Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 May 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 28[edit]

Tg boleyn → Troy Douglas Boleyn[edit]

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted per WP:CSD#R1. After Midnight 0001 03:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted article. —Visor (talk · contribs) 22:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Aww hell naw → Will Smith[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 00:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This originally redirected to I, Robot (film), but was subsequently retargeted to Will Smith. I presume that "Aww hell naw" is a phrase Smith's character utters in the film. However, I don't see that the phrase is necessarily associated with him (as, for instance, "I have a dream" is associated with Martin Luther King, Jr. and there are surely dozens of other people who have publicly used the phrase. The page contains no useful edit history and has no incoming links. Delete. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 21:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect, to African American Vernacular English. Its Ghits reveal various uses, and therefore could serve a purpose. But it should not redirect to Will Smith.. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 22:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and lack of a convincing alternative. --Tikiwont 11:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The target suggested by Mtmelendez makes no mention of this phrase, and I see no other plausible targets offered. Xtifr tälk 01:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Fridge Cat → List of Internet phenomena[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. Krimpet (talk) 04:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target article (nor should it be). No GFDL concerns. --- RockMFR 21:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. per nom. There's no article on the matter, or not mentioned in any other article. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 22:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

They're taking the hobbits to isengard → List of Internet phenomena[edit]

The result of the debate was delete, seems reasonable, no objections raised, being bold. Krimpet (talk) 04:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target article (nor should it be). No GFDL concerns. --- RockMFR 21:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Intphen → List of Internet phenomena[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. Krimpet (talk) 04:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This abbreviation is not used anywhere. All Google hits are from mirrors. --- RockMFR 21:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's used by my friends because it's much quicker than typing "List of Internet phenomena" every time! Please let it stay, as we check the page regularly for new edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.8.67.114 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 1 June 2007

  • Delete Every legitimate redirect has a valid rationale; neologisms — such as this one — are excluded. --Aarktica 01:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Idol worship → Idolatry[edit]

