Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 July 2

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

Template:Pmid



 * 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 Template:PMID after every transclusion of the template was replaced. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 21:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Template:Pmid → Template:Cite pmid (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Retarget to Template:PMID, to match how doi/DOI; pmc/PMC; bibcode; arxiv/arXiv; issn/ISSN; act. All current tranclusions of this template redirect would be replaced with direct transclusions of cite pmid. PMIDs are journal reference ID#s. The citation template should explicitly use "cite" as the plain "pmid" name should directly link to PMIDs as an external link template. The divergent behavior between DOI and PMID templates is a bad discordance. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 23:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * NOTE: This redirected template is currently fully protected (cascade), so I couldn't add the RFD banner, can someone do that for me? -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 23:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ —  Scott  •  talk  21:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Bypass everywhere, then retarget per nom: consistency improves usability. Also, WP:SURPRISE applies. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with the retargeting, but could someone remove the redirect tag from the template? It's breaking half a bunch of articles. Notice at the cite foobar pages / template talk pages is more than sufficient for something this technical. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:34, 8 July 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.

Power Morphicon
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 July 10%23Power Morphicon

Principal agent



 * 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. --BDD (talk) 16:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Principal agent → Principal–agent problem (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

The target involves "principal", "agent" and "principal–agent" (the relationship between the two nouns) but not "principal agent" (a noun phrase comprising an adjective and a noun). "Principal agent" has other uses, including in espionage (see e.g. this piece). – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 12:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete had this been "Principal-agent" then I could argue a keep. However, this phrase on its own is a bit vague.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: too generic to be retargetted. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 07:47, 3 July 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.

Le cut inside man



 * 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 delete per WP:CSD (Recently created, implausible redirect). Performed by . (non-admin closure) — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 00:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Le cut inside man → Arjen Robben (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

This came to my attention as the result of a humongous edit-war - now I find myself wondering whether it should even exist as a redirect. As far as I can tell, this is just a 4chan term for Arjen Robben, and not something one would expect to locate in an encyclopedia. There's no mention of it in the article on Robben - seems to me this is an entry of Urban Dictionary, not Wikipedia. Yunshui 雲 水 08:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with this. Delete per nom. -- hmich 176 23:13, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm posting here as just an IP which will probably make my argument worthless in the eyes of others, but I think I have a serious point in favour of this redirect. As per Redirect, deletions are appropriate if it is a very obscure synonym. However, it also states that if the redirect makes finding an article easier, it can be kept. In this case, the expression comes from 4chan, which is not very obscure any more to begin with, and which exposes a lot of non-football users to football during the world cup. These people will probably only ever hear "Le cut inside man". The fact that this nickname is not mentioned in the article it redirects to is not relevant, and finding an appropriate source to add it to the article is nearly impossible. But the redirect itself still has use for people. 178.82.85.17 (talk) 17:21, 5 July 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.

Hohochiminh



 * 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. Though I would certainly be inclined to delete this as an implausible typo otherwise, the evidence of China Eastern Airlines still using it convinces me that this redirect is doing more good than harm. While people are reading about flights to "Hohochiminh," they're going to wonder what the heck that is, and some of them may turn here. --BDD (talk) 16:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Hohochiminh → Ho Chi Minh City (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Note that 'Ho' is repeated, I dont think its worth retargeting to Ho Chih Minh because of this repetition. TheChampionMan1234 07:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - It was a typo used by China Eastern Airlines - See the edit summary here - If an international airline made this typo, it's plausible. In fact you can see the typo here: http://web.archive.org/web/20120610204009/http://hk.ceair.com/muovc/main/en_HK/Static_pages/ServiceLocation.html - http://www.webcitation.org/6QlG1vGoW - "Hohochiminh" WhisperToMe (talk) 07:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: although there is verifiable evidence that this typo was commited at least once, it is still implausible. 6 pageviews during last month leave no doubt that even bots mostly igore it. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 22:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - we only delete implausible redirects when recently created (WP:HARMLESS) otherwise they need to be harmful for deletion. No policy-compliant reason to delete. The Whispering Wind (talk) 17:13, 5 July 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.

Gaosyong



 * 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. --BDD (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Gaosyong → Kaohsiung (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Not particularly Korean. TheChampionMan1234 07:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is Tongyong Pinyin (a Chinese romanization system that used to be common in Taiwan) and not Korean. http://www.romanization.com/tongyong/differences.html - The Hanyu Pinyin for "Kaohsiung" is Gāoxióng, so using the table you get Gaosyong (xiong = syong). So, two things:
 * For Chinese redirects keep Tongyong Pinyin in mind and use the table I bring up.
 * Please use more clear language in that sort of deletion rationale. Your job is to convey the meaning to the outsider; it's not the outsider's job to guess at what you mean by "Not particularly Korean"
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 07:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per WTM, all Taiwanese topics would be capable of sporting Tongyong Pinyin (and HK and Macau topics prior to the agreements settled to hand them over to PRC) -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 23:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Tongyong Pinyin was never used in Hong Kong or Macau; such redirects would be confusing and useless at best. quant18 (talk) 01:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per WhisperToMe.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep as WhisperToMe said, not Korean; an alternative Chinese romanisation system which was actually used in the place to which this title redirects. quant18 (talk) 01:17, 3 July 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.

People's Republic of Kalifornia
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 July 10%23People's Republic of Kalifornia