Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 14

April 14

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 14, 2014.

Bus routes in Hertfordshire

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) 17:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded redirect, Nothing about bus routes are in the Hertfordshire article, And to be honest other than bus enthusiasts no one would even search for the above search term. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 21:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Davey2010. My elder brother was actually a bus driver in Hertfordshire and I grew up there but this is not notable. My brother drove buses for about I dunno fifteen years in Herts and sometimes I would go out on a Sunday doing route learning with him on a new route, me navigating with him driving. But I think even he, who bought and restored a old one off the company, restored Almex machines, collected roller blinds and changed his numberplate to be that of a scrapped Leyland Atlantean, would find this redirect ridiculous. The 304 from Hitchin to St Albans is a nice route to see the countryside, I used to like taking that each morning to work, but the 734 is a pain, theoretically shorter but practically longer. Neither is mentioned at the target, and if it redirects anywhere, it is probably best to take it to London Country Bus Services or Sovereign Bus or Arriva The Shires, but it is better to delete it, I think. Si Trew (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to leave it as it stands but Almex machines are the old-fashioned manual bus conductor's machines. Si Trew (talk) 22:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per previous consensus to delete redirects with similar names. @Davey2010: Do you recall what dates (I think it was in 2013) that these discussions happened? I know that you had participated in them; I was the one who grouped them all together. Steel1943 (talk) 21:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Steel1943: - Yep it was definitely 2013, I think between March-June, I can't recall the grouping as the AFD'ing went slightly mad but yeah was definitely 2013, -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 21:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Davey2010: I found the discussion: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 April 4#List of bus routes in Cambridgeshire. Okay, they're not named completely the same, but the reasoning is the same for why the nominated redirect should be deleted: this redirect's name is very misleading. Steel1943 (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bloody hell good find!, All in all imo a useless, misleading and most definiately unneeded redirect. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. There is an article (not redirect) for Stagecoach bus route X5, which is at the DAB at X5, but I add this here not to disagree but to show the pattern. This runs through four counties, and has a substantial article (it is essentially a replacement for the old Varsity line) and has won trade awards etc and is notable. But any old bus route is not notable. If anything it should be called "List of bus routes in Xshire" anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talk • contribs) 04:56, 17 April 2014
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:WikiProject Public Policy

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. Involved close given the backlog and unanimous consensus after a full listing period. --BDD (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a misleading redirect; fortunately, it has no uses. Education and Public policy are very distinct topics, even if they may have some overlap. Also, there's never been a Wikipedia:WikiProject Public Policy as far as I can tell. No objections to retargeting to Template:WikiProject United States Public Policy, but that's not the course I'd recommend. BDD (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Thomas K. Turnage

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) 17:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:RFD#DELETE. "If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject, it is better that the target article contain a redlink than a redirect back to itself." This is a notable person, one of the last Administrator of Veterans Affairs in the U.S. government, but it's a redirect to his wife, an actress. Until I figured out that Turnage was married to Adams, I thought it was vandalism or a completely different person with the same name. 149.160.173.195 (talk) 18:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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:Involuntary health consequences

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. Involved closed given the backlog, with unanimous consensus after a full listing period, and with G7 eligibility. --BDD (talk) 17:14, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm not aware of a specific policy regarding such cross-namespace redirects, the case of the Yogurt Rule (see RfDs 1 and 2) suggests that they're misleading in that they imply stronger community consensus for an idea than actually exists. Like the Yogurt Rule, this one was created in W-space but returned to userspace since it was considered too much of a minority view. And for what it's worth, this userspace essay seems largely abandoned, its author inactive. --BDD (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The redirect is unnecessary. You have accurately described the situation. I am in the minority, but years later, the issue continues to receive mention by people other than me. I still maintain that the mission of Wikipedia is not served by compromising the usefulness of information. The first encyclopedist, Denis Diderot, would not approve of an encyclopedia that does not preserve USEFUL information for the next generation. Sadly, it would appear that this point of view was impossible to understand or acknowledge 4 years ago by people in the Open Source / Open Content Community. Anyway, thank you for your consideration. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 18:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. As apposition, what would "voluntary health consequences" be? If we have one, we should have the other.
    I smoke, for example, because I enjoy it, although I know it harms my health and I know it in six different languages: Rauchen gefardhat das gesundheit, fumer tue, roken is dodelik, a donhányzás halaált okzalt, Smoking kills, and so on. I know what it says on the back of the packet and I know that it costs me money – to deliberately ruin my health is a voluntary health conseuquence. Actually smokers tend to overestimate their risk of shortened life expectancy from smoking (it is about seven years and in surveys they guess about eleven) and insurance companies actually pay more to smokers when paying out on endowments or annuities on their life assurance on the assumption they'll die earlier (it is called the Smokers' Premium in the UK, I don't know about elsewhere, but a case was brought to court in the UK with the claimant, an habitual smoker, being refused his smoker's premium because he gave up for a couple of years: the claimant won. It was reported in the legal reports in The Times but I doubt I could find it). Si Trew (talk) 23:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete very failed policy proposal; doesnt need a WP: shortcut. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.

