Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 10[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 10, 2015.

Made In Mexico[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 Manufacturing in Mexico. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:44, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles like Made in China, so this shoul be WP:REDLINK - TheChampionMan1234 23:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WHY DOES IT KEEP LOSING MY EDITS. THIRD TIME NOW ON THIS SECTION LOSING THE WILL TO EDIT.
But we have Made in England (I hope rather self deprecation), Made in Hong Kong and Made in Japan, but not Made in R.O.C. nor Made in Vietnam nor Made in Bangladesh and I suppose, extending it to its logical conclusion, we would have List of places made somewhere. So I guess we go on what are notable economies in a capitalist system or something, picking themselves up by their bootstraps (and I deliberately include Hong Kong in that as a UK citizen cos the UK did bugger all to help them, they just carried on doing it themselves). The point I try to make, is this is not WP:WORLDWIDE. I shop at the kinai bolt ("Chinese shop", Dollar store roughly) and the angol bolt (Literally "English shop", mostly second hand clothes store, imported from Western European brands). Shoddy goods is also red, unfortunately, although Shoddy → Glossary_of_textile_manufacturing#S, I really should make an article on shoddy, marvellous stuff. Si Trew (talk) 02:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC) edited Si Trew (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)}}[reply]
Oh I forgot. Nothing is manufactured in England these days. [[Made in Korea], Made in South Korea was deleted on 27 January 2015 by User:Ymblanter as a redirect to a nonexistent page (WP:G8). Manufacturing in Korea, Manufacturing in South Korea are red. Made in Thailand is a song, Made in China is an article, but Manufacturing in China is {{R to section}} to Economy_of_China#Industry_and_manufacturing. Taking Occam's razor, I need not multiply examples needlessly. Si Trew (talk) 15:18, 14 June 2015 (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.

Atsushi Seimiya[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) 13:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another user blanked this redirect, I think in an attempt to delete it. The article subject appears to have been involved in a number of videogames, so I agree that it probably doesn't make sense to redirect to one of them. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Sega - Calliopejen's assessment appears to be accurate; he seems to have worked on many games. However, as these are almost all Sega-related games (one possible exception, which was on a Sega console anyway), I believe that the redirect should simply be retargeted until such time as someone creates a proper article (if one is justifiable). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lukeno94, Seimiya isn't mentioned at all on the Sega article, so such a redirect would likely be deleted if it came up here. I'll leave a note with WPVG for their input. --BDD (talk) 13:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a Japanese person's name transliterated into English, so RFOREIGN wouldn't apply. It would only apply if transliterated into another language, or if it were in an unrelated script, such as Cyrillic. --BDD (talk) 20:32, 15 June 2015 (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.

Wort, wort, wort![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. Just Chilling (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy, more Halo cruft! This one seems to be related to Sangheili (Halo), which has since been redirected to the target article. "Wort, wort, wort" wasn't mentioned in the older article and isn't mentioned now in the more general one, suggesting it never will be. See also WP:NOTWIKIA. BDD (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The1337gamer (talk) 13:17, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - For a non-Halo fan - what exactly is the significance of "Wort, wort wort"? I mean, it kind of sounds unimportant, but it's hard to say without any real context... Sergecross73 msg me 13:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A random quote from Elites in Halo, it means "Go Go Go". The1337gamer (talk) 13:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, gotcha, thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 13:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - trivial part of subject, not likely to be covered at the redirect target. If someone manages to work it into the article in a meaningful way, I guess I'd reconsider, I'm just not sure how that'd happen... Sergecross73 msg me 13:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(takes a sip) Malt beer, of course, is blue, as it should be.

Casting aside just in case for cognates, we have werd and Wört but nothing much closer.
So since we have no hops and mo malt and patently the WP:PRIMARY for wort is where it stands, then delete this as WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Thus spake the wort of Si Trew (talk) 23:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Amongst my many talents I am a regular supplier of empties to the Trade.Oh no joking allowed! Says so on my talk page. Sorry

Comment. I know this is a long way away, but do you think people hit this via Hogwarts in any way? Never read them or seen any of the films meself, just got annoyed with the tourists at London King's Cross on Platform 9+3⁄4 when I was after the train home at a real platform 9b. Si Trew (talk) 23:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete seems to be an obscure in-game meme that is better covered in the game's Wikia. For some reason Si Trew's findings made me thirsty. --Lenticel (talk) 00:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Have a glass of water.It won't kill you, it's just beer in its unfermented state. If you get a nice naturally fermented (red, alas: another on the list to do, then) beer all the yeasts on the wind will come in and ferment it for you. Marvellous think, yeast. Just to think, every hole in your bread is made by billions of yeasts farting and expiring, essentially, their death throes. Fortuntately I have morals and refuse to touch anything that hasn't been butchered first. Si Trew (talk) 00:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Way too confusing as it reads like a sound effect in a comic strip that could take in several items (such as the TARDIS in Doctor Who). I also recall Peter Sellers as Bluebottle in The Goon Show using this as a sound effect while trying (and failing) to will a bunch of Scottish kilts to fall down! (Listen to the Mackreekie Rising of 74 if you can) Dragonfire X (talk) 23:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And "What, what" or "what whatting", is how Alan Bennett characterised the Madness of George III. Si Trew (talk) 15:01, 14 June 2015 (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.

