Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 March 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 4[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 4, 2011

Zhejiang Railway Station[edit]

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. The redirect is confusing and there harmful. Ruslik_Zero 09:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Zhejiang is a province, so this re-direct is both confusing and a possible unlikely re-direct HXL's Roundtable and Record 22:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: the original title, "Zhejiang Railway Station" was obviously a typo; I am amazed that whoever created it never noticed it. The name of the city of Zhenjiang has many (historical) alternative spellings, but "Zhejiang" is not one of them! -- Vmenkov (talk) 16:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The redirect is the result of a relatively recent pagemove. The redirect will help point the original contributors to the correct title. Furthermore, the typo appears entirely plausible to me. Rossami (talk) 03:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No offence intended to you, but there always seems to be just one person who will come along and happen to stall the deletion votes. I may have been wrong on "unlikely re-direct", but Zhejiang is a province and there should not be the need to confuse editors into thinking that Zhejiang is a city. Moreover, the city of Chinkiang (to be very clear) is at the very least 115 km away from Zhejiang Province. And lastly, the relatively recent page-move was the result of a really bad typo on the creator's part. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 15:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Redirects are explicitly not endorsements of a particular title. If they were, we would have to remove all the Redirects from mispellings and that would be a disservice to our readers.
        I'll also note that this mistake was plausible enough to have been made by both the creator of the now-moved article and the creator of Template:Shanghai–Nanjing High-Speed Railway and to have gone unnoticed for almost a year by a number of editors whose contribution history shows some familiarity with the area. Transliteration of foreign placenames is always difficult (and especially so when root languages are distant) so our policy is to give a wide degree of latitude in these cases. Unless there is a railway station especially connected with the province of Zhejiang, I'm not seeing the potential for confusion. But if there is such a railway station, that would be an argument to retarget, not to delete. Rossami (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Pronunciation or transliteration is a much smaller issue because...no pronunciation, even a butchered one, of the province's name would include an "N" sound at the end of the first syllable, while for the city, the opposite is true.
        • I think your argument that "unless there is a railway station especially connected..." rests on the premise that readers do know about the province. But that was not what I was concerned about, and many readers here will not know about the province. In the case of these many viewers, this re-direct will lead them to think that Zhejiang is a city, since railway stations are associated with specific settlements. Hence why I originally said this is a very bad and confusing typo. This sort of error is not like spelling "Shanhai", where people will know what you intended to write, but a change in meaning.
        • Of course this typo would not be so easily noticed, because it is only lacking one intermediate letter. And that it was not included on the Zhenjiang page until recently somewhat worsens the situation. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 00:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: To make it especially clear to reviewing admins... this re-direct is confusing, and per the guideline (under "Reasons to delete") listed above, it should be deleted. Confusing "Zhejiang" with "Zhenjiang" is exactly akin to confusing Guandong Guangdong, and the list goes on unabated. with --HXL's Roundtable and Record 21:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • MIld keep. Plausible typo. (The "plausible typo" redirects have lost some of their value due to the recent implementation of instant search suggestion, but still have some value.) --Nlu (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Zhejiang is a province, and this redirect will just create confusion, especially since the Zhenjiang Railway Station is not even located in Zhejiang province. What happens if someone wants to look for railway stations in Zhejiang province, so they enter "Zhejiang Railway Station", and get brought to this article about a station in a completely different province? Not a good idea.--Danaman5 (talk) 06:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Crow's Shadow Institute of the Arts[edit]

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. Peridon (talk) 16:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forwarding to an artist who is one of the many founding members of this art organization. Can use it's own solo page eventually. Thank you! Missvain (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you think the Institute meets Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion criteria, just overwrite the redirect with content. Deletion of the pagehistory is unnecessary. In the meantime, there is some discussion of the institute on the current target page so the reader will at least get what answers we have to his/her question.
    Note: The redirect is an orphan so WP:REDLINK doesn't really apply - no one will ever see the redlink to realize that an article may be desired. So, keep but not necessarily as-is. Rossami (talk) 21:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Digital number[edit]

