Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 April 3 - Wikipedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep, with no prejudice toward a merge. JPG-GR (talk) 04:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Redirect9 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and redundant to {{Redirect6}}. Redirect6 has better code. Magioladitis (talk) 12:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It was being used on the Hong Kong article until you removed it (and with lack of an edit summary, something I'd expect an admin to always use). The template is for a disambig page and an abbreviation of the article's name. As you can see below Redirect6 is unsuitable as it doubles up the "For other uses" part:

Redirect6: "HK" redirects here. For other uses, see Hong Kong (disambiguation). For other uses, see HK (disambiguation).

Redirect9: "HK" redirects here. For other uses, see Hong Kong (disambiguation) and HK (disambiguation).

--Joowwww (talk) 16:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The two templates are not redundant to one another. --fuzzy510 (talk) 17:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. The two are similar enough for a merge. If Redirect6 has the better coding then fine, but Redirect9 has the better wording. As noted above, the repetion of "for other uses" is redundant. PC78 (talk) 22:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have to fix the wording of Redirect6. I haven't noticed that it uses the phrase "for other uses" twice.

Comment - Correction to nomination Take a look at redirect5. It produces the same result with redirect9:

Redirect5: {{redirect5|HK|other uses|Hong Kong (disambiguation)||HK (disambiguation)}} yelds

-- Magioladitis (talk) 23:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and delete -- I had no idea that {redirectN} has proliferated so much! I can see how to merge many of them. Otherwise better naming conventions are needed. How do we expect editors to remember so many variants?!?! --William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2009 (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 (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.