Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 March 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 17[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 17, 2015.

Kanak (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 procedural close because this is no longer a redirect (non-admin closure). Tavix |  Talk  20:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page redirected to Kanak, which was a disambiguation page with only two pages listed, Kanak people and Katharine Kanak. Kanak people is clearly the primary page, and so I redirected it there per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. This means that Kanak (disambiguation) is now obsolete.  Liam987(talk) 20:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I went ahead and made a proper disambig, with additional meanings (all minor). bd2412 T 20:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
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.
I agree Si Trew (talk) 05:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1r[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 9#Template:1r

Gearing[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 move Gearing (disambiguation) over redirect. --BDD (talk) 16:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

where should this go? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.162.73 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 17 March 2015

  • Keep the hatnote at the target article addresses your concerns. --Lenticel (talk) 01:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure. Leverage seems fine but wasn't that greek chap good at levers but not good at wheels? Perhaps this is more confusing than it first appears... Gearshift possible. I am not saying it should be, but a lever and an inclined plane and a place far enough away to stand and you can move a planet... so perhaps this is not so obvious... that it is technical slang in the financial industry, probably it should stand, but there are other possibilities. Si Trew (talk) 05:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mind you the chap I am on about did invent the Archimedes Screw, so he must have known something about turning (which to my surprise is primary). 05:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talk • contribs)
  • Comment - Hmm, gearing redirects to leverage (finance), but leverage redirects to mechanical advantage. Well, this is a fine mess. Ivanvector (talk) 16:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to mechanical advantage. It is quite a fine mess, Stanley... Have can will worms. Si Trew (talk) 08:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - when I Google "gearing" my search results strongly indicate that financial leverage is the primary topic. I was not expecting that. I considered that my search results may be skewed because I work in finance, however my recent search history also reflects that I've been working on building a fixed gear bicycle, so I would expect any skew to be in the mechanical direction. There are several possible targets for mechanical gearing and I don't think that mechanical advantage is the best one (we also have gear ratio and gear train which might be better). I don't think there is a strong enough rationale to do anything in particular, so I'm going with status quo on this one. I agree with Lenticel that the hatnote at the finance article adequately addresses the navigational concern. Ivanvector (talk) 14:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your Google search results are a bit different from mine, I imagine. Si Trew (talk) 15:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Worm gear → Worm drive at all possible? I mean we don't need the whole vermicelli but that is possible, maybe? Si Trew (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Move I'm fine with the move. The targets are still linked either way anyways. --Lenticel (talk) 05:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a snowball to move it, I think. Best decision. I don't think I can do it meself, I am not an admin. Going to RM is just makework so let it stand for now. Si Trew (talk) 07:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Move' I recommend Gearing redirect to Gear train. The use of gearing in the finance industry should be represented by an article Gearing (finance): from Investopedia For example, a gearing ratio of 70% shows that a company’s debt levels are 70% of its equity. Is this too much debt? That depends on the industry in which the company operates. A gearing ratio of 70% may be very manageable for a utility, but it may be far too much for a technology company. But Gearing (finance) is not an article of Wikipedia, and Leverage (finance) is not an equivalent, despite the first sentence of the lead. Prof McCarthy (talk) 02:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Reply. Maybe it should be, but it isn't. WP:NOTPERFECT, WP:NOTFINISHED, WP:JUSTDOIT. If you want to make the article, go ahead, make it, it will be automatically (well semi automatically) removed from RfD as converted into an article. As it stands, we have to decide what to do with it. I would take it in a completely different direction as meaning, yes, a gearshift or something like that, but there's obviously a genuine ambiguity here. Si Trew (talk) 10:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I would not call this a genuine ambiguity. It is clear that gearing is a well-known physical object with specific properties such as mechanical advantage, and gearing as applied to finance is a metaphor intended to draw on this physical meaning. Prof McCarthy (talk) 05:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Prof McCarthy: Just a note, since Gearing (disambiguation) exists, "delete" really isn't a feasible option. It sounds like you may agree that the term "gearing" is ambiguous; if that is the case, moving Gearing (disambiguation) to Gearing may be the best option to coincide with your opinion. If this is done, the reader could then decide what meaning of the term "gearing" they are trying to locate. Steel1943 (talk) 05:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry if I was not clear. I was referring to the Gearing → Leverage (finance). It is this redirect of gearing directly to leverage (finance) that I recommend be deleted. It connects a physical object not to its use as a metaphor but to a different metaphor of a related but different physical object. Prof McCarthy (talk) 14:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • disambig (i.e. move the disambig page to this title). Thryduulf (talk) 13:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move as suggested by Steel1943. This is the correct action for an ambiguous title that has no clear primary topic, or might have more than one significant meaning. Gearing (finance) would simply redirect to Leverage (finance) (and does, actually). Ivanvector (talk) 16:29, 24 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.

