Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 8

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

January 8

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 8, 2019.

Featured article candidates

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
WP:ATD favors the latter, and with almost two months of discussion, there would seem to be little to be gained by relisting. It may be worth reassessing this as a mainspace redirect later on. --BDD (talk) 17:04, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

See

WP:CNR. Redirects from mainspace to Project space are normally not desirable, and I don't see the value in keeping this particular one, which a reader (non-editor) would be unlikely to search. funplussmart (talk) 02:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:59, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This redirect could refer to some sort of specific featured articles list of some publication, etc., causing confusion. Steel1943 (talk) 16:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was going to propose that it go to a section of Wikipedia covering internal ratings of article quality (as opposed to external ratings, e.g. the Nature Wikipedia-versus-Britannica study), but to my surprise I didn't find any such section. Looks like our only options are keeping or deleting. Nyttend (talk) 23:44, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Steel1943. This can refer to candidates for (almost) any of the subjects listed at Feature article. -- Tavix (talk) 15:32, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to English Wikipedia#Wikiprojects, and assessments of articles' importance and quality, where featured articles are covered. That's the section linked on the dab page Tavix noted above. The other entries on the dab are broad categories, rather than this specific meaning. The section header is complicated and misleading, so maybe that's why Nyttend didn't spot it at first glance, but we've got content on FAs in an article, so we should point this there. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The proposed section discusses featured articles, but nothing about candidates or how articles achieve featured status. Since the section has cross-namespace redirects in it, is this acceptable?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:25, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:INVOLVED
relist to close old log day.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to
    Talk: Contribs) 11:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Retarget per Rubbish computer. Thryduulf (talk) 13:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, sends people where they want to go. If keeping fails, delete is clearly better than sending people looking for a project page into article space. Do not retarget to article space. —Kusma (t·c) 15:25, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • A little confused: You want to keep the current target, but it's already targeting article space. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • The current target is Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, which is in Wikipedia space. -- Tavix (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Errr... yes, thanks Tav. Dunno what the hell I wrote or why, but I meant to say that the redirect is in mainspace, so I don't understand why it would be a problem to retarget somewhere in mainspace. I wouldn't assume someone is necessarily looking for a project page, but regardless, the page/section I suggested above contains a relevant link. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:03, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Rubbish computer. We should keep mainspace redirects to relevant mainspace encyclopedic content whenever possible. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:34, 23 January 2019 (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.

Christian identity

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 and hatnote. This type of hatnote is always awkward to word. I'm not wedded to what I've added, if anyone wants to take another shot at it. --BDD (talk) 16:56, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Change redirect target to Christians. The main meaning of "Christian identity" is not the Christian Identity movement, as a Google Books or Google Scholar search will show. Srnec (talk) 18:09, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tavix: good point. Would you support the alternative retargeting to Christendom which I suggested? Place Clichy (talk) 15:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add hatnote at Christian Identity. Having a hatnote pointing to Christian Identity from a less fringe page (which would be necessitated by all of the retargettings) seems less beneficial than keeping this redirect. —Kusma (t·c) 17:36, 14 January 2019 (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.

Sport Utility Truck

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
(non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 16:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

No mention in article Abote2 (talk) 01:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to
    Sport utility vehicle which includes truck-based SUVs, links to pickup truck in the lead para, and discusses definitions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:40, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:53, 8 January 2019 (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.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia redirects

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 soft delete. -- Tavix (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created this one and it should be a Speedy delete. Forgot to do so myself. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the co-founder of both WikiProject Women and WikiProject Women in Red, I know the history behind this. We changed our naming convention, so this redirect should be a Speedy delete. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:41, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia:Wikipedia redirects created in error. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2019 (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.

Dahn Y'Israel Nokeam

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) 16:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely misspelling of Dam Yisrael Noter, the full Hebrew name of Nakam

