Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 August 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 15[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 15, 2016.

Mauritian gerbil[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 as {{r from incorrect name}}. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible misnomer, the correct name being Mauritanian gerbil; does however not qualify for speedy deletion as result of a page move. PanchoS (talk) 17:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep absent evidence of confusion. I wouldn't expect most readers to automatically know the proper demonym for Mauritania. "Mauritian" may be wrong, but it's a reasonable guess. --BDD (talk) 00:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The confusion is that "Mauritian gerbil" would be a gerbil from Mauritius, not Mauritania. -- Tavix (talk) 00:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but per Wildlife of Mauritius, "Due to its isolated geographic location, remote from large land masses, Mauritius has no terrestrial mammals." No mention of gerbils or anything like them in List of mammals of Mauritius either. So I highly doubt anyone would be sincerely looking for information on Mauritian gerbils. --BDD (talk) 12:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not in the wild no, but gerbils are relatively popular pets. Maybe someone could be searching to see if they could find information on how popular they are in Mauritius? (Not likely, no, but neither is someone mixing up the demonyms of Mauritius and Mauritania specifically when searching for gerbils.) -- Tavix (talk) 16:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, yeah, there's probably at least one gerbil alive on Mauritius. But this would be a very unlikely search term for such a(n obscure) topic. It reminds me of Neelix's "Uruguay frog" et al. Even if we had content about such a topic, you'd expect to access it first at something like Gerbils in Mauritius, Pets in Mauritius, or, closest to this one, Mauritius gerbils. Not the singular form. (Side note 1: I'm surprised we don't have any "Pets in [country]" articles.) (Side note 2: There's no mention of Africa at all at Pet.) --BDD (talk) 20:36, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because there is no species called "Uruguay frog", nor any species with a similar enough name that a reader might mistake it for "Uruguay frog". If this redirect were going to something like List of mammals of Mauritius or List of mammals of Mauritania, that would make it a more direct comparison. --BDD (talk) 15:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@BDD: OK, so why did the Uruguay frog have to go, but not the Mauritian gerbil? Please explain me – I really don't get it, why non-existing species should be kept as best-guess targets. Our search function has improved quite a lot, so even without a redirect, the supposed user confusing Mauritius with Mauritania and searching for a "Mauritian gerbil" will easily find Mauritanian gerbil. The myriads of outright wrong redirects in fact are disruptive, when popping up in the search bar, often crowding out valid suggestions. --PanchoS (talk) 23:35, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It may well be on me for not explaining it well enough, but I've already addressed this. "Uruguay frog" was going to a list of Uruguayan amphibians. A user searching for the term would probably be looking for an individual species, which doesn't exist. There's not even a species with a name similar to "Uruguay frog". By contrast, this redirect is not pointing to a list—it's indeed pointing to a species with a similar name. A reader looking for an actual species called "Mauritian gerbil" will always be disappointed, because there is no such thing. If such a reader exists, we can't serve him or her. So is it reasonable that someone using this search term may be making a mistake, actually seeking the Mauritian gerbil? I think that's quite plausible. --BDD (talk) 14:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's as reasonable a guess as "Austrian kangaroo" or Australian Alps would be. --PanchoS (talk) 08:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Australian Alps is probably a bad example here... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 12:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BDD. Yes it's wrong, but it's not the same as Austria/Australia as both those countries and their demonyms are well known to most English speakers, neither Mauritius nor Mauritania, let alone their demonyms, are anywhere near as well known so this is a very plausible error. Thryduulf (talk) 12:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BEANS, but I would probably defend "Austrian kangaroo". Like here, a user searching that term has almost certainly just made a typo or misspelling rather than seeking information on a (nonexistent) kangaroo of Austria. --BDD (talk) 14:34, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to make Wikipedia slightly more accessible to folks with dyslexia. — Gorthian (talk) 02:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If somebody types "Mauritian gerbil" into the Wikipedia URI or search box, they'd get "Mauritanian gerbil" without being told it's Mauritania, not Mauritius. Then they'd go away thinking it's still "Mauritian gerbil". It's a typo that we want the reader to know they've made. Deryck C. 13:47, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • But that only helps those people who are using the internal search function at Wikipedia, and only when the search returns the target (which cannot be guaranteed) not those who try and find it by any of the various other methods who may not be presented with search results but with an invitation to create a page, a simple failure notice, an invitation to search, or simply no results. It is impossible to know what proportion of people use any method of searching and browsing Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 14:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. The claim that it's an implausible redirect is belied by the fact that the article itself was at this title for a time; we know that someone made this typo. And it's not just one editor making the mistake: the article title began with "Mauritian" for three years! Links to this title are numerous, and there's absolutely no good reason to create linkrot. Nyttend (talk) 05:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I hadn't even noticed how long this was a title! Good find, and enough to upgrade my vote to strong, for whatever that's worth. --BDD (talk) 16:38, 17 August 2016 (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.

