Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 October 9

October 9

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 9, 2012

Hamilton, Colorado (ghost town)

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. Ruslik_Zero 18:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hamilton, Colorado (ghost town) → Hamilton, Colorado (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]

The ghost town of Hamilton (the redirect) and the populated place of Hamilton, Colorado (the target) appear to be two different places. The populated place is located in Moffat County, while according to this page the ghost town is located in Chaffee County and this page shows it near Granite, Colorado off of Highway 24 and County Road 390. As such the link is misleading. Ravendrop 23:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redlink to encourage article creation. There is no history to preserve here - the original article was a copyright violation Ego White Tray (talk) 03:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as misleading. We want an article on the ghost town, but not necessarily at this title - there is inconsistency in the disambiguators used in Category:Ghost towns in Colorado which I'm about to flag up to WikiProject Ghost Towns. Thryduulf (talk) 09:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Make an article: appears to be a distinct settlement that probably passes the notability criteria for a geographical figure p b p 21:32, 11 October 2012 (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.

History and uses of nanotechnology

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. Ruslik_Zero 18:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History and uses of nanotechnology → Nanotechnology (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Not a likely search term TheLongTone (talk) 15:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC) ...redirect created to replace unecessary new artcle.TheLongTone (talk) 15:42, 9 October 2012 (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.

Pants on Fire

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 as a dab. Ruslik_Zero 18:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pants on Fire → Meg Cabot (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]

This redirect implies that the author is a liar. Sure, it's the name of one of her books, but someone typing this in the search box probably doesn't know that. There seems to be no article on the rhyme (liar liar pants on fire), so perhaps simple deletion is best here, or maybe redirecting to Politifact instead. Ego White Tray (talk) 15:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This gets a lot of hits (100-200/month) and the history shows that it has been used for vandalism in the past, so I don't think deletion is the right solution here. I recommend instead either to refine the target to Meg Cabot#Other young adult fiction, where the book is listed, or soft-retarget to Wiktionary wikt:liar liar pants on fire. At this moment I'm not sure which I prefer. Thryduulf (talk) 18:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Refine target as above. Prefer deletion to wiktionary. Siuenti (talk) 22:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It should be retargeted to disambiguation page or provide a hatnote at the top of Meg Cabot leading to the disambiguation page. 'Pants on fire' can refer to a few things.
—Sowlos (talk) 11:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So, a link to the proper section of Meg Cabot, a link to Lie, a link to skipping rhyme where liar liar pants on fire is one of many - what else would go on it? Ego White Tray (talk) 12:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate people using this redirect are probably not looking for Meg Cabot, so this is not what is wanted. (see google search [1]); even though Politifact uses the term alot, the fact is, it is a very common phrase. We have enough to build a disambiguation page, considering the various uses out in the wild [2] which have some sort of article on Wikipedia (such as Everybody Loves Raymond or The Good Wife). -- 70.24.247.66 (talk) 03:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have WP:BOLDly disambiguated it, leaving the RFD banner at the top. -- 70.24.247.66 (talk) 05:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there's also the redirect Pants On Fire -- 70.24.247.66 (talk) 05:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Disambiguation. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as disambiguation, although I'd also add a single sentence that describes it as a very common label (technically, an adjectival phrase) to strongly yet humorously denote a statement as completely false. (That's distinct from its origin, "liar, liar, pants on fire", which is an accusation of someone making a false statement.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:56, 11 October 2012 (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.

9223372036854775808

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 integer (computer science). Ruslik_Zero 18:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

9223372036854775808 → Power of two (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]

