Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 5[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 5, 2014.

NOTOC[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 delete. --BDD (talk) 16:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is another cross-namespace redirect (in fact, it's a soft redirect from mainspace to a section of a help page on Meta) created by the same person as Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 3#Reflist in a well-meaning but misguided attempt to be helpful to people learning about our syntax. It really isn't, and should be deleted; and Timtempleton (talk · contribs) should be discouraged from making any more redirects like this at this early stage of his progress in learning templating. — Scott • talk 17:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. While referencing is something we need to go out of our way to make as easy as possible for new users (hence my recommendation to keep reflist), control of the table of contents isn't something that those inexperienced in namespaces need to know. Thryduulf (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per Thryduulf and nom -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 06:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Adding a description to help users understand the NOTOC command is valuable, whether the editor is experienced or not. I've been making hundreds of edits for over four years and did not know the term. If you've read the Economist lately, you'll see that Wikipedia is seeing editors leaving the site. One way to keep them there is to make things as easy as possible for everyone to use. Scott (talk · contribs) - you're stated your concerns that my entries are somehow hurting the name space, but in the other instance - re: reflist - your motion was the only signed comment supporting deletion. Thryduulf (talk · contribs) - Thanks for supporting reflist. I would argue that we don't want to start deciding which user friendly reference entries people should know to make good edits. Timtempleton (talk) 20:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to RL meaning (encyclopedic content prevails). First of all, any "help" be directed at enwiki (WP:TOC exists). Sending users off site to mw to help them is inexplicable (I'd feel lost after that click, when guided this way). Second, even when enwiki internal, we prefer to keep mainspace clean of technical issues (WP:SELFREF). Third, google NOTOC and find it has a real life meaning: "Notice to Captain" or "Notice to crew". -DePiep (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Adding: (pdf). Notoc, Aklan (Phillipines). -DePiep (talk) 19:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you were looking for the term NOTOC, you'd understand it after my efforts helped you find my new page. I don't mind creating a disambiguation page for NOTOC - wasn't aware of the alternate meaning. If I created such as page, would you feel better about supporting my NOTOC page? Timtempleton (talk) 07:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I understand this well enough. I don't blame you or anyone for creating this one. The diasmbiguation page should cover both capitalised and titlecase and lowercase spellings of "NOTOC". So that would be this existing page: no new page created or Notoc should the disambiguation page (this NOTOC redirecting there). External links are to be avoided (as ever, says WP:DAB, especially when there is a page on enwiki). Since "NOTOC" can be a wikipedia word (Actually, it is: "__NOTOC__"), it should be in {{hatnote}}, {{selfref}}. Remember that if yo do this, you have created a contribution to Wikipedia content -- enjoy. -DePiep (talk) 08:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have such an article? If not then by WP:REDLINK we should delete the redirect and await someone writing it up. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 06:20, 12 March 2014 (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.

