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. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 07:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Wpcm → Template:WikiProject Country Music (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Redirect disguised as template with no other use than saving a few keyboard strokes instead of typing "Template:WikiProject Country Music" (or cut and paste). Totally unclear for non-expert users. Only used by creator.The Banner talk 12:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep a perfectly standard template redirect. None of the reasons given support the deletion of any redirect, let alone this specific one, so unless you are proposing retargetting this to somewhere else there is no reason to delete it. There are hundreds of redirects to templates with abbreviated and acronymic names like this one, if you disagree with them then I recommend you initiate a policy discussion about in an appropriate venue. Thryduulf (talk) 12:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it is a WP:SHORTCUT, so should be capitalized ((WPCM)) if it is to exist -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 06:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• delete and salt, the uppercase version is the standard, if we need a shortcut. Frietjes (talk) 17:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for reasons IP and Frietjes: as a shortcut, and a WikiProject "WP" at that, lowercase is not the standard. The uppercase variant can be offered. Really, lowercase shortcuts this way are invisible and so not useful (but for the initiated/initiator). -DePiep (talk) 12:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - This RfD is extremely similar to the 2013 RfD about Template:Cop and the 2014 RfD about Template:wprk, 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.
  • "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 ((wpcm)) has been suggested at all. Per WP:R#KEEP, "If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do".
  • "Many, possibly most, templates with names starting "wp" (in any capitalisation) are associated with WikiProjects and including a W for the Wikipedia namespace is at best very uncommmon. This means that the alleged confusion is not very plausible at all. So absent evidence of any harm there is no reason to delete."
  • "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."

--Jax 0677 (talk) 07:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are differences with your examples & RfD links (maybe even as otherstuffexists), and there is harm. Common sense rules 1 & 2: Shortcuts are in uppercase and do not cover typo/spelling issues (with rational exceptions). Creating such a lowercase/mixedcase shortcut defies the essence of a shortcut: an easy to remember route. Introducing lowercase variants adds a load to the easiness: was my shortcut uc, lc, or mixedc? For this harm (a mental load for the editor), lc is to be prevented. Even worse: making a difference by uc/lc spelling is a guarantee for mistakes & editors frustration (not in play here, but it illustrates my harm claim). (You got me with the ((hat)) example: I really expected it to arrive at something ((HAT)). No kidding. And I have used both more than two times). Of course no one claimed an other use for ((wpcm))! And when for an editor a shortcut is probably useful (your R#KEEP), that does not rule that that editor may not be corrected by saying: "good redirect, let's use standard shortcut naming = uc". And your linked RfD discussions & examples miss the fact that this template points to a WikiProject, so "WP..." is the expected and therefor best spelling. I recap: Shortcuts spelled non-standaard are harmful. -DePiep (talk) 10:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The whole shortcut casing issue is a Wikipedia namespace issue, and is one that is both an obvious extension of most of the WP:R#DELETE reasons and the result of longstanding convention. That is, when we actually use our alphabet soup links, we always type them in uppercase, and they're always recognized by their uppercase typings. Template redirects, on the other hand, have a longstanding convention of being lowercase (e.g., ((cn)), ((hat)), ((cop))), and this includes WikiProject templates (e.g., ((wprk))). At any rate, this discussion is not the place to fully hash out DePiep's novel argument. As it is not (and to my understanding never has been) part of WP:SC, this should be expressed as a proposal at an appropriate project talk page or perhaps WP:VPP. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Banner Template shortcuts, on the other hand, from what I've seen of them, are primarily all upper case, and these are not normal template redirects, they usually use the same name as the WikiProject's shortcut, so should take the same form as the Wikiproject's shortcut (all uppercase) -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 23:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whether that's actually a prescriptive norm or something that just happens to happen isn't something we can or should be hashing out in a discussion about one template. The decision affects a whole suite of template redirects, and should be discussed in a forum where we can have a binding outcome. To draw a comparison to administrative law in the United States, this is essentially an adjudication, while what you propose is a rulemaking. We can't make such broad-based judgements without giving proper notice to the community, where they have opportunity to comment on the proposed rule. It's hardly fair to impose some standard (which I argue is artificial) on a case-by-case basis and have unequal results (i.e., if this closes in delete, then the outcome for ((wprk)) makes no sense). I know WP:OSE is usually cited to counter a claim that one deletion discussion should have a precedent effect on another, but that does not mean that a system should stay in place where equal facts have unequal outcomes. Mass nominations alleviate this concern to an extent, but I predict such a necessarily narrowly-tailored nomination would fail. Start a policy discussion if you think these outcomes are wrong. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep per Jax and my comments in the discussions he linked, with the caveat that compared to those discussions (wprk and cop), the nomination for this one doesn't even come close in terms of claims colorable by policy: this nomination is essentially "per WP:IDONTLIKEIT". As I stated in the wprk discussion, "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". —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am so lazy, I do not even want to keep a list of which shortcuts are lowercase. -DePiep (talk) 10:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The good news is that you don't have to. If you are not using this shortcut it doesn't affect you in the slightest. If you are using it as a means to find the target from the internal search engine then the good news is that that utility's case insensitivity means that you get to where you want to go exactly if it was capitalised. If you are wanting to use this shortcut in a case sensitive location, well Template:WPCM already exists. Thryduulf (talk) 11:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Good to know, I guess I better write this exception down. Oh wait. -DePiep (talk) 15:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a serious note. If these uc/lc's look & do alike, what is the use of adding/keeping ((Wpcm)) next to ((WPCM))? Can't we just say to the creating editor: you're right to create it as an expressed need, but it is already covered by the uc pagename version? (conversely, if the lc page does add a new feature, I'll throw in my generic shortcut & template transclusion standards). -DePiep (talk) 08:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because they only work alike in some situations, not all, and having both of them is completely harmless. Which to use is therefore a case of personal preference, and that is not something that RfD should even contemplate prescribing. Thryduulf (talk) 14:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Some people use all-uppercase by default. If there isn't a redirect in all uppercase, the template doesn't work. For instance, ((top)) vs. ((TOP)). The first works, the second will not work. If someone feels the uppercase variant is valuable, I see no reason to delete it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mendaliv, I think you are talking about the opposite topic. The capitalised one should stay, the lowercase one is proposed to be deleted. -DePiep (talk) 09:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I'm not sure why I've been solicited to comment on this; maybe it's because I commented on ((cop)). Regardless, I think this template redirect is fine. Unlike the previous case, the meaning of this shortcut is not ambiguous, and merely being a template shortcut is no problem. 172.9.22.150 (talk) 17:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It was also suggested to me that I might want to comment in this discussion. I can't see anything wrong with this shortcut; my preference for deletion in the "wprk" discussion was due to concerns over similarity in name to other templates. — Scott • talk 17:45, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep "Redirect disguised as template"? Does the nominator seriously not understand that templates can have redirects too? --BDD (talk) 16:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Criminy sakes. 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 two dozen 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. That would cut down this nonsense. Sheese! DO SOME EDITING, not kibitzing 'cause you couldn't compare text to a preview, how sily can you get? // FrankB 03:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I repeat: there is harm in this page name. When I encounter this redirect in a page (edit code, talkpage running text, any page), I have no indication that it is about a WP (WikiProject), about WPCM (a shortcut), or similar shortcut related (WP:WPCM). The burden to find that out or to know that from memory or to deduct that from context is passed to me. Be it in linking or in transclusion or in plain text. And this is not just me. It applies to all editors that in the future encounter this pagename. That is the harm done by non-standard shortcut naming. Now, the creator or an actual user should be asked to motivate such an exception if there is one (e.g. in this RfD). Otherwise: the exception (to standard shortcut naming) is not helpful; it is harmful. -DePiep (talk) 09:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a shortcut though, so the capitalization is irrelevant. The only place you should be encountering this one is on the talk page of a country music-related article, possible even with other WikiProject tags. If the confusion you describe is such a problem, I can think of a lot of other redirects to WikiProject tags that would have to be regarded as harmful. --BDD (talk) 18:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So another problem added: it is not even a shortcut! Exceptions, exceptions, exceptions. It is not a shortcut: because it evades the definition of a shortcut. (Nice wordplay, just define things away). Then, "if confusion is a problem -- OSE". Sigh. -DePiep (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just shouting "OSE" is not a valid counter-argument to an observation that something is a widespread practice. If you have a problem with the widespread practice, you need to take the first step of discussing the issue at WP:VP. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mendaliv, BDD's comment did not read like shouting to me. BDD just mentioned a WP:OSE argumentat. As for the reasoning: BDD states that 1. this should "only occur on the talk page of a country music-related article", and 2. "a lot of other [redirects redirects are the same]". So saying: it's only local and its everywhere. In other words: a self-contradicting statement by BDD. -DePiep (talk) 08:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how you got "its [sic] everywhere" out of the existence of "other redirects to WikiProject tags." Obviously, all of these would appear only on talk pages. --BDD (talk) 22:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, pardon me for insisting on clarity of language. DePiep, you certainly know that shortcut has a specific meaning on Wikipedia, and it's rather unreasonable of you to fault me for responding to the language you used. If you can't distinguish between a shortcut and a redirect, then frankly, you shouldn't be at RFD. My point—that the only location this redirect should be used in negates the problem of lack of context—stands. And while OSE is a poor argument for articles, it's entirely reasonable to consider consistency with similar redirects in this case. If you object to abbreviations as redirects to WikiProject tags, consider nominating them for batch deletion. --BDD (talk) 22:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. I did not fault you, Mendaliv did. I was the one who wrote that you did not shout. 2. No need to check my spelling when you advocate "Wp" as a spelling for "WP". (And don't you also find that these days when "sic" is used, too often it is overstressed in punctuation and format? Being a language purist, that must irritate you.) 3. From your link, the shortcut page lead: "... for any page". Shortcuts exist for ease of use, and making exceptions contradicts that aim. Shortcuts are capitalized. 4. Common sense says: WP:WPCM and Template:WPCM should be shortcuts for the same name. I do not want a paper glued next to my screen: "exceptions to shortcuts to remember". 5. "should be used" -- that's wishful. It may be used everywhere. And when it is used outside your prescribed, the context is gone too. 6. re your "you shouldn't be at RfD" - there are tags for that. They look like <s>. Use them. -DePiep (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Geez, maybe it's time for WP:FLOW. I thought Mendaliv was responding to you. (Mendaliv, can you clarify?) Anyway, I suppose there isn't a clear-cut definition of a shortcut versus a regular redirect. That's not really what's important. Capitalization doesn't matter. That's not just my opinion; it's how the MediaWiki software is set up. What's important is whether this redirect will take users where they want to go, or if it's somehow fundamentally misleading. This may not be one that people are going to use all the time, but popularity isn't a requirement for a redirect. I do note that WP:WPCM redirects to WikiProject Christian music, so it may be prudent to retarget to ((WikiProject Christian music)). I don't see a benefit to deletion, however. --BDD (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My criticism was leveled towards DePiep, not BDD. I apologize for not being clearer. My point was that where someone makes an argument, cogently articulating that something is common practice, it is not a valid counter-argument to just link to WP:OSE. OSE only means anything where the counter-example cited is a cherry-picked, likely non-sequitur, that the person making the argument has gone out of his way to find, and which has no real relationship to the item at hand. In fact, I encourage you to read WP:OSE, at least the lede: that essay itself states that argument by comparison can be effective, and in fact may be important. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Jax 0677 and Mendaliv. I fail to see how having this redirect harms the project in any way, and saving keystrokes is an entirely valid use for a template redirect. Sideways713 (talk) 19:22, 17 March 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.

