Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 24[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 24, 2014.

Spot-winged[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: (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 18:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is just part of various bird names, it's not a good candidate for a dab. And looking over spot-winged -wikipedia, it doesn't seem to be especially applied to the thrush such that we could say there's a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. (By contrast, largemouth usually refers to Largemouth bass, and thus is a good {{R from short name}}.) Readers will be better served in this case by the search results. BDD (talk) 18:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was umming and arring, aren't "wing spots" used in military slang to mean e.g. the RAF Roundel and things like that? Would that be a better target? Si Trew (talk) 17:05, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not mentioned there, though. I think the search results will give a better chance of a reader finding what they want. --BDD (talk) 22:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with BDD. Si Trew (talk) 01:50, 9 May 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) 16:54, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I'm not seeing a redirect for something that's a shared-name element of a bunch of different creatures. Mangoe (talk) 00:44, 26 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.

Central Nation[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: (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 18:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We might just as well put United Kingdom because it has zero degrees of longitude, or Centre points of the United Kingdom or could put Nation (Paris Métro and RER) for being a central Métro and RER station called Nation, or Kyzyl in Tuva, widely but not exclusively seen as being the town farthest from any coast, or Manass or Frunze or someone even suggested Alice Springs:
  • "What is the furthest town from the sea in the world?". Yahoo! Answers. 2007. Retrieved 6 May 2014.
We could for that matter redirect to Central African Republic. It seems just too vague a term to redirect anywhere. Let the search engine take care of it. Si Trew (talk) 09:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not significantly used in English, but the term Middle Kingdom is used in English, so we already have the English language term. If this is kept, it should be a disambiguation page, like Middle Kingdom is. -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 04:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be clear, I wasn't suggesting to keep it (and I don't think you were implying I was, either). I just reeled off some examples to show it is too vague to be a useful redirect, and taking Occam's razor I didn't want to multiply examples needlessly. My Delete opinion stands. Si Trew (talk) 16:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to DAB at Middle Kingdom. 65.94 didn't quite suggest that (or if so it was too subtle for me) but China is the top entry there and its etymology is briefly explained in the one-liner at the DAB. That would seem the better target; I don't think we need a separate DAB. Si Trew (talk) 03:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Central Nation" is too different from "Middle Kingdom" to retarget there. Central African Republic is the best I can think of, but I agree that search results will be better. --BDD (talk) 16:42, 13 May 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) 16:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: this phrase has no distinct meaning, and it doesn't seem to be likely search term. If anything, it may even sound offensive for nation that view themselves as central but don't find themselves as targets of this redirect. Middle Kingdom is even worse target, as China is the only member of this DAB actually having any claim for this name. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:15, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of retarget candidates.--Lenticel (talk) 01:03, 26 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.

Praise of Wikipedia[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, with unanimous consensus after almost a month. --BDD (talk) 16:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Praise of Wikipedia → Wikipedia (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] TheChampionMan1234 07:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to Criticism of Wikipedia, but that might be a bit of a WP:SURPRISE. The "criticism" there is not all bad criticism, some is good criticism (i.e. praise), but that is not the way most people interpret that word. That being said, anyone who is looking at Wikipedia to find articles about Wikipedia is presumably well-up enough on how contributions are made to Wikipedia etc. that it might not be a huge surprise. Si Trew (talk) 08:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think that's too subtle, and most of the criticism at that page is negative. --BDD (talk) 16:41, 13 May 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) 16:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: it should have been deleted when it was an article. Just correct the mistake made back in year 2007. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:17, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BDD and Czarkoff. My argument has legs but you have more. Si Trew (talk) 07:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above.--Lenticel (talk) 01:58, 26 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.

Dihydrogen monoxide[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, retarget, keep, and keep, respectively. --BDD (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://dhmo.org/facts.html lists "Dihydrogen Oxide, Hydrogen Hydroxide, Hydronium Hydroxide, or simply Hydric acid" as alternate names for this horribly destructive compound. After discussing the issue at WP:RDS, I think all four ought to redirect to the same place; if I understand rightly, all of them are technically valid names for water, so they ought not to be deleted, but where should the redirects go? I don't particularly care whether we send them all to Properties, Self-ionization, DHMO hoax, or somewhere else. If you have a good reason to disagree with targeting them all to the same place, please mention it. Nyttend (talk) 14:23, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget "hydronium hydroxide", "hydric acid", "hydrogen hydroxide" to self-ionization of water ; point "Dihydrogen oxide" to properties of water ; and at both add a hatnote to the "hoax" article. The hydroxide/acid titles clearly refer to the ionization properties. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget etc per 65.94. That makes perfect sense. Si Trew (talk) 07:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We have to take care with the notable essay on dihydrogen monoxide hoax, though. Si Trew (talk) 13:21, 25 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.

