The result of the debate was speedy delete per CSD R1. Non-admin closure. Midorihana^{~いいですね? はい!} 07:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page redirects to a page that was deleted. Save-Me-Oprah^(talk) 19:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per CSD R1 and tagged as such. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 19:35, May 11, 2008 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Re-targted to Unicode Geometric Shapes. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• ▬ (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)
• ▯ (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)
• ▮ (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)
• ▭ (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

As below, unlikely search terms: special characters & it is obvious what they represent. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 18:48, May 11, 2008 (UTC)

• Keep (see my comment on square redirects for rationale and proposed solution) --Enric Naval (talk) 12:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Re-targted to Unicode Geometric Shapes. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• ◇ (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)
• ◆ (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)
• ◈ (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

More of the same, unlikely search terms: special characters and it is obvious what they represent. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 18:45, May 11, 2008 (UTC)

• Keep (see my comment on square redirects for rationale and proposed solution) --Enric Naval (talk) 12:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Re-targted to Unicode Geometric Shapes. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• ■ (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)
• □ (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)
• ▪ (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)
• ▫ (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)
•  (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Here we go again with the shape redirects! These are highly unlikely search terms: they are special characters, and it is blatantly obvious what they are, why would you need to look them up? RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 18:39, May 11, 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. ■ has two mainspace links, from MIK Code page and Western Latin character sets (computing), belying the claim that it is unlikely to be used. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because it is linked does not mean that it should be, or that it is useful. Someone clicking on such a character would expect to go to a table of Unicode symbols rather than the Square (geometry) article. They can see that it is a square, but they may want to see its Unicode location, etc. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 19:38, May 11, 2008 (UTC)
    • Then a redirect to Unicode Geometric Shapes might be appropriate... -- Prince Kassad (talk) 20:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hey, maybe we should redirect all triangle, square, circle, rhombus and rectangle redirects there.... yeah, i know that this contradicts my previous !votes there, but this might actually be a useful redirect --Enric Naval (talk) 22:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment this would create a self-redirect unless the article on geometric changes has all the wikilinks removed on the affected characters --Enric Naval (talk) 00:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all circle, square, etc, I'll redirect all of them to Unicode Geometric Shapes and remove the wikilinks that would cause self-redirects. I can see legitimate uses for these redirects at pages like User:Ruud_Koot/Unicode, Western_Latin_character_sets_(computing), MIK_Code_page, etc --Enric Naval (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • +1 for this suggestion. I’m going to amend the UGS page with more info on each where it is applicable. —porges_(talk) 01:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll go tomorrow and change the redirects. Today I'm too tired --Enric Naval (talk) 07:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done, I redirected all of them. I also added ((R from Unicode)) to some of them. You can review them very easily by looking at my contributions from May 17, since I put it on the edit summary every time I did so. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Re-targted to Unicode Geometric Shapes. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• ○ (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)
• ● (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)
• ◙ (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)
• ◌ (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)
• ⚆ (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)
• ⚇ (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)
• ⚈ (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)
• ⚉ (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)
• ◍ (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)
• ◒ (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)
• ◓ (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)
• ◔ (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)
• ◕ (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)
• ◯ (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

As per the triangle redirects below, these are all rather obscure characters and it is patently obvious what they are, making them extremely unlikely search terms. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 18:21, May 11, 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Several of these are linked from mainspace, either directly or via templates. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • See my comment on the Square deletions above. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 19:39, May 11, 2008 (UTC)
• Note. I've WP:BOLDly retargeted the first one to Function composition as the circle symbol is used in algebra to indicate that operation. Keep first one. The last one could be similarly redirected. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 01:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (see my comment on square redirects for rationale and proposed solution) --Enric Naval (talk) 12:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • +1 for this suggestion —porges_(talk) 01:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 23:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Requires updating every year, and shouldn't really be used at all per WP:RECENTISM, 'as of <year>' should be used instead. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 15:53, May 11, 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, and also updating it every year will cause the articles using this to refer to a different year than they intended to. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Recentism and Enric. Article also has non non-trivial links - let's not encourage people to make them. Olaf Davis | Talk 07:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Midorihana^{~いいですね? はい!} 07:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It isn't the only page that will need updating after December 31, 2008, but currently Special:Search/Last year gives a perfectly valid result. Obviously, writing "[[last year]]" is a bad idea.-- User:Docu
• Comment At least someone has been updating it. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 22:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete you may well chose to redirect this to any apocolyptic choice for which year will be earth's last. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. David Pro (talk) 22:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --EivindJ (talk) 22:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 23:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

A Chinese character whose meaning has nothing to do with a square. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 15:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Mike R (talk) 23:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Midorihana^{~いいですね? はい!} 07:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I dont know anything about the Chinese character, but if what Prince Kassad says is true, this one could be speedy deleted. --EivindJ (talk) 22:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 23:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Probably created to be linked from as a way to avoid recentism. However, it is unused and over-specific. [[2006|As of 2006]] can always be used instead. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 15:43, May 11, 2008 (UTC)

