Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HTML codes
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Johnleemk (talk | contribs) at 12:04, 19 December 2005 (→HTML codes (> and <)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.Revision as of 12:04, 19 December 2005 by Johnleemk (talk | contribs) (→HTML codes (> and <))
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 12:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
HTML codes (> and <)
The two pages > and < can't be linked to - typing [[>]] renders as [[>]] with no link - and they don't turn up in a search either. The information in the articles is in the XML article, and these pages are therefore unneeded on their own, and won't serve as redirects either. sjorford (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep disambigs are cheap, and I came across the page, so it's reasonable to think that others might too -- that's why I created them. I don't see any reason to delete them. --Quasipalm 17:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- But from what I can tell the only way you can get to those pages (and the way you created them) is by directly typing in the URLs. Normally I would have turned a page like this into a redirect, but having unlinkable titles like this is a Bad Thing, because it makes them unmaintainable. sjorford (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- What's unmaintainable about them? --Quasipalm 21:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The notice on the articles is erroneous. These are not disambiguation articles. Uncle G 19:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- But from what I can tell the only way you can get to those pages (and the way you created them) is by directly typing in the URLs. Normally I would have turned a page like this into a redirect, but having unlinkable titles like this is a Bad Thing, because it makes them unmaintainable. sjorford (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename if nothing else. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 20:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Already sufficiently described on List_of_XML_and_HTML_character_entity_references ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but the point is that if someone didn't understand what the code means to beging with, they would look it up. They wouldn't know to go to that list. How does a user get from this code to that page without finding a first link on the chain, so to speak? --Quasipalm 23:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: As a matter of fact, they can be linked to like this: [[>]], [[<]]. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect each to List_of_XML_and_HTML_character_entity_references. These articles are the equivalent of dicdefs. -- JLaTondre 03:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; having pages with invalid titles like this can break various database maintenance tools — in short, in this case, maintaining these marginal titles, even as redirects, is not "cheap." --Russ Blau (talk) 13:55, 16 December 2005 (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 (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.