Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 29[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 29, 2021.

Pseudoscience (physics)[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 Restore article.. Pinging @Narky Blert, 94.21.10.117, Mdewman6, BDD, A7V2, and Shhhnotsoloud: if any of the participants want to take this to AFD. Hog Farm Talk 15:19, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural nomination from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pseudoscience (physics). ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 10:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore article and send to AfD if desired, per Mdewman6 - The title probably should be "Pseudophysics" rather than this, but in any case, the concept does at least exist, eg [1]. A7V2 (talk) 02:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The original article was at Pseudophysics but boldly moved to the current title, then a requested move discussion had weak consensus against moving it back and the closer felt a separate discussion was in order. The AfD discussion seemed to hint against keeping the article in its current form, but just sent it to RfD instead of reaching consensus on the blank and redirect and the best redirect target because the blank and redirect had already been boldly done. This just hasn't had a full discussion in the right venue. Mdewman6 (talk) 16:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore article and send to AfD (restore to Revision as of 11:46, 23 December 2020). This is not a straightforward redirect and a reformatted approach to AfD would gather a wider audience. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:22, 30 April 2021 (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.

Andrew Gower[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 move. The actor will be at Andrew Gower and the edit history for Jagex's Andrew Gower will be moved to Andrew Gower (programmer). -- Tavix (talk) 02:16, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's maybe not very helpful to automatically redirect to the Jagex article when searching Wikipedia for Andrew Gower, as there are several people with that name, including British actor Andrew Gower. Maybe a disambiguation page would be more helpful? Minkerbelle (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2021 (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.

Bethel TV[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. Hog Farm Talk 15:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A link to a DAB page with no relevant entry; it relates to Television in Ethiopia. Delete, to encourage article creation if justified. Narky Blert (talk) 14:06, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:28, 29 April 2021 (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.

Flying Flowers[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 Stanley Gibbons. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 23:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFD#D2, not mentioned at target. It is used in Stanley Gibbons, so this impedes a searchm but since there is hardly any information there, delete to encourage creation of the article. Flying flower, Flying Flower and Flying flowers are all red. 94.21.10.117 (talk) 13:30, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:25, 29 April 2021 (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.

Community gateway[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. Hog Farm Talk 15:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A quick web search returned no Wikipedia-related results. There seem to be multiple organisations by this name, and even Wikipedia mentions the word combination in an unrealted sense. Confusing/misleading WP:XNR. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (creator); not sure what I was thinking when I created this (though it is a {{R from avoided double redirect}} for Wikipedia:Community gateway), as it does not meet the standard required by cross-namespace redirects. UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:54, 29 April 2021 (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.

Gayism[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. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request undeletion of these articles. Hog Farm Talk 15:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Term is contentious and goes against MOS:NEO; IMO we'd be better off just not having it at all. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 10:51, 29 April 2021 (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.

BioGamer Girl Magazine[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. Hog Farm Talk 15:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not listed in the targeted article. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:32, 29 April 2021 (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.

Anne Productions[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. -- Tavix (talk) 02:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, no obviously related results in a Google Scholar and internet search, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 16:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Based on the only source I've found, Turner Classic Movies,[2] (archive.org link as the original is not available in the UK), Anne Productions was a company set up by Hecht-Hill-Lancaster specifically for Cry Tough (film) and so if it were to redirect anywhere it should be one of those two but it isn't mentioned in either location. Harry Kleiner wrote Cry Tough, and so it's not impossible that he had some involvement with Anne Productions but if he did I've been unable to verify it. Thryduulf (talk) 23:17, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to Anne of Green Gables: The Musical, which contains a list of productions of the play which is very commonly referred to by the shorthand "Anne". Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 10:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:54, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Thryduulf. Cry Tough (film) could have been a target, but as there is no mention there (didn't find any on Imdb either), retarget is not an option. Jay (talk) 12:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Thryduulf's research, this company doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere, and I'm not quite for sure that someone searching for "Anne Productions" is quite looking for the proposed other target. Hog Farm Talk 15:25, 6 May 2021 (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.

