< April 19
April 21 >

April 20

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 20, 2015.

100:10100

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 - WP:RFD#D2 Just Chilling (talk) 01:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In honor of 4/20, I'm nominating this redirect. This is the binary form of the word and the only real use I've found for it is an Urban Dictionary reference. It's not mentioned in the article and I don't really think it's helpful. WP:NOTURBANDICTIONARY applies here (and maybe WP:RFOREIGN if you consider binary a foreign language??) Tavix |  Talk  21:28, 20 April 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.

EPOS

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. --BDD (talk) 17:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This R's to DAB don't know why, the top entry is for Electronic point of sale but on the DAB is piped to Point of Sale.(WP:DABPIPE: you don't pipe on a DAB). This is going round the houses rather. Si Trew (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I didn't suggest it were deleted, but if you run through them, you find there are far too many redirects than necessary and I was asking for why that is. WP:DABPIPE for one. Perhaps I should just have been WP:BOLD and fixed it, but sometimes I am meek and ask for others' opinions. i am not suggesting they are deleted but that we re-route them in a more sensible way. Si Trew (talk) 04:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But don't you think they should go to the same place? I think I know what you mean about WP:SHOUTING but acronyms typically are all caps and not regarded thus. Specifically I did not suggest they were deleted, only that they were discussed: This is "Redirects for Discussion'", not "Deletion". Show me where I said that they should be deleted. Si Trew (talk) 09:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your nomination seems to be about a discussion on how to rewrite the dab page, thus my reply. As there are multiple EPOS abbreviations at epos, it's still a good target as an abbreviated form. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 06:28, 22 April 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.

Withought

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 30#Withought

Olee Starstone

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 both, nomination unopposed. Deryck C. 23:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This Star Wars character isn't prominent, and thus would never reasonably be listed at the target article. The lowercase variant is the last junk redirect to Star Wars I came across. --BDD (talk) 17:26, 20 April 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.

Ottarious

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 30#Ottarious

Star Wars: Databank

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 withdrawn. Easy retarget. --BDD (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we can demonstrate the notability of something like Memory Alpha, I suspect we could do it with this too. Delete per WP:REDLINK and/or because it isn't mentioned at the target article. BDD (talk) 15:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks. Not sure how I missed that in my searching. I was searching for a lot of terms and may have overlooked this one. --BDD (talk) 16:33, 20 April 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 Wars Toys

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. The discussion below has established that there is no suitable target. Deryck C. 12:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not, toys aren't mentioned at all on the target page. I would've thought this subject would be discussed somewhere, but it appears not to be. BDD (talk) 15:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably be a better candidate for more of an overview-type article. --BDD (talk) 16:38, 20 April 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.

Lumas Etima

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. Nomination unopposed; no incoming links to any of these redirects. Deryck C. 23:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are a good number lingering redirects from very minor figures in the Star Wars Expanded Universe that simply point to the Star Wars article. This batch of them aren't mentioned there or anywhere else, and are too specialized to probably ever merit coverage here. --BDD (talk) 15:37, 20 April 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.

Holotable

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 Star Wars Customizable Card Game. Clearly there's no appetite for keeping or deleting. It's essentially a toss-up, but I'm going to rule in favor of the page where it's actually mentioned. A "Holotable" redirect to Holography could easily be deleted if it came up here. --BDD (talk) 17:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to holography. A holotable is a type of holographic projector / holographic display / holographic screen so should redirect to holography, and not Star Wars. 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:42, 10 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) 15:26, 20 April 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.

Victory Cruiser

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 agree that the redirect shouldn't stay as is. Without an agreed target to re-point this redirect towards, deletion is the best option. Deryck C. 23:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate "cruiser" is a type of motorcycle, as well as several type of ships. We have a Star Wars topic Victory Star Destroyer, several motorcycles from Victory Motorcycles, cruiseliner Carnival Victory, Star Trek light cruiser USS Victory (NCC-9754) 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but they're not cruisers. Not by title, at least. Ivanvector (talk) 19:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The USS Victory is a cruiser, the Star Destroyer Victory is a cruiser-class, so, "Victory cruiser" -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the Star Destroyers are only loosely referred to as cruisers because Han Solo off-handedly calls them "imperial cruisers" in the first film, however from what I can tell no ships in the class are referred to as a cruiser anywhere else in any of the literature. Their class is Star Destroyer. They were named "cruiser" by the same character who referred to parsec as a unit of time (and who shot first). The USS Victory (1863) was a gunboat, the USS Victory (NCC-9754) was a fictional Constellation-class starship, HMS Victory was a ship of the line, none of them are cruisers by title or definition. However, Cruiser is a well-known brand of motorcycles manufactured by Victory, thus it is the appropriate target of this redirect. Ivanvector (talk) 16:37, 27 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) 15:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Completely oddly, actually it's a charabanc and we have an article GM_PD-4103 where it is explicitly called the "Victory Cruiser". Si Trew (talk) 19:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's right. I interpret the article as saying that the PD-4103 was redesigned using a front axle based on another kind of vehicle called a "Victory Cruiser", but doesn't actually say what that vehicle is. Ivanvector (talk) 19:16, 21 April 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.

