Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 November 21

November 21

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 21, 2009

K55KN-D

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 12:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as "7. If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful." This name was the ITU broadcast callsign for a six-watt broadcast translator or repeater which had been installed to receive the KUSA (TV) signal from Denver and rebroadcast it to a very small area in Cortez, Colorado on UHF TV channel 55. These tiny transmitters are numerous, particularly in the Rocky Mountains or other geographically-difficult regions where direct over-the-air broadcast reception is marginal. This transmitter was operated by a municipal-level group, and the numbered callsign is based on the channel number plus two letters which are simply sequentially assigned by the FCC. The redirect is plausible as long as K55KN-D still exists as a licensed transmitter on that channel, but it does not. Channels 52-69 are being reassigned to land-mobile and cellular use, so http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/tvq?call=K55KN-D draws a blank. Presumably the transmitter has been given some other numbered callsign on some other channel (good luck guessing which one, maybe the Southwest CO TV Translator Association - a small local group - knows) but a historical callsign for a six-watt rebroadcaster which originates nothing on a channel which has been reassigned to Qualcomm for its MediaFLO product is historically entirely forgettable. If the new callsign can be determined, redirect those calls to KUSA (TV), but this redirect is of no further use. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 20:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What i would recommend is if someone in the Cortez, Colorado area could confirm if they still recieve KUSA's programming, and if so, on which channel. After that, it woudl be trivial to find out what the station's new call letters and channel are. We simply need someone with a local perspective to assist us. Alternately, contacting whoever owns the transmitter could possibly confirm the information for us. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 20:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that would just give a virtual channel number; http://www.swcotv.org/DigitalTV.htm lists "channel 24.1" to KUSA with the other digital subchannels on the same transmitter allocated to competing network affiliates. If the virtual channel happens to match the physical channel number for this site, then K24CH-D is the most likely candidate. Redirecting K24CH-D → KUSA (TV) makes no sense though, unless KUSA were the only station being rebroadcast on UHF DT24 Cortez. Redirecting K24CH-D → Southern Colorado TV Translator Association also fails as a municipal-level rebroadcaster, originating no programming of its own, would not be notable enough for an article. The redirect from the defunct UHF 55 translator calls is useless in any case. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 21:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for the time being as low-powered analog transmitters are still being permitted in the USA... at least for the time being. Class A and low-powered stations have not been required to change to a new digital frequency yet, and all evidence indicates that the relay transmitter in Cortez, Colorado, is still transmitting. Similarly, low powered stations and repeaters within the Channels 52-69 interval still operate with the blessing of the FCC. Since the the LPTV relay station is mentioned in the target article, keeping the redirect as-is is the most prudent course of action here. Wikipedia cannot presume: the existence of the relay station was confirmed by the FCC and reflected in the target article, and no change should be made until there is official evidence to the contrary specific to the LPTV transmitter in question. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The FCC now does not confirm the existence of any Channel 55 station in Cortez, Colorado (TV query - FCC - UHF55) and also draws a blank for the K55KN-D callsign. Any station with -D -LD -CD -DT suffix is digital, by definition. I'm not questioning that LPTV still exists on out-of-core channels (there's plenty of it and it could take years to move it all), I'm just saying that this particular LPTV does not exist on the K55KN-D calls nor on "channel 55 Cortez CO". If KUSA's article claims K55KN-D still exists under that callsign and channel assignment, the article is incorrect. Primary source here is FCC.gov, not an encyclopaedia page. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 04:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Dr. Condi

The result of the discussion was kept. Killiondude (talk) 08:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She is not known as "Dr. Condi" so a redirect of this sort is not helpful. Tavix |  Talk  18:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