Miss Teen USA 2007 - South Carolina answers a question[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 1#Miss Teen USA 2007 - South Carolina answers a question

🔫[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. Possibly keep, but it's the same outcome. After over four weeks of discussion, I'm doing an WP:INVOLVED close that I think any reasonable admin would make. --BDD (talk) 20:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to emojipedia, this emoji has at different times and in different OSes been rendered as a revolver, a semiäutomatic pistol, a flintlock pistol, and a comic-book-style laser gun. And soon Apple will start rendering it as a squirt gun. As this is an XY situation, my inclination is to delete, but I could also see a casy for DABifying. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 03:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. Under its current condition, it's a fine redirect to pistol, so if readers aren't sent there by default, they ought to have some way of getting there. Since it's also qualified in the past as a redirect to a few different other things, it should be redirected to those, too. Oops, can't redirect it to more than one place at once. I guess we'll just have to list the possible meanings on a single page, providing links to the articles about them to resolve ambiguity. Oh wait, that's what a disambiguation page is. Nyttend (talk) 04:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is, since the emoji is officially defined as "PISTOL." The fact that Apple is redesigning their font to be a "water pistol" doesn't change its definition. -- Tavix (talk) 05:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is, same rationale as given by Tavix. Font differences do not change what the symbol means. ⇔ ChristTrekker 17:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate as there is clearly more than one meaning behind the symbol. Just because the company that first created the symbol defines it as a pistol doesn't mean that is the only thing that it can be. -- MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)(Contribs)(please reply using {{ping}}) 21:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • For discussion's sake, I'll explain why I disagree with you. First, as an aside, no "company" created the symbol's definition, so I hope this isn't an anti-corporatist sentiment. Second, just because some people have chosen to use U+1F346 AUBERGINE (🍆) as a phallic symbol does not mean we need to disambiguate the 🍆 article. The symbol is an eggplant, and should rightly redirect to that. Just because people associate disgust with feces, or use a variant term as an expletive, does not mean we need to disambiguate U+1F4A9 PILE OF POO (💩) between feces, disgust, and expletive. The symbol is feces. A picture will always mean different things to different people, but I don't think that means we need to catalog every possible meaning in a dab article for these characters instead of simply redirecting to the article of the canonical meaning. ⇔ ChristTrekker 21:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • @ChristTrekker: Like Thryduulf, I think you make a very good point. However, I do see a difference between this case and the hypotheticals you propose. Your examples deal with how people interpret emojis in varying ways, whereas this is a case of browsers rendering emojis in varying ways. I see this as a simple LEAST situation. If someone searches for 💩, which in every browser that I know of is rendered as a pile of feces, then the least astonishing target is a pile of feces. On the other hand, if someone searches for 🔫, which in their browser might be rendered as a flintlock or a squirt gun or a laser gun, then I'm not so sure that taking them to pistol is the least astonishing outcome. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 00:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • @PinkAmpersand: (I'll have to remember {{ping}}; I hadn't seen it before. Cool.) It's a font difference. I may see something like "A", but you may see something like "A" or "𝔄" and be surprised it leads to the same article as "A". (E.g. you think the first is just a letter of the alphabet, but understood the latter as a constant in some branch of science.) But it's still an A, regardless of the font used to display it. This example is not quite as pronounced as the other, but if you were not familiar with the various ways of writing/printing the same character, it illustrates the same point. Some characters, by their nature, allow for wider interpretation than others; just like the script and printed "A" are very different in form, so are a squirt gun and a six-shooter—but they're still pistols. The variations in character design for emojis are obviously much newer than those for "A"—we know A-in-blackletter and A-in-serif and A-in-script are all just "LATIN CAPITAL LETTER A", and the fact that most people don't (yet) know that the laser-gun-glyph and squirt-gun-glyph are both "PISTOL" doesn't change the fact that they are.

