Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 April 5

ȿ → Combining character
The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 22:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC) ȿ is called LATIN SMALL LETTER S WITH SWASH TAIL in Unicode. It is not a combining character &#9993; Hello World! 12:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Change redirect to Question mark. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheBlazikenMaster (talk • contribs) 16:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC).
 * If you see a question mark, you missed the font for display the glyph -- &#9993; Hello World! 17:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's very strange. Wikipedias of every language works fine to me. I can even read Japanese. How come I see question mark? Anyway, I will change my vote to no vote as I didn't know what I was talking about. I hope people won't count my vote with at the end.
 * Segoe UI from Windows Vista can display this letter. -- &#9993; Hello World! 10:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Note The character listed is, while a question mark is  . John Reaves (talk) 17:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like a small 's' with a swash tail to me, and I'm using Linux. In any case, Delete, as it's clearly not a combining character nor a reasonable topic for an article nor a likely target of a search.  Xtifr tälk 14:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Habitation → Habitation at Port-Royal
The result of the debate was redirect to Habitat (disambiguation). Harryboyles 06:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC) Delete it, or probably redirect to Wictionary h y dka t 10:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Re-target to Habitat (ecology) or Habitat (disambiguation). -- JLaTondre 01:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Garfield Goes to Waist: His 18th Book → Garfield
The result of the debate was Kept. Circular redirect delinked. -- JLaTondre 22:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC) This is a circular redirect linked from the article it redircts back to. Pointless. Jason Palpatine 07:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete - Pointless, probably not notable enough for an article anyway.  Bl a  st  05.04.07 0857 (UTC)
 * Keep How is it pointless? That's why it's a redirect, and not an article! John Reaves (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It is a CIRCULAR redirect. It is linked from the article it redirects back to.  This item is a footnoted mark for a alarger article.  There were more than 3 dozen red links for Garfield's various books in that article. This one is the only one that had a link -- it serves no purpose.  Given the fact that none of the other books listed have a corresponding redirect, it would appear that this redirect is totally unnecessary.  If people were looking up any of the individual books, every one of them would have an active link and redirect.  Nobody appears to be looking for it.  And is is part of a circular link/redirect.  What is the point of it when all it does is send the reader back where they started.  I don't know about you, but I find such things anoying. --Jason Palpatine 15:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The circular nature is the result of incomplete cleanup. The solution is to unlink the instance in the target article, not to delete the redirect.  Keep because the page had history prior to being redirected and to prevent the creation of another trivial page that should be merged into the larger list.  Rossami (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:CGC → User:PatPeter/Wikiproject:Category Cleanup
The result of the debate was Kept based upon new targets. -- JLaTondre 22:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC) Highly misleading redirects that give the impression that the userpages they link to are official Wikipedia pages. Note the changed Wikimedia mark-up on the target pages that reinforces this effect. Redirects to userspace for WP: shortcuts are expressly excluded from CSD R2 so I am listing them here. WjBscribe 07:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:StS → User:PatPeter/Wikiproject:Source to Short
 * WP:CGC → User:PatPeter/Wikiproject:Category Cleanup
 * Delete - Agree wholeheartedly.  Bl a  st  05.04.07 0853 (UTC)
 * Comment - WikiProjects have not been approved here before creation.  Bl a  st  06.04.07 0449 (UTC)


 * Not a bad idea per se, suggest moving the relevant pages to Wikipedia namespace. Has the user been informed?  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It is at this time that I take my prototype WikiProjects out of the closet and would now like to petition them to become real Wikiprojects, where might I do that? -PatPeter 15:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete for now, at least - I've seen repeated misuse of these redirects to allow an editor to perform a unilateral action on another editor's userpage. This is not the purpose of redirects. Changing the titles using css just re-inforces that, which is why I brought this question to WP:AN first yesterday - Alison ☺ 16:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete them, db-author them, I do not care just before we do this someone please help me petition my Wikiprojects. Also, I remember making more redirects so just tell me where those are and I will find them to db-author. -PatPeter 16:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You can find them in your contributions. Also, for WikiProjects, see WikiProjects as there's lot of help and guidelines on there. I originally set up WP:IMAR so if you need help, just ask :) - Alison ☺ 16:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah they were at Template:WP:StS and Template:WP:CGC or Template:WP:CC w/e the point is I will get them. But where is the page where you can petition a Wikiproject for approval? if there is one. (I didn't look at Imar I will do that now and look at Wikipediawikiprojects to read I asked again because I do not know how long this will take to read). -PatPeter 16:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep, they now apply to real Wikiprojects, that I hope some of you will help me with. -PatPeter 17:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, situation has changed, no reason to delete them. --Random832 18:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: Defining Variables → Make technical articles accessible
The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 22:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC) This page was originally created as Wikipedia proposal in the article namespace and was subsequently moved. The redirect has no useful edit history and no significant incoming links. It is a cross-namespace redirect and an unlikely search term for anything (please note the space after the colon). -- Black Falcon 06:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete - 'Proposal' sounds like an extremely esoteric 'namespace' that no one would search for.  Bl a  st  05.04.07 0857 (UTC)
 * Delete per the previous comments. mattbr 14:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hurricane Gaston Predictions → Hurricane Gaston (2004)
The result of the debate was Kept. Disambiguate latter if needed. -- JLaTondre 22:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC) I'm not entirely sure this redirect is useful. It's orphaned, and will end up being problematic in 2010 if there is another Hurricane Gaston. The redirect was originally a page of original research that got merged to the target article and refactored over time. I originally speedied it under R3, but undeleted it after rechecking the article histories. This is procedural, but my opinion is delete. Core desat  02:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete, and completely agreed. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 02:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Delete  per Coredesat. The redirect has no incoming links, does not seem a very likely search term, and may indeed be(come) confusing.  -- Black Falcon 06:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops, missed the merge. Default keep per GFDL.  -- Black Falcon 17:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Merged, no further use.  Bl a  st  05.04.07 0857 (UTC)
 * Keep. If its content was merge into the target article we need to keep it for GDFL compliance per WP:MERGE: "Merging — regardless of the amount of information kept — should always leave a redirect ... in place. This is often needed to allow proper attribution through the edit history for the page the merged text came from. Even if it seems rather pointless or obscure, leave it in place." WjBscribe 08:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per WJBscribe. If there is another in 2010, then make it into a disambig page. mattbr 08:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep to preserve the attribution history. If it creates overlap at some future date, overwrite the page then with new content then.  Rossami (talk) 21:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)