Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 25[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 25, 2022.

Color Line (SEPTA Regional Rail)[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 23:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These color designation for SEPTA regional rail routes are completely unused both in Wikipedia and by anyone I can find on the internet or really anywhere else. The color names which these routes are used on the schedules for the routes, but they are not at all called by these names. Furthermore, these names present additional confusion as these colors from 2011–present[1] are in conflict with previous color systems for the trains where they had different colors.[2] TartarTorte 23:32, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per my previous comments. Please take my comment as a blanket delete vote on any future color-based SEPTA Regional Rail redirects that turn up. Mackensen (talk) 00:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep per the nom's own rationale color names which these routes are used on the schedules for the routes, thus would be viable search terms. That they date from 2011 shows they were used at that time, so would be reasonable for searching when considering the era one might want to look up -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 03:36, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the colors are in use from that time. The redirects were created in 2022, the creator has been blocked indefinitely, and color names are never used to refer to these lines. Mackensen (talk) 11:03, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The schedules for the routes never use the colors without the route name. For example, the extent of the Airport Line's use of purple, which here is denoted as the Purple Line, is the little bit in the top right corner on the first page. TartarTorte 13:11, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, more JailBrokenIPODGoneWild nonsense. The lines aren't referred to by color names. If there is attestion of a line being called a color name, that would be different. -- Tavix (talk) 13:20, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all more garbage redirects from everyone's favorite redirect-spamming iPod. Just because schedules or whatever may have a color doesn't make these appropriate redirects, if the system in question does not identify its lines by colors. These cause confusion. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Mackensen. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 06:11, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.inquirer.com/philly/news/local/20110217_SEPTA_goes_with_new_color_scheme_for_Regional_Rail.html
  2. ^ https://transitmap.net/septa-regional-rail-1989/
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.

Most massive[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 2#Most massive

Watered Down[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 and retarget.

Deletion. Special:WhatLinksHere/Watered_Down The term "Watered Down" doesn't appear on the Trace Adkins page at all, though it's one of his song titles. Better to just remove this redirect. If really wanted, it should redirect to the album page, Something's Going On (Trace Adkins album). It was mentioned March 12 2018 under the discussion for Watered, but no action was proposed nor taken for Watered Down Nimbex (talk) 21:36, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:44, 25 August 2022 (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.

Moss green[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 Shades of chartreuse#Moss green. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 21:50, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target article, but is a {{R with history}}. Steel1943 (talk) 20:47, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Could not find this properly located anywhere, so I guess this should be deleted; however, if the content is restored to Shades of green or whatever shade of a color it is that's not green, I'm more than open to retargetting there. TartarTorte 02:32, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was moved to Shades of chartreuse. Peter James (talk) 16:22, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:58, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Color/Archive 9#"Shades of" articles may result in the relevant entry at Shades of chartreuse being moved somewhere else. – Scyrme (talk) 21:04, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:42, 25 August 2022 (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.

Modernist architect[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 6#Modernist architect

Darryl Perry[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 Libertarian Party of New Hampshire#2010s. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 21:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

This person is a perennial candidate for office and linking to the next/most recent election contested makes this a costly redirect. It seems there's no one single target that works best and thus this redirect should be deleted. TartarTorte 18:45, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, this is the sort of person we really should have a couple of sentences on somewhere outside of a specific election as it's clear they're plausible search terms - indeed more plausible than candidates who stand only once but who are easy to redirect. In this case Libertarian Party of New Hampshire#2010s is an obvious place to consider as there is a photo of with a 1 sentence bio as the caption there. There Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darryl W. Perry has seven sources that might contain enough reliable information to expand the coverage to a second sentence. Thryduulf (talk) 19:01, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a far more suitable target. As long as it's one that hopefully doesn't keep changing, I think it would make sense to have a target for him on wikipedia. It was just the retarget from election to election that seemed costly to me. TartarTorte 19:37, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Libertarian Party of New Hampshire#2010s, as suggested by Thryduulf. Sal2100 (talk) 19:45, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Libertarian Party of New Hampshire#2010s for now, per above. (Of course, if he becomes more notable in the future this redirect can become an article at that time.) Fieari (talk) 05:04, 30 August 2022 (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.