Ur mom[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. --BDD (talk) 16:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is useless, it is spelled wrong, and "ur mom" has nothing to do with maternal insults unless it hassomething else on the end.User:Nedgreiner<suptalk17:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Retarget to Mother. It is not a maternal insult in many dialects. It is not a misspelling but a transliteration. Si Trew (talk) 18:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This might be dialect dependent, but in my dialect (Canadian English) Ur Mom is unambiguous shorthand for the insult, rather than just someone's mom. WilyD 18:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) keep. Given the prevalence of search results for "ur mom" and the 90-150 hits this gets each month (a massive number for a redirect) it seems that the text message shorthand form of "your" is widely used in these sorts of insults making it a very useful redirect for people looking for information about the insults. It has been a redirect since November 2005 and was previously discussed in January 2008. Thryduulf (talk) 18:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are 144 redirects to Maternal insult, including just about every possibly variation of your mother, and it is pointless for us to take up the issue of this single redirect without considering the value (if any) of them all. Dwpaul Talk 18:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it clearly directs readers to what they're looking for, and the spelling is common enough, given how literate your mother bes (hopefully I needn't postface this to specific I'm not referring to anyone's mother in particular. But, in case) WilyD 18:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep part of the nominator's rational (It's spelled wrong) is one of the reasons we have redirects. Further, "your mom" can be used as an insult (as seen here). As per above, I am not speaking of the mother of any editor here in particular. Seems like a plausible redirect to me. --kelapstick(bainuu) 21:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well, I guess everybody loves a stupid redirect created by a vandalizing IP address six years ago, but if it's going to be kept, Maternal Insult is not a good redirect for it. It might as well be redirected to Mother as Si Trew says. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nedgreiner (talk • contribs) 22:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The redirect wasn't created by a vandalising IP address. The page was created in May 2005 as a page by a vandalising IP address, speedy deleted that day, recreated in November 2005 by a different IP address as an attempt at an article, marked for speedy deletion as nonsense, vandalised by a third IP (and deleted?). It was then created as/converted to a redirect by a fourth IP acting in good faith a few minutes later. In January 2008 it was again vandalised and speedy deleted as nonsense, but one minute later it was restored - including all the previously deleted revisions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I would say that "your mum" or "your mother" attracts readers to the article. This is obviously a known phrase for the insult. Huang (talk in public in private | contribs) 16:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Ur" is a common spelling of "your"; see the second line in the "Language and linguistics" section of UR. "Your mom" is mentioned in the article as a standard spelling of a frequently-otherwise-spelled maternal insult. See the results of this Google search. Nyttend (talk) 21:56, 11 March 2014 (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.

B-cell malignancies[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 dabify. As it remains unclear what other uses should go on a disambiguation page, however, I will leave this for another editor to do. --BDD (talk) 16:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion because the target article does not cover the overall subject of B-cell malignancies, but only certain kinds of B-cell malignancies (B-cell leukemias are included, B-cell lymphomas are not). Danregan (talk) 02:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the name but expand from a redirect page to a DAB page. Wikipedia lists four kinds of B-cell malignancies; there may be others. If this option is chosen, I will do the conversion to a DAB page, and I request the closing administrator to let me know.--MelanieN (talk) 16:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. --MelanieN (talk) 18:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can change this to a dab page, but could Danregan, MelanieN, or anyone else point to the other articles to be listed on the dab? --BDD (talk) 16:51, 17 March 2014 (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.