Svea Rike[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 6#Svea Rike

State Leader of Myanmar[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 no consensus. I'll tag it with {{R without mention}}, but as often, that should be addressed. I can't see this getting to consensus for anything else. --BDD (talk) 20:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This was never a term that appeared in any sources AFAICT, and was fabricated by an editor who is now indefinitely blocked for fabricating content, among other things. So, it's not a useful search term. And even if it was, it's not clear that the current target is appropriate, as it could just as easily be targeted to President of Myanmar. ― Tartan357 Talk 23:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this seems like a plausible search term for someone looking for the head of state of Myanmar. If that link were blue I'd say this should point there or target the same article, as it isn't I'm tempted by a retarget to President of Myanmar which is the position that (under various titles) has been head of state since 1948 (anyone looking for earlier than that will unlikely be using "Myanmar"). Thryduulf (talk) 03:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What do we do in cases where the redirect is deemed a useful search term but the appropriate target is unclear? ― Tartan357 Talk 04:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That depends, if there is no primary topic we frequently either convert it to a disambiguation page, set index or list or retarget it to another page that performs the same function. If there is a primary topic, and we have an article about that, then we'll retarget it there and add a hatnote. Thryduulf (talk) 10:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:53, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because of the useful page history. There is no "State Leader of -" article or redirect for any other country, so this is not a generic term. The term "State Leader" in the case of Myanmar appears to be made up to provide legitimacy to the armed forces in the power equation in Myanmar, and a DAB to other heads of state in Myanmar may not make sense. I do not think any one user fabricated the term because different users have added the term in different articles.
See List of state leaders in 2021 where for Myanmar, "State Leader" is mentioned as distinct from President and PM.
See State of emergency#Active in 2021 where the Commander-in-Chief of Defence Services is mentioned as the state leader. Which is the same designation mentioned in this Philippines article that mentions state leader in quotes indicating it is a special term. Jay (talk) 12:18, 6 May 2021 (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.

Tanten[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 Maria Gripe. signed, Rosguill talk 17:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Berlingske is known by the nickname Tanten i Pilestræde, but doesn't seem to be commonly known as Tanten. Tanten is Danish, Swedish and Norwegian for "aunt", so the very occasional hits this gets are probably not particularly likely to be by people looking for the newspaper. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:35, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
more details than you can shake an aunt at

"Aunt" is tante in Danish and in both Norwegian languages, and "the aunt" is tanten in Norwegian Bokmål (but not in Norwegian Nynorsk, where it is tanta). In Swedish, tant (tanten in the definite case) originally meant "aunt" and is sometimes used in that sense today, but the overwhelmingly most common meaning of tanten is "the middle-aged woman". (That is a simplification, but the details are irrelevant). Swedish normally uses other words for "aunt", which are not cognates of tant. And in Danish I'm not sure of the inflection of tante, "aunt", but I don't think the inflected form tanten exists.

