Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 12

< Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion | Log

May 12

edit

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 12, 2014.

Neither Confirm Nor Deny

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 June 5#Neither Confirm Nor Deny

Нас Не Нагонят

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. Нас не догонят might have been an acceptable redirect to Nas Ne Dogonyat, but this is not a plausible typo Number 57 15:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not the title of the song. Gorobay (talk) 16:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Nas Ne Dogonyat. --BDD (talk) 15:47, 1 April 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) 16:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • retarget per 70.24.250.235. People are far more likely to make typo or c&p errors in foreign languages than their own, so we should be more accommodating where we can be so, such as this case. Thryduulf (talk) 17:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    And people who are far more likely to be searching in another language at all are the ones to whom it is not foreign. This is a vanishingly small edge case in comparison. — Scott • talk 16:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a plausible typo. Most people who will be able to type this title are those who have a Cyrillic keyboard, so they'll know that two letters are wrong and that there should be just one capital letter, not three. People without a Cyrillic keyboard and without a knowledge of Russian are going to be copy/pasting the title from somewhere else, and copy/paste errors won't be responsible for several different letters being incorrect in this way. Nyttend (talk) 22:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a plausible typo. I just bought a keyboard with Hungarian layout, because I know all the accented letters are on the right hand side but I don't touch-type in Hungarian. the missus can because she taught touch-typing in Hungarian but I have to look at the keys to find the letters with the diacritical marks. The idea an English-speaking audience will type in Cyrillic is absurd. They will go to RU:WP or wherever Their Favourite Search Engine takes them. If it is also wrong, that is compounding the felony. Si Trew (talk) 02:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: This is largely a cosmetic relist to superficially decrease the backlog. Further comments are still appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: the phrase as it stands has no specific ties with either version of the song. Words "нагонят" and "догонят" are two distinct words. I would !vote to keep this redirect in Russian Wikipedia, but that does not makes sense here: with this replacement the phrase does not constitute the local title of the target. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 22:42, 9 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.

