Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 24[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 24, 2016.

Euroville[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) 20:03, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a valid synonym, many non-notable topic with that name. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 23:11, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The term is used in a lot of different contexts, and the redirect as it stands isn't right. Lets just get rid of it. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:22, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget It was originally intended as a redirect to Auroville, which has grown into a substantial article. I think it should be retargeted there, as {{R from misspelling}}. — Gorthian (talk) 00:11, 25 June 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.

Nάνα[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 July 6#Nάνα

Eπανάσταση (Mixed Latin/Greek letters)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 July 6#Eπανάσταση (Mixed Latin/Greek letters)

Book of Glory[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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) StAnselm (talk) 19:08, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect title was coined by Roman Catholic Raymond E. Brown and is not universally accepted by biblical academics or even accepted from a minor group of scholars. The title itself is very obscured to the target page, and is basically a POV one-sided view. JudeccaXIII (talk) 07:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Nonetheless the title is used, and is not "obsucre". It's not the main page name, and it doesn't refer to anything else, so there's no reason not to have it. WP:R#DELETE (even point #8) doesn't apply. [{WP:R#KEEP]] (especially points 3, 5, 7) does apply. I just said 5 applies, i.e. that I find it useful, so "I probably do". Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 11:04, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
AngusWOOF The Book of Glory is not a universal/alternative WP:COMMONNAME, and also, there is no consensus to define Gospel_of_John#Structure_and_content as any editor can change the structure according to any other sources an editor chooses. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@JudeccaXIII: Since when do redirects have to reflect WP:COMMONNAME? See WP:R#KEEP and WP:R#DELETE; they illustrate that this should be kept. Additionally, WP:RNEUTRAL says:
Just as article titles using non-neutral language are permitted in some circumstances, so are redirects. Because redirects are less visible to readers, more latitude is allowed in their names. Perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is therefore not a sufficient reason for their deletion. In most cases, non-neutral but verifiable redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term. Non-neutral redirects may be tagged with {{R from non-neutral name}}.
Clearly this is a KEEP. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 17:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, @AngusWOOF: the nomination was listed incorrectly; it is already set to redirect to Gospel_of_John#Structure_and_content. I just corrected it. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 18:18, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I found this source[1] to back up the division of the gospel into prologue, Signs, Glory, and epilogue. It was already in Book of Signs, and I just added it to Gospel of John. It's publisher is LifeWay, a major publisher of Xian literature, not affiliated with the Catholic Church (which would be my personal POV, as Judecca has suggested) but rather with the Southern Baptist Convention. So I think this settles that it's both mainstream and not my own POV. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 14:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Read especially from p. 305:
There is wide agreement in the literature that John's Gospel breaks down into an introduction (1:1–18), a first major unit frequently call "The Book of Signs" (1:19–12:50; focusing on Jesus' messianic "signs" for the Jews), a second major unit best termed "The Book of Exaltation" (13:1–20:31; anticipating Jesus' exaltation with the Father subsequent to his crucifixion, burial, and resurrection), and an epilogue (chap. 21). Footnote (#52): Many commentators, such as F. J. Moloney, The Gospel of John, SacPag (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1998), v–viii, call the second major unit "Book of Glory," though references to glory are prevalent also in the first major unit.
Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 18:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects are common alternative names that should be created help guide readers to the target article. This is why main articles use WP:COMMONNAME and redirects are created if they are secondary common use; read WP:POFR. The Book of Glory does not apply to any WP:R#KEEP reason. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 18:11, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First, read my "keep" vote above. WP:R#KEEP points 3, 5, and 7 all apply. Second, from WP:POFR:
  1. Closely related words. CHECK.
  2. Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article. (Such redirects are often targeted to a particular section of the article.) CHECK.
Definitely a keeper on the basis of POFR.
Finally, your entire argument is that it's POV. But you've ignored WP:RNEUTRAL. Given the red line from WP:POFR together with RNEUTRAL, there is no reason under the sun to delete this redirect. It should be tagged with {{R from subtopic}}. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 18:50, 24 June 2016 (UTC), edited 18:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Behavioral note: Jujustsuan is editing the structure of the discussion here and here after my replies and has pinned me in an edit summary of which I did something wrong, but did not. @Jujustsuan, You forgot some of the letters in your own signature, I have not touched your replies, and please do not edit your own comments after someone has replied per WP:TPO for no reason ever. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 18:31, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two things:
  1. I beg to differ about the letters in my sig. (How could I "forget" to finish my sig? That's done automatically by typing in ~~~~.) In that edit summary, I said I assumed good faith, i.e. that it was an accident/typo, and thus did not "pin" you. Not sure what you mean about editing my own comments; if you're referring to adding the "an" back to my name, again, it was altered by you, accidentally I assumed, after I posted it, and I was fixing it. But since I included the oldid in my summary, and you came up with some other random diff to cite in a scare-boldface "behavioral note", I'm starting to wonder if my AGF was deserved. I still hope it was.
  2. Is adding the bullets to neaten things up a problem? Is uniting the separated replies with the original vote/comment, while explicitly saying so in the edit summary? It's not like I moved them somewhere nonsensical or changed the content. Is there a policy (not a guideline or an essay, but a policy) against this that I should know about?
Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 18:45, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jujutsuan I would like to apologize for that. I did not notice my edit on your signature. This has become a frustrating and unnecessary issue for me. I am also withdrawing from the discussion, and I hope you continue your progress on Wikipedia, I really do mean it. Happy editing & Cheers! — JudeccaXIII (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nomination I have found multiple sources via Google Books by scholars who have mentioned such a title and could possibly overhaul the redirect to an article. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:51, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Köstenberger, Andreas J.; Kellum, Leonard Scott; Quarles, Charles L. (2009). "The Gospel According to John". The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament. Nashville: B&H Publishing Group. p. 305. ISBN 9780805443653. Retrieved 21 June 2016.
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.