As for the novel by Gripe, that redirect would make more sense but it is not one of Gripe's better-known works. Not sure what "received an adaptation" refers to – it was recorded for radio (but not dramatised) but that was all rather a long time ago. (I see that the Wikipedia article about Maria Gripe has some incorrect information about it.) --bonadea contributions talk 20:01, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was going by Wiktionary, which lists it as the definite singular of the Danish tante, but I've no idea how frequently that's used; either way, the additional information is appreciated. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 09:20, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:52, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We already have redirects from Tanten i Pilestræde and Tanten i Pilestraede to Berlingske.
It is correct that tanten is the singular definite, i.e. "the aunt".[1]
Pilestræde is the name of the street in Copenhagen where Berlingske has its headquarters.
Tanten i Pilestræde (The aunt in Willow Alley) is a slightly derogative nickname that may imply that the user dislikes the conservative journalistic style in Berlingske or otherwise tries to ridicule it.
Another nickname for Berlingske is the shorter Tante Berlingske (Aunt Berlingske), possibly from the German nickname Tante Voss for the Vossische Zeitung.[2]
Could you say tanten and be referring to Berlingske? Sure you could, but only in a conversation or a correspondance where you have already established that you are talking about media, and it would, in my ears/eyes, still be a very colloquial nickname.
Is it plausible as a redirect to Berlingske? I don't think so, especially on the English Wikipedia. And I note that tanten is redlinked on Danish Wikipedia. Sam Sailor 08:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "tanten - Den Danske Ordbog". ordnet.dk (in Danish). Retrieved 6 May 2021.
  2. ^ "Tante - ODS". ordnet.dk (in Danish). Retrieved 6 May 2021.
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 Signpost/From the editor[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. signed, Rosguill talk 17:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; refers to more articles than simply this one. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:13, 29 April 2021 (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.

MJ (singer)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 6#MJ (singer)

Abolish Wales/Abolish Scotland[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 6#Abolish Wales/Abolish Scotland

Wikipedia:GRAPE[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 no consensus. Editors are welcome to add hatnotes as suggested. signed, Rosguill talk 18:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly confusing due to WP:GRAPES redirecting to Wikipedia:Sour grapes. Not sure whether hatnoting or retargeting is more appropriate. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 22:53, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 01:52, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Hatnote both targets. Jay (talk) 12:52, 2 May 2021 (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.

Deceased inventor[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 8#Deceased inventor