C:WPCATSUP[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 delete. With the conclusion of the Meta discussion and the existence of CAT:WPCATSUP, this can safely be deleted. I considered moving this one over the current CAT:WPCATSUP, but both had fairly trivial edit histories, so I didn't see the point. Contact me with concerns. --BDD (talk) 18:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending the resolution of this requests for comments meta:Requests for comment/Wikimedia Commons, this WikiProject category redirect needs to be deleted before the C interwiki prefix for Commons Wiki can be implemented. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 22:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to compare (this one is not proposed for deletion):
CAT:WPCATSUP → Category:WikiProject Category Suppression (links to redirect • history • stats)
Target page is the same. -DePiep (talk) 08:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Specifically addressing C:WPCATSUP, I believe it would be fine to rename it to delete CAT:WPCATSUP. If renaming is not possible, then deletion would be acceptable, too. I think I was the creator of this redirect. It would be so nice if C: would redirect to Commons instead of Categories. :-) —Willscrlt ( Talk | com | b:en | meta ) 00:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are we going to manually/AWB fix existing instances of these shortcuts? Changing them from CAT: shortcuts to COMMONS: shortcuts would retroactively change the meaning of the archived talk page comments. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I assume so. We should be careful how we approach this though. Some suggested parameters for the bot-task: fix only the targets pointing to the administrative categories and exclude the redirects referencing main namespace articles like C:\; fix only those redirects before 31 August 2011 which is the start of the RFC page above to avoid changing direct references to that RFC; optionally also fix direct url links like en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C:Foo or en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C:Foo to re-point to their CAT:FOO counterparts. Also @Salvidrim!: you're still free to comment in the RFC link up above. I've tried to reopen it to see where this will head. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 23:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Better to let that Meta discussion resolve before we start changing things that may not need to be changed. --BDD (talk) 17:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons I mentioned below in #ATT: no need to copy (double) shortcuts from CAT: to C:. Irrespective of the commons:-outcome. I also note that while there are multitudes of Special:PrefixIndex/Category:WikiProject, there is only one by prefix "C:WP"...: Special:PrefixIndex/C:WP. So this one has an unique naming pattern, which makes it rather useless for remembering & usage as a shortcut. -DePiep (talk) 12:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about delete, and rename CAT:WPCATSUP to CAT:SUP? That's free, short and much more pleasing. — Scott • talk 12:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If only there were a user for that redirect... They could suggest a more sensible name from their own project. But btw, the CAT:- is not up for discussion here. -DePiep (talk) 13:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but these things seem to go hand in hand around here. I personally think these kind of redirects are largely unnecessary, but I recognize that people seem to enjoy having shortened versions around. C:WPCATSUP exists because someone thought it was short and helpful; if we get rid of it we can improve the CAT: version to be even nicer to type - call it a peace offering. I can live with all sorts of CAT:redirects, it's the C: ones that I think we should do away with. — Scott • talk 13:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need for the present redirect to be deleted in order to create a new one. If someone wants to use CAT:SUP then they are free to boldly create it. Thryduulf (talk) 15:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And have three? No, that's excessive. One is enough. — Scott • talk 15:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please link to the policy and/or technical document that explains how it is possible to have an "excessive" number of redirects, what is an "excessive" number, what problems this causes, and why these problems outweigh the benefits of people being able to find the page they are looking. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for example has 32 incomming redirects [1] at least 13 of them shortcuts (depending what you class as a shortcut and what as an alternate name). Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not has 482 incomming redirects [2], the majority of them shortcuts. Thryduulf (talk) 19:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still think a procedural close is the right thing to do here. Would anyone seriously insist on keeping this if there's consensus for the Commons proposal (as appears likely)? And if there isn't, there's really nothing to discuss, though of course this redirect can still be discussed in the future for other issues. You know, again. --BDD (talk) 17:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Follow CommonsMeta per BDD. If there is consensus at CommonsMeta then I think EN:WP should follow Commons, otherwise things just become rather confusing. Assuming CommonsMeta voted Delete then it should be Delete if CommonsMeta voted Stand on your head and paint your bum green it mmight be different. EN:WP doesn't have to follow CommonsMeta but in the absence of any reason to differ, it should patently follow commmonsMeta and keep everything tied up. Si Trew (talk) 18:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think you mean Meta rather than Commons? Thryduulf (talk) 19:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did indeed, thankyou. Sorry I was just adding a few pictures the last few days at Commons and I tend to think of them as the same thing, which of course they are not. Yes, I meant "Meta". I've struck out Commons in my comment above (and left it as a strikeout); I don't like to change even my own comments (that is not fair on other editors coming with their opinions) but I think it makes it clearer to other editors if I do so. Si Trew (talk) 21:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This redirect is retarded. No one will look for this. Ned1230|Whine|Stalk 19:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.193.144.210 (talk) [reply]

  • Irrespective of the Commons c: issue, Delete C:WPCATSUP per everything uncovered in the last RfD: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 January 27#C:WPCATSUP. Nobody can offer a sensible explanation for its existence, as the WikiProject it redirects to is essentially dead, and was dead on arrival, and no other WikiProject uses a 'C:' prefix, so why do we have a dead WikiProject doing that. Frankly, this wikiproject would struggle to be a taskforce of another WikiProject; I asked and got no response about that option. Maybe the entire WikiProject needs to be MfD'd so people stop projecting this broken infrastructure. Some people have done some great work addressing the category suppression problem, in 2009 especially, but they then created a WikiProject, nobody joined, and the original people involved have all but left, leaving the documentation to become outdated, etc. i.e. wikirot. @Willscrlt:, CAT:WPCATSUP has existed as long as C:WPCATSUP has existed, as I explained in the introduction of the last RfD on which you participated. Do you want the closing admin to delete CAT:WPCATSUP (created by user:Philosopher) and move C:WPCATSUP to CAT:WPCATSUP? John Vandenberg (chat) 22:18, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that your idea of delete/move is a clean way to handle it, though really, I no longer care at this point. On a side note, <rant> I find comments like "this redirect is retarded" (emphasis added) to be disgusting and completely unhelpful. First, the term "retarded" as used in this case is an unacceptable slur against people with certain types of mental deficits. Second, using it in that comment comes across as rude, argumentative, unprofessional, and (worst of all for the operation of this wiki) unhelpful in a rational discussion about what to do with a particular redirect.  </rant> —Willscrlt ( Talk | com | b:en | meta ) 01:39, 16 March 2014 (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.