Эўро

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. No clear evidence that this means anything in any language. Number 57 15:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This does not seem to mean ‘euro’ in any language. It does mean ‘Évreux’ in Belarusian, but that is not a Belarusian topic. Gorobay (talk) 16:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - redirected and categorised as per your research. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 17:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per nom. And not so fast, Rich. We can retarget if there's consensus here, but for now, that would just muddle the discussion. And anyway, a Russian-language redirect to a French commune with no apparent connection to Russian should be deleted anyway. --BDD (talk) 17:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am on your side, people changing things under your feet. I was away for a day and hadn't even a chance to see what the original was before sticking my oar in. Although there are no hard and fast rules, changing something while it is under discussion seems harmful to me. Happy Easter everyone, and thank you all for your contributions to Wikipedia to make it better. It doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be better. Si Trew (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's harmful to imply to non-English speaking readers that searching in their language is an effective way of navigating the English Wikipedia. --BDD (talk) 18:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I've been trying to point out on similar recent listings. Since my use of the word "random" seemed to cause some confusion then, I'll pick another: these redirects are completely arbitrary. As you say, this is not an effective way of navigating. That would only happen if these redirects were created systematically everywhere, which of course they aren't. We already work very conscientiously to remove ambiguity in article titles; redirects like these introduce a much more subtle, insidious and difficult-to-resolve kind. It also makes us look bad if we willingly tolerate a completely haphazard and ineffective undocumented subsystem. Any foreign reader who has the bad luck to encounter and try relying on it is going to be far from impressed. — Scott • talk 19:40, 16 April 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) 16:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't have a Euro note on me, but Greek is on the Euro notes although only one country of the 28 Euro nations uses the Greek alphabet has it on the notes: so that is a useful redirect. (I've often wondered how Greeks write a micrometre, since on road sings at least in Crete they use Greek letter mu to mean metre.) This is not Greek but Cyrillic, but it seems a useful incoming link. Let's assume its Belarussian: it's not that far away from the Eurozone and Euros are traded widely there. Si Trew (talk) 02:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    And I wish people would stop changing things while they are under discussion. Si Trew (talk) 02:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. See uk:Євро, ru:Евро, bg:Евро, and be:Еўра — Ukrainian, Russian, Bulgarian, and Belarussian all call this currency something other than "Эўро". If any language calls the currency "Эўро", it's not a language in common use anywhere near the Eurozone. Nyttend (talk) 16:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I found a few links on YouTube e.g. [[1]] with that name but I am having trouble discerning which language it is. I'll ask at WP:PNT. Si Trew (talk) 21:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this at the talk for WP:PNT although that project is very active the discussion doesn't seem to be, so I am not sure we will get anywhere. My searches, I cannot distinguish what language it is and it is too short a term for the automated language finders to distinguish.
May I just restate also: it is not helpful to change things while they are being discussed. I don't know why people keep doing that, I know it is good faith but is harmful to other editors until consensus is reached, it is a fait accompli that is very difficult then to discuss. Si Trew (talk) 21:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's Belarusian, as mentioned above. Google Translate is pretty good at identifying languages. — Scott • talk 21:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
“Эўро” does not refer the euro in that video; it refers to Euro 2012. Gorobay (talk) 22:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, yes, I meant to note that as well and totally forgot to. — Scott • talk 22:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Nyttend. — Scott • talk 21:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Gorobay. It's Gorobay who called it as Belarussian in the first place; but other languages also use the phrase, so I wasn't sure and did a search. I thought also it was Belarussian but since it is such a short word I guess it is used elsewhere so that is why I searched. Gorobay I think has found the best target: Euro 2012. Si Trew (talk) 12:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But it doesn’t mean ‘Euro 2012’. It also doesn’t mean ‘euro’. It only means ‘Évreux’. However, Belarusian has nothing to do with a French town, so it should not redirect there either. If other languages use the word, please elaborate. Gorobay (talk) 20:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly doesn't. In fact, the author of that video seems to be the only person using the word "Эўро" in conjunction with "2012". Who knows why, but it's clearly a completely idiosyncratic usage and should be ignored. — Scott • talk 21:10, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Gorobay:, @Scott:, it's not a question of it being right, it is a question of what would an English-speaking audience be likely to be looking for when they search. I doubt they want to search for Évreux, which is what we would call in the UK a county town and I am sure a very nice one but unlikely to be what people are after. I think it far more likely they want to find Euro or Euro 2012, if they type it at all. How would they type it, they would have to go out of their way to type it on an English keyboard layout? And so, we then say, where would they get it from and that would be from a search and via a translation tool etc. Now, most of my searches with My Favourite Search Engine are about a Kiev football team playing in Évreux 2012, but as far as I can tell there was not a match between FC Dynamo Kyiv or any other Kiev team with Évreax in 2012 or any kind of competition there, and they are Ukranian not Belarussian (at least, at the moment!). So this would seem to me a mistranslation. Do we delete it, or do we retarget it, that is the question. Si Trew (talk) 06:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
...
You've now gone completely off the beaten track and into the realm of bizarre conjecture based on the title of one YouTube video. To borrow a phrase, the above isn't right; it isn't even wrong. — Scott • talk 14:28, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Scott:, the problem is that at least one well-known search engine tends to list Wikipedia articles very prominently so that is where it gets into the realms of the bizarre, that I end up looking up my own – erm – contributions (ahem) –) instead of actually trying to find out other information about it from other sites. I couldn' find anything reliable about this, so perhaps it should go delete. That being said, I go via the Hungarian version of that search tool which often gives me different results from what you probably get: so you might do better. I still don't see that Évreux is a decent target. Si Trew (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It demonstrably is a word in Belarusian. But we don't have a pressing need to offer Belarusian names for things that aren't particularly related to Belarus; that's the principle of WP:FORRED. Why not just vote delete? — Scott • talk 22:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Scott old bean, if it is "demonstrably a Belarussian word" then demonstrate it. You haven't so far. Si Trew (talk) 11:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have you considered perhaps looking at the Belarusian Wikipedia? You appear to be completely confused about this; please, don't stretch this unbelievably painful mess out any further. This should have been an open and shut case, and your bizarre contributions have now caused it to stretch out to six weeks. — Scott • talk 11:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: This is largely a cosmetic relist to superficially decrease the backlog. Further comments are still appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:06, 12 May 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.

Γεωγραφία

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. --BDD (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While it is true that Greece has geography, the topic of geography is not so extraordinarily related to Greece that this redirect need exist. Or, more succinctly: Not especially Greek. Gorobay (talk) 18:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep old (6 years), non-harmful redirects. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC).
  • Delete not an especially Greek topic, there is geography outside of Greece, so no particular affinity for Greek. WP:NOTDIC Wikipedia is not an etymological or translation dictionary. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Gorobay and 65.94, on what I thought has been established consensus over the last few months. Si Trew (talk) 11:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I actually thought of voting keep since the word Geography is based on the Greek language. However, the article said that the words are γεωγραφία and geographia so I guess the Redirects in question are unlikely misspellings.--Lenticel (talk) 08:50, 16 May 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.

