Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 July 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 24[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 24, 2013.

Centaoctagesimal[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. --BDD (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This term was not properly listed with two similarly obsolete redirects. See Centoctgesimal Rfd. Search for "Centaoctagesimal" brings up 9 hits, mostly wikipedia and wiki-clones. Term is not used; it hypothetically relates to base 85 number system, which is not notable and redirects to ascii85 encoding scheme. Bcharles (talk) 20:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Latin would translate (if at all) as eight hundred or eight hundredth, and so has nothing to do with eighty-fifth. Centa- is Latin and -gesimal Greek, so is a bit weird to start with (q.v. hexadecimal, sextagesimal). Were it a hundred eights, it would be hectodekagesimal or something like that, but we still have pentas left over. I think hectodecapentogesimal would possibly be nearer, but not very good. Delete per nom. Si Trew (talk) 00:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just read the RfD, but it seems nobody sees the travesty of mixing Latin and Greek and just deleted it anyway. O Tempora, O Mores! Off to watch the television. Si Trew (talk)
Unfortunately, many words in english mix latin with greek, especially among numeric base names. Even so it seems improperly formed, incorrect (for base 85) and perhaps indecipherable, though you've made a good attempt. I would have guessed a hundred eighty. Bcharles (talk) 16:48, 28 July 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.

Revolver (album) (disambiguation)[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. Both sides present valid opinions, but 80% is a clear consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ymblanter (talk • contribs) 11:26, 3 August 2013‎

I see absolutely no need for such a redirect. It was originally a DAB, but quickly redirected to the Revolver dab. It now serves as a testament to silly titling guidelines and should just be deleted. We should not have a DAB of a DAB I think. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. We have articles about four different albums called Revolver, and so this is not an implausible search term for people who know this - it is getting more hits than background noise so deleting it would inconvenience people while bringing no benefit. The target should be refined to Revolver (disambiguation)#Albums and marked with {{R from incorrect disambiguation}} which will also mark it as unprintworthy. Thryduulf (talk) 19:15, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But this would mean, that in any case where there are multiple Xs of type Y, we should create X (Y) (disambiguation)? I think it's taking things too far. And 20 hits in 90 days is background noise IMHO.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as POINTy and a ludicrously unlikely search term. --BDD (talk) 22:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or R to DAB, per BDD and nom.
To DAB an article and then DAB the DAB starts to look ridiculous. It probably gets around the letter of WP:DAB in how to disambiguate, but that is not the spirit in which it was written. Thryduulf, take all four to the main DAB and list them there. Though I just tried Disambiguation (disambiguation) leads us down a path of linguistic articles and also up a gum tree, since if one doesn't know what disambiguation is, how can one choose to disambiguate the ambiguous uses of "disambiguation"? Delete or redirect to Revolver (disambiguation) Si Trew (talk) 00:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as silly and useless; possibly pointy. Dicklyon (talk) 04:22, 29 July 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.

Mona Lisa (Britney Spears song)[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. --BDD (talk) 16:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is not a notable song, nor a relevant redirect. --PlatinumFire 12:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - If this were a notable song, this would be a stand-alone article instead of the redirect it is. It is a relevant redirect as the target article contains information about the song and is the album on which the song was released. -- Whpq (talk) 13:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is fairly standard practice to redirect song titles to the albums where they can be found. bd2412 T 12:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Notability is not required for a redirect. This is a normal redirect of a nn song to its album. However, deletion would cause collateral damage in that this is a former article and valuable history would be lost. The Whispering Wind (talk) 02:57, 29 July 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.

Over To You Now[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 Britney & Kevin: Chaotic (album) (where Over to You Now redirects). --BDD (talk) 16:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There already is an article Over to You Now. --PlatinumFire 12:39, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. "Over to You Now" is not an article, but a redirect to the same target. Redirects from different capitalisations are a Good Thing as they enable accidental linking and help people who use case-sensitive search methods to find the article they are looking for. This redirect should be marked with {{R from incorrect capitalisation}} so that only the correctly capitalised redirect is included in print versions of Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So what would be the correct capitalisation of the redirect? Can you tell us? I appreciate it's up for discussion, but you could have given us a clue on what article it should NOT be directed to with other caps (the redirect article is, of course, already in category for unprintworthy). Si Trew (talk) 00:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The correct capitalization is found in the target article: Over to You Now. I recently tagged the "Over To You Now" redirect with the {{R from incorrect capitalisation}} Rcat as suggested above by Thryduulf. That automatically tags it as "unprintworthy", so it was not tagged as unprintworthy when Thryduulf wrote his Keep comment. My bad, as I should have noted it here when I tagged it on 25 July. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 01:53, 29 July 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_July_24&oldid=1138578941"