Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 September 22

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. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Here's Your Christmas Album (Bonus Track) → Bill Engvall (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Unlikely redirect term. He did have an album titled Here's Your Christmas Album, but the (bonus track) appendage is very unlikely to be typed in. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unlikely. Redirect to Here's Your Christmas Album if kept. - 2/0 (cont.) 09:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - being an "Unlikely redirect term" is not a deletion ground for a long-standing redirect. However, neither the target, nor the suggested retarget, mention the bonus track so it should be deleted as confusing. Bridgeplayer (talk) 13:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—confusing redirect when pointed at Bill Engvall. A retarget to Here's Your Christmas Album would be appropriate if that article mentioned a bonus track. –Grondemar 23:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 SPEEDY DELETE (R3). Alexf^(talk) 15:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Monastery Among The Temple Trees" → The Monastery Among The Temple Trees (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Hardly anyone would type the inverted commas when they search. TYelliot (talk) 14:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed. I believe it can be tagged for speedy deletion under the R3 criteria and will do so at this time.--PinkBull 14:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:ISO → Template:Use ymd dates (links to redirect • history • stats)
• Template:Iso → Template:Use ymd dates (links to redirect • history • stats) 

• Delete – unused redirects. The ISO covers a lot of things and the current redirect target is not an obvious one for a template using the name of the organisation. Template:Iso/doc is also a redirect. McLerristarr / Mclay1 05:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as potentially confusing with other ISO standards. –Grondemar 04:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – As creator, I have no objection to deleting. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. It should be noted, however, that at the time of the closure of this discussion, neither of these two redirects are in use in the article namespace. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:RE → Template:Reflist (links to redirect • history • stats)
• Template:Re → Template:Reflist (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Delete – old, unused redirects. "RE" could stand for anything and could be used incorrectly or could be used in the future as an abbreviation for something more obvious. Template talk:RE should also be deleted and Template talk:Re redirects there. McLerristarr / Mclay1 05:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have notified involved editors. Bridgeplayer (talk) 10:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I designed Template:RE as "just a <references /> without all the typing, with one hold-down of the shift key", but with a level 2 "References" header.[1] The undiscussed "merge" by Thumperward (talk · contribs), in creating the redirect, removed the level 2 "References" header.[2] It is in use on a couple of pages, and its lowercase equivalent Template:re on much more pages (about seven). They have been substituted many more times, and they may have been much more widely in use as transclusions before the nominator broke them by introducing {{rfd}}. If and when "something more obvious" materializes, that can be discussed on the relevant talk pages. I propose undoing that undiscussed "merge", so that the template can be used as intended. Also, the nominator neglected to notify anyone and Bridgeplayer (talk · contribs) neglected to notify Thumperward (talk · contribs), which I have just done.[3]   — Jeff G.  ツ 13:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - yes I missed Thumperward but perhaps a 'thank you for notifying me as creator but I've also alerted Thumperward' might have been a touch more gracious, particularly since I had no duty to notify anyone? Bridgeplayer (talk) 16:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, Bridgeplayer, for notifying me. Sorry about the tone in my previous post here.   — Jeff G.  ツ 01:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I looked at the transclusions before I nominated the page and they are not used except in discussions and use pages. I didn't bother notifying the editors because there is no rule that says I must, it is only a suggestion and since it wasn't created as a redirect, I didn't feel it was necessary. McLerristarr / Mclay1 10:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, this isn't serving any particular purpose, and two-letter template names should really be reserved for very common use. Jeff G's argument could be applied to basically any template proliferation; having dozens of different referencing templates which all give pretty much the same output is pointless and potentially confusing. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 15:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. If the question is whether to delete the redirect as it stands, I would say strong delete. But, in fairness to Jeff G., I view this as a discussion whether to restore the template to its version before Thumperward made it a redirect, which produces

==References==
<references/>

I spent some time in May cleaning up the template's documentation, and I weakly agree that it should be deleted. FIRST: If the template is called via substitution ({{subst:RE}}), it's not a huge time-saver. If it's called via transclusion ({{RE}}), then it is a time-saver, but I have a weak hunch that it's a bad idea to transclude a section header. SECOND: We'll never know how many people were using the template by transclusion, but since nobody has complained about its loss, I'll assume not many. AGradman / underlying article as I saw it / talk 18:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Section headers are transcluded all the time - AfD and RfA are among the pages that use this technique. I am sorry that it took me so long, but I am here now to complain about the loss of the References header from this template, which is one of the things that distinguished it from {{reflist}}. I considered just reverting Thumperward's changes to both and calling this discussion moot (as there would be no more redirect to discuss), but decided to take the high road and discuss here first.   — Jeff G.  ツ 01:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD and RfA are not in articlespace, and have a fixed and immutable format. The same doesn't apply for articles. It's confusing for an editor to click the edit section link and not have an obvious header presented on the subsection being edited. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They're not supposed to be editing the References section (unless there are no External links and they want to add navboxes, cats, or interwiki links).   — Jeff G.  ツ 02:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's entirely reasonable for people to be editing reference sections; for example, they may be adding a colwidth argument to {{reflist}}, or the article may be using list-defined referencing. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]