Cænugeard[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 split decision. There's clear consensus to delete most of these. The others that were mentioned by Uanfala or Patar knight will be kept, as there isn't consensus to delete them. Kieu will be converted to a set index article. There's a lot of uncertainty with some of these, however, so I'll allow speedy renomination in order to have a focused discussion. -- Tavix (talk) 19:03, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A batch of redirects in various languages and misspellings of languages, all to the city Kiev. I checked through the article; none of the redirects listed here are mentioned. I can intuit that several of them are misspellings, but I can't differentiate between Cyrillic and Latin letters to tell if the misspellings are in English or not. None of them appear likely in English.

Also many languages that seem to have no close relationship to this subject: Bengali, Chinese, Hebrew, Persian, etc.— Gorthian (talk) 04:42, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per nom's due diligence in scrubbing the entries for WP:RFFL. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the Yiddish קיעוו (but not the Hebrew קייב) and the Belarussian Кіеў as the names in the languages of the city's largest historically established minorities. Keep Kænugarðr as an alternative spelling or a plausible misspelling of Koenugarðr, which according to the Ukrainian article is what the city was known as in the sagas. Delete Cænugeard as this appears to have only been the Old English name. I haven't looked at the other Latin-script ones. Unsure about Кијев: it's deletable if it's just the Serbian name, but I don't know if it can't coincide with a spelling variant in one of the Slavonic varities historically spoken in the area. Delete all other foreign-script ones. Uanfala (talk) 13:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kieu, Kiiev, Kijew, Kiyew and Kiyiw look like possible (informal) renditions of the Ukrainian and Russian pronunciations of the name. Now, how plausible they are, I don't know, but I'd tend to consider them worth keeping unless given a reason not to. Uanfala (talk) 22:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sensible idea. But which ones are Arabic? I'm only sure about کییف and what seems like a plausible variant کیف. Uanfala (talk) 22:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Putting all the Persian ones in order into Google Translate (I know, I know) yields "Bag KyېF Bag Bag Bag Bag KyێV KyyېV". So maybe that can help weed out the less likely ones? Does Kiev really mean bag? — Gorthian (talk) 23:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Arabic Wikipedia is unhelpful as it only lists "Kiev" as a redirect. Maybe ping some active user in Category:User ar for help? ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Going by the interwiki links (the below are listed in the order they appear in the nomination):
  1. كىيېۋ is Uyghur (letter ۋ isn't used in Arabic)
  2. كييف is Arabic
  3. کيېف is Pashto (letter ې isn't used in Arabic)
  4. کی یئف is Northern Luri
  5. کیئف is Azeri
  6. کیف is Urdu & Punjabi (and probably other languages of Pakistan)
  7. کییف is Farsi and Mazandarani
  8. کیێڤ is Sorani Kurdish
As a general comment, I don't think trade ties between two regions, even old ones, are sufficient to justify keeping a WP:FORRED; globalisation is a lot older than folks generally think. More importantly, these names aren't explained on the target (even at Kiev#Names); redirects are supposed to point people to places where they can get more encyclopedic information about what they typed in, not just act as a translation dictionary with no further context. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 03:30, 1 July 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_June_24&oldid=1138581079"