Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 February 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 12[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 12, 2013

Tooling[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 disambiguate -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not my request. Requested by 212.254.23.69 (talk) here: "No reason for it to be redirected to tool management." —Theopolisme (talk) 23:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget. This gets lots of hits, and should redirect somewhere but the current target is not the best. Previous targets of this redirect have been Tooling University and Machine tool, but I think that the generic Tool article is better than either, so that's my recommendation for now as I haven't found anything better, but I'm happy to consider other suggestions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • disambiguate we have Tooling U, Tool, Machine Tool, Tool Management ; specialized machine tools and jigs is frequently called "tooling" -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 06:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment — I'm not sure what to do with this specific redirect page right now, but I think that Tooling is a subject that deserves its own article. The problem is that the definition is so diffuse, and its use so common in the areas concerned, that it's been quite difficult (for myself at least) to find a source that adequately defines it. —Kierkkadon talk/contribs 19:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • disambiguate, probably to Tool, Tooling University and Machine tool. Rybec (talk) 23:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per 65... and Rybec. — Hex (❝?!❞) 13:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per above discussion. There are just too many possible targets. Mangoe (talk) 14:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment sample disambiguation page now appears below the redirect -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 01:55, 6 March 2013 (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.

Wikipedia:Admit you sometimes answer your leg[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 00:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as whilst I understand the reasoning behind this and the phrase possibly makes sense, I've never heard of it before and I really don't think it is going to be a likely search term. Besides, nobody really visits this redirect. Simply south...... catching SNOWballs for just 6 years 23:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not sure I understand the deletion rationale. It's probably not used much as a redirect/search term, but it's mildly amusing (to me, at least). I'd forgotten all about it. :-) Is there any harm to keeping it around? --MZMcBride (talk) 23:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Essentially the delete rationale is "delete as unlikely search term". And whilst the intention is well meaning the phrase is definitely nonsensical (even if it is amusing). Simply south...... catching SNOWballs for just 6 years 23:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • There was an incoming link from an archive to a Eurovision Song Contest article talk page but I have fixed this. This was its only link. Simply south...... catching SNOWballs for just 6 years 23:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as harmless. Being a likely search term is not a key requirement of a Wikipedia space redirect (and even in the main space the test is "plausible" rather than "likely"). Thryduulf (talk) 00:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unplausible search term. Simply south...... catching SNOWballs for just 6 years 01:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • If nothing else, I've now learned that unplausible is a word. I almost corrected it (thinking you meant implausible, of course), but then I consulted a dictionary. The more you know! --MZMcBride (talk) 06:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Bizarre, unused, highly {im,un}plausible. — Hex (❝?!❞) 13:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an search term that is mostly unused and unlikely to be used in the future, with thanks to the above editors for increasing my vocabulary. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 04:57, 18 February 2013 (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.

Institute of Business & Medical Careers[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 wrong venue - see Wikipedia:Requested moves. You can nominate the present title after the move if you wish, but as it has been the location of the article for a significant length of time there is almost no chance of it being deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 00:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Main article should be at Institute of Business & Medical Careers not Institute of Business & Medical Careers (IBMC). This redirect should be deleted and the article moved to this name as part of WP:NAME. And realistically, there need not be a redirect put in the place of Institute of Business & Medical Careers (IBMC) as who would search that entire string? -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:16, 12 February 2013 (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.

AE Andromedae[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 stubify. --BDD (talk) 23:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Delete the redirect, a redlink is better. In accordance with #10 of the reasons to delete redirects, the current target page contains no information about the redirect text, but the star AE Andromedae could at some point get its own page. Lithopsian (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not really related at all. The star is located in that part of the sky, but that's it. That's like redirecting a small American village to the article on the state it happens to lie within. Modest Genius talk 14:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is related to Andromeda (Constellation) in that it is a star in Andromeda. However, there is no mention of AE in that article and no other instances of stars being redirected to constellations they happen to be in, or whatever else they happen to coincidentally be in such as Milky Way or Messier 31. Every other star without a page is redlinked. Lithopsian (talk) 10:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Luminous blue variable#List of LBVs. Ideally I'd like to see an article on this star, which has enough notability to warrant it. But in the absence of one, it should redirect to the list of this type of star (which it is already included in). Modest Genius talk 14:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting to look at the linked stars on the LBV pages. Most are redlinked, with perhaps half a dozen of them really deserving their own page. I found two further examples linking to the "most luminous list" page that need to be corrected: Var B and Var C. Lithopsian (talk) 18:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Again there's probably enough coverage to write articles on those two if someone has the time. Modest Genius talk 23:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect to the same page (the only page) the link is on? Confusing? Should all the redlinks on that page be redirected to luminous blue variable? Lithopsian (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I should clarify. What I think should happen is that this article should be deleted, but seeing that it is obviously not going to happen, I think that we should redirect it to Modest Genius's proposed target. Since the other proposed target (the constellation) has absolutely zero relevance to the star, I am listing a !vote for the LBV article. StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: 65.92.180.137 (talk · contribs) has translated the French article on this star, which now appears below the redirect notice. If everyone is in agreement, we should just remove the redirection and leave the (stubby) article. Modest Genius talk 11:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. No point deleting an article about the star. I'll try to expand it when I get time. I'd still like guidance on what to do with the other two stars redirected to irrelevant articles, and all the redlinks for stars that may or may not ever get an article. Lithopsian (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well there's now a proposal to split the list out to a separate article. In that case the names of each star should redirect to the list article, but not be linked in that article. (Redirecting to a list is the same procedure adopted for non-notable or no-article-yet asteroids) Modest Genius talk 23:21, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

List of Division I schools that have never sponsored football[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 keep without prejudice as the rationale is clearly factually incorrect. If there is another reason it should be deleted then feel free to renominate it with that rationale. Thryduulf (talk) 00:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect page needs to be removed, as it has the exact same title as the page it is redirecting to.
jbc18 20:03, 12 February 2013 (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.