• Delete the alternative presented at nom is way better as avoids overcategorization --Enric Naval (talk) 16:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete most unlikely search term for an article. B.Wind (talk) 16:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--Lenticel ^(talk) 19:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --EivindJ (talk) 22:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. WjBscribe 23:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

• ⑈ (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)
• ⑇ (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)
• ⑉ (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)
• ⑆ (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Seem to be examples of the magnetic ink font. Very unlikely search terms given the fact that they are sp. characters. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 14:59, May 11, 2008 (UTC)

Reasonable, someone might find it in character map and paste it into the search box wondering what it is. --Random832 (contribs) 16:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Very Weak Keep Unlike other special character redirects, these one actually have (very marginal) encyclopaedic value, and Random makes a valid case of usage as a search term that would bring to a relevant page. People may remember them seeing them on a bank check and copy/pasting them. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Random832. Remember also Wikipedia is not paper. Even if these symbols are only of limited use, there is no harm had by keeping them around (and this comment goes for all (edit: on consideration, a few of ;)) the other symbol RFDs on this page...) —porges_(talk) 23:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep per Random832 (in fact, I am like that). Midorihana^{~いいですね? はい!} 07:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Deleted. Adding "This page has been deleted" is close enough to db-author for me. -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected to current target after blanking an unsourced article. Ridiculously unlikely search term. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 14:42, May 11, 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. It's a shame that the editor who created this didn't ask an admin for a speedy deletion. It certainly qualified when the page was blanked. B.Wind (talk) 15:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 23:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

These two look identical, but the former one is prefixed with the line separator. Unlikely search term. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 14:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Impossible search term, useless. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 14:43, May 11, 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as an unlikely search term. Midorihana^{~いいですね? はい!} 20:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Re-targted to Unicode Geometric Shapes. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Very unlikely search terms given that they are special characters. Good redirects obscure Unicode characters do not make RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 13:19, May 11, 2008 (UTC)

• Delete This redirect doesn't even make any sense to me..... The character represents a triangle? People will use this to search for the definition of triangle? People can't recognize a triangle shape and need to look it up on the encyclopedia? --Enric Naval (talk) 16:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep some with modifications Some of them are operators used in mathematics; it would be more useful if they were to redirect to a more relevant page rather than just triangle. For example, ⊲ & ⊳ are used for normal subgroups. —porges_(talk) 23:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Enric Naval upon further reflection, those aren't in the list :P however, some of those in the list have relevant annotations in their Unicode tables; ◁ = "z notation domain restriction", ▷ = "z notation range restriction", △ = "trine", ▽ = "Hamilton operator"... but a better solution would be what Enric recommends; plus addition of more information on the geometric shapes page. —porges_(talk) 01:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (see my comment on square redirects for rationale and proposed solution) --Enric Naval (talk) 12:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. WjBscribe 23:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Unlikely typo, also Drawn togather Munci (talk) 10:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unlikely search term, unfrequent typo --Enric Naval (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep reasonable typo. Doing no harm. A and E are close together on the standard qwerty keyboard so it isn't that unlikely. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• uh, what? Ah, does anybody know where to get access statistics for pages in order to see how many times this typo is done? --Enric Naval (talk) 00:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It was used 119 times in April. See [1]. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• (long rant on difficulties to stablish who the heck is visiting your website) Damn, this counter does not show the user-agent info, so it's imposible to know if it's only search engine bots and mirroring bots crawling wikipedia (I hadn't thought of that). Given the irregular distribution, with 28 edits on one day and zero edits on many days, it's probably bot activity. The target article has an average 15000 hits per day[2] and this redirect has an average of 3 hits per day, so this would be a normal level of bot activity for that traffic (3 hits on a redirect for every fifteen thousand hits on the main article). Between Slurp Inktomi, googlebot, msnbot, voilabot, ask jeeves, exabot, Yahoo!Overture, picsearch, etc, they can probably create this level of activity, specially if they all decide to crawl the same day (some stupid bots keep hammering the same 404 page every week, years after it was deleted, or similar crap, you can expect any braindead activity from web crawler bots). Specially for a typo that has 6200 hits on google including repetitions[3] o_O --Enric Naval (talk) 02:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but very likely some of those are real hits. And the argument that there are so many copies of this typo on google is if anything further reason to keep it because it shows that it is in fact a common a typo. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, redirects are cheap and stuff, let's keep it. I'm just pissed off that I can't see the user-agent info :P --Enric Naval (talk) 02:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Possible typo. Redirects are cheap. Midorihana^{~いいですね? はい!} 07:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Simple typo, should be kept unless a situation presents itself when a "Drawn Togather" needs its own page. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 20:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep very plausible typo: sometimes I've hit "e" instead of "a" and vice versa. Don't see anything wrong with this redirect. Acalamari 16:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious joke redirect (nineteen control characters followed by a cyrillic number sign). The creator even protected it so nobody would even dare to nominate the redirect for deletion. protected due to vandalism reasons -- Prince Kassad (talk) 09:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Nuke it fast - Totally pointless. You have no idea how hard it is to write out a deletion rationale when all the text you enter comes out backwards! Click on 'edit' to see just how useless this redirect is. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 12:55, May 11, 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete CSD R3. Take your choice: either vandalism or obvious implausible typo (albeit clearly an intentional one). B.Wind (talk) 15:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