Aachen Treasury Gospels[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 default for an established redirect is to keep unless harmful. Normally harm is indicated by one of the criteria in WP:RFD#DELETE being met. In this case the redirect is harmless and a foreseeable search term both by being known as Treasury Gospels and being the original title of the target. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 00:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion requested. Aachen Treasury Gospels is not a common term for the manuscript in English codicology (cf. redirected article) and not used anywhere else in WP. Liuthar (talk) 01:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It may not be a common term but I can't see it doing any harm unless Aachen has another treasury that also has gospels. The lede says right in the first sentence ("Treasury Gospels"). It does not say, admittedly, "Aachen Treasury Gospels" but how close a hit do you want? Nice town, Aachen, by the way: the cathedral is wonderful. Si Trew (talk) 06:31, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Si Trew. Steel1943 (talk) 11:55, 24 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.

NoFlo[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. As usual, this does not preclude the creation of a standalone article; there's simply consensus that redirecting to Flow-based programming is inappropriate. --BDD (talk) 16:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from software title (that is even not released yet) to the article about development practice that the future software title is associating itself with. No mention in target apart from the list of random IDEs I just removed from "External links" section. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 12:00, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately it floods Google (for me at least). I have been in the software malarkey for thirty years and I have never heard of them; but can't get past anything on Google results except this company/brand: they have done a good job there, then: presumably a non-notable little startup outfit. Might as well take it to Saniflow or No-go or whatever. There is a mentin on Dr Dobb's, but I remember when that was in print as Dr Dobb's Journal of Computer Calisthenics and Orthodontia, unfortunately now it is just online. One of the nice things about Dobbs is the had a fictitious editor, "Lisa", like I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue has a fictitious scorer, "Samantha". Si Trew (talk) 03:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If so, WP:RED applies. This redirect is inapropriate per se, regardless of whether the software in question is worth mention. I would be happy with retargetting, but I don't see good target either. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 08:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm with you. let's delete it is WP:RED, and perhaps WP:PROMO as well. Sorry I didn't express myself clearly: are you going for Delete too?. Si Trew (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would happily !vote "retarget" if any proper target existed. Unfortunately, I couldn't identify any. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 22:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Author of NoFlo here. I was quite surprised to see the Wikipedia page for the project, and definitely agree that having it be a redirect to the Flow-based programming makes about as much sense as making the Linux page a redirect to Operating system. However, it seems at least Si Trew hasn't done his research on this. NoFlo is an implementation of Flow-Based Programming in JavaScript that has existed for three years now. You can read some of the background in this blog post. It has gained quite a bit of visibility due to the Kickstarter we did for building a Flow-based IDE for NoFlo and other similar systems, and later launched as Flowhub. So, in my view it would be better to repurpose the NoFlo page as a proper Wikipedia entry. But if that is seen as undesirable, then there is little reason to keep it as a redirect. For notability purposes articles like this or this might be helpful. - Henri Bergius 03:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to do my research: in fact I did do my research but failed: as I commented, my search results couldn't get past the company/brand so I didn't get very far. All the references you give seem non-notable in mt view: but I could be wrong there. (Simon Trew editing as IP). 188.143.15.1 (talk) 11:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that all links for modern FBP implementations were recently removed from the Flow-based programming page, making it a lot less useful to people interested in this programming paradigm. This doesn't only concern NoFlo, but also many other implementations in other programming languages. - Henri Bergius 03:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I actually did a brief search on NoFlo before nominating this redirect, but the I failed to find sufficient coverage. Generally to survive AfD an article should contain at least two citations of high-profile sources of wider scope. I would not recommend creating an article at this time, but if you believe there is enough verifiable material, I urge you to use WP:AFC process and put {{connected contributor}} on a talk page after article is accepted.
That was me who removed the links at Flow-based programming per WP:LINKFARM and WP:WTAF, and I am well-prepared to defend this edit. The article should only mention tools if they are vital for discussion of subject. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 08:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem a bit of a link farm, I agree. I did try to look it up (as I always do with redirects for discussion) but got nowhere: that doesn't mean others can't do better but for me at least it got me nowhere. You put it better than I. Si Trew editing as IP. 188.143.15.1 (talk) 11:49, 26 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.