C: category shortcuts

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 moot. Recommendations taken forward before C: implementation makes it impossible. — Scott • talk 18:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These category shortcuts were discussed here in February, and that discussion closed with a lack of consensus for any change, due to the unresolved status of the RfC on Meta about making c: an interwiki prefix for Commons. As that has now concluded with a demonstrable consensus for implementation, which will add titles beginning with "C:" to the list of unusable titles, these redirects can be discussed with clarity. I'll open a separate discussion for "C:" redirects to articles. — Scott • talk 10:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

C: shortcuts where matching CAT: shortcuts exist

Recommend deleting all.

C: shortcuts without matching CAT: shortcuts

Recommend renaming each to CAT:x.

Obviously, CAT:OMMONS doesn't exist. However, CAT:COMMONS does. Recommend deleting.

Inconsistent cases

CAT:FUR exists already, but redirects to Category:Non-free content review requested. Recommend renaming to CAT:NFT or something more appropriate.

Content categories

No evidence of on-project usage, so recommend deleting.

Ornamental not descriptional. Big font takes more rows (while being a list). If it's not a quote/cp, that's a very good reason not to use {{quote}} :-) -DePiep (talk) 11:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • About alternatives (C: and CAT:). As was listed in February, all C:X-to-Category:X redirects already have a parallel redirect named CAT:X.
One exception: C:OMMONS. For me, that one can be deleted without alternavtive. (In other words, deserves Deletion anyway without creating CAT:COMMON Red XN). -DePiep (talk) 09:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there are a number of exceptions, and they're all detailed above. — Scott • talk 11:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's the layout effect. -DePiep (talk) 11:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I struck. Did not/could not follow the details enough. -DePiep (talk) 12:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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:Pseudonym

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 to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Nicknames, pen names, stage names, cognomens. After a month of discussion, such as it was, I think we're all in agreement here. --BDD (talk) 17:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also redirect Wikipedia:PSEUDONYM and Wikipedia:Nickname to Wikipedia:NICKNAME. The terms "pseudonym" and "nickname" are more likely to be used in contexts where names in biographical articles are discussed, rather than the Wikipedia username policy. Anonimski (talk) 09:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Still confused. WP:PSEUDONYM doesn't exist, so there is no redirect for discussion. If you want it, create it. Si Trew (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Requests for adminship

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 retargeted to Administrators (Wikipedia)#Requests for adminship. The Bushranger One ping only 02:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CNR: "Currently, the general consensus seems to be that newly created cross-namespace redirects from the main (article) namespace to the Wikipedia (project) namespace should be deleted." 6an6sh6 03:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed after nominating that it used to point to Administrator (Wikipedia)#Requests for adminship, but was recently changed by someone else. 6an6sh6 04:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.