talk) 03:52, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

I don't think that makes sense, because it is an unlikely misseplling and doesn't appear on the current version of the list. It's getting no views and as pointed out above, is nonsense Hebrew. All 6 google hits are probably copied from Wikipedia.
talk) 18:59, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
@
Catrìona: It doesn't appear on the current version of the list because the list is a list of missing terms, and the term is no longer missing. Whether it's nonsense Hebrew or not is irrelevant - the OCR misidentification occurred in English ("m" <--> "hn", etc). Yes, it's an unlikely misspelling for a human, but evidently it's an OCR mis-read that's been made at least once by a machine, and is now loose in the wild. Redirects are cheap, so I see no particular harm in keeping it. Jheald (talk) 19:28, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
 Comment:: I do not remember any more where I got that but I have seen different transliterations before (I have used several dictionaries and encyclopedias to create the Missing Topics pages) and I have often turned them into redirects since I don't know what version someone might be trying to use to find information. I do remove the blue links from the lists periodically and I have no doubt there may be more things like this. As far as I am concerned, I would support the "redirect from misspelling" version myself - Skysmith (talk) 20:27, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is too implausible. Spelling errors for English? Yes, keep those if they're plausible. Spelling errors for foreign languages in their own scripts, e.g. ישדאל for ישראל (see my comment about similarly shaped letters) are perhaps okay. Spelling errors for foreign languages in transliteration? Probably too unlikely to keep. OCR-caused spelling errors of foreign languages in transliteration? That's simply too many layers. There's always a risk that a redirect for a spelling error in another language will be seen by someone as the correct spelling (or an alternate spelling), and when the spelling error is a machine error that humans are quite unlikely to make, the risk of confusing humans is greater than the benefit of serving the very small population who's relying on an OCR-generated list. Nyttend (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as implausible.
    Talk: Contribs) 11:58, 9 January 2019 (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.

List of supermarket chains in Bangladesh

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 longer a redirect. This was a good faith deletion-by-redirection. I restored the pre-redirected version.
(non-admin closure) UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - target article has nothing to do with redirect. Ajf773 (talk) 19:32, 8 January 2019 (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.

Nokmim

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 15#Nokmim

Speculative philosophy

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. There's consensus that speculative philosophy is not the same as Continental philosophy, and a subject which we should address directly. --BDD (talk) 16:52, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see why speculative philosophy should be redirected to continental philosophy. It is true that post-Kantian continental philosophy tends to be more non-empirical than analytic philosophy, but this has always been true of mainland European philosophy, e.g. with the rationalists Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz (against the British empiricists Locke, Berkeley and Hume), who came before "continental philosophy" in the post-Kantian sense (which is what the continental philosophy article is focusing on; as the article states, 'The history of continental philosophy (taken in its narrower sense) is usually thought to begin with German idealism'). For as long as Anglo-Saxon philosophy has existed, it has tended to be more empirical than mainland European philosophy. Post-Kantian continental philosophy is distinguished both from Anglo-Saxon (including analytic) philosophy and from pre-Kantian mainland European philosophy by things other than being speculative, most notably by its overwhelming adherence to Kant's "Copernican revolution" and its overwhelming rejection of realism. (Admittedly I'm painting in broad brush strokes here.)

Looking at the history of Speculative philosophy, it seems somebody tried to delete it by blanking it in 2010, saying 'del bad redirect', but the page was then changed back by someone saying 'Please do not blank redirects. To delete them, list them at WP:RFD but do not just blank pages.'.

A few pages link to

Islamic-Jewish relations
:

'The 12th century saw the apotheosis of pure philosophy. This supreme exaltation of philosophy was due, in great measure, to Ghazali (1058–1111) among the Arabs, and to Judah ha-Levi (1140) among the Jews. Like Ghazali, Judah ha-Levi took upon himself to free religion from the shackles of speculative philosophy, and to this end wrote the Kuzari, in which he sought to discredit all schools of philosophy alike.'

In this, the phrase 'speculative philosophy' is linked to the page Speculative philosophy.

Another example, from Isaac Watts:

'Throughout Logic, Watts revealed his high conception of logic by stressing the practical side of logic, rather than the speculative side.'

In this, the word 'speculative' is linked to the page Speculative philosophy.

A final example, from Christopher Jacob Boström:

'According to the different kinds of personal beings that are known to us, theoretical philosophy is further divided into speculative theology, speculative ethnology and speculative anthropology; practical philosophy into philosophy of religion, philosophy of law and ethics, corresponding to the terms of the division of theoretical philosophy'

In this, the first occurrence of the word 'speculative' is linked to the page Speculative philosophy.

