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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:51, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Droid (robot) → Droid (Star Wars)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect is overly confusing and could also equally define android (robot). It should be deleted to eliminate such confusion and let Droid serve as the disambiguation. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:57, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - "droid" is a registered trademark of Lucasfilm or Disney or whoever actually owns it now; point being that robots called droids occur only within the Star Wars franchise. This is also a ((R from move)) from a page that had been at this title since 2002. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:41, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per first comment and who calls Androids Droids? – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 01:38, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  "You're a 'droid and I'm annoyed." — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:46, 12 October 2018 (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 speedily deleted-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:56, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Hurricane Michael (disambugation) → Hurricane Michael (disambiguation)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Obvious typo in the word "disambiguation", was created by mistake (about an hour ago) by a user who moved List of tropical storms named Michael to Hurricane Michael (disambiguation). CycloneYoris ^(talk) 22:12, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete G6 Clearly an unneeded misspell. – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 01:42, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• actually, R3-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:50, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I deleted it, but I'm unfamiliar with the closing templates.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:52, 12 October 2018 (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. Thryduulf (talk) 17:41, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Memtrix → Monstercat  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Memtrix isn’t just a music producer with known ties to Monstercat, but it’s also the title of a video game published by GameEon. 66.87.148.249 (talk) 19:23, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don't think either the mention in Monstercat or that in GameEon, both of which are devoid of context and substance, are enough for a redirect to be useful. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:47, 12 October 2018 (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. Thryduulf (talk) 17:42, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Hillary Clinton Dank Meme Stash → Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

A quoted external source mentions "an equivalent Clinton page", but otherwise, there's no indication of such a topic. It certainly wouldn't be as notable. BDD (talk) 19:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: not mentioned in the target or any other article. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:36, 12 October 2018 (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 keep. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:52, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Rabindra University, Bangladesh → List of universities in Bangladesh  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This was supposed to be a article instead It redirect to a page where this university is also part of the listed items. Ra1han (talk) 17:39, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Nothing wrong with a ((R to list entry)). I wish there were an elegant way to hatnote to Rabindra Bharati University, but I don't see one. --BDD (talk) 19:09, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:REDLINK to encourage article creation. Universities are almost always notable, and I don't see why this one would be an exception. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:18, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per BDD. If anyone wants to create an actal article the are free to do so, but for now this is pointing to the only content we actully have, which is just what redirects are for. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:43, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The content at the target is substantial enough that I don't think a redlink is preferable to the redirect. Of course, if Ra1han or anyone else wants to create an article about the university they're free to do so. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:35, 12 October 2018 (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 newly created redirects, Restore previously existing redirects.

Just to note at the start: this consensus is around the redirects ranging from Unicode 0 to Unicode 320, excepting decimals (e.g. Unicode 3.0, Unicode 3.2, etc.). That is, redirects of that type created or edited by the now-blocked Xayahrainie43.

The short of it is that I read a consensus and agreement here on the typical usage of these. I'm sympathetic to the argument that the lay person might reasonably think they should be used this way, not being familiar with the correct meaning, but I don't think the discussion bears out that the lay person might ever reasonably use them; I think Matthiaspaul and Redrose64 explain it well. The argument about confusion with the growing list of major numbered versions of Unicode is also convincing. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:39, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Unicode 0 → Null character  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There was a mass creation of redirects from Unicode 0 to Unicode 310 Unicode 320 (Update: more have been created since the initial listing). I'm just listing the first one here for simplicity, but this nomination should be taken to include all of these. This is also slightly complicated by the fact that a few already existed as redirects to different targets that were changed by the creator of these (for example, Unicode 9 redirected to an article about version 9 of Unicode and not the character itself. I don't think these are particularly helpful, especially in light of some potentially useful redirects being changed in this mess. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @Deacon Vorbis: if you are nominating more than one redirect you must explicitly tag them all and list them all here. You can request the assistance of an AWB user if you wish. Thryduulf (talk) 16:53, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  No, it is not necessary to list them all here if there is a clear pattern. A random search finds none untagged, although I didn't check to see who tagged them. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I just spent half an hour futzing with AWB to tag them. @Thryduulf: I sure hope it was worth it. As far as adding the ((rfd2)) lines here, you can either accept them with broken targets (because I'm not going through 300+ redirects just to get each one, manually), or you can let people use their imaginations. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• There are also redirects from ASCII 0 to ASCII 127, also created by me (and other editors agree), and they are similarly. --- Xayahrainie43 (talk) 17:42, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  No editor has agreed that the ASCII redirects should have been created. It's possible that some have agreed they shouldn't be deleted. The most favorable comment I can find is that they are more plausible than some of your other redirects. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  See Category:Redirects_from_ASCII_codes --- Xayahrainie43 (talk) 18:24, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Also see Category:Redirects_from_codes --- Xayahrainie43 (talk) 18:27, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Also see the section User_talk:Xayahrainie43#1-ary_listed_at_Redirects_for_discussion, others say "the redirects ASCII 0 to ASCII 127 can stay" --- Xayahrainie43 (talk) 18:30, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  So I was mistaken. One editor said the ASCII codes can stay, although he didn't say should stay. No one said they should have been created. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I asked Roger to speedy delete ASCII 128 to ASCII 300, because they are misnomers and not useful. However, ASCII 0 to 127 are useful, are not conflictive with other potential names and should stay. I even spent time to properly rcat them and move them in the proper subcategory. However, I also advised the creator Xayahrainie43 to be more careful creating redirects in general, and I do not agree with his creation of the "Unicode x" redirect, because this naming pattern is conflictive with other uses. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  However, "Unicode x" have other uses only when x ≤ 16 --- Xayahrainie43 (talk) 07:07, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  No, those are not legitimate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:38, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I see your point, Xayahrainie43, but the difference is that terms like "ASCII n" are actually used to refer to specific ASCII characters in practice, whereas nobody uses a term like "Unicode n" to refer to Unicode characters, only to refer to Unicode versions. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, but "Unicode n" refer to Unicode versions only for small n (n≤12), thus Unicode 13 through Unicode 320 (except Unicode 88) can stay --- Xayahrainie43 (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  If "Unicode n" would be a well-established pattern to refer to Unicode characters, it would be worth trying to find a solution to share the same "name space" for characters and versions, but it isn't. Nobody uses "Unicode n" to refer to specific characters, so this is nothing that would help searches, and therefore there is no reason why we should make compromises when the same pattern is already used for something different (Unicode versions).