Intrasomatic model[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 Out-of-body_experience#Paranormal. Thryduulf (talk) 11:35, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This was deleted entirely as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intrasomatic model but was recreated as a redirect immediately thereafter. At present, there is no real place to redirect to because the section of the target article in question has been removed, presumably because it was thought a non-notable fringe theory. There were only two editors suggesting redirection in the AFD discussion, and only one of them specifically suggested redirection in lieu of anything else; one editor objected to redirection. Mangoe (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I authored the Intrasomatic Model page and was done with it (now deleted as per above); However, the links I made to Near Death Experience and a couple of other pages were soley and expressly to address the "Orphan Article" citation that the Intrasomatic Model page had received. Peake is well recognized by the Journal of Near Death Studies, so other than some secondary sources, do not know what else to do at this point. Tutweiler (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Keep the redirect but direct it here Out-of-body experience#Paranormal. Peake's theory is not scientific it is a paranormal theory, but it is mentioned in briefing and might help anyone that is looking for it. Fodor Fan (talk) 23:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; I see it is already included as a mention in the paranormal section. Thank you again. Tutweiler (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)TutweilerTutweiler (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just made a WP:BOLD change from redirecting to Near-death experience to redirecting to Out-of-body_experience#Paranormal. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:47, 27 February 2013 (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.

WP:ANI 2.0[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 00:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This cross-namespace redirect is presumably some kind of joke. However, its origin and purpose are are completely opaque to anyone outside some group of people, the precise definition of which I do not know. In-jokes of this fashion encourage the formation of cliques, which do not contribute positively to the collegial atmosphere of this project. — Hex (❝?!❞) 16:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Indeed it was some kind of joke, "ANI 2.0" being a fairly frequently-used nickname for Doc's talkpage (which, as opposed to being opaque, can be ascertained by a simple ctrl + f of "ANI 2.0" on the latter). There's countless XNRs of humorous nature, including WP:EVULA, WP:AN/K, and any number of other ones I'm sure I'll think of later. To quote Groucho Marx, you can dissect a joke, but, like a frog, it tends to die on the table: I've been bracing for this RfD since the day I created the redirect, but I must say I didn't expect to be accused of cliquishness. A joke's a joke, and if there's a consensus to delete it because it's a joke, so be it, but let's not pretend it's anything more serious. And, contrariwise, I think redirects like this are highly collegial: Keeping things fun and light keeps editors around; keeping editors around keeps the encyclopedia in good shape. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 17:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A joke's not a joke if you're not party to the meaning. And yes, other stuff exists. — Hex (❝?!❞) 21:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. useless, misleading - 17:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nabla (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nom. Sorry, PA, there are appropriate ways at going about humor on Wikipedia, but misleading redirects that look like policy aren't among them. --BDD (talk) 22:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ... Good for a smile, but ... — Ched :  ?  13:46, 14 February 2013 (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.

1,25-dihydroxyergocalciferol[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 19:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Misleading – calcitriol is 1,25-dihydroxycholecalciferol. 1,25-dihydroxyergocalciferol isn't even mentioned on the target page. ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 10:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question [1] implies that 1,25-dihydroxyergocalciferol and 1,25-dihydroxycholecalciferol are different substsances? If so, do we have an article about whatever the ergo is? Thryduulf (talk) 11:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, they are different substances. No article on 1,25-dihydroxyergocalciferol yet. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:45, 12 February 2013 (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.

Swiss Universal 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 Keep. The arguments that this is a plausible search term are persuasive that this is a useful redirect to keep even in the absence of the institution using the name itself. Thryduulf (talk) 11:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: misleading, misnomer redirect left over by a move; this is a college or training institute founded in 2012, not a university. There is no sign that the school goes by "university" on their own website http://www.swissuc.com/ and Google searches for "Swiss Universal University" show only caches and mirrors of the wiki page before the page move.. Hairhorn (talk) 03:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete the redirect Swissuu for the same reasons. Hairhorn (talk) 03:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno, these examples play to a particularly American propensity to muddle the terms "university" and "college", where in this school's case even its status as a degree-granting institution is shaky. Hairhorn (talk) 01:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Consider it a weak keep, then. I forget that the college/university distinction is important in many countries; in the US, it's frequently more stylistic. --BDD (talk) 01:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BDD. I have an aunt who's tought at both colleges and universities, and she admits that she doesn't completely understand the difference. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 14:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even if it's just a "particularly American propensity" to confuse "college" and "university", we do have American readers. This seems like quite a plausible redirect to me. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 04:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unused outside of WP, we do not need to spoon feed readers with every possible mistake (and the search engine will find it anyway), nor we need to redirect every * college to * university (or vice versa) - Nabla (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2013 (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/2013_February_12&oldid=1146661606"