Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 May 10

May 10[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 10, 2008

Redirects starting with the byte order mark[edit]

The result of the debate was delete all. VegaDark (talk) 00:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

13 Lake → Lake 13
La Chaux (Switzerland) → La Chaux (Cossonay)
Sp z o.o. → Limited liability company#Poland

Extremely unlikely search terms since they begin with a control character that nobody is likely to type in. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no one is ever going to make a search that starts with that character. Everything on wikipedia is already done using UTF-8, so no reasons to use a marker to note that it's a unicode string --Enric Naval (talk) 05:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per Enric, 110% useless [the extra 10% being the fact that the control character is redundant as well as being useless!]. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 13:00, May 11, 2008 (UTC)
Delete per the above. Midorihana^{~いいですね? はい!} 07:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia sockpuppet category redirects[edit]

The result of the debate was Consensus was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having redirects from sockpupptet categories is overkill, and would be unlikely to ever be used. Having these types of redirects would set precedent for literally thousands of other redirects, as some users by themselves have over 100 sockpuppets, and keeping these would allow for a category for each one. The proper thing to do it to tag the user as a sockpuppet of the primary account on the sockpuppet account's user page, directing the user to the proper sockpuppet category. Since that is the proper method to be used, the only way these would actually be used is if someone specifically typed the improper category name in the the search bar, which I find unlikely. In short, these categories are useless, set bad precedent, and should be deleted. VegaDark (talk) 15:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As Vega mentioned, sets a truly awful precedent and are totally useless. Tag each user instead of creating a category for each sock. Burninate. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 20:39, May 10, 2008 (UTC)

Delete useless redirects. Gman124^talk 02:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:OVERCAT gone wild. One category per sock is excessive, serves no purpose and, as VegaDark points out, some sockmasters have tons of sockps --Enric Naval (talk) 15:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Cross-namespace redirects to WikiProjects[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted. History merge done for Wikiproject Sports Franchise Listing which is the only one that history to be maintained. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of these cross-namespace redirects are part of the encyclopedia. With recent enhancements in linking and searching functionality (the automatic conversion of WP: to Wikipedia: and the autosuggestion function in the search box), none is especially needed. Per previous consensus, against such cross-namespace redirects, all should be deleted. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I might consider special circumstances if these were proposed individually, as a group nomination, I must argue to keep all. The ones that I've spot-checked seem to be the result of legitimate pagemoves. None of them create any possibility of confusion with encyclopedic content. Any of them may be in use on old versions of pages. The changes to the search function does not obviate all need for these redirects. Unless you can show one that is actively harmful or confusing, it's better for the project to just ignore it. Rossami (talk) 16:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, with the possible exception of Wikiproject. CNRs blur the line between the encyclopaedia and the project to build the encyclopaedia, and as the whole purpose of the encyclopaedia is to be able to take it away and use it, they should be avoided wherever possible. With all the pages (with the exception of the first) containing terms that people would use to search the encyclopaedia for articles, they will clutter up search results both here and elsewhere, where they will also create live broken links. All the pages have a trivial history, except Wikiproject Sports Franchise Listing and Wikiproject Yemen which can both be history merged into the targets. matt br 22:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note without further comment. We've had similar RfD discussions about much of this in November 2006. B.Wind (talk) 00:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notice how, on Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2006_November_11#Various_Wikiproject_redirects, some wikiprojects already got better redirects, like WP:MIL, WP:COUNTRIES, WP:HOUSTON, WP:BEER, etc, and have already deleted their mainspace redirects with no problem at all. Thanks for finding this, Wind. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no longer necessary. Nowadays we have shorter redirects that are easier to type, like, for example, WP:AIR for Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft. Every wikiproject can find shortcuts like this which are not CNR and which don't use the mainspace at all. Keep "Wikiproject" as the only one that doesn't have an easy replacement --Enric Naval (talk) 05:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no need for redirects to wikiprojects to be in mainspace. Guest9999 (talk) 16:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Guest9999. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Per my request, I had Wikiproject 24 deleted. Was a very simple mistake I made creating the redirect. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 08:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Asterisk redirects[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted. The actual asterisk (*) was not nominated so it was not part of this debate. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC) [reply]

∗ (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) - No links
✲ (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) - No links in articles
✻ (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) - No links in articles
✺ (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) - No links
󠀪 (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) - No links
✳ (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) - No links
✼ (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) - No links in articles
✽ (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) - No links in articles
✾ (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) - No links in articles

✿ (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) - No links in articles
❁ (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) - No links in articles
❅ (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) - No links in articles
❈ (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) - No links in articles
❉ (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) - No links in articles
❋ (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) - No links in articles

Various 'pretty flower/snowflake' versions of asterisks. Very unlikely search terms given the fact that they are special characters. If we had a redirect for every different version of every punctuation mark... *shudder* it doesn't really bear thinking about! RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 12:42, May 10, 2008 (UTC)

Keep, none do any harm. Why is this user insistent on deleting redirects? TheMeepOne (talk) 13:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What good to they do? None of these, save one, are plausible. --UsaSatsui (talk) 09:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ∗, delete all other redirects. ∗ is a likely search term, the others... aren't. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 13:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All nobody's going to use these. --Gman124^talk 02:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except the standard asterisk character. I can't imagine anyone searching wikipedia for the encyclopedic definition of "❈". They'll just go to an article with a list of control characters or they will search "control characters" or they will look for the "asterisk" article to see a list of them. The standard asterisk character (*) has a remote chance of being searched, mainly because it's the only one of them that you can actually type on a keyboard --Enric Naval (talk) 05:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except *. --UsaSatsui (talk) 09:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except *; it's a remotely likely search term. I can't see how anyone would use the others, however. Midorihana^{~いいですね? はい!} 07:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Most unicode characters have redirects, see Category:Redirects from Unicode characters. It's useful to be able to punch in a Unicode character, which may be done by copy-and-paste, to find its meaning. However, there are some propellers, flowers, stars, sparkles, and snowflakes in there. These characters should be reviewed as many of them are not asterisks. Potatoswatter (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Small character versions of punctuation marks[edit]

The result of the debate was Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC) [reply]

These may be hard to see on some monitors/browsers, but they are there!
﹔ (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) - Semicolon
﹒ (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) - Full stop
﹕ (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) - Colon
﹑ (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) - Backwards comma
﹐ (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) - Comma

﹢ (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) - Plus sign
﹣ (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) - Minus sign
﹫ (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) - At sign
﹡ (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) - Asterisk

~~Full-width~~ Small character versions of punctuation marks. Unlikely search terms, some browsers cannot even display them. See here for a similar discussion about full-width redirects. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 12:16, May 10, 2008 (UTC)

Keep, none do any harm. Why is this user insistent on deleting redirects? TheMeepOne (talk) 13:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They're small letters, not fullwidth ones. And keep, since they're likely search terms. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for pointing that out, but I still don't see how they are likely search terms seeing that they are special characters. Possible, certainly, but not really likely. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 14:00, May 10, 2008 (UTC)
  - As likely as all other special characters, at least. And people with weak eye sight who might not recognize these letters (they're small after all) will appreciate the redirects. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 14:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The normal versions point to the proper article, I see no reason why the smaller versions shouldn't. --UsaSatsui (talk) 09:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I have no idea of who the hell would be using these search terms on wikipedia, but at least these characters can be found on a keyboard. Maybe they can be searched by people who doesn't know the english name of these characters --Enric Naval (talk) 15:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per UsaSatsui. Midorihana^{~いいですね? はい!} 07:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.