Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 11#🜒
=[[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 11|June 11]]=
==Vivicam3915==
==Template:+l==
: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
- {{no redirect|1 = Template:+l }} → :Template:Underlinked (talk · links · history · stats)
[ Closure: {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|(@subpage)|[{{fullurl:Template:+l|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Template:+l closed as keep}}}} keep]/[{{fullurl:Template:+l|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Template:+l closed as retarget}}}} retarget]/[{{fullurl:Template:+l|action=delete&wpReason={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Template:+l closed as delete}}&wpMovetalk=1}} delete]}} ] - {{no redirect|1 = Template:+L }} → :Template:Underlinked (talk · links · history · stats)
[ Closure: {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|(@subpage)|[{{fullurl:Template:+L|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Template:+L closed as keep}}}} keep]/[{{fullurl:Template:+L|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Template:+L closed as retarget}}}} retarget]/[{{fullurl:Template:+L|action=delete&wpReason={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Template:+L closed as delete}}&wpMovetalk=1}} delete]}} ]
Pair of unused template shortcuts that are so short they are confusing and meaningless. I don't think that if you came across {{tl|+l}} in an article it would be obvious from the wikicode what it was. Delete. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 20:55, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - These redirects are similar to {{tl|+c}} and {{tl|+r}}.
- Per WP:R#KEEP, "If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do".
- The redirect was created months ago with dozens of uses to its name, so IMO the time has passed for changing the redirect without significant confusion. 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."
- "One of the lowest things one can do is steal another man's tools. So you have no use for it. That it's being used 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."
- "Redirects are not only cheap but this is a redirect from and to template namespace. That would tend to indicate to me that anyone using it is an editor rather than a general reader and they are hardly likely to get it [confused]. There are lots of little abbreviated things pulled up over the years such as {{tl|tlc}} or {{tl|tlx}} or whatever as useful shorthand for editors."
- We also have the {{temp|hat}} (not about hats), {{temp|temp}} (not about temporary workers),
{{ link}} (not about chains, golf courses, an American singer, etc), {{temp|user}} (not about drug, computer or telecommunication system users), {{temp|admin}} (not about administrators), {{temp|ill}} (not about illness), {{temp|top}} (not about spinning tops or clothing), {{temp|columns}} (not about architecture), {{temp|reliable sources}} (not about publications, {{temp|cleanup}} (not about cleaning), {{temp|fiction}} (not about fiction), {{temp|copyedit}} (not about copyediting), {{temp|tone}} (not about literature, linguistics or music), {{temp|neutrality}} (not about international relations), and many others I can't think of off the top of my head.
--Jax 0677 (talk) 15:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. Adding this template is requesting other editors to add links. Because others will need to be able to interpret this code, it needs to be as transparent as possible. These redirects do not easily convey their meaning, and are thus confusing for those who would come across them in an article. -- Tavix (talk) 18:01, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
:* Reply - People will likely be able to find to find this code by looking at the sequence of the templates, and that is how I find many template redirects, and how people find {{tl|+r}}, the latter of which was discussed and kept. The actual template will unambiguously ask people to add links. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. This redirect is horrible and should never even be used in articles. Editors should not need to guess what a template does. A name should be as clear as possible. A random letter and the plus sign does not even make any sense here. --Gonnym (talk) 09:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
:* Reply - The template itself will tell people what needs to be done. If what you said is true, why do {{tl|+R}} and {{tl|+C}} exist? --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
::: They exist because you created them. +r was kept but there was little participation in the rfd for it. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:08, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Nonsensical. It's not even an abbreviation; it's a code that no one else will understand. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:18, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
:* Reply - If this is the case, how will people understand {{tl|+R}} or {{tl|+C}}, which have been used quite frequently?
- I really like slightly cryptic and clever shortcuts like this one, but they really should only be used for the sort of in-line templates that you'd normally have several instances of in each block of text: that way they save typing and they reduce the clutter in the wikicode. I don't think they should be used for the sort of template that's only invoked once per article, definitely not for the templates that go at the very top of a page: these really need to be clear and transparent, and there's little to gain by making them shorter. – Uanfala (talk) 20:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Reply - The number of uses in one article is irrelevant, especially if {{tl|+L}} is used on multiple pages. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:25, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
: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.