Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 27

May 27
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 27, 2014.

Fresh Pickle



 * 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 doubt over the existence of  such a cucumber cultivar means that a retarget to List of cucumber varieties would be inappropriate. This is a harmless redirect and no convincing argument for deletion has been forthcoming. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 22:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


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

Fresh Pickle is apparently a cucumber cultivar, but it's not discussed at that page. Redirecting to a dab where none of the entries could reasonably be referred to as "Fresh Pickle" doesn't make sense. --BDD (talk) 17:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of cucumber varieties. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC).


 * Yes, that works for me. We may never have much to say about this variety, but it's a legitimate list entry. Si, is that good enough a mention for you? --BDD (talk) 16:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Do we have any citation that there is a cultivar by this name? It isn't listed on the Dave's Garden site, which is the most comprehensive listing I know of. Mangoe (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, I haven't been able to find evidence of it either. Perhaps if the redirect is deleted the list entry should be as well. --BDD (talk) 18:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. It's not discussed anywhere as I can see. It would seem a contradiction in terms, to pickle something, as a preservative method, necessarily involves it not being fresh. I found this recipe after a struggle:


 * However that seems to mean in the sense either that the stuff was fresh before it was pickled, or that the recipe is fresh (new), not that the pickled cucumbers (or in British English gherkins) necessarily are.


 * I wouldn't be at all surprised if there is a band or whatever that calls itself "Fresh Pickle", even an ironic one like Brown Sauce (band), but I couldn't find it. I go through google.hu which although ends up at the same server bank as google.com or google.co.uk or google.ie or whatever, second-guesses one's search results, and pickled cucumbers are very popular in Hungary, so it may be that it has tailored my results that way and others will have more success with searching.


 * Si Trew (talk) 09:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * maybe keep I don't know of a "Fresh Pickles" cucumber variety (there is one called "Homemade Pickles"), but I did see one source claiming that a "fresh pickle" is one that is prepared without cooking. I don't know how good this source is. There are a gajillion other hits for unrelated topics and just the juxtaposition of the two words, so I'm not opposed to outright deletion. Mangoe (talk) 13:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it seems rather vague. In Hungarian it would be friss savanyúság if anything and they eat pickles as if they had just come off the ration but I have never heard it in Hungarian that way: this is relevant because a lot of products are labelled in English instead of Hungarian so it would probably be written that way in the small print at least (but usually in the large print since anything ostensibly foreign is regarded as a bit classy even if in fact it is made in Nagykata or whatever). Si Trew (talk) 08:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * maybe keep', with Mangoe. It's vague but it does no harm, really: at least I think we all agree the target is the right place for it to go, if it stays? Si Trew (talk) 10:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Infotag news agency



 * 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

TerriersFan (talk) 17:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Infotag news agency → Moldova (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ] TheChampionMan1234 07:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What is your rationale for deleting this proper redirect? The Infotag news agency is the state run news agency of Moldava. If you are going to put something up for deletion, minimally do a Google search on the term. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The nominator certainly should've included some sort of rationale, but since the subject isn't discussed at the target article, I wouldn't say this is a proper redirect. A user who already knows that Infotag is the news agency of Moldova learns nothing; a user that doesn't know what Infotag is just gets confused. See WP:RFD #10. --BDD (talk) 20:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep old (5 years!), non-harmful redirect. Now mentioned on target page. Could become an article. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC).


 * Delete or stubbify WP:REDLINK, this is a notable topic that should have a redlink to encourage people to write an article. Or RAN could write a stub in its place, as he seems to know something about the entity. As an official news agency for a government/state, it should either be a redlink or a stub, or redirect to a section that documents it. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:REDLINK. The agency is now mentioned at the target page, but that's all. RFD#DELETE #10 still fully applies. --BDD (talk) 16:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Redirects of this sort discourage the creation of articles while providing essentially nothing of value.  Nyttend (talk) 23:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Obviously misleading. They think it's Moldova. Si Trew (talk) 08:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I wanted to go ahead and make a stub here, but non-primary sources on the company are hard to find, at least in English. According to the English version of their website, Infotag is independent, not state-owned, as it says on Moldova (without a citation). It's also unclear to me whether their name is Infotag News Agency, as it appears on their site, or just Infotag. My working draft is at User:BDD/Infotag, but there's very little so far. --BDD (talk) 19:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Relisting comment: Anyone want to help me out with this stub so we can hopefully end up with an article?