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, with no prejudice against someone possibly recreating a disambig at the same spot. There seems consensus that the redirect should go, and whether or not a disambig appears there in the future is a separate issue and not really a reason IMHO for holding this RFD open any longer. TexasAndroid (talk) 18:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recently added redirect. Either delete or retarget to numerical digit or decimal. The current target seems perverse to me. SpinningSpark 20:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • In a related discussion on the creator's Talk page, User:BenFrantzDale asserts that "'Digital number' has a very particular meaning" associated with digital image sensors. The top hits of a google search on the exact phrase "digital number" seem to subtantiate that claim. See, for example, the references listed at [1]. The other potential target would be the more general concept of 'digital number types' such as found at [2]. You could also argue that it means the particular 7-LED font seen here.
    Decimal is not a good target since most digital number systems are not base-ten. Numerical digit is little better. I think this page would be a good candidate to turn into disambiguation content if the appropriate internal targets can be found. Rossami (talk) 21:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete one has nothing to do with the other. ADCs are not the only way to generate digital numbers, or the only digitization process. Digital numbers are not restricted to signal processing either. 65.95.15.144 (talk) 05:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per Rossami. Thryduulf (talk) 10:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • What targets should be disambiguated? Rossami does not seem to have suggested any. SpinningSpark 13:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't find evidence that this is a phrase with specific meaning. It is just routine adjective + noun. --Kvng (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In defense of the redirect, Google ""digital number" CMOS" or ""digital number" CCD". It definitely has technical usage in the context of digital imaging as the result of A-to-D conversion. I just want to be sure that that usage is captured so that someone reading literature on digital imaging wondering "what is a 'digital number'?" can get the answer. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 13:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is the digital number representation of a pixel value, which is still using digital number with its regular meaning. Just because "digital number" gets a lot of ghits on the same page that is discussing "analog-to-digital" is not a justification for a redirect. The term "oil can" combined with the term "automotive industry" also gets a lot of ghits but that does not mean that we should redirect oil can to automotive industry or that we should shoehorn a mention of "oil can" into that article. Also note that there are several ghit results on the very first page of results for "digital number", eg [3][4], which have nothing to do with either CCDs or A2Ds. I can see what you are trying to achieve, but this is a bad way of going about it. For a reader looking up the term from a mention in an imaging article it might conceivably be helpful (but I'm willing to bet that a large number will not understand why they have ended up in the A2D article), but for anyone else it will be pure bafflement. SpinningSpark 17:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless we find an appropriate way of DABbing it that doesn't just contain two topics we should remove this redirect as confusing and unhelpful to people looking for what a digital number is. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 00:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I thought I was clear above but apparently not. Disambiguation would list any or all of the concepts listed here plus our more general topics (such as Numerical digit) and the association with digital imaging. I just didn't have time to find all the internal equivalents to all those articles (and I can't advocate overwriting with the content on that external site because even though it looks a bit like a Wikipedia clone I can't find their copyright terms). Rossami (talk) 21:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would I be right in thinking that you are looking to create a dab page with entries such as unsigned integer and floating-point number? That's not really in line with the requirements of MOS:DAB. Disambiguation pages should only list pages of the same name, or ones that could be searced for by that name. SpinningSpark 23:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Those two examples would be debatable. They are clearly not the same name but they might qualify under "searched for by that name". Better examples might be binary, octal, decimal, hexadecimal, et al. In addition to the transposed numerical digit, seven-segment display character representations of course. The exact contents would be an appropriate debate on the Talk page. I'll attempt a mock-up but would encourage others with more time and expertise to amend it. Rossami (talk) 22:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Don't know what the Disambiguation Project will make of that but I can accept it as a compromise. Certainly, it does not feel right that Wikipedia does not have "digital number" going somewhere. SpinningSpark 23:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks to me someone should create something along the lines of number representation, where this should redirect to. It is certainly a well documented part of computer science. Until then, I don't really care where this points, though binary has my preference. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • After asking about an article on number representation on the computing wikiproject, they kindly pointed me to Computer numbering formats, which needs quite a bit of work, but would be the reasonable target for this redirect. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well done for finding that, but that article concentrates, as one would expect, on binary representations. This may not be what the reader is looking for and for that reason I like Rossami's draft dab page better. SpinningSpark 22:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:ANNIE[edit]

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 —GFOLEY FOUR— 02:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need redirects of homophones? WP:ANI has nothing to do with the the name Annie, the the film Annie, or the musical Annie. PaoloNapolitano (talk) 10:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Per WP:CHEAP, "Do we need" is an inappropriate evaluation criterion for redirects. You and I may not immediately see the value in a redirect but that's because we navigate the project in different ways. Others navigate differently and we should trust that, absent evidence of vandalism or bad faith, the user who created the redirect thought it would be helpful. More than that, we are instructed not to waste time trying to sort out or guess how others navigate the wiki. It's too hard and we're too often wrong. Unless a redirect is actively harmful or confusing, we should leave it be. Redirects really are that cheap.
    So the question in this case is "is the redirect harmful or confusing". While there are many instances of "Annie" in the project, I don't know of anything that a reader would expect to see at "Wikipedia:Annie" that would contradict the current target. Unless there is a better argument of harm or confusion, I think it should be kept. Rossami (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rossami. Sophus Bie (talk) 17:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not have "ANNIE" redirect to Orphaned pages? doing that would give it something to do with the musical, film and comic strip. Or maybe that's just stupid. NotARealWord (talk) 13:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