          Another example I'll leave you with is the character U+1F469 WOMAN (👩). I myself designed a glyph for a font using Botticelli's The Birth of Venus as a basis. Do we need to disambiguate that character (instead of simple redirect) due to font design? If someone uses WOMAN to literally refer to the painting because he happens to be using that font, I'd call them ignorant (not pejoratively), just like I'd call someone using PISTOL to narrowly refer to "squirt gun" ignorant. The character has a meaning, regardless of its display.

          I think you have a good case for adding {{redirect}} at the top of pistol, though. ⇔ ChristTrekker 12:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      • @ChristTrekker: I agree with PinkAmpersand. It would be confusing if I saw the emoji as a laser pistol and then get redirected to an article about the conventional pistol. I think this might be a case for a unique disambiguation page. For example, instead of starting it with "'🔫 may refer to...'" it should start with something that explains that there may be a difference with how it is rendered with different operating systems and browsers (and even websites) and then link to articles that may represent the different variations of the emoji's appearance. -- MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)(please reply using {{ping}}) 00:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. ChristTrekker's comments are particularly persuasive. Thryduulf (talk)—Preceding undated comment added 21:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate = retarget Pistol (disambiguation). I agree with comments that say Unicode defined this as "PISTOL" so we should follow, but the "what gun?" debate here seem to persuade me that Unicode (and the platforms that have created fonts for this emoji) meant "pistol" in its broad sense rather than the narrow sense of "small handheld gunpowder-bullet weapon that fires one shot at a time" (my paraphrase) used in our Pistol article. Pistol (disambiguation) will fulfil the need to disambiguate between different possible pistols represented by this emoji. Deryck C. 16:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there other instances of disambiguation pages with emoji titles? Personally, I can't see retargeting to Pistol (disambiguation). If we agree that this is a pistol, and there's a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for that, that's where it belongs. --BDD (talk) 20:27, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • technically this isn't an emoji, but as far as I know all unicode characters are either articles about the character, redirects to articles about multiple unicode characters or redirects to articles about what the symbol represents. I agree that in this case disambiguation is not the primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 23:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We are an encyclopedia, not an emoji gallery. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:50, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not an emoji, nor does the presence of a redirect from a unicode symbol make Wikipedia a gallery. Consensus of many previous discussions is that unicode characters are useful search terms. Thryduulf (talk) 01:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Notecardforfree: that (or ideally a more specific sub-article) is not a bad solution but I don't think it is the best. Thryduulf (talk) 19:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Emoji would be the more specific sub-article, and Miscellaneous Symbols and Pictographs would be the even-more-specific article. This character is too obscure to make the cut for the subset shown in List of Unicode characters. Noting that a lot of emotional energy is being expended for something that averages just a dozen page views a day, and, from the history it can be interpreted by some as either a gun, handgun, firearm or pistol. Indeed the same picture File:SIG Pro by Augustas Didzgalvis.jpg is shown on three of those articles. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:18, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As noted above by people who came in after I voted to disambiguate, this isn't an ambiguous character; it's specifically meant to depict a pistol, regardless of how other fonts may depict it. We routinely redirect image-like characters to the articles for the subjects of the image (☂ goes to Umbrella, ✠ to Cross pattée, etc.), so why should this be different? Nyttend (talk) 13:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, while ✠ certainly appears to be a cross pattée, at least as we define it, Unicode calls it a Maltese cross. Some of these characters may be completely straightforward, but many are not. --BDD (talk) 16:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are cases of a "wrong name" being given in the Unicode standard.¹ Once defined and accepted, though, they cannot be changed, for reasons of compatibility. Sometimes there are explanatory notes in the standard. ⇔ ChristTrekker 14:36, 29 August 2016 (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.

