Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 May 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 6
May 8 >

May 7[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 7, 2015.

Superweapons[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. Deryck C. 14:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Superweapon was recently deleted at AfD. We should determine whether "superweapon" is an alternative name for WMDs such that it's appropriate as a redirect or not. Superweapon and Superweapons should point to the same place, or be red together.

Pinging AfD participants: Codename Lisa, Be..anyone, Carrite, Раціональне анархіст, and closer Nakon. BDD (talk) 17:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete to keep the results consistent. Why leave the plural version of the word in existence if the singular version was deleted? Steel1943 (talk) 17:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, per search of a popular search engine, it seems that all major uses of the phrase only belong on sites such as Wikia due to their strong ties with specific fictional works. However, if the previous contents of the page were just a list (as the AfD nominator seems to claim), I could see Superweapon possibly becoming a concept article similar to Energy sword. Steel1943 (talk) 17:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if there are any issues associated with quoting a deleted article, but I can paraphrase: it essentially defined a superweapon as a really powerful weapon. It contrasted superweapons with WMDs, but not very convincingly (it was unreferenced). --BDD (talk) 18:00, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for consistency with the AfD result. Evidence there and here suggests that "superweapon" is not an alternate name for a WMD, but a vague (likely invented) term which may encompass WMDs as well as other things which are not WMDs. Misleading, then. Ivanvector (talk) 18:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment it's not a novel invention of Wikipedians, since the word "superweapon" and "superweapons" have existed for decades. Whether this is the proper target or not, probably not, since "superweapon" in one of its meanings is associated with dreamers who dream of a weapon so powerful that it will end war due to the devastating cost of opposing it or using it; and another would be a superior overwhelming weapon much greater than others; WMDs would as you say, be encompassed by this term, and not synonymous with it, being that superweapons have a greater topical scope. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I Think it was George W. Bush who made the expression "superwespon"s popular, and this should be {{R from plural}} of course, I don't remember it being in any dystopia of the 1930s or such, i think it is a Bushism but not 100% sure on that. Si Trew (talk) 09:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete it seems to be coined as a sci-fi term at the earliest during 1939. As such it might be too vague to accurately cover WMD's since that article doesn't cover fictional examples. --Lenticel (talk) 07:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The term is also used in connection with real weapons/proposals. Such as found here [1][2] which are non-fiction works about real world weapons. Such as these WWII histories [3][4][5]. Even the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists uses the term [6] ; if the sense used in fiction is the same as the sense used in real world sociological, political and military contexts, then they share the same meaning, without needing to resort to having fictional examples. However, WMDs does not seem to be the proper target in my mind (as some of the listed books do not treat it as just WMDs). -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 17:18, 11 May 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.

Ohio LIDAR Availability[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 as unopposed. Deryck C. 14:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is misleading in that is suggests a specific discussion of lidar in Ohio. The target page has external links to state lidar programs for most US states, including Ohio, so this could fulfill a search engine-type need, but it's misleading and out of place for an encyclopedia. BDD (talk) 16:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Both this page and the similar Maryland LiDAR page (which also redirects) should probably be deleted. FYI, at the time of their creation, they were supposed to be filled in (by others) with additional information, but that never happened. Now, all the useful information is available through the National LiDAR Dataset page, so it makes sense to delete these (Ohio and Maryland LiDAR) pages.Radmap (talk) 17:24, 7 May 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.

Boeing Airlines[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. All participants agreed that this redirect shouldn't stay as it is, and more than half argued for deletion. Deryck C. 14:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is apparently some non-notable use of this term but current target is certainly not helpful for those searching this term - TheChampionMan1234 23:44, 29 April 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) 13:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Boeing don't run an airline, so it is WP:RFD#D5 nonsense to suggest they do. I can vaguely see the merit in Thryduulf's suggestion, but still I think it is too far away, and wonder what else he thinks they make them for (apart from space exploration), they don't make 'em just for the fun of it. They manufacture aircraft, but they don't run an airline. (I always fly WizzAir on a good Airbus A320, none of this American rubbish.) Si Trew (talk) 16:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RDELETE#D2: confusing; leads visitors to think that Boeing is an airline, even if United Airlines was or was owned by Boeing circa 1920. Retargeting it to Boeing Commercial Airlines also produces the same problem. Esquivalience t 23:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. According to Gordon Bethune, then chief of Continental Airlines in From Worst to First, his autobiography, NWA bought out Continental but he phoned up the chief of Boeing, having worked there for many years, to ask for a billion dollar cheque: and got it. That is just according to his biography and I imagine is WP:PRIMARY. No wonder NWA went bust if they dole out money like that. Might as well cut up me frequent flyer cards, then. Si Trew (talk) 07:16, 8 May 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.