Fresh Pickle

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 27#Fresh Pickle

Pale-breasted

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 procedural close. Reverted to dab and taken to AfD. --BDD (talk) 16:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pale-breasted coloration isn't discussed at the target page. A reader searching for this term is probably looking for one of the birds whose name starts with "Pale-breasted," and thus will be better served by search results. --BDD (talk) 17:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Make a dab page. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC).
That probably won't work. As it happens, I just came across this AfD discussion, which deleted many such dabs. --BDD (talk) 22:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... "they are too difficult to maintain" - in fact this was a dab page for 6 years until you prodded it a few days ago. Amount of maintenance needed, since July 2009 - nil. It would be interesting - if one had the administrator privileges - to examine exactly how much "maintenance" would have been required to keep those pages up to date. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC).
A better reason for not having dabs of this sort is that they consist entirely of partial title matches, which are proscribed from inclusion on dab pages by the relevant guideline. Faced with such a dab, a reasonable editor could remove the partial title matches and tag it with {{db-disambig}}. So they are "too difficult to maintain" inasmuch as they have no links that belong there. I would argue that over those six years, the page should have been "maintained" by deletion. --BDD (talk) 16:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close. I've reverted it to the version Rich Farmbrough mentions, and it lists three in a perfectly reasonably DAB. It is no longer a redirect, so procedural close. I still find Rich Farmbrough's full-frontal style very close to attacking other editors, which he probably doesn't mean but at least to one editor it comes across that way: but his facts are right on this one. Si Trew (talk) 09:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you must. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pale-breasted instead. --BDD (talk) 16:07, 13 May 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.

Κρανίον

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. --BDD (talk) 16:29, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not especially Greek. Gorobay (talk) 16:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep strong relationship to "Cranium" which redirects to Skull. Also both redirects are old (4 years!) and harmless All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC).
  • Delete Greeks are not the only ones with skulls. Generic topic with no particular affinity for Greek. WP:NOTDIC Wikipedia is not a translation or etymological dictionary. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the first (Greek alphabet), weak keep the second. RF's line of reasoning suggests (but doesn't state) a retarget of both to Cranium; but that in turn redirects to Skull so that's not helpful. That's a bit unsatisfactory because the skull is more than just the cranium (it is the cranium and the mandible, as the lede says); but WP:NOTFINISHED, and I am not qualified to improve it (once I used to work in a clean room and wore a white coat and had to go to hospital just a check-up for a little bit of swarf in my eye and everyone just assumes you are a doctor, it's so tempting to start giving them cogent but awful advice: "try favouring the other leg" etc.) so it would need a medica to improve that. Until that happy day arrives, we have what we have.
  • <RAMBLE> I have always said when I get enough money I am going to open the Citizen's Unwanted Advice Bureau, preferably right next to the Citizens Advice Bureau so when people come in I can say "Take your coat off or you won't feel the benefit" or "you should be eating five portions of vegetables a day" or "drink eight pints of water" and so on. I'd have huge blow-ups in all European languages (the Fags of all nations) of the warnings on the back of fag packets. We know, but We still smoke anyway because it is a) a habit and b) enjoyable. </RAMBLE>
The first is foreign term and generally agreed we are not a translation dictionary, the second weaker I could see it as a possible typo. Si Trew (talk) 09:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop cluttering discussions with your entirely unfunny and uninteresting digressions, which are disruptive to our being able to conduct straightforward RfDs. — Scott • talk 11:18, 14 May 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.