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 The result of the discussion was to Delete. TLSuda (talk) 01:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The X Factor (U.S. season 4) → The X Factor (U.S. TV series) (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Was cancelled for three seasons after announced that it did not renew for fourth season after judge Simon Cowell returned to its UK series. ApprenticeFan ^work 09:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Someone searching for this is not looking for any article other than the present target, which contains the sourced statement that there will not be a season 4. The most likely reason they are searching is that they don't know there wont be a season 4, or know there wont be but don't know (or can't remember) why. The target gives them what they are looking for in both cases, whereas a page of search results, an invitation to create an article or a message that we don't have an article but they can search if they want (depending on how they arrive at the page and whether they have the ability to create an article or not) cannot. Thryduulf (talk) 10:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As far as I can tell, this is where someone searching for the term would want to be sent. It's wholly unreasonable to expect people to be familiar with how many seasons the American X factor has. WilyD 12:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - show was cancelled and therefore there's no further seasons. Unreal7 (talk) 01:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This reasoning seems unrelated to whether or not the redirect should be kept. WilyD 09:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • This should only exist if a further season is planned, and it's not. Unreal7 (talk) 00:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is no season four planned, thus this is superfluous and should be deleted to remove a dangling hoaxing target. Search box would just direct users to the X Factor US anyways when this title is redlinked. Nate • (chatter) 03:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • How would a red link present less of a hoaxing target than a redirect? WilyD 11:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • You really don't know the TV hoaxing community; they're amazingly resilient at using redirects to host fantasy seasons of their favorite cancelled shows. Better to redlink it than allow it to linger for a show not getting a fourth season. Nate • (chatter) 20:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • And they would be exactly as capable of haoxing a redlink as a redirect. All this requires is that the redirect gets watchlisted. We don't hinder the usability of the encyclopaedia for our readers to make it trivially harder to detect trolls. Thryduulf (talk) 14:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Again, the show is canceled. There is no season four, and none will exist (do we have a Gilligan's Island (season 4) article for instance? Or an article for The Mole (U.S. season 6)? Of course not, because they're definitely confirmed as not ever coming back). There should be no redirect; IP's don't get to create articles anyways so even if we get the autoconfirmers on, most of the TV hoaxer community are made up of IP's. This is my last response on this subject. Nate • (chatter) 07:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment as a nominator, I have wonder that a hoaxer created a fantasy series on cancelled shows that much not good, and cancelled series links are really do not have redirect link. And I agree with Nate and Thryduulf must change your vote to delete. ApprenticeFan ^work 13:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Once I again I stand by my Keep vote because our mission is to educate people. By having this redirect we are educating people looking for it that there is no fourth series, without it we are not differentiating between there not being an fourth series and us just not having an article about it and would you like to create one. Also, we do not delete redirects just because someone might turn it into a hoax article - we put a note on the talk page, watchlist the redirect and, if necessary, protect it. The other red links you give could equally validly be redirected to their relevant show articles if someone wants to, but really see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Thryduulf (talk) 11:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as misleading. --BDD (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can see that some people might find this useful, but it's really just no help. The fact that there's no redirect in the first place should be a good enough clue that the season does not exist. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 00:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete People may be looking for 'season 4,' but not 'US season 4. This redirect should be destroyed Ned1230|Whine|Stalk 20:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Since there's never going to be a Season 4, this redirect is simply unneeded. We don't have redirects for unproduced seasons of other cancelled shows (as pointed out by Nate), The X Factor US should not be an exception to that. Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 08:36, 1 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.

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) 17:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Dwindled → Collapse (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Implausible redirect. Obviously not caught before, but no one looking for any term that would be accessible via a Collapse disambiguation page would type "dwindled" to find it, and anyone typing "dwindled" would only be perplexed upon finding himself at Collapse. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree this is implausible, but I'm in too minds about what best to do with it. Option 1 is simply deletion. Option 2 is to create a soft redirect at Dwindle to wikt:dwindle and retarget dwindled to that soft redirect (which would not surprise anyone). The only reason I hesitate about option 2 is because of Dwindle Distribution, the only potential target for a redirect at Dwindle but I'm really unsure about whether that would be a good redirect or not - certainly Dwindled → Dwindle Distribution is not something I'd recommend. More thought needed on this one. Thryduulf (talk) 10:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The documentation for ((wiktionary redirect)) indicates that it's for limited use, as a preemptive measure in cases where users keep creating deletion-worthy articles under the title in question. I see no compelling reason for using it here. This is an article that shouldn't have existed, created by a user who was subsequently blocked for a variety of misbehavior. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is WP:DICDEF and surely the past tense of a verb is not even listed as a headword in a dictionary (if anything it should redirect to "collapsed"). I can see Thryduulf's hesitation and whether it should go to Dwindle Distribution, especially because the second word in that starts with D. But on balance I would say delete it, it's always hard to prove a negative but it probably gets in the way of a normal search. If Dwindle Distrubtion is known or has a trade name of Dwindled or DwindleD then I can see good reason to direct it there; I couldn't find that it trades under those names but others are better at searching than I. Si Trew (talk) 15:27, 2 March 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.