Shriya Pilgaonkar[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. --BDD (talk) 13:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary redirect. No info on target page. Himanshugarg06 (talk) 18:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete to encourage article creation. They seem to be a writer and director according to IMDB. --Lenticel (talk) 00:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Name of the person has been mentioned in the article. If you think it's not true, than a sourced reliable source has also been provided. Regards, KunalForYou📝☎️ 15:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Kunalforyou: Her name is just mentioned in this article, still no info on target page. Himanshugarg06 (talk) 14:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@182.69.60.57: Still no info on target page. Himanshugarg06 (talk) 14:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is sloppy. The article currently suggests she's in the cast, but especially since she's also a writer or director, she's likely been involved with other notable projects. Even if she hasn't, she is likely to be in the future. Redirecting her name to the film is much more likely to disappoint readers, who will be seeking biographical information, than serve them. --BDD (talk) 16:09, 6 May 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) 13:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's easy to create the article over the redirect, all you have to do is create the article over the redirect, nobody's stopping you. Until then, since it is at target, it seems the most sensible place for it to go to. Si Trew (talk) 09:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I suppose you're right. I still think creating it was short-sighted, but as long as there's only one place that we discuss the subject, there's some sense in redirecting there. The minute there are two logical targets, deletion becomes nigh imperative, but in the meantime, ok. --BDD (talk) 03:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that is really hard when that happens, because I always want to hatnote the redirect (WP:TWODABS, ,I didn't know of WP:XY before now) and of couse one can't. However, your way of putting the DAB on the redirect under dsiscussion is far cleaner, and easier, than my way of creating a draft, and as I said below, I intend to do that meself in future: Dunno why I never thought of it, but makes perfect sense, since the R as an automatic R is knocked out by the RfD notice anyway, there's no harm, and some good, doing it that way. (Can always be removed of course if consensus is to keep the redirect, but saves having to go to CSD etc and causing admins unnecessary gnoming work: I think admins tend to delete things in draft space almost automatically because that is what draft space means, but they still have to check it etc.)Si Trew (talk) 07:07, 9 May 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.

SQ1[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 dabify and retarget, respectively. Though discussion petered out here, this seems like the obvious outcome. As always, contact me with concerns. --BDD (talk) 13:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was formerly an article but it should have been deleted rather than redirected. Furthermore, there is no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, so no use retargeting anywhere else. - TheChampionMan1234 05:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see "SQ1" there at all. Is this an abbreviation? --BDD (talk) 13:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also don't see "SQ1" mentioned on this page. In fact, the "SQ1" album in question seems to actually be an album by a group called Sqad Up (featuring Lil Wayne); it was apparently a mixtape, and the Sqad Up article was deleted per speedy deletion criterion A7 back in 2007, and I'm not finding enough information about that subject to rewrite the article. So, I don't see the notability of the SQ1 mixtape to even keep its mention on Wikipedia. Steel1943 (talk) 17:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch to you too. I'll add the lowercase variant here, as it's very unlikely we'll want them to diverge. --BDD (talk) 15:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. That's a bit premature. However the first thing that crossed my mind was lowercase sql → SQL, with the 1 and L being indistinguishable in some fonts, as we discussed recently. You're probably right but maybe a hatnote? Si Trew (talk) 16:14, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Si Trew, I was thinking the same. However, since the last character is an "L" and not a "1", it could sit quite nicely in a "See also" section on a disambiguation page. Steel1943 (talk) 17:00, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, let's do that. The expression Back to Square One is commonly attributed to the Radio Times that published diagrams of soccer pitches so that those following on the radio would here "It's back to squere one", i.e., back to the Goalkeeper (soccer), but I think, having done research over the years, this is folk etymology and they never actually said it. Si Trew (talk) 08:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you're tallking about radial geometry (which unfortunately we do not have, but have radial distance (geometry), then square one would be when both the sine and the cosine are positive, which is in the first quadrant between 0 degrees and 90 degrees (half pi radians). I don't think that is what we are talking about, though. If you divvy up, with yourself at zero, you have square one to yur northeast, square two to your northwest, square three to your southwest, and square four in Kent, where all the posh people live. But it would normally be known as a quadrant, surely, not Square One. Si Trew (talk) 08:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We seem sadly lacking on articles about radial geometry. We don't even have IQ geometry, where I is the imaginary plane going on the Y axis if projected onto an X-Y plane and Q is the even more maginary plane going on the X axis. It's not that hard, all you have to do is spin yourself around until you get very dizzy, then it all makes sense or ar least you can audition for Strictly Come Dancing. Si Trew (talk) 09:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We do have constellation diagram. Completely off topic, that, not suggesting for a minute to link to that, but tryuing to find things that are useful to any DAB for 'Square One'. I wonder why, actually, most civil directional radar rotates at 1 Hz. There's no particular reason it should do that, but they almost all seem to. I guess it is just convention. Si Trew (talk) 07:14, 9 May 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.

Kikel[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 Kike. --BDD (talk) 13:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why this redirect is as it is. A quick check on the Google didn't find any plausible targets. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. To explain: in Eastern European languages it is common to use K instead of C for a hard K, so that would make sense sorta, as {tlx|R from foreign language}}, but I can't find this in any slavik or germanic language, so I think it is nonsense
A translation website came up on gsearch for Hungarian, but not a good translation, I check my dictionaries just in case (but unlikely).
Oh it does exist in Hungarian, but kikel means to hatch out, to lose one's temper, to be beside oneself. But that is a false friend I think. Si Trew (talk) 07:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Kike. According to the article, it seems to be the parent of the derogatory term. --Lenticel (talk) 00:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Lenticel. At least we now know the language: it's Yiddish. Tavix | Talk  00:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget as above. I can see why it would redirect there, as English C → K in many Eastern European languages, but this isn't one of them. Kike is a bit pejorative, to many Jews, but WP:NOTCENSORED here and this is useful, to do it so. The proposed target is not quite a DAB, but not far off: So I don't know how to mark it, it has the {{wikt}} link so there is not much more I think we can do. I'll try to look up the etymology to improve it but with little hope of getting farther, I have no idea where it comes from either, I think Tavix is right that it is Yiddish, so I will in the weekend ask my Yiddish friends, but have to do that in Hungarian, which will be fun, then, three languages on the go at the same time. Si Trew (talk) 07:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
see Constellation diagram(not Constellation Diagram] apparently) to have an idaa what I am on about. Usually known in the trade as an IQ diagram. I goes up and down, Q goes across, in th imaginary plane. This is how your mobile phones work. Si Trew (talk) 17:25, 8 May 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.

Melbourne City Wrestling[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 May 14#Melbourne City Wrestling

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_7&oldid=1142655981"