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, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Greens (Montenegrin federalists) → Greens (Montenegrin separatists) (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Leftover after move attempt. Greens (Montenegrin separatists) were moved here on 6 April 2014 at 11:45, and then moved back at 11:47 the same day. The name is unlikely search term due to parentheses and wild historical inaccuracy – Greens were heavily engaged into various attempts at cutting every possible tie between Montenegro with Serbia. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 20:22, 29 May 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.

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 Quotient space that, in turn, has been converted to a disambiguation page taking out of scope of RFD. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 19:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Quotient Space → Equivalence class (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Delete. No mathematical term for "Quotient Space" both words caps. 67.252.103.23 (talk) 19:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambig With links to Quotient space (topology) and Quotient space (linear algebra) and something else I haven't thought of yet. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Quotient space currently redirects to Quotient space (topology). Steel1943 (talk) 04:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The clear solution is to turn Quotient space into a dab and retarget the uppercase variant there. But geez, there are a ton of incoming links. Quotient space (topology) used to be at the base title, so many are probably intended for there, but just looking over the list, some are referring to the algebraic concept. Maybe going ahead and dabbing now wouldn't cause any more disruption than we're already dealing with. --BDD (talk) 16:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Until a bot interfered this was a redirect to Quotient space ((R from other capitalisation)). The Whispering Wind (talk) 17:15, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I've read correctly, Quotient space at the time was the location of what is now Quotient space (topology), so the bot didn't really make things any worse. --BDD (talk) 00:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. IMO, "Quotient space" is a general concept that deserve a specific article containing links to Quotient space (topology), Quotient space (linear algebra), but also Quotient ring, Quotient group... In fact, a quotient space is generally defined as the space obtained by transferring the structure of a space equipped with an equivalence relation to the set (space) of equivalence classes. The notion has been formalized into the notion of cokernel in category theory. D.Lazard (talk) 10:02, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. And in general "quotient space" is nearly as problematic as "space". See also Talk:Space (mathematics)#Subspace; the same situation. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 14:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to the one with lower case, quotient space, and make that a DISAMBIGUATION page. It makes no sense for the one with capitals and the one with lower case to redirect to different targets. (And the deletion proposal with which this discussion started is completely misinformed: One does not delete a redirect page on the grounds that the term is somehow incorrect. Rather, misnomers, misspellings, alternative spellings, should redirect to correct terms. Generally if one term is considered an incorrect variant of a correct term, whether because of spelling or some other reason, it is made a redirect page whose target is the correct term. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't know the proper protocol for closing one of these discussions. Could someone attend to that? I have changed Quotient Space from a redirect to Equivalence class to a redirect to Quotient space and changed the latter to a disambiguation page, where formerly it was a redirect. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:43, 12 June 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.

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) 16:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Applause (software testing company) → Applause (application quality company) (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Applause (application quality company) was resting under this name for 4 days. Unlikely search term, recent, has no useful history, orphaned in main namespace. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:31, 29 May 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.

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. The default for redirects is to be kept except where they are harmful or for recently created misnomers (WP:RFD#HARMFUL). In this case there is no suggestion of harm. The deletion argument is that this shortcut is redundant to Template:WPHH. This is not a valid reason for deletion. Consequently the keeping argument that this is both harmless and used carries the day. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 20:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Wphh → Template:WikiProject Hip hop (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

