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 keep. Rossami (talk) 22:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ringer (season 1) → List of Ringer episodes (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Useless redirect. The show was canceled after its first season. QuasyBoy (talk) 21:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This gets a massive number of hits (>400 in April) and so it is almost certainly linked from somewhere externally, and is thus proving very useful in directing people to the location of the content. It's not misleading, nor in the way of anything or otherwise harmful so deletion would bring no benefit. Thryduulf (talk) 22:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• As first season was aired this redirect is OK Bulwersator (talk) 20:11, 19 May 2012 (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.

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 under G7. — ξ^xplicit 00:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Celan-up → Template:Cleanup (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Unused, confusing and strange redirect to template. I hope that it may be deleted. Bulwersator (talk) 18:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete. Not only does this have no uses (all the links are either due to this discussion or mentions in lists of redirects), but it gets 0 hits. This typo is not especially common, nor any more likely than any other typo so there is no real benefit to keeping it. Thryduulf (talk) 22:42, 18 May 2012 (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.

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 keep. — ξ^xplicit 23:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Attn → Template:Cleanup (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Unused, strange redirect to template. I hope that it may be deleted. Bulwersator (talk) 18:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This template redirect has existed since 2006 (when it pointed to template:Attention, which was merged into template:cleanup a few months later). Even after all this time it still gets a smattering of hits, so deletion would have some cost. In contrast, I don't see what benefit deleting this would bring - it's not mislead, in the way or otherwise harmful. Thryduulf (talk) 22:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Easier to create scripts/bots/any other automatic processing of wikipedia content (making this things on enwiki requires handling of ridiculous amount of template redirects). Real example of code:
    • without redirects: if text.index(/\{\{\s*Cleanup\s*(|\|\s*section\s*)\|\s*date\s*=\s*[^}|]*\}\}/i) == nil
    • with redirects: if text.index(/\{\{\s*(Cleanup|Attention|Attention \(on talk page\)|Attention see talk|Attn|CU|Celan-up|Clean|Clean up|Clean-up|Cleancat|Cleanup-article|Cleanup-because|Cleanup-date|Cleanup-quality|Cleanup-reason|Cleanup-since|Clu|Cu|Improve|Index-cleanup|Quality|Spelling|Tidy)\s*(|\|\s*section\s*)\|\s*date\s*=\s*[^}|]*\}\}/i) == nil
  • Bulwersator (talk) 23:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The convenience of human editors should always be given priority over the simplicity of bot coding. Bot authors are experienced Wiki<p|m>edians who have the skills necessary to produce code like the above snippet. Human editors' abilities run the full spectrum from equally skilled and experienced to newbies who only know that they need to bring this article to the attention of somebody who knows more than them. By making it as easy as possible for the editors at the latter end of the scale we make it more likely that we will create and keep the contributors without whom the project will die.
      I'm no coder, but would it not be possible instead of hardcoding each redirect name into each bot, to program the bots to read a list from a page that lists them all (maybe even http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/rdcheck.py?page=Template:Cleanup )? Thryduulf (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • it was only answer for "I don't see what benefit deleting this would bring" - I may live with this - but I think that 20 different names for single template is also confusing for "normal" people. Unfortunately toolselver is frequently down, but thanks for the link as it may be very useful. BTW - on plwiki "tech users" managed to kill almost all template redirects (list of all 155, including 20 unused) so I was quite surprised by this problem :) Bulwersator (talk) 00:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it still gets a smattering of hits" - hm, I see that it is completely unused (the only use is on User:Meiskam/sandbox) Bulwersator (talk) 04:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having no incoming links is not the same as being unused. In the case of templates, there are some bots that bypass template redirects when they do things like dating maintenance templates. This means that frequently used template redirects can have no incoming links. Thryduulf (talk) 09:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is it logged? Is it possible to check whatever redirect is used? Bulwersator (talk) 10:39, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • It will obviously be recorded in article and bot contributions histories, but beyond that it will vary by bot. I'm not aware of any central place to check, as what links here records on incoming internal links at the moment you check it. A "what used to link here" tool would be very useful, but it's not one that exits (or, I guess, would be easy to create). Thryduulf (talk) 18:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This redirect is not helpful for human editors, and evidently not used, so we should delete it - practically unknown template redirects are simply a pain for bots. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:56, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:CHEAP, and "attn" is an abbreviation for "attention", so since template:attention redirects to ((cleanup)), why shouldn't this exist? Bots already go ahead and replace other redirected templates with other templates, so I don't see how this impacts bot performance if some other bot replaces transclusions. A bot could just wait for another bot to replace transclusions before doing it's job if it hasn't been coded to accept 'attn'. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately bot will bypass redirect only if somebody added tag without a date (part of cleanup redirects is linked) Bulwersator (talk) 15:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Thryduulf and the anon immediately above. Rossami (talk) 14:28, 20 May 2012 (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.

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. — ξ^xplicit 23:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:WikiProject Government of the United States → Template:WikiProject United States (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

This redirect is no longer needed. The template for WikiProject US Gov was superceded by WikiProject US a couple years ago. At this point its better to delete the Redirect and let it show as a red link in the unlikely event someone tries to use it. Kumioko (talk) 02:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Why would a red link be better? Better to redirect to the project that replaced it D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: no essential history, no transclusions or significant incoming links, and zero hits in recent months. This redirect originally pointed to Template:WikiProject United States Government, which was deleted at TFD. At the time, this redirect should have been deleted under speedy deletion criterion G8 rather than retargeted. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:47, 21 May 2012 (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.