Proto gaelic[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 Goidelic languages#Proto-Goidelic. This is a semi-involved closure, but the outcome is obvious given the addition of relevant content to the new target. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala (talk) 18:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Proto-gaelic" doesn't appear to be the proper name of any language, reconstructed or otherwise. The closest equivalent as far as I can tell is Proto-Celtic language, which is the constructed predecessor of the Celtic language family, which the Gaelic (Goidelic) belongs to. I would suggest redirecting to there unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 16:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Proto-Celtic per nom. 053pvr (talk) 02:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. Proto-Gaelic would be the ancestor of all the Gaelic languages, not all the Celtic languages. The Gaelic languages are also known as the Goidelic languages, so Proto-Gaelic is equivalent to Proto-Goidelic. We don't have an article on the Proto-Goidelic language, but the closest thing to it is in fact Primitive Irish, the oldest attested Goidelic language. So while Proto-Goidelic (a reconstructed language) is not exactly identical to Primitive Irish (an attested language), Primitive Irish does seem to be the best available redirect target. —Mahāgaja · talk 10:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Mahagaja, 053pvr Rosguill, I think the best solution is to redirect to just either Old Gaelic or Goidelic_languages#History_and_range as they both mention the split in Proto-celtic in Gaelic. The issue with redirecting to just Proto-Celtic is the Celtic families have two separate extant branches (extinct languages includes Gaulish), Brittonic and Gaelic. Proto-Celtic separated into Proto-Gaelic (Almost like Old Gaelic) which would latter birth Irish language, Scottish Gaelic and the Manx language and proto-Brittonic which would later evolve into Welsh, Cornish, Breton and Cumbric language. The two are both Celtic but also different and this is very important. As it's why the Scottish language has more in common with Irish then say the Welsh language and vice versa. So redirecting it to just Proto-Celtic language wouldn't be the full story as they are two separate branches of just Celtic, it's like how French and Romanian are both Romance languages but French has more in common with Spanish then Romanian because they share a more common ancestor language. Hope I made my point clear and thanks. Des Vallee (talk) 01:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Des Vallee: Old Gaelic itself is a redirect to Old Irish, which is just a later stage in the development of the Goidelic languages than Primitive Irish. Primitive Irish is closer to Proto-Goidelic than Old Irish is, so why not redirect to Primitive Irish? —Mahāgaja · talk 06:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Mahagaja That actually sounds like a better idea my thought process was: "Old Irish is thus forebear to Modern Irish, Manx, and Scottish Gaelic." however Primitive Irish would still be better as it came sooner. Des Vallee (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Des Vallee: And Primitive Irish is where proto gaelic already redirects – and you were the one who made that redirect in the first place! —Mahāgaja · talk 18:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Mahagaja Yea I agree it is a better redirect altogether. Des Vallee (talk) 18:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not really swayed by the arguments for Primitive Irish, as "proto-" AFAIK exclusively refers to reconstructions of extinct languages (see Proto-language). If Proto-Celtic isn't a suitable target, the redirect should just be deleted, rather than potentially misleading readers into believing that Primitive Irish is a proto-language. signed, Rosguill talk 18:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mahagaja, won't it be best to add a short section on the protolanguage at Goidelic languages and retarget there? – Uanfala (talk) 22:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Goidelic_languages#History_and_range pretty much already does that describing how the Goidelic languages began becoming distinct towards Proto-Celtic. If we can't have consensus for primitive Irish which is the partly the basis for modern Scottish, Manx and Irish. The hyperlink of Goidelic languages is by far the best redirect, I don't think it should be deleted as there are many possible links to redirect it to. Des Vallee (talk) 06:20, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think we can take it for granted that readers who follow the redirect and land on Primitive Irish will automatically know what's going on. Not everybody knows what a protolanguage is. And I'm feeling a bit confused myself: I would normally assume that the reconstructed protolanguage should predate Primitive Irish, but if this reconstruction proceeds from the better attested languages, doesn't it stand a chance of actually representing a later stage than Primitive Irish? Similarly if the redirect is retargeted: by reading Goidelic languages#History and range I can get some sort of idea about Proto-Gaelic, but I have no way of knowing if this idea is correct. I guess any target will work, provided it's got some sort of mention of the protolanguage, which at least positions it with respect to the article's topic. – Uanfala (talk) 16:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uanfala, Mahagaja, Rosguill I added a section of Proto-Gailic "Proto-Goidelic is the proposed proto-language for all branches of Goidelic, it is most commonly thought to have originated from either northern Ireland or western Scotland. It is the predecessor which then began to separate into separate Irish, Scottish, Manx languages." this is the best overall redirect, it would be best to have an article specifically about proto-Gaelic however. Thanks. Des