useless redirect to save on capitals The Banner talk 11:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WPHH exists as a redirect to Template:WikiProject Hip hop. Mark as ((R from alternate capitalization)), as above. It's not my fault the youth of today don't like typing caps, it's my fault for getting old and nobody speak proper now like wot I do. Our job is to help people find what they are looking for, not to make judgments on how they write or speak. I speak very bad Hungarian most of the day, and very bad French most of the night, but my friends appreciate at least I try. Si Trew (talk) 13:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete "WPHH" already exists and has proper SHORTCUT captialization -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 06:05, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There is an active discussion about this issue at WT:SHC#Template_shortcuts. Barring a change to something more suitable, this redirect does no harm now that it has been created. Though consensus may state otherwise at this time, I feel that in most cases, that we do not want a lower case redirect to point to a different location than its upper case counterpart. Additionally, we have redirects such as ((albums)) and ((songs)). Whoever nominates these should be obligated to correct them manually. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and 65.94. — Scott • talk 09:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as legitimate lowercase version of an existing shortcut. It is very unlikely that we would be discussing this redirect if another editor had created it. --BDD (talk) 03:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - There is a similar discussion taking place at WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 15. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom. Frietjes (talk) 20:41, 28 May 2014 (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) 17:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep: the number of talk pages using this redirect reveal its usefulness. FWIW I don't like redirects for templates, but such redirects are common, and I don't see any substential difference between this one and other template redirects. More specifically, I don't see any reason for claiming that template:WPHH is proper capitalization while this one is not. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment' the redirect's creator added those transclusions. so it reveals nothing about the usefulness except that the creator of the redirect used the redirect that he created. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - WP:R#KEEP states "However, avoid deleting such redirects if:" "Someone finds them useful". ((wphh)) is my tool, and I find it useful. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:15, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • According to that logic, no redirect would ever be able to be deleted, because the redirect's creator could claim by default that they find it useful. So that argument is meaningless. — Scott • talk 15:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is no relation between your two statements. Indeed, template redirects are basically never deleted, but that does not render anything meaningless. If you dig through history of RfD, you'll find template redirects that were kept even when nobody was using them and nobody claiming their usefulness. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 16:48, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • You willingly ignore the only argument that has any sense in context of "Template" namespace redirects: net effect of redirect deletion in this namespace is the amount of users, who are underserved by the redirect deletion. The number of valid deletion rationales is fairly limited: redirect confuses users (eg. redirect from T:apples to template:WikiProject Oranges) or redirect is offensive (eg. T:band of idiots to template:WikiProject Oranges). This one does not qualify, so it deletion will only result in dissatisfaction of Jax 0677 and no benefit whatsoever. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 15:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Thank you DDC. BTW, in the interest of having better definition for such redirects, I asked for closure of WP:ANRFC#Wikipedia_talk:Shortcut.23Template_shortcuts more than one month ago. Would an uninvolved administrator be willing to disposition the discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's harmless and useful, and that's enough for a template. But on top of that, it's used on plenty of pages. Delete it, and you'd hurt those pages; even if you changed the links to point to the template itself, you'd still damage old revisions. Yes, that's necessary sometimes, but when the redirect isn't hurting anything and the target still exists, there's no good reason to hurt the old revisions. Nyttend (talk) 21:50, 18 June 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.

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. The default for redirects is to be kept except where they are harmful or for recently created misnomers (WP:RFD#HARMFUL). In this case there is no suggestion of harm. The deletion argument is that this shortcut is redundant to Template:WPUNI. This is not a valid reason for deletion. Consequently the keeping argument that this is both harmless and used carries the day. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 20:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Wpuni → Template:WikiProject Universities (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

