Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 25

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 25, 2022.

Color Line (SEPTA Regional Rail)

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. ✗ plicit 23:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply

These color designation for SEPTA regional rail routes are completely unused both in Wikipedia and by anyone I can find on the internet or really anywhere else. The color names which these routes are used on the schedules for the routes, but they are not at all called by these names. Furthermore, these names present additional confusion as these colors from 2011–present [1] are in conflict with previous color systems for the trains where they had different colors. [2] Tartar Torte 23:32, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ https://www.inquirer.com/philly/news/local/20110217_SEPTA_goes_with_new_color_scheme_for_Regional_Rail.html
  2. ^ https://transitmap.net/septa-regional-rail-1989/
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.

Most massive

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 2#Most massive

Watered Down

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 disambiguate and retarget.

Deletion. Special:WhatLinksHere/Watered_Down The term "Watered Down" doesn't appear on the Trace Adkins page at all, though it's one of his song titles. Better to just remove this redirect. If really wanted, it should redirect to the album page, Something's Going On (Trace Adkins album). It was mentioned March 12 2018 under the discussion for Watered, but no action was proposed nor taken for Watered Down Nimbex ( talk) 21:36, 18 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:44, 25 August 2022 (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.

Moss green

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 Shades of chartreuse#Moss green. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 21:50, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Not mentioned at the target article, but is a {{ R with history}}. Steel1943 ( talk) 20:47, 11 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:58, 18 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Color/Archive 9#"Shades of" articles may result in the relevant entry at Shades of chartreuse being moved somewhere else. – Scyrme ( talk) 21:04, 18 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:42, 25 August 2022 (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.

Modernist architect

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 6#Modernist architect

Darryl Perry

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 Libertarian Party of New Hampshire#2010s. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 21:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

This person is a perennial candidate for office and linking to the next/most recent election contested makes this a costly redirect. It seems there's no one single target that works best and thus this redirect should be deleted. Tartar Torte 18:45, 25 August 2022 (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.

井

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 disambiguate. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 21:43, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply

This is a single character that doesn't by itself refer to any single concept (unless you count well). The only internal link that uses it, is from the XCCS code table where it clearly refers to the symbol itself and we are never going to have an article about it (it could be linked to wikt:井). It doesn't work as a search aid either, because it's ambiguous and may also refer to the Jing (surname) or the Well (Chinese constellation), yet it redirects to a tangentially related topic that wouldn't normally be referred to by a single character. – MwGamera ( talk) 17:09, 25 August 2022 (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.

Princedom of Ongal

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. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 22:03, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Has even less sources than Verdis/ Free Republic of Verdis which was declined to become a redirect. Kingdom of Enclava should also be deleted due to lack of sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MicroSupporter ( talk • contribs) 13:24, 25 August 2022 (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.

Vaanku

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 disambiguate at Banku and Vanku as described in Scyrme's proposal. With thanks to Jay for drafting the latter. -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she|they|xe) 01:44, 6 September 2022 (UTC) reply