Sun Television News Channel[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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, the article was created when the channel was still in the planning stages and had no name and this name was the result of speculation by the article's creator and changed once the channel was actually named. Redirect is the result of a move in order to avoid breaking links but there are no links to the redirect. Unlikely search term. Enza Levant (talk) 07:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - redirect from page move in 2010. It has no links and no hits in the last quarter, but I think it is actually a reasonably likely search target. Sun Media went through a very public battle to secure mandatory carriage on Canadian cable providers for their televised news channel, and they claim that their campaign's failure led to the closure of the network. Ivanvector (talk) 14:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Sun is the most popular UK newspaper, and Rupert Murdoch's chain of television stations makes him a lot of money. I don't like it, and I don't read or watch them, but it is the truth. Sky Television is possible, but unlikely, Keep it where it stands. Star Television I guess is also possible but unlikely. How fun to be a Media Mogul, eh! Si Trew (talk) 07:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note, the editor above changed his vote to Delete below on 19 March 2015
    • Um, this has nothing to do with the British newspaper. The link referred to a Canadian news network linked to the Canadian Sun newspaper chain which has no relationship to Murdoch. Enza Levant (talk) 00:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • That may be so, but we have Sun TV as a DAB.... so the confusion is not just mine. Perhaps best to retarget to that DAB? Si Trew (talk) 13:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I can see that it is specifically a news channel and not just a general channel, that is not the point of the matter (with me)... It is what would people be likely to be looking for? Si Trew (talk) 09:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well, that was my point. If someone types "news channel" they are likely looking for a news channel, and this is the only one of the lot that is a news channel. Ivanvector (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the dab at Sun TV. If there was reporting at the time speculating on this name for what became Sun News Network, I may change my mind, but if this really was just speculation, I don't think we can confidently say a reader using this as a search term isn't looking for a similarly named network. --BDD (talk) 16:30, 17 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) 16:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unlikely search term and there seems to be confusion and disagreement on what it should redirect to in the first place meaning that deleting the redirect having the wikipedia search engine give results should anyone ever use the search term "Sun Television News Channel" is the most sensible option. AnonAnnu (talk) 04:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D2 confusing and WP:RFD#D5 makes no sense, also WP:REDLINK. Anyone searching for this is presumably looking for something else and we are getting in their way. Si Trew (talk) 08:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You advocated for a "keep" position above. Surely you can't want to keep and delete it? It might be best to strike your above !vote if you are changing your mind. ;) Tavix |  Talk  08:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I assume, not as if we stand on principle herem that the !vote falls when the relisting takes place. 15:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
That comment doesn't make sense to me. If you strike your !vote, it's a courtesy to new people reading it from the top that you no longer are advocating that keep position. Tavix |  Talk  15:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because taking it out would make it look like I was lieing. 16:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
No. You're not "taking it out," you would be striking it. The only thing it shows is that you changed your !vote. There is no lying concept involved at all. Tavix |  Talk  19:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not needed and confusing, could just as easily be a redirect to Sun TV or Sun News so preferable not to have any redirect at all. StoneyHenderez (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as confusing. Not confusing to me but I live within reception range of the former broadcast tower, and from the discussion above clearly confusing to others, particularly our mates across the pond, with other more prominent uses of the "Sun" brand. Also apparently unused. From memory, it was in the past reported that Quebecor was seeking to start a television news channel under this brand, which became Sun News Network, but I can't find it now. Ivanvector (talk) 14:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletion is fine with me as well. Search results will probably do just as well as the dab in this case. --BDD (talk) 15:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fine by me too. Si Trew (talk) 16:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually when I type in "Quebecor to start news network" in a general search, I get back to here... Si Trew (talk) 16:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but we do have Quebecor which is essentially a DAB or list (stupidly it had not occurred to me) masquerading as an article. This one is getting odder... Si Trew (talk) 07:46, 22 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.