useless redirect to save on capitals The Banner talk 11:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See above, for all, not a crossname redirect Keep. It's not a question of whether it is right but whether it is a likely search term, and to me it is. Si Trew (talk) 13:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete ((WPUNI)) already exists with proper SHORTCUT capitalization -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 06:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There is an active discussion about this issue at WT:SHC#Template_shortcuts. Barring a change to something more suitable, this redirect does no harm now that it has been created. Though consensus may state otherwise at this time, I feel that in most cases, that we do not want a lower case redirect to point to a different location than its upper case counterpart. Additionally, we have redirects such as ((albums)) and ((songs)). Whoever nominates these should be obligated to correct them manually. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and 65.94. — Scott • talk 09:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as legitimate lowercase version of an existing shortcut. It is very unlikely that we would be discussing this redirect if another editor had created it. --BDD (talk) 03:49, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - There is a similar discussion taking place at WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 15. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom. Frietjes (talk) 20:42, 28 May 2014 (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) 17:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep: harmless and used, which (for Template namespace) means useful. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:44, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it is used once, and that single instance was added by the redirect's creator [1] -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:18, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which kind of hints that he may continue using it in the future. Redirects are cheap, and redirects in this namespace are particularly harmless to be deleted without really good reason. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • That would be some sort of personalization of Wikipedia. Should Wikipedia be personalized to each user through creation of redirects for each user's personal-only use? In any case, it gives the mistaken impression that lowercase links will exist, when the corresponding shortcuts are always in uppercase, so may result in the production of WP:SHC shortcut links in lowercase, which are not supposed to exist. So the existence of template shortcuts, which these effectively are, have a negative impact on the efficacity of the editing guideline -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • The statement about case is blatantly wrong for template namespace. Many templates have long-standing lowercase shortcuts, mostly inline templates like ((citation needed)), with its numerous aliases like ((fact)), ((cn)), etc. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 06:57, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I wasn't referring to templatespace in general. I was referring to WikiProject Banner redirects, and their relation to the analogous WikiProject Shortcuts, ie WP:UNI not wp:uni -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • There is nothing special about WikiProject banners, and of course both WP:UNI and wp:uni are equally inappropriate shortcuts for them. If anything, ALLCAPS redirects are inappropriate, because visual distinction between WP:UNI (typical policy/guideline shortcut) and ((WPUNI)) is less obvious then one between WP:UNI and ((wpuni)). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 07:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • Comment - Thank you DDC. BTW, in the interest of having better definition for such redirects, I asked for closure of WP:ANRFC#Wikipedia_talk:Shortcut.23Template_shortcuts more than one month ago. Would an uninvolved administrator be willing to disposition the discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply - WP:R#KEEP states "However, avoid deleting such redirects if:" "Someone finds them useful". ((Wpuni)) is my tool, and I find it useful. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:21, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's useful, and that's all that matters with templates. Nyttend (talk) 21:48, 18 June 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.

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. Editors agree that the term 'LED IPS' is an abuse of terminology but there wasn't a clear consensus on what to do about that. I'm closing this as Delete for now but anyone who wants to fix the situation by creating an article or a link to an article section that explains the issue should feel free to do so. EdJohnston (talk) 14:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• LED IPS → Thin-film-transistor liquid-crystal display  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Please read the reason for removing this redirect on the talk page of TFT: Talk:Thin-film-transistor liquid-crystal display.

Have explained my intention on May 4 before removing the redirect. In-plane-switching is a technique exclusively used for LCDs. LEDs are used as backlight of such liquid-crystal-displays, but don't have any relationship to the way information is displayed by the TFT-LCD panel. BBCLCD (talk) 05:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@BBCLCD: In this case, I suggest that you bring up the matter at WP:RFD, and I suppose that the discussion will be closed with a consensus to delete. KJ ^{«Click Here»} 06:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Nominating for deletion.

BBCLCD (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but in-plane switching is used in many other things apart from LCD displays. Si Trew (talk) 17:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC) CEng, MIET, MBCS.[reply]

Where is in-plane switching used apart from LCD? Certainly not for Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs).

BBCLCD (talk) 18:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the redirect is a bit wrong-footing in sending LEDs to LCDs. I am not sure about this. Modern flatscreen tellies are, at least in the UK, quite often advertised as being LED when they are actually LCD but with white LED backlighting – quite misleading, really. So I am not sure if that would qualify as it being a useful search term or are we just misleading people? The more-general In-plane switching redirects to the same target, so I am with you that to say "LED" is misleading. However, that section of the article is a bit of a plug for Hitachi and Panasonic. In-plane switching as I understand it (that a transistor in the plane of the printed circuit board acts as a switch) can be used for all sorts of things, but we don't seem to have a better target than where it stands; and if it has become associated specifically with LCD TVs then it's best left where it is. Si Trew (talk) 03:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You know, we could retarget it to co-pilot if we really wanted to be wry, I can't make up my mind with whether redirecting LED to LCD is a good idea or not. I know it is technically incorrect but lots of tellies are advertised as LED when they are really LCD with LED backlighting. Si Trew (talk) 04:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Si Trew, I have to correct you: In-plane switching (IPS) is one of the different electro-optical effects in LCDs as are the alternatives Twisted Nematic (TN) or Vertical Alignment (VA). In IPS, switching does not refer to a transistor (TFT) used to address a pixel. Have a look at the schematic shown in IPS panel. I agree, that sometimes flatscreen are wrongly advertized as LED TV, etc. However, the combination LED IPS is really unsuitable.

