Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 April 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 3[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 3, 2013

Crown(Tooth)[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 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this page was created by error, there is no space before the parenthesis, and there is a corrected page called Crown (tooth) Lesion (talk) 18:33, 3 April 2013 (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.

Fire in the Valley: The Making of The Personal Computer[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. No prejudice against making the article should references be found. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fire in the Valley: The Making of The Personal Computer currently redirects to Pirates of Silicon Valley. this is just silly: these are two completely different books - just look in amazon.com. the first is a book from 2000 (2nd eddition - i think the 1st is from the 80's) by Paul Freiberger and Michael Swaine. The 2nd is a made-for-tv movie about the rivalry between Jobs and Gates, Based on a script written by same authors plus Martyn Burke. the article about the movie claims it's based on the book. this may be so, but anyone who read the book knows that events related to both gates and jobs (together) are less than 50% of the book's contents. i wish there was an article about the book, but sending someone who looks for this article to the article about the movie is a disservice. peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 18:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The current redirect at least gives a bit of information about the book. I agree an article about the book would be useful, but such an article is as likely to grow out of a section of Pirates of Silicon Valley as from a redlink, and meantime people have some information on the book. I don't think the redirect offers seriously misleading information, since it's common for a film adaptation to differ significantly from the book, so people won't expect the book to have the exact same contents as the film. Information about differences could be added to the article, and might in time grow to a section or standalone article on the book. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nominator's statement is somewhat confusing as these are not "two completely different books"; one is a film and the other is a book from which the film has been derived. It's not unusual for two works that have a strong relationship with each other to redirect to one another when necessary. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 16:01, 9 April 2013 (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.

List of Lothian Buses routes[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 Discussion relisted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 April 4#List of bus routes in Cambridgeshire. There were too many recent RfD requests redundantly referring to redirects with similiar naming convections. (Non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 02:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No longer needed as most Bus routes lists have either been redirected or deleted. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 16:29, 3 April 2013 (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.

List of Diamond Bus routes[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 Discussion relisted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 April 4#List of bus routes in Cambridgeshire. There were too many recent RfD requests redundantly referring to redirects with similiar naming convections. (Non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 02:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No longer needed as most Bus routes lists have either been redirected or deleted. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 16:29, 3 April 2013 (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.

CV-22[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 Disambiguate. Thus, I've retargetted CV22 and CV 22 to CV-22, where the dab lies. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to USS Independence (CVL-22), as its prior designation was USS Independence (CV-22). Using google search, I find CV-22 Osprey 1.36 Mghits; while Independence CV-22 5.8 Mghits; -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 08:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Convert to disambiguation page. Both are valid targets. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguation, as per above. Tupsumato (talk) 11:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Disambiguate per The Bushranger. I've added CV22 and CV 22 to this nomination as they should lead to the same place as CV-22, wherever that is. Any disambiguation should also include a link to the CV postcode area article as CV22 is a postcode for Rugby, Warwickshire. Thryduulf (talk) 11:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig as above. CV-22 is also an acupuncture point and a breed of chicken, both of which would benefit from disambig links. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig as above. Gjs238 (talk) 16:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep redirects to Osprey, and provide hatnotes there to ship and Coventry. No sign of the ship in the first couple of pages of ghits for any of the three versions, and certainly within Wikipedia there are many occurrences of "CV-22" for the aircraft and very few for the ship. When we have a WP article about the chicken or the acupuncture point, create a dab page. PamD 17:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig; as has been indicated above there are multiple valid, notable, usages of the term CV-22. As such a disambig page is usually the result.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep redirects to Osprey, when there's only two dabs readers are better served by hatnotes, it saves at least half of them having to click again. In this case I suspect that it would be much more than half, given that we're talking about a choice between a ship that had three years service seventy years ago, versus an aircraft that's on active duty now, subject to a current multi-$bn acquisition programme by the US military and under consideration for export to a number of other countries. In terms of pageviews, there's no comparison, the Osprey averages 50-60k/month, the Independence is about 3k/month. It's clear what the readers are most interested in.Le Deluge (talk) 11:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Service during WWII Pacific War, including at Tarawa, and use in the Bikini atomic bomb tests. The airplane is also mostly known for the MV-22 variant and USMC, not the CV-22 variant and USAF. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 02:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep redirects to Osprey per Le Deluge (or use dab page). The Coventry postcode is irrelevant as nobody (I think) puts a dash character at that position in a postcode. The MV-22 is irrelevant to this discussion which is about the different meanings of "CV-22". DexDor (talk) 06:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nobody puts a dash in the postcode, but people do omit it from the aircraft. My point is that "CV22", "CV-22" and "CV 22" should all lead to the same place and whatever disambiguation there is (be it a separate dab page or hatnotes) needs to include the postcode. Thryduulf (talk) 09:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • LeDeluge brought up usage stats for Osprey, which should be for MV-22, not CV-22, therefore relevant. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 13:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear disambiguate. As a reader, I don't want to land on a random page and have to work through the hatnotes - I prefer to chose my target from a list. Furthermore, I don't think very many people are going to search for the Osprey by typing "CV-22" or any of its alternatives, so it's much more likely to be a search for the postcode or the ship. I don't think I'm alone. 2.101.37.117 (talk) 14:30, 7 April 2013 (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.

Devon Williams[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 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the artist is now sole performer, and no longer of that band, then as a redirect this is now incorrect, and unhelpful as a link. I propose that the redirect is deleted, until an article about the person is written — billinghurst sDrewth 03:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is he notable as a solo artist? If not then a couple of sentences about it in this article with his name redirecting here is correct. Thryduulf (talk) 11:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep for now If you can write an article on him, then the redirect can go away. Otherwise I would agree that a sentence or two about a follow-on solo career would be more appropriate. Mangoe (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mangoe. If you'd like to write an article on him, you only need edit the redirect. --BDD (talk) 20:46, 3 April 2013 (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.

Australia (island)[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 to Geography of Australia ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about a political rather than geographical boundary TheChampionMan1234 00:56, 3 April 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2013_April_3&oldid=1138578655"