BBC English

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 dabify. --BDD (talk) 17:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It redirects to Received Pronunciation yet in the lead of that article it specifically says, not to be confused with "BBC English" Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 15:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It also says Received Pronunciation (RP) is the standard accent of Standard English in England... It is important not to confuse the notion of Received Pronunciation – a standard accent – with the standard variety of the English language used in England that is given names such as "Standard English", "the Queen's English", "Oxford English" or "BBC English". That suggests that Standard English ought to contain some discussion of "BBC English" (it doesn't at present) and that this redirect should point there instead. So there's a content issue that needs to be fixed first. — Scott • talk 15:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Orwell called it "BBC English" in an essay about how to not sound so stifled on the radio. I can't remember the name of the essay offhand, it might be Poetry and the English Language, but he realised that the limitations of technology at that time (microphones, speakers and so on) meant one had to speak very clearly and in a rather stilted fashion were it to come across at all. (And remember Orwell worked for the BBC from 1942 to 1944). I can dig this out from the Essays which I have here now but surely that would be RS? He specifically compared against Received Pronuniation. Si Trew (talk) 23:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate Convert to disambiguation page. Apparently, there are at least two topics that can be referred to as "BBC English", considering that there is currently a hatnote on Received Pronunciation that directs the reader to BBC English Regions, and even with the current target of the redirect being in question, there are at least two topics and I don't see any of them (or any others that are being questioned as part of this discussion) being the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. However, if it is decided that the current target is bad, and there are no other options (besides BBC English Regions), then my vote would be (weak) retarget to BBC English Regions solely on technicalities. Steel1943 (talk) 23:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You want to apply WP:DAB to a redirect? What new title for this redirect do you suggest? -DePiep (talk) 02:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No new title. The title would still be "BBC English", and would have at least BBC Learning English and BBC English Regions listed. Having Received Pronunciation added to list would be determined by this discussion. But, then again, I don't know if BBC English Regions is ever specifically referred to as "BBC English", so it may not work due to being a partial title match (however, BBC Learning English is referred to as "BBC English" as stated in its article.) So, if not turning this title into a disambiguation page would not be an option, BBC English may just simply need to be retargeted to BBC Learning English. Steel1943 (talk) 03:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Turn this redirect page (content) into a full dab page, with two or three targets listed there. No need to change the name into BBC English (disambiguation). Including the third page (as you question) can be done and changed outside of this TfD. -DePiep (talk) 09:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to dab page: I don't think there's a primary topic for this phrase. It could be someone talking about Received pronunciation, BBC Learning English, BBC English Regions, or a number of other topics. I don't support a delete because it's pretty clear that this is a plausible redirect for BBC Learning English. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 04:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to dab page, same name. Per Scott Steel1943. Steel's confusion can be solved after that (including article improvements), not part of RfD. -DePiep (talk) 10:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC) corrected editors name -DePiep (talk) 06:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to DAB per DePiep. BBC English used to be used as a synonym for Received Pronunciation, and was used in the thirties and forties partly because everyone working at the BBC was upper-middle-class and partly because it was the best way to convey English over primitive microphones and loudspeakers (see for example Orwell's essay "Poetry and the Microphone"). . Then, in the seventies, the BBC put in a deliberate policy of using regional accents – which means that "BBC English" doesn't really mean anything except as a historical term. For god's sake, the BBC just moved their whole central TV production from BBC Television Centre to Salford Quays and I studied in Manchester and my accent is a variant of Mancunian and Cockney. On the BBC World Service the presenters, I am not sure if they literally have a metronome but pace themselves slower than on the British radio channels so that firstly those who do not speak English as a first language can understand them, and secondly so that if the radio reception is very poor it can still be understood. But that does not come from Bush House any more, that is now from Broadasting House, and people like Neil Sleat who has a quite deep voice but extremely clear, which had many complaints when he first started but has grown to be loved, broadcast both on Radio 4 and on the World Service as announcers. So there is no such thing as BBC English any more. Si Trew (talk) 14:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Διάλυσις

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) 17:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not especially Greek. Gorobay (talk) 14:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Ασβός

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) 17:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not especially Greek. Gorobay (talk) 14:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Αλλος

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) 17:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Allo- is found in many English words derived from Greek. There is no reason to redirect it here over the many other words incorporating that morpheme. Gorobay (talk) 13:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I note Allo- redirects to Emic unit, which is described as things like a morpheme, grapheme or phoneme. I am not sure whether that is a good target, either, but would seem the obvious one if any. Si Trew (talk) 06:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Αρκτικός Κύκλος

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) 17:45, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neither Deception Point nor the Arctic circle is especially related to Greek. Gorobay (talk) 13:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Law 18