井[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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 21:43, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a single character that doesn't by itself refer to any single concept (unless you count well). The only internal link that uses it, is from the XCCS code table where it clearly refers to the symbol itself and we are never going to have an article about it (it could be linked to wikt:井). It doesn't work as a search aid either, because it's ambiguous and may also refer to the Jing (surname) or the Well (Chinese constellation), yet it redirects to a tangentially related topic that wouldn't normally be referred to by a single character. – MwGamera (talk) 17:09, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate, obviously. Paradoctor (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment List of hexagrams of the I Ching § Hexagram 48 is named 井 (jǐng), "Welling"Paradoctor (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig per Paradoctor. Thryduulf (talk) 18:26, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. I've drafted a disambiguation page below the redirect. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 10:37, 26 August 2022 (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.

Princedom of Ongal[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) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:03, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Has even less sources than Verdis/Free Republic of Verdis which was declined to become a redirect. Kingdom of Enclava should also be deleted due to lack of sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MicroSupporter (talk • contribs) 13:24, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment if Verdis (micronation) is to be kept, shouldn't Free Republic of Verdis and Verdis be unlocked and turned into redirects as well? They appear to be protected due to abuse but seem notable enough for the articles to be unprotected. Found numerous articles from RTL, Vecernji List, Pagina/12 and some others. MicroSupporter (talk) 07:56, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If the consensus here is very clear that Verdis (micronation) is an appropriate redirect then I can see no reason not to recreate at least Free Republic of Verdis, likewise probably Verdis (It isn't quite unambiguous but based on 2 minutes looking it seems to be the best target, others may take a different view); if the consensus here is marginal it may be best to check at WP:DRV before doing so. Whether any content beyond what is there currently should be added to the target is matter for the talk page of that article, I don't have an opinion. If you are proposing an article then that would definitely require consensus - the best way to get that would be to write at draft article that clearly addresses the reasons the article was deleted and then ask to allow recreation. Thryduulf (talk) 10:17, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. I have added a hatnote at Ongal, and suggest re-creating a redirect at Enclava, as there is more participation here than there was at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_September_11#Enclava. – Fayenatic London 07:27, 29 August 2022 (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.

