Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 November 26

November 26
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 26, 2011

James H. Woods



 * 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 James Woods. Jafeluv (talk) 10:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * → Thomas H. Woods (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

I just moved this page to Thomas H. Woods per the newly-added information in the article, which was that the text referred to Thomas rather than to James, and thus a redirect was created at James H. Woods (and Talk:James H. Woods) that clearly shouldn't exist. Logan Talk Contributions 18:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep or retarget to James Woods (who happens to have the middle name Howard) and add a hatnote. The page was at the original title from March 2010 until 2 minutes before moving, which is way, way too recent for almost all active editors to have caught up, let alone occasional editors, readers, mirrors, links from external websites, bookmarks, etc. Normally I'd recommend a straight keep, but given the dissimilarity in the names "James" and "Thomas" (the confusion could really do with being explained at Thomas H. Woods) and the existence of a good alternative target make retargetting an option here. Thryduulf (talk) 19:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Retarget per Thryduulf. The Thomas article also needs cleanup, since there's a nonstandard hatnote on it. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 11:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I left the hatnote in its non-standard format for now, hoping to get some comment/content to explain the renaming. Otherwise a hatnote from Thomas pointing to James (and vice versa) is going to look mighty odd and just get deleted as nonsense. Thryduulf (talk) 11:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Retarget. The article is fairly new (March 2011), so the external linking will get fixed. I see no reason to keep a redirect from on name to another, unrelated name. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Retarget to James Woods. *provided the current article title of Thomas H. Woods is definitely correct. Do others think it's necessary for someone to then put a hatnote at James Woods saying something like "The article about army captain and judge Thomas H. Woods used to be called James H. Woods, if you are looking for that article please see Thomas H. Woods"? Personally I don't really care either way, as I would be surprised if there were any links or bookmarks etc concerning this article, in fact I am wondering if Thomas H. Woods even meets notability standards?
 * Also, I understand the "James H. Woods" article was re-named "Thomas H Woods" because someone wrote at the top (in what I'm assuming is being referred to as the 'non-standard hatnote') "The below information is for Thomas H. Woods not James H. Woods." Do we know why this statement was made & based on what evidence? And whether it is even correct? I don't have access to either of the references (which also are made in a weird format, or should I say lack of format). MsBatfish (talk) 11:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.

𐍋



 * 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. TexasAndroid (talk) 15:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

These code points are reserved in Unicode. They do not mean anything. It is highly unlikely that anyone should search for them. They should be deleted. Gorobay (talk) 17:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * → Gothic alphabet (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 *  → Gothic alphabet (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 *  → Gothic alphabet (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 *  → Gothic alphabet (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 *  → Gothic alphabet (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 *  → Ugaritic alphabet (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 *  → Taw (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 *  → Phoenician alphabet (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 *  → Phoenician alphabet (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 *  → Phoenician alphabet (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * Keep: as far as I could get it, they belong to the corresponding unicode ranges, so they might be useful in future of they get assigned. Furthermore, they may be useful in some unpopular uses of wikipedia, eg. from links of font editing software. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not understand your last point; why does font editing software need links to non-characters? Gorobay (talk) 20:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * They are Unicode code point. I'm sure I've seen some font editor which allowed changing whatever glyph regardless of its role. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per Dmitrij or retarget to Plane (Unicode), which is the article about the relevant range in unicode afacit. Thryduulf (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Retargeting to List of Unicode characters, etc., might be more useful, as it is more specific. Gorobay (talk) 20:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's equally good. Thryduulf (talk) 21:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * That's good indeed. BTW, did anyone check the possible changes in upcomming Unicode standards? They are fairly unstable... &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The blocks in question will not be changed in Unicode 6.1.0. Gorobay (talk) 00:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice. Then the new target You've suggested is indeed the best target for those redirects. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.