Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2006 August 19

WikiProject → WikiProject
The nominated redirect was Deleted, new evidence suggests that this isn't even a Wikipedia-specific term. -- Cyde Weys 04:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC) Cross-namespace redirect. It can't be G4'ed because it was never deleted through RfD, so I would like it if this time it was deleted through process. --Mr. L e fty Talk to me! 17:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete for the usual reasons. I have no idea why the previous three deletions were reverted, as a self-referential cross-space redirect this is clearly deletion material. Just zis Guy you know? 22:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - not all than non-notable term today, after all; and someone is unlikely to expect something else from searching for Wikiproject. CP/Mcomm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 00:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Strong Keep -- Redirect it to Category:WikiProjects instead. A major problem with any encyclopedia is finding things quickly and redirects are very important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.34.100 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 21 August 2006
 * Keep -Zapptastic (talk) 20:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Soft redirect to Category:WikiProjects.  Big Nate 37 (T) 18:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: as a cross namespace redirect. Soft-redirect if you must. --Hetar 19:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. -- ADNghiem501 02:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep -- Isn't incredibly important, but there's no other redirect to be expected from it. --Nic the Man 11:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, can't be confused with encyclopedic content any more than "WP:PJ" can. Kusma (討論) 11:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete anyone familiar with wikiprojects is more than likely to be familiar with the concept of ticking the "wikipedia" box when searching for wikipedia content. Having non-encyclopedic content in encyclopedia space creates problems as previously outlined. And it does get "confused with encyclopedic content" - mirrors who ask for "encyclopedic content only" receive this. Regards, MartinRe 12:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have not yet seen a single convincing argument that allows Cat: redirects but prohibits this one. Mirrors can simply drop all cross-namespace redirects, none of which should have any incoming links from article space. If the mirrors are too stupid to do that, why is that our problem? Kusma (討論) 12:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Mirrors can drop CNR, yes, but that woudl involve unnecessary post processing, whereas by removing them first, it saves bandwidth for both the mirrors and wikipedia (a tiny amount, but lots of small amounts can add up) Also, anything that is a problem for a mirror, is a problem for us, as we are creating an encyclopedia, and whether that is hosted by wikipedia or a mirror should not be relevant, so unneccessarily entwinging the encyclopedia with wikipeida workings to make it more difficult to be freely re-distributed is against the aim and spirit of the GFDL. Regards, MartinRe 12:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If our mirrors can deal with our R from shortcut CNRs (whose right to exist nobody seems to be seriously disputing), they can deal with this one. Kusma (討論) 13:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Being able to deal with one problem is no excuse for giving them another :) There was talk about puting shortcut redirects in their own namespace, but in any case, filtering out those is a lot easier as they are in a standard format (WP:*, etc), and can be removed simply based on artitle title, where other CNR's can appear under any title, and the content has to be checked to see if it's a redirect, and where the redirect is aiming at. Regards, MartinRe 13:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I hope that (checking the content) is precisely what our mirrors are doing to deal with our shortcuts, or they will miss P:ear and P:ano. Dropping entries by their title is stupid, I don't see why we should encourage that. Kusma (討論) 13:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think the guidelines should be loosened on things like this. Somebody might naturally want to look up the term "WikiProject" and I see this redirect as a natural response. I vote for common sense over guidelines. Stevie is the man!  Talk &bull; Work 16:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Relucant delete, we don't have a lock on the term: http://twiki.org/cgi-bin/view/Codev/WikiProject -- nae'blis 21:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

====%E2%80%8Ea, %E2%80%8Fb, %E2%80%AAc, %E2%80%ABd, %E2%80%ACe, %E2%80%ADf, %E2%80%AEg, %E2%81%AAh, %E2%81%ABi, %E2%81%ACj, %E2%81%ADk, %E2%81%AEl, %E2%81%AFm, %F4%8F%BF%BF, %E2%80%8E%E2%80%AEn, %E2%80%B4, %E2%80%A9, %E2%80%A8, %E2%80%A4, %EF%80%80, %E2%80%9F, %EF%B1%BF, %E2%98%98, %E2%88%8A → Character (computing)==== The nominated redirect was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 23:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC) I can't even figure out how to type the title of this redirect in. It displays as Unicode character U+10FFFF, but according to GNOME Character Map, U+10FFFF is "guaranteed not to be a Unicode character at all". When I copy and paste it, it appears as \U0010ffff, and when I hit Shift+Ctrl+01FFFF (the normal way to type arbitrary Unicode characters), it breaks up into 𐿿 and the letter F. Should I report this as a MediaWiki bug? —Keenan Pepper 00:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You could just remove the deletion tag because you don't gain anything by deleting it.  &rArr;  Jarlaxle Artemis   01:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There are several of these, based on what links to Character (computing). There may be a good reason for it. Doesn't seem to hurt anything. —Centrx→talk &bull; 23:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * See whatlinkshere special page to find and delete these redirects. CP/Mcomm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 00:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Is there any reason to delete these, or at least a reason compelling enough to make me figure out how to delete the ones that I can't seem to even browse to? I don't see any possible way that these might collide with other encyclopedic content, and the page they're pointing to does sort of make sense.  I would say just leave it alone, it's not worth the trouble of trying to figure out, and who knows, maybe whoever created these has a good reason why these are reasonable redirects.  -- Cyde Weys  13:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Is there any reason to keep them; not a plausible (or possible) typo, and the creator  was blocked for a time for creating those redirects.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 18:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Adding a few more; please restart this RfD now. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 18:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