Ballarat funicular[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 August 22#Ballarat funicular

Sista[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 dabify. --BDD (talk) 16:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another Neelix redirect that needs discussion. Is sibling the best target or would sister be better? There is also Sista (song) (a redirect to Living 2001–2002 (an album)), Sista Sista (a single), La Sista (a reggaeton artist), Sista Otis (a musician, singer and songwriter), Swing Mob#Sista (presumably an album) and Sista Monica Parker (a singer, songwriter and record producer) so a disambig featuring some or all of them might be justified - but at the primary title or Sista (disambiguation)? Thryduulf (talk) 13:48, 15 August 2016 (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.

Alternative Seminary[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 August 22#Alternative Seminary

Main Page/Yesterday[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. --BDD (talk) 16:39, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unhelpfyl cross-namespace redirect that predates the current convention of having main page subpages in wikipedia space. Pppery (talk) 01:51, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as it consistently gets hits (occasionally 5-7 in a day) and takes people directly where they want to go. It's only technically cross-namespace in that the target consists entirely of reader-facing content. Thryduulf (talk) 13:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 03:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a search term for the readership. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 05:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • That doesn't match the facts that this is a consistently used redirect. Whether it is used specifically as a search term by readers or by editors following links or some other group of people finding it in a different way (or some combination of these) is unknowable and entirely irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 10:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Redirects from mainspace to portalspace or categoryspace are generally accepted, partly because (as already noted) all of those namespaces are reader-facing anyway. If this didn't get any hits, perhaps we should delete it, but because it's routinely being used, deletion would be unhelpful. It's not as if there's something odd in the title that's likely to confuse people; I don't imagine anyone using this title while expecting to find anything else. Nyttend (talk) 13:36, 17 August 2016 (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.

