Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 October 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 20

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 20, 2012

First Global Gathering

[edit]
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 Retarget to Global Gathering 2001. Tikiwont (talk) 08:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only relevant item in the article is an external link Global Greens Congress 2001 - the first Global Greens gathering that was held in 2001, a dead link, and "global gathering" is too ambiguous—what gathering? who? Wbm1058 (talk) 21:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, I'm fine with that. Can we just do it and close this out? Never heard of that "global gathering" and didn't think to try looking for it. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience it's always worth looking to see what we have. With over 4 million articles, nobody can know all of them - I'm quite often amazed at some of the topics we cover and with a generic, alliterative name like "Global Gathering" someone was going to have used it for something notable (and if they haven't then they should fire their marketing manager)!
As for this redirect, I'll leave it open for now just in case anyone else wants to comment, but I wouldn't object to an early close from someone uninvolved. Thryduulf (talk) 00:50, 21 October 2012 (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.

14,000 Unicode characters

[edit]
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 to delete. - jc37 19:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 14,000 Unicode characters → 11 more general articles

Deletion of some 14,000 unicode characters that redirect to more general articles. According to Unicode, "the latest version of Unicode consists of a repertoire of more than 110,000 characters". User:Silas S. Brown has, with the best intentions, created some 14,000 redirects from unicode characters to languages or other related articles, creating lots of rather confusing and not really useful redirects (while the target is the "mother" for the redirect, it doesn't contain any explanation of the redirect source specifically, and the redirect source itself is unlikely to be searched on). User:Silas S. Brown/Unicode redirects contains some explanation of how and why these were created.

