Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 28[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 28, 2021.

Dull Bones[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. ✗plicit 03:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These are two varieties of Dry Bones appearing in the target's game, but who aren't mentioned in the target article, nor at List of Mario franchise characters, where Dry Bones are described as recurring enemies. I'm suggesting we delete these two redirects unless a justification can be provided, although I'm open to being swayed otherwise here. Regards, SONIC678 23:55, 28 March 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.

ㅿ[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 7#ㅿ

Template:Taxonomy/Leptochiton[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. ✗plicit 03:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

to be deleted, misleading. Leptochiton is DAB Estopedist1 (talk) 19:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Redirects play no role in the functioning of the taxonomy template system used with automatic taxoboxes. Even if the redirects worked they wouldn't be helpful for a clear system. —  Jts1882 | talk  19:33, 28 March 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.

Compressed textures[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 Texture compression. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 03:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I might have missed something, but I can see no reason that this should target the category instead of Texture compression. Listing it here in case there's some reason for the existence of this XNR that I've missed. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 17:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per nom. CanadianOtaku Talk Page 04:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. An appropriate mainspace redirect is better than a cross-namespace redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget - I agree with the above comments. This will be useful if changed. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:42, 30 March 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.

Template:Taxonomy/Hildebrandtia[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 11#Template:Taxonomy/Hildebrandtia

Wikipedia:INVENTED[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) CycloneYoris talk! 03:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Made in 2018 as a shortcut to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day, it has a handful of incoming links, barely any Pageviews, meaning it never caught on, it is shortcut clutter. It is ambiguous, meaning a hatnote was needed because of it, meaning it is a net negative. Delete as a net negative. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It seems like a sensible enough shortcut to me. I'd like to know what you feel it's ambiguous with, because as far as I can see there are only really 2 other things that it could be targeting - the speedy deletion criteria which is directly related to this guideline and WikiProject Invention, which could be sorted with a hatnote. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It only takes two to make ambiguity. Ambiguous, fix with a hatnote? That’s ridiculous. Inventing reasons for clutter at the top of the page, for an unwanted redirect someone made up one day? “Seems sensible enough” is below reasonable, on examination to find ambiguity and better shortcuts. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think this is the only target that makes sense. This is a much better target than the CSD criterion because it has a lot more information on the subject and the CSD itself uses A11 as its shortcut. I don't see why someone would use "INVENTED" to find the WikiProject for Invention; it's a proper name, not a verb. Therefore, I'd be fine with keeping that hatnote removed. -- Tavix (talk) 22:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • That sounds like a rationale to create a redirect for nearly every word. These redirects interfere with the search engine. Anyone jumping to WP:INVENTED should be better off with the internal search engine results. There are so many other plausible desired results, and the target essay is much better known by its title and its preferred shortcut WP:NFT. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • But that search gives me 332,000 results, and the target intended by its incoming links isn't among the first 500. If I type WP:something in the search box, I want to go to a page in Wikipedia: namespace. (This is often because someone has written Per XYZ, which I don't understand without looking up WP:XYZ.) Certes (talk) 23:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is sorted by relevance. Are you second guessing the search engine, and concluding that Wikipedian redirects are better? If you know you want project space, you do this search and you find the redirect as #1, and the target as #6. My important point is that someone should NOT ever write "per INVENTED", they should write, as the overwhelming number do, "per WP:NFT". Lots of idiosyncratic seems sensible shortcuts do not help. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • You mainly wouldn't say "per WP:INVENTED" anyway, you would use it naturally in the middle of a sentence where "invented" is meant to convey that the user had invented something. You can see this in some of the uses, like when Spike 'em said: As rubbish a bowler as your mate may be, your addition is clearly WP:INVENTED. Or perhaps when Hog Farm stated: Not quite sure if this is a hoax or WP:INVENTED, but whatever it is... On the other hand, using NFT in the middle of a sentence is nonsensical unless you're already familiar with the initialism or are talking about non-fungible tokens. Unlike INVENTED, where you can get a sense of the guideline from context, you would have to click through to find out that NFT means "not for things", and even then you would need to read further to get the full meaning. -- Tavix (talk) 01:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • You are right about NFT not being intuitive. WP:MADEUP might be a better choice. INVENTED was only really bad because it required hatnotes to unrelated things be added. The hatnote to WP:CSD#A11 is meaningful. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:39, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even if only one person uses the shortcut, it still could possibly be useful. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is harmful if used ambiguously, and should not be publicised. Why would it be more useful than the standard shortcuts? Do you think anyone should be free to create any mainspace shortcuts for their personal-only use? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:01, 1 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.

Predator(bat)[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. ✗plicit 03:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be deleted. Invalid term. No space. And does we need the term "Predator (bat)" at all? Estopedist1 (talk) 12:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete(bat) per WP:UNNATURAL. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 19:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Predator (bat) does not exist. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:43, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What is a Predator (bat) anyway? 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's apparently a made up name for a character that appeared in this episode of primeval, but I haven't been able to find any sources linking this name to the creature. (not to mention the broken disambiguator) There was an article here for 1 min in 2007 which provides some context (Diff). I think the "scientific classification" is unintentionally hilarious. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 12:35, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As a Primeval fan, I know what this is referring to. The Future Predator, the main creature in focus of this episode, is said to be from the future and is described to be a decendant / evolution of bats, as it uses abilites such as echo location. However, I feel this redirect is not necessary as no one is likely going to use this search term. They'd more likely use The Future Predator or Predator (Primeval). CaptainGalaxy 13:54, 3 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.

