Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 June 8

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 Parasceve to Paraskevi, delete Prosábbaton and Prosabbaton. I appreciate the additional input here at the end, glad I delayed closing. This wasn't easy (or fun). For starters, the Prosabbaton and Prosábbaton are delete because, well, most folks either didn't care or supported deletion. For Parasceve, I really think the below discussion is no consensus, and almost closed it as such; Paraskevi doesn't directly mention the spelling, nor does Wiktionary. However, I am redirecting it for two reasons: Friday includes a line (the Greek word for Friday is Paraskevi) that supports such a conflation; and two, the original section these pointed to had a hatnote for Parasceve, pointing readers to Paraskevi. That was way back in January of 2012, and after its removal it would have been reasonable to just redirect it to Paraskevi. The line at Friday is not enough for me to be convinced by the arguments for keep that it would be more helpful than a retargeting.

All that being said, I imagine an enterprising editor could be inspired to re-add some of this material (if sourced) to Friday, and if so, I wouldn't be opposed to these being repointed/recreated back there if it sticks. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Parasceve → Friday#Parasceve  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Prosábbaton → Friday#Parasceve  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Prosabbaton → Friday#Parasceve  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Target section does not exist. None of these are mentioned in the target article (though the Etymology section mentions a "Paraskevi" as the Greek translation). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• This is an interesting one. Parasceve in modern usage is the day before the Jewish
  ⁰⁶¹² 21:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• You have stumbled across a topic virtually unknown in Western Christianity, but very significant in Eastern Christianity. English Wiki has no article on it, but IMO it needs one: Saint Paraskevi (personification of Friday) [ru]. (Two incoming links in English Wiki already.) Narky Blert (talk) 20:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, redirect Parasceve to Paraskevi. I have no opinion on Prosabbaton. Narky Blert (talk) 21:15, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget Parasceve to wikt:parasceve, where it is defined. Delete the other two, I cannot find a good target. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• 2-way:
  • Retarget Parasceve to Paraskevi, which is an alternative spelling of the same word and which defines it, and add a link from there to wikt:Parasceve. I also note that Parasceve returns many results related to the Parasceve/Paraskevi name (i.e. individuals, saints and churches), among other results related to the day of the week.
  • Retarget Prosábbaton and Prosabbaton to Friday (no anchor) as the terms seem to exist in English, albeit mostly in religious use, as synonymous of Friday. The Friday#Etymology section may be extended to cover these terms, which it currently does not. Place Clichy (talk) 11:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget Parasceve to Paraskevi. Delete the others. Keeping them pointed to Friday without explanation makes them "Easter egg redirects": if you know what "Prosabbaton" means, you'll get it, but otherwise, it's just going to confuse or disappoint readers. --BDD (talk) 17:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Maybe not the best we've got, but useful and clear enough ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Religious founder → List of founders of religious traditions  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Religious founders → List of founders of religious traditions  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

These redirects could be considered misleading. Due to the order of the words in these redirects, the question could be asked: "Religious founders ... of what?" Maybe the reader is trying to find founders who are religious, but maybe founded a company? These redirects are too ambiguous. Also, they al last present a "chicken or the egg" question: Were the founders religious before they founded a religion, considering that their respective religion didn't exist until they founded it? Steel1943 (talk) 18:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep. You are overthinking this. Redirects are pragmatic. If the term exists, the redirect is valid. If the term is polysemous, turn it into a disambiguation page. A glance at google books shows that the term "religious founder" is indeed used in the sense "founder of a religious tradition or movement". If you do find the term used for "founders of companies who were also religious", and you wish to make an entry on such a category, by all means come back and disambiguate. --

dab (𒁳) 06:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• I wouldn't have nominated these redirects if I didn't see the problem I stated. In addition, creating a disambiguation page for such terms isn't helpful either since there are no subjects that go by these names. These terms would be better off deleted so that readers can use Wikipedia's search function to figure out what they are attempting to find. In addition, though I usually support Google Books results, such results should, IMO, only be used to enforce associating connecting terms/phrases that do not have possible ambiguity due to their wording (such as "dog" or names of cities of countries); phrases such as these have natural ambiguity that Google Books results cannot account for, and are thus unhelpful in cases such as these. Steel1943 (talk) 12:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as misleading or maybe move to Religion founders. » Z0 | talk 07:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as the only pragmatically plausible meaning of the phrase religious founder is "founder of a religion". Yes, there is superficial ambiguity in this term, but here I think we're going too far in trying to shield readers from all possible misunderstandings. Ambiguities of this sort are endemic to any use of natural language (nuclear medicine is not the "core" field of medicine, a heavy drinker is not a drinker who weighs a lot etc.), and these ambiguities become a problem only if we were trying to make an encyclopdia to be used by translation bots, not by human readers. – Uanfala (talk) 13:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Uanfala's arguments are convincing me that this is not actually ambiguous at a practical level. It's also worth noting that even if we were writing an encyclopaedia for translation bots that vast amounts of
  semantic markup would be required even without theoretically ambiguous titles. Thryduulf (talk) 11:41, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:46, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Korean United Party → Bareunmirae Party  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. This name for the target is not used in the article, and indeed the redirect is the only hit on google for the exact phrase. The target is a union of two previous political parties, but it isn't known by this name in English, nor does it seem to be a translation of the Korean name (Google translate offers "Right Future"). Further there are several unrelated parties listed at

• Delete it's not a translation of this party's name, it's not a translation of the names of any of the predecessors, and to be honest I can't find any party whose name would reasonably be translated this way (there's parties which use
  United Korea Party appear to be called Unification Party in English). Confusion between South Korean political parties with vaguely similar names is already a problem on Wikipedia given the speed with which these parties split and merge and all draw from the same tiny pool of adjectives with which to describe themselves, and this redirect just makes things worse. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 05:59, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - concur with the above. Deryck C. 13:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:46, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Belloumi → Lakhdar Belloumi  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The target is the only article with this name in the title and from what I can see he was not known (as a common name), by his family name, unlike Diego Maradona Dom from Paris (talk) 14:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, {{R from surname}}. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per LaundryPizza03. As there is no other article about people with this name there is no risk of confusion. A google search suggests that even if there are other notable people with this name, that the Algerian footballer would be by far the primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 22:46, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:55, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - no harm. GiantSnowman 11:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Unopposed ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:07, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Mirada de mujer (2018 telenovela) → List of Televisa telenovelas and series (2010s)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unnecessary redirection, the telenovela was canceled.

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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:46, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Pornographic film studio → List of pornographic film studios  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Deletion, the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject. Guilherme Burn (talk) 01:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If you want to write an article just do so over the redirect. In the mean time the redirect gets people to content that is relevant to their search term - a pretty standard {{R from list topic}}, as indeed the redirect is already tagged. Thryduulf (talk) 12:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to be fair, I didn't tag it as {{R from list topic}} until after it was nominated here. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 05:42, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's standard operating procedure to redir the topic to the list article when we have the list article but not the topic as stand alone article. E.g., we do this with lots of "Mayor of City" titles, etc.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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