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) 17:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect redirect. While association football has numbered Laws, there are only 17 of them. It is law 16 that covers Goal kicks. LukeSurl t c 11:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per LukeSurl. Though not a great follower of football (though the match between Barcelona and Atletico Madrid last week was great to watch) soccer/association football is notable for having very few laws compared to other sports. This is simply incorrect (assuming LukeSurl is correct, I don't have a rule book on me) and it could just as well go to many other sports that do have a Rule 18. Delete it. Si Trew (talk) 12:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I almost certainly watch even less football than Si Trew, but the laws of the game are available on the FIFA website at [1], and LukeSurl's nomination is correct in both its points. Google seems to show that there are only three significant uses: (1) in the context of Association Football it seems to be used to mean "referees should use common sense", but this is an informal, specific usage that should not be in the common sense article as too specialised; it wouldn't be implausible pointed at Laws of the Game (association football) if there was anything there specifically referencing a "Law 18" but the single sentence presently there, "Referees are expected to use their judgement and common sense in applying the laws." is not sufficient to support a redirect though. (2) Title 18 of the United States Code (18 USC), but that is not a single law and is not referred to as "Law 18" (the uses are of the form "xxx law (18 USC...)" and so I wouldn't support that as a redirect. (3) Cricket does have a Law 18, "Scoring runs" and so I wouldn't object to retargetting this to Laws of cricket#Scoring and winning or Run (cricket)#Rules but I don't see it as really necessary. Thryduulf (talk) 15:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be unwise to retarget it to cricket. Cricket has a very complicated rule book built up over the years by the Marylebone Cricket Club (Lord's). Because I am very bad at sports I was left to do the scoring, and it's the hardest job you have to do double-entry bookkeeping essentially on the fly from a hundred yards away with an umpire who sends tiny hand signals and can't count and puts seven runs in an over. On the wireless when someone gets out for a duck (dismissed without without scoring any runs) they say "that's made it easy for the scorer" when it is actually a right sod for the scorer cos you have to wait until you know who's coming in for the next innings so you can put it in the book and so on, who went off and mark that out and where are we, it is far harder than sitting in the pavilion and coming out once in a blue moon to play the game. Same with soccer really because I am so useless at sports "we'll put you in goal". Yeah thanks then you can blame me for every one I let through, can't I be left back: especially, left back in the changing room. Si Trew (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.

AMC-2

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 to make way for move of AMC-2 (satellite). WJBscribe (talk) 12:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the ship is AMc-2, not AMC-2. There is another article at AMC-2 (satellite) with the same name so if this could be deleted, the article could be moved to this name. No use of a dab page as because of just two links. A hatnote could be used instead . Zince34' 09:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. This is a question of whether the satellite or ship is the primary topic for "AMC-2" (with that capitalisation). If it is the ship, then the current situation is correct and a hatnote at the ship's article should be added. If it is the satellite then that article should be moved over this redirect. The satellite's article should retain it's hatnote in either scenario. The question though should I think be asked at WP:RM rather than here. Thryduulf (talk) 11:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add both at DAB. There's a DAB at AMC that lists AMC 34 and AMC 35 and AMC-3 and AMC-18 and of course lots of other things. AMC-2 (satellite) is not listed there, neither is AMC-2 nor USS Magpie (AMc-2). I am not suggesting that is not the correct title for the ship, but what will an intelligent but ignorant reader search for? In my opinion, to disambiguate by literally one bit, the smallest possible amount of change one could possibly make in information theory, is unlikely for most people coming to Wikipedia: the search engine does not distinguish on case. AMc-2 is also a redirect to the same target, USS Magpie (AMc-2). Si Trew (talk) 13:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a liar, it hasn't: as you see from the redlink. But that is the point: since the search engine doesn't distinguish, it took me straight to the R anyway which is why I thought it had. Si Trew (talk) 13:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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:WPCM

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) 17:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'WP:CM' is the abbreviation of Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music, and has been since 2005. The standard convention, and common sense, is for the WikiProject talk template to use the same abbreviation. I recommend this template shortcut is retargeted to Template:WikiProject Classical music. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I have just notified several individuals who have taken part in previous RfDs. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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:Wprb