Mississippi Mojo[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) 13:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is pointing to an article that the has no information on the team. On top of that the team actually played of out Minnesota and not Mississippi so its not really related to Mississippi despite the name. DJSasso (talk) 14:19, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:RFD#D2 confusion. WP:REDLINK. Oh here is some infomrma.. t.. o there isn't. That's about as much use as a snake in a butt kicking competition. Isn't it a Cocktail recipe anyway? Which would of course fall under WP:NOTRECIPE. Si Trew (talk) 23:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Mojo is also the name of a photo booth entertainment "experience" (that came up first in a Google search over the Bandy reference) and a little known southern blues duo. So confusion does reign here. Dragonfire X (talk) 23:58, 13 June 2015 (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.

Daniela Montoya[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 moved over redirect by Anthony Appleyard. --BDD (talk) 13:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this redirected to a flight, when the flight article does not even mention the name. Now there is a footballer with same name so should the footballer be created here instead? Qed237 (talk) 13:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • This must have been the name of a victim of the crash, but as you say, she isn't mentioned there. Move Daniela Montoya (footballer) over the redirect. I suggest this be done speedily. --BDD (talk) 18:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support User:BDD's assessment, redirect to the football subject. Inter&anthro (talk) 18:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respect, Qed, I think Joeykai clearly made the right decision here. Could you be persuaded to self revert? --BDD (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@BDD: I did not think we were allowed to just create a new page on the existing redirect without any discussion, which was the reason for my revert. In my mind, the page should be deleted, to make room for a move of Daniela Montoya (footballer) to Daniela Montoya. Qed237 (talk) 21:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on page history. Mostly, if there had formerly been an article on the crash victim, it would be good to move it to preserve that history. If it's always been a redirect, overwriting it is fine, even if for a different subject. --BDD (talk) 21:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But now the new article has history that might be preserved. Qed237 (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Original redirect has now been deleted and the footballer moved. Think we can close this now. Qed237 (talk) 12:45, 11 June 2015 (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.

Memory space (computational resource)[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. I've tagged it with {{R with possibilities}}. --BDD (talk) 13:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect should be deleted per WP:RED. It's a notable concept that should have a dedicated article. Currently the computational resource article only provides an unreferenced half-sentence. Redirecting to it gives the readers a mostly useless articles, and decreases the chance that the article will be properly created. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I made it a redirect because some links that were changed, which used to redirect to Computational resource via Memory space, now seemed to point into nowhere. It wasn't my intention to prevent the creation of an actual article, just to make sure visitors could find the original target information until that happens. My apologies if I interrupted a cleanup in process. --Ørjan (talk) 02:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a redirect. What, pray tell, is the difference between this and space complexity, and why should they be treated as if they are separate topics? And if you think it should be expanded, appropriate responses are to tag it with {{R with possibilities}} or, you know, actually expand it. But for now DSPACE might be a better redirect target than computational resource since it's actually about (a specific type of) space complexity. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein: I don't understand. Nobody's disputing it should go somewhere, well OK User:Piotrus, the nom, is but leave that aside. Your argument is really, I think, as a retarget (I think that is what you mean by Keep as a redirect) but where? Are you going for DSPACE or space complexity? (Actually, most computer memory is limited by time not space: that's why people invented things like zero wait state memory). Si Trew (talk) 07:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. At first glance, I would have gone delete, and certainly the DAB at Memory space encouraged me that way. (That is a WP:TWODABS, one for computing and one for the arty fartysocial sciences.) There is more to this than meets the eye: I presume that neither was considered primary so we made a WP:TWODABS, but I haven't checked the history of all those to untangle it. It could be {{R to section}} but there is no section about memory, and Resource (computing), a DAB, doesn't mention memory either. Perhaps it's so cheap these days that we forget it is a resource! 15:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talk • contribs)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep There's nothing stopping an article from being created even though that would encourage the use of WP:REDLINK to delete, but it is an entirely useful redirect as well until such time as this is done. So for the time being I lean towards keeping it. Dragonfire X (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we don't have O complexity or Big O complexity either, although they are used in many articles. Power series is probably the nearest we'd get, that way, which is rather useless for our purposes. Si Trew (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2015 (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.

Gull Dong[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) 13:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this as an A1 speedy, but this doesn't really pertain to redirects and the intention is to redirect, so I don't think it'd qualify under that criteria.