This used to be the title for Vaanku (film). The film article was moved so the basename could redirect. But Vaanku is not mention in Adhan, so without some justification, this should be undone. MB 04:45, 11 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Added Vanku, also not mentioned ( WP:ASTONISH). Top search hits for this are a Chinese electronics company. MB 04:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Added three more similar. MB 17:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: IMHO a) Vanku / Vaanku is transliteration of Malayalam word വാങ്ക്. Wikipedia is not dictionary to redirect those transliterations to → Adhan. b) A good option can be to make Vanku / Vaanku as disambiguation page there Vaanku (film) and Adhan  both can find mention and any other language any other article too. c) If Vaanku (film) does not find mention in Adhan#In popular culture then it is supposed to find place there.
Thanks Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' ( talk) 15:14, 11 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Adhan currently reads Muslims on the Malabar Coast in India use the Persian term بانگ, Banku, for the call to public prayer.; these redirects are South Asian variants of that term. However, since these are transliterations of non-English terms, Wikipedia:Redirects in languages other than English would suggest that they all be deleted unless they are used as the English variant word in some forms of English. I know that the usual South Asian English term for adhan is azan, however it may be that some communities prefer to use a variant of banku. I'm not familiar enough with South Asian English dialects to know whether variants of banku are plausibly in common use. This is further complicated by one of these variants being shared with the film title, so it's not as simple as deleting. Perhaps disambiguation would be appropriate. – Scyrme ( talk) 20:12, 17 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 06:26, 18 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Related Comment on side note: The rule cited from Wikipedia:Redirects in languages other than English seems to me like (avoidable) systemic bias supported by linguistic hegemony.
    Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' ( talk) 07:49, 18 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    I don't agree about bias; there are good reasons for limiting such redirects (particularly finding the correct language Wikipedia article when you search in that language) and other language Wikipedias have similar rules for keeping to the main language. Regardless, disputes over what the guidelines ought to be are off-topic for this discussion.
    The disambiguation page Banku already exists, and already links to adhan. Therefore, I suggest:
    • Retarget redirects beginning with B- to Banku and update the latter to note variation.
    • Disambiguate redirects beginning with V- similarly by converting Vanku, and retarget relevant variants there.
    • Place "see also" links on each disambiguation page pointing to the other.
    – Scyrme ( talk) 17:08, 19 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further input on Scyrme's proposal...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:09, 25 August 2022 (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.

Nguyen Ngọc Tho

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. Despite two relists, we are still evenly split between keep and delete. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 05:32, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

(Disclosure: I nominated this 6 months ago and the result was "No consensus") This is a mostly unused redirect that while WP:CHEAP is highly implausible. It would require someone to have the ability to type the ọ character, but none of the other diacritics. The only languages other than Vietnamese to use ọ in any form are Romangol, Igbo, and Yoruba. I'm arguing it's highly unfeasible someone would be able to type ọ but not any of the other diacritics. Tartar Torte 00:09, 11 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:53, 17 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom and WP:COSTLY/ WP:PANDORA. Appealing to CHEAP doesn't work for redirects that have no plausible utility. This is an astronomically implausible typo. And even *if* someone were to manage to type it in (which they won't), they'd still get the correct page as the top search result anyway (if they don't already just get there from the dropdown list of suggestions, which this redirect is currently polluting, and probably where its scant pageviews actually come from). This redirect serves no purpose. 35.139.154.158 ( talk) 14:04, 18 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    Could you help me understand the point about polluting the dropdown please? Barnards.tar.gz ( talk) 16:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    See below, addressed there. 35.139.154.158 ( talk) 15:54, 20 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per A7V2. WP:PANDORA is nonsense - redirects are decided on their own merits and the existence of one redirect is irrelevant to whether a different one should or should not; WP:COSTLY is wrong more often than it is right. Only a subset of people use the drop-down list of articles to find the page they are looking for and, for those that do, whether they click on the article title or redirect is irrelevant as they will arrive at the same location so there is absolutely no harm (or "pollution") from the redirect appearing there (but see phab:T24251 for a related feature request). Thryduulf ( talk) 20:55, 19 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    PANDORA is hardly nonsense. You're saying redirects are decided on their own merits, but this one has no merits. It's an utterly pointless redirect, and if this is fine, then so is every combination of letters with and without diacritics. The existence of which would pollute the search dropdown box to the point where someone using it would be unable to find other similarly named articles. Even one already pushes one entry off the list. (Your phab link is a 404 by the way). That's part of how PANDORA comes into play here. And saying "COSTLY is wrong more often than it is right" is empty rhetoric. It's not wrong here, and I could say the same thing about CHEAP just as easily and meaninglessly. The point is...this is a useless redirect (and you haven't even bothered to argue otherwise). If it were created today, it would be a no-brainer WP:R3. It's not helping anyone find the article, and your stubborn insistence otherwise is just that. 35.139.154.158 ( talk) 15:54, 20 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    Fixed the phab link. The point about PANDORA is that whether this redirect is good or bad implies nothing about whether other redirects are good or bad - just because this one evidently helps some people find the article does not mean that any other combination of diacritics will or will not - it it is simply irrelevant to that. The list of suggested articles in the drop down is finite so every redirect prevents something else from being shown, and we don't make it harder for people to find one article just to make it easier for people to find a different article (because then we would need to do the reverse and get stuck in an endless loop), and as previously mentioned the search dropdown is far from the only way people navigate Wikipedia, removing a useful redirect inconveniences people who don't use it without significantly benefiting those who do. Thryduulf ( talk) 11:17, 21 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    But it's not helping anyone find the target article! And PANDORA applies just fine if you haven't demonstrated any plausible reason why this particular combination of incorrect diacritics would be more useful than any other combination of incorrect diacritics (spoiler: there isn't any such reason). You keep saying this is useful...but it isn't useful. I checked out that phab link, and it doesn't exactly seem like there's any rush to implement it, especially with the skepticism about unintended side effects. So if and when such a feature gets implemented, then you can appeal to it, but as it stands, it's just a unicorn and irrelevant. And just to reiterate, this is not a useful redirect; it's not helping anyone find the target article; it would be an easy R3 if it were created today; its existence is a net negative to the encyclopedia. 35.139.154.158 ( talk) 16:38, 21 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 04:44, 25 August 2022 (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.