(It is 2^63) Very unlikely search term. As far as I know no other powers of this length are given redirects. Ravendrop 09:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's too new to have a firm idea of usage, but it does get a trickle of hits. It seems from Google, that the range of an unsigned 64-bit integer is -9223372036854775808 to 9223372036854775808, so it's not an implausible search term nor is it an arbitrary power to use. I'm not sure though whether it's useful or if so whether the current target is the best (64-bit computing or signedness might be better?). I'll leave a note for the computing and mathematics wikiprojects about this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 10:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless someone can cite a good reason why this specific power of 2 warrants a redirect over every other random power of 2, it should be deleted.
—Sowlos (talk) 12:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- I'd say the already explained significant usage in computing shows that this is not just a random power of 2. Thryduulf (talk) 18:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about 512, 1099511627776, 1.1259¹⁵, etcetera? Simmilar cases can be made.
Even if we assume it does deserve to exist due to its significance in computers, the article it points to should actually discuss the significance of that number. A random number redirect to Power of 2 in no way communicates why the said redirect is there.
—Sowlos (talk) 11:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I created it so that it would be included in the list of the more common Powers of two. Like 2⁶⁴, the maximum value of an unsigned 64-bit binary integer, 2⁶³ is the maximum value of a signed 64-bit binary integer. It's there for completeness, not for notoriety (although as time goes on and more of our computers move to 64-bit data paths, the interest in that particular value among programmers will no doubt increase). Currently, the redirects to that page include: 2147483648 (number), 18446744073709551616 (number), 2^32, and 2^x; and 2147483647 has its own article. Perhaps a better name would be 9223372036854775808 (number). — Loadmaster (talk) 15:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: actually the redirect to integer (computer science) would be a good option, if this number indeed was the maximum value of signed 64-bit int. Unfortunately the range of values of signed 64-bit int is from −2⁶³ (−9223372036854775808) to 2⁶³−1 (9223372036854775807), so this exact number can't be represented with signed 64-bit int. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 23:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That depends on the representation. In offset binary the range would be -9223372036854775807 to 9223372036854775808. Rich Farmbrough, 01:49, 15 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]
The rationale behind the redirect is implausible. The only way this number is discoverable is through the article; there is no need for a link in the opposite direction. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto.
—Sowlos (talk) 11:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obvs. 2^63 is the number of grains of rice on the last square of the chessboard. Rich Farmbrough, 01:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, probably retarget to integer (computer science). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:47, 17 October 2012 (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.

Fanmail (album)

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. Possible moves should be discussed at WP:RM. Ruslik_Zero 18:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fanmail (album) → FanMail (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]

For disambiguation purposes, I feel this redirect should be the other way around (or better yet, to FanMail (album)). Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 07:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm understanding you correctly, then you're proposing that the article about the album be at FanMail (album) and that FanMail and Fanmail (album) redirect there? If so you're in the wrong place - you want Wikipedia:Requested moves. Any redirects in the way of moves that have gained consensus will be dealt with at the time the move is performed. That said I disagree with what I think you are suggesting as the album doesn't need any disambiguation as it's distinct from Fan mail and both articles link to each other by hatnotes. Thryduulf (talk) 11:16, 9 October 2012 (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.

Wikipedia:Notable people

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 WP:Notability (people)]]. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notable people → Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]

This redirection is far too localized, IMHO. Should redirect to WP:Notability (people). Scray (talk) 05:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to WP:Notability (people) which makes more sense.--Lenticel ^(talk) 06:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a shortcut which has been in place for over a year. The term is not significantly used, only getting an average of 10 click throughs a month, and is only occasionally used in discussions, so is not high profile. If people feel that it would be of more use for WP:Notability (people), I don't think it would cause too much disruption. It's a pity though as "Notable people" is a well used term for geography articles, applied to sections with that name, so a shortcut using that term makes sense. Has a notice been sent to the Geography project who use this shortcut, informing them of this discussion? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per nominator. The only actual use appears to be at Talk:Culture of Dorset#Art and literature, so retargettting would not be significantly disruptive. The proposed target does have a section that seems relevant to the guidance at the current target (Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Lists of people), and I'm about to start a discussion on the talk page to confirm this and see whether settlements should be explicitly mentioned. Thryduulf (talk) 11:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget The term 'notable people' - from an international perspective - doesn't refer exclusively to individuals in the UK. Uninformed users finding this term in the search menu wont expect this. WP:Notable people should reflect this; it should redirect to WP:Notability (people).
—Sowlos (talk) 11:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily retargetted. Rich Farmbrough, 02:03, 15 October 2012 (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.