Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 April 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 22[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 22, 2019.

Atheist 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 Nontheistic religion. (non-admin closure) Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 21:37, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The target is just one example. Not sure if there is a better target since no article on the broad concept exists. MB 15:39, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are there other "Atheist churches" with articles? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. See North Texas Church of Freethought for one example. I'm not sure if there are others that have articles or not. I've assembled a handful of sources in my userspace if someone wants to write an article on the broad topic. Not sure when or if I'll get around to it myself. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:14, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and create an article with this title to cover the phenomenon of so called "Atheist Churches." A quick Google indicates that this is a thing, and it is probably notable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:09, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also see:
The elusive phenomenon of churches without God
Atheist and Agnostic Unitarian Universalists
What happens at an atheist church?
Atheists Are Sometimes More Religious Than Christians
Non-Theistic Religions
--Guy Macon (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to nontheistic religion. The UUA is a church that includes self-declared atheists, but if we retargeted there, it would imply that they were the only ones. Maybe ONUnicorn's sources will be enough to write a separate article, but until/unless that happens, we should redirect this to Guy Macon's broader topic, as it clearly includes atheist churches. Nyttend (talk) 00:06, 26 April 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.

Game of Thrones:[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 April 30#Game of Thrones:

Hill tribe[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 April 30#Hill tribe

High Inquisitor[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 disambiguate. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:16, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Common title in fiction not limited to Harry Potter, not to mention real-world uses like the head of the Portuguese Inquisition (e.g., José of Braganza, High Inquisitor of Portugal). My gut says this isn't a good candidate for disambiguation, but someone else could try a draft. --BDD (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: See also Grand Inquisitor. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  20:08, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Good find. I wonder if we could expand the scope of that one, or if we'd be veering too much into WP:OR territory. --BDD (talk) 20:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @BDD: The scope should be the Portuguese and Spanish Inquisitions. Both of them used the term "Grand Inquisitor". — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  00:52, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 01:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 04:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment doesn't the hatnote at the Dolores Umbridge section explain the two possibilities enough? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Keep. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:22, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's have one more time
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 13:13, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh: I don't think Umbridge is the primary topic for this title, so it should not be left as-is. The correct approach is probably to dabify it, but I'm not sure it's worth having a dab page just for Umbridge and the Portuguese Inquisition. Maybe we could merge the dab into Grand Inquisitor ("Grand Inquisitor or High Inquisitor may refer to...")? --NYKevin 23:55, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm Umbridge is Hogwarts High Inquisitor. High Inquisitor is more of a Star Wars term, and hence exiled to Wookiepedia. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 07:55, 25 April 2019 (UTC).[reply]

The Inquisitorius was a secret division of Imperial Intelligence instituted after the Clone Wars and the rise of the Empire which consisted of dark side Force-sensitive agents known as Inquisitors. These Inquisitors were considered the highest ranking of the Emperor's dark side adepts, outranking the Emperor's Hands, Emperor's Mages, Emperor's Royal Guard, and lesser Dark Jedi. They reported directly to Emperor Palpatine and Darth Vader.

Now we're getting into Wookieepedia territory. I deleted ten pages:
  1. Imperial Inquisitorius
  2. Inquisitor Malorum
  3. Malorum
  4. Imperial Iquisitorius
  5. Imperial inquisitorius
  6. Inquisistorius (Star Wars)
  7. Iquisitorius
  8. Inquisistorius
  9. Inquisitorius
  10. Inquisitorius (star wars)
Let me know if you want me to restore any of these, or make it eleven. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I take it these were redirects? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:43, 28 April 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Yes, all redirects, and creating redirects to borderline-notable topics like this belies the idea that "redirects are cheap" because of the significant amount of valuable administrator time wasted on managing them.
I've restored Inquisitorius (Star Wars) and moved it to the base title Inquisitorius because unnecessary disambiguation.
I deleted these redirects because they were targeting List of Star Wars Rebels characters#Imperial Inquisitors and that section neither mentions any variant of the Inquisitorius term nor a "Malorum".
But then I noticed the outlier Imperial High Inquisitor targeting List of Star Wars characters#I which does mention the "Inquisitorius". So I retargeted Inquisitorius to that.
It appears to me that "Imperial Inquisitors" and "Inquisitorius" may be two terms for the same thing. If so, then we should explicitly say so.
And, from the content that was deleted by redirection, some of the "Known Inquisitors" were called "High Inquisitor". – wbm1058 (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wbm1058, can you add high inquisitor to the star wars entries where appropriate so that it gets a WP:DABMENTION? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, here is the Fandom's High Inquisitor article. Maybe that can help with sourcing for the list entries. wbm1058 (talk) 15:43, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
...and their Inquisitorius article confirms that "Members of the Inquisitorius were known as Imperial Inquisitors". – wbm1058 (talk) 16:01, 29 April 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.

