Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 13[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 13, 2019.

Harbinger Community[edit]

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) 23:09, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not even mentioned in it's targeted article. To no surprise, the actual redirect pageviews are low as it can be seen on stats button. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 00:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there are plenty of google hits for the term, but all of them are about communities associated with something/somewhere called Harbinger. Most prominent in my search results is that related to Harbinger Primary School, but that's probably just an artefact of it being just down the road from me and even then doesn't rise to the level of primary topic. Even if it did we wouldn't have anywhere to target this as it only has a list entry at List of schools in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets#Primary schools. Thryduulf (talk) 14:50, 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.

Candidates for Speedy Deletion[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 21#Candidates for Speedy Deletion

Dunkin' (franchise)[edit]

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) 23:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup from a botched page move; requesting deletion. Unnecessary because Dunkin' already redirects to Dunkin' Donuts. ONR (talk) 16:55, 13 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.

Anglican Church[edit]

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 Anglicanism. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike the Roman Catholic Church, for example, there is no singular Anglican church.

As a quick background, the various Anglican churches around the world find their origin in the Church of England (with the exception of the Church of Ireland technically). Through British imperialism, Anglicanism spread throughout the world and the Church of England would come to give complete independence – or autocephaly, in ecclesiological terms – to many of these churches. Later on, in the late 19th century, these churches came together to form the Anglican Communion, a sort of association of all of these autocephalous churches. Positions taken by the communion's instruments of unity influenced and continue to influence the churches of the communion, but even at its strongest, the communion can only exert soft diplomatic power.

Since the formation of the communion, there have been a number of schisms (or splinters) from the communion's churches. Most notable are the Anglican Church in North America, formed in 2009 from the merger of a number of churches which had schismed mostly in the late 20th or early 21st century, as well as the multitude of Continuing Anglican churches, formed mostly in the mid- to late 20th century, and numerous others. While not part of the Anglican Communion, these churches both self-identify as Anglican and are generally regarded as such by other Anglicans (both within and without the communion) and the relevant scholarship.

