Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 June 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 13[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 13, 2014.

User:Kedasis[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 no consensus. While such redirects are demonstrably misleading, they have often been allowed in a user's own space. I see no reasonable prospect of consensus here. However, I have modified the page such that it no longer functions as a redirect. Should Kedasis ever return and want their page restored into a redirect, they may feel free to do so. As Czarkoff mentions, a soft redirect would work as well. But I strongly suspect we'll never see this user again, and that this won't be an issue. --BDD (talk) 17:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user has only made one edit. and that was creating this redirect. TheChampionMan1234 21:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: harmless, not our business actually. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 05:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete clearly harmful redirect. Anyone clicking on his username, and then talk will leave messages for this user at talk:computer, highly inappropriate and harmful. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anyone not paying attention to pages they arrive at will do harm. Also, it is rather difficult to miss that the page you arrived at is an article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 07:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • We should not assume people will actually pay attention. And, some people do post talk messages onto user pages instead of their talk pages, so just hitting edit right after arriving at the supposed user page would end up with user comments in the article. People post messages on article pages already, so we should not just make these more likely. {{Uw-talkinarticle}} -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:10, 15 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.

Ray Charles (La Fouine song)[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 withdrawn. Steel1943 (talk) 21:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No song by this name mentioned as a track of this album (the subject of the redirect's target). Steel1943 (talk) 20:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you just took the time to look at the iTunes bonus tracks, you'd find it right there. This whole RfD is ridiculous. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 20:54, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Davykamanzi: True, and collapsed sections really don't have a place on articles in the main space, as in all sections should not be collapsed. I'm withdrawing this. Steel1943 (talk) 21:03, 13 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.

Ray Charles (elder)[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) 20:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense disambiguator in the redirect's title. Steel1943 (talk) 20:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Not related to the younger Ray Charles, as is implied by the disambiguator, and similar formulations in the real world (ie. Pitt the Younger) -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:46, 14 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.

Beef Jerky[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 Beef jerky (disambiguation). JohnCD (talk) 21:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination is essentially a review of the closing of the discussion listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 June 4#Beef Jerky. During the course of the discussion, the disambiguation page Beef jerky (disambiguation) was created that lists about 5 entries that use the term "Beef Jerky" with a capital "J". Per WP:DIFFCAPS, the alternately capitalized term should refer to a use if that term that uses the capitals in the same method as the term. "Beef Jerky" redirecting to "Jerky" is incorrect per WP:DIFFCAPS due to the "J" in "Jerky" being lowercase when referring to this topic. Also, it seemed as though some of the votes to redirect this redirect to Jerky were stated when the disambiguation page didn't exist. So, with that being said, I believe that Beef Jerky should be retargeted to Beef jerky (disambiguation) per WP:DIFFCAPS and since there are a number of topics listed on that page that utilize the capital "J". Steel1943 (talk) 14:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral I can see keeping it this way, as the result of the last RfD, or retargetting. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. The new dab page looks okay. --Lenticel (talk) 13:02, 14 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.

Τρίπτυχο[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) 20:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not especially Greek. Gorobay (talk) 13:39, 13 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.

Vegetable English[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) 20:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The same reason as Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 June 10#Horse English Nine. GZWDer (talk) 11:37, 13 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.

德国[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) 20:54, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:FORRED. GZWDer (talk) 11:27, 13 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.

恒等式[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) 20:54, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:FORRED. GZWDer (talk) 11:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 12:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:FORRED is only an essay, and a poor one at that. If we're going to use an essay to determine whether or not to keep this redirect, I think WP:CHEAP is a better one to employ. You may also consider the actual accepted guideline on this subject, which states that redirects should generally be kept if "someone finds them useful", which surely a speaker of this language would. Neelix (talk) 15:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' - per nom TheChampionMan1234 06:28, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete generic topic with no particular affinity for any language. WP:NOT a translation dictionary. Suggest transwiki to wiktionary (strip the redirect, and make it a simple wikilink before transwiki, leave the R from alternate language though) -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:56, 14 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.