This RfD includes Unicode redirects to

Note: this is only intended to delete the unicode redirects to these 11 articles, not the other redirects to them. Fram (talk) 09:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete -- Liliana-60 (talk) 09:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see the value in having these redirects as they are unlikely search terms. Legoktm (talk) 09:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep all although possibly retarget some. It is well established that unicode characters are well used search terms (see any previous RfD discussion about unicode characters), and Wikipedia does have information about them. If any of these need retargeting to where the most information about the character is then nominate them individually or as logical, coherent groups. A nomination like this will just delete the thousands of good redirects just because some need retargetting (a good example of throwing the baby out with the bathwater). Thryduulf (talk) 14:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any links? It's a bit hard to judge whether these other discussions are applicable here without them. I see e.g. one Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 September 3 resulting in delete, as well as this one. Other ones, where you voted keep, ended in keep. It doesn't seem to be so "well established", most of these debates had very little participarion and the results are not unanimous at all. And any evidence that these are "well used search terms"? Why would anyone use a Unicode character for a Hangul syllable as a search term on the English Wikipedia? All 6000 of those that have been created are "good redirects" and "well used search terms"? Seems rather unlikely... Fram (talk) 14:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are all 6000 good redirects? No, some will likely need retargetting, but many are. That is not a reason to delete any of them though. The two examples you give were discussed years ago and both have been recreated and ⚡ got 183 hits last month. I can't get the search working for me at the moment, so I can't find any of the recent discussions that I remember. Note we do have {{R from Unicode}} and it's associated category (which seems very underpopulated), which shows that many such redirects are wanted. My main point though is that it would be a Bad Thing to delete all these redirects because some need retargetting. As is always the case with redirects, it doesn't matter why someone would use anything as a search term, but with unicode characters it would likely normally be to find out information about the character and/or how it is used. Our goal therefore is to target each redirect at the place that does that job the best, which is obviously not going to be achieved by deleting it. Finally, what benefits will be gained from deleting all these redirects? Thryduulf (talk) 15:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I believe all most of these are plausible search terms, and guiding the user to the right 'ballpark' is far more friendly than giving them no information, although they may need to do some more work to find out exactly what they want to know. I also object to a nomination which doesn't give a single example of the redirects it wants to delete. Siuenti (talk) 19:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep all This is a very poor rationale for deleting the redirects. One would obviously expect a Cyrillic letter to redirect to the Cyrillic alphabet or be an article in and of itself. So it is that each script's characters should redirect to their alphabet articles should that character be uniquely coded for that alphabet (if not, it would be a disambiguation page). Should any of these characters have their own articles, then those redirects should obviously be retargetted to them. And in particular, CKJV characters should all be combined, since they exist in four different codespaces for the same character, and Korean hangul alternate glyphs for hanja also should merge together, for disambiguation pages. Hangul letters should remain redirects to the hangul page though (letters being decomposed from the syllabic characters) -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 20:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I have coincidentally just become aware of the existence of a Typography wikiproject, so I have left an invitation to this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Typography.[12] Thryduulf (talk) 21:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Some of these redirects are useful, and others say to clock face are useless. So the nomination should be redone with smaller groups of unicode characters. I think it is good if we can do a search for a unicode character and find out what language it is from. For some things like clock face, a redirect to a section in some other article that describes the character set could be useful, but if there is no mention of it, it is just confusing. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given Unicode the only text encoding of Wikipedia, there is certainly no major problem with redirects from separate UTF code units. Although partial irregularities may and should be discussed and corrected, it would be unthinkable to summarily delete fourteen thousands of redirects only because three (or slightly more) users expressed their dislike about those redirects. Is an admin around reasonable and strong enough to close this RfD? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirects to pages that don't contain any specific information on the source of the redirect are next to useless. Your "keep" sounds more like a ILIKEIT than anything else. What is the point of having a certain unicode character which may or may not be in actual use redirect to a general page, together with thousands of other similar redirects? Who is ever going to search for these unicode characters on their own? "Oh, I have a syllable in another language in unicode format, let's put in the search engine of the English Wikipedia?" Seems pretty unlikely to me. Fram (talk) 16:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. For one thing, on a procedural level. There are probably some problematic ones in here, but nominating fourteen thousand pages means that you're going to get rid of far too many good ones in the process. Meanwhile, it's a good idea for all Unicode entries to redirect to be bluelinks; things such as the chain symbol and the ⚡ are getting hits and being used, and glyphs used to write language are particularly useful. Nyttend (talk) 03:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, use fire if necessary. Well intentioned but unnecessary, and could likely cause problems in the future. --Nouniquenames 03:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • And what if we have articles for which these redirects form the original name from the original language? And why should we delete the hangul letters, since they are obviously valid search terms for hangul, why shouldn't the letter ㅅ redirect to the alphanet article? -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 07:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for that example: it shouldn't preferably be a redirect to Hangul, but a soft redirect to Wiktionary instead: [13]. And it is one of the 51 main signs (letters and diphtongs), what about the other 6,000 redirects created to Habngul? It is hardly a random choice you present here. These were created blindly and indiscriminately, and should be deleted in the same way. Manual, specific recreations of some special characters can then happen afterwards. This RfD doesn't mean that none of these 14,000 should