Tl;dr: This is all to say that it is inappropriate for "Anglican Church" and "Anglican church" to redirect to "Anglican Communion" given that (1) the Anglican Communion is not an individual church and (2) there are numerous Anglican churches outside of the Anglican Communion which are frequently described as "Anglican churches". Rather, the pages should redirect to "Anglicanism", the article about the ecclesiastical and theological tradition they all share. This would be in line with what is done for other Protestant denominations (see, e.g., "Methodist church", "Presbyterian church", "Lutheran church", "Baptist church", "Pentecostal church"). 142.160.89.97 (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, though of course The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a church, whereas the Anglican Communion is not. Rather, it is a communion of churches. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 02:39, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Wbm1058: That will sometimes be the case in Australia and Canada (I'm in Canada myself), but in the US, they're at least as likely to be looking for the Anglican Church in North America, given that the word Anglican is (confusingly) not in the name of the Episcopal Church. Unfortunately, a false distinction between Anglican and Episcopal – two synonymous terms – is rapidly becoming part of the American lexicon since the formation of the ACNA, which makes it all the more likely that users searching "Anglican Church" in the US will be looking for the ACNA.
And outside of the US, it is just as likely that they are under the popular misconception that there is a singular Anglican church in the world (as opposed to the reality that there are a multitude, many of which are part of the Anglican Communion, which is not itself a church, and others of which are not part of the communion at all).
Additionally, the existing targeting is unique amongst those of the same class in sending readers to a particular communion/association of churches from that tradition. For example, "Methodist church" doesn't redirect to World Methodist Council; "Presbyterian church" doesn't redirect to World Communion of Reformed Churches; "Lutheran church" doesn't redirect to Lutheran World Federation; etc. In all three of those examples, the organization is well-established as the preeminent organization representing churches from their respective tradition.
As an Anglican within the Anglican Communion who does not believe in schism, I wish I could say that Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion are synonymous, but in 2019, it simply isn't the case. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 21:27, 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. 16:14, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace with disambiguation page listing the several churches that a user may be looking for. —teb728 t c 00:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Would you suggest the same with respect to other denominations with a preeminent international body (which is not itself a church) representing churches from that tradition, e.g., "Methodist church" (World Methodist Council), "Presbyterian church" (World Communion of Reformed Churches), "Lutheran church" (Lutheran World Federation)?
Also, are you referring to the Anglican Communion as a church? Because if so, that simply isn't the case. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 20:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Anglicanism (improving visibility of links from that article if necessary), per nom's thoughtful rationale. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Replacing with a disambiguation is a non-starter. There are over 500 links to this title, none via templates, and no obvious alternative contender for primary topic. This is clearly a WP:Broad-concept topic; the only question is what the title of the article discussing the concept should be. While there may be "no singular Anglican church", Wikipedia's WP:summary style topic structure forces us to have only one article about that "Anglican church", and then it is up to that article to explain why there is "no singular Anglican church". That single article should have clear and obvious, quickly found when scanning the content, links to all the members of the so-called "Anglican Communion", or at least all the Anglican Communion members that call themselves "Anglican Church", including "Anglican Church in [wherever]". Perhaps the problem may be solved by merging Anglican Communion into Anglicanism. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, as an exercise for purposes of discussion, let's assume that we are trying to disambiguate all the 500+ links to "Anglican Church". I've randomly chosen David Leake:
In 1963 he went to [[South America]] where he served the [[Anglican Church|Church]] as a [[Missionary]] eventually rising to the [[Episcopate]].
What specific "Church" did he serve as a Missionary? The Anglican Church of the Southern Cone of America? If so, then [[Anglican Church|Church]] is an OVERLINK which should be replaced with simply "Church", where it is assumed and implied that means the previously linked Anglican Church of the Southern Cone of America. Presumably he serves a specific Church, and not some nonspecific "ism". – wbm1058 (talk) 23:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget as nominated but not because of the rather long-winded nomination rationale (which could be waved away with a simple {{R from incorrect name}} tag). Rather, it should be retargeted for consistency with the other religions mentioned in the "Tl;dr" section. --NYKevin 07:17, 22 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.

Sami Hyypiö[edit]

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 deleted by JIP. -- Tavix (talk) 14:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another dubious redirect created by JIP in 2005. Finnish language word "hyypiö" means "creep" so this is potentially insulting redirect to article about living person. There are some Google hits for this possible misspelling, but it is not used in reliable sources. I suggest deletion instead of keeping it as plausible but disparaging misspelling. jni (delete)...just not interested 13:30, 13 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.

Mahtisaari[edit]

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 deleted by JIP. -- Tavix (talk) 14:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another joke redirect created by JIP in 2005. Finnish: mahti saari literally means "great island" or "grand island" but since surname is "Ahtisaari" combining it with first name's initial letter like is done here does not make any sense. jni (delete)...just not interested 13:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a useless, outdated jocular redirect. Can I speedy delete this? JIP | Talk 14:09, 13 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.

Harja Talonen[edit]

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 deleted by JIP. -- Tavix (talk) 14:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Useless joke or vandalism redirect to article about a living person. Created by Wikipedia administrator JIP 14 years ago. Finnish word "harja" means "brush" and such non-neutral, disparaging and odd term is not used in article. jni (delete)...just not interested 13:11, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a useless, outdated jocular redirect. Can I speedy delete this? JIP | Talk 14:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a very serious insult. You should not insult living persons on Wikipedia. --Well educated male from Europe (talk) 20:17, 13 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.

Pandawoman[edit]

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. Deryck C. 17:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is an extremely minor easter egg character that I don't believe has ever been mentioned at the target article. —Xezbeth (talk) 08:38, 13 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.

Padme`[edit]

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) 16:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a failed attempt at writing an é. —Xezbeth (talk) 08:30, 13 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_January_13&oldid=880146826"