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. Taking into account related discussions, there is sufficient support to have this kind of redirect and little indication of any harm if the target is a dab page. Tikiwont (talk) 21:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• 👝 → Pouch (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Incorrect redirect to disambiguation page without clear target The Banner _talk 23:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment U+1F45D POUCH ; if you look past the table on that PDF, you'll see the symbols have names -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 07:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you read my comment? The Banner _talk 08:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The symbol is called POUCH, the page it redirects to is pouch, which contains links to several different pouches. Where's the problem? It would need disambiguation in any case, and right now it redirects to a disambiguation page. -- 05:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.181.190 (talk)
      • That it links to a disambiguation page, what show up in a widely used template. Secondly, a redirect to something vague is not solving the "problem" of a red link. Link correctly to the right target, or leave the link red in place. The Banner _talk 14:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • What widely used template? There's a single use template, and that's used on the page that describes the unicode character -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 18:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oi, you take me by surprise with this. The template is indeed only used in 1 article and 1 template. The template is used by a template without incoming links. In effect, this redirect will become an orphan. Redirecting from a code that is extremely unlikely to be used as search term is not very efficient, but a (silly) service to the reader. It will be the two templates that need work. Either they should be deleted or reworked to an article. The Banner _talk 19:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • ((Unicode chart templates)) looks like either a template documentation template, or a template disambiguation page -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 07:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this gets use and disambiguation pages exist precisely for searches with no clear target. Deletion would bring no benefits. Thryduulf (talk) 20:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The redirect creates problems elsewhere by making a template link to a disambiguation page. The Banner _talk 14:02, 6 November 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 Keep. Taking into account related discussions, there is sufficient support to have this kind of redirect and little or no indication of any harm. Tikiwont (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• 👤 → Bust (sculpture) (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Incorrect redirect. No evidence at http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U1F300.pdf for even a close resemblance. Vandalism?? The Banner _talk 23:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment U+1F464 BUST IN SILHOUETTE ; if you look past the table on that PDF, you'll see the symbols have names -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 07:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this gets uses and redirects to a relevant article so deletion would be harmful for no benefit. Thryduulf (talk) 20:47, 5 November 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 Retarget. Taking into account related discussions, there is sufficient support to have this kind of redirect and little or no indication of any harm. Holding hands semes to be the preferred target for all three. Tikiwont (talk) 21:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)*[reply]

• 👫 → Intimate relationship (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Incorrect redirect. No evidence at http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U1F300.pdf for even a close resemblance. Vandalism?? The Banner _talk 23:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, okay. Redirects for the similar symbols to gay and lesbian are no problem I see? No close resemblance, lol. Maybe my mind is so screwed if I made these edits reading symbols' descriptions from your link?

• Comment U+1F46B MAN AND WOMAN HOLDING HANDS ; if you look past the table on that PDF, you'll see the symbols have names -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 07:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I suppose it could also be confused with 🚻 (U+1F6BB) RESTROOM -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 05:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• comment just because people hold hands doesn't mean they're in an intimate relationship. And if gay and lesbian are so targetted, then this should point to heterosexual -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 07:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: holding hands is an article. Siuenti (talk) 18:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment should 👬 (U+1F46C) TWO MEN HOLDING HANDS and 👭 (U+1F46D) TWO WOMEN HOLDING HANDS also be retargetted there? -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 05:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I agree that holding hands doesn't necessarily imply a sexual relationship. Siuenti (talk) 12:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to holding hands, that seems like a better target. Thryduulf (talk) 20:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment All the three symbols (👫 👬 👭), I suppose? 178.66.12.97 (talk) 08:36, 6 November 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 Retarget. Taking into account related discussions, there is sufficient support to have this kind of redirect and little or no indication of any harm and Heart_symbol#Computer_code is considered the better target. Tikiwont (talk) 21:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• 💓 → Heart sounds (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Incorrect redirect. No evidence at http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U1F300.pdf for even a close resemblance The Banner _talk 23:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment U+1F493 BEATING HEART ; if you look past the table on that PDF, you'll see the symbols have names -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 07:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Heart_symbol#Computer_code where this is listed. Siuenti (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment we have a page called Beating Heart, where the link to the computer code section can be placed. -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 05:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Siuenti. Thryduulf (talk) 20:49, 5 November 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. Unlikely search term. DrKiernan (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Superman Unlseashed → Superman in film (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

This was an article with a misspelled name, which was turned into a redirect. the correct redirect is now in place. this old redirect to the correct redirect is for a completely unlikely search term. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, this page has been around since 2009. Ego White Tray (talk) 20:49, 7 November 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 18:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• CategorySchemesTalk → Portal talk:Contents (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