The result of the debate was unclear. In the spirit of being bold, I have made idol worship a disambiguation page which links to idolatry, cult image, and Hindu iconography. That way, users can select the definition they were after, and we're not favoring any one interpretation. ♠PMC♠ 20:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two different concepts. Idol worship is a more or less neutral concept in India and generally accepted in many sects in Hinduism. In contrast, idolatry treats that and why idol worship is a grave sin in Christianity, Islam and Judaism. Andries 09:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Change to redirect to Cult image. I have added a POV tag to idolatry for good measure. Johnbod 10:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I didn't realize there actually was an article called "idol worship"!. Surely the redirect should be speedied then? All the same, I think there is a case for merging (and expanding) "cult image" and "idol worship", under the former title. Neither is exactly complete & I'm not seeing a real difference in subject. Johnbod 11:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 'Idol worship' is not a neutral concept - it has a very strong negative meaning in Abrahamic religions—it is equivalent to 'idolatry'. Please see the discussion at Talk:Hinduism#idolatry.3F to see why the term 'idol worship' is not considered encyclopedic for the Hinduism article—as it does not accurately describe the practices in Hinduism. ॐ Priyanath talk 01:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not equivalent to idolatry. I admit that idol worship has negative connotations for some. Andries 05:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is equivalent and equal to idolatry for most of the major religions of the world. 1. From Idolatry: "According to the Quran, idolatry (my comment: the worship of any idol) (Arabic: shirk) is one of the most serious sins. It is the only sin that cannot be forgiven by God(Qur'an 4:48)" 2. From Idolatry: "the proper Jewish definition of idolatry is to do an act of worship toward any created thing." 3. From Idolatry: "The Catholic missionary Saint Francis Xavier referred to Hinduism as idolatry" (my comment: because of their alleged 'idol worship'). Idol Worship=Idolatry for all the Abrahamic religions and has extreme negative connotations, and is not neutral in any way, shape or form. ॐ Priyanath talk 05:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Confusion between these various terms, and their differentiation from cult image would benefit from more discussion on the talk pages for the respective articles. It is probably fine to delete the current article for Idol worship. The words have strong POV associations for some readers. According to Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, "idolatry" is "the worship of a physical object as a god". Since the same dictionary includes a definiton of an "idol" as "an object of extreme devotion (a movie)" as in the sense of "movie idol", the terms have a range of senses that currently are not well differentiated from one another, and which most certainly do not correspond with the concept of Murti in Hinduism. I Oppose a redirect of "Idolatry" to "Cult image" as they are not the same concept, and the strong POV issues with "Idolatry" overwhelm any academic views on the use of "cult images" in various religions. The article for "cult image" makes the point that some Christians differentiate between "veneration" and "worship" of cult images precisely because using images in worship does not perforce result in idolatry. If so, every Catholic Church that has a statue of Mary would be practicing idolatry. Buddhipriya 00:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no question of redirecting "idolatry", which is a much-edited essentially Muslim/Christian article (and concept), to "cult image". You leave unclear where you think "idol worship" should redirect to, which is the issue being discussed here. Johnbod 00:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if my comments were not clear. I said: "Confusion between these various terms, and their differentiation from cult image would benefit from more discussion on the talk pages for the respective articles." If "idol worship" must redirect somewhere right away, as opposed to having two separate articles with a subsequent merge proposal, I would redirect Idol Worship to Idolatry. However I previously pointed out that the term "idol", e.g., "American Idol", etc., has meanings that are not subsumed under Idolatry, so they are distinct concepts. I oppose redirection of "idol worship" to "cult image" for the reasons I have previously explained. The word Idolatry is loaded with POV connotations. The word "Idolatry" implies a negative opinion about the practice, which is a problem. It is not a neutral term at all. Labeling any particular religion as idolatry is WP:SOAP and should be avoided. Buddhipriya 00:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That makes things a bit clearer, & I certainly agree re idolatry. I can't see that you have in fact explained the reasons why you "oppose redirection of "idol worship" to "cult image" " & I find it odd you would prefer it to go to idolatry, but there we go. Johnbod 01:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not WP:SOAP if this is stated in reputable sources, however I think that such classification is uninformative and that hence Wikipedia articles should not digress on the fact that some Christians would classify aspects of many sects of Hinduism as idolatry. Andries 16:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are examples of two Hindu sects using the term and defending the practice [1] [2] Andries 17:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using the term "idol worship", not "idolatry", to be clear. They use the same words & Muslims certainly would not be happy with their comparison re them (nor Christians). Johnbod 17:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Various redirects to God[edit]

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete all. After Midnight 0001 03:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Brendan chatterdon → God[edit]

I do not believe that Brendan chatte is God. Joyous! | Talk 02:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jim wiggington → God[edit]

Nonsensical. Joyous! | Talk 02:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WaddleDedede → God[edit]

I've checked to see if this is perhaps a version of god in another culture, and I see no evidence of that. The redirect has been in place a long time, but I see no reason why. Joyous! | Talk 02:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade -> Ministries of South Korea[edit]

The result of the debate was disambiguate. WjBscribe 00:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous. An article titled "Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade" should actually contain text on that subject rather than redirecting to a more general list of ministries in South Korea Closedmouth 14:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Above problems are not resolved by deleting the page. It could either become a article (and would then better be renamed) or a disambiguation page as there is also New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and some smaller countries have such a ministry as well. --Tikiwont 11:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Above, I mostly wanted to argue against deletion and less for a specific editorial solution, but it now seems to me that the term is too generic to be a redirect, and each particular raget has disadvantages (not yet an article for South Korea or a slightly differnt name fo NZL), so deciding on a disambiguation should be fine. While there are currently only two strong candiates, there is room for expansion. --Tikiwont 18:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2007_May_28&oldid=1054131863"