See User:Gangleri/tests/bugzilla:00337. -- ADNghiem501 01:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, confusing character set in this case - see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E2%81%AF&diff=prev&oldid=71065877 for an example. --TheM62Manchester 08:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete them all. They're almost never going to be used, and even if they are they're not useful redirects - they should link to relevant articles, where that character 9or what it represents) is discussed. — sjorford++ 08:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment BTW, it reminds me of Uncyclopedia, where there really are articles about all 105 letters of alphabet (they include, as you guess, ones like ↑Shift). But the Character (computer) article discusses none of these redirected ones, so I see no point in the redirects. No harm either, though, if one _really_ types something like that in the searchbox. CP/Mcomm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 21:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep, they're doing no harm. -- nae'blis 21:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Most of them are fine, but U+10FFFF is doing me psychological harm. How can it exist?? —Keenan Pepper 03:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Have you filed a Request for Unicarbitration? -- nae'blis 12:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, I no longer think these are at all helpful. -- Cyde Weys  04:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

School State → Alliance for the Separation of School & State
The nominated redirect was Deleted by JzG. -- JLaTondre 13:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC) This was part of a massive redirect effort to Alliance for the Separation of School & State. Some of the redirects don't make sense, while other might work better as an ambig page for redirecting to the article on Separation of church and state.

Other redirects for deletion that go to Alliance for the Separation of School & State: Separation of School and State, Separate School & State, Separation School State, School and State, School & State , School State, and Separation school and state. CaliEd 07:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * See above,
 * "The purpose of a good redirect is to eliminate the possibility that an average user will wind up staring blankly at a "Search results 1-10 out of 378" search page instead of the article they were looking for. If someone could plausibly type in the redirect's name when searching for the target article, it's a good redirect.
 * Redirects are cheap. Redirects take up minimal disk space and use very little bandwidth. Thus, it doesn't really hurt things much if there are a few of them scattered around."


 * Until there is an article written with one of those titles, the redirects should stay. No article similar to Separation of church and state exists for Separation of School & State.  Maybe I or someone else will write one sometime, but you appear to be making an effort at removing my edits more than anything else.
 * Massive? No, I made several, but I usually make multiple redirects at the same time.  Remember "If someone could plausibly type in the redirect's name when searching for the target article, it's a good redirect."  If you don't think this is so, then see Libertarianism and Anarcho-Capitalism and Statism.

--Kalmia 20:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. When typing in "Separation of school and state" state or its variants, very few people are looking for this "Alliance...". It is better for them to get the search results. These redirects discourage the creation of a legitimate article, and lead to confusion. —Centrx→talk &bull; 16:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Add this newly created one to the list: Separation of School & State. CaliEd 21:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I deleted them. There were no links to them anywhere, and I see no evidence that any were likely.  Many were ambiguous or unlikely search terms and redirection of generic terms to one group rather than a generic article on a movement is not acceptable. The whole thing gives a storng impression of a POV-push.  The fact that this appears to be linked with Hyles-Anderson College comes as no surprise.  Just zis Guy you know? 22:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * " linked with Hyles-Anderson College" WTF? How so?  Is it because CaliEd and you have edited that article and CaliEd decided to RfD my redirects?  "unlikely search terms"?  You are just displaying your ignorance, JzG.  It appears that you and CaliEd are Wikistalking

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Close: JzG, please close this discussion since you deleted the redirect(s) in question. It should probably be taken to DRV if its deletion is contested since it's already turfed. As a note, it is probably unwise to delete redirects at RfD after a day and a half of discussion if you have been in a perceived disagreement with the creator.  Big Nate 37 (T) 14:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Notability (doctors) → Notability (doctors)
The nominated redirect was deleted. —Centrx→talk &bull; 20:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Cross-space redirect out of article space. --Lambiam Talk 17:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * (Speedy) Delete - that's exactly an example of inappropriate and potentially harmful redirect: WP notability != RL notability.
 * Delete -Zapptastic (talk) 20:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)