Vaanku[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 at Banku and Vanku as described in Scyrme's proposal. With thanks to Jay for drafting the latter. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 01:44, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This used to be the title for Vaanku (film). The film article was moved so the basename could redirect. But Vaanku is not mention in Adhan, so without some justification, this should be undone. MB 04:45, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added Vanku, also not mentioned (WP:ASTONISH). Top search hits for this are a Chinese electronics company. MB 04:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added three more similar. MB 17:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: IMHO a) Vanku / Vaanku is transliteration of Malayalam word വാങ്ക്. Wikipedia is not dictionary to redirect those transliterations to → Adhan. b) A good option can be to make Vanku / Vaanku as disambiguation page there Vaanku (film) and Adhan  both can find mention and any other language any other article too. c) If Vaanku (film) does not find mention in Adhan#In popular culture then it is supposed to find place there.
Thanks Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 15:14, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Adhan currently reads Muslims on the Malabar Coast in India use the Persian term بانگ, Banku, for the call to public prayer.; these redirects are South Asian variants of that term. However, since these are transliterations of non-English terms, Wikipedia:Redirects in languages other than English would suggest that they all be deleted unless they are used as the English variant word in some forms of English. I know that the usual South Asian English term for adhan is azan, however it may be that some communities prefer to use a variant of banku. I'm not familiar enough with South Asian English dialects to know whether variants of banku are plausibly in common use. This is further complicated by one of these variants being shared with the film title, so it's not as simple as deleting. Perhaps disambiguation would be appropriate. – Scyrme (talk) 20:12, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:26, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Related Comment on side note: The rule cited from Wikipedia:Redirects in languages other than English seems to me like (avoidable) systemic bias supported by linguistic hegemony.
    Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 07:49, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree about bias; there are good reasons for limiting such redirects (particularly finding the correct language Wikipedia article when you search in that language) and other language Wikipedias have similar rules for keeping to the main language. Regardless, disputes over what the guidelines ought to be are off-topic for this discussion.
    The disambiguation page Banku already exists, and already links to adhan. Therefore, I suggest:
    • Retarget redirects beginning with B- to Banku and update the latter to note variation.
    • Disambiguate redirects beginning with V- similarly by converting Vanku, and retarget relevant variants there.
    • Place "see also" links on each disambiguation page pointing to the other.
    – Scyrme (talk) 17:08, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further input on Scyrme's proposal...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:09, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do what Scryme suggests. That looks to be the best all-round. Thryduulf (talk) 10:31, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Scyrme's suggestion for the B- beginning entries. How do we create a disambiguation page at Vanku? Adhan will be the primary topic, and the film name (which uses the same meaning of Adhan) is the only other topic. I would suggest keeping the V- beginning entries (except for Vaanku). The film can be moved back to Vaanku and a hatnote added there to Adhan. Jay 💬 04:21, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For Vaanku there's also short story by Unni R. listed at Edasseri Award, Kerala Sahitya Akademi Award for Story, and 2020 Kerala Sahitya Akademi Awards, and for Vanku there's a character in the Nava-sahasanka-charita. I also just found Vank, which is already a disambiguation that lists the call to prayer; if that variant is included/merged then there are several more entries which could be listed, although they are unrelated to the South Asian variants so it may be better to just list it as a "See also"; alternatively, the South Asian terms could be listed there following the example of the Armenian term already listed at Vank. – Scyrme (talk) 14:15, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Attempted a dab draft at Vanku. This is an alternate solution to the move and hatnote. Jay 💬 16:06, 1 September 2022 (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.

Nguyen Ngọc Tho[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. Despite two relists, we are still evenly split between keep and delete. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 05:32, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