Vallee (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Des Vallee: It's not accurate to say that Proto-Goidelic split into separate Irish, Scottish Gaelic and Manx languages; that split didn't happen until the era of Middle Irish. Proto-Goidelic is the sister language to Proto-Brythonic; it developed after Proto-Insular Celtic split into Brythonic and Goidelic branches and evolved into Primitive Irish. I don't think there's enough material on Proto-Goidelic to warrant an article. Historical linguists tend to talk about how Old Irish (and Primitive Irish) developed from Proto-Celtic; as far as I know, no one has ever bothered to reconstruct the intermediate Proto-Goidelic stage. —Mahāgaja · talk 20:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mahagaja: Proto-Goidelic does have enough information for an article and has had words and pronunciation have been reconstructed. As well as extensive research on the split between Gaelic and Brittonic. It can be proved using scholarly sources. You are correct on the languages and I have changed it to Gaelic began to split into different dialects and then later forming separate "languages" during Middle Irish or perhaps there is some better wording.
There is extensive study on Proto-Goidelic:
THE PROSODIC STRUCTURE OF IRISH, SCOTS GAELIC, AND MANX, Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Antony Dubach GreenMay 1997
Page 28, section 67:
"Shortening of unstressed long vowels in Proto-Goidelic It is unknown where stress fell in Proto-Celtic, but Schrijver (1995, 16 ff.) has argued that in Proto-Insular Celtic (PIC), stress regularly fell on the initial syllable of the word. This pattern continued in the Goidelic branch of Insular Celtic through Old Irish and into most modern Goidelic dialects, with notable exceptions in Manx and the Irish of Munster and East Mayo,as we shall see. 3By the time Old Irish is attested, unstressed vowels (i.e. those not inthe initial syllable) that were long in Proto-Insular Celtic had been short-ened in accordance with the WSP, into Proto-Gaelic (Thurneysen 1946, 31)."
See page 29 for a reconstruction of a words of Proto-Goidelic, section 69.
See page 32 for more information on Proto-Goidelic section 74.
"This shortening may be explained by proposing that Ulster has re-stored the ranking WSP, ALL-FT-L ≫ ::MAX(μ) that was current early in Proto-Goidelic. This ranking means that the optimal candidate is the one in which an unstressed long vowel is shortened.(34)/kal′i:n′/WSP ALL-FT-LMAX(μ)(.k·.l′i:n′.)* !-> (.k·.l′in′.)*.ka(.l′Ì:n′.)σ. This is a clear example of the Promotion of the Unmarked: WSP was pro-moted to undominated position, and MAX(μ) was demoted so that one candidate could surface as optimal in Proto-Gaelic. What the speakers did, in effect, was apply the contra-position of the Weight-to-Stress Principle, ì If unstressed, then light, î was added to their language showing a divergence in proto-celtic."
For more information see Journal of Celtic language learning The consonantal inventory of proto-Goidelic and proto-Brittonic under Laryngeal Realism, Interarticulatory timing and Celtic mutations. Or Back Into the Fields and Into the Woods: Old Irish íath'land, field'and fíad'wild; deer; uncultivated land'revisited "There are even three different reasonable strategies available in order to to account for the Proto-Celtic or at least Proto-Goidelic *-u- instead of expected *-wo, there may have been a Proto-Goidelic sound change *-wo- > *-u- in word-final syllables."
Or The substratum in Insular Celtic page 161 (Intro), page 169 (section 161) .
Page 170 (section 161)
"One could conceive, therefore, that an imaginary temporal exten-sion of the evolution of Continental Celtic languages could theoretically yield us a stage not unlike Insular,and, vice versa, that the Continental data could be of significant use wherever a reconstruction of Proto-Brittonic or Proto-Goidelic forms is attempted. More-over, the morphophonemic mutations mentioned by Koch are, at least in Old Irish, plausibly explicable through the (later) apocoped ending of the first word in a two-unit syntagma, and, in a way, it is precisely the data from Gaulish that support this solution. Just a single example will suffice: the nasalized Anlaut after possessive plural pronouns allows us to reconstruct the deleted Auslaut with -m/-n-:12"
See end of page 170, page 172 (section 164), for more information.
As well as mentioning in extensive detail when Brittonic and Goidelic began separating. This is just the absolute tip of the iceberg of Proto-Goidelic and Proto-Brittonic and there is much, much more sources detailing it. Des Vallee (talk) 21:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Des Vallee: Great! If you want to start an article on the Proto-Goidelic language based on sources like those, go ahead! —Mahāgaja · talk 07:04, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mahagaja: Yea of course, when I get the time -_-, I have a bad habit of creating drafts and not finishing them but I will give it a shot with a draft, which knowing me I will get half way through and not finish it. Des Vallee (talk) 02:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Plenty of discussion thus far, though I'm hoping more eyes will help.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 01:38, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it should be redirected to Proto-Goidelic as the hyperlink already exists which is just a section discussing proto-Goidelic on the Goidelic languages. Previously this section didn't exist now it's obvious to redirect there and I think we can agree it's the best redirect. Des Vallee (talk) 19:10, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems reasonable to me. signed, Rosguill talk 18:04, 6 May 2021 (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.
  • I may have closed this similarly soon, so consider the semi-involved closed endorsed. --BDD (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_April_29&oldid=1023869352"