Melania (gastropods)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 6#Melania (gastropods)

Karipúna do Uaçá language[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 in principle, but retargeting to the newly expanded Karipuna language, which currently is the only place where the term is explained. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala (talk) 15:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to a journal I'm reading, the Karipuna language is an extinct language whose origin is unclear.[1] page 330: "According to Grimes (1996: 28), the ancestors of the Karipúna of Amapá once spoke Karipúna (also known as Karipúna do Uaçá), an unclassifed language, now extinct, that may or may not have been a Tupi-Guarani language". I think it is better to delete the redirect, because the relationship is in doubt. KittenKlub (talk) 12:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We should not delete, though we may want to rd to a dab page or add a dab blurb to the Palikur article. Your article appears to irresponsibly refer to Ethn, which is not a RS, though they fail to give a reference. (They cite "Grimes 1996", but there is no Grimes in their list of references. Grimes did publish things other than Ethnologue!)
According to Glottolog,

A major confusion in E16/E17/E18/E19/E20/E21/E22/E23 is with the languages called Karipuna. In addition to Karipuna Creole French [kmv] (an entry which is correct), there are two entries, both classified as Tupi-Guarani, Subgroup VI:

(Karipúna [kgm], the rd under discussion, and Karipuna [kuq], which leads to our dab Karipuna language (kuq))

Early references to the Karipuna (or similar names) of Amapá refer to a variety of Palikúr [plu] (Dominique Gallois and Carlos Alberto Ricardo 1983: 62). The language of the Karipuna of Amapá in this sense is attested with a short wordlist, and is indeed a Palikúr [plu] variety (Čestmír Loukotka 1963). More recent references to the Karipuna of Amapá refer to an immigrant group whose original language is not attested, but, is reported to have been Nheengatu [yrl] (Expedito Arnaud 1969, Dominique Gallois and Carlos Alberto Ricardo 1983: 62). Except for the classification and the fact that Nheengatu [yrl] already has an entry, the Karipúna [kgm] entry is consistent with referring to the more recent Karipuna of Amapá. Thus, whatever it refers to, the same language already has a different E16/E17/E18/E19/E20/E21/E22/E23 entry, either Palikur [plu] or Nheengatu [yrl].
Until the 1950s (Mauro Leonel 1995: 40-45, 199-213) the only language called Karipuna in the Madeira-Guaporé region was a Panoan language also known as Jau-Navo, amply attested in wordlists (Rondon, Cándido M. S. and de Faria, João Barbosa 1948, de Créqui-Montfort, G. and Paul Rivet 1913, von Martius, Carl Friedrich Philip 1867, Hanke, Wanda 1949). However, the name started to be applied to groups of hostile indians at the Mutumparaná and Jaciparaná which were contacted in the 1950-1970s (Klaus-Peter Kästner 2005: 104) and turned out to speak a Tupi-Guarani language of Subgroup VI (Mello, Antônio Augusto Souza 2000, Monserrat, Ruth Fonini 2000, Betts, LaVera 2012), which we may call Kawahib. FUNAI frivolously used the name Karipuna for this Kawahib group (Mauro Leonel 1995: 45), encouraging the confusion we now observe. The Karipuna [kuq] entry mixes information from the Panoan Karipuna (e.g., the name Jau-Navo) and the Kawahib Karipuna (e.g., the classification). The Panoan Karipuna is otherwise missing from E16/E17/E18/E19/E20/E21/E22/E23 whereas the Kawahib Karipuna speak the same language as the language of several other entries.