Avenger of blood[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 Goel. wbm1058 (talk) 16:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from what apparently was intended as an article on a band to generic feud. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:43, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - As the hatnote of the current target suggests, it has biblical connotations. Unfortunately, my research didn't turn up enough for me to suggest an action.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Goel, an unfortunately synthetic article which nonetheless discusses the Hebraic concept usually translated into English as "avenger of blood". The Biblical topic itself is the primary meaning of this phrase, and the (rather poor) article is where Wikipedia discusses that. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 12:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It is not a clear translation of Goel or the definition of Feud. The band is not notable yet. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. The Goel proposal is indeed plausible but I'm not comfortable with it given that Goel wasn't cited as "Avenger of blood" --Lenticel (talk) 11:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Goel. That article uses the phrase "blood avenger" at one point, so I think that's close enough to count as a mention. Additionally, the phrase seems to have some usage in English. The Jewish Encyclopedia article on the subject uses "Avenger of blood" as its title [1]. -- Tavix (talk) 02:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Goel per Tavix. --Lenticel (talk) 06:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not Blood Law? We could delete, and let the search box lead the way, as there is also a book by this title, or disambiguate, but I'm not comfortable with making either of feud, Goel or Blood Law the primary topic. There is no clear primary topic for this. wbm1058 (talk) 00:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • And this is not simply about a generic feud, but rather a "blood feud". wbm1058 (talk) 00:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to goel This is the established term in many of the English Bible translations that I've used, unlike the "goel" transliteration, which I can't remember ever seeing in an English Bible. I don't immediately remember seeing any other translation for the goel in this responsibility (he's the "kinsman-redeemer" in a different context, but nobody's going to confuse the two translations); it's present both in recent Christian translations and the century-old Jewish Publication Society translation (see Numbers 35:27). And for that matter, see the same passage in lots of other translations. It's definitely a common meaning for this phrase, and if there's any other concept using the term, I've never heard it. Nyttend (talk) 05:34, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps, but the string "avenger of blood" doesn't occur in the goel article. Blood avenger does, so why is that a red link? Update the article to explain the usage, and then I might support a primary topic. As it stands, these are just everyday words... I was not familiar with the word goel, and redirecting an everyday term like blood revenge to a word that's not an everyday word, without explanation, will just confuse some readers. Is "blood revenge", which has redirected to feud since 2008, substantially a different term than "avenger of blood"? What about blood avenger?
    • wikt:avenger: One who avenges or vindicates; as, an avenger of blood. One who takes vengeance.
    • wikt:avenge: A vengeance; a revenge.
    • wikt:vengeance: Revenge taken for an insult, injury, or other wrong. Desire for revenge.
    • wikt:revenge: Any form of personal retaliatory action against an individual, institution, or group for some perceived harm or injustice. wbm1058 (talk) 10:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • No mention of wikt:Goel or wikt:goel (an obsolete word meaning yellow?!) in any of those Wiktionary definitions. wbm1058 (talk) 10:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I hate to bring up N****x again, but this seems like the type of redirect they might have created. Would this even be a blue link if the band Avenger of Blood never existed? wbm1058 (talk) 10:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    As Neelix has had nothing to do with this redirect he is entirely irrelevant here. Whether things would have been different if the band (or an article about them) never existed is also entirely irrelevant given that they do/did. Thryduulf (talk) 11:29, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, then, what is relevant is that is that "avenger of blood" is just an arbitrary random phrase, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. wbm1058 (talk) 12:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but if "avenger of blood" was just an arbitrary random phrase it wouldn't have coverage in the Jewish Encyclopaedia, Bible Encyclopaedia, Biblical Training, Jewish Virtual Library, Bible Gateway, Knowing Jesus or Institute for Creation Research (all from the first page of a google search for "Avenger of Blood" -band). Thryduulf (talk) 13:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Great, you have several good sources to cite. From a cursory glance, seems like this could be justification for moving Goel → Avenger of blood, and then we would have the definition of the phrase right in the lead sentence. wbm1058 (talk) 13:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    So I see that "go'el ha-dam"" is usually translated as an "avenger of blood". Goel is just a generic avenger, so needs hadam (blood) added to become "avenger of blood"? wbm1058 (talk) 13:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Wbm1058, pardon my asking, but are you at all familiar with English translations of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament? This phrase appears repeatedly in many well-known translations of the Torah/Law books, as will be known by anyone familiar with the English Bible and the biblical use of the Hebrew term transliterated "goel". This is not merely an avenger; it's an avenger in a specific cultural context, and the absence of "of blood" renders it the term more commonly translated "redeemer" or "kinsman-redeemer". Nyttend (talk) 11:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I am not particularly familiar with the religious usage. What I see in "avenger of blood" is just a random phrase that perhaps brings to mind gang wars... not a video game or movie or documentary, but simply a conflict between two or more gangs. That's why I'm asking for an explanation of all that in the Goel article. {{citation needed}}. wbm1058 (talk) 12:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Just noting that this lengthy discussion is over a redirect that averages just four views/day. So an unlikely search term, at best. wbm1058 (talk) 13:01, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, four views a day by humans indicates that this is a well used redirect and not an unlikely search term at all. Redirects with four views a month can still be useful search terms. Thryduulf (talk) 13:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is evidence of the fallacy of page views. These stats can mean whatever you want them to mean, so let's focus on the redirect itself instead of whether or not 4 is a significant number or not. -- Tavix (talk) 14:03, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Goel. I have edited the Goel article to include reference to "avenger of blood" - BobKilcoyne (talk) 05:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Goel. Now that the article has been updated to address my concerns, I'm on board with this. wbm1058 (talk) 16:09, 21 August 2016 (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/2016_August_15&oldid=1088110230"