味精[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) 20:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:FORRED. GZWDer (talk) 11:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Apparently, from Glutamate flavoring § Safety as a flavor enhancer it seems that MSG is excessively used in Chinese food, but (1) I am not sure that this connection is strong enough (MSG as substance was not isolated in China, and is used elsewhere as well) and (2) stats reveal that only bots use this redirect. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 12:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:FORRED is only an essay, and a poor one at that. If we're going to use an essay to determine whether or not to keep this redirect, I think WP:CHEAP is a better one to employ. You may also consider the actual accepted guideline on this subject, which states that redirects should generally be kept if "someone finds them useful", which surely a speaker of this language would. Neelix (talk) 15:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It actually is outright damaging, since it would give foreign readers the impressions that we routinely create foreign language redirects. When there wasn't a redirect, they then might assume the English article doesn't exist. In addition, we are not a translation dictionary. Foreign users are better off using the article in their own language and then linking to English using the interwiki links. However, in this case, Monosodium Glutamate is strongly associated with Chinese food, so I'm not entirely sure. Ego White Tray (talk) 00:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while North American food critics do criticize Chinese restaurants for stereotypically adding MSG to food, it originates as a practice from Japan (using MSG extract, instead of natural concentrations). This already exists at wikt:en:味精 so WP:NOT a translation dictionary -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:58, 14 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.

印度[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) 20:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:FORRED. GZWDer (talk) 11:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 12:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Indus River - 印度 is the Chinese name for the Indus River. Part of the Indus River flows through China, therefore the redirect is justified, even according to WP:FORRED. Neelix (talk) 15:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • WikiData says that 印度 is Chinese for India, and Indus River is 印度河. Wiktionary also says that 印度 stands for India. Although I believe that Indus River may be referred to simply as 印度, it would be misleading to retarget Chinese word for India to the name of the river that is called after country's name. I see, you like foreign language redirects and don't find yourself bound with guidelines, but there are less damaging ways to make a WP:POINT. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 05:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the Indus River and India are not in the Sinosphere, thus lacking affinity for Chinese, even though pilgrimages are made by Buddhist pilgrims from the Sinosphere. WP:NOT a translation dictionary. And it's already on Wiktionary. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 07:00, 14 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.

可口可乐[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 Brand blunder#Urban legends. Whilst normally this redirect would be deleted, the term is explained in the target article and it is a valid use of a redirect. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 01:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:FORRED. GZWDer (talk) 11:19, 13 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.

北貝孔斯菲爾德（維多利亞州）[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) 20:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:FORRED. GZWDer (talk) 11:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines also say that foreign language redirects should be deleted unless the topic is related to that language or country, not the case here. FORRED merely expands on that guideline. What would really be useful would be an article actually in Chinese. Ego White Tray (talk) 00:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not English or Aboriginal language of Australia. Low affinity for Chinese in Australia. WP:NOT a translation dictionary -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 07:05, 14 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.

三角函数[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) 20:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:FORRED. GZWDer (talk) 11:11, 13 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.

足球[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) 20:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:FORRED. GZWDer (talk) 11:09, 13 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.

田径[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) 20:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:FORRED. GZWDer (talk) 11:08, 13 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.

娱乐[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) 21:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:FORRED, and currently not linked from any articles. GZWDer (talk) 11:07, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep WP:FORRED is an essay that represents a minority view and is not a valid rational. The guideline for redirects WP:R#KEEP point 5 explains why you keep it. The redirect is question is used, see page view stats. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 12:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:R#DELETE criterion 8: no specific ties between language and term, stats reveal lack of usage (below normal bot activity level). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 12:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Speakers of all languages engage in entertainment. Criterion 8 does not apply. Neelix (talk) 15:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • You realize how ridiculous this argument is, right? All speakers have music, all eat fish, all have women, your interpretation of criterion 8 is just ridiculous. Ego White Tray (talk) 01:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete FORRED is a longer explanation of a listed guideline and is not in any way a minority viewpoint. Ego White Tray (talk) 00:59, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Entertaiment is a generic topic with no particular affinity for any language, therefore we only need English-language redirects. WP:NOT a translation dictionary -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 07:17, 14 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.