WikiProject Intelligence[edit]

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 Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete RFD#6 -- XNR - this is a newly created cross-namespace redirect, which is not appropriate to be searched for as an article. 65.95.15.144 (talk) 07:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Overcast (Transformers)[edit]

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, as per the discussion. If one of you knowledgeable in the situation wants to write up the lines in the larger disambig, please feel free to do so. TexasAndroid (talk) 18:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Overcast can refer to a whole bunch of characters. An Autobot space shuttle, a Mini-Con airplane, a Decepticon jet fighter. "Overcast (Transformers) is too ambiguous and List of Decepticons is not a suitable redirect target. This is just a holdover from when there was an article about all these unrelated characters. Maybe somebody can make proper redirects for the various characters named Overcast. Although, this isn't really necessary, since (as mentioned) most of them have never even appeared in any fiction. The Autobot Overcast only had a minor appearance, and that was in the non-notable Transformers: Timelines. Heck, it was a story on the fan club website, the portion of Timelines nobody found any coverage for whatsoever in reliable third party sources.

However, redirects are cheap, and there's nothing wrong with having ones for these unimportant characters. It's just that it's better to have accurate redirects. NotARealWord (talk) 06:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as redirect because the redirect has been successful at preempting the recreation of content deleted per the AfD. I have two modifiers to that thought, however.
    1. If there truly are multiple plausible targets, then you could consider overwriting the redirect with disambiguation content. That would still be in keeping with the spirit of the AfD decision.
    2. We need to go over the contribution history with a fine-toothed comb. It appears that some content was merged to at least one of those other articles. If merge is confirmed, we may need to undelete behind the redirect in order to restore the attribution history and comply with GFDL. (I'll add that to my list for the weekend.)
      Rossami (talk) 14:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • What are you talking about? The target article, List of Decepticons doesn't give much information on the characters beyond their name and series. I'm pretty sure no significant amount of text was transferred there. Also, if people keep recreatig deleted content, an admi can just WP:SALT. NotARealWord (talk) 22:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not much information is still better than none. And Wikipedia policy explicitly tells us to limit page protection to the minimum content and minimum time necessary to protect the project. Salting this title would be overkill when the redirect is sufficient. Rossami (talk) 03:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would support replacing it with a disambig because there are multiple possible targets. There are SEVERAL Overcasts who are from different Transformers series, not all of them Decepticons. Mathewignash (talk) 00:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question: Do you know if there was any copy-pasting done from Overcast to any other article, like Rossami claims might have happened? Also, if we have more appropriate redirects, then, what would be the point of "Overcast (Transformers)"? The targets can just be linked on "Overcast (disambiguation)", I don't see the need for an additional disambig. NotARealWord (talk) 15:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do those target characters already exist as separate articles on Wikipedia? If they do, then I agree that Overcast (disambiguation) could be expanded and Overcast (Transformers) retargeted to that. If they do not, then using that disambig page becomes problematic. What targets do you think would be appropriate? Rossami (talk) 07:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • They don't have separate articles. These characters are all just random toys with the same name. Insignificant nobodies who never had major appearances in any Transformers fiction. They get like, three-word mentions in articles like List of Decepticons which is why I don't believe that any significant merging/copy-pasting took place. I guess Overcast (Transformers) could redirect to Overcast (disambiguation), which in turn can have links to the (very small) mentions these characters had. NotARealWord (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:PD-old-50[edit]

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 Deleted. This was the subject of a TfD debate where the outcome was delete, but for some reason it was redirected instead of being deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bad unusable redirect. PD can be equal to PD-because (mnemonics {{PD|because, reason}} is very similar to mnemonics {{PD-because|reason}}), but PD-old-50 is not. This en-wiki redirect causes iwiki conflicts methodically for example [5], [6]. PD-because is not equal to PD-old-50 in the most of other wikis (PD is not equal too, in many wikis it is fully deprecated or still exist). But because they are equal in en-wiki, systemic iwiki conflicts occur. Alex Spade (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2011_March_4&oldid=1141906495"