The result of the debate was Keep. The redirect is still used in thousands of articles. Many editors object to its deletions. Ruslik (talk) 09:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a tricky case. BD is used by many users as a redirect to ((Lifetime)) and is transcluded in many articles. In 2007 it was moved to BIRTH-DEATH-SORT because it has a big disadvantage: It's not making clear that is using DEFAULTSORT. This causes many problems to users not knowing that (many add DEFAULSORT as extra), to bots, to AWB, etc. A discussion in Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 May 22 showed that this is the use of DEFAULTSORT is a general problem of its target template as well. I have informed about this problem of BD in Template talk:Lifetime. BD is not listed anymore as a redirect of Lifetime. Users have to encouraged to use Lifetime or BIRTH-DEATH-SORT instead. I also received an approval to use a bot to clean the transclusions of BD.Check Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 3. Since there are still confusions, I would like to have a clear consensus that BD has to orphaned. Keep in mind, that we are not discussing about the use of Lifetime or not. We are discussing if BD has to be orphaned or not. Magioladitis (talk) 22:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment Don't worry of the number of the articles using it. Yobot made 13,000 substitutions in 2.5 days, the rest will take 2 days maximum. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Leave it all alone or Merge BD with Lifetime. Inexperienced editors may well have trouble with these templates, but they will have trouble with many technical templates. However, it is inevitable that inexperiecned editors will make mistakes, and those of us who are experienced just have to correct them. As an editor who regularly creates or edits historical biographical articles, it is convenient to have a short template to include this information, without complication and without having to type long category details. BD serves that very well; lifetime, which is (apparently) identical does as well, but is another six letter to type (or mistype); BIRTH-DEATH-SORT is an utterly unmanageable mouthful and should be merged into BD or Lifetime. I am amazed that a bot for such a significant change as this could be approved without the fullest discussion, flagged up on relevant project message boards. I would not have started using this template if I had not seen others doing so. Furthermore the TFD discussion on Lifetime was left open for a very long time, so that the rest of us did not know its outcome. ACTION: All work done by Yobot 3 needs to be undone AT ONCE. If the outcome of this RFD is to disallow BD, then it should be replaced by Lifetime. Magioladitis seems to have a prejudice against this template, but the resilt of the TFD discussion was KEEP and we do need to keep it. Please do not amke life more difficult for those of us who are trying to do good work in expanding WP. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  What do you mean "merge"? BD is just a redirect of Lifetime. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  There is no template named BD; it is just a redirect to ((Lifetime)). If you want to continue to use it, then just do it directly. DOUBLEBLUE (talk) 23:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. All instances of BD should be subst and the redirect deleted to prevent its use. BD's use is deprecated since its name is confusing and often leads editors to add a second DEFAULTSORT to articles. DOUBLEBLUE (talk) 23:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Create a bot Automatically bypass-redirect this template to one of its two alternate names. Possibility ask devs of AWB to setup some sort of page where this happens automatically, a possible method could be to categorize them using sortkey as the redirect target. And please stop subst: templates, it's a waist of everyone's time. — Dispenser 00:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I disagree strongly about subst being a waste of time. DOUBLEBLUE (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • It's a waist of time because someone will evanually go around and unsubst the template. Too much effort in the project is spent on pointless maintance. — Dispenser 05:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Why on earth would someone "unsubst" the template? That would indeed be a waste of time and effort. Subst'ing the template shows editors what is really being done. DOUBLEBLUE (talk) 07:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete it is just obscuring things, even for seasoned users. Suggest subst would be best thing then Lifetime template could also be dealt with in the same way as another template that obscures things. Keith D (talk) 01:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep pro tempore. As Peter pointed out, for those of us who frequently create large numbers of short people stubs, the additional typing of BIRTH-DEATH-SORT or even Lifetime, compared to the terse BD, is a pretty big deal. Perhaps we could compromise on a redirect named BDSORT instead of BD? I appreciate what you're trying to do, but like overlong category names, this does make life harder for the authors. (Incidentally, do you think the problem is usually from people adding DEFAULTSORT after a BD template is there, or vice versa?) Choess (talk) 02:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There was a redirect called BDSORT. The problem is that the community changes its mind many times for the appropriate name. I also believe that BIRTH-DEATH-SORT is big and ugly but when BD was renamed to it a year ago we had to act faster and not leave the coexistance of two. I am ok if we have Lifetime (as the must established name) and a redirect that contains the word "SORT". Btw, there is a template called ((Bd)). I just discovered. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment (voted above). I would not oppose BDSORT. As I have said above, this is a widely used template and needs to be kept to a terse format. The ((Bd)) produces a flag for a national Badminton team. It cannot be a widely used template. If there is confusion, it could easily be renamed to ((Badminton)), for example. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep. Useful timesaver, not compulsory for anyone. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment. It wouldn't be a problem if it was required to be subst'ed but as it is, it misleads editors that there is a DEFAULTSORT missing. DOUBLEBLUE (talk) 21:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • If you are arguing that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, you are correct. If you are arguing that the time this saves me is not spent on other work, you are wrong about that. If there is good documentation and people don't read it, where does the fault lie? Charles Matthews (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment. It is not adding DEFAULTSORT. A defaultsort needs to be added too. I just fixed two cases where they did not sort properly in other categories, even after I fixed it in the BD template. Gene Nygaard (talk) 23:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This was caused by the RfD tag. I have no problem if we remove the tag. I think if we all agree it's not a problem to do it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whatever it is, it is a problem that needs to be fixed now. It isn't currently working as the introduction to the discussion says it works. Gene Nygaard (talk) 00:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. Whether or not DEFAULTSORT is added should never be an issue; it should be visible. Delete the ((lifetime)) too, or fix it so that it visibly adds DEFAULTSORT, then people won't have the problems mentioned in raising this deletion discussion. Gene Nygaard (talk) 23:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Just to clarify, I do mean to delete it; do not replace with another template. Instead, replace it with the two appropriate categories, and with the magic word (not a template) DEFAULTSORT and the appropriate sort key. Gene Nygaard (talk) 00:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Either merge with Lifetime or rename/replace to BDSORT. I'm ambivalent on having the whole set of templates to begin with, but that should be dealt with at once imo: it doesn't make much sense to me to subst BD with its underlying categories, but not also subst Lifetime, when BD is just an alias for Lifetime. If we're going to keep Lifetime, I'd support either replacing BD with Lifetime (via bot), or replacing it with some better name like BDSORT that redirects to Lifetime. Now whether we should subst the whole set of templates, including Lifetime, is another matter. --Delirium (talk) 11:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What I say is the following: BD has to go. And if it has to go, this can be done with two ways, either by renaming it to Lifetime or by substing. Since, there is no consensus to force anyone use Lifetime or the categories anyone can help in removing BD with its preferable way. My bot can do it either way, I preferred to subst because it seems more convenient to me to completely susbst it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Further comment -- I ssupect that the old BDSORT was renamed by purists, who (correctly) deplore the use of initials and unexpanded acronyms in WP. However the result was a template with so many characters as to be useless to editors. What those of us who regularaly create bio-articles need is something quick and easy to apply, which will lead WP to provide the birth and death categories and to defaultsort those categories. BD does that well, so does lifetime, so would BDSORT (if revived). The objective needs to be to have something simple to use, so that editors will willingly apply it, rather than leaving an article that some one else has to finish off. Whatever the result, there is no point in having multiple templates doing the same thing, as that can only cause confusion. Personally, I would prefer the briefest format, as being the quickest to type, but I could live with Lifetime or BDSORT. Whatever the outcome, the others should be renamed to it. However, is there not another possibility - for the system to be altered so that the template generates a visible defaultsort? Finally, my initial commetns above were inappropriate in tone, and I must apologise to otehr users. The truth is that it was written in fury. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the debate was Delete.Tikiwont (talk) 09:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Inappropriate CNR, missing :, does not link to content. MBisanz ^talk 21:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete - Per above mentioned reason. Why are there so many cross namespace redirects left and right? Geez. Killiondude (talk) 08:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the debate was Delete.Tikiwont (talk) 09:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Inappropriate CNR, no WPT: pseudospace, does not link to content. MBisanz ^talk 21:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete - Like MBisanz mentions, there is no WPT namespace. Killiondude (talk) 08:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the debate was Delete. A note is a good idea. Ruslik (talk) 08:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Inappropriate CNR, there is no WPP pseudospace, it is WP:, does not link to content. MBisanz ^talk 21:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm guessing that the shortcut was created originally due to the fact that WP:CB links to the essay "Complete bollocks". I would request that if the above shortcut is deleted, that someone create a note on the top of the page to direct users towards WikiProject College basketball. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 00:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also note that a viable alternative, WP:CBB, in fact links instead to the community bulletin board. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 22:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete with G7. Magioladitis (talk) 13:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Inappropriate and oddly spelled CNR to a wikiproject, does not link to content. MBisanz ^talk 21:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I guess you can say that. I agree to the deletion.--Dabackgammonator (talk) 03:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So tagged. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the debate was Delete. Ruslik (talk) 08:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unlikely search term (initial "the"), title of old POV fork created by a fringe opinion pusher back in 2005 and immediately turned into a redirect, never served any purpose but to hide the offending POV-fork article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete - All that is needed to knwo about the circumstances can be find at Talk:Ancient Greek phonology/Thrax's responses to RFC comments. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the debate was Delete both.Tikiwont (talk) 09:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also nominated: Alexander Rinnooy Kan. Soft redirects to articles in other languages. Those should be deleted for similar reasons copies of articles from other Wikipedias are deleted. A blue link incorrectly leads the reader to believe there is an English article on the subject. Keeping them would also set a bad precedent that could open the door for millions of soft redirects to other Wikipedias. Cenarium ^Talk 19:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete both. This is the English Wikipedia; sending readers to an article they probably can't read is harmful at worst and confusing at best. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete both. Nominator is absolutely correct. There is absolutely no justificatin for this. Gene Nygaard (talk) 04:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete both per nom. I can't imagine any circumstance where a soft redirect from the English Wikipedia to a non-English language Wikipedia would be appropriate. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the debate was Delete. Ruslik (talk) 08:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Entsagen is a non English word, soft-redirecting to a Wiktionary entry. I think we should delete it because the new search already provides the link to the Wiktionary entry. While it is debatable whether ((wi)) is better than the enhanced search for English words (for example, the search provides variations of the word and most relevant occurrences in Wikipedia), if we allow such pages for non-English words with a much lower visibility, we'll have so many of them it won't be a benefit both for performance and usability reasons (and the search is superior that a mere link for many instances, example special:search/sagen.). Cenarium ^Talk 19:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per nom and not contrary reason to have this particular soft redirect.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the debate was Delete. Ruslik (talk) 08:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems unlikely that anyone would be searching for a discography of a whole label, as no label actually has very few labels actually have a discography page here, and Columbia's discography would be 8 million pages long if it existed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect has been created to cut article development short, so It might be useful in documenting this and to prevent further temptations to fill the presumed gap. No strong objections to deletion either.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the debate was Delete. Ruslik (talk) 14:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Old unused template that converted to redirect to Lifetime and which is not listed as a redirect anymore in Lifetime's page. Better not have many redirects for this template around. Magioladitis (talk) 15:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question -- Is it in use? If it is, use your bot to convert it to Lifetime. If it is not in use, it should be deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What do you mean "in use"? This is a redirect with no links. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete if it isn't in use, there is no reaosn to keep it. Gene Nygaard (talk) 04:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the debate was Delete all. Unlikely to be useful. Ruslik (talk) 13:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

new, arbitrary year redirects. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also:

• 4380 → 5th millennium
• 4747 → 5th millennium
• 4557 → 5th millennium
• 4296 → 5th millennium
• 4285 → 5th millennium
• 4772 → 5th millennium

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Strong Delete - Let's take a look at the universalizability of this situation. We'd have thousands of 3XXX → 4th millennium, 4XXX → 5th millennium and so on. I say all of the ones you've listed should be deleted.

