Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/(X)HTML
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 was Delete. Carlossuarez46 03:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] (X)HTML
Delete per WP:NOT#INFO WP:WINAD. Non-necessary disambiguation page that will surely never be expanded; the content already appears in the two lone WP articles referenced herein. dr.ef.tymac 14:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per CSD A1/A3. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 15:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, non speedy. A1/A3 don't apply to disambig pages, which this is; but delete as redundant due to the fact it's unlikely to grow, probably incorrectly titled and redundant anyway (each has a link to the other page in the lead). AllynJ (talk | contribs) 17:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete not needed. Artw 18:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Per above. ♠TomasBat 20:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed Delete, please. • Lawrence Cohen 13:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete agreed with nominator. Carlosguitar 16:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep or Merge This is hard, because it refers to an important term that covers both HTML and XHTML. I would personally prefer to keep it, as I can really see this being something someone would search for.
If not, a mention that (x)html refers to both languages together needs to be included in both the XHTML and HTML pages.- Comment, it's already been merged: As noted in the nomination for deletion, it already is included in both of the articles. The searching can be handled by deleting the disambiguation and creating a redirect. dr.ef.tymac 01:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Slaps forhead Doh. Misread the nom. However, I still do not believe the page should be deleted. Which page would (X)HTML redirect to? By definition, it cannot only redirect to one of them. i said 02:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- A redirect here would seem more than adequate, as the last sentence in the paragraph seems to sum it up completely. (I assume you meant it *can* only redirect to one of them). dr.ef.tymac 11:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Slaps forhead Doh. Misread the nom. However, I still do not believe the page should be deleted. Which page would (X)HTML redirect to? By definition, it cannot only redirect to one of them. i said 02:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Add-on Comment: I am still at a loss for how "(X)HTML" could be considered an important term by itself. If anyone has substantiation to support its importance, please provide some.
- It doesn't appear to have any standardized usage. It looks like some technically proficient people use it sometimes, just to save keystrokes. "(X)HTML" is synonymous with "XHTML and HTML", and the latter usage is less confusing to non-technical people, and also probably more consistent with WP:MOS.
- Having a separate article on (X)HTML seems about as useful as having a separate article on (wo)man, (i.e., not useful at all, and in fact potentially confusing to our general-audience readers). dr.ef.tymac 11:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