100-watt head

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. The discussion below did not achieve a clear consensus, although all but one participant did not agree with the current target of the redirect. Default to delete due to the lack of an agreed new target. Deryck C. 20:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cursory skim on Amazon.com proves what should be very obvious: Marshall is not the only company that manufactrues 100-watt amplifier heads. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 19:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Zeke, the Mad Horrorist: Umm, do you mean "Redirects for discussion"? Steel1943 (talk) 20:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have absolutely no idea where I got "Templates". Yes, I meant "redirects". Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 20:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't talking about you saying anything, Zeke, the Mad Horrorist. Drmies (talk) 22:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about Amazon. It's about 1960s music, and the development of stage backlines. It was Marshall who created this, Marshall who made the original canonical 100 Watt head. The rest are merely modern copies and un-notable. The topic is about the history of rock, not about a shopping guide. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It should target to Marshall 1959 then, which discusses the development of the 100W head? Ivanvector (talk) 15:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I could grant that Marshall may have made the first of its kind, but the rest being "merely modern copies and un-notable" is a bit broad of a statement that can't easily be supported (and shifts the onus of proving it onto anyone saying so). I did not say Marshall's endeavors were not notable, I said they were not the only ones to do what they did. In my view, to say it should redirect to them solely is a bit like saying because Sega were apparently the first to use keep cases for their cartridge-based games, Sega should have a redirect for Video game keep cases (that might not even be true, but it would apply regardless of which company was truly the first). Anyone could have done this; the capability of doing so is not and never has been exclusive to one company, even if they were pioneers at it. All that being said, if and only if we cannot find other notable 100-watt models, I would support retarget to Marshall 1959 (which should probably be amended to include that it is historically significant in this regard) per Ivanvector. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 18:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you have Amazon's back catalogue from the '60s, why does what they sell today have any significance?
My stage PA today has four 100W channels in a case made from an old disk drive. Tiny thing. So why would any guitarist want to hump around a mere 100W amp the size of a suitcase? Why would any of Amazon's suppliers be making them today? The reason is that in the 1960s this was a new, modern Marshall product and it was the coolest thing on stage. Marshall created this, Marshall made it cool. Imitators in the day were imitators, modern ones are skeumorphs. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, any attempt to generalize that other products aren't notable and/or derivative come with the requirement to prove it. My point regarding Amazon.com was only that a cursory skim of the 100-watt amplifiers they have to offer is sufficient proof that this is not exclusive to Marshall and probably never has been. Marshall might have been the first to pioneer this field of guitar amplification, but again, nothing has yet demonstrated that Marshall alone is worthy of having this redirect go directly to their page alone, and leaving it as such seems a bit like misplaced or excessive loyalty, especially absent any attempt to confirm your claim that in essence all other 100-watt amplifiers followed in the company's wake and are just imitations of what Marshall did first. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 16:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"any attempt to generalize that other products aren't notable and/or derivative come with the requirement to prove it"
No it doesn't. There is though a general requirement to prove the claims being made (that Marshall's use of the innovative amplifier stack was particularly significant), and that could benefit from a source. Those in the UK could hardly do better than BBC4's recent documentary biography on Marshall, where this was gone into in quite some detail. Play it Loud: The Story of the Marshall Amp Andy Dingley (talk) 14:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Proving Marshall's significance ≠ proving the competition's insignificance. And yes, it does. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 18:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So you're claiming that this should be deleted, in the presence of a TV program specifically about Marshall's influence here, solely because there are no sources saying, "An unspecified list of modern amplifiers had no impact on rock & roll 50 years earlier"? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:53, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that. I simply said evidence to support one argument does not equate to evidence against another. And if you'll notice, I said earlier I would support retargeting to the specific model that made history this way. At this point I am not arguing so much for deletion, only tha the current target is inappropriate. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 19:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I should also point out that I was unaware such a resource existed, but even then, we should try to gather more of them so that we don't risk pushing the POV of a particular source. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 19:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or else redirect to Guitar amplifier. I disagree with the "It was Marshall who created this, Marshall who made the original canonical 100 Watt head" argument. That's like redirecting Immersion blender or Food processor to the first company that happens to have manufactured either of them on the grounds that the ones in my kitchen don't rate their own Wikipedia articles. At least the immersion blender is notable; a 100-watt head, as distinct from a head of any other wattage, is not. There's no point having it at all, but if it's going to be here it should redirect to the next higher topic in the taxonomy it belongs to, which I gather is Guitar amplifier, since someone searching on that term is more likely looking to find out what one is, not information about the company that first marketed one. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:54, 18 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) 15:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well all amps are power supplies in some sence, since they convert volts into amps or vice versa, that is what an amplifier is, but I am not sure that this very specific link is useful for that. Si Trew (talk) 18:09, 20 April 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.