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete, for now. BDD's draft is promising, but it's not complete yet, and this discussion has been here for a while. Let's delete this per WP:REDLINK, and attend to other discussions. Steel1943  (talk) 20:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Φαινόμενoν



 * 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) 16:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Delete. Neither especially Greek, German, Galician, Portuguese, nor Spanish. Gorobay (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Φαινόμενoν → Phenomenon (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * Phainomenon → Phenomenon (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phainomenon&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * Phänomen → Phenomenon (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ph%C3%A4nomen&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * Fenómeno → Phenomenon (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fen%C3%B3meno&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * Even were they, they have no place in EN:WP. Delete' per Gorobay. Si Trew (talk) 00:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * delete generic topic with no particular affinity for any particular languages. WP:NOT a translation dictionary -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 03:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Phainomenon as an R from misspelling. Steel1943  (talk) 21:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per Steel1943. Mispelling but unlikely one. I am not allowed to make jokes, so I won't at all mention that it is also common for engineers in the UK (and most engineers are common), when someone says "phenomena", to sing back "doo-doo do do do" Like the Mnahh-Mnahhs from The Muppet Show:which, coincidentally, was made in the UK about 20 miles from where I lived because the American networks wouldn't take it. Oh I forgot, I have a sense of humour after all. Si Trew editing as IP. 84.236.37.246 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "Phainomenon" would seem reasonable. The Greek one seems, for English Wikipedia, less reasonable, under the usual token (i.e. obviously Greek but not especially Greek). The last two are absurd. Sorry for the EC, Csilnap. Si Trew editing as IP. 84.236.37.246 (talk) 22:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Google Sites and Google Docs



 * 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) 16:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Google Sites and Google Docs → Google Sites (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

The redirect should be deleted, it makes no sense to link Google Docs with Google Sites and then to redirect the user to the Google Sites page. Its as if someone created a redirect called Apples and Oranges and then redirected it to Apples. Nonsense! ProductBox (talk) 11:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Makes perfect sense. Si Trew editing under IP. 84.236.37.246 (talk) 22:27, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Si Trew, does that mean that if there was a redirect page called "Apples and Oranges" which redirected to Apples that you would vote "keep" for that too? If you say that the redirect "Makes perfect sense", can you explain how?  ProductBox (talk) 07:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Another annoying "2 things to one thing when both have articles" redirect:Jay8g [ V•T•E ] 01:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. This was a redundant former article but, as a redirect, simply serves to confuse the reader. The Whispering Wind (talk) 15:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Template:PM5K
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 June 4%23Template:P5MK

Dire straits
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 June 4%23Dire straits

Pussycat (disambiguation)



 * 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. --BDD (talk) 15:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


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

I hope this isn't the wrong forum, but... Since the word "pussycat" primarily refers to cats, that name should redirect to Cat, and the disambiguation page currently at Pussycat should be moved to Pussycat (disambiguation). Cnilep (talk) 00:40, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:RM would probably be a better forum, given that a page move is being requested. Otherwise, I have no opinion ... right now. Steel1943  (talk) 01:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Procedural close this is a request for WP:Requested moves -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:59, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If it ends up as I've suggested, there will actually be multiple changes: moving the content at 'Pussycat (disambiguation)' and redirecting 'Pussycat' to 'Cat', plus subsequent additions/changes to this and other disambiguation pages. (For example, if 'Pussycat' becomes a redirect to 'Cat', adding it to Pussy (disambiguation) would make more sense.) I've noted this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation, and in my experience listing at RM doesn't tend to garner much attention beyond folks who already contribute to the page being moved. I don't imagine the quality or outcome of the debate will be significantly changed by moving from this forum to another one, though I would certainly have no objection to seeking wider input. Cnilep (talk) 06:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The pagemove should be treated as a WP:RM, since it's a primary topic discussion. As part of the Requested Move, it can be discussed if pussycat should redirect to cat. (I am not SiTrew) -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. Si Trew editing as IP: Will check up: Conflicted with Cnilep.


 * So what you're saying is that there should be a disambiguation page for the term "Pussycat", but Pussycat should link to something else instead? I think that would be unnecessarily confusing. — Paul A (talk) 02:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Request withdrawn; I'm sorry for drawing participants into a metadiscussion about discussion fora. Cnilep (talk) 07:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.