Blue Red Yellow Blue Green Red[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) 16:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Made up/invented pseudonym TheChampionMan1234 10:57, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I was originally going to say "keep", but then after doing a search for this term in various search engines, this term seems to be a redirect to Google on those sites as well due to copying this bad association from Wikipedia. Let's stop confusing the world, and delete this. Steel1943 (talk) 11:46, 24 May 2014 (UTC)]][reply]
Comment. How about the song "I can sing a rainbow"? We could have Red lorry yellow lorry, or Red leather yellow leather, but neither seem to exist as tongue twisters. Si Trew (talk) 12:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most likely not. Some countries do not have a blue traffic light. However, ironically, it could be a color sequence in the game Simon! Steel1943 (talk) 13:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Haha! That's true. But you will be told off if you make jokes, you know. Si Trew (talk) 02:01, 25 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.

User:Domfav/Windows XP[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) 16:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate CNR. TheChampionMan1234 10:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The only way I probably would have not said "delete" to this CNR was if this redirect was the result of a page move. Since this redirect is not the result of a page move, it's useless and confusing. Steel1943 (talk) 11:54, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: this CNR serves no purpose, does not seem to be used by Domfav and has no page views at all. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 23:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Si Trew (talk) 03:05, 25 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.

Windows welcome music[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) 16:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nonexsistent section TheChampionMan1234 10:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Back during the older versions of Windows, I believe the file name for the default welcome music was "Tada.(something)". I'm not finding any information for that file anywhere on Wikipedia; it seems there is no good redirect target, and this may be a good candidate for an article per WP:REDLINK and what I stated in the previous sentence. Steel1943 (talk) 11:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The only possible retarget that I could see for this redirect is Control Panel (Windows), specifically the brief section in a graph labeled "Sounds and Audio Devices", but it still looks to vague, preventing the redirect to be useful if somehow retargeting there. Steel1943 (talk) 12:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The four chords, although annoying, are well-known. Si Trew (talk) 13:31, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Brian Eno#The Microsoft Sound. — Scott • talk 22:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: while Scott's suggestion is interesting, the redirect's name doesn't allow to determine the exact version of Windows in question (IIRC Windows XP startup sound was different from Eno's). I would also point out, that the name of redirect actually suggests another sound – the music from welcome application (the one with animated Windows logo and some introduction links), so I am not sure Eno's piece has anything to do with this redirect. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 23:37, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps convert it to some kind of disambiguation page, then; but Eno's piece is by far the most notable of any of the Windows startup sounds, and the only one to have any Wikipedia coverage. — Scott • talk 03:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Two problems here: the name does not refer to startup sound. It refers to "Welcome" music, and given that it currently hosts redirect to XP, which played startup sound after loading shell and had "Welcome" application, Eno's piece is not related to the subject at all. Secondly, there is no room for disambiguation: no other sound of the set enjoys coverage. In terms of coverage there is simply no ambiguity. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 08:32, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Scott. I see Czarkoff's point, but I think this is the most likely target. In fact, I couldn't remember who made it, and Scott redirected me to exactly the right target: so that shows that at least one reader might want to go there; I know the artist but just couldn't remember. Yes, it has changed in different versions but is a variation on a theme, still the same four chords, just more instrumental as sound cards etc have got better. Si Trew (talk) 02:52, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reason I cannot support the "retarget" option is because there are multiple options for "Windows welcome music". The "jingle" that I am actually the most familiar with was the "Ta-da" jingle that was part of Windows 3.1. The retarget option that Scott is referring to is not this jingle/sound file. It's still a valid option, but it's not the only option. Steel1943 (talk) 03:27, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Blimey, I remember Windows 3.1 (in fact I remember Windows 3.0) but not that it had a jingle: as I hinted, it comes down to sound cards and the weren't particularly standard fit, at least in industry, whereas these days you wouldn't buy a computer without one. So I don't think I ever heard it! What are we going to do about this, then, just delete it? Si Trew (talk) 07:26, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you sure this is the same sound? IIRC 98's startup sound was a variation on 95's, but XP had its own distinct jingle, as well as 3.1 did. And again, be the name referring to startup sound, retargetting would be more or less OK, but it describes another, completely separate sound. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 08:32, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Czarkoff. We don't have Windows startup music, for example: which tends to indicate, to me, that Czarkoff's line of reasoning is the right one. Si Trew (talk) 17:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have Windows 95 and Windows 98 on my MSDN disks: unfortunately I don't have the disks on me right now. I'll try to look this up when I get them in a week or so: they're being shipped. That's not a copyright violation: Microsoft won't mind: they've moved on (in fact they positively encourage developers to develop for them, do you remember Steve Ballmer shouting at an audience "Developers, Developers, Developers!]] and give them a slip with the keys for free for products both old and new: so I will lookit but can't do it for a week or so, sorry. I can put it on a virtual machine or something. Si Trew editing as IP 188.143.15.1 (talk) 13:02, 26 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.

