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 retargettoCoca-Cola#Geographic spread. We're on the borderline of no consensus here on the basis of arguments, but given the lack of support for the status quo, the majority in favor of retargeting, and the length of the discussion thus far, I think that retarget is the most appropriate conclusion here. signed, Rosguilltalk 20:02, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. I don't think a passing mention warrants a redirect. There no particular topical affinity here; the section in question covers many countries besides China.
As a note, the mention of the transcription at that section has hyphens and uses different capitalisation; the version actually mentioned does not exist (Ke-kou ke-le), though I suppose that could be changed. – Scyrme (talk) 17:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Refine to Coca-Cola#Geographic spread - Potentially useful redirect if someone stumbles across this transliteration, is confused by it, and thus looks to Wikipedia for help. That it is merely a minor mention is not a good reason to delete something useful-- it's not like we need to redlink this to encourage a full article creation. It's a simple factoid, and a simple section redirect will provide the information needed. Fieari (talk) 01:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where would they stumble across the transcription in a context where it isn't already explained? Allowing redlinks isn't the point here, it's allowing uninhibited searching, which is generally preferable for foreign language terms when the topic isn't also widely known by that name in English. Even if someone were to search this on the English langauge Wikipedia, the mention is first search result anyway (after the redirect) and this result includes the relevant snippet. – Scyrme (talk) 11:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: A second redirect was added late in the discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 23:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I should note that I have reworked the paragraph talking about Coca-cola name translation to better represent what I read in the English language sources of the article and added the Snopes reference found at Brand blunder#Urban legends. (this edit) ― Synpath 01:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which exception? There's a lack of "special significance" and it seems to me to fall under "Direct translations where the native/original form of the title is in English (or a language other than the language of the redirect's title)". – Scyrme (talk) 02:14, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking at the first bullet for example exceptions: Original or official names of people, places, institutions, publications or products, but not further than that unfortunately. I'd still argue they're worth keeping despite the advice since they see regular use and Coca-cola isn't at the top of the search results. Check out 可口可乐 in particular - pageviews for last year. ― Synpath 02:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Original" doesn't apply here and I don't think the Coca-Cola Company has an "official" romanisation of the Chinese transcription of their brand. All the examples listed at WP:RLOTE for that exception are the untranslated native titles of their respective topics. I think applying it here goes beyond its scope. I think the point of that exception is to allow readers to find topics by their untranslated title, not to make exceptions for translations that have been used in foreign-language marketing. Even if the latter were covered, including romanisations is stretching things unless the romanisation was itself used in marketing. – Scyrme (talk) 21:58, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete可口可乐, after reading WP:RLOTE more carefully I understand that the redirect might be sapping traffic from Chinese-language sources via search engines. ― Synpath 02:48, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Refine and retarget as proposed above. Having the Chinese characters as a redirect is fine since the slogan is explicitly discussed in the article. Catching foreign language searches is a good thing, since people who see this in the wild but want English results are likely to just copy that directly into search. We should trust that users are competent enough to go to the websites that use the language they wish to use. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not a good thing. Foreign-language redirects are explicitly listed under the reasons for deletion in the guidelines for good reason. I'd suggest reading WP:RLOTE for the rationale. – Scyrme (talk) 14:56, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The foreign language reason deletion in full is: If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful. In particular, redirects in a language other than English to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created.
RLOTE primarily deals with cases where there is no cultural affinity or association between the language and the redirect target. By contrast here, the company's China branding strategy is analyzed in the article and the phrase in Chinese is explicitly mentioned, making it a valid {{R from subtopic}}. If this was not the case, than I would agree with deletion per RLOTE. However, the current content is more than sufficient to satisfy RLOTE, unless you are going to argue that the Chinese language...is unrelated to the Chinese language. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:10, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That section is not about China or the Chinese language, it's about the global spread of the product "Coca-Cola"; many countries are mentioned and China is only one of them. The coverage of China is brief and I don't agree that it's sufficient to warrant ignoring/overlooking the rationale of WP:RLOTE. Merely mentioning a foreign-language term/name does not establish a unique cultural affinity, and treating transcriptions for global marketing purposes as adequate to make an exception is a Pandora's box given how often its done with various brands/products. Even "Coca-Cola" has been marketed in Arabic, Cyrillic (in Bulgaria), and Hebrew (in Israel); the article just doesn't happen to mention them (yet). I don't think redirects for them would be warranted either even if they were mentioned. – Scyrme (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is an entire paragraph and five separate sources devoted to the development of the official name in China, not just a "mere mention". No matter what the section title actually is, a significant proportion of it deals with the product in China. The only other country mentioned in any comparable length is Egypt, but only in the context of an attempt to ban it. There are also namedrops of Myanmar, the last country to get Coca-Cola outside of Cuba and North Korea, and a brief mention of its suspension in Russia because of the war. None of the mentions deal with branding or the name of the product at all, so would not qualify for as foreign language redirects under RLOTE.