Λεξικόν

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. --BDD (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not especially Greek. Gorobay (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Lexicon is about as Greek a word as you can get. Defn: dictionary of Classical Greek, Hebrew, Latin, or Aramaic All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC).
  • Delete The Greeks did not invent language. There is no particular affinity for the topic of lexicons with Greek. WP:NOTDIC Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The especial etymology of lexicon belongs on Wiktionary, and not as a redirect on Wikipedia. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Rich, yes "lexicon" is Greek. but "Λεξικόν" is modern greek, or rather a back translation from "lexicon", and not ancient Greek. I have argued in the past that Greek words in Greek should be kept, but the consensus seems to be – you can check over the last few months of discussions at RfD on many that Gorobay and 65.94 and others have brought here – is that foreign terms for English words and especially transliterated terms and even more so those from other alphabets do not belong in English Wikipedia if they have no particular relation to the subject. Lexicon is English, not Greek. Λεξικόν might or might not be Greek, but then that's the job of Greek Wikipedia: which doesn't seem to be on the Interwiki link at the article. So be it, no use redirecting to the English one. Si Trew (talk) 10:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • λεξικόν is ancient Greek, meaning .. uh.. lexicon. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC).
I know what it means. Rich, you are really patronising. I have the entire OED, Websters, a two=volume Greek dictionary, two-volume Hungarian dictionaries published by the Hungarian academy, a large French dictionary published by the Academie Francaise, a laarge Collins German dictionary, a large Collins Latin one, a Greek one, and a Maltese one, let alone learning Arabic, Spanish, Hungarian (badly) and French and Italian and computational linguistics. I am not totally uncognisant with languages. How does it feel to be patronised?
It does not belong in English Wikipedia. That's the general consensus with these foreign language redirects. How much farther do I push the point into your cranium?. Si Trew (talk) 17:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and 65.94. Also, despite my disagreement with Si's chatty approach to RfDs higher up on this page, I concur with his comments 100% here. — Scott • talk 11:21, 14 May 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.

Ευθανασία

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. --BDD (talk) 16:27, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not especially Greek. Gorobay (talk) 16:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

:Keep. It is Greek. How do you think Socrates died? Si Trew (talk) 16:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is obviously not non-Greek, but it is not especially Greek. Gorobay (talk) 17:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Si Trew is always right. Also very old (7 years!) and harmless. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC).
  • Delete Greeks are not the only people who practise euthanasia, so this is a generic topic that is not especially Greek. WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a translation or etymological dictionary. We have Wiktionary for that. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, changing my opinion. We have had a lot of these thanks to Gorobay and 65.94 hunting them down (that was a sincere thanks not a sarcastic one), sometimes I disagree and vote to keep, but Gorobay and 65.94 are right that it is not especially Greek: it is not as if ancient or modern Greece are the only parts of the world to practice or forbid it, and consensus seems to be to delete redirects from alternate alphabets and alternate languages unless they are very closely related to the subject. Si Trew (talk) 10:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and 65.94. — Scott • talk 11:23, 14 May 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.

Penny is the Irish-Norwegian owner of Bolt the dog

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. --BDD (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural nomination on behalf of an IP editor. The rationale was "Nobody would search for this as an article title." Reyk YO! 12:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Our primary criterion is not whether it is old, but whether it is a useful search term. This patently isn't. Why do you keep tryng to put your foot in something you don't understand? Read the guidelines before posting nonsense. If you are harsh on me (and you are) I shall be harsher on you. Read it before you post this bollox. Si Trew (talk) 12:51, 13 May 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.

The Pope's wheels

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. Though an unlikely search term this is certainly not a nonsense redirect. In the UK at least, as mentioned below, it would be taken to refer to the Pope's car. The consensus is to keep and no WP:RFD#DELETE grounds have been specified. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 20:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense redirect Lewis Hulbert (talk) 09:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it worth adding but in Spanish and Italian there is a distinction between lowercase papa, father, and Papa, Pope. We don't really have that distinction in English. Si Trew (talk) 14:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Age has nothing to do with it, you are taking the guideline "a newly-created redirect" a bit too literally. Did you check the incoming links? You certainly didn't reference them. The redirect has about one hit every two days. Do your homework instead of being a nuisance and abusing your admin status. Si Trew (talk) 12:54, 13 May 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.

Seupein

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. --BDD (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete en masse. The Free Dictionary redirects this to Spain. I am not sure which is chicken and which is egg here. I guessed that it is a transliteration from Japanese, since (I can't type the kana on this KB) su- pe- n would be well-formed Japanese (but not the dipthong vowels "eu and "ei): It looks more likely to be a transliteration from Hangul (Korean), e.g.:
  • "Korean Journal of Hispanic Studies". ub.edu MIAR 2014 (University of Berkeley?). ISSN 2092-4984. Retrieved 12 May 2014.
But we don't do foreign-language redirects, I thought that was broadly agreed. Si Trew (talk) 16:33, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep old (9 years!), non-harmful redirect. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC).
  • Delete WP:NOT a translation dictionary. As this is claimed to be Korean, it isn't even written in Korean, so no particular use to Koreans either, as it isn't in Hangul or Hanja. As it isn't in Spanish, it's no use to Spaniards. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and 65.94. This is harmful, as its continued existence encourages the creation of yet more similarly mangled redirects, cluttering search results and creating maintenance cost. — Scott • talk 11:26, 14 May 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.

Japanio

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. --BDD (talk) 16:23, 19 May 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.