(Disclosure: I nominated this 6 months ago and the result was "No consensus") This is a mostly unused redirect that while WP:CHEAP is highly implausible. It would require someone to have the ability to type the ọ character, but none of the other diacritics. The only languages other than Vietnamese to use ọ in any form are Romangol, Igbo, and Yoruba. I'm arguing it's highly unfeasible someone would be able to type ọ but not any of the other diacritics. TartarTorte 00:09, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Per the arguments at the previous discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 2#Nguyen Ngọc Tho. Even one of the delete votes highlights why this should be kept: "only useful if...". So we have a redirect which might be useful, gets some usage and is clearly unambiguous and harmless, so should be kept. Note also that the argument about correct use of diacritics assumes that the searcher actually knows how to spell this. A7V2 (talk) 07:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:53, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and WP:COSTLY/WP:PANDORA. Appealing to CHEAP doesn't work for redirects that have no plausible utility. This is an astronomically implausible typo. And even *if* someone were to manage to type it in (which they won't), they'd still get the correct page as the top search result anyway (if they don't already just get there from the dropdown list of suggestions, which this redirect is currently polluting, and probably where its scant pageviews actually come from). This redirect serves no purpose. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:04, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you help me understand the point about polluting the dropdown please? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    See below, addressed there. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:54, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per A7V2. WP:PANDORA is nonsense - redirects are decided on their own merits and the existence of one redirect is irrelevant to whether a different one should or should not; WP:COSTLY is wrong more often than it is right. Only a subset of people use the drop-down list of articles to find the page they are looking for and, for those that do, whether they click on the article title or redirect is irrelevant as they will arrive at the same location so there is absolutely no harm (or "pollution") from the redirect appearing there (but see phab:T24251 for a related feature request). Thryduulf (talk) 20:55, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    PANDORA is hardly nonsense. You're saying redirects are decided on their own merits, but this one has no merits. It's an utterly pointless redirect, and if this is fine, then so is every combination of letters with and without diacritics. The existence of which would pollute the search dropdown box to the point where someone using it would be unable to find other similarly named articles. Even one already pushes one entry off the list. (Your phab link is a 404 by the way). That's part of how PANDORA comes into play here. And saying "COSTLY is wrong more often than it is right" is empty rhetoric. It's not wrong here, and I could say the same thing about CHEAP just as easily and meaninglessly. The point is...this is a useless redirect (and you haven't even bothered to argue otherwise). If it were created today, it would be a no-brainer WP:R3. It's not helping anyone find the article, and your stubborn insistence otherwise is just that. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:54, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed the phab link. The point about PANDORA is that whether this redirect is good or bad implies nothing about whether other redirects are good or bad - just because this one evidently helps some people find the article does not mean that any other combination of diacritics will or will not - it it is simply irrelevant to that. The list of suggested articles in the drop down is finite so every redirect prevents something else from being shown, and we don't make it harder for people to find one article just to make it easier for people to find a different article (because then we would need to do the reverse and get stuck in an endless loop), and as previously mentioned the search dropdown is far from the only way people navigate Wikipedia, removing a useful redirect inconveniences people who don't use it without significantly benefiting those who do. Thryduulf (talk) 11:17, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But it's not helping anyone find the target article! And PANDORA applies just fine if you haven't demonstrated any plausible reason why this particular combination of incorrect diacritics would be more useful than any other combination of incorrect diacritics (spoiler: there isn't any such reason). You keep saying this is useful...but it isn't useful. I checked out that phab link, and it doesn't exactly seem like there's any rush to implement it, especially with the skepticism about unintended side effects. So if and when such a feature gets implemented, then you can appeal to it, but as it stands, it's just a unicorn and irrelevant. And just to reiterate, this is not a useful redirect; it's not helping anyone find the target article; it would be an easy R3 if it were created today; its existence is a net negative to the encyclopedia. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:38, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 04:44, 25 August 2022 (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.