On a side note, I took a look at 4747 and it links to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#4747, which doesn't exist because this conversation is under the title for 4876. Just in case you cared. Killiondude (talk) 08:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the debate was Delete. Confusing redirect. Ruslik (talk) 13:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Nick George" is a common name. If you check whatlinkshere you'll see that it refers to a) a fictional character, b) a comic writer, c) a basketball player. I am not sure if any of these people is notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia. (The fictional character certainty not). My thought is that we have to delete this redirect to avoid confusion. A disamb article without any link would be funny I think. Magioladitis (talk) 01:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment can't it live as a set-index type dab? 76.66.195.63 (talk) 04:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Temporary delete as there are multiple valid targets for a possible disambiguation page... but only if there were an actual article or two actually written here. The comic writer is certainly notable enough for a standalone article; the basketball player is debatable in the notability department; much more is needed for the fictional character to create a standalone article (and MOSDAB frowns on having dab pages with links to redirects). I'd urge listing the comic writer at Wikipedia:Requested articles. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 22:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the discussion was Dabified. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect left from a previous page split, cannot correctly redirect to either page, not used in enough articles to justify the creation of a disambiguation page Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 00:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Boldly dabified as there are at least two equally valid targets for the redirect. B.Wind (talk) 01:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What's "dabified"?--Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 03:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It means 'made into a dab (disambiguation page)'. — neuro^(talk) 09:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the debate was Sent to TFD. RFD no longer applicable. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect from a deleted template. Not used by any page, extremely unlikely to be used as a search term. Also, the title is not formatted. Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 00:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Revert the redirect and take to TfD. Whether it was an actual template or a misnamed list article before it was redirected should be discussed in the appropriate forum, and WP:RfD is clearly not it. The "template" was redirected by nom minutes before taking it here. B.Wind (talk) 01:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ok, will do--Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 03:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the debate was Deleted by Werdna as CSD R3. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While I appreciate that the likelihood of a user searching 'WCW' for 'World Championship Wrestling' is high, I would venture that the likelihood of any user ever searching for 'WCW' x28 for the same is negligible. Silly, highly implausible redirect. Frickative 00:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I don't recall typing 'WCW' 28 times. Yes delete it, it doesn't make sense. --Bravo Plantation (talk) 00:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the debate was Delete. Lenticel ^(talk) 07:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Overly long, barely makes sense, and is generally a completely implausible search term. Frickative 00:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This phrase is said by the ring announcer before almost every WWE Championship match. It is a well known phrase amongst WWE fans and therefore must stay. --Bravo Plantation (talk) 00:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A brief visit to WP:Redirect is highly recommended. B.Wind (talk) 00:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd love to believe you, but there's only one gHit and it's a broken link. Delete. Bsimmons666 (talk) ^Friend? 20:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete nonsensical redirect. It will never be used as a search item. B.Wind (talk) 00:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What do you mean it will never be used as a search item? How could you possibly know this for a fact? --Bravo Plantation (talk) 01:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Let's put it this way: "Let's get ready to suck it" is a far more likely search item, and I would urge its deletion should it ever get here. B.Wind (talk) 01:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Let's get ready to delete it! Sorry about it, got carried away there, but this is a most unuseful search term. Why enter the entire sentence when you're simply looking for the last two words? This one doesn't come close to the Reasonability Rule. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 20:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. Redir nonsense. The sentence can be mentioned in the article itself. --Watsimous (talk) 17:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the debate was Deleted by Metropolitan90 as CSD R3. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bizarre phonetic spelling redirect, completely unlikely as a search term. Frickative 00:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete this one if you must, but I have heard that this is how the character is being referred to by people as a kind of comedy term, but if it enhances your life in any way by deleting it, then by all means do so.--Bravo Plantation (talk) 00:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Google returns zero hits for "Toe Knee Gore Don", and as a subscriber to all the major British soap magazines in which this character receives regular weekly coverage, I can confirm that not once has phonetic spelling of his name ever been used as a "comedy term". Frickative 00:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete it then. Lifes too short for all of this arguing about pointless things like this. --Bravo Plantation (talk) 00:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Speedy Delete CSD R3. A one month old redirect is not too old to be speedied under these circumstances - it is a most implausible search item, and I assert that it can be considered an implausible typographical error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by B.Wind (talk • contribs) 00:50, 22 November 2008

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.