ever exist, just that the vast, vast majority shouldn't, and that it is up to the creators of these to make the distinction. Fram (talk) 07:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Delete with fire" seemingly means deleting all of them, regardless of validity, and prevent recreation, despite validity. Or is that a misinterpretation? (that would mean that the soft-redirect would not exist either) And why soft-redirect to a different project, when we have an article that deals with the subject? This is clearly a subtopic of Hangul, yet we would redirect people to a different project? I can't see why we wouldn't either hard redirect or disambiguate. Soft redirecting would lose the link to information on Wikipedia. -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 13:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • People asked for examples. What about e.g. [14] or [15]? I can't even properly link to those two, or search on them. Something like [16] is a private use character, so? For general use, it is an invalid character[17]. How is that a useful search term? In the fonts that use it, it gets a completely different meaning/symbol, from a bomb to the zodiac sign for Taurus. What do you know with that redirect? What is the notability of that character anyway? It is not because we have an article on a group of items, that every member of that group should be redirected there, certainly not when there are thousands of members. Fram (talk) 07:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why shouldn't members of a group redirect to the article about that group? I linked to a recent discussion about private use characters that came to the consensus that they should redirect to the article that explains what they are - why was that consensus incorrect? Also, and can be linked and searched [18] in exactly the same way as A, ŵ, →, ˌ or indeed any printable unicode character (I don't know about unprintable ones). Further got 5 hits in September and 16 in August, got 8 and 9, got 4 and 9 respectively (2-3/month is background noise) so they can be visited. For many people Wikipedia is the first port of call when looking up information, and tech subjects is one area we have a good reputation for coverage of, so it's no surprise that people might come here looking for information on obscure unicode characters. Finally, it is not up to those wishing to keep these redirects to show which are useful, it is up to you to demonstrate which are not. Thryduulf (talk) 10:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Funny, your two links " and " for me show up as "space" and "space", with nothing to click on. The cursor doesn't catch them, no bluelinks appear, no square icon you usually get for unknown characters, just nothing at all... In the search bar the second one appears as a very slender "I", but in the body of text? Nothing. Very strange... As for your final remark; no, I can't prove a negative, it is rather hard to demonstrate why a redirect is not useful, apart from the basic fact that the target page doesn't even mention the redirect source. Fram (talk) 11:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • That sounds like a font issue, which isn't unsurprising given they are private use characters. When displayed I see them as superscript 1 and superscript 7 respectively, in the editing window I see them as a reversed ` and a very slender bar. Hovering over the links the superscript 1 becomes superscript 4 but the other remains superscript 7. That these redirect to the private use area article, which gives the searcher encyclopaedic information about these unicode code points seems to me to be exactly the sort of thing people want from an encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 16:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Above, we are discussing page views and so on. With 6,000 new redirects to Hangul, taking a measly 5 real pageviews per redirect per month (which isn't that ambitious, and in line with Thryduulf's statement above), you would get 30,000 total new pageviews for Hangul per month, or 1,000 a day (on average). In reality, we get about 100 a day, many of them probably due to this RfD. We would get a better view of this in a few months of course, it's early days, but it doesn't seem as if the expected pageviews are reached by far.[19] Fram (talk) 06:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • RfD always links to the stats from the previous month, as appearance on a high-profile page like this massively distorts the figures. The first 2-3 days of existence also often (but not always) show a spike, presumably due to new page patrollers. Obviously therefore with redirects that have existed less than a month prior to being discussed here, no accurate page view statistics can exist. It should also be remembered that page view statistics are not the only determiner of a redirects utility. Thryduulf (talk) 11:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • And all those arguments indicate that the first days will give a higher than normal page view count, not a lower than normal. In all probability, these redirects will have no effect whatsoever on the target page view counts. And can you indicate what else may be a determiner of a redirects utility, in general and more specifically in these cases? Fram (talk) 11:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Utility and helpfulness. We're discussing the entire class of "redirects from Unicode characters", and as a whole class it is clear from examples given up thread that many redirects are very well used and therefore by definition useful. When some members of a class are of value, the class itself has value and deleting it would be harmful. Whether all members of that class have value is a different question, and not one that is being asked with this nomination - however, I believe that if some characters are useful to have as a redirect (and previous recent consensus is they do) then there will be an expectation from users that if their search for, e.g. worked then when they come across ᑬ their search for it will work. While some of the redirect targets might not be optimal, deletion is not the way to fix this. 161.76.72.1 (talk) 14:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC) (Thryduulf not logged in)[reply]
  • Procedural keep all: Some are clearly useful (eg. alphabet characters to the article on the alphabet), some are clearly useless (eg. the clock face characters), and some could go either way. Divide things up into more narrowly-defined groups and re-nominate each. --Carnildo (talk) 00:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - WP:Redirects are cheap. The only cases in which we'd like to change the redirects is when the character actually has a semantic meaning more appropriate for an article other than the relevant unicode block. But those require human intervention to fix anyway; mass deletion clearly isn't a better solution. Deryck C. 16:31, 28 October 2012 (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.

HomePage

[edit]
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 to retarget. - jc37 19:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should be redirecting to Home page TheChampionMan1234 00:41, 20 October 2012 (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.

Mae meh

[edit]
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 - jc37 19:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated to main page TheChampionMan1234 00:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Name of main page on oc wikipedia TheChampionMan1234 00:34, 20 October 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_October_20&oldid=1089277472"