Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 February 5

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

February 5

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 5, 2010

W/IFS

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 05:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No indication in the article or provided sources that this band is ever referred to by such an abbreviation. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Yuta and the Bushido Boys

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 05:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect serves no purpose and the group does not appear to be real. Yuta and the Bushido Boys only appear have a hit on Wikipedia. MS (Talk|Contributions) 22:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proteases: Essential Tools of Angiogenesis'''

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 05:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redirect contains broken markup, but {{db-redirtypo}} doesn't seem to apply since it is over eight months old. ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Snowpocalypse

The result of the discussion was converted to a disambiguation page during the discussion. As there is consensus that this term should be covered on Wikipedia somewhere, and converting it to a disambig was suggested here this seems to be within the spirit of the process, even if not the precise letter. As it is no longer a redirect it is outside the purview of RfD, so I'm being bold and closing this one slightly early. Discussion on whether to merge this with Snowmageddon, and if so in which direction, should talk place on the article talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 20:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of the redirect's target storm actually being called by this name exists in the article. This is the first time I've heard it called that, actually. Tckma (talk) 19:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

\o

The result of the discussion was Retarget to List of emoticons ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently a redirect from an emoticon for waving to a page that describes the meaning of waving (with hands - not the emoticon). The current target is a redirect to another page that describes the hand gesture. I find it unlikely that any user would find redirect from an emoticon based on a hand gesture to discussion of the hand gesture itself enlightening. Cnilep (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Länsi-Suomen

The result of the discussion was Delete as erroneous and unused terms. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Misnomer-redirects from a foreign language. It's hard to see a non-Finn typing any of these in, and even harder to see a Finn typing any of these in because these aren't in fact the Finnish names of the provinces. (They might use "Länsi-Suomi" or "Länsi-Suomen lääni", but not these. Similarly, an American might search for California or State of California, but not of California.)

They have only ever been used parroting [1] (a major source of our articles on Olympic athletes) in identifying Finnish athletes' cities of birth. To my knowledge, this no longer occurs anywhere at Wikipedia, not only because of the awful grammar but also for other, equally valid reasons (such as the provinces no longer existing). Sideways713 (talk) 16:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for now as "Länsi-Suomen" (in quotes) generates 637,000 Ghits, "Etelä-Suomen " 890,000 Ghits, and "Itä-Suomen" 1,120,000 Ghits; so if they're misnomers or typographical errors, they are very plausible ones. Because of their widespread use (and possible misuse), it is likely that someone would be using these terms for a search or clicking onto a live link with this term. I should also point out that although of California is a redlink, Californian is not (in fact, it's a disambiguation page). 147.70.242.54 (talk) 17:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ghits are not a very good indicator of plausibility. of California, for instance, gets 61,000,000 Ghits - 13 times more than Californian - but that doesn't mean it's the more plausible search term. Sideways713 (talk) 13:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These redirects are misleading as they imply that the province name is (was) "Länsi-Suomen", which it was not. Note, however, that this incorrect usage is found in articles, eg. [2], [3]. "Tampere, Länsi-Suomen, Finland" is incorrect and should at least be "Tampere, Länsi-Suomi, Finland", or correctly, "Tampere, Western Finland" – the best variant would be just "Tampere, Finland", though. Jafeluv (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:NPOV-date

The result of the discussion was Delete as unopposed nomination of redundant and unused templates ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is exactly the reason of the "-date"? Almost all tags support dates anyway. Magioladitis (talk) 13:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating as well:

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

Yikatong

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, with article creation encouraged. Tagged with {{R with possibilities}} --Taelus (talk) 17:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There're many Yikatongs in China. Not only for transportation (in many cities), but also credit cards. See zh:一卡通. Hat600 (talk) 09:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Until there are articles on those, at which point it can be turned into a disambiguation page, what's the harm in having a redirect? The target article refers to the card as "Yikatong" throughout and even names it that in the infobox. Gurch (talk) 11:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shanghai Public Transportation Card exists, but "Yikatong" is not pointed out in the article.--Hat600 (talk) 14:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Taelus (talk) 11:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. There is no reason to delete and even if there are other meanings a Google search tells me that the Bejing card is by far the most likely target an English speaker would have in mind. While this doesn't stand in the way of better disambiguation (consider also hatnotes) or expansion, further discussion can take palce on the talk page if necessaryTikiwont (talk) 21:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Deadly and bloody confrontation

