Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 August 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 1[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 1, 2018.

Caliphatism[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. I'll repoint this to the proper section, which, incidentally, links to Islamism, as well as other helpful links. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:28, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion. I can find no evidence that this is an actual concept used in any relevant literature. No references are provided in any previous versions. (Someone may like to delete the AfD I incorrectly started before I came here, at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caliphatism) Endymion.12 (talk) 20:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • N.b., The section this redirects to does not exist. --BDD (talk) 21:04, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in some fashion. It or its word forms (i.e. "caliphatists") does get used, and not just by Breitbart and their ilk. [1], [2], [3], [4] It seems to a more militant ideological system, so maybe another target is better, but it should go somewhere. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:28, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any academic references which use or define this phrase? In seeking to define or offer a meaning to a word, on the basis that it has been referred to—in very vague terms—in several journalistic articles by people who potentially meant very different things by it, Wikipedia is surely in danger of creating a new concept rather than describing an existing one? Endymion.12 (talk) 10:55, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not just for academics. Lack of academic sources doesn't mean users won't search for a concept. --BDD (talk) 13:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But my point is that, with no evidence of the widespread use of this phrase, one which is used in quite vague terms in a handful of journalistic articles, and without any definitions (from academic sources, or otherwise), by selecting a particular target we are in effect creating a new concept. What will the new target be? How will you find references to justify that target? I think WP:NEO applies here, specifically: "Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia.". Endymion.12 (talk) 15:32, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's plenty of usage in academic references, easily found through the most cursory Google Books and Scholar searches. [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], etc. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Patar knight: Of “Caliphatist”, not “Caliphatism”. Endymion.12 (talk) 17:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • We might also consider Islamism as a target, which has several discussions of the idea of reestablishing the caliphate. I'd be very wary of pointing this anywhere where the term isn't actually used, though. --BDD (talk) 13:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I'm sympathetic to Endymion.12's point, but I think by redirecting this to the Caliphate article we're simply stating the etymologically obvious: that "caliphatism," whatever it is and regardless of whether it exists, relates in some way to the notion of a caliphate. Redirects are not required to be strictly correct so long as they're helpful; that's why we have tens of thousands of Redirects from incorrect names. I can imagine a reader, especially one unfamiliar with the concept of a caliphate, might encounter the term "caliphatism" and find this redirect useful. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:50, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Arms & Hearts if there is no better target. It's worth noting that this was originally a sourced stub article that was unilaterally changed to a redirect in April 2010 by Prezbo [12] (who hasn't edited since 2011). The target section was renamed in 2014 [13] to "Period of dormancy", which still exists. A subsection of that, "Islamic call" still discusses "re-establishing the caliphate" so it might be worth considering merging material from the original stub there, but a decision on that should ideally be made my those with subject area knowledge. Thryduulf (talk) 14:10, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

List of notable goaltenders (ice hockey)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 August 8#List of notable goaltenders (ice hockey)

Endowment ceremon[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 August 8#Endowment ceremon