Dahan Minguo[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) 21:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Chinese is not an official language of South Korea. GZWDer (talk) 11:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No they wouldn't. A Chinese speaker would type Chinese characters. Ego White Tray (talk) 06:07, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if actual Chinese-speakers really found Chinese-language redirects to Korean-language subjects useful, one of them would have created the native simplified Chinese form 大韩民国 at some point in the past thirteen years. And pinyin is even less useful than simplified Chinese either to native Chinese-speakers or native English-speaker, least of all for finding a Korean-language subject. quant18 (talk) 05:39, 18 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.

Free 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 keep. The redirect is indeed POV, but redirects can be, and the evidence shows that, at least in English, this phrase most commonly refers to South Korea. --BDD (talk) 17:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There're no mention at South Korea that South Korea is also known as Free Korea. Probably original research. GZWDer (talk) 11:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: useful search term, harmless. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 12:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; egregiously POV. The North and its supporters are just as adamant that the DPRK is the only "free" Korea. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Psychonaut: Per WP:RNEUTRAL biased redirects should stay. Apparently, depending on WP:WEIGHT assessment, the possible outcomes (unless you think this POV is so blatant that WP:IAR should be called) are keep and redirect to North Korea. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 14:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Biased redirects should stay only if the term is (a) established, and (b) unambiguous. If (a) is not met, the redirect should be deleted, as per the guideline you linked to. If (a) is met but (b) is not, the common-sense solution is to turn the redirect into a disambiguation page. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep this is name that has been used in the real world to refer to South Korea. People should remember there was something called the Cold War, and something called the "Free World" during that era. "Free Korea" was part of that division, versus "Communist Korea" (LIFE magazine) -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 07:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 65.94.etc. See documentation such as this or this. For example, from the latter: The 38th parallel of latitude, which ultimately became the demarcation line between Red Korea and Free Korea, has no basis in international law. It's not hugely different from Free China and Red China; the only difference is that both of the others are ambiguous, but they'd be great redirects to the PRC and RoC if they didn't have additional meanings. Nyttend (talk) 22:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there's a mountain in Kyrgyzstan called Pik Svobodnaya Koreya; directly translated as "Free Korea Peak", and plenty of English sources use that name. So it seems that both sides of the Cold War called their Korea "Free Korea". (We don't have an article about the peak itself, but we do have one about the vicinity: Ala Archa National Park — which, incidentally, contains English Wikipedia's only mainspace link to Free Korea). At a stretch, "Free Korea" might also refer to the Korean independence movement (compare Free Tibet (disambiguation), Free Cascadia, etc.). Though I'm not sure if this all really needs a dab, or just a hatnote. quant18 (talk) 10:31, 19 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.

Chaoxian Minzhuzhuyi Renmin Gongheguo[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) 21:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese is not an official language of North Korea. GZWDer (talk) 11:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No they wouldn't, since real Chinese people don't use the Roman alphabet. Ego White Tray (talk) 02:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if actual Chinese-speakers really found Chinese-language redirects to Korean-language subjects useful, one of them would have created the native simplified Chinese form 朝鲜民主主义人民共和国 at some point in the past thirteen years. And pinyin is even less useful than simplified Chinese either to native Chinese-speakers or native English-speaker, least of all for finding a Korean-language subject. quant18 (talk) 05:38, 18 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.

T. Aao - an Olympian[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 delete. Yes I created this redirect myself, but that was only because I moved the article to a more sensible title. The original title is completely implausible. JIP | Talk 04:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)][reply]

Implausible search term or rephrasing of the title. Psychonaut (talk) 09:09, 13 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.