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 05:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating this for deletion, as I do not think it is an approprate redirect. "Deadly and bloody confrontation" is too general a descriptor to apply to a specific article, as it could be used to describe anything from World War I down to the murder of an individual. It does not appear that that this phrase is commonly used as an altenate 'name' for the Bangladesh Liberation War (although I have only looked at the target article, feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken), making this an unlikely search term for the specific conflict. The only article previously linking to this redirect was the lead section of This time the struggle is for our freedom (which I altered to bypass the redirect in this edit). -- saberwyn 07:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, the phrase doesn't appear in GNews, GScholar, or GBooks. The only 11 GHits are irrelevant or Wikipedia mirrors. I'm guessing this was added erroneously by someone who didn't understand how to link directly from the phrase "deadly and bloody confrontation" to his desired target.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 08:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, way too ambiguous to pin down onto a single target, and it's one of those redirects which would have a different "best target" in different peoples minds. Whilst not as blatant, it strikes me as being in the field of "Worst Song Ever" and "Best operating system" in terms of redirect titles, it cannot be targetted without being biased towards a point of view, and wouldn't be a good disambiguation page. --Taelus (talk) 11:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - phrase is to general to be tied down to a specific event. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

BYLC (disambiguation)

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 05:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no BYLC page, nor are there other articles that need to be disambiguated.

It was a prodded dab page that I redirected to the main article. BYLC is implausible as a redirect title. Shadowjams (talk) 04:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, totally unnecessary with the (disambiguation) disambiguator. However, "BYLC" (without parenthetical) is entirely plausible as a redirect for the Bangladesh Youth Leadership Center. It's GHit numero uno; the site is www.bylc.org.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 08:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Newport Corporation

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 Convert to disambiguation page --Taelus (talk) 10:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest deletion, because Newport Corporation has nothing to do with Newport City Council Oakwood (talk) 02:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as there appears no valid target that appears in the Wikipedia search results for "Newport Corporation". Another redirect, Newport Corporation Transport, redirects to Newport Transport, but the word "Corporation" appears in that article only as a part of a street address. Because Newport Corporation exists (and significantly so, it appears), a listing in WP:Requested articles would also be advisable. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 02:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakish keep. I believe the Newport Corporation used to be the name of the governing body of Newport before the City Council was formed in 1996 (for governing boards with similar names, see Harvard Corporation and Yale Corporation). For instance, see here from newport.gov.uk: "[T]he House was bought by Newport Corporation in March 1939 for £3,250 for use as Judge’s Lodgings. . . . In 1936 Newport Corporation decided to build a new Civic Centre." This book has a whole chapter on the Newport Corporation as a municipal governing body—except it's talking about Newport, Isle of Wight. Given the existence of another body with a claim to this name, I'm fairly neutral, but since only the Newport City Council has an article, I'll come down on the keep side.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 09:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to DAB page because 1.) There is a current commercial comapny called Newport Corporation [7], which is what comes up in Google, and is quite likely what a vistor would be looking for. 2.) In England and Wales "corporation" was an alternative style for a borough or city council prior to the local government reforms of 1974. There were four Newport Corporations, one for the borough in the Isle of Wight, one for the county borough in Monmouthshire, one for an unreformed borough in Pembrokeshire and one for an unreformed borough in Shropshire. The corporations in Pembs and Salop were abolished in 1886, but the other two survived until 1974. The successor to the Mon. county borough, following a couple of reorganisations, is Newport City Council, but it doesn't seem to have primacy over any of the other possibilities. Lozleader (talk) 11:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • disambiguate per user:Lozleader. There are multiple encyclopaedic entities that do or did use this name. Thryduulf (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify per above, but only if the term actually appears in the articles that would be listed in the proposed dab page. Otherwise the disambiguation would not make sense. If it can't be reasonably done, a stub article for the corporation of the same name (Listing in Yahoo Business) would be more appropriate. B.Wind (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dab page per Lozleader - globally, I'm sure that at least as many readers are likely to be looking for the laser technology company as are looking for the city council (which most readers would look for as "council" rather than the old-fashioned "corporation"). Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
  1. ^ http://voices.washingtonpost.com/achenblog/2010/02/the_storm_before_the_storm.html?wprss=achenblog
  2. ^ http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1425
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2010_February_5&oldid=1148047942"