Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 June 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 23[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 23, 2010

Glaciers of Saint Helena and others[edit]

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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect serves no useful purpose. See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_7#Glaciers_of_Gabon. All were created by User:The Transhumanist on the 7th of December last year. Speedy based on previous MfD was declined. Verbal chat 19:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Seulium‎[edit]

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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - none are mentioned in the target pages and thus would be confusing for a searcher. Also, I have not been able to source connections with the targets. The stats show negligible hits. The previously created Pusan is fine as a valid transcription. Please note, I have boldly retargeted Seulia. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I think someone's trying to introduce Latin-language redirects? (Well, I think, since I don't know latin) 76.66.195.196 (talk) 04:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

This time it's personal[edit]

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 converted to disambiguation page. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - tagline for the movie, yes, but not (AFAICT) the original or predominant use of the phrase. TB (talk) 18:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ta. I did nearly dab the page myself but got mired in the myriad of nearly-relevant entries. Your version looks great. - TB (talk) 07:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Cricket World Cup 2000-2010[edit]

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 speedy deleted as WP:CSD A10 by Malik Shabazz. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely unlikely search term. Codf1977 (talk) 07:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As nom I support Bridgeplayer's replacement of CSD tag. Codf1977 (talk) 16:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

"Division"s redirecting to "University of Chicago"[edit]

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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hopeless generic redirect titles. Dividing these subject areas up into separate subfields have nothing to do with the University of Chicago.

76.66.195.196 (talk) 04:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per nom, too generic and misleading. I also don't see any hope of finding plausible retargets.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 05:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - these would be frustrating to any searcher looking for the generic subject or a division at another university. Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Exactly. Anyone could search for "Division of the Biological Sciences" and get an entirely different university from the one they want. Chicago is certainly not the only one to study these terms. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all there isn't a single clear target for any of these terms, and it's not like Chicago is the only university with a physical sciences division. Hut 8.5 19:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per above; too general. —fetch·comms 19:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete all: too generic, but I would not characterize them as “hopeless.” Bwrs (talk) 22:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

"Yield"s redirecting to "University"[edit]

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 Yield rate, delete rest. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has little or nothing to do with "University". Yield rates are something you find in production or chemistry, acceptance yields in production and quality control, and admission rates are also found in exclusive preschools, kindergartens, etc.

76.66.195.196 (talk) 04:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all but Yield rate for now, and retarget that one to Yield. We could actually have a pretty good article on the topic of education admissions yield rates, and these should be left as redlinks to (theoretically) encourage that. The nom is correct, too, that these issues also come up in non-university educations admissions, but I don't think we have articles on non-university admissions -- the only educational admissions article I see at all is University and college admissions. These acceptance and yield concepts are not, however, discussed there, so it would make a bad retarget at present.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 05:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Yield rate to Yield and Admission rate to University and college admissions and delete the rest. I accept that Admission rate also applies to pre-university education but there is sufficient of relevance in the proposed retarget to make it worthwhile. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

BEST KOREA[edit]

