited paragraph and clicks  ... When finished, one deletes  and saves one's edits.  The uppercase version is useful when one has left one's Caps Lock key engaged.  One does not have to delete, press Caps Lock and retype "re", because "RE" does the job (like it does below). –   Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 00:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * delete re and RE, these should logically redirect to some quotation template, not reflist. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 02:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Please explain why you would want to delete two good, useful shortcuts? –  Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 13:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not the normal meaning of "re", as pointed out already, and not just in this reply-set. -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 07:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep as is per my comment above. These are two mega-useful shortcuts/redirects in the exact same manner as Template:R with below.  Their deletion or retargeting will only result in new redirects being created, perhaps by several different editors who use them to get to reflist. –   Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 16:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep as is per Paine Ellsworth and all the keeps on Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 September 22. 76.65.128.222 has not presented a viable redirect target. I think the nominator would be better served in his search for a two-letter template redirect to Reply to by reviving Yo.  —  Jeff G. ツ  (talk)   02:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Please understand that I still want to undo this edit. My original was simple enough without throwing in a redirect, just like the new RL (standing for RefList). It appears that de:Benutzer:ParaDox/monobook/VirtualReferences.js is not active here for all namespaces.  —  Jeff G. ツ  (talk)   01:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Retarget per nom. Apologies to Paine Ellsworth, but that's an exceptionally weak argument for keeping. I've used that preview trick myself (using reflist; I wasn't aware of this redirect), but I've never felt burdened by the need to type an extra five letters to do so. "Re" has a much more logical connection to reply to than to reflist, so if we can make this change without disruption, the project will be better off for it. Needless to say, RE and re should have the same targets regardless. --BDD (talk) 04:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What can I say? It's a gnome shortcut that over thousands of edits can save a significant amount of time.  I didn't know about it either, nor was I overburdened to type a few extra letters, but I've begun to use RE instead of reflist, and I only wish I could use re to help me breeze through my gnomish cite edits.  Again, diff strokes...  Also, since there's no way of telling how many editors use it that way, to retarget these will only get them to retarget it back to reflist or create other shortcuts to it. –   Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 00:00, 10 September 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.