Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 August 4

August 4
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 4, 2012

Bride of Frankenstein (1935 Universal Studios film)



 * 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. Tikiwont (talk) 13:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * → Bride of Frankenstein (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Delete - absolutely worthless and unrealistic redirect. There is nothing other than the target article known as "Bride of Frankenstein" and even if there were the year and studio is unlikely in the extreme as a search term. 68.190.166.40 (talk) 14:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. The target is a 1935 film by Universal Studios. This makes sense, and there is no opportunity for confusion. It's not uncommon to redirect disambiguated titles to the article at the primary name when such disambiguation is not necessary. While it's value is very low, so is its cost. I'm just not seeing a reason for deletion here. BigNate37(T) 15:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Type "bride of f" in the search box. Bride of Frankenstein is the only thing that comes up. This redirect does not appear. For this redirect to appear in the search box it is necessary to type "bride of frankenstein 1". It does not make sense to think that someone searching for the film would type not only the film's complete title but extra characters beyond the film's full title. It does not make sense to keep a redirect that does not and cannot serve any purpose. "There are other examples of the same thing" is not a good reason for keeping a worthless redirect. "It doesn't cost much" is not a good reason to keep something worthless. 68.190.166.40 (talk) 19:12, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You are assuming that the only reason for redirects is the search bar. That is not the case. It can be helpful to use piped links to disambiguated titles even when the intended target is at the primary title. This is good practice as it insulates against future page moves. It is a more serious issue for BLPs, since an errant link can imply unfortunate things about a subject, but it nonetheless helps avoid errors here. Suppose this redirect is deleted and in five years' time a remake of the film is made, and the community decides that the remake is the far more likely search term. Every existing link will be pointing at the wrong article. While providing a disambiguated redirect does not magically make everyone use best practices, deleting it would prevent anyone from doing so. BigNate37(T) 22:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Redirects are not the same as other pages. The load they put on the servers is close to nonexistent, so unless the redirect is actually harmful somehow (like being confusing or illogical), we don't delete them. This redirect does no harm and makes sense, so we keep. Ego White Tray (talk) 07:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * keep per BigNate and tag with - that such a template and associated category exist is another clue that redirects of this type have value. Thryduulf (talk) 07:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * keep per above three comments. benzband  ( talk ) 19:19, 9 August 2012 (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 Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 13:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * → Left (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Should be deleted. U+F077 is not a valid Unicode character and it is unlikely anyone will search for this. They might not be able to search for, anyway; the invalidity of the character causes Google and Bing to fail searching, though a direct Wikipedia search works okay. The target article is a disambiguation page. Mikeblas (talk) 13:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note. Created in April of 2006 by a user who has been blocked from editing wikipedia since September of 2006. -- Mikeblas (talk) 13:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Possibly retarget to a relevant setion of List of unicode characters. I should note though that that article is too large for my ancient phone browser to completely load. Thryduulf (talk) 07:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There's nothing appropriate there that I found. The nearest two characters are U+A8xx (Sylheti Nagari) and U+FFFC/D (special replacement characters). I'm leaning towards delete. BigNate37(T) 19:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The most appropriate target is Private Use (Unicode), but I too lean towards deletion. FWIW the nearest non-PUA characters are and, so List of Unicode characters is out of date. Gorobay (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 02:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:SNOW. StringTheory11 02:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note—In Marlett, U+F077 is associated with a left-pointing triangle. See also WP:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_September_20. We should also delete  → Bullet (typography) and  → X mark. In fact, most private use character redirects should be deleted. Gorobay (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2012 (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.