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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A minor internet meme, not a likely search term. Most likely anyone who searches for this knows about the meme, so they already know what the target should be. On the other hand, anyone who doesn't know about the meme might think that we're actually implying that North Korea is the best Korea. The POV interpretation is a good reason not to have this. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unless the meme is discussed at the target (which, thankfully, it isn't) the redirect is potentially misleading and does not provide helpful information.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 05:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Creating such a redirect is very much harmless and ought deserve an exception. Also remember... for every 50people that come to search for BEST KOREA, one of them will be new to Wikipedia. If there's even a chance that their haphazard visit to Wikipedia might lead them to reading other articles and from there, self-improvement, it is for the greater good to permit the redirect. Poshycat (talk) 14:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Glen's comments.-- φ OnePt618Talk φ 07:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think it is notable enough to warrant the redirect. Ex1le (talk) 13:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There should be a WP:SOPROVEIT for votes like this. Ironholds (talk) 13:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No semblance of notability. Ironholds (talk) 13:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The redirect is not helpful, and implies a POV for anyone who is unfamiliar with the meme. And since when are memes like this notable on Wikipedia? The Thing // Talk // Contribs 13:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a 4chan meme based on this picture.—Perceval 13:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: WP:CANVASSING going on at 4chan /int/ at the moment, see this page. I recommend ignoring all IP and new users from now on. (P.S. - I am a Wikipedia user, but have not logged in to conceal my identity from 4channers. An admin with checkuser should be able to know who I am.) 220.245.209.35 (talk) 13:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even if it is an internet meme, it should be kept because it might not be known to a user who would go look look it up. In response to the comment above, there is nothing in the rules about being banned from getting others to support it on Wikipedia. --Conor Fallon (talk) 13:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if the meme isn't mentioned on the main article, this is likely to be mistaken as POV. Claritas § 13:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pointless redirect. — Timneu22 · talk 15:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. It can be recreated if something worthwhile is added to the target. At present it is simply confusing. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this nonsense immediately, there's hardly anything to discuss here. Who thinks this is a suitable link for Wikipedia, apparently mistakes an encyclopedia for a tabloid newspaper, to say the least. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog | woof! 10:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. There is no mention of the meme in the target article. Gobonobo T C 10:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep . The amount of use on the internet and popular culture of the phrase best korea more than justifies this long overdue change.--Final Philosopher (talk) 23:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above delete arguments (and I found the link to here on 4chan by the way). —Soap— 23:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is enough space for a redirect like this in wikipedia 188.96.114.251 (talk) 23:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)— 188.96.114.251 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete Some clown is spamming this link on 4chan to try and get people to support it. I say delete it just to demonstrate that that kind of behaviour shouldn't be tolerated. Besides, wikipedia is a serious place. No time for gooks. !MNc99 (talk) 23:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep May mark a important shift in politics shift of the grundnorm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.173.18 (talk) 00:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC) — 211.30.173.18 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete because everyone knows South Corea is Best Corea ^__^ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.252.88 (talk • contribs) 01:27, 2010 June 24— 72.66.252.88 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Hello, KIMCHI/!oz3qCOREA/whatever, aren't I surprised to see you here. You're not thread-spamming /int/ at the moment? That's a first. 220.245.209.35 (talk) 05:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt every permutation of the capitalization too. This is an easy move. Shadowjams (talk) 06:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt as per the arguments above. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Help with HTML web programing[edit]

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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Originally created with just an external link to an HTML guide. An unnecessary redirect due to misspelling, and also inappropriate and misleading because HTML is not a help manual and Wikipedia does not provide programming help.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 01:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I have had a good look around but I haven't been able to find a sound retarget for this redirect. The present target is misleading since it doesn't meet the needs of someone using this search term. Putting it humanely out of its misery seems the kindest solution. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment would it be apropos to redirect this to the HTML article on Wikiversity, or is that a faux pas?-- φ OnePt618Talk φ 07:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: See WP:CROSS. I would oppose it in this case both because of the misspelling ("programing") and on the principle of WP:NOTTEXTBOOK: there's no sense in encouraging cross-namespace redirects from "Help with..." or "How do I..." titles.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 14:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. Thanks, Glenfarclas! :-)-- φ OnePt618Talk φ 16:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should have said "cross-project redirects" anyway -- surely more controversial and problematic than mere cross-namespace redirects!  Glenfarclas  (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Artifact. Misspelled. Unlikely - I think anyone looking for linking for HTML help should type this term in their search engine, or, if using Wikipedia, just type "HTML". There's a limit to how much we can help the user here. And anyway, does our HTML article actually provide much practical help for HTML programming? Herostratus (talk) 04:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

You carry oats[edit]

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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Silly redirect from an implausible search term. Also nominating You carry oats., I carry oats and I carry oats. for the same reason (all created by the same user). Robofish (talk) 00:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. The last three are particularly foolish, but even "You carry oats," which is sometimes given as a phonetic spelling, is not at all common enough to be plausible. Except in certain unusual cases, we don't need redirects from this type of alternative name.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 00:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - The redirects are not needed since these phonetic versions are also used in conjunction with Eukaryote and any search would, clearly, be made on the prime term. Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - We have a much bigger problem; take a look at these contributions. Some of the redirects are likely to be useful but very many are unnecessary. Deciding how to deal with them is not easy. If they were all brought here they would flood the project. Having said that, since they are unlikely to meet the criteria for speedy deletion, unilateral admin action would be considered to be out of process. Tricky! Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment took a stab at the most egregious with CSD, prod, and two RFDs above, and dabifying and retargetting. Geeze, the extreme Illinois and Korean bias is stupefying. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 05:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You carry oats and delete the other three. You carry oats is a homophone of eukaryotes and is therefore a plausible search term for someone who has heard the word but has not seen it in print. Remember kids use wikipedia too. Gobonobo T C 11:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You carry oats and delete the other three, per Gobonobo. Herostratus (talk) 08:41, 26 June 2010 (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/2010_June_23&oldid=1148047912"