BBCLCD (talk) 08:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I don't doubt for a minute that it is technically wrong; that is not the point: is it a likely search term? From throwing in "LED IPS" into My Favourite Search Engine I get:

• "IPS vs LED". hexus.net. September 2008. Retrieved 8 May 2014.
• "LCD vs LED IPS". 27 February 2013. Retrieved 9 February 2014. ^{[unreliable source?]}
• "What is difference of ips led and lcd monitor screensscreens". tomshardware.com. 9 June 2012. Retrieved 9 May 2014.

... and many others. I don't doubt that you are technically correct. It boils down to is it a likely search term? As an electrical engineer I should say it is: incorrect but it seems likely. Si Trew (talk) 01:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I read IPS Panel. Abbreviations like et. al and incl. do not help reader comprehension; this was written by someone who prefers to write instead of read. I'll WP:Wikignome that article, and include for example links to Panasonic and so on, once we have consensus. There is no need, for example, to say 90° instead of the normal English right angle: and in fact 90° redirects to right angle, and I can type the degree sign (Alt+2 4 8) because I have been doing it for years, but I can work in radians and mils as well; we shouldn't put our readers to that kind of trouble. It is not my fault it doesn't mention LED IPS: since it patently exists. In case I sound harsh, I thank you for your good faith and together we will make them all better I am sure. Si Trew (talk) 01:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Si Trew. I looked at some of the comments made on the blogs you mention. The ignorance about the functioning of LCDs of the competing types IPS, TN and VA is widespread. Questions about differences of these types of LCD panels should be redirected on WP to either LCDs in general, or specialized wikis like IPS panel or Twisted Nematic (TN). In my opinion, it would be wrong to support the confusion among these terms by redirecting combinations such as LED IPS, LED TN and LED VA to Thin-film-transistor liquid-crystal display. Keep in mind that AMOLED panels using OLEDs for image presentation (as an alternative to LCDs) are also using a matix of TFTs! AMOLEDs don't have anything to do with IPS, TN and VA, as these LEDs are generating the image , not acting as backlighting only.

BBCLCD (talk) 07:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@BBCLCD: Yes, I can see your bind: Wikipedia is enough a source of incorrect information without actively encouraging it. Would you think that IPS is used more-generally than the full term (and probably on the boxes and such) that that suffices for people to find information but that the full in-plane switching should be deleted, then? Essentially any silicon chip uses in-plane switching, so microprocessor or bridge rectifier is equally correct, but is it likely that someone searches that way? Si Trew (talk) 13:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If I'm reading this discussion correctly, which is far from certain, we don't discuss LED IPS as such. --BDD (talk) 16:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Si, my eyes are glazing over at all this technical talk. Do you specifically think this redirect should either be kept or deleted? --BDD (talk) 19:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be kept. It's technically incorrect, but frequently used in advertising and on the boxes. Si Trew (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It should be deleted to avoid further confusion caused by advertizers sales pitches. BBCLCD (talk) 11:44, 27 May 2014 (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) 17:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep "Incorrect" is never, ever, ever a reasons for deleting a redirect. What matters is that the term is commonly used. I would recommend that the article include text identifying the phrase as a technically incorrect marketing term. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, if it can be explained there, let's go ahead and keep. Si, could you lend your expertise? --BDD (talk) 16:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I probably could. If you shall allow me, deliberately I have not looked at the article. I do this on purpose so as to have an entirely unbiased (some would say ignorant, and I would agree: but the best meaning of ignorant) view.