Animal rape[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 5#Redirects to Zoophilia

Adele Dazeem[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 86th Academy Awards#“Adele Dazeem” incident. This would get users to the incident and also to "Idina Menzel" (via links in the section). –xenotalk 15:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A mangled up name "given" by John Travolta that redirects to Idina Menzel's page. An unnecessary redirect. KRIMUK90 ✉ 14:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

:Keep as likely search term. Si Trew (talk) 14:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Redirects are cheap, and there's more benefit in keeping the redirect than in deleting it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - likely search term, given this. Perhaps a bit problematic given that it's not explained at the target (As far as I can see?), if it eventually blows up enough to warrant mention at John Travolta or 86th Doohickies, it should be retargetted there. Until such time, this seems to be the best place to direct the reader. "Unnecessity", of course, is not a reason to delete a redirect - rather, the consideration must be whether a redirect is useful in helping readers find what they're looking for, which appears to be the case in this instance.WilyD 17:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Even though some people may disagree I think that name will be remembered when talking about Idina Menzel.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 00:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No point in removing it; current status within pop culture could make term popularly searched by Wikipedia users and needs a redirect to proper page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.178.127.77 (talk) 05:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's very ethnic.--Theparties (talk) 11:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is a plausible search term. Unlikely... but plausible :) -- Y not? 16:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ok, I'll be the dissenter here. In the short term, I suppose this will be a useful search term, and will probably take readers where they want to go (it won't if they're looking for an explanation of this moniker). But we're building a global, ideally timeless encyclopedia, not a compendium of 2014 celebrity news. The long term? I envision coming this up at RfD in 2024. The nominator points out that it isn't mentioned at the target article and might be vandalism. Another editor remembers, "Oh yes, John Travolta called her this once," and everyone agrees to delete it as an obscure synonym. So in ten years or so, I'll say I told you so. --BDD (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My Google search just now brings up loads of news results from reliable sources of Travolta calling her "Adele Dazeem" at the Oscars by mistake and apologising to her for it, but I agree WP is WP:NOTNEWS. The thing is, people searching, where do they expect it to end up? I think it should end up where it currently stands, and add Travolta's gaffe into that article with references, but deliberately I don't tend to do that while something is under discussion. There seems to be no animosity by either party so I don't think WP:BLP etc comes into play, but i am not sure if it is noteworthy or not – I can see your point and am inclined to change my opinion to "Delete" but I still think on balance it is best left where it stands. Si Trew (talk) 00:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, what I'd really like is to strap a time bomb to this one and have it automatically deleted after, say, a year. It's useful now, but it's going to become less and less so as time goes by, to the point where at some point it will really merit deletion. Notability isn't temporary, but redirects are judged by a different standard and may lose their usefulness. --BDD (talk) 00:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'd written "Nazeem" by mistake and with the last edit I changed it so as not to add to the confusion, I hadn't seen your comment so I thought it was all right to change mine before anyone replied, so sorry about that but I changed it to avoid any confusion, it was just a typo on my part.
It's a tricky one, isn't it. I totally understand the point you make but on the other hand, if this is an incident that happened then presumably that is kinda permanent in a sense, it is something that happened and can be mentioned briefly at her article (but without WP:UNDUE and all that, just a small section). But I can see what you mean, it's hardly the most interesting thing about her (or him) and perhaps it doesn't warrant a mention, after all people can find about it by just typing the words into their favourite search engine, so perhaps it doesn't warrant a mention at all. I'm changing my !vote to Don't Know. 01:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep People will look for this. It would be wise to keep this, as it Is avery big deal. There are even travoltizing name generators. Ned1230|Whine|Stalk 19:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.193.144.210 (talk) [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.