That said, I don't think that this is an accurate redirect. Bully Kuttas and Gull Dongs don't appear to be the same thing, as far as I can tell. I'd speedy this but I'm not quite sure what criteria it'd fall under, as it's not really a recreation of an AfD'd page and while the two breeds appear to be different I'm not entirely sure about this.

Because there is a bit of a margin of doubt here, I'm bringing this to RfD. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • For example, this entry does not list "Gull Dong" as a breed name and this site says that the two breeds are completely different. I'm not really familiar with dog breeds, so I figured that it'd be best to get some others to look and verify that they are two separate breeds. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • hi anyone i create the gull dong redirect cause i see in Google that gull dong and bully kutta is same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angeles j (talk • contribs) 12:03, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The internet (Tokyogirl's link, plus at least this one and some others) suggest that the Gull Dong (or Bully Gull Terrier, or Pakistani Bull Dog) is a distinct breed resulting from a cross-breed with the Bully Kutta and an Indian Terrier. I can't figure out what breed Indian Terrier is, but there is an Indian Mastiff. Unfortunately for us, Indian Mastiff and Pakistani Bully Dog also redirect to Bully Kutta, so I have added them above. It's too bad there doesn't seem to be an authority on dog breeds in southeast Asia, though I did find this site which conveniently doesn't list any of these breeds. I think there's more to the story here, and I'm going to ping WikiProject Dogs for insight. Ivanvector (talk) 19:19, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The trouble is, most/all of those links are not reliable sources: dogbreedinfo.com is generally removed on sight from any dog breed articles; petsworld.in is a blog written by "Swati [who] takes pride of being a dog lover. Her current passions include blogging, writing and collecting dog pictures of various breeds. She is an active member of stray dog care society", so again, not a reliable source; petyourdogs.com simply looks to be an SEO site with no indication of reliability; and dogsindia.com is basically selling stuff (and puppies). If these "breeds" are not recognised by any major registries (FCI, The Kennel Club, AKC etc), which they are not, and have no coverage in reliable sources, how is there any way they meet any notability guidelines? SagaciousPhil - Chat 19:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy - sock creation -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Darn, guess I can't recommend retargeting the first to Bird penis anymore. --BDD (talk) 13:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Darn, and I heard that Indian dogs have smaller stiffy,s too... Si Trew (talk) 10:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, regardless of all that dirty laundry, "Gull Dong" is apparently a known breed of dog, or a name for a breed that's known by this in some part of India, which we may have an article on. But which breed? The page has been salted, but that shouldn't stop us from figuring it out. Ivanvector (talk) 14:12, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The first is already redlinked (and salted apparently as mentioned). The other two - on a look at the target - are ambiguous terms that really don't connect well enough to the target to be useful. In the end they would be confusing and not help. Dragonfire X (talk) 00:05, 14 June 2015 (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.

Roads in Autostrada of Italy[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) 13:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a flailing tail on the discussion of Autostrade etc. I nominated it for CSD but User:Nyttend did not oppose but reverted that nomination, so as not to giver any other editor a chance (Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit!), which seems odd to me: so it should be taken to RfD for the obvious consequences which we have discussed ad nauseam. Si Trew (talk) 21:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It has significant history from ten years ago. I reverted SimonTrew because there's no possible way that this could qualify as R3: the criterion excludes things created via pagemoves. Nyttend (talk) 22:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nyttend, you mean this? It's one thing to say keep as {{R from move}}, but there doesn't seem to be significant history living there. --BDD (talk) 13:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see anything wrong with this redirect. Tavix | Talk  00:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The reason it has a history is because it has been moved around in the last few days (as User:Tavix well knows): this title did not exist before this move by User:Steel1943 on 1 June, so the likelihood of incoming external links is very small. No history or attribution needs to be kept for this (as Tavix has argued for others and I support). The title is blatantly ridiculous, what roads would be in the Autostrada of Italy? They are roads they would not be in them. Unless you consider Autostrada of Italy as the entire network, but that ain't the case, and even so it would be plural (and we don't have Roads in Autostrade of Italy) because stupidly the target is at Autostrade of Italy, the plural, violating WP:SINGULAR, and especially so since it's the Italian plural not the English one (Autostradas). This is just a remnant, a false limb, left by the various moves etc over the last few days, and can be safely deleted. Si Trew (talk) 06:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a liar, we do have Roads in Autostrade of Italy. I've added that to my nom; obviously Tavix' and Nyttend's comments above precede that addition and should be taken so. Si Trew (talk) 06:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 09:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment I have to divide this in two. Delete the first one as it is an unlikely spelling error that makes no sense and would be confusing. Keep the second one as it is clearly a logical and sensible redirect. Dragonfire X (talk) 00:09, 14 June 2015 (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/2015_June_10&oldid=1138580290"