Nakayama Shou[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 all. JohnCD (talk) 21:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not particularly Japanese. TheChampionMan1234 05:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Take a look at the Sun Yat-sen article and you will see that he lived in Japan for an extended period of time and took a Japanese name. On top of that, his main Chinese name, Sun Zhongshan, is based upon this Japanese name he took. Also I recommend rewriting the delete rationale to make it more clear and understandable, especially for people who have English as a second language: Especially something like "Subject of this article is not Japanese" instead of the confusing and ambiguous "Not particularly Japanese." WhisperToMe (talk) 05:50, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then what's with all of the variations on the spelling of the Japanese name? We certainly don't need all of those TheChampionMan1234 05:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Japanese names literally can, and do, have all of these variations. So, yes, we do need each and every one of them. Romanization of Japanese explains a few things. There are two aspects in play:
  • Romanization of long vowel ō with hiragana o-u: Can be "ō, ô, ou, oo, oh, and/or o" (for ō with hiragana o-o all except for o-u are possible) - Also ū (u-u) can be ū, û, uu, uh, and/or u
  • Hepburn romanization versus Kunrei-shiki and Nihon-shiki - Under the kunrei-shiki and nihon-shiki systems, "sho" is instead written as "syo" and long vowel ō is written as "ô"
Also, because oftentimes Japanese names are expressed in family name last order or "western order" it means the amount of redirects can be doubled
When encountering spellings of names from Japanese, Arabic, etc. it may be good to consult with members of a relevant WikiProject
WhisperToMe (talk) 06:00, 13 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.

Tölva[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) 21:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not particularly Icelandic. TheChampionMan1234 05:40, 13 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.

VFY[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. Plausible search term and at present there are no other uses so currently it is not confusing. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 00:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't neccesarily have to mean that. TheChampionMan1234 05:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep until disambiguation required, DABify then. In Soviet countries initials are overused, so quite plausible. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 06:24, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nothing else notable seen with a google search. Here's one work using it in regards to Yanukovych. —Akrabbimtalk 13:27, 13 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.

Nouvelle-Zélande[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) 20:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not particularly French. TheChampionMan1234 01:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: This is French: fr:Nouvelle-Zélande WhisperToMe (talk) 01:24, 13 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.

Nieuw Zeeland[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) 20:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not particularly Dutch. TheChampionMan1234 01:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment:, the Dutch is nl:Nieuw-Zeeland - This is missing the "-" but honestly it's close enough WhisperToMe (talk) 01:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Dutch is not a language with particular affinity for New Zealand, even if Zeeland is in the Netherlands. WP:NOT a translation dictionary. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:09, 13 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.

Moscou[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 consensus is that this is a plausible misspelling. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 23:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not French. TheChampionMan1234 01:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plausible misspelling of "Moscow"... and this is French: fr:Moscou WhisperToMe (talk) 01:16, 13 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.

Tsar Putin[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. Used in the media so it is a plausible search term and no harm has been demonstrated. WP:RNEUTRAL is relevant. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 00:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not real. TheChampionMan1234 01:04, 13 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.

პუტინი[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) 17:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not particularly Georgian. TheChampionMan1234 01:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: - That IS Georgian: ka:ვლადიმერ პუტინი WhisperToMe (talk) 01:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since you seem to be new to RfD, please read WP:FORRED to get what I mean by that. TheChampionMan1234 01:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In that case it may be good to clarify a little bit, like "the subject is not XXX" because many people reading it will be "new to RfD" and so it needs to be understood by the public. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think it can stay. Good for Georgian editors who can see the article using the Georgian letters. And what do you mean in "Not particularly Georgian."? Jaqeli (talk) 04:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Georgia is not part of Russia. Putin is not Jugashvili (Stalin), he wasn't born in Georgia. Until Putin reconquers Georgia, or Putin learns Georgian, this doesn't seem particularly related. (Yes, I do remember Abkhazia and South Ossetia) -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FORRED. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 07:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:FORRED is only an essay, and a poor one at that. If we're going to use an essay to determine whether or not to keep this redirect, I think WP:CHEAP is a better one to employ. You may also consider the actual accepted guideline on this subject, which states that redirects should generally be kept if "someone finds them useful", which surely a speaker of this language would. Neelix (talk) 15:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No they wouldn't. They would be astonished to find an English language article after their Georgian language search. Foreign language redirects are for English speakers who encounter the foreign text and wonder what it means. Ego White Tray (talk) 02:53, 14 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_13&oldid=1142587347"