Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 February 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 5[edit]

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

W/IFS[edit]

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]

  • Delete - no mentioned anywhere, not even the band's own Facebook page (which tends to abbreviate the name as "Inferno"). 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:10, 8 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[edit]

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]

  • Delete - nothing to indicate that this group (if it truly exists) would come even close to meeting WP:BAND or even releasing anything that would be reported in reliable sources. B.Wind (talk) 03:22, 6 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'''[edit]

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]

  • Delete per nom, an artifact of bad titling never cleaned up after a pagemove.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 03:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Snowpocalypse[edit]

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]

  • Keep Speaking as a DC-area resident who felt the brunt of the storm, I never heard the term "Snowpocalypse" either--until the second blizzard-level snow of the season was first forecast this week. Now the December storm seems widely referred to as "Snowpocalypse" by the media (e.g., the Washington Post[1]; Weather Underground[2]). We'll see if this name sticks, but it appears likely to (and trying to find the storm by that name is what led me to the redirect and this discussion)--and given the multiple occurrences in various sources, the redirect should stay, at least for now. Krinsky (talk) 20:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as creator. Redirects are cheap, and I've heard this term (even in reliable sources) numerous times. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, a quick search reveals that the term has been used by several groups, however there are also infrequent usages of the term when referring to a 2008 storm, so this may potentially not be the best target, especially if another storm occurs which has the term applied to it. But for now, keeping it seems a good idea as the 2009 blizzard is seemingly the more common usage. (Also, not a valid argument I know, but a google search flags it as being a highly frequent search term, 45th most searched term recently.) Hope this helps, --Taelus (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Tonight's NBC Nightly News used the term to describe the current DC snowstorm, however. DarkAudit (talk) 05:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete other storms have carried this name before. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - MSNBC and the Washington Post are both using this term to describe the current 2010 storm.   — C M B J   08:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - At least until the situation occurs in which another blizzard is given this name. I can't find indication of other blizzards having this name in the past; even if they have, this one seems to be the more prominent, and therefore more likely to be searched for, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 11:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm also a DC resident, and I've never heard the term in use until today. Stupid or not, looks like it's around to stay for now. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as disambiguation page The phrase has been widely-used in DC for both the current storm and the 2009 storm. Propaniac (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about redirecting it to Blizzard? –Juliancolton | Talk 19:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but against a disambiguation page. I like Julian's suggestion of redirecting to blizzard. Erik (talk) 18:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Juliancolton Otebig (talk) 22:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to blizzard per Julian; in addition, redirect Snowmageddon (which essentially duplicates the now-proposed snowpocalypse dab page to the same place). We don't need two redundant dab pages duplicating each other, and the "See also" section of "blizzard" can be very accommodating. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 17:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Weather Channel used it this morning. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was not the first snowstorm or blizzard to which they've appended this term. It won't be the last. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 18:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Speedy keep/Merge/Or just delete it: This discussion is interfering with what I feel is the proper development of the article(s). First, this isn't even a redirect, so I've no clue what we're doing here (was this reworked into a dab page or something?) However, I've added a merge to/merge from to both this and the Snowmageddon page, and I'm converting Snowmageddon into an actual article. Having one article to cover both terms would be ideal I think, but I don't really want to mess with Snowpocalypse until this is closed one way or another.
    — V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 18:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

\o[edit]

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]

  • retarget to List of emoticons. Thryduulf (talk) 00:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Thryduulf, but only if the emoticon is actually shown in the proposed new target (sourcing it wouldn't be a bad itea, either). B.Wind (talk) 18:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: List of emoticons includes "\o o/", which might be intended as two emoticons - this one and one and a left-handed equivalent. Cnilep (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Länsi-Suomen[edit]

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[edit]

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[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 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]
  • Keep as seven of the eight Wikipedia articles mentioning Yikatong are articles mentioning Beijing transportation specifically, while the eighth is simply Index of China-related articles (M-Z). Should there be Wikipedia articles indicating the use of Yikatongs outside of Beijing, I'd recommend overwriting the redirect with a Yikatong stub article describing its use. But for now, the current redirect suffices. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Articlize seems like an article should be created then. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • make an article - the nomination statement combined with the redirect makes it sound like there is a misconception going on here that could best be sorted out by having an article explaining things. Thryduulf (talk) 19:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate between at least the Beijing, Shanghai, and Kaohsiung (Gaoxiong) uses. —Кузьма討論 05:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • At present all Wikipedia articles containing the word "Yikatong" mention its use in Beijing. There are none mentioning uses in other cities... and for the dab page to be a valid one, this must change to include such mentions. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Kaohsiung article mentions 一卡通, and would just need the pinyin added. —Кузьма討論 16:30, 3 February 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[edit]

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)[edit]

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[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 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"