"Untitled" film redirects[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) 11:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Films have names now. "Untitled" redirect no longer needed. --woodensuperman 10:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not print-worthy and not logical redirects. BOVINEBOY2008 10:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as per nom. No longer needed. Onel5969 TT me 10:47, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Once a final title has been selected by producers, the "Untitled" pages become implausible redirects, i.e., nobody's going to be looking for an untitled film once a title is released. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per others. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:43, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Untitled Spider-Man: Homecoming sequel[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) 11:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Film has a name now. "Untitled" redirect no longer needed. --woodensuperman 10:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: This redirect is now pointless, unless the film's title is dropped. --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:31, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Prtlog[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. It'd be nice to expand the target, though. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:14, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of this term in target stub - no indication whether it is an alternative name, a smaller or wider geog area, a landmark, or what. Googling suggests it might be an alternative name but no WP:RS found, just holiday adverts. PamD 08:59, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep unless prtlog is a disambiguation where it needs to be mentioned MOS:DABMENTION, I don't see the harm in keeping this around when a bunch of those random apartment and airbnb articles refer to this with Duga Luka. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 07:41, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom: it's not clear from the unreliable sources that Google turns up whether Prtlog is a part of Duga Luka, or an alternative name, or something else. If we can't provide the reader with that sort of basic information then keeping this is potentially confusing and does more harm than good. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:52, 26 July 2018 (UTC) Keep. In light of the comments below, I'm satisfied that the Miroslav Krleža Institute of Lexicography source is reliable and says that Prtlog is an alternative name for Duga Luka. It should be listed in the article and the source cited. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Prtlog is the ancient name of Duga Luka. H2017n (talk) 08:57, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@H2017n: Please add that info, with a reliable source, to the Duga Luka, Croatia article. Thanks. PamD 10:14, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For example. H2017n (talk) 11:23, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@H2017n: So what does "tal." mean in "Duga Luka (Prtlog, Prklog, tal. Portolongo)," in that source? Google Translate just removes it, coming up with "Duga Luka (Prtlog, Prklog, Portolongo)", which isn't informative. Anyone else around here read Croatian? PamD 16:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The bit that says "tal. Portolongo" has a typo of "tal." for "ital.", the intended meaning is that the Italian name is "Portologno". It's not difficult to see how "Portolongo" could have evolved into a Croatian name like "Prtlog". – Uanfala (talk) 11:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't speak a word of Croatian and I'm relying on Google Translate here, but I found a source [14] discussing the origin of the name Prtlog and stating that Duga Luka is now the official name (the source seems to have a very strong opinion on that matter). However in Google Books I can find various sources listing alternative spellings Prtloh and Prklog, e.g. [15], which concerns me because Croatian Wikipedia has separate entries for hr:Duga Luka and hr:Prklog. It would be helpful to have a Croatian speaker to untangle this mess. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 09:16, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Miroslav Krleža Institute of Lexicography source says that Duga Luka is "a coastal settlement in the Prtlog bay" (Google translation of "obalno naselje u uvali Prtlog"), which might explain the Croatian Wikipedia's two articles – one for the bay, one for the settlement on the bay with the same name. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The consensus so far is that input from someone who can speak Croatian will be helpful. I have notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Croatia.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 10:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am but a WikiChild, but I found the official Board of Tourism page for Rabac-Labin refers to 'port Prtlog' in the description of one of their local hiking trails. There is also a map with 'Prtlog (Duga Luka)' on it here from the same source. I also found that the Miroslav Krleža Institute of Lexicography lists 'Prtlog' first among the three given, alternative names for Duga Luka. Within their article text they exclusively use 'Prtlog', and not the other two variants, Prklog or Portolongo. In light of these sources, I suggest that the redirect in question be kept, but I don't really understand how all of this editing business works and I am shooting from the hip here. User:Rantaboutfuture(talk) 22:15, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:Basketball 3x3 at the 2018 Central American and Caribbean Games[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. Normally, consensus is to keep Draft->Mainspace redirects, but as this was draftified from mainspace and only existed there for two weeks, I see no need to retain it in this case. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:15, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects were created from a series of page moves, between implausible namespaces namespaces, and should probably be deleted. Danski454 (talk) 09:16, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All redirects should be deleted. Max2610 16:51, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Discovery Science (TV channel)[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 Discovery Science (disambiguation). (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 03:09, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This used to be the page for the European TV channel, but this has now been moved to Discovery Science (European TV channel) following the RM at Talk:Discovery Science (European TV channel)#Requested move 15 July 2018. We need consensus on what should be done with this redirect now. jamacfarlane (talk) 02:26, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would propose the following DAB page:

jamacfarlane (talk) 02:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Jamacfarlane's proposition --C0re1980 (talk) 06:37, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Draft talk:Citation needed[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 delete (G7 / G8 from the below item). --BDD (talk) 14:31, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No use draft talk-to-talk redirects. SænmōsàWe shall find a way, or we shall make one. 01:35, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Draft:Citation needed[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 delete (G7). --BDD (talk) 14:31, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No use draft-to-mainspace redirects. SænmōsàWe shall find a way, or we shall make one. 01:33, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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/2018_August_1&oldid=1036306533"