not so fast - it's not so unreasonable that someone would find this posted somewhere else online and paste it into the search box. And I've fixed this debate :P --Random832 (contribs) 15:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I had already speedy deleted and salted this page, since the original protected redirect didn't seem to serve any purpose other than to prevent creation of an article at this title. (Protecting deleted pages has only become possible quite recently.) However, while about to close this discussion, I discovered that we actually have an article discussing this "joke" character sequence at Combining Cyrillic Millions. Thus I've changed the title to redirect there, as indeed the real combining Cyrillic millions sign at ҉ already does. Sorry for disrupting this RfD. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Close as solved by Ilmari Nuff said --Enric Naval (talk) 16:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, having though about this a bit more yet, I've come to the conclusion that this redirect should be deleted after all. It turns out that there are several different variants of this "joke" character sequence going around, with various sequences of control characters preceding the combining millions sign, and that the one in the title we're discussing is not the "original" one discussed at Combining Cyrillic Millions. (That would be ‪‫‬‭‮҉‬‬‬‬‬, which also used to redirect to the same target but was deleted by ^demon in March.) It doesn't seem reasonable to start creating redirects for all the variants going around, especially since new ones probably emerge constantly as a result of imperfect cut-and-pasting; it's also hard to keep track of them, since they all look exactly the same. Given all that, I'm also not convinced that the utility of having these redirects, as noted above by Random832, actually exceeds the trouble caused by them. (In particular, they cause a mess whenever they appear in any logs or page listings.) In fact, I've just added the bi-directional override characters in question to MediaWiki:Titleblacklist, so no-one (except admins) can create any more of them. (The "soft" Unicode left-to-right and right-to-left marks remain allowed, though.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not the correct control character, per amazingly worded Ilram's comment. Either that, or Keep and create redirects for every one of the control characters that have this effect --Enric Naval (talk) 00:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Re-targted to Bokmål. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance this looks like the language name in the respective language, however it's prefixed by the left-to-right-embedding control character (note that Norsk (bokmål), without the control character, is a red link). Very unlikely search term. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 09:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - ...and in other news the tide of useless control-character redirects shows no sign of stopping. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 12:56, May 11, 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. When the text "Norsk (bokmål)" is copied from the interwiki list on the sidebar (e.g., on the Main Page), it is likely that the control character will be copied with it. Hence, this facilitates the ability for people to find the article on that language if they see it in the interwiki list. --- RockMFR 18:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, no, what you want to is to delete this redirect becuase it has a hidden control character in front of it, and use Norsk (bokmål) instead, which has already been created by other user --Enric Naval (talk) 10:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think everyone here is completely missing what I am saying. If you copy "Norsk (bokmål)" from the interwiki sidebar, you will end up copying the ltr character with it. This redirect allows users to get directly to the article if they paste the text into the search bar. Without this redirect, the search bar will not automatically take them to the correct article. --- RockMFR 03:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; but if kept redirect to Bokmål which is what should be meant by the oddly prefixed concept. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since is has a hidden control character that makes it unsearcheable. There is already a redirect without that control character --Enric Naval (talk) 10:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Carlossuarez46. --EivindJ (talk) 08:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Deleted based upon the two previous space discussions from 29 April. -- JLaTondre (talk) 17:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another control character (this time, the Mongolian vowel separator) mistakenly redirecting to the space even though it's not a space. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 09:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - is it even possible to search for this?! RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 12:57, May 11, 2008 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This hangul jamo is completely unrelated to the null character. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 09:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unrelated and pointless. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 12:58, May 11, 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as unrelated. Midorihana^{~いいですね? はい!} 07:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was that the page is now a redirect to Dutch Occupation of Acadia. WjBscribe 23:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

No such conquest ever occurred. It is also a non-consensual bypass of an article that was subject to a failed AfD. Note: Candidate’s Talk page is separately redirected to Talk:Dutch Acadie Askari Mark (Talk) 04:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep likely search term. Even if it's historically inaccurate, it's used on book called "Capt. Francis Champerowne,the Dutch Conquest of Acadie,and Other Historical Papers" [4], and appears to be also the title of a essay by C. W. Tuttle, whoever Tuttle is --Enric Naval (talk) 16:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I WP:BOLDly changed it to redirect to Dutch Acadie --Enric Naval (talk) 16:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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