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).
The result of the discussion was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unused, seems to be superceded by other methods of citing Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unused.--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:23, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yeah, we don't need this any longer. And new citations to this publisher are rare now anyway, so potential uses for the template are declining, not increasing. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 00:50, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a big fan of citing media anyway, but not particularly helpful, as it's rarely cited... And could just be cited by filling in {{cite AV media}}. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 08:18, 11 April 2020 (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).
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).
The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:48, 17 April 2020 (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).
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).
The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Subs / delete per nom's rationale.--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:23, 11 April 2020 (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).
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).
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).
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).
The result of the discussion was delete. Replace with the appropriate template to orphan. Primefac (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a hatnote template created in 2018 and used on about 70 pages. Its output is something like this:
"REDIRECT" redirects here. You may be looking for PAGE1.
The problem is that it addresses the reader directly in the second-person. I've used this exact wording on one or two dab pages where circumstances have been exceptional, but it should generally be avoided (MOS:YOU). I've had a look at a dozen or so of the template's uses in articles, and in almost all cases, You may be looking for should be replaced with It is not to be confused with, which is exactly the output of the much more commonly used {{redirect-distinguish}}. Now, one caveat is that 30 of the template's transclusions are in the project namespace, and there we generally have more leeway with style. Personally, I'd prefer rephrasing in these cases as well, but if there's a strong need to keep this exact wording on those 30 project pages, then this could easily be achieved by using the custom text field of the other hatnote templates. Further considerations are that the template's name is misleading (it has nothing to do with the widely known {{for}}), and that we generally have way too many hatnote templates.
Notifications to the creators: Hddty and MJL, and to the editors who have used the template on the four random pages I've checked: AntiCompositeNumber, Kku, Teemeah, Ohnoitsjamie. – Uanfala (talk) 00:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
we generally have way too many hatnote templates I'm in agreement here. I was trying to figure out what the difference between {{redirect for}} and {{redirect-distinguish}}, couldn't decide which was better, and just picked one. I don't see any real point in having both, so orphan and delete seems appropriate. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 00:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I found it confusing as well when I was trying to find the most appropriate one. Orphan/delete works for me as well. OhNoitsJamieTalk 01:02, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think a simple redirect of {{Redirect for}}to{{Redirect-distinguish}} works just as well as orphan/delete. The two templates take parameters the same exact way, so I don't see a point in going through the orphan process when we could just save some time. –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 17:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That looks neat. But then {{Redirect for}} doesn't really make sense as a shortcut to {{Redirect-distinguish}}; the "for" bit in the title seems to suggest the wording used in {{For}}: "For X, see Y", which is not what {{Redirect-distinguish}} does. – Uanfala (talk) 17:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Orphan/delete per above. There are enough confusing hatnotes as is and, by the standards of other redirect hatnotes, this is barely used.--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:23, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Replace/delete; do not redirect: I support deleting this template and replacing it with equivalent uses of {{redirect-distinguish}}, but it should be trivial for someone to do a simple template-rename AWB run to replace it rather than leaving template redirects lying around, especially for a misleading template title like "redirect for". Because it's misleading, the (minuscule) extra effort to orphan the template is warranted. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 18:43, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the creator of this template, I originally create this template for project pages because the phrase 'You may be looking for' is already used in project pages before this template creation (see [1][2][3][4][5]). I don't think this template is the same template with {{redirect-distinguish}} because {{redirect-distinguish}} is used for title that are often confused by reader, for example, Cocos Islands with Cocos IslandorCoco Islands. This template is used for things that are not confusing, someone may type "WP:PP" to see Wikipedia:Perennial proposals but got redirected to Wikipedia:Protection policy instead. However, I'm open with suggestion of moving the template into more correct title. Hddty (talk) 10:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These examples are among the 30 or so uses in the project namespace – again, on WP pages we're not constrained by the manual of style the way we are in the article namespace, so I won't object to the use of "You may be looking for..." there. I just don't think we need a dedicated template for these borderline cases, especially if it can be replaced with {{redirect-distinguish}} without any loss of function. That template is used in exactly the same way for clarifying ambiguous shortcuts: like hereorhere. I don't see a problem with its wording: when for example WP:Edit request has the hatnote "WP:ER" redirects here. It is not to be confused with Wikipedia:Expert retention then of course it's not saying that "expert retention" can be confused with "edit request", the potential for confusion applies only to the shortcut "ER". – Uanfala (talk) 12:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I add this template into maybe 5 project page and never add it into article mainspace, so maybe we can prohibited this template from article mainspace per MOS:YOU. However I don't think deleting/redirecting this template is good because its useful in project mainspace. Hddty (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While I appreciate that there's historical use of the phrasing, that doesn't seem like a good reason to keep this template. If there are cases where {{redirect-distinguish}} wouldn't apply, {{redirect}} can be used instead; the default "for other uses" phrasing is more succinct than the "you may be looking for" phrasing, and the latter also has the downside of directly addressing the reader. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 23:41, 14 April 2020 (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).
