Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 April 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 28[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 28, 2013

꘿[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 Someone please alert me if anything except the first was tagged. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as utterly ridiculous. These square boxes are redirects for 20 reserved code points in the Unicode Vai block made by User:JPaestpreornJeolhlna who also added 300 redirects to Vai syllabary for all 300 encoded characters in the Unicode Vai block (see discussion below). If we allow the creation of redirects for encoded Unicode characters and reserved Unicode code points then we may conceivably end up with 1,114,112 redirects covering every single Unicode code point, which would be utterly stupid. BabelStone (talk) 21:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all. Redirects from unicode code points to articles about the code point or what they represent are a Good Thing as people do look them up on Wikipedia. Redirects are WP:CHEAP so having a million of them is no big deal. Thryduulf (talk) 22:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: These redirects are less useful than redirects from assigned characters: I would suggest not creating redirects from reserved code points in the future. However, they are not harmful, so consensus will remain what it always has been in similar discussions. Gorobay (talk) 19:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. Reserved code points are not guaranteed by Unicode to have the same script property as surrounding characters in the same block. In fact, they are often used for currency and punctuation symbols that are script=common, in direct contrast to the general script property of a block. As such, it is both incorrect and premature to redirect unassigned code points. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 12:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well they are part of the block that contains Vai script and are provisionally assigned to it. If that changes then it is the work of moments to retarget the redirects, but for now this is the correct target. Thryduulf (talk) 16:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The code points U+A62C–U+A63F, as of Unicode version 6.2, are assigned to the block "Vai" and thus should be recognized as such by Wikipedia. As well as being highly improbable to begin with, any change of the Unicode Standard regarding the reserved Vai characters in the near future would need to be released with version 6.3 (expected to be released at the end of this year) or later, and if so, the redirects from these characters would require only simple modification to remain accurate. It is far more unreasonable to plainly avoid allowing such redirects to exist on Wikipedia than to allow them to serve the purpose of preventing searches from returning the title blacklist—and instead, useful information about their positions and significance in Unicode—not to mention that the sole arguments for their deletion are that they "serve little purpose" and an imaginary fear of future inconsistencies that are by no means unpreventable. — |J~Pæst| 01:12, 2 May 2013 (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.

ꔀ[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 Someone please alert me if anything except the first was tagged. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All 300 characters in the Unicode Vai block from ꔀ to ꘫ

Delete as pointless. User:JPaestpreornJeolhlna added redirects to Vai syllabary for all 300 characters in the Unicode Vai block. These redirects are pointless as no normal user would enter Unicode Vai characters in the English Wikipedia search box, and any Vai user would already know they are Vai characters, so the redirect to Vai syllabary is pointless for such users. Moreover, these redirects set an unpleasant precedent for creating pointless redirects to Unicode script or Unicode block articles for all 110,186 characters currently encoded in Unicode. BabelStone (talk) 20:40, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I packaged these all in the collapsible section. No need to have to wait for 300 unicode characters that don't load to fail loading... Technical 13 (talk) 20:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. There are many ways to find Wikipedia articles and manually typing them into the search box is only one of them, for symbols like this links or copy and paste are more likely but equally in need of the redirect. People do look up unicode characters on Wikipedia, and people using these redirects could wanting to know about the character or the syllabery - even Vai speakers could be interested to know these things. The symbols will load perfectly for everyone who has the appropriate fonts installed - it seems I do (Xubuntu 12.04) for example. Finally redirects are so cheap that deleting these would bring no benefits to the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 22:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. The purpose of creating redirects to writing systems from Unicode is to establish a means of possible searching of characters to access information about such characters on Wikipedia. Your statement, "…no normal user would enter Unicode Vai characters in the English Wikipedia search box," is completely incorrect. It is not the goal of Wikipedia to rid of information that its "normal" users, as you say, would not find helpful. Any person who comes across a Unicode character that (s)he does not have background knowledge on is perfectly entitled to being able to search for information about the character on Wikipedia. Without the redirects in place, many (if not most) Unicode characters—including those from the Vai syllabary—trigger the title blacklist. There is virtually no feasible method of finding information about a particular character on Wikipedia other than through a search, and so I cannot see any good reason to completely rid of these helpful blacklist-preventing redirects. There is certainly no harm in keeping them, as there is also a benefit in keeping them to those many "abnormal" people out there who search for Unicode characters. In addition, having redirects from Unicode characters allows for internal wikilinks to the characters' Unicode blocks or writing systems (e.g. ⏧). The characters of the Vai script are not the only Unicode alias to include characters that serve as redirects; thousands of other Unicode characters—at least 13,358—do as well. (See Category:Redirects from Unicode characters, List of Unicode characters, & Category:Unicode blocks.) I am sure many other Wikipedians would disagree with your proposal to completely delete every single one of these.
 — ¦J~Pæst¦ 23:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Given that Category:Redirects from Unicode characters already has 13,544 entries, removing these 300 seems pointless. It certainly doesn't sound like a bad idea to be able to look up any one of these as such, just like one can look up any odd Latin or Cyrillic or some other letter. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 05:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The target article gives brief explanations for all the Vai characters: It is a useful resource; see WP:RFD#KEEP #5. Gorobay (talk) 19:26, 29 April 2013 (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.

Plain Old Semantic HTML[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 Semantic HTML Someone should probably add a reference to POSH there, though. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of a credible target, delete it.

"Plain Old Semantic HTML" is a somewhat derogatory reference to Semantic HTML, developed after the fact by the advocates of microformats. There is no other possible target, and we even have a target article already. However this target is being disputed by an editor who is instead pointing it to its own entry on a disambig page: both circular and uninformative. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments: 1) The term is not even slightly derogatory as the microformats community approves of and encourages Semantic HTML. 2) I re-pointed the redirect away from Microformat#Plain Old Semantic HTML (POSH) because that article section ceased to exist in 2011. This was not disruptive, and I object to my actions being described in this way. 3) The entry in Posh#Computing has existed since 2007 and is not my entry. I simply updated it because it incorrectly described this use of POSH as a microformat. HairyWombat 19:27, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is a term people will search for; it is therefore useful and should be kept. (I searched for it, and was disappointed to discover no definition of it. This is why I got involved.) Best solution is to add a definition of POSH to the article Semantic HTML, and then redirect to there. The problem with this is that POSH is not notable. The redirect currently points to the disambiguation page Posh#Computing because that is the only place where the term "Plain Old Semantic HTML" is currently mentioned. This is therefore the most useful place currently to redirect people searching for the term. Pointing people to the article Semantic HTML before that article makes any mention of POSH would not help such people. HairyWombat 19:27, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Semantic HTML - this has no business pointing to a disambiguation page, but it shouldn't be deleted either. Ego White Tray (talk) 05:48, 4 May 2013 (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.

Display Screen Interactive Extra Large[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 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since there's no CSD for deleting false/misleading redirects. Here this is. Targeted article does not stand for this, and never did. « Ryūkotsusei » 18:08, 28 April 2013 (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.

Double Screen Internet Extra Large[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 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since there's no CSD for deleting false/misleading redirects. Here this is. Targeted article does not stand for this, and never did. « Ryūkotsusei » 18:08, 28 April 2013 (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:OM[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 Wikipedia:Offensive material ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since this was a failed proposal and fairly obscure, shouldn't this redirect instead point to the more likely target of WP:Offensive material? Technical 13 (talk) 17:35, 28 April 2013 (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.

Timeline Queensland Premier Horizontal[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. Criterion G6 includes redirects created by moving a page crated in the wrong namespace. Thryduulf (talk) 22:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cross-namespace redirect left over from moving template from article namespace into template namespace. DH85868993 (talk) 15:14, 28 April 2013 (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.

Josip Sabolić[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 May 5#Josip Sabolić

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2013_April_28&oldid=1138578650"