Boy Blunder[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 2#Boy Blunder

Blue penis[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. --BDD (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that this is a defining characteristic that warrants a redirect. —Xezbeth (talk) 08:24, 22 April 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.

Blitzmann[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. --BDD (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently a German name for this character. Not mentioned in the article, and even the German Wikipedia article is at the English name. —Xezbeth (talk) 08:15, 22 April 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.

Ambrose and his Orchestra[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 1#Ambrose and his Orchestra

Rape holocausts[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) 16:28, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I Tried changing the name for it to mach with what some one would type in if researching the subject. Rape holocausts is not normally used by reliable sources? Jack90s15 (talk) 02:29, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jack90s15, I don't see where you tried to change it; can you add a link to where you tried? Also, I suspect you want this redirect to be deleted, but it would help if you said explicitly that you wanted deletion, or if you don't want it, please say explicitly what you do want. Nyttend (talk) 03:23, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – unlikely search term and misuse of the term 'holocaust'. (Jack90s15 applied (incorrectly) {{DISPLAYTITLE}}, since corrected.) -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:32, 22 April 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.

Character Assassination (comics)[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 Character Assassination. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 03:14, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This a story arc that was merged and redirected via AfD back in 2010. However the merged information was removed shortly after and now the current target has no mention of it. Even if it did, I question the benefit of redirecting the name of a story arc to an article on just one of several characters that appeared in it. —Xezbeth (talk) 12:13, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 02:14, 22 April 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.

Tata Indicom photon+[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 April 30#Tata Indicom photon+

Mark Records[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. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 04:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Offer advice; I'm not sure what to do, as this is basically a matter of priority. What should be treated as the most useful meaning: an abbreviation of the name of a marginally notable company (the current target), or a misspelling of a highly notable concept, the MARC record (we have a Marc record redirect), or should this be a disambiguation page? I strongly prefer the second option, but I'm a librarian and work with MARC records all the time, so I don't want to assume that this preference will be universal. Google tests are difficult, as there's a surprisingly large number of men named Mark Record, and as many other results are unrelated, e.g. this page that uses "mark records" as shorthand for "trademark records", or this page for an organization named Musty Mark Records. Nyttend (talk) 00:14, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: I'm aware of MARC, it doesn't affect Mark, we also have no "do you mean PURL" on Pearl. Update: Pearl (disambiguation) offers Purl (disambiguation). –84.46.53.117 (talk) 17:02, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Record collector comment - I've seen records made by this company often, but I've not seem them labeled as "Mark Records", only "Mark Custom Recordings". There wouldn't be a huge loss if this was redirected elsewhere, so long as a redirect notice was placed at the target. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep; at the moment this is the best target. It is a standard step to append "Records" to a short-form label name when looking for information. On the other hand to mis-spell MARC record would require one mis-spelling and two mis-capitalizations. A redirect hatnote at the target might still be useful though. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:48, 28 April 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep - Already has a hatnote, though personally I would have gone for {{redirect-distinguish}} instead. --NYKevin 02:30, 30 April 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_April_22&oldid=1072177097"