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. WJBscribe (talk) 12:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And again. See also ongoing discussion of the redirects Template:R&B and Template:R&b. — Scott • talk 00:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing strong found. Are you sure your linked points 2, 4, 5 are valid here? -DePiep (talk) 21:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning delete there is already {{WPRB}} pointing at this target. I much prefer that we keep shortcuts as only upper case, unless there is some context that means people will naturally presume they should use lower case. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a lowercase shortcut variant of {{WPRB}}. I respectfully disagree with John that we should have one or the other; templates are case sensitive, and I think we should err on the side of convenience for our editors (someone created this to save time, and I'm fine with erring on the side of believing that person) unless and until the MediaWiki software allows otherwise (as it has for caps variants entered in the search bar). I'll note that we don't go out deleting our caps variant redirects that preexisted that change. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 03:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I still think my prior rationale is the correct one, I recognize that there is an emerging consensus (both in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Shortcut and in the recent RfDs concerning these redirects) that case variants of WikiProject banner template redirects should not be kept. Thus, Weak delete. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 13:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close please for as long as the other discussion is open. -08:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DePiep (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per JV, the SHORTCUT should be allcaps. -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 09:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per 70.24 and JV. Frietjes (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, better to just keep the uppercase version. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mendaliv. No evidence of harm. --BDD (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Harm is. Who is expected to know or recognise that "Wp" is a WIkiProject, we otherwise always shortcut to "WP"? -DePiep (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I might be sympathetic to that argument if we were talking about mainspace, but anyone who applies WikiProject tags probably knows what "WP" means, and that capitalization often doesn't matter here. --BDD (talk) 16:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If one does not use the redirect themselves, it will not take up mental bandwidth. If the redirect with all capital letters points to one location, why would we want the redirect with all small letters to potentially point to something else? If we delete this, then will we need to delete {{songs}} and {{albums}} as well? Also, as of late, I have refrained from creating WikiProject redirects, and I plan to comply with the decision to be made at Wikipedia_talk:Shortcut#Template_shortcuts. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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:Wpcw

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 23#Template:Wpcw

Template:Wpjz

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) 17:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And again; apparently created to replace Template:Jz which was deleted here two weeks ago. Note that the author of this template also created {{Wpjazz}}. — Scott • talk 00:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why the strong? And how do your links #2, 3, 4 and 5 (out off 5) apply to this nomination? -DePiep (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Whichever parts of the statement make sense with "wpjz" apply, and I am not sure how to make that any clearer. --Jax 0677 (talk) 04:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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:Wpcl

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) 17:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again. "Wpfk", what even is that? — Scott • talk 00:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.
  • In case you were wondering, each of these had one transclusion when they were deleted. Both were on templates for folk bands (i.e., Template:WikiProject Roots music), not funk or classical. While some of these redirects seem harmless or helpful, I think that in this case, those who argued they were confusing have been vindicated. --BDD (talk) 17:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wprok

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) 17:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As below. Note, there's already a {{WPRock}} shortcut, and even {{wprk}} and even even {{wpr}}, which latter both survived an RfD in February. There's a long name and two varieties of abbreviated shortcut; this is unnecessary badly-named clutter. — Scott • talk 00:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further note. {{Wrok}} added to nomination following suggestion by Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars below. — Scott • talk 14:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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:Wprg

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) 17:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another inconsistently-named musical template redirect made by Jax 0677. This should be deleted for the same reasons as the numerous ones at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 27 were. — Scott • talk 00:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep - "Rg" are two letters in the word "reggae". This RfD is extremely similar to the 2013 RfD about Template:Cop and the 2014 RfD about Template:wprk ("R" and "K" are two letters in the word "rock"), which I am incorporating by reference for the sake of brevity. There are several templates like this, such as {{Tb}} which is not about tuburculosis, {{pot}} which is not about cannabis, {{hat}} which is not about headwear, etc. WP:R#D8 does not apply as this is not an article space redirect. WP:R#D2 does not apply as confusion is less likely to occur in other name spaces.
  1. "Unless a WikiProject [or anyone else, for that matter] has actually expressed interest in usurping [these redirects], I don't see [them] doing any harm." To date, no other use for {{wprg}} has been suggested at all. Per WP:R#KEEP, "If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do".
  2. Alleged confusion is not very plausible at all. So absent evidence of any harm there is no reason to delete.
  3. "There seems to be no evidence of confusion, just conjecture on the part of nominator, and no argument grounded in WP:R. Laziness is the exact purpose of redirects, to be perfectly honest, and the creator of a useful redirect that saves one or two characters should be commended. We don't delete redirects based merely on conjecture. Someone obviously found these useful given they were created."
  4. "One of the lowest things one can do is steal another mans tools. So you have no use for it. That it's being used on [talk pages] is good enough, and there is zero reason to take away something that has no higher use. Such Nominators should be required to be the one to hand edit and remove any deleted tags."
  5. "Redirects are not only cheap but this is a redirect from and to template namespace. That would tend to indicate to me that anyone using it is an editor rather than a general reader and they are hardly likely to get it [confused]. There are lots of little abbreviated things pulled up over the years such as {{tlc}} or {{tlx}} or whatever as useful shorthand for editors." --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_14