Wikipedia addiction[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 delete. --BDD (talk) 16:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article does not talk about Wikipedia at all. Huang (talk in public in private | contribs) 08:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is probably a good case for this being retargeted to WP:ADDICTED even as a WP:CNR, but I am not making that case. If it is not mentioned at the target, the general rule of thumb is Wikipedia doesn't refer to itself in article space (of course there are articles on Wikipedia and so on). Si Trew (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2014 (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.

Wikipedia:Akkar Group LLC.[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 speedy delete. Redirects created when fixing pages moved to the incorrect namespace are covered under speedy deletion criterion G6. Thryduulf (talk) 16:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page was the result of an incorrect page move, first from userspace to WP:, then to mainspace, where Akkar Group LLC now resides. This redirect page is unneeded and unlikely to be used. Dwpaul Talk 04:22, 5 March 2014 (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.

Iran\xE2\x80\x93United States relations[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 delete. --BDD (talk) 16:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Last year there was a technical bug (with external software) that caused pages to be incorrectly URI encoded with \x. The problem seems to have been fixed lessened, but regardless there is consensus against creating redirects merely for technical problems: [3][4] ThaddeusB (talk) 01:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There are hundreds of such redirects, but before taking the time to nominate all of them, I would like to "test the waters" to make sure consensus has not changed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Completely unlikely typo, and I recall that discussion (though I cannot locate it), and I agree that this should be deleted. Steel1943 (talk) 03:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I guess it was made by mistake as described by the nominator, since it's a "sort of URL encoding scheme but not quite". It is a completely implausible search term (the encoded characters in Unicode are "LATIN SMALL LETTER A WITH CIRCUMFLEX", "<CONTROL>" and "SET TRANSMIT STATE") and this just makes no sense as a search term. Si Trew (talk) 08:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As an FYI, a number of programing languages use "\xAA" as the way to encode a unicode character so it presumably comes from someone accidentally sending the literal string instead of the escaped string. The \xE2\x80\x93 byte sequence corresponds to the endash in utf8 encoding. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The \xAA is not in the redirect under discussion, or did I miss something? Si Trew (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, by \xAA I really meant \x[any character from 0 to 9/A to F][any character from 0 to 9/A to F]. Character byte values run from 0 to 255 so, \x00 would be character 0 and \xFF would be character 255 in hex. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well they don't do they, in Unicode they run from 0x0000 to 0xFFFF in the basic universal plane and even then you have escape sequences up at 0xDDEF and 0xDDED or something for taking it into other planes when they ran out of characters even in the Unicode. The UTF-8 encoding scheme is a different matter and just because ASCII is kinda the start of Unicode in the 0x00 page is just for compatibiility reasons really. Since this is not ASCII nor Unicode nor UTF-8 encoding nor any other recognised encoding it should probably be deleted. Si Trew (talk) 21:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. To make myself clear, ThaddeusB came here to try to get consensus and I think ThaddeusB is likely to, since it is implausible typo and clutter. If ThaddeusB does so, then all of the ones he wants to delete, assuming they follow roughly the same pattern, should be kinda rolled up into one RfD so as not to cause a bombardment – but I think after consensus is reached they could just all be deleted? It might be better if there were two or three other examples but I can quite understand ThaddeusB doesn't want to bombard RfD with hundreds. Si Trew (talk) 09:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and all like it. We absolutely shouldn't be polluting our database to solve external parties' problems. — Scott • talk 22:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all such mojibake style redirects. —Kusma (t·c) 09:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only this redirect as it does not appear to be being used. Each redirect needs to be individually judged however, so I strongly oppose Kusma's suggestion that all mojibake redirects should be deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 16:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. You'll be busy then :) Si Trew (talk) 21:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't think it is a question of mojibake just that this is a completely incorrect encoding by an external search engine and it is not WP's place to kinda correct their mistakes. In saying "delete all", I did say that this was assuming they run on the same pattern, obviously if others are not of that pattern they should be brought to RfD individually. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear when I put that. Si Trew (talk) 21:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Far better to be busy than to delete something that shouldn't be deleted. Of course redirects with similar patterns can be (maybe even should be) grouped, but they all need to be evaluated. Thryduulf (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, I intend to nominate the rest of the links that match the \x00 pattern in one bulk listing, not just remove them without discussion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

some pertinent links:

