< September 23
September 25 >

September 24

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 24, 2015.

T:X11

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 6#T:X11

India proper

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 7#India proper

Steel worker

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 looks like there is consensus for the idea that there should be an article here, but that's a matter for BOLDness, not an XfD decision. --BDD (talk) 13:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to these redirects, in a nutshell: I am torn between keep-ing them as is, retarget all to Steel mill, or delete per WP:REDLINK since the specific subject as referred in the redirects is not identified in either Steel or Steel mill. Steel1943 (talk) 22:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BDD: You said it! I've been working so hard that I haven't been as active on here lately so that I can reenergize! Steel1943 (talk) 00:28, 29 September 2015 (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.

Template:Sc

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. --BDD (talk) 13:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re-target from Template:Smallcaps all to Template:Smallcaps. The current target of this template is one that takes mixed-case input and forcibly converts it, permanently, to lower case, then displays it all in upper-case in small caps style. This is frankly, weird, an edge case, and generally highly undesirable. I'm having a hard time thinking of any reason to do that at all. If some text in mixed case is something we want to present in small caps for some reason, e.g. for a particular citation format that uses small caps for titles of major works, or for surnames, or whatever, we want the underlying case to be preserved. The problem with TOKUNAGA is that it copy-pastes as "tokunaga" not "Tokunaga" (by contrast, Tokunaga copy-pastes as "Tokunaga" as expected). The shortcut ((sc)) should go to the template that preserves information, not the one that (for most users, unexpectedly) strips it before applying the stylization.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Ivanvector: Yes, it will since we have no idea if the transclusions of this redirect are then pointing to the correct target. When a template redirect that has transclusions gets retargeted, all currently-existing instances of the transclusions need to be replaced with a direct link to the intended target; for articles, the ambiguous title would either get retargeted to a disambiguation page or become a disambiguation page. Since disambiguation pages are seldom, if ever, in the template namespace, all transclusions have to be skimmed through and replaced. Steel1943 (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought so. It should be possible for a bot to do it, assuming that all of the current transclusions are pointing to the intended target. Otherwise they would need to be corrected anyway, and would need to be corrected whether or not we replaced the transclusion to ((smallcaps all)). Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ivanvector: I guess, in theory, a bot could do it. However, if the confusion exists as the nominator has, in one way or another, convinced me, doing so would probably cause more harm than good since there may be some existing transclusions of ((Sc)) that actually refer to ((Smallcaps)) instead of ((Smallcaps all)). It would unfortunately be more efficient for editors to replace the transclusions by treating them in a way similar to correcting links to a disambiguation page. Steel1943 (talk) 22:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Steel1943: Well, yeah, but my point is that if the transclusions of ((sc)) are meant to refer to ((smallcaps)) now, they don't, and they're wrong. They'll still be wrong if we replace the transclusion. How can we tell right now which template an editor who used ((sc)) means to refer to? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ivanvector: I understood what you meant completely. I'm honestly not sure if we can know which template an editor meant to link without looking at each transclusion individually. What I stated was that every transclusion of ((Sc)) would need to be verified by a human who clearly knows the difference between ((Smallcaps)) and ((Smallcaps all)) and replace the ((Sc)) transclusions accordingly. Steel1943 (talk) 23:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Steel1943: It actually seems to me, based on SMcCandlish's explanation and the link they provided to the documentation, that there is no valid use case for ((smallcaps all)) at all. So if we retarget and do nothing else, it will overall be an improvement even if some errors result. The documentation even seems to suggest that ((smallcaps all)) should never be used, so I'm wondering why it exists at all. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ivanvector: That could very well be the case, but that really cannot be determined as a result of this discussion since this is a discussion about the usefulness and purpose of the nominated redirect. Just because there is rather credible rationale proving the target template useless doesn't mean that there are not any cases where an editor truly meant to transclude ((Sc)) as a shortcut to ((Smallcaps all)). That determination really should be the decision of a discussion about ((Smallcaps all)) itself, which would probably happen at WP:TFD. Steel1943 (talk) 00:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Steel1943: I don't disagree. Maybe this discussion should be suspended pending the necessary discussion at TfD. In the meantime, I'll stick with what you said below. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It doesn't look like this discussion is going anywhere while there are still so many existing uses of the redirect. More time may allow for cleaning those up, and lead to clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:45, 24 September 2015 (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.

Teaching guru

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 6#Teaching guru

Technology guru

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 6#Technology guru

Sports guru

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 5#Sports guru

Pope Rat

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 deleted WP:CSD#G10. JohnCD (talk) 19:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFD#D3. While this can be a shortening of his surname (Ratzinger), applying the term "Rat" to a person usually has a negative connotation. Since this isn't in common use, I think it's best to err on the side of caution and delete this, since it could be a WP:BLP issue. -- Tavix (talk) 03:52, 24 September 2015 (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.

Virgin cargo

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) 13:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not mentioned at the target. Furthermore, Virgin Australia also has a cargo division [1], (perhaps other related companies as well), thus making this confusing. - TheChampionMan1234 03:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • How do you know this will help, the term isn't mentioned there either? - TheChampionMan1234 21:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@TheChampionMan1234: It has been established above that at least two of the airlines at the dab has a cargo division, so this is a plausible target to it as a more general phrase describing cargo divisions of these airlines rather than one airline in particular, its current target. --Rubbish computer 00:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rubbish computer: Neither of these articles mention the cargo division, neither does the dab, so I don't see any point in doing that, someone searching this term would likely already know about the airline(s), so this isn't the least bit helpful. - TheChampionMan1234 00:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@TheChampionMan1234: I think it's better if we just agree to disagree. --Rubbish computer 01:11, 25 September 2015 (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.

Recent Pope

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 withdrawn. I'm going to go ahead and retarget it to List of Popes#3rd millennium because a) it looks like that'd be the outcome anyway and b) I've decided that retargeting there is a good idea so it looks like we're all in agreement. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 20:41, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as vague. Yes, Pope Benedict XVI was a recent pope but there have been other "recent" pope's depending on how you want to define recent. -- Tavix (talk) 02:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would be confusing as the redirect implies one pope. Does this really get enough use to justify keeping it somewhere? -- Tavix (talk) 13:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could get behind that suggestion; it's much better than redirecting to the full list at least. -- Tavix (talk) 16:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This option seems reasonable. The redirects have been viewed 8 times so far this month.--MASHAUNIX 18:44, 24 September 2015 (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.
More