  I do support the U+xxxx pattern for hex codes, but only because it is widely used, officially standardized in the Unicode standard itself and not conflictive with anything else in Wikipedia (and is specific/cryptic enough to remain non-conflictive also in the long-term future). If there would be an already established Unicode character notation using decimal numbers which would be non-conflictive with other uses, I would support this as well, but to the best of my knowledge, there isn't. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:16, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I know of only one way of referring to a Unicode character using a decimal number: the HTML numeric character reference. Consider the en-dash (which some people apparently have difficulty entering) - this is U+2013, where 2013 is implicitly a hexadecimal value. Most other ways of specifying this character use the same four hex digits - such as \u2013 in JavaScript, or \2013 in CSS. In HTML we may use either of two numeric character references - – or – and the second of these is decimal. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:30, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  In C and C++, we use \", \34, and \x22 for the symbol ", like in html, we use " and " for this symbol. --- Xayahrainie43 (talk) 21:37, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Xayahrainie43, this is tangential to this discussion about "Unicode n", but: No, the correct code in C and C++ (and most other programming languages) would be \42 (octal), not \34 (decimal). I pointed this out already on your talk page ([1]) where you unfortunately decided not to answer.

  If it adds anything to our discussion here, it unfortunately shows that you do not listen even to constructive comments/advices given on your talk page. Implementing those problematic "\nnn" (decimal) redirects instead of proposing and discussing them first or at least caring about feedback and trying to fix and improve on it later on - however, you unfortunately didn't learn anything from it and went straight ahead to create those "Unicode n" redirects, which are problematic as well. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 09:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Redrose, yes, I am aware of this decimal notation for HTML entities. They can't be used for "our purposes", though. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 09:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I know. I was trying to demonstrate the fallacy of redirects which use decimal values by showing that hexadecimal values are the norm for Unicode characters. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all (except those which have a legitimate target other than the character) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Additionally, Unicode characters are usually denoted U+xxxx, where xxxx represents a 4-"digit" hex number. Zero-suppressed and decimal codes are rarely used. Hence using these to refer to the character are unlikely redirects. That being said, I don't think Unicode 0000, Unicode 000F, etc., would be constructive, either, but the argument against them is more the fact Xayahrainie43 edits are bot-like, and should be reverted as an unauthorized bot. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:12, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  There are also redirects from U+0000 to U+00D8 --- Xayahrainie43 (talk) 07:09, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Those are used from time to time, and have few, if any, other uses. I have no objection to those, and possibly other U+xxxx redirects. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:38, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Please be careful, Deacon and Arthur! Unicode 1, Unicode 2, Unicode 3, Unicode 4, Unicode 5, Unicode 6, Unicode 7, Unicode 8, Unicode 9, Unicode 10, Unicode 11, Unicode 12 and Unicode 88 were perfectly legitimate redirects before Xayahrainie43 retargeted them to something not useful. These particular redirects MUST definitely stay, and I'm quite annoyed that they have been nominated as well, instead of just restoring their original target links. Unicode 0 and most other redirects following this pattern, however, are not useful and should be deleted, if they were created by Xayahrainie43. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Is that the full list of non- pre- Xayahrainie43 redirects. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:38, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I think so, but I haven't gone through all of Deacon's nominations systematically, just checked those redirects I was aware of being legitimate names. Right now I also can't think of other legitimate names following the same pattern, but it would be better to check them all individually. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:43, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @Matthiaspaul: WP:RFD is not just for deletion, it is also for discussing the repurposing of long-standing redirects. An RfD can have any of several possible outcomes, including: (i) keep as is; (ii) delete; (iii) revert; (iv) retarget to another page; (v) convert to article; (vi) convert to dab page. If a redirect has been repurposed without discussion and the person who did that is unwilling to revert themselves, it is quite proper for these redirs to be brought to RfD for wider discussion. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:47, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all new redirects as they are not useful, and do not reflect how people refer to the targets of the redirects. Nobody refers to 'X' as Unicode 88, but "Unicode 88" is the actual title for the original draft specification for the Unicode Standard. Also keep the original redirects for existing Unicode versions, as these are widely-used abbreviations, and it is highly likely that they will eventually redirect to articles on individual versions of the Unicode Standard. BabelStone (talk) 09:36, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Exactly. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all new redirects, restore old ones to previous targets. Keep any U+xxxx redirects. Unicode characters are not usually referred to in decimal. Nowak Kowalski (talk) 19:30, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all "Unicode n" redirects created by Xayahrainie43 except for those few listed above, which should be restored to their original link targets. "U+xxxx" redirects can stay. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per "why does this matter"? No one has actually explained why this would be any benefit to the encyclopedia in deleting these. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:41, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It has been explained: Some of these are already used for Unicode versions. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That literally is meaningless to 99% of the population who have no clue what a unicode version is. Not trying to be flippant, but that seems to not be a reason for deletion to someone who only barely knows of unicode character numbers, much less has any clue what a unicode version is. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per TonyBallioni, per WP:RFD#K5 (someone finds them useful), and, generally, per WP:AINTBROKE. With the exception of those identified by Matthiaspaul which have more appropriate uses. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Except that is is broken (because of conflict with the preexisting ones), and no one has said they find them useful. And K5 needs to be balanced against common sense. See for example: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 December 11#Why women hate me. The redirect creator certainly found it useful, but that can only be one factor to consider, and in this case, it seems to be a pretty weak factor. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Conflict with preexisting what? Do you mean the old revisions Matthiaspaul identified which I explicitly excluded in my comment? If there are other preexisting redirects, please specify. As for, say, Unicode 224, redirecting to the article on the character represented seems like a fine use for a redirect, and the decimal coding is useful on Windows machines at least, so let's say I find it useful. And as far as I understand the standard, the notation "Unicode 224" represents the Unicode character referenced by the decimal 224; if hexadecimal were intended then some qualifier (U+0224 or x224, etc.) would be written instead, so most of these redirects are unambiguous; that is, nobody is likely to type "unicode e0" trying to find this character, and certainly nobody is going to type "unicode 58" looking for the 1988 working paper. In fact one might argue that the existing redirects to Unicode versions should be replaced with a redirect to the character represented, with a hatnote navigating to the section on the Unicode version where they exist ("Unicode 12" at least does not). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Ivan, I would be with you (at least regarding the first part of your comment), if "Unicode 224" would actually be a notation used to refer to the Unicode character 224 (decimal). However, this isn't the case to the best of my knowledge (what I have seen, though, is "Unicode decimal code n", but I regard this as too long for our purposes). The Unicode standard defines one notation to refer to the characters, and that's the U+00E0 hex notation (which I do support). There is (unfortunately) no decimal equivalent, except for the notation for HTML entities (à), which can't be used, however.

  So, basically, we would be inventing a notation hoping that it is intuitive enough to be used by people when searching for certain characters. I would not be completely against that if it would not cause problems, but it is conflictive with the established usage of "Unicode n" for Unicode version numbers and this has priority. Right now, this only affects n=88 and 1..12, but given the rate at which new Unicode revisions are published in recent years, we might even have three-digit revisions in some decades.

  Trying to find a compromise, I could accept "Unicode n" character redirects for code points of 128 and higher (for lower values, we already have "ASCII n"), but still it doesn't really make sense unless we would create thousands more "Unicode n" redirects (it doesn't make sense for only Unicode 128 to 320 - why 320, anyway?).

  --Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:26, 17 October 2018 (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 retarget to Mandarin's Avengers. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Lich (comics) → List of Marvel Comics characters: L  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No information held at redirect location. No other likely suitable redirect. Killer Moff (talk) 10:34, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A lich is the main antagonist in the webcomic The Order of the Stick, and so the word is frequently used there. However I'm uncertain whether that would make a good target or not (e.g. would someone searching "(comics)" be surprised to end up at an article about a webcomic? I have no idea). Thryduulf (talk) 11:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Mandarin's Avengers, where the character is mentioned, if that article is kept at AfD (or to wherever that article is merged to if that's the outcome of the AfD). If that article is deleted some other solution will have to be found, as WP:ATTREQ would seem to prohibit deletion because content from Lich (comics) was merged into List of Marvel Comics characters: L in March 2014. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with Arms & Hearts, noting that Mandarin's Avengers is currently leaning towards a merge to Mandarin (comics), which is where Lich would ultimately be retargeted. BOZ (talk) 12:36, 14 October 2018 (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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:54, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Palasa @ Kasibugga → Palasa  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not a formal place name redirect B dash (talk) 03:56, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not a standard or recognized name, not a reasonable or likely title for readers to enter. Page history statistics almost no page views over the years, and the few views are almost certainly due to bots (without a bot useragent) or editors stumbling across it. Alsee (talk) 06:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 01:46, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unlikely synonym --Lenticel ^(talk) 06:02, 12 October 2018 (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.