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. Ruslik_Zero 17:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• People’s Republic of China → China (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Vandalism? ibicdlcod (talk) 13:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No, not vandalism. Almost certainly this is an example of a character encoding problem with a "curly" apostrophe character ’ (U+2019) - see Mojibake. This gets a signficant number of hits, so it seems to be proving useful for some people. Keep but mark as ((unprintworthy)). Thryduulf (talk) 14:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Of course, it is a mojibake, but I do not see serious reasons to keep it online, like all other such cases, namely:

  1. List of men’s magazines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  2. Cory’s Shearwater (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  3. Citizen’s band mobile radio communications (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  4. Noah’s Ark (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  5. Légion d’Honneur (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  6. Rus’ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  7. Bihar People’s Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  8. St Catherine’s Monastery, Sinai (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  9. Doge’s Palace (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  10. Northern Ireland Women’s Coalition (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  11. The Great Rock‘n’Roll Swindle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  12. Hellmann’s (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  13. Intergalactic Sonic 7’’s (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  14. St.-Bartholomew’s Night (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  15. Shari’a (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  16. Wren’s Nest (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  17. Nidal Fat’hi Rabah Farahat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  18. L’Après-midi d’un Faune (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  19. Earth’s Children (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  20. Selk’nam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  We cannot and should not invent workarounds for all distortions which lame software and silly users can invent, but only to distortions that originate in technical restrictions. It is worth nothing that some people with malfunctioning browsers made 21 redirects in 2005 – is is not 2005 now. From inside Wikipedia, it's useless and even harmful. Unlikely someone from outside internets is willing to link Wikipedia with an URL containing "%C3%A2%E2%82%AC%E2%84%A2" except s/he finds this on some third-party source, but such URL can be easily fixed in the latter case. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - useful for navigation, ancient and thus may be externally linked, no reasoning motivating deletion has been presented. WilyD 08:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I repeat: the goal of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia. Not to invent and support workarounds for lamers' websites and malfunctioning browsers. Everyone who does want a valid link can easily extract it. This situation is, though, quite different from various "HistoryOf…" redirects, because these were once perfectly valid Wikipedia entry points, and hence, dropping these could damage our reputation. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  A more easily navigable encyclopaedia is easier to build, easier to read. You still have presented a reason that motivates deletion. WilyD 09:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  We are not "inventing workarounds for lamers' websites and malfunctioning browsers", we are enabling people who use old technology (which can be for many reasons, such as that being the only technology they have access to, and may be set up correctly by highly skilled people) to access Wikipedia. Keeping these redirects does no harm to Wikipedia, and when marked as unprintworthy they will do even less. It is equally important that we have reliable articles and that people can access them. Thryduulf (talk) 10:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Just one concrete example of "enabling people who use old technology", not a general demagogy, and I admit that I was wrong. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Well the initial redirect was viewed 13 times in August, Shari’a was viewed 7 times that month proving they are useful to at least some people, whether they were using old technology it is impossible to know, but it is likely. The people most likely to be using old technology are those in the developing world and those on low incomes, both groups under-represented among Wikipedia editors and so statistically unlikely to comment here. You still haven't shown what benefits deletion will bring. Thryduulf (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The age of technology has no relevance to the question discussed, as well as the income of users. A lamer may have a high income and modern equipment, and a handy man may for some reasons work on an outdated hardware and software. I guess that non-ASCII links were frequently mangled by some CMS (you may search some examples in the immense list at http://www.google.com/search?q=%22%25C3%25A2%25E2%2582%25AC%25E2%2584%25A2%22 ; note it is relevant to handiness, not income) about 2005. Some people attempted to "fix" it by creating redirect, instead of fixing the website or just a mangled link. Also, you spoke about benefits… except of legally-motivated cases, do you really know where deletion was aimed to some "benefits", not to prevent sliding Wikipedia down? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  All the deletions of redirects have been done for the benefit of Wikipedia - normally to encourage the creation of an article we want, removing vandalism, removing inaccurate or misleading redirects or redirects that consensus has declared do not benefit Wikipedia for other reasons (such as foreign language redirects). None of these apply in this case. Thryduulf (talk) 17:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, ugly but unambiguous and in use. Siuenti (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. Ruslik_Zero 17:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Future UFC events in 2012 → List of UFC events in 2012 (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Was converted to a redirect after being an obviously crystal ball article, but the redirect is fairly implausible, thus not needed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. While lists of future scheduled and predicted events are encyclopaedic, this recent title wont be accurate for much longer and isn't going to be adding value beyond the last event of the season. I don't see it as a useful redirect even for then limited time there are UFC events in 2012 that have not yet happened - this is the sort of time limited query that search engines are best equipped to deal with. "Future UFC events" and "UFC events in 2012" would both have merits as redirects, but not the two together. Thryduulf (talk) 14:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.