Irlande[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 Irlanda and Irlandia, Retarget Irlande to Irlande, Quebec. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 16:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FORRED. There's no inherent connection between Ireland and French, Italian/Spanish/Portuguese, or Polish. --BDD (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep retag as {{R from misspelling}} due to misconceptions held by English-speakers on how to spell things. (ie. using "ia" for any old country name, or "a", or adding "e" 's ; and dropping the "e" in "Ire" ) -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update retarget "Irlande" to Irlande, Quebec per Hisashiyarouin; the others would be stripped of the altlang templates and be retagged as misspelling redirects -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 00:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. I can see this as a likely search term for non-English speakers. Especially because often it is misspelled in travel brochures etc. Hibernia would be correct I think, but nobody ever hibernates in Ireland these days. Si Trew (talk) 05:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per WP:RFD#KEEP #5 (useful) - all are bringing in a moderate number of hits, so obviously someone is using them. Maybe we should check the interlanguage links at the other Wikipedias? Ivanvector (talk) 16:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if this is relevant but visitireland.com have a bit of a TV campaign on at the moment. Apparently they have Guinness and stuff. Si Trew (talk) 07:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If that campaign is translated into Spanish/Portuguese, maybe? But not really relevant to our discussion. We wouldn't keep foreign language redirects like this because of advertising. Or we shouldn't. Anyway, visit Toronto. We have Guinness too, you can drink it with your poutine. Ivanvector (talk) 15:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Irlande to Irlande, Quebec which is actually known as that in English. No specific comments for the others. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 12:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. The rest are still harmless. Ivanvector (talk) 15:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That makes kinda sense, but wouldn't it make more sense to reverse the redirect to have Irlande, Quebec at Irlande and then the other as the retarget? (We don't have Irlande, Québec with the diacritic, but that is easily fixed once we decide what to do). Si Trew (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good find. Irlande, Quebec should be moved there. --BDD (talk) 14:26, 23 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.

Beds[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. --BDD (talk) 13:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to bed per WP:PLURALPT; if bed has a primary topic, the plural should follow it. bd2412 T 16:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Retarget per nom -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget' as {{R from plural}}}. No-brainer. Si Trew (talk) 05:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget - obvious plural are obviouses. I have to ask, why didn't you just do it? Ivanvector (talk) 16:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment I just thought of something. In UK postal addresses Beds is the abbreviation for Bedfordshire. Sorry to queer the pitch there. Si Trew (talk) 19:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC) (as is Herts the abbreviation for Hertfordfirdshire, Cambs for Cambridheshire and so forth). 19:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talk • contribs) [reply]
Ah, now I get to draw your attention to Countries which are not the United Kingdom! That tidbit is worth a hatnote at best, and I'm not even really sure that's necessary. I'll grant you that Middx exists, but I'd be hard-pressed to suggest an alternate for that abbreviation (and I'm from Middlesex County, Ontario). Herts is not quite the same as Hertz, and Cambs is a town in Germany. Ivanvector (talk) 20:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nicely played. I was half asleep and it just came to me so I just threw it in for consideration. Surely Countries that, not Countries Which' :) Si Trew (talk) 07:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I've been there. It's very beautiful. 07:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talk • contribs)
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.