Federal Republic of Australia[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 June 2#Federal Republic of Australia

Tàu[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, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. According to Google Translate "Tàu" is Vietnamese for 'ship', also see wikt:tàu, but the target is completely irrelevent, even if it is retageted to a relavent target it would be an inappropriate foriegn-language redirect TheChampionMan1234 03:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Tau is a Greek letter (T, essentially): and we shouldn't have alternate titles just variant on a diacritic (or should we?): in some languages other than English (see list of languages that are not English) they are absolutely essential (e.g. in Hungarian So and Só mean entirely different things, and the two "o"s are regarded as quite distinct letters) but not in English. @TheChampionMan1234: I have added in the explicit "Delete" in front of yours: please remove it if that is not what you meant. Si Trew (talk) 06:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect to ship as found appropriate for the redirect's primary sense. Redirects are cheap and I find nothing wrong with even foreign language redirects if the target article is a common synonym for it, like Spezial:Beobachtungsliste which is a German-language redirect to the Special:Watchlist page. In colloquial language, "Tàu" could be used to refer to either "China" or "ship", c.f. "nước+tàu" this example Google search for "Ship country". TheChampionMan1234: your link is a little misleading since it has "Chinese" also listed as an adjective, and furthermore Vietnamese Wiktionary, which is arguably a more authoritative source on Vietnamese language than English Wiktionary, has this entry on Tàu describing it as an abbreviation for China. The Vietnamese Wikipedia's article on Tàu supports this as a disambiguation page for both the "China" and "ship" senses. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 20:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But then you are hoist with your own petard. If Vietnamese Wiktionary, or Vietnamese Wikipedia, is more authoritative, we don't need the link in English Wikipedia. Si Trew (talk) 02:41, 25 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.

တရုတ်ပြည်သူ့သမ္မတနိုင်ငံ၏[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 by non-admin seems uncontroversial by regulars at RfD and we have consensus: clearing the backlog a bit (I am saying all this cos I need the actual delete from an admin, so the can see I am not a total idiot) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talk • contribs) 03:01, 25 May 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

This says that it is in Burmese, a google search says that my:တရုတ်ပြည်သူ့သမ္မတနိုင်ငံ၏ exists, but the language is not relavent to the target, thus Delete. TheChampionMan1234 03:45, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per the Champion. I don't get those characters - I guess I haven't the fonts installed - but it indicates going to Wikipedia.my which would be Myanmar (Burma) I presume. That all said, a foreign-language redirect to a (from a Burmese/Myanmar point of view) foreign-language article about a country for whom English is not the first language, that is hard to justify. Si Trew (talk) 06:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Since English-based operating systems seem to display all of this characters as rectangles, the redirect is practically useless. Steel1943 (talk) 11:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Depends what OS you're using (my computer displays it fine, with Windows 8.1 and IE11), but the principle still stands that the language and the target aren't related. Nyttend (talk) 14:26, 24 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.

People’s Republic of China[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. This and Taiwan etc have been cropping up here for days and generally get consensus quickly: almost a procedural close. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talk • contribs) 02:32, 25 May 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

This looks to like mojibake to me TheChampionMan1234 03:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per the Champion. Si Trew (talk) 06:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Other than that, this redirect is quite "unlikely" (for lack of a more neutral word) due to the trademark character. Steel1943 (talk) 11:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I should say extremely unlikely. Euro is available at Alt+4 on most European keyboards;which is a bit of a swing to start with: Trademark symbol is in the ASCII I think at Alt+248 but not on keyboards and the combination of the two is absurd: who would ever type that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talk • contribs) 13:39, 24 May 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]
    It is encoding problem, more specifically utf-8 string decoded as Windows-1250: echo People’s Republic of China | iconv -t cp1250. It (mojibake) used to be common problem with Internet Explorer. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 15:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Unicode problems are history now. This redirect serves no need any more. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 15:10, 24 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_May_24&oldid=1090409089"