To ThaddeusB, Thryduulf: That seems to be the exactly the right thing to do, bring them here as a group if they are kinda all of the same kind. Obviously, if some are peculiar exceptions then they need to be discussed separately, but nobody wants a bombardment of similar entries here at RfD, surely? Si Trew (talk) 10:38, 8 March 2014 (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.

Quack[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 dabify by moving the existing dab. Ok, whatever. --BDD (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Now, I have been having a discussion with WilyD on my talk page of his continual habit of what I consider rude and throwaway lines saying "No reason for deletion has been made" etc when obviously reasons for deletion have been made even if he happens to disagree with them. If you look at my talk, you will see he is putting his foot down and saying "I shall get harsher" whereas I have replied essentially "you shall get ruder, and that is not the way that Wikipedia works."

He says nobody ever brings something here other than to be deleted. I disagree. People come to RfD for all kinds of reasons and not every redirect gets deleted, I should not want to work out the stats but lots get retargets, some get turned into stubs, and so on.

Well, there you go, I bring this to the discussion as Keep as nominator. Two can play at that game but I didn't think that Wikpedia was a game, I thought our aim was to try to make an encyclopedia better, bit by bit. I was trying to explain to him people bring all sorts of things to RfD for all sorts of reasons, and actually yesterday's history would kinda be a very good example of he point, but there you go, please Keep' because obviously he does not know a discussion from the back of a horse. Si Trew (talk) 00:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy close the discussion per WP:POINT. - Altenmann >t 02:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate a "quack" is the sound a duck makes. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 05:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per 70.50. It was very POINTy and I apologise for that, I shouldn't have made it, and I was going to ask it to be speedy close or remove it myself. But as with 70.50, I was also looking for the expression "if it looks likek a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck" and couldn't find that (I was expecting an article or redirect at Duck theory or something) so it may genuinely be better to disambiguate it.
  • But I sincerely apologise for my hasty comments, which I should have kept at my talk page rather than bring them to RfD. We all get a bit annoyed sometimes I suppose but that doesn't mean the whole world has to get involved. Si Trew (talk) 08:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is a very famous sketch in the United Kindom by The Two Ronnies (written by John Sullivan) where one of the Ronnies comes home with a new "argentinian racing pigeon" that is patently a duck. (here on YouTube, illegally). The phrase seems to have been around in one form or another for at least sixty years, so whether the phrase inspired the sketch I doubt we shall ever know. Si Trew (talk) 10:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I found it, there is an article, at Duck test (and also at WP:DUCK and at {{duck}}). I think these are a bit confusing as a genuine search, and I am not sure that "Quack" should direct straight to Quackery and I tend to agree with 70.50 that it needs a DAB, but then I am not sure really what I would list on that DAB. Personally in my slang I use "quack" to mean general practitioner, but that is just my dialect. Certainly I would create the redirect at Duck theory but I don't like to change things while they are under discussion which is why I haven't kinda gone around changing things before there is consensus. Maybe it was just too late at night for me to find it, but I could find it via Google but not via Wikipedia's search engine, which is a bit kinda indicative of needing some tidying up but I am not sure what. Si Trew (talk) 10:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We just move the disambiguation page Quack (disambiguation) atop Quack -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 06:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move the DAB at [[[Quack (disambiguation)]] to Quack, per 70.50. Missing entries etc can be added there afterwards. Si Trew (talk) 10:45, 8 March 2014 (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/2014_March_5&oldid=1088282846"