[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 6
May 8 >

May 7

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 7, 2021.

Minor characters associated with Quidditch

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 15#Minor characters associated with Quidditch

Fortnite Monopoly

[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 List of licensed and localized editions of Monopoly: USA#F. czar 05:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; not mentioned at the target. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:13, 7 May 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.

Wikipedia:LABLEAKLIKELY

[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. -- Tavix (talk) 22:32, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia shortcut promoting a fringe theory (per WP:PROFRINGE). The essay can stay but we shouldn't amplify it this way. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose/Keep If you delete this, then WP:NOLABLEAK should be deleted as well. Delete both, or keep both - but it's not right to delete one and keep the other. — Ched (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (Author of the essay here). I would note that WP:NOLABLEAK contains the author's personal opinions about Donald Trump, yet does have a shortcut. Additionally WP:NOLABLEAK is stating as a factual matter "there was no lab leak", not merely that as a matter of Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia articles should say that the lab leak hypothesis does not have widespread support. The former position is stronger than the position that any Wikipedia article takes, while the latter agrees with my essay perfectly. Adoring nanny (talk) 23:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I would like to discuss Ched's WP:OTHERSTUFF idea of deleting WP:NOLABLEAK as well. Imagine that someone created a couple of essays that supported fringe theories with the following redirects to them: WP:VACCINESCAUSEAUTISM and WP:COVIDIDOESNOTEXIST. Would we have keep them or also delete any redirects that went to essays arguing against the fringe theories? How about my essay at WP:YWAB? would we have to delete that redirect if we wanted to delete a WP:THEHOLOCAUSTISAMYTH redirect to an essay supporting holocaust denial? I don't think so. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fringe is a spectrum. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:08, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If Fringe is a spectrum, then you are way over in left field. Virtually no scientists and only a few other publications support the Wuhan Lab Leak theory.
Reviews by scientists

Reviews by scientists:

Other reviews:

Related Wikipedia pages:

--Guy Macon (talk) 01:55, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article[1] does not treat scientists who are open to the LL hypo as nutcases. That would not happen with holocaust deniers. And why bring up Yan? My essay doesn't. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:30, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without commenting on the merits of the nominated redirect yet (I haven't made my mind up about it), I agree with Guy regarding WP:NOLABLEAK. If there were multiple shortcuts to the same essay, then discussing all of them at the same time would likely make sense, but these redirects point to different targets with very different levels of community acceptance. This means it is quite likely that people will recommend different actions for them and/or have different rationales for their recommendations, that would lead to a more complicated discussion and make a no-consensus or even trainwreck outcome more likely (which helps nobody). You are of course free to nominate WP:NOLABLEAK for discussion if you want at any time (as long as you are not doing so just to make a WP:POINT), it's just such a discussion should be separate from this one and about that redirect's own merits. Thryduulf (talk) 00:48, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Putting an official Wikipedia label on a personal essay on a fringe theory? Nope, not even close to proper.
The existence of WP:NOLABLEAK is irrelevant here: if you have a problem with that redirect, either get consensus on what you think the target should say or nominate WP:NOLABLEAK for deletion. --Calton | Talk 01:41, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both (but, you know, especially this one). Both are inappropriate projectspace shortcuts. But another question: WP:Wikipedia is not your COVID Truth blog? Does [more or less] "and that's why Wikipedia gets the facts wrong" about any random topic legitimate random opinions? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for Guy (and Guy Macon) reasons. Such things simply do not belong here. Put it on Facebook or somewhere, this is an encyclopedia. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not suitable for this redirect, as it's a personal essay performing no WP:PAG-aligned function that could further the Project, but instead promotes conspiracist ideas and bashes Wikipedia ("Wikipedia can't be trusted on controversial topics") in rather a silly way. For these reasons the essay itself should probably be deleted too per WP:NOTWEBHOST, but that's a different discussion. Alexbrn (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ESSAY is clear that essays are not required to agree with consensus. Furthermore, suppose that there is a systematic problem with Wikipedia policy that results in Wikipedia routinely describing true propositions as false. If that turns out to be the case, would it be beneficial to Wikipedia to be made aware of it? Adoring nanny (talk) 16:08, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia reflects accepted knowledge, not any particular editor's notion of The Truth™ - for obvious reasons. Anyway, I suggest you save those argument for the likely upcoming WP:MFD. Alexbrn (talk) 16:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Exactly as acceptable as any other projectspace all-caps shortcut for a userspace essay; I wouldn't mind deprecating them totally, but as long as they exist, this is fine. Honestly, I've read less coherent ones with them. The "why don't you nominate WP:NOLABLEAK?" is the wrong way to think about it, as the actual way to change precedent here would be an RfC about userspace essay shortcuts. Discussion on the merits of the essay itself are an MfD matter. Vaticidalprophet 20:08, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As disagreeable as I find the essay, I find myself more in agreement with Ched here. I'm unfortunately unable to justify the deletion of this redirect, especially as an RfC on a similar content decision found no consensus (although it did not ask whether a lab leak was 'likely', rather whether it's a conspiracy theory or a minority scientific opinion, but redirect shortcuts not being titled strictly accurately has never stopped us before). If folks want to MfD the essay go ahead. But there's plenty of WP: essay shortcuts to essays I think are complete rubbish and we don't delete those. I don't see why this is different. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:58, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW I don't agree with the WP:VACCINESCAUSEAUTISM argument. If its content was actually trying to promote that idea it would be MfD'd immediately and promptly deleted, with people also combing the history of the author with the goal of sanctions. And probably rightly so. But it wouldn't be the shortcut that's inherently the problem, it'd be the essay. Similarly, if you want to target this essay, go to MfD and make your case under WP:NOTOPINION or WP:NOTESSAY or take your pick of other relevant policies. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:03, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both Contentious userspace essays like these don't need mainspace links. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:34, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Profringe seeming written to only make a point. 92.5.2.97 (talk) 22:52, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I just want to point out that the essay does make a point about Wikipedia policy (truth vs. WP:V) in its conclusion. You can agree or disagree with the policy assertion it is making, but the fact that it does relate to policy is indisputable. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it is a point addressed by Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth#"But I know the truth!". --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:23, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, given enough time and examples, it may be possible to show that the way we interpret WP:V systematically leads to wrong answers in some cases. If that is in fact true, it would be interesting to know. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:06, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    How would we find that out? By comparing Wikipedia articles with what reliable sources say? That would be an application of WP:V, so that approach would refute itself. By comparing Wikipedia articles with... truth? As defined by... your opinion? This whole thing is not feasible in practice. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There are two related questions here: First of all, I'm asserting that WP:V, together with current interpretation of WP:RS, producing wrong answers in a way that can be predicted. Given enough time and examples, this is a provable proposition. To prove it would require a record of correct predictions that fly in the face of WP:V and WP:RS as currently interpreted. To get a record of such predictions, the first step is to make one, which I've done in this essay. The second question is -- is there a policy change that would help? I don't know the answer to that. To get there, we would have to be willing to look at the examples that demonstrate the answer to the first question. And that will take time. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:36, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A record of correct predictions would not be enough. You would need also need a record of incorrect predictions, otherwise it is cherrypicking. Then you need to compare both and analyze professionally whether the crystal ball you used is better than random guessing. If it is, then WP:CRYSTALBALL could be amended to say that your crystal ball is one that can be used. But this would need lots of data, and even if it worked, I think it would change the nature of Wikipedia in a way it is not Wikipedia any more. Anyway, this is highly hypothetical, and it does not sound very realistic. It should be done somewhere else, not on Wikipedia. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:32, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Related: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Adoring nanny/Essays/Lab Leak Likely. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the shortcut. While I support allowing the userspace essay to be kept, the projectspace shortcut SLOGANWORD is too much. It is a disputed essay, which means it should only be referenceable by a user link. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on procedural grounds, with no objection to a bundled nomination with WP:NOLABLEAK. At this point, it's just absurd flailing. jp×g 02:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:16, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete too editorial for a project-space redirect. WP:NOLABLEAK is different enough I don't think a bundled nomination would help. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The less inflammatory LABLEAKPOSSIBLE might be OK. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; user essays strongly at variance with policy (e.g. WP:HOAX, WP:MEDRS, and WP:SOAP) should not be dignified with projectspace redirects. Nyttend backup (talk) 12:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I support allowing the essay to exist in userspace on general WP:NOTCENSORED grounds, but it does not represent Wikipedia policy so should not be in project-space. User:GKFXtalk 21:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: While some users at the MfD apparently supported that the misleading userspace page presenting personal opinions could remain, there was also a general consensus that it is fringe and not a usable/useful WP essay. There's no reason to refer to it in project or article talk page space. —PaleoNeonate – 09:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the MfD. Allowed in userspace, no problem with a shortcut, this is unambiguous. Project-space (especially just a shortcut!) does not imply widespread approval or endorsement, there is no reason to change that. It just means "relevant to the project itself" - which this certainly is, hence it being kept at MfD. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:54, 20 May 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.