The Ethn.24 entry for Karipúna [kgm] of Brazil says,
Alternate Names: Karipuna do Amapá, Karipuna do Uaçá.
User Population: No known L1 speakers.
Location: Amapá state: on French Guiana border.
Language Status: 10 (Extinct).
Classification: Tupian, Tupí-Guaraní, Kawahib
Language Use: Shifted to Karipuna French Creole [kmv].
The entry for Karipuna [kuq] of Brazil says,
Alternate Names: Ah’e, Caripuna, Jau-Navo, Juanauo, Kagwahiva, Karipuna de Rondônia, Karipuna do Guaporé
User Population: 10 (Crevels 2012). Ethnic population: 14 (Crevels 2012).
Location: Rondônia state: Jaru, Jamery, Urupa, Cabecciras, Candeias, and Jaciparana rivers’ banks.
Language Status: 8a (Moribund).
Classification: Tupian, Tupí-Guaraní, Kawahib, Parintintin
Dialects: Jacaria, Pama (Pamana). The Karipuna, Amundava [adw], Kayabi [kyz], Júma [jua], and Tenharim [pah] all call themselves, Kagwahiva (Kagwahibm, Kagwahiv, Kawahip, Kavahiva, Kawaib, Kagwahiph). These varieties along with Uru-eu-wau-wau [urz] and Morerebi [xmo] are reportedly all linguistically very similar.
Language Use: Many also use Portuguese [por]. Also use Tenharim [pah].
Note that we also have the article Karipuna do Amapá.
— kwami (talk) 20:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kwamikagami: To confuse matters even more, there are at least two tribes called Karipuna, and this is the Amapá/Uaçá tribe, and the kuq story is mainly about the Guaporé/Rondônia tribe. Then again, with your addition there is enough for a little stub replacing the redirect. (Also your source confirms that it isn't the same language as their neighbours).KittenKlub (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since only one attested language goes by the name "Karipuna of Amapa/Uaça", and Ethn. only assigned codes to attested languages, Ethn. presumably intended Palikur when they assigned the code, and got confused on the details by the unattested language. So all of these synonyms (Karipuna of Amapa, of Uaça, and the ISO code) might rd to Palikur, as they currently do, and the confusion noted there. Or, if we prefer to turn one of the rd's into a dab, IMO it should be the more common name, 'Karipuna of Amapa'.
Or perhaps all of these, and in addition the dab Karipuna language (kuq), should rd to the dab Karipuna language, with an explanation there. — kwami (talk) 20:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kwamikagami: Keeping the redirect is not good idea, because then people assume that it is an existing language, because Palikur is still spoken and that's in the infobox and the lead. Tthis language which was probably a dialect is extinct. All sources mention that the tribe is a very complicated and confusing mix of indigenous (and non-indigenous) people. KittenKlub (talk) 21:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it was a distinct dialect (and we don't know that it was), it was Palikur. I don't see how a redirect to the correct language is a problem. But we could also have a dab page. Deleting redirects so that people can't find the info they're looking for is not helpful.
If you have a RS that Kalipur is a distinct dialect of Palikur, then we could say in the article that the Kalipur dialect is extinct. Otherwise it's just a synonym, and nothing more needs to be done. — kwami (talk) 01:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How about SIL International? [2] casts doubt the language being the same as Palikur: "Tobler says, “The Karipunas speak a dialect of the Guianese Creole (FGFC), but appear to have retained some words of their original language (particularly in names of fauna and flora), as well as incorporating some Portuguese words” (1983:10). Tobler infers that their original language was that of the Tupi-speaking Indians, who moved to the area from the mouth of the Amazon."
And that's a different tribe altogether. Also SIL lists the language as extinct and does not redirect to Palikur [3]. So all we have is a very confusing story from glottolog. KittenKlub (talk) 13:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No contradiction there. Tobler is presumably talking about the 2nd language, which is reported to have been Nheengatu (which indeed is Tupian). Still, the only attested language in the area called Kalipuna is Palikur. We could of course shift the rd to the dab, though it may be a bit odd to dab 'X language' as either a known language or an unknown language. Usually the known language would be chosen as the main topic and a hat note used for the other. I don't care too much one way or the other, as long as readers can find what they're looking for. Though it would be nice if synonyms all took them to the same place. — kwami (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Karipuna language, and perhaps add a summary of the confusion to the notes there. Where there may be ambiguity or unknown between multiple articles, it is good to target a broader place that covers all possible meanings. -- Tavix (talk) 22:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Karipuna language. That's a lot of good information for readers, enough for me to overlook how it's sort of an article-disambiguation hybrid. (We probably want to transition it to a set-index article or WP:CONCEPTDAB.) --BDD (talk) 17:31, 13 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.

Atrioplanaria[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 05:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This one and all these redirects in Planariidae to be deleted. Rational: Every genus is notable for an individual article.

Estopedist1 (talk) 11:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Estopedist1: if you mean to nominate the other redirects they actually need to be nominated properly so that the appropriate template is applied to them. Can I help you with that? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Shhhnotsoloud: yes, it would be nice, if You help me --Estopedist1 (talk) 12:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. This is just the tip of the iceberg. User:Galactikapedia created some 6000 redirects from lower taxa to higher taxa. Individual taxa are notable and should have either have articles or remain red-links until somebody gets around to making a proper article. Mass creation of taxon redirects is inappropriate. While a substantial number of Galactikapedia's redirects have been turned into articles (mostly by User:Qbugbot) the majority remain as redirects and should be deleted. Plantdrew (talk) 23:37, 1 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.

Mind myths[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. ✗plicit 03:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These started out as a list of "Myths about brains" which were converted into redirects to the brain article following a 2005 era votes for deletion nomination. There are two problems with these redirects as they stand, first of all mind is not the same as brain, an secondly we don't seem to have any content on myths or misconceptions in the target article. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:26, 28 March 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.

Random sample[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 5#Random sample

Philosophy, theology, and fundamental theory of canon law[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 7#Philosophy, theology, and fundamental theory of canon law

Cannibalistic tree[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 7#Cannibalistic tree

Template:Taxonomy/"Labyrinthodontia"[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 6#Template:Taxonomy/"Labyrinthodontia"

Dark Lakitu[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 5#Dark Lakitu

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_March_28&oldid=1142586754"