The result of the debate was delete. Wizardman 18:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting this title to a disambiguation page makes no sense and provides no information to readers Russ (talk) 13:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for several reasons. EV World appears to be a site that falls short of WP:WEB for its own article; there is no Wikipedia article on its owner and publisher, Bill Moore (who himself might have a hard time reaching WP:BIO). If there were an article, it would more likely be for EV World itself, with a page for the editor providing redirection (how would it be disambiguated if it were? Good thing I'm not going there). There's no appearance anywhere on the dab page accounting for the Bill Moore in question. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Strange target, don't understand what's going on here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree, I can see no sense in the given redirect. abf /talk to me/ 18:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note - retargeted to William Moore to avoid double redirect. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 19:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Move request. This needs to be nominated at WP:RM, not here. -- JLaTondre (talk) 12:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The two should be switched. The subject of the article is publicly known as Art. Dems on the move (talk) 03:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep dates, no consensus default to keep on years. Wizardman 01:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus that dates which currently exist in articles are to be unlinked. In fact, there is a great deal of debate on the subject. This redirect implies consensus when there is none. If somebody wants to write an essay on the subject under this title, I would not object. Corvus cornix_talk 02:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Unless I'm missing something, there's overwhelming consensus that linking dates purely for autoformatting is deprecated. Spellcast (talk) 02:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no consensus that links that already exist should be deleted. Corvus cornix_talk 02:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment on comment So are you saying that no one should like to the MOS? Ever? Cause with this RFD you're asking for the links to be deleted, not commenting on the policy itself or it's ramifications. NJGW (talk) 04:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or are you questioning the meaning of the term "depreciated"? NJGW (talk) 04:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per Spellcast. Corvus Cornix' oddly bent logic amounts to "Nobody should do it, but if somebody does, nobody should undo it" To be unduly polite about it, that's not a very thoughtful or justifiable position. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 02:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for reasons given by Spellcast and Scheinwerfermann. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 03:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep obviously the nom doesn't know about the consensus. NJGW (talk) 04:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole"... obviously there isn't a consensus if a member of the whole doesn't know about it. If it were in General Agreement it would also be introduced to Policy inside of being in continuing debate among the community. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 12:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Useful redirect that clearly states what the section is all about. Gary King (talk) 05:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep UNLINKDATES, it's logically correct, the section on autoformatting does refer to unlinking dates.
  But Delete or Retarget UNLINKYEARS, singular linked years have nothing to do with autoformatting. --Closedmouth (talk) 05:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Move and Delete both. What was agreed was that "the linking of dates purely for the purpose of autoformatting is now deprecated". There is no consensus to unlink dates in general, so both shortcuts are seriously misleading. Scolaire (talk) 07:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Misleading redirect. It's not a good redirect if there is even minor disagreement about it, and it definetly isn't a useful redirect, so no one is going to put out by the loss of it. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 12:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, of course. There seems to be a circularity to the attempt at logic here. Somehow, MoS and MOSUM are allowed to deprecate something, but some separate permission must be sought to implement what it says? Crazy. This goes for both shortcuts listed above. Tony (talk) 15:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there is overwhelming consensus that the autoformatting of dates is depreciated. That is not the same as overwhelming consensus to go 'round Wikipedia actively un-linking those that are already linked - there is no consensus on this matter. _TalkIslander 15:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• UNLINKDATES should definitely be kept. The section concerns, amongst other things, the unlinking of dates, so there is a clear connection here. One is not forced to follow the Manual of Style, but if one does, one should unlink dates, so there should be no doubting the validity of the "unlinking existing dates" recommendation, either. On the other hand, Closedmouth may have a point about the relevance of UNLINKYEARS, as years should be unlinked anyway and don't have much to do with auto-formatting. I don't feel strongly about it either way. Waltham, The Duke of 16:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Redirects are cheap. If somebody cites WP:UNLINKDATES in a discussion, it will only carry as much weight as the linked-to passage in WP:MOS. I assume that other editors are standing by to correct any inappropriate uses of the phrase 'Per WP:UNLINKDATES'. Surely it can't be forbidden to link to that section of WP:MOS. EdJohnston (talk) 21:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I somehow missed a delete or two and closed this. It's open again. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ten. I admit I was confused :-) Scolaire (talk) 21:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Misleading (or lying about) policy pointed to. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Care to explain what the lie is? NJGW (talk) 00:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lie is that year links should (by guideline) be unlinked. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing in the title which says that... there's just a straight-forward description of what the editor posting the link has done (unlinked the dates). The guideline is that the links are depreciated (considered of little or no worth, not adding value to the articles). NJGW (talk) 00:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as redirects to relevant policy. Also, saying that there was no consensus to update articles with linked articles is wrong. If we update FA criteria saying that it has to have a citation style Foo in it, does it mean we leave all articles without Foo citation style? No, we fix it. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 22:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think that only MOS:UNLINKDATES should be kept. The issue with the MoS is formatting, linking the years doesn't format anything, so delete MOS:UNLINKYEARS. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 22:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, your "Foo citation" style is an example of why the guideline does not support changing the style; if the guideline recommended Harvard citations, it would not mean that we should change from the MLA citation style in articles that had it, even if it could be done cleanly by a bot. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, your "recommended" citations argument does not have anything to do with "depreciated" conventions. Funny thing is you didn't answer my point on this above, but as long as we're here instead of there, what should we do if Harvard style citations become "depreciated"? I would create wp:UNHARVARDSTYLE. NJGW (talk) 01:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]