CSD-R2. Listing here as I see it's been CSD-declined previously. TB (talk) 14:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete XNR -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 07:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a historic ((R from CamelCase)). It gets hits, and isn't conflicting with an article so deletion would not bring any benefits. Simply being a cross-namespace redirect is not sufficient reason on its own to delete anything. Thryduulf (talk) 20:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This was actually deleted in 2008 but for some reason it was restored by Rossami a few months ago claiming it was an invalid R2 speedy 4 years ago! This has only started getting hits since it was restored. When it was deleted (2008-2012) it received virtually no hits. Due to this we can safely assume it is not externally linked. Since this has only started receiving hits since it has existed again it is likely that the hits it is receiving are from people randomly stumbling across it (e.g. Typing "categorys" into the search box, seeing it in search results, using Special:RandomRedirect) rather than finding it useful. If it was useful this would also get hits when the page did not exist. Therefore it is harmful if people are randomly stumbling across it and being sent to a portal talk page. There is no useful history to preserve, it is demonstrably harmful and it is of no clear use to anyone. 82.132.248.43 (talk) 20:28, 26 November 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 retargeted to Palestinian territories#History. JohnCD (talk) 20:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• History of the Palestinian territories → History of Palestine (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Shouden't this be retargeted to Palestinian territories#History? History of Palestine has a far broader scope then the Palestinian territories Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 14:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've changed the target back to Palestinian territories#History. It's been 11 days and no explanation, either at this RFD, or in this edit summery, has been offered as to why this should redirect to History of Palestine, which is about the history of the Palestine region, rather then to Palestinian territories#History, which is about the history of the Palestinian territories. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I am at a complete loss to see any of the criteria listed at #Reasons for deleting that might possibly apply. There are lots of incoming links including some from similar articles on places with far less interesting histories (perhaps I should not be specific), suggesting to me that this should be expanded to an article in time. Meantime a redirect to Palestinian territories#History is entirely appropriate. Agree that pointing to History of Palestine is not ideal, but surely the first place to discuss this is at Talk:History of the Palestinian territories? Andrewa (talk) 17:06, 25 November 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 keep. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Longest Wikipedia Article → Special:Longpages (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

R2 or A7, take your pick. Listing here rather than speedy deleting as it's been edit-protected TB (talk) 14:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep again. This is the location that the article existed at before the creation of the "Special" namespace. The redirect preempts link rot for anyone that still has links to that old historical location and helps editors who are researching through old pagehistories. The link does no harm and has some small benefit. It is not a candidate for regular deletion and most definitely does not qualify for any speedy-deletion criterion. Rossami (talk) 16:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eeep; I failed to find any previous AfD/RfD's for this one, or for that matter any history prior to July 2012. Can you link the relevant info here for posterity please and I'll copy the previous conclusions and close this dupe off. Cheers - TB (talk) 16:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The old history is at Wikipedia:Longest Wikipedia article, it was moved without leaving a redirect (one should have been left though, hence Rossami's creation of this redirect in its place). Thryduulf (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, I see the history now - the page did indeed have content at the old address for a few months in 2005 before it was moved to the Wikipedia namespace . However, unless I'm mistaken (which is quite possible), nothing in the main namespace redirected to this until the one under discussion here was created in July 2012. I'm not sure that the two contributors to the article in the mainspace intended it to be encyclopedic content; the page move without redirect seems to have been intended. Has there been an XfD that applies that I've missed? - TB (talk) 21:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Rossami, this is a beneficial redirect for several reasons so deletion would be harmful for no gain. Regarding speedy deletion, redirects are not eligible for deletion under article criteria (those prefixed "A") because they are not articles (hence the existence of redirect ("R") criteria. Further, as noted several times in the page history, redirects to the Special: namespace are not eligible for speedy deletion under criterion R2 and the edit protection was explicitly to prevent a bot nominating it as such. Reading you the page history would have told you all this and saved everyone the bother of this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#R2 says "from the main namespace to any other namespace except the Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help: and Portal: namespaces" - no mention of Special, chief. I mentioned A7 - no indication of importance - in the nom as there's no indication in the articles content (or history) indicating why it belongs in the main encyclopedia. Our internal workings are seldom truly notable. See User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles point 6 (although not policy AFAIK). - TB (talk) 21:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • A7 can't be used because that is only a criteria for articles.--174.93.171.10 (talk) 03:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment if this was "restored", where's the past history? -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 07:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Wikipedia space (add a WP: to it) -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 07:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • For clarity; the original article was moved from the mainspace to WP: as you suggest in December 2005. What's under discussion here is a new redirect from the mainspace created this year. The original version that was moved to WP: has evolved and become obsolete, and is now a redirect to Special:, hence the new mainspaace redirect's target. - TB (talk)
    • Wikipedia:Longest_Wikipedia_Article was deleted. -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 05:36, 6 November 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 19:27, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Bugha al-Kabir al-Sharabi → Bugha al-Kabir (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Delete as the name mixes up two different people, Bugha al-Kabir and Bugha al-Sharabi Constantine ✍ 10:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I took it from here or here. I admit that some sources may be mistaken, so without more authoritative evidence better delete possible confusion. - Altenmann >t 15:43, 5 November 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 19:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• New Norway, British Columbia → New Norway, Alberta (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Delete redirect as a "New Norway" community/place within the Province of British Columbia does not exist according the Canadian Geographical Names Data Base or Statistics Canada. Therefore, a redirect to a community in the neighbouring Province of Alberta is unnecessary and inappropriate. Nothing links to the redirect either. This is akin to Los Angeles, Oregon redirecting to Los Angeles. Hwy43 (talk) 06:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not even close to the BC-Alta border to even consider being confused as to what province it was it. -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 06:46, 4 November 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.