Philalethia[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) 16:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target. While nominally overlapping a bit with philosophy, it's not synonymous with the term (Philalethia translates literally as "love of truth" in Greek), and I strongly doubt that anyone searching this term on English Wikipedia would be satisfied by the current target. Doesn't appear to be mentioned anywhere else on Wikipedia, which leads me to suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 19:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; synonymous overlap (since pre-Classical times): 'But history shows it revived by Ammonius Saccas, the founder of the Neo-Platonic School. He and his disciples called themselves "Philalethians" - lovers of the truth; while others termed them the "Analogists," on account of their method of interpreting all sacred legends, symbolical myths and mysteries, by a rule of analogy or correspondence, so that events which had occurred in the external world were regarded as expressing operations and experiences of the human soul'[1][2] (this (one) public domain reference/reprint is widely-available online). One of several/many modern places/groups use both/interchaneably: UK philalethians--dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍(talk|contrib) 07:42, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Blavatskian sources are pretty clearly fringe as far as philosophy and religion are concerned, I would only take their usage as definitive if they were the only people that use this term, which doesn't appear to be the case given its use in Greek philosophy. signed, Rosguill talk 15:45, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Really doesn't matter; many things are redirected to more general topics (some that don't even mention the redirects anymore) like formal reason & formal logic were redirected to reason & logic despite should've kept their own articles. This is a similar case.--dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍(talk|contrib) 16:19, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It absolutely does matter that the source you've provided to support your claim is unreliable fringe, as that undermines your argument entirely. signed, Rosguill talk 21:05, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Madame Blavatsky (categorized as a philosopher) & Theosophy aren't categorized as fringe (though such categories exist, and for such an argument to be relevant, categorization should be updated)--dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍(talk|contrib) 08:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm disinterested in a Wikipedia category war over those articles, particularly because fringe is contextual--within the context of Philosophy as a field, which would be the domain in question here, the views of western esotericists and the new religious movements they inspire are nevertheless fringe. Within western esotericism, they likely aren't. signed, Rosguill talk 17:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Blavatsky, Helena. 'What is Theosophy?'. The Theosophist vol 1, #1. Oct 1879.
  2. ^ Blavatsky, Helena. 'What is Theosophy?'. The Collected Writings vol 2. pp87-92.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 18:52, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or, failing that, retarget per Scyrme below 16:38, 25 August 2022 (UTC) The 2nd edition of the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy doesn't mention it, and I couldn't find any English language mentions that did not derive from the Wiktionary entry. There was a shortlived 1811 German publication Philalethia, and two 18th century publications contain the word, all in a theological context. No evidence that anyone used the term as a synonym for "philosophy". Paradoctor (talk) 21:05, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dchmelik: synonymous Is there a source for that? There was a similar claim on Wiktionary in 2009, but it failed verification. Paradoctor (talk) 23:16, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes: updated above. Theosophy (being a Hindu-based philosophy/interreligion) is likely larger than strict & academic neoplatonism but overlaps (I know some who wrote books on these subjects) so regardless of source (derivatives of hers cited widely elsewhere) such usage is 140+ years old and I've come across it frequently... popularity is irrelevant, just that people search for it.--dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍(talk|contrib) 06:03, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand your !vote then. As Blavatsky defines the term, philalethia is not a synonym of "philosophy", but a particular school founded by Saccas. Paradoctor (talk) 06:48, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The school of thought he founded was neoplatonism and they called themselves philosophers/philalethians; one of several/many modern places/groups use both/interchangeably: UK philalethians--dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍(talk|contrib) 08:23, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This meaning of "philosophy" is not the topic of philosophy. Paradoctor (talk) 08:30, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's clearly a topic in philosophy (as is everything) and moreso (metaphilosophy)--dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍(talk|contrib) 10:13, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    a topic in philosophy (as is everything) We don't redirect everything to "philosophy", do we? More importantly, the term is not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia, let alone defined, so there is nothing to redirect to. Paradoctor (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The Philaletheis Society, College literary societies, etc.--dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍(talk|contrib) 16:19, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "X" and "X society" are different things. Especially when articles about the latter merely use the word, not define it. It's not even clear if these societies use the term in the same sense as discussed here. One can attach a lot of meanings to "love of truth", considering that there is no consensus on what "truth" is. Paradoctor (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Odd to say when your links are categorized under philosophy--dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍(talk|contrib) 05:19, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Irrelevant. To keep the redirect, the term needs to be discussed at the target, at a minimum. It isn't, so keeping is out. Since I'm clearly not getting through to you, don't bother replying. I've made my point, the rest is up to the closer. Paradoctor (talk) 13:01, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 03:43, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The terms are definitely not synonyms. It could be an {{r from related topic}}, but that's a stretch; it would be like redirecting Transcendence to Philosophy, were the former not already an article, simply because it's a term that has been used in the field. Another problem is that the target doesn't mention the term, so it's not clear to readers without prior knowledge why they were sent there. It may even be misleading, as they may assume the terms are being treated as synonyms (as commenters above have), or they may assume the only reason they were sent there is because they share a common morpheme.
The term "philaletheia" and its relatives/derivatives are attested on Wikipedia, most as passing mentions or inclusions in proper nouns. In this regard it's comparable to Philomath, except that Philomath also has an article of its own. Of the relevant terms only Philalethia has a redirect, however Philalethes exists as a list of people with that name; Philaletheia, Philalethea, Philalethean, and Philalethian do not exist in any form. Whatever the outcome of this discussion, it should also consider those terms.
One possible solution is disambiguate between pages mentioning relevant terms, and let readers navigate to the most relevant target. If a reliable source confirms that students of Ammonius Saccas self-identified as "philalethians" then it may be included in the list, but only after relevant material has been added (with citation). Philosophy would not belong on that list. A different option would be retargeting to Aletheia, but that article is a mess and doesn't mention the target either.
However, I lean towards a retarget of Philalethia and the redlinks above to The Philaletheis Society, which explicitly includes Philalethean in the lead and also includes the text Named for the term philalethea, meaning "truth-loving" under the heading "History". No reader being sent there would be surprised by being sent there, even if it isn't a perfect target. I would suggest tagging them with {{r from related term}} and {{r with possibilities}}. – Scyrme (talk) 16:04, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Retarget to the society only as an alternative to deletion. Jay 💬 07:15, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom et al. No point in keeping if it's not mentioned anywhere on EnWiki. CycloneYoris talk! 09:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's mentioned, albeit briefly, at The Philaletheis Society § History under an alternative romanisation of the Greek alongside a translation with a reference. – Scyrme (talk) 13:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually the society which is briefly mentioned and not the term in question, as Paradoctor has correctly stated above. CycloneYoris talk! 16:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how Named for the term philalethea, meaning "truth-loving" is not an explicit a mention of the Greek term. It explicitly refers to the "term". Yes, it's in the context of establishing the etymology of the name of the society, but it still does so by discussing the word itself. – Scyrme (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But the word isn't discussed and only briefly mentioned as in the context of a society; and that's the reason why I'm advocating for deletion. If the closer decides not to delete, then retargeting to the society article should be considered as a viable option, but that's ultimately up to whoever closes this discussion to decide. CycloneYoris talk! 00:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's discussed to extent would be best redirect.--dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍(talk|contrib) 08:03, 9 September 2022 (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.