Philalethia

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) 16:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Not mentioned at the target. While nominally overlapping a bit with philosophy, it's not synonymous with the term (Philalethia translates literally as "love of truth" in Greek), and I strongly doubt that anyone searching this term on English Wikipedia would be satisfied by the current target. Doesn't appear to be mentioned anywhere else on Wikipedia, which leads me to suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 19:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep; synonymous overlap (since pre-Classical times): 'But history shows it revived by Ammonius Saccas, the founder of the Neo-Platonic School. He and his disciples called themselves "Philalethians" - lovers of the truth; while others termed them the "Analogists," on account of their method of interpreting all sacred legends, symbolical myths and mysteries, by a rule of analogy or correspondence, so that events which had occurred in the external world were regarded as expressing operations and experiences of the human soul' [1] [2] (this (one) public domain reference/reprint is widely-available online). One of several/many modern places/groups use both/interchaneably: UK philalethians-- dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍( talk| contrib) 07:42, 17 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    Blavatskian sources are pretty clearly fringe as far as philosophy and religion are concerned, I would only take their usage as definitive if they were the only people that use this term, which doesn't appear to be the case given its use in Greek philosophy. signed, Rosguill talk 15:45, 17 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    Really doesn't matter; many things are redirected to more general topics (some that don't even mention the redirects anymore) like formal reason & formal logic were redirected to reason & logic despite should've kept their own articles. This is a similar case.-- dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍( talk| contrib) 16:19, 17 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    It absolutely does matter that the source you've provided to support your claim is unreliable fringe, as that undermines your argument entirely. signed, Rosguill talk 21:05, 18 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    Madame Blavatsky (categorized as a philosopher) & Theosophy aren't categorized as fringe (though such categories exist, and for such an argument to be relevant, categorization should be updated)-- dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍( talk| contrib) 08:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    I'm disinterested in a Wikipedia category war over those articles, particularly because fringe is contextual--within the context of Philosophy as a field, which would be the domain in question here, the views of western esotericists and the new religious movements they inspire are nevertheless fringe. Within western esotericism, they likely aren't. signed, Rosguill talk 17:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ Blavatsky, Helena. 'What is Theosophy?'. The Theosophist vol 1, #1. Oct 1879.
  2. ^ Blavatsky, Helena. 'What is Theosophy?'. The Collected Writings vol 2. pp87-92.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 18:52, 16 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 03:43, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply

The terms are definitely not synonyms. It could be an {{ r from related topic}}, but that's a stretch; it would be like redirecting Transcendence to Philosophy, were the former not already an article, simply because it's a term that has been used in the field. Another problem is that the target doesn't mention the term, so it's not clear to readers without prior knowledge why they were sent there. It may even be misleading, as they may assume the terms are being treated as synonyms (as commenters above have), or they may assume the only reason they were sent there is because they share a common morpheme.
The term "philaletheia" and its relatives/derivatives are attested on Wikipedia, most as passing mentions or inclusions in proper nouns. In this regard it's comparable to Philomath, except that Philomath also has an article of its own. Of the relevant terms only Philalethia has a redirect, however Philalethes exists as a list of people with that name; Philaletheia, Philalethea, Philalethean, and Philalethian do not exist in any form. Whatever the outcome of this discussion, it should also consider those terms.
One possible solution is disambiguate between pages mentioning relevant terms, and let readers navigate to the most relevant target. If a reliable source confirms that students of Ammonius Saccas self-identified as "philalethians" then it may be included in the list, but only after relevant material has been added (with citation). Philosophy would not belong on that list. A different option would be retargeting to Aletheia, but that article is a mess and doesn't mention the target either.
However, I lean towards a retarget of Philalethia and the redlinks above to The Philaletheis Society, which explicitly includes Philalethean in the lead and also includes the text Named for the term philalethea, meaning "truth-loving" under the heading "History". No reader being sent there would be surprised by being sent there, even if it isn't a perfect target. I would suggest tagging them with {{ r from related term}} and {{ r with possibilities}}. – Scyrme ( talk) 16:04, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply
That's actually the society which is briefly mentioned and not the term in question, as Paradoctor has correctly stated above. CycloneYoris talk! 16:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply
I don't see how Named for the term philalethea, meaning "truth-loving" is not an explicit a mention of the Greek term. It explicitly refers to the "term". Yes, it's in the context of establishing the etymology of the name of the society, but it still does so by discussing the word itself. – Scyrme ( talk) 17:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply
But the word isn't discussed and only briefly mentioned as in the context of a society; and that's the reason why I'm advocating for deletion. If the closer decides not to delete, then retargeting to the society article should be considered as a viable option, but that's ultimately up to whoever closes this discussion to decide. CycloneYoris talk! 00:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC) reply
It's discussed to extent would be best redirect.-- dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍( talk| contrib) 08:03, 9 September 2022 (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.

Cereal eating by humans

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. Legoktm ( talk) 06:43, 5 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Another ridiculous redirect created by StrexcorpEmployee ( talk · contribs) based on the GPT2 subreddit [1]. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 04:01, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Due to section reworking complications.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 22:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:31, 12 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:31, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - The search term "cereal+eating+by+humans" gives only two pages of results on Google, all of them are either this discussion and redirect, or Wikipedia clones autocopying Wikipedia. If the redirect had not been created, they would not exist at all. The only exception (unless I missed something) is the post on Reddit's r/SubSimulatorGPT2 which is itself a link to Wikipedia, as noted by the nominator. This subreddit is a simulator, so the discussion at that location is bot-generated; it's not an actual human discussion.
In light of that, I don't find arguments that this a plausible search term convincing. The arguments for keeping it are being too charitable. More plausible terms would be cereal consumption by humans, consumption of cereal by humans, consumption of cereals by humans, human cereal consumption, and human consumption of cereal/cereals/cereal products. If this topic needs redirects to aid navigation, turn these phrases into redirects instead; any of them would be far more helpful. All of these return results, attesting to the use of these phrases outside Wikipedia.
Even human cereal eating would be more plausible, if the argument is that learners may not know the word "consumption"; it returns at least one example of actual human use, although it seems to be the only real result, the others being lists of tags that happen to put these words next to each other. The term humans eating cereals may work better; it returns multiple examples of use, including some that explicitly reference historical and prehistoric consumption.
tl;dr - Delete this redirect; it can be replaced by better ones if needed. – Scyrme ( talk) 18:56, 25 August 2022 (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/?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_August_25&oldid=1180592171"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE