Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 March 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 9[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 9, 2015.

AirAsia Aerhad[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 March 16#AirAsia Aerhad

Kosmos 2502[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) 16:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural nomination of a WP:PRODded redirect by Galactic Penguin SST. The rationale was: "There have been multiple confusions as to the assignment of the Kosmos designation over the past year, and now the original namesake is Kosmos 2501. This page should not be re-directed because there is another satellite which has taken the Kosmos 2502 name, and it is difficult to write something about it due to it being classified." Tavix |  Talk  21:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for now per WP:REDLINK (per the prodder's rationale). I was thinking of redirecting this to the parent article at GLONASS-K but it isn't mentioned there as well. --Lenticel (talk) 03:14, 10 March 2015 (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.

Oceans Thirteen Actress[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 Ocean's Thirteen#Cast. --BDD (talk) 16:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jmg38 tried WP:PRODding this redirect, but since you can't do that, I'm procedurally taking it here instead. The user's rationale was: "Unnecessary badly misnamed original article, literally "that actress from that movie" (!), that readers are not going to be searching for. Could have been deleted, rather than redirected, 8 years ago." Tavix |  Talk  20:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Ocean's Thirteen#Cast per Pacostein --Lenticel (talk) 00:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • (Apologies if I'm entering this wrong, have never worked a "deletion" request before.) Folks, I suggested deletion because people WILL NOT be searching for "Oceans Thirteen Actress" to find a lady who appears for a few seconds in a small bit part, thus no need for the redirect, just delete this page. The original editor clearly had the hots for her and chose this weird title to start his article, and another editor killed that mistake within 2 days way back in 2007 with the original redirect. People will search for this actress based on her name or based on any of the many films/tv shows where she is more than a momentary flash onscreen, so redirect from this obscure and flimsy article title will not be needed.Jmg38 (talk) 05:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Ocean's Thirteen#Cast DeWulf is not the only notable actress in the film; if anything Ellen Barkin comprises a bigger role (who is named and has a section at the character list). This section is probably the best target, considering it also satisfies the need for a dab here.
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.

Mechanical counter[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. I believe the IP who had the last word literally also had it figuratively. This may be better off as a standalone article, but until then, the current target has discussion adequate for a redirect. --BDD (talk) 16:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about this. We have a longer article which is referred by and linked from the section this targets to. I think it's better to retarget to that main article, tally counter. Note this was brought up in a roundabout way by User:Z22 in a somewhat related requested move thread. Ivanvector (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Just a thought. Maybe the entire "Mechanical counters" section (except the last paragraph) on the current Counter page should be moved to Tally counter so that it has a new "Mechanical counters" section there. Then, we may create a small section on "Electronic and software devices" for the Tally counter article and have the Main template at the top of that new section to link back to the new Counter (digital) being proposed (if consensus took place there) to cover the electronic and software side of the tally counters?? Z22 (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With the above, the Mechanical counter page would be changed to redirect to Tally counter main page or Tally counter#Mechanical counters. Z22 (talk) 20:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • All counters are digital whether mechanical or electronic, because they "count" ; the redirect's choice of target should not change based it be being renamed. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 02:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are technically correct but I afraid that people nowadays instinctively relate the word digital to electronics. As you can see that the Digital page has quite a few topics about internet and computing and even the most prominent page Digital data has it that the term is most commonly used in computing and electronics. Z22 (talk) 11:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Mechanical counters are very different from the abacus. They do not require human intervention. Mechanical counters were used in the 19th century and most of the 20th century in a wide variety of industrial applications, such as metering. The Babbage engine was based on them, as were IBM accounting machines in the first half of the 20th century. Tally counters are only one specific application.--agr (talk) 20:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So I assume that to you it is better for Mechanical counter to have its own article? And in that new article, when we mention about mechanical tally counter, we just wikilink to the Tally counter article because it is just one type? Z22 (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On the whole, yes. I think there is enough material for a separate article.--agr (talk) 00:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not all tally counters are mechanical, and the mechanical counter section of counter provides a good base for mechanical counters -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 02:29, 10 March 2015 (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.

Arthur Stuart-Menteth Hutchinson[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 procedural close. As noted below, use WP:RM to move a page. --BDD (talk) 18:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rename this article to the pen name of the author, A.S.M. Hutchinson, which he always used and for which he is Notable. This is to revert a previous switch to the present title. GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, that's the proper way to do it because you'll need admin help to move the page over the redirect. Ivanvector (talk) 17:58, 9 March 2015 (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.

Orsino (novel)[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 no consensus. I've tagged it with {{R from incorrect name}}. --BDD (talk) 16:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rolland's Orsino is a play. I'm unaware of a novel entitled Orsino. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Refine to Romain_Rolland#Bibliography where it is mentioned. I'm also okay if someone more familiar with this Nobel laureate's works can draft an article for it.--Lenticel (talk) 08:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, the issue is that Rolland did not write a novel called Orsino. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Rolland's a known novelist and people might think that Orsino is one of these novels. Of course, an article would be better in clearing the confusion about this work.--Lenticel (talk) 00:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks like this was created as the result of a misunderstanding of his article's bibliography section. If he didn't write one, and if there's no other place where we could reasonably send it, there's no good alternative to deletion. Nyttend (talk) 16:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a {{R from incorrect disambiguation}}, and the fact that the redirect has existed for almost 7 years. Steel1943 (talk) 19:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • {{R from incorrect disambiguation}} is for "a typographical error or format that does not follow Wikipedia convention", not for "there literally is no novel in existence by this name." Check out the other category members. (they're mostly animal breeds where MOS convention is to not use a parenthetical) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • To me, this seems vaguely comparable to the Adam and Andrew Smith example in WP:RFD#DELETE point 2. Nyttend (talk) 21:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:55, 9 March 2015 (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.

Demo '11[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) 16:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of the redirect since there is no source even supporting the existence of this demo. SilentDan (talk) 11:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep redirect - Keep redirect to King 810 per WP:CHEAP. Unless there is an alternative use for Demo '11, there is no reason that it should not be kept as a plausible search term for those familiar with the band history, and this is sourced at [1]. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jax 0677: Spirit-Of-Metal.com is a user contributed encyclopaedia, much like Wikipedia, only it does not use sources. That is an unreliable source. SilentDan (talk) 13:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Plus a redirect to an article in which the album is not even mentioned does not help readers in the slightest. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 14:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a potentially confusing redirect seeing that there is no mention of it at the targeted article. Tavix |  Talk  23:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Lenticel (talk) 00:29, 10 March 2015 (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.

Star Trek Text-Based Role Playing Games[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 History of Star Trek games#Role-playing games. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 16:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - meaningless redirect to incorrect topic. The games referred to in the title of this redir were not play by mail, and they already have articles that anyone can find. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maury Markowitz (talk • contribs) 20:27, 25 February 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 07:10, 9 March 2015 (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.

Spocking[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 Canadian five-dollar note#"Spocking Fives". --BDD (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, this is the extent of my artistic abilities. At least we now have a free picture, despite it's poor quality. :) --kelapstick(bainuu) 21:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should target the section at Canadian five-dollar note, as this is something that is done the bill, it is more related to the bill than Nemoy. kelapstick(bainuu) 01:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see the the five dollar bill article as the better option.--64.229.166.35 (talk) 02:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there is a mention in the article Spock, and a link from it, then I have no objection to merging the two sections. --Bensin (talk) 02:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch. Since Leonard Nimoy died this week, I think this is kinda WP:NOTNEWS, but not sure how... But I will bet all Lombard-street to a china orange that it is why it was made... Si Trew (talk) 06:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as recently-created redirect with no incoming links. WP:RFD#D8. Stats are zero, created 5 March, no incoming links. Perhaps Speedy. Si Trew (talk) 06:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't think the printers term essentially Spitting or more nicely spaculation comes into it, here. Si Trew (talk) 07:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SimonTrew: (you replied to two points, and this sort of covers both of them), this went on long before Nemoy died, it's not a new trend, for example here is an example from 2013. A quick Google search shows that this has been around for a long time. It just gained more traction after his death. I think a redirect is suitable, but just more appropriate at the bill page.--kelapstick(bainuu) 11:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to section Canadian five-dollar note#"Spocking Fives", where this practice is specifically mentioned as having been condemned by the Bank of Canada in 2002. It became better known recently with Mr. Nimoy's death of course but it is by no means a new thing. Ivanvector (talk) 14:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Canadian five-dollar note#"Spocking Fives" per Ivanvector --Lenticel (talk) 00:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I bow to your better knowledge. Retgarget to the canuck fiver then. Si Trew (talk) 07:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Is this Snowballing)? Si Trew (talk) 07:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would say yes, since the only non-retarget !vote is your own, but I assume that it is superseded by your more recent retarget !vote. Maybe best to leave for a few more days and/or let an admin have this one? Ivanvector (talk) 14:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to retarget Spocking to the 5 dollar bill article since the consensus is strongly leaning in that direction. I left the RFD note up for now since the discussion is not yet closed.--64.229.166.35 (talk) 19:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also noticed that there is a picture of Wilfrid Laurier on the Spock article regarding spocking. While there is some context I question whether or not that image is necessary.--64.229.166.35 (talk) 22:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That should be discussed at Talk:Spock. --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:50, 11 March 2015 (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/2015_March_9&oldid=1138580519"