A transistor, basicaally sends current and thus volts etc one way or another, it acts as a switch or amplifier. This was clear in 1956 but the things are so common now nobody thinks about doping to make an NPN or a PNP or whatever cos in the screens they are there in their millions and printed (literally, printed) into circuit boards. The reliability of flat screens and such we take for granted because of it. Comment This is a ramble I shall be told off for, again.

Now a transistor is essentially a switch or amplifier, which is the sam the thing only to a different degree... Stick 1.0 in at the front, let's say you get 0.7 out the back on one pin and 0.3 out the back on the other, total, 1.0. Actually you won't because of the second law of thermodynamics but you get pretty good efficiency and reliability, call it 99% and that's conservative, most are much much better than that.

Now, you have millions of them in a flat screen. A few go wrong but the odd pixel failing, its potential voltage is counteracted by the four, or eight, depending how you count, around it. So it is a local failure and not a global failure and so you get a black (or white) pixel on a flat screen instead of the whole set going down, due to the overvoltage. (And I use "due to" correctly for a change: other editors please take note: "due to" does not mean "because of": the voltage is *due* (owed) to the next-door transistor: see Fowler).

I will get into trouble for this exposition for WP:TOOLONG. I don't care, it is my swan song.

Where was I? So transistors have holes and so on to allow the electrons to kinda run into them, as if it was a golf course. This is a conceit but a useful one. Once the hole is filled the electrons spill over and start running around the circuit trying to find other holes. So essentially the whole thing gets flooded and the onlyu way they can get out is by going through an LED and emitting themselves as light.

Quod erat demonstrandum. "Which is what we see."; A Light Emitting Diode.

When a diode is placed in a square

Its physics thus are now laid bare

Electrons go thus,

They may swear, they may cuss

But the diode insists they go where

They should feel where they'd naturally go

Up and down through the circuit and so

Diodes act as a block, it's a gatehouse, a lock

And desparately they will say "No!

Although our small fate is not right

We shall thus emit us as light."

Does that help?

Si Trew (talk) 23:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should add. Please excuse my temerity. BBCLCD is obviously the expert on this, but anything I could bung in to kinda make it less' technical, if you see what I mean: to make it at the appropriate level of technicality for whom is likely to search for it and its companions: I am happy to collaborate. I thought that what is what about. Three other admins think otherwise but that is their fault not mine. Si Trew (talk) 23:28, 5 June 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.

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) 15:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Catassing → Video game addiction (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• Catass → Video game addiction (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

I really should've added this to the RfD for Poopsocking, another slang term for video game addiction not mentioned at the target page. This one should be deleted as well. BDD (talk) 16:49, 29 May 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.

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. No policy compliant ground for deletion, typically one of the criteria in WP:RFD#DELETE, has been specified and since this term is mentioned at the target it is a relevant and useful redirect and there is no better target. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 15:43, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• 473L Query → IBM 473L Command and Control System (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

delete 473L Query and all its variants:

473L Query programming language

473L Query programming

473L Query language

473L Query (programming language)

473L Query (language)

as the group are an overextension of the redirect capability (if deleted, searches with all of the text strings provide a list with the target article at the top) 30 SW (talk) 16:10, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Huh? I don't understand the argument for deletion here. And what Wikipedia's search box does is irrelevant, since not all of our users use the search box. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, 30 SW, could you elaborate? Is 473L Query used in other systems besides the Command and Control? Why do you think it will be better for readers to see search results here? --BDD (talk) 16:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. Mentioned at target; likely rephrases of such. I have been told off already for suggesting alternatives so I won't; I checked but there aren't an likel alternatives or misspellings (374, with and without the L, and so on, in all the perms and combs) and there aren'r any: hence my bind is freed. Spellings or redirect targets, which I thought is what we came here for). Seems to me if someone is searching this explicitly for the L model, or to find the K or J model, which the L is a year mark anwyay and not a model number, that to disdain our readers for being a tiny bit out . If we do that, we might as well shut up shop.

Si Trew (talk) 23:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, with thanks to Si Trew. I also don't understand the argument for deletion, nor do I see a good one myself. --BDD (talk) 17:22, 6 June 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.