Microsoft Cabinet Object[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) 13:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a bogus name. I tried searching for it but every single search result seem to have comeoriginated from Wikipedia itself. Codename Lisa (talk) 08:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and remove link - I created the redirect in tidying up MCO (disambiguation), which had a long standing claim (from 31 December 2008‎) that one meaning of MCO was this. Given that this had remained unchallenged for nearly 7 years, I didn't consider the possibility it might be bogus.-- chris_j_wood (talk) 13:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK, and WP:CRYSTAL, Microsoft tends to use lots of slang internally (such as "Codename Lisa" :) but this is crystal if anything. Unless somehow it means something from Microsoft Office, something you'd stick in a filing cabinet. But we already have metaphors for that, such as "file". Si Trew (talk) 05:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, isn't this something to do with Office Assistant? He used to have "cabinet objects" in the sense of OLE Automation objects? Si Trew (talk) 15:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You mean its filing cabinet? Wow! That is one gloriously brazen abusing of editing rights. If that's okay, I wonder if must enumerate all articles for celebrities and create a "[celebrity's name]'s left sock" redirect for each. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:54, 24 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.

Boog!e[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) 13:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 21#BooG!ie. This is another variation of his name that I just now found. Tavix |  Talk  07:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If if saves you a click, the explanation is that it should be deleted per WP:REDLINK: "It looks like that's the name of the actor, not the character, and he goes by "BooG!ie" as a nickname. According to his IMDB, he's known for a few different minor roles, not just in iCarly." Tavix |  Talk  07:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D2 "confusion", could go to Boggle or Booger as equally likely plus A Well Known Search Engine (that is more than one click away). I do think we have to think now a bit more of people typing on mobile devices etc instead of my trusty faithful Tesco 20p Keyboard but even so it's quite a step away... 08:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete confusion with 7337-5p3@k for Boggle -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as confusing. WP:REDLINK can be a secondary reason but I think it's more appropriate for "BooG!ie"--Lenticel (talk) 07:05, 24 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.

Das Dualwiktorkeinekanzlormerklenschroederlowenbraudeadheatlickin'kopf[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) 13:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Completely implausible search term for a joke that was used on that show approx. 10 years ago. Since it isn't mentioned at the targeted page (or anywhere else), it should be deleted as confusing and unhelpful. Tavix |  Talk  07:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I liked that show and this kind of rubbish was part of its intelligent humour, but the chances of someone searching for it, unless they have a Weltanshuung different from mine, must be close to zero. But then, almost everyone has a world view different from each other, and I am glad they do, makes life fun. 178.164.198.39 (talk) 08:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC) Sorry not logged in. Si Trew (talk) 08:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 07:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You cannot just say "per nom", you have to give your own reasons. I've been told off about it before. Si Trew (talk) 16:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the nom has an adequate reason then "per nom" is fine. It's when the nom's reason isn't okay that "per nom" is also not okay.--Lenticel (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I am not okay and you are not okay either. (Edward de Bono, I think... never read his rubbish). I know we don't stand on ceremony here, and that is why I like it. We make sense, not rules. Si Trew (talk) 07:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I interpret "per nom" as "I agree wholeheartedly with the nominators rationale and I don't have anything further to add." Tavix |  Talk  00:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree: but I read somewhere (I forget where but somewhere arcane in Wikipedia namespace on guidelines/policies) that "per nom" is "not a reason". I can't find it now... It's not on the WP:RFD "rules" but somewhere, and it's not at WP:NOTVOTE. I don't mind saying "per nom" and leaving it at that as shorthand for "I completely agree for all the reasons stated above", but I can't remember where I saw that is kinda not a valid reason... someone even more pedantic than I, I imagine... Si Trew (talk) 10:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(resetting indent) Here you go It is an essay, not a guideline. --Lenticel (talk) 02:51, 24 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_17&oldid=1142587158"