Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 October 16

October 16
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 16, 2010

Samantha Lewes



 * 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 Tom Hanks. JohnCD (talk) 17:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * → Tom Hanks (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Delete: Lewes is Hanks's first wife. She used to have an article stub, but it was changed to a redirect. It's confusing to have a person in her own right redirect to an ex-relation just because the person isn't notable enough to have her own article. The redirect page even has HER categories. Bbb23 (talk) 22:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - it is quite normal for a nn person to be redirected to another article. In this case there is worthwhile information about her at the target. Entirely plausible search term; indeed in May there was 32,000 hits. This is a former article that was redirected. Redirecting such an article then bringing the redirect here is a form of back-door deletion that is not good practice. A red link would be an option if she was considered notable enough for her own article but that appears not to be the case; if there is a possibility of her being notable then restoring the article and taking to AFD would be the way to go. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: There is almost no information on Lewes at the target other than she was married to Hanks. If there were a section about her, or even a paragraph about her, it might be reasonable to redirect her to Hanks. Bridgeplayer just added a qualifier about her on the Hanks page of "American actress", but that's quite a stretch, considering that she was only credited for two roles during her lifetime. She was in one episode of a TV show and in a TV-made movie, apparently playing a small part. See here. That was one of the reasons her article stub couldn't stand scrutiny. I know that one of the many purposes of a redirect is "Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article. (Such redirects are often targeted to a particular section of the article.)." See Redirect. However, that doesn't apply to such a tiny reference in Hanks's article.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep I agree that it is unlikely that any additional information will accrue about Samantha Lewes, but (1) this gives notice about all that is relevant about her and (2) people do search. I strongly disagree that it is "confusing to have a person in her own right redirect to an ex-relation". The fact of the matter is, that as viewed from a Wikipedia perspective, she is not a notable person in her own right. Lastly, the redirect suggests to editors that rather than creating a new article, they should place their new tidbit under Samantha Lewes in the Tom Hanks article. --Bejnar (talk) 18:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't changed my mind, but I can see your points. If the decision is to keep the redirect, I suggest that it point to the Personal life section in the Hanks article, which is where the two sentences about Lewes are -- pursuant to the Redirect policy I quoted above.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I would support such a refinement to the target. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with target refinement. --Bejnar (talk) 14:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

Openoffice.org extension



 * 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 so keep. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * → OpenOffice.org (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Its only function appears to be its original usage at the OXT disambiguation page, but I have refactored it to no longer link here. Seems an unlikely search term: viewers will either search for open office, or the actual extension, OXT.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  19:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and refine target to OpenOffice.org. Enough usage of this redirect to show that it is a plausible search term so lets make it easy for readers to find the information they are seeking. Not all readers will know that .oxt is the OpenOffice file extension. No reason to delete. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The few times the redirect has been used is most likely as a result of users searching for "OXT" and then clicking on the link on the disambig page, which used this redirect.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  22:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Who knows? But it is potentially useful and at worst it is harmless so there is no policy-compliant reason to delete. Redirects are kept unless there is a good reason not to and limited usage is most certainly not such a good reason. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete as an in fact unlikely search term. I agree with  Giftiger Wunsch   that most if not all of the usage was from "OXT". "Openoffice extension" or "Openoffice file extension" are actually more likely, but I see no need to create them. --Bejnar (talk) 18:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - even if it is an unlikely search term that does not provide a policy basis for deletion. At worst it is harmless and deletion may well break links in external sites for no benefit. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Since it was a redirect, I think that the possibility of breaking "links in external sites" is very low, and any such links should be updated regardless. This action (deletion) will ultimately improve those sites. --Bejnar (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

⌚



 * 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 Miscellaneous technical (Unicode block). JohnCD (talk) 17:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * → Watch (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Rather vague redirect that causes confusion; it could also have pointed to clock or time or other possibilities besides just watch. :| TelCo NaSp  Ve :|  10:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as confusing. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment my font renders this as an image of a wristwatch, showing a time of 12:45 ; so it would seem like an ok redirect to watch. Does your font render this as some other thing (like a clock) ? 76.66.200.95 (talk) 06:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Mine renders it as a little square. Nyttend (talk) 21:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment we have several Special:Search/list of unicode lists, doesn't this exist on one of them, to be a retarget target? 76.66.200.95 (talk) 06:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - a good question. I have had a look around but can't find any example. List of Unicode characters, for instance, has no symbol for clock, watch nor time. If someone can find an example then a redirect would be fine. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You didn't look to your immediate right &rArr; ? Uncle G (talk) 21:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Miscellaneous technical (Unicode block). Doh! My peripheral vision was always sub-optimum:-) I am having a real bad week in real life and this is just typical. Anyway, better to retarget to a page where the symbol is explained. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Comment. It seems to be worth noting that for me, on a Windows Vista PC running Firefox, where the font is Arial, this icon appears as a clock (not a wristwatch), with the hands pointing at approximately 1:45.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nobody is going to type this Unicode character, except as an experiment to see what it links to in Wikipedia. If the answer turns out to be that it doesn't link to anything, then that seems to be an appropriate result. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - such characters are not typed in but cut'n'pasted and on that basis they are a very obvious search term. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Would users really expect Wikipedia to have an article about this Unicode character or under its title? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course not but they might want to find information about it. Bridgeplayer (talk) 03:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Retarget to Miscellaneous technical (Unicode block). Someone who goes to the trouble of entering this character would probably be more interested in knowing about the character than the item that the character is supposed to represent. Reach Out to the Truth 02:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Retarget per Reach Out to the Truth. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)