I don't see the Pandora's box risk here. We would be forced to create foreign language redirects to sections of articles where that exact phrase and usage history is analyzed by multiple reliable sources does not sound like a bad thing. In any case, some one could probably write an entire article on Coca Cola's branding in China (someone did write a Master's thesis on it [1]), so this isn't something entirely frivolous. There is also no possibility of confusion, and there is no superior target so we should not waste readers' time by forcing them through search and then clicking their way to this section. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:33, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
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.
A non-neutral title. However, similar to gender ideology and LGBT ideology, it could have their targets, since this term is more used by opposers than actual transgender rights activists MikutoH (talk) 23:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is best retargeted in a similar way to the other two you compare with. I am not sure of the best target but both Anti-gender movement and Anti-LGBT rhetoric are plausible and either would make a lot more sense than the current target. Of the two, I mildly favour the former. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RetargettoAnti-LGBT rhetoric § As an ideology. That section is dedicated to rhetoric which frames the object of its opposition as an "ideology". Transgender people fall within the LGBT umbrella so the discussion there regarding "LGBT ideology" is relevant; it would not be a surprising target. The section also mentions "gender ideology" and prominently links to Anti-gender movement in a {{see also}} hatnote, so any readers who might prefer that page would still easily find it. – Scyrme (talk) 01:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
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, Rosguilltalk 22:31, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:UFILM. Target was released 3+ months ago, "upcoming" no longer applies. Steel1943 (talk) 21:52, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've said it before and I'll say it a thousand times again, we need a speedy option for these kinds of leftover redirects.★Trekker (talk) 12:10, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Concur with nom and comments. WP:UFILM aligns with WP:R#D2. -2pou (talk) 17:41, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
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, Rosguilltalk 22:31, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Concur with nom and comments. WP:UFILM aligns with WP:R#D2. -2pou (talk) 17:41, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
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, Rosguilltalk 22:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems misleading to redirect a title for an upcoming work to the current/potential director of the work when there is/will be multiple other companies and people attached to the project. Steel1943 (talk) 21:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
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, Rosguilltalk 22:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't look as though there were ever any plans to release the target subject in 2022, making the disambiguator erroneous as it's not even failed WP:CRYSTAL. Steel1943 (talk) 21:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We need speedy options for things like these.★Trekker (talk) 14:49, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Concur with nom and comments. Misleading and deletable per WP:R#D2. -2pou (talk) 17:41, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
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, Rosguilltalk 22:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Concur with nom and comments. WP:UFILM aligns with WP:R#D2. -2pou (talk) 17:41, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
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, Rosguilltalk 22:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The target article makes no clear mention of the redirect, and the redirect should have been deleted per WP:G8 when Alyssa Wapanatâh and its series of page moves were deleted. Steel1943 (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The spelling is incorrect (Alyssa Wapanatâhk), and determining a target has WP:X or Y problems since Bones of Crows could be targeted as well. -2pou (talk) 14:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
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, Rosguilltalk 22:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Concur with nom and comments. WP:UFILM aligns with WP:R#D2. -2pou (talk) 17:41, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
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, Rosguilltalk 22:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of this film has not been released yet, but the issue is its target. There's no guarantee that as a redirect, readers will not be surprised to arrive at a page about the film's production company when other companies or people may be attached to the project now or in the future. Steel1943 (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
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, Rosguilltalk 22:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Concur with nom and comments. WP:UFILM aligns with WP:R#D2. -2pou (talk) 17:41, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
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, Rosguilltalk 22:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Concur with nom and comments. WP:UFILM aligns with WP:R#D2. -2pou (talk) 17:41, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
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, Rosguilltalk 22:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Concur with nom and comments. WP:UFILM aligns with WP:R#D2. -2pou (talk) 17:41, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
(unreleased film) redirects that later saw a release[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, Rosguilltalk 22:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These films eventually saw official releases, so the leftover redirects can now be misleading. Links have been removed. Recommend deletion per WP:R#D2 and WP:UFILM (though that applies to upcoming films, the same logic is applicable here). -2pou (talk) 19:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Each redirect also has no incoming links other than those from User space or notices related to this RfD. ― Synpath 19:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as they have been released now, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: I earlier nominated this for deletion, a full year after it released, to no avail. Kailash29792(talk) 18:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that discussion of that nomination raised concerns of sustained traffic, which has now flatlined in the stats. -2pou (talk) 18:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
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. There appears to be clear preference for deletion over the two suggested redirect targets, with editors objecting to the retarget suggestions on the basis of a lack of use as a common name, and the specificities of native vs. endemic. signed, Rosguilltalk 19:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are a couple thousand snail species native to Australia, and "Australian native snail" isn't used as a common name for this one species in particular. (It was formerly listed as such on the target page, which is presumably why this redirect was created, but the name was removed in 2020 with the reasoning "no evidence that this is a common name that was ever in use anywhere (original edit adding it unreferenced) and it may also create confusion by implying there is only one Australian native snail") Spizaetus (talk) 21:51, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: For further input on the retargeting suggestion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 01:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the proposed target talk page. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Pppery. As a common name there is no suitable target. And I don't see it as a generic term if this is what Synpath was hinting at. But Australian snail maybe? Jay 💬 17:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until relevant content is added somewhere. Until then, let the search engine handle it; it's more helpful than suggesting they look someplace we already know doesn't actually contain the info readers would be looking for.