Cereal eating by humans[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. Legoktm (talk) 06:43, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another ridiculous redirect created by StrexcorpEmployee (talk · contribs) based on the GPT2 subreddit [1]. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:01, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Recently created and no reasonably likelihood of being useful. Adumbrativus (talk) 07:41, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine to Cereal#Cereals and civilization (per TartarTorte @12:33 UTC) was Keep). It sounds ridiculous, but this is one of humanity's defining topics. It could already be a list or disambiguation page given existing articles on the English Wikipedia. Louis Waweru  Talk  09:31, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine to Cereal#Cereals and civilization: Per Louis above, this topic is phrased oddly but even the cereal page itself (in the section I am advocating to refine it to) says Cereals were the foundation of human civilization. [...] The term Fertile Crescent implies the spatial dependence of civilization on cereals. [...] Numerous Chinese imperial edicts stated: “Agriculture is the foundation of this empire,” while the foundation of agriculture were the Five Grains. TartarTorte 12:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That section title has been renamed and is now Cereal#Ancient history and the Middle Ages. All the content about cereals and civilization look out of place now with the new title. I would oppose refining to "Ancient history and the Middle Ages" only for the reason that the previous section "Prehistory" also mention that humans ate cereals. Courtesy ping CactiStaccingCrane as the editor who made the changes since the time of this nomination. Jay 06:47, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Due to section reworking complications.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. May sound ridiculous, but is ultimately harmless and not implausible as users who are learning English or speak English as a second language may enter this search term. Joyce-stick (talk) 23:26, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep (or "Refine to Cereal#Cereals and civilization"). Yeah, that's an odd way to phrase it ... I now want to go look for a sentient box or bowl of cereal that is eating something while nearby some humans ... but that's so far-fetched that if anyone is searching this phrase, they are most likely intending to arrive at the current target. Steel1943 (talk) 21:44, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no section "Cereals and civilization". Jay 💬 05:20, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, I didn't read the above comments all the way through, apparently. Steel1943 (talk) 21:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless the target can be refined. As per my comment above, I don't see a single section for refining. Jay 💬 05:20, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't have a problem with the retarget to the renamed section. It still covers cereal eating by humans as described above as the wording is still largely the same and talks about the importance of cereal eating to human history. So that's advocating the retarget to Cereal#Ancient history and the Middle Ages. TartarTorte 12:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine to Cereal#History for still containing the most relevant information that this phrase may refer to despite the slight section rearrangement. Deletion is too extreme here IMO. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:31, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:31, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The search term "cereal+eating+by+humans" gives only two pages of results on Google, all of them are either this discussion and redirect, or Wikipedia clones autocopying Wikipedia. If the redirect had not been created, they would not exist at all. The only exception (unless I missed something) is the post on Reddit's r/SubSimulatorGPT2 which is itself a link to Wikipedia, as noted by the nominator. This subreddit is a simulator, so the discussion at that location is bot-generated; it's not an actual human discussion.
In light of that, I don't find arguments that this a plausible search term convincing. The arguments for keeping it are being too charitable. More plausible terms would be cereal consumption by humans, consumption of cereal by humans, consumption of cereals by humans, human cereal consumption, and human consumption of cereal/cereals/cereal products. If this topic needs redirects to aid navigation, turn these phrases into redirects instead; any of them would be far more helpful. All of these return results, attesting to the use of these phrases outside Wikipedia.
Even human cereal eating would be more plausible, if the argument is that learners may not know the word "consumption"; it returns at least one example of actual human use, although it seems to be the only real result, the others being lists of tags that happen to put these words next to each other. The term humans eating cereals may work better; it returns multiple examples of use, including some that explicitly reference historical and prehistoric consumption.
tl;dr - Delete this redirect; it can be replaced by better ones if needed. – Scyrme (talk) 18:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, Tamzin, Scyrme and others. Redirect is clearly implausible and oddly phrased, so no need for keeping. Also, users who are learning English can perfectly access the article for Cereal through the search bar without needing this redirect. CycloneYoris talk! 07:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per CycloneYoris et al. -- Tavix (talk) 18:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Highly implausible. I would be extremely unsurprised if the first ever use of this phrase in any medium was in the aforementioned GPT2 post. eviolite (talk) 00:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Unrelated, but how does a 2-year old reddit post have a link to a Wikipedia page that was created this July? Jay 💬 10:11, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on the creator's user talk page, I think they created these redirects so that the links in those posts went somewhere. Thryduulf (talk) 16:39, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The Reddit user that posted the link is a bot (u/wikipediaGPT2Bot), and it looks like it's programmed to initiate threads by generating Wikipedia links and sharing them. Reddit sim bots reply based on the text in the link itself, regardless of whether the link actually goes to a real article. – Scyrme (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct; it's a subreddit exclusively populated by bots which are meant to replicate human users. This post by the subreddit's creator explains how the bots work in more detail. Most posts on r/wikipedia are links to this very site, the grammar of which u/wikipediaGPT2bot usually gets right. However, the bot's titles can still get very bizarre and funny, and most of its links wouldn't be suitable here even as redirects. Glades12 (talk) 20:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An "artificial" redirect doesn't necessarily faze me, but without a dedicated section, I'd rather delete this and leave more organic forms like this named by Scyrme to be created if desired. Anyone actually searching this term would know enough to be able to search plain "Cereal", so there's also a possibility that this misleads in suggesting a more detailed article. --BDD (talk) 16:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine to Cereal#History per proposals to this effect above. While it is not the most natural construction, it is grammatically correct. BD2412 T 03:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Is "grammatically correct" the standard? That thing where a person puts a spoon in a bowl with milk and cereal in it and scoops some up and then brings the spoon up to their mouth and then uses their upper lip to pull the cereal into their mouth and then chews it a bit and swallows it is grammatically correct, but I don't think it would be an appropriate redirect. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 03:26, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unlikely search term and someone would easily type in "cereal" first. Jontesta (talk) 23:52, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a plausible search term, the phrase doesn't seem to have any usage at all beyond this redirect and a Reddit thread written by a bot. Whatever next - Steak eating by humans? War fighting by humans? Salsa dancing by humans? Hut 8.5 13:05, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems like a mistake per Scyrme. Respublik (talk) 14:48, 27 September 2022 (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/2022_August_25&oldid=1180592171"