I think this page should be deleted rather than re-targeted or turned into an article - I can't think of anything better to re-target it to (looking at its history, it was once targeted to

Sublation but this was changed back) and I don't think it deserves an article of its own any more than, say, "Abstract philosophy". Matthew Fennell (talk) 17:30, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

I strongly disagree with a deletion. The term is found in the wiktionary and for that matter in Merriam-Webster and gets 360,000 Google hits. There is a Journal of Speculative Philosophy (not the first by that name, I might add), and the term is commonly used in contrast to analytic philosophy.
I agree that the term is broader than Continental philosophy. If anything, I would put an article here that dealt with the subject more broadly and included a one-paragraph summary and link to Continental philosophy. I think complete elimination is exactly the wrong direction to go. - Jmabel | Talk 17:52, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I'm the one who originally created that as a redirect, but that was in 2004, when Wikipedia was much less extensive. - Jmabel | Talk 17:56, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Speculative Philosophy also exists, which I will bundle shortly.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2019 (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.

Wikipedysta:BartoszGwóźdź/brudnopis

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. -- Tavix (talk) 18:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Misformed foreign language redirect; copied from a non-en wiki's non-article namespace. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The redirect serves no purpose.- MrX 🖋 18:11, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not useful.
    Talk: Contribs) 11:56, 9 January 2019 (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.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Semiprotect

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 move to Wikipedia:Semi-protection/July 2005 proposal without leaving a redirect. I hope this satisfies those advocating deletion, since the title will no longer exist to potentially mislead editors. Thryduulf's point about retaining this piece of history is well taken. --BDD (talk) 16:47, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, this page was redirected in 2011 as a result of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Semiprotect. However, as it stands, the redirect does not make sense since the target is not a WikiProject about semi-protection. Steel1943 (talk) 18:00, 8 January 2019 (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.

Wikipedia:WikiProject /Hong Kong Cinema

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 soft delete. -- Tavix (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This misformed (space then slash) redirect pollutes the search bar. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:43, 8 January 2019 (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.

Policium

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) 02:05, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a hardly used name (29 views since its creation with few mentions in outside sources) and was previously deleted under

WP:R3. ComplexRational (talk) 19:46, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 16:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if the mention I just added to the target sticks. -- Tavix (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2019 (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.

Farke

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 Daniel Farke and hatnote. There seems to be a weak consensus that Daniel Farke would be the primary topic for "Farke". -- Tavix (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose retargetting to

Farke redirect, and hatnote from Daniel Farke to Farkë would be sufficient Joseph2302 (talk) 01:36, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 16:30, 8 January 2019 (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.

ٮ

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. While the substance at the target doesn't seem to be that great, it is relevant and there doesn't seem to be a better target that has been presented. If someone is able, it would be a good idea to make make the target clearer. -- Tavix (talk) 22:00, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The target section for this redirect is broken (it should be Arabic diacritics#I‘jām (phonetic distinctions of consonants), but I'm not sure that this section is a suitable target anyway. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:01, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (and fix). All single unicode characters with a clear meaning should be blue links and I can't find anything better for this one than the section of the article that describes it. The {{Anchor}} template can (and should) be used to avoid breaking links to sections when sections get renamed. Thryduulf (talk) 14:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: I agree that characters should have redirects (and I agree about anchors). But I don't think this section of this article does describe it. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 16:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is relevant content in the target article (this relevance isn't immediately clear from the text, but the text can be made more explicit), and there is some content at Rasm (somewhat clearer). Presumably, an article can be created as well (one exists on the French wikipedia). – Uanfala (talk) 23:44, 8 January 2019 (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.

Category:WikiProjects Alternate History

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) 22:02, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This misformed (plural) soft redirect pollutes the search bar. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:37, 8 January 2019 (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.

Eath food

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 Speedy delete. G6 deleted
(non-admin closure) Nightfury 14:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, title is a typo of Earth food which already exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John a s (talk • contribs) 14:13, 8 January 2019 (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.

Failed miscarriage

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 and refine to
(non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 16:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Huh? A double negative? Wouldn't this just be a successful birth?  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  06:47, 8 January 2019 (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.

Rabbi Levi Shemtov

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 withdrawn by nom.. I was mistaken
(non-admin closure) UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Normally we don't have redirects that include honorifics. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a plausible alternative name.
    Talk: Contribs) 15:13, 8 January 2019 (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.

Spezial

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. -- Tavix (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Section has been deleted, and term does not appear in the target article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:38, 8 January 2019 (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.

ALL-CAPS with spaces redirects to Wikipedia:Protection policy

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 17#ALL-CAPS with spaces redirects to Wikipedia:Protection policy

Parturient

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 22#Parturient

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_January_8&oldid=1138582630"