Searching online for this exact phrase, I wasn't able to find any uses of it as a common name for this species in particular; I did find uses, but they were all clearly in the context of general references to indigenous snail species. I'm not sure what the creator was intending here.
Regardless, I think it's plausible that someone less familiar with scientific language might search "Australian native snail" when what they're looking for is Endemic snails of AustraliaorSnails endemic to Australia, of which the current target is one. It could also be a partial title for Australian native snail species. ("Native", in the technical biological sense, being a broader category than "endemic".) Doesn't seem like Wikipedia has an article or section on those topics, beyond a passing mention of endemic molluscs.
I don't think redirecting to a category is helpful, particularly as the suggested category doesn't distinguish "native" vs "non-native" snails. List of non-marine molluscs of Australia has the same problem, plus it excludes sea snails which a reader searching this might be interested in.– Scyrme (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:50, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agreeing with Jay. I also don't see this as a generic term. --Tavix(talk) 21:45, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
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 14:09, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Brief search turns up nothing relevant. Maybe the creator will show up and explain it, but otherwise seems just confusing. (Note that the Taylor Archibald line should also be removed from Archibald Taylor.) --Trovatore (talk) 19:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
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.
These should both go to destinations that describe them, and they should be consistent. Eukaryote no longer has an "Animal cell" section. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 07:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
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.
I can explain how this happened. When I created the redirect in 2014 it was to San Diegan, which is where San Diegan (train) was then located. I did that because Venturan was a proposed name for one of the services; see [2]. About a year later an IP turned it into an article on a totally different subject: [3]. In the meantime, San Diegan got moved to San Diegan (train). The article creation got reverted a little while later by a different user, now blocked for unrelated reasons: [4]. This restored the redirect, but the redirect now pointed to the wrong article: [5]. Anyway, you're right. It doesn't relate to San Diego, and no one ever thought it did. Amtrak didn't actually adopt the Venturan name (see [6]), so it's probably fine to delete it. Mackensen(talk) 11:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
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. Jay 💬 11:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
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 14:08, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maybe it was the first McLaren dealer in CA when it was created? Now there are multiple dealers in the state. Regardless of the reason, it clearly causes confusion, and WP:R#D2 applies. -2pou (talk) 19:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per the talk page from 2008, it may be the name of a railway station or flag stop, and there may be more cleanup to be done for pages created by the creator. Jay 💬 11:49, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
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. Consensus after the second relist is clear; a {{r from sort name}} rcat will be added. (non-admin closure)Skarmory(talk •contribs) 02:57, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unhelpful, convoluted wording. I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 22:09, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Unambiguous target, and it gets some regular use, even if that usage is comparatively low for wikipedia as a whole. Useful redirect, and redirects are WP:CHEAP. Fieari (talk) 06:20, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 00:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 05:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
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, Rosguilltalk 22:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending some evidence that this isn't the COMMONENGLISHPRIMARYSENSE of the term. Cursory Googling seems to show that it precisely is, which would make sense since in religious contexts English patriarch generally applies to either early Jewish/Hebrew leaders or to the major bishops of the Christian church. — LlywelynII 18:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My googling of this exact phrase turns up mostly results which use it in the sense of patriarchy (cf. BDD's findings below regarding usage on Wikipedia) and only a few in the sense of Patriarchs (Bible). However, searching instead for "religion of the patriarchs" shifts the balance entirely to the latter; a redirect in that form would not be ambiguous and might be more helpful. – Scyrme (talk) 22:21, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I don't find any evidence that this phrase commonly means the Abrahamic faiths. - Presidentmantalk · contribs (Talkback) 21:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonsensical. There are tonnes of patriarchal religions; many Christians even study them, since they study Greek Classics. -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 09:04, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was leaning keep since Abraham is often described as a patriarch, including in the first sentence of his article and the second of Abrahamic religions. However, "patriarchal religion" -wikipedia is a mixed bag. Most are claims about one or more religions displaying characteristics of patriarchy, or patriarchy taking religious-like forms. Where these sources discuss specific religions, they're often Abrahamic, though that could just be a matter of systemic bias. There are exceptions, such as The patriarchal religion of Britain or, A complete manual of ancient British Druidism.
I would not call this REDYES, though. At best, it could target a religion-focused section of Patriarchy, if there ever is one. --BDD (talk) 22:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
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 06:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This redirect is extremely vague and is POV. Thus, it should be deleted. Veverve (talk) 03:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The edit summary used to create the redirect shows that it's most likely nonsense. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 07:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yep, patent nonsense. Possibly there are specific legacy (Christian) senses of the word among some evangelical groups but a it's not a broader term in general use and b even if it existed it would need a more specific treatment than a redirect to Abrahamic religions generally. — LlywelynII 18:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
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. There was no agreement on deletion. Some participants were interested in restoring the content related to the redirect topics, and suitable targets, including the current target itself, have been suggested. Jay 💬 07:17, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sections those targeted were deleted, there is no mention of the redirects in the article. Therefore, I propose deletion of all. Veverve (talk) 22:12, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Restore Content Somewhere and Retarget to That - This revision is where the information was removed. The information looks encyclopedic, but the comment where it was removed says "remove entire section as being unduly focused on matters in the USA (clearly). WP:BIAS is a thing, and I just don't see any redeeming feature here that would warrant such a long segment on this." I can see a point that this information may be systemic bias to include in the Mass in the Catholic Church article... but it does look like useful information that should exist SOMEWHERE on Wikipedia, perhaps in its own article. I propose restoring the information, perhaps in an article specifically stating it is about additional types of mass used only in the United States, and redirecting these there. Alternatively, simply restore it to the article and keep the redirects as is. There's no reason wikipedia shouldn't be allowed to tell a curious reader what a "White Mass" is, or a "Gold Mass", or a "Rose Mass", or any of these other special masses. Fieari (talk) 06:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also concur with the rationale for removal: those seem to be extremely USA-specific phenomenons that very few have ever heard of. Veverve (talk) 13:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Support this. It may be UNDUE within the context of that specific article but it should never have been blanked. @Fierari: if you don't have time to do this on your own, please kindly add the removed text to the article's talk page and/or to the talk page for the WikiProject on Roman Catholicism with a note to interested editors that this needs a new home. — LlywelynII 18:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please delete I've never heard of any of these; moreover (and certainly much more important): the missal doesn't have any content on that.--Medusahead (talk) 07:45, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"I've never heard of it" is precisely why it should NOT have been blanked, even if a full section treatment on this particular page may have been UNDUE. It should certainly be restored somewhere and linked from the mass article at least as a See also. — LlywelynII 18:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - does seem as though the content could be restored at the current target. An alternative "somewhere" to put this content could be Red MassorRed Mass#United States where these originally targeted. But without restoring this content anywhere then these should be deleted. A7V2 (talk) 06:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Restoring the content somewhere seems to be the consensus, at least at the moment, but we have nowhere to restore the content to as the original article seems unsuitable. There was a mention of Red Mass#United States (also one without the section link); thoughts on restoring the content there, or does anyone have any better ideas? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Skarmory(talk •contribs) 01:27, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think restoring to Mass in the Catholic Church for now is the best idea, and then start a discussion on that talk page on whether to include it or find a better article to include it in. I like the idea of creating a new article of Mass in the United States or something along those lines, since there's no satisfactory target right now and this is a decent bit of content, enough for its own article. Skarmory(talk •contribs) 05:42, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Fieari since LlywelynII mistyped his name while pinging earlier. Jay 💬 14:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
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. ✗plicit 23:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as an "EF6 tornado" rating, nor is it mentioned on the target article. While there did exist an F6 tornado rating at one point in time (no longer recognized), an EF6 tornado rating does not exist. Streetlampguy301 (talk) 15:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is entirely plausible that someone would remember that an F6 tornado was a classification, and also that the F scale was changed to the EF scale, but not remember that EF doesn't go to 6. The chart will then inform them of their mistake. The actual lack of mention is actually providing the information that this hypothetical searcher needs. As such, this is a useful redirect. Fieari (talk) 00:46, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fieari. A7V2 (talk) 02:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 00:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fieari exactly. Though for the reader to understand fully they must make the leap to Fujita scale, which is somewhat unfortunate. J947 † edits 06:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 21#HTML padding