United Kingdom leaders debates

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) 17:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now that three of the four debates for this election have already taken place, it is a bit ridiculous to have this redirect leading to the old ones. It should either be retargeted to the current debates or converted into an article (i.e. about British election debates in general). The Theosophist (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I watched them all. The person who comes out of it worse, in my opinon, is David Cameron, by not being there. I complained to the BBC that they called him the Prime Minister when in fact since he offered his resignation to Her Majesty he is not the Prime Minister or any other minister, because it is the dissolution of parliament, so why they keep calling him the Prime Minister is beyond me.
I seem to recall that once someone put on the voting slip that he was a Literal Democrat and won the seat: it was a deliberate ploy about illiteracy. If you don't vote you cant complain, that's my opinion. Sometimes i make a spoiled vote, but i always vote. People died and fought wars to give us the suffrage, that is respect to them. I already have my postal vote. I'm sorry but it is something I care deeply about. Si Trew (talk) 16:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: I think that you have not understood the nature of my listing. I did not suggest the redirect′s deletion but its retargeting.--The Theosophist (talk) 19:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@The Theosophist: I am not sure where you should like it to be retargeted. It's probably better if we WP:TWODABS somehow or hatnote the two of them United Kingdom general election debates, 2015 and United Kingdom general election debates, 2010 Howecver for now, and I know WP:NOTNEWS but what people would likely search for, is the upcoming general election on May 7, not the one in 2010. What to do? Si Trew (talk) 19:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I could probably WP:RS that but since I don't live in the UK and just waatch TV from abroad, it would all be online RS. But most of the papers now have online versions. Si Trew (talk) 20:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We do have parliamentary debate but that would seem to me exactly the wrong target. The thing is, even their broadcast is controversial in the UK whereas not in the US where it is customary, so I am not sure quite how I would cover that article. I'll make a draft, after my interview, for your consideration. Si Trew (talk) 21:01, 20 April 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.

Exselenc Georg General Waschingdon

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) 17:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be the name of a painting? In any case, a redirect from this mangled of a name to George Washington seems implausible to me. Tavix |  Talk 

Comment. The painting, apparently, is in Colonial Williamsburg so we could maybe retarget there, but not sure that is a good idea. I am not sure what language this is but I would guess something Slavic. Si Trew (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Americans don't do honorary titles, and we have His Excellency: George Washington, but that is a biography not the bloke himself. We also have General George Washington → George Washington., so perhaps this is ((R from other language)), but I can't identify which language (I've tried hard). Si Trew (talk) 13:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@BDD: sorry I had missed your comment when I wrote mine below, I was busy trying to establish the language but you kinda already had and the glory is yours not mine. These things are obvious in retrospect but none of the common identification tools know of it, so it baffled me until i thought of the bleeding obvious. Si Trew (talk) 07:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nice find. Is it Pennsylvania Dutch(i.e. Pennsylvania German, which somewhat pointlessly is in the infobox but redirects back to itself), "Dutch" being a corruption of "Deutsch") then? That would make sense but doesn't say so at your external link. Si Trew (talk) 05:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See this for the piece's full title. Another describes it as by an "unknown Pennsylvania artist", so Pennsylvania Dutch seems likely. BMK (talk) 10:31, 23 April 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.

Top 100 Highest Selling Albums

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. Indeed, this and the below redirect did go to the same place. --BDD (talk) 14:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems an unlikely search term, just redirects to another article with no explanation why. Mdann52 (talk) 13:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Whatever the decision, I think this and the one below should go to the same place. If I remember correctly, it wasn't BARB but some other survey organisation, took the "Top 100" not from the actual retail sales but from the reported retail sails, so if record shops misreported it for whatever reason, fair means or foul, it would incredibly skew the figures: that doesn't happen any more, but note for example that the Advertising Standards Authority is constantly taking the big cosmetics companies to task for having incredibly small samples, they'll have Jennifer Aniston on, with 86% of 123 people agree, which has no statistical significance, especially as the sample is self-selected. Nowadays I think they do it through EPOS till receipts. Si Trew (talk) 21:11, 20 April 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.

Top 100 Albums

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems an unlikely search term, just redirects to another article with no explanation why Mdann52 (talk) 13:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retargetto DAB at Top 100. Si Trew (talk) 18:01, 20 April 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.

Oddish

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 withdrawn, and refined. Incidentally, you could describe me the same way. --BDD (talk) 15:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is only mentioned in the article in essentially a hatnote so it is self-referential, there is no information about this character. Si Trew (talk) 03:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, we need to make it an ((R to section)) then. Will log in again in a minute but having Internet problems today. 62.165.241.104 (talk) 14:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC) (User:SimonTrew).[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.
More