Old Spain

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. --BDD (talk) 16:22, 19 May 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.

Espainiako Erresuma

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. --BDD (talk) 16:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck? TheChampionMan1234 07:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Freedictionary.org also has this as a redirect to Spain. Is some bot or something importing these things, rather circularly, into Wikipedia – or the converse are we somehow exporting them over there? I have this:
Si Trew (talk) 15:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to be Basque for "Kingdom of Spain", the official name of Spain: see eu:Espainia. No idea why I created it eight years ago -- presumably some kind of completist endeavour as part of my geocoding activities. -- The Anome (talk) 19:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The difficulty with that is that of course Spain was a republic under General Franco after the Spanish Civil War for many years until King Juan Carlos of Spain was reinstated – so it's rather ambiguous. I am not sure really that Spanish Wikipedia can help us here: Real espana (without the cedilla on the N) in ES:WP takes me to ES:Real_Espana, the footballl club ("Royal Spanish Club", literally) but we also have ES:España_napoleónica which I think is nearer what is intended? And that is Interwiki linked back to Kingdom of Spain (Napoleonic). What to do, DAB it? Si Trew (talk) 08:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep old (8 years!), non-harmful redirect. And per King. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC).
Comment' is it, though? I only found a similar term with a search, not quite the same term, which I couldn't find anywhere: I had better luck today and found this EU:Espainiako Erresuma on Basque wikipedia but that redirects to EU:Espainia (Napoleonen Okupazioa) which has Interwiki link to Kingdom of Spain (Napoleonic). There's a bit of vermicelli here that we need to digest: we now have a redirect that on Basque is a redirect. Do we need to sort out the Interwiki links or what? Si Trew (talk) 10:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On eu.wiki, , I see ofizialki Espainiako Erresuma (gaztelaniaz: Reino de España) which I think says officially "Espainiako Erresuma" (something: Kingdom of Spain) ; as I don't know Euskara, I'm inferring the meaning from what I think are borrowings from latin. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am guessing but I would imagine that means "Official Spanish Kingdom (redirect: Kingdom of Spain)". I am not well up on Basque and it is an odd mix of latin languages and Welsh language bizarelly. Si Trew (talk) 09:03, 14 May 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.

Infotag news agency

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 27#Infotag news agency

Румунија

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. --BDD (talk) 16:16, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What is not Serbo-Croatian? The spelling Румунија? See sr:Румунија. I don't see why would you delete this.--Codrin.B (talk) 07:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I mean the target is not relavent to the language of the redirect, foriegn language redirects are allowed if it is relavent, for example România is acceptable for it is in the Romanian language, but Serbo-Croatian has nothing to do with Romania whatsoever, thus delete, don't see why they should look this up on the 'English' Wikipedia TheChampionMan1234 07:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It took me a while to learn this shorthand. When TheChampionMan or Gorobay or 64 says "Not really (insert language here)" (Greek, Romanian, Croat, Serbian, French, whatever) they don't mean it is ill-formed but that it is not relevant to the subject; it hinders people searching externally for Romania in Cyrillic because they end up at the English Wikipedia on their search engine, which is harmful if they read the Cyrillic but not the Latin alphabet they could probably get by with ro:Romania (which is in Latin alphabet) or ru:Romania (which is in Cyrillic, a DAB) or whatever, but these foreign-language redirects don't help but hinder that. ro:Румунија does not exist. ru:Румунија is the redirect to the same DAB. This is obviously a hindrance because I can't even find the Russian name for Romania, all I get is Romanian names and suchlike. That being said I live in Hungary and Romania before the Treaty of Trianon was part of Hungary so I imagine external searches tend to tailor my results (it's still a bit of a grumble, eighty-four years later), so others might do better. [[Si Trew (talk) 09:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — Scott • talk 11:28, 14 May 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.

Carpathian region

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 Carpathian Mountains. --BDD (talk) 16:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Romania is usually the top candidate when talking about the Carpathian region, however a redirect to Carpathian Mountains could be better. But why delete?--Codrin.B (talk) 07:40, 12 May 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.

Carpathian Danubian space

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 21#Carpathian Danubian space

Symbols of 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. --BDD (talk) 16:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFD#DELETE#10: Notable topic that should be expanded into an article and target article has no information on the subject. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would probably be Korea prior to the Korean war, though possibly also some examples from both North and South Korea. VanIsaacWScont 21:10, 12 May 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.

Deepak Kalpoe

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 21#Deepak Kalpoe

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_May_12&oldid=1138579772"