Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 June 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 2[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 2, 2014.

Art Education - Virginia Commonwealth 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 to VCU School of the Arts. This is a long-standing redirect, over 7 years old, and such redirects are only deleted if they are in some way harmful. WP:RFD#HARMFUL states "Therefore consider the deletion only of either really harmful redirects or of very recent ones.". The original target was potentially confusing to the reader but the retarget is what any searcher would likely be seeking and certainly does not meet any WP:RFD#DELETE criteria. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 20:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This strikes me as a pretty useless redirect. It's hardly a valid search term in the first place, and the article it points to has nothing to say on the topic. Drmies (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Bachelor of Arts. Si Trew (talk) 16:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Drmies (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because an education in arts is not specific to one university. Where do you suggest? Do you want it to retarget to MIT? Mass. is also a Commonwealth: and I also live in a commonwealth, albeit a rather larger one. It's not the "Arts" that is the problem, it's the "Commomwealth" that makes it misleading. I could have suggested St Martin's in the Fields or the Bolton School or whatever. Si Trew (talk) 20:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Except the redirect title includes Virginia Commonwealth University in it, so it couldn't possibly refer to any other commonwealth. Ego White Tray (talk) 21:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Confusing redirect due to lack of description at target article, and retargeting to Bachelor of Arts is misleading since a Bachelor of Arts/Art Education is not exclusive to the current target, nor would the redirect aid any reader in finding specific information regarding the arts program an Virginia Commonwealth University. Steel1943 (talk) 21:30, 26 May 2014 (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) 17:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per BDD. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC).
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.

Federal Republic of Australia[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 to Republicanism in Australia in accordance with the consensus view. The present title is certainly unhelpful to the reader. The retarget has the technical deficiency, as pointed out, of redirecting a state type to a movement. However, the benefit of the retarget is that it will cause minimum surprise to the reader and it is likely to provide relevant information. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 01:51, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not an official name TheChampionMan1234 03:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Republicanism in Australia. It is a federation but not a republic: as many Australians have been complaining about for years: but Mrs. Queen won the vote last time with the state of Victoria swinging it, if I recall correctly. Si Trew (talk) 06:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Republicanism in Australia, which is more likely to provide information the reader looks for. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 23:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and tag as an incorrect name. I think we can be reasonably certain that a reader using this search term is looking for a state, rather than an overview of a political system. There's no mention of a "federal republic" at Republicanism in Australia. On the other hand, it seems a rather silly redirect when a reader could just as easily type "Australia" alone, which is far more likely anyway. Keep or delete, but I'm not sold on the retargeting proposal. --BDD (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2014 (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) 17:22, 2 June 2014 (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.

O21[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 move O21 (disambiguation) to O21. JohnCD (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

021 do not represent Hoopa Airport much but there's a film Operation 021, as its title has been changed so I want to move this film article to O21. Please delete this redirect or suggest me another way. UBStalk 05:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate "O21" is common speech for and confused with 021, for which there are several articles 021 articles so... turn 021 into a disambiguation page, and point O21 to it as a variant, for which we also have several articles O21 articles -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 07:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alternately, the disambiguation page can sit at O21 with 021 pointing to it, either way, we should have disambiguation page(s) at the bare titles. I think area code isn't be the primary topic, since the area code is a list of area codes that are 021, not a particular area code. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the film has not been released yet, and the poster seems to show "O 21" -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 07:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DAB per 65.94. It's a bit WP:CRYSTAL then, isn't it? I was wondering even if it should go to 02 Arena or 02 (a DAB) or List of dialling codes in the United Kingdom or something as likely typos. Si Trew editing as IP 188.143.15.1 (talk) 12:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Keep; do not DAB. Vote changed; see below. The phrase "O21" could clearly describe the airport, per its own article. Also, in the title of the other recommended target, Operation 021, the character before the "2" is a "0" (zero/number), not an "O" (letter). Retargeting to the movie would be misleading and inaccurate. Also, all other examples provided thus far are for titles using a "0" (zero/number), not an "O" (letter). Steel1943 (talk) 12:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The IP's idea of turning 021 into a disambiguation page with a link to O21 may be a feasible option, but the disambiguation page would have to be created at 021 (disambiguation) first; the area code may be the primary topic for the term "021", but that's a discussion that would be better off happening separately (and probably using the WP:RM nomination process.) Steel1943 (talk) 12:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I do realise it's a letter O not digit zero. I was just wondering if it were a likely typo. Si Trew editing as IP. 188.143.15.1 (talk) 12:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No worries Si: I didn't even realize that you were editing as an IP: my comment was directed towards 65.94. Steel1943 (talk) 12:51, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Och, no problems: I went for IP because I got fed up with a little spat at AfD: but I am big enough and ugly enough to stick up for myself, so I shan't let them beat me. I don't mind if they disagree with me, but I just thought their responses were abusive in the extreme. And when I said I shall take it to administrators for discussion – you can imagine what happened then. I shall continue to try to improve the encyclopaedia, just as you do. We shall disagree of course: but in a good natured way. I would buy you a pint any time. Si Trew (talk) 16:54, 26 May 2014 (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) 16:59, 2 June 2014 (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.

Template:Alien-stub[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. JohnCD (talk) 14:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Old redirect left from a stub tag rename in 2008 (see Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2008/February/25), no longerr used anywhere. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not specific enough to indicate it is about scifi. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: actually, to me this redirect is OK. Who knows, may be there still are {{alien-stub}} partisans with well-trained muscle memory? Why should we offend hypothetical partisans this way? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because it is unrelated to most aliens? It certainly can't be used on biographical articles on illegal aliens in the United States -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:16, 6 June 2014 (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.

Highway no-13[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 to List of highways numbered 13. The original redirect was created under dubious circumstances but the consensus retarget has produced a useful redirect that is a plausible search term. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 00:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gurnam singh dhaliwal vandalized the article Gurnam Singh (ex-CM Punjab) and converted into an autobiography about himself. This redirect was created during the time when target page remain vandalized. I have restored the content of Gurnam Singh. So this redirect is in appropriate. It should either redirect to a new title such as Gurnam Singh (actor) etc or be deleted. Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 07:43, 2 June 2014 (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.

Pop rap[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. --BDD (talk) 16:12, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pop rap currently redirects to Hip hop music. Given the existence of the article Pop-rap, the redirect doesn't make a lot of sense, and should be redirected to that article instead of Hip hop music. SpencerT♦C 02:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sheesh, just do it already nomination is not required in this case, and it's such a no-brainer. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy retarget. I'd do it myself but the page is edit-protected. Siuenti (talk) 08:58, 2 June 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_June_2&oldid=1141906284"