Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 January 2

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

January 2

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 2, 2014.

250px

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) 17:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Useless redirect, used only in errors. Dicklyon (talk) 19:53, 2 January 2014 (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 low-radiation smartphones

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. WJBscribe (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per the discussion at

WP:G4 was declined because the AfD did not concern a redirect (which is true), so here we are. Ivanvector (talk) 04:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

I think the record shows that Specific absorption rate is where the list started, a long time ago. --Elvey (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the rationale proposed by User Ivanvector. --papageno (talk) 15:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while the discussion of the list(s) continues to simmer. No need to use a memory hole to hide the history during that time. Delete when Comparison_of_specific_absorption_rate_for_devices, etc are all gone.

Ivan, I'm disappointed that you re-raise the idea that we don't have a RS, as the FCC was provided as an RS for the SAR values, and updated list of 20 lowest radiation cellphones was provided by Enric Naval as a list of the 20 lowest radiation cellphones. The idea seems discredited to me. No?--Elvey (talk) 21:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Sorry (again) for splitting your comment. I think this is a reasonable proposal. There is discussion going on at (sadly, several places, here or here) on what the redirect target should look like and where it should live permanently, and it makes sense to me to resolve that discussion before determining the fate of the redirects. If no editors are opposed to this, then this discussion can be closed. Ivanvector (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe the discussions about the shape of a SAR list and its location have any bearing on the validity of the redirects being adressed here. These redirects perpetuate illogic, as initially put forth by User Ivanvector. However, I do not object to a temporary delay here if that will assist in finding an amicable, consensus outcome to those other discussions. --papageno (talk) 03:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied to this at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 December 31#Category:Low-radiation smartphones. Ivanvector (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This seems like an AfD runaround. The linked talk page discussions seem to have petered out, and the matching category has been deleted. --BDD (talk) 17:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Going back to delete: The user who opposed this, Elvey, is currently blocked until the first week of February, which I bring up in good faith only because it means he or she cannot respond here, and I don't want anyone to think I'm trying to do something sneaky here. However, I think this has been open long enough. We have thoroughly established consensus through AfD, CfD, and various other discussions that "low-radiation" is not a term defined by reliable sources when referring to mobile phones. There is still some discussion ongoing regarding whether the list (Comparison of specific absorption rate for devices) should be moved or kept at all, but since the phones now listed are not qualified by "low radiation", these redirects serve no purpose regardless of the outcome of those discussions. Ivanvector (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ivanvector's reasoning. —
    talk 20:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per above. Agree that this seems to be an AfD runaround. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:20, 22 January 2014 (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.

North Cock-It-Back

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) 17:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely need for this redirect. I cannot find any sources save for Urban Dictionary, and certainly no

ЛееСуда. 04:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Seems spammy. --Elvey (talk) 21:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Cock it Back" is the name of a song by Sadat X. I also failed to find the term "North Cock-It-Back" in sources independent of Wikipedia. —rybec 04:35, 3 January 2014 (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.

Terbinium

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 and retarget, respectively. Both will link to Total Recall (1990 film), and not to a section. --BDD (talk) 17:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion. Obscure, in-universe term that seems unlikely to be searched for. No notability outside the film and consequently unlikely to be expanded to its own article. DonIago (talk) 20:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I wouldn't have known about it at all, if I hadn't by chance found the redirect at the category its in. I looked for some other sources around the Internet, but it doesn't seem this fictional element has reached popcultural status of any kind. Arms Jones (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because as the saying goes, redirects are cheap. The notability guidelines do not apply here. I am not seeing any reasons at
    WP:R#DELETE to delete this specific term. Its categorization at Category:Fictional materials seems appropriate, though I would probably not link the redirect to the "Plot" section of the film article. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Keep because redirects are cheap, etc, per Erik. (Hmm…
Unobtanium?) --Elvey (talk) 21:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
The film article doesn't invoke the term anywhere other than the plot summary, which is part of why I believe a delete may be called for. If we're going to keep the redirect then I believe we should find a way to make the term more pertinent within the film article. Conversely, right now it seems inappropriate to remove the term from the Plot summary (even though it's not an essential element of the plot), because if it's not mentioned there, it's not mentioned anywhere. DonIago (talk) 21:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant that
terbinium should redirect to Total Recall (1990 film), not Total Recall (1990 film)#Plot. The anchor link would force the reader past the lead section, and I think the reader should be able to see the real-world context in which terbinium appears. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I guess that's kind of my point...if we take terbinium out of the plot summary then right now it's not mentioned anywhere in the article, so there is effectively no real-world context for it (i.e. a reader could wonder why they were directed to the film at all). I guess we could add something clarifying what the reactor is/does outside the plot summary, but I feel like we'd be doing that just to satisfy the redirect, instead of having the redirect serve the article. I don't have -strong- feelings about this to be clear, but it seemed worthy of discussion, so here we are. DonIago (talk) 23:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's mentioned in the target article and that's enough to justify it. There's a little bit more about it at
List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles would be a good place. —rybec 04:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
It's only mentioned in the plot summary of the target article because of the redirect, though, and I think it's evident that the mention there is shoehorned in. Regarding pointing to List of fictional etc...it seems doubtful to me that third-party sources have made note of it, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong. I'd be okay with wikiquote as a target though. DonIago (talk) 05:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Related redirect

We've also got

Turbinium which goes to Total Recall. Apologies for not including this in my original filing, I just became aware of it when I noticed this edit. I've added it to the list at the top. DonIago (talk) 15:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comment:
    Turbinium should point to the film page, not the dab page. Keep, as above. Ivanvector (talk) 15:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • @Doniago: I'm a little confused. Is turbinium the correct spelling of the fictional material? It seems to get more search results than terbinium. Or are these different spellings based on the media? Erik (talk | contribs) 16:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unfortunately unaware which spelling is the correct one, though the editor responsible for the linked edit appears to believe that Turbinium is the correct spellling, at least according to the novel (which I haven't read). DonIago (talk) 16:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Piers Anthony movie tie-in novel uses "turbinium"[1] -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly immaterial, but is it brought up at all in the book that inspired the film? Based on We Can Remember It for You Wholesale, I'm going to go out on a limb and say no. DonIago (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2014 (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/2014_January_2&oldid=1138579635"