WP:Speedy close

The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete. It seems like everyone in this discussion would be happy if it were redirected to a more suitable page. Discussion can continue outside of RFD about where this should be (e.g. Wikipedia:Snowball clause?) or whether this should be explicitly defined somewhere. delldot ∇. 19:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redirect; term "speedy close" is regularly used in discussions with meanings other than "speedy keep"; examples include FA and featured picture discussions [3] [4], though there are many more. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree that they are not the same, although if guidelines exist I would expect them to be similar to WP:SK. Are there any guidelines for FAC/FPC/GAN? If there are, it should be redirected to a more appropriate target, or made into a disambiguation page; if not then something (either an essay or proposed guideline) should be there. snigbrook (talk) 16:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the time being. Edit note by originator has actually asked for a discussion at WT:Speedy keep, but I see no such discussion occurring. As most instances of speedy close are resulting in keeping, rather than deleting, I can see the originator's rationale and partially agree with it. There is no formalized "speedy close" page in Wikipedia, yet the term is exclusive to the project, and the phrase is used quite often in deletion discussions. Until someone wishes to write a standalone Wikipedia:Speedy close, it would seem to me that the best thing to do is to keep it as is until someone writes a section in Wikipedia:Closing discussions discussing early closes - and then retarget the redirect to it. This is a case in which deletion would be much more harmful than fixing the (apparent) problem that caused it in the first place. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but this argument maks no sense whatever to me. This redirect doesn't reflect consensus use of the term, which turns up thousands of times in discussions, often enough outside the deletion context. It therefore shouldn't exist; it didn't exist until last month, although the phrase has been used in discussions for years. We don't need to write policies or guidelines for every phrase that people use regularly in discussions. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. They're not the same thing. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Daily Propaganda

The result of the discussion was delete. Killiondude (talk) 08:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect a sarcastic nickname for the newspaper and not encyclopedic. NellieBly (talk) 13:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Daily Wail

The result of the discussion was delete. Killiondude (talk) 08:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect a sarcastic nickname for the newspaper and not encyclopedic. NellieBly (talk) 13:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Daily Hate

The result of the discussion was Retarget per Xeno. Ruslik_Zero 12:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect a sarcastic nickname for the paper and not encyclopedic. NellieBly (talk) 13:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Judgemental & Judgementalism

The result of the discussion was Retarget to value judgment. There's a general (but not unanimous) agreement to retarget rather than delete. The argument for retargeting to Judgmental language is not well supported because we don't need to be organizng the mainspace to aid in understanding WP guidelines. I will look at the WLH page and retarget other redirs that are substantially the same. delldot ∇. 18:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both redirect to Discourse on judgmentalism which is a "Major event in Jesus' life from the Gospels". As opposed to what i strongly think it should be, and that is an article about judgmental people: "Stop judging me.", "You can't judge me." "I would tell him but he would just judge me for it." or something, too which people could very possibly be looking for. Yet for some obscure reason it goes to a biblical page. Surely you can understand why this should be changed. IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 06:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Edit redirect & Address spelling issues on first at least. Hm, haven't decided on the second. "Judgmental" and "Judgemental" really need to be going to Judgmental language since the idea of the logical fallacy is part of Wikipedia guideline interpretation and is not in any way whatsoever religious... it's inexcusable. Sadly, there might be a hundred different spellings to correct, for how this contributor seems to like to cover every imaginable misspelling of things. That's normally great, but when it needs changes it's a mess. Well, this is a start. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 08:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit redirect. The word "judgmental" has a number of meanings beside "judging other people" (including legal and, yes, religious meanings), and I suggest it be redirected simply to "judgment". Leave the spelling alone, as both "judgment" and "judgement" are perfectly acceptable regional spellings. --NellieBly (talk) 13:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: There are an additional 13 variants of these two terms, of varied spelling. See (Special:WhatLinksHere/Discourse_on_judgmentalism&hidelinks=1&hidetrans=1) for more information. --Taelus (talk) 20:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all the related ones from "Whatlinks here". These are common words and their misspelling and there is no reason to assume everybody would have the discourse in mind and if commenters come up here each with a different alternative target (mine would be value judgment), it's probably best to not have redirects at all. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_November_21&oldid=1138576989"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 November 21, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.