Roti pita

[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. -- Tavix (talk) 22:33, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of roti at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 18:48, 7 May 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.

Vyond redirects

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 15#Vyond redirects

Palantir

[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. This discussion is fundamentally an argument over which is the primary topic. As that guideline notes, we consider two factors when deciding which topic (if any) is the primary topic: long-term significance and usage. In terms of long-term significance, Palantir Technologies is clearly more prominent than Palantír. The question of prominence is much less clear when it comes to usage, but it is probably reasonable to say that Palantír has the advantage here because Palantir is a simple {{R to diacritic}} to Palantír and Palantir Technologies is a natural disambiguation. Because there is no elegant way of resolving the tension between our two main criteria for determining the primary topic, favoring neither and converting Palantir to a disambiguation page is the most sensible solution, and indeed one that nearly every participant admitted is at least tolerable. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:06, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Palantir Technologies has a 10:1 pageviews ratio over the current target and is well-known simply as Palantir. A dab page seems more appropriate than a primary redirect. 162 etc. (talk) 16:08, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Palantir Technologies is the primary topic, but chose to propose it this way since WP:NOPRIMARY is probably an easier argument to win. A compromise. 162 etc. (talk) 19:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those arguments (and that entire discussion) revolved around whether Palantir Technologies is the primary topic. I'm not trying to make that argument. This discussion is about whether Palantír is not the primary topic. 162 etc. (talk) 21:38, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And I believe it is the primary topic, for reasons including those I referenced above. Thryduulf (talk) 00:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Having not been around for that original discussion, allow me to retort here.
  • Paine Ellsworth shared a concern: "I think it's more important for the typable redirect to target the base-name title with the diacritical mark per WP:DIACRITICS than it would be to adhere to WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT."
→This goes against WP:SMALLDETAILS. Rose doesn't redirect to Rosé, just to name one example.
  • AngusWOOF had this to say: "The company is named after the fictional item. (...) Kind of like arguing that Apple Computer should be primary topic over Apple because it has a lot more pageviews in searches."
→ a) This is specifically shown to be incorrect reasoning per WP:DPT: "Being the original source of the name is also not determinative. Boston, Massachusetts is the primary topic for Boston, not the English town from which it took its name."
→ b) Using the Apple/Apple Computer comparable is misplaced here. I doubt that anybody can make the argument that a plot device in a work of fiction has the same long-term significance as an apple.
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC asks us to consider usage and long-term notability when determining a primary topic. "Palantír" fails the first, and possibly both of those criteria. Therefore, Palantir should become a disambiguation page, as per WP:NOPRIMARY. 162 etc. (talk) 01:29, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. My argument is the same as in the previous discussion linked above, regardless of how invalid per WP:SMALLDETAILS another editor believes it to be. I think that SMALLDETAILS is trumped by both the WP:DIACRITICS naming convention and the WP:TSC policy. It is more important to have a redirect that can be typed on a standard keyboard to target any title with special characters that cannot be typed on a keyboard. So for search purposes, it is very important that the keyboard-friendly "Palantir" continues to redirect to "Palantír". P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 01:57, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate or Retarget per 162 etc., who seems to present a pretty compelling argument. It did strike me as weird that so many people piled on based on WP:DIACRITICS, which I'd never seen used as a trump card before. But then I don't spend much time at RfD... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:04, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If you use just part of a company's common name, it's your own fault if you end up somewhere you don't expect; Coke is a disambiguation page, not an article about the soft drink company, and Ireland covers the island, not the sovereign state that's most commonly called "Republic of Ireland". How many people remember that there's a í in the correctly spelled name, especially since many (all?) printings of The Lord of the Rings don't use that spelling? And of those who do remember, how many (1) remember that it's ALT+0237 and (2) are able to type that conveniently? I had a hard time typing it here because my browser keeps wanting to leave this screen when I hit the character sequence. Finally, the only evidence given by the nominator is pageviews, but as noted in the previous discussion, a significant share of those seeking the company will use its full name; you can't assume that the typical person arriving at the fictional object article via this redirect was intending to end up at the company article. This is particularly significant among the large population who rely on auto-suggested results from the search bar; if I'm using that feature (which I don't normally) to search for the company, I'll pick the longer form of the name ("Palantir Technologies") rather than something shorter, in case there's something else with a similar name. Nyttend backup (talk) 12:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue that "Palantir Technologies" is not the company's common name, but that the article is at that title as a result of WP:NATURAL. A Google search for "Palantir" will reveal that the company is most commonly known by that single word (and will also confirm that the fictional device is nowhere near the top of the search results.) Using Palantir as a redirect to Palantír is a primary redirect; no evidence has been presented so far as to why it should be the primary topic. 162 etc. (talk) 14:26, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Palantir Technologies" is definitely not the company's common name. It's Palantir. Even the most cursory of searches shows that. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've created Palantir (Middle-earth) as a redirect, for the benefit of all who may not easily be able to type "í". 162 etc. (talk) 14:41, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. It seems to me that the "keep" opinions above are getting led astray by focussing on the degree of similarity between the redirect and the titles of the two potential targets. That's not relevant. The question is if there is a primary topic for "Palantir", and I can see as defensible two positions: that there is no primary topic or that the primary topic is the company. The company dominates usage in sources (not just web, but books too, and by a large margin), it has been around for a long time (so no wiggle room for arguments about recentism), and it does appear to be what the majority of readers seek (the link in the hatnote at Palantír was followed 1,800 times in March). – Uanfala (talk) 21:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Palantir Technologies as the primary topic. Disambiguate if needed as compromise/much better than nothing. Same argument as last October's discussion: an order of magnitude more page views. The magical item is not the primary topic by any measure. czar 03:32, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Palantir Technologies per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The company is generally just referred to as "Palantir", not "Palantir Technologies", and the vast majority of usages of "Palantir" refer to the company and not the fictional artifact. I don't see how considerations based on diacritics overrule this. A disambiguation page would be my second choice. Hut 8.5 16:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per previous RfD and in particular P.I. Ellsworth's argument both then and now. It would violate the principle of least astonishment to have Palantir lead to Palantir Technologies, and it would be confusing for versions of the title with and without diacritics to point to different topics. Sure, the company gets more views, but we're not robots who follow only the numbers. The hatnote at the top of Palantír is quite sufficient to get readers to the right article if they're looking for the company. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 15:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would violate the principle of least astonishment - Do you have a response to 162 etc.'s rebuttal of the diacritics argument that you're citing? I find the principle of least astonishment particularly hard to reconcile here, given we are not the Tolkien Fandom Wiki (some appearances to the contrary)... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which argument is that specifically? For this particular case—and I am considering it largely without looking at other examples—my intuition is that given Palantír and Palantir Technologies as targets, the average person, without the context of our rules, would expect Palantir to redirect to Palantír. I do think that the named-after relation also gives the artifact a little bit of precedence over the company. I think that the worst outcome of this RfD would be retargeting to Palantir Technologies, because it seems like it would be confusing for the reader to get that "Technologies" appended rather than just inserting the diacritics. On reflection, I don't have a problem changing Palantir to a disambiguation page, and I could accept it as a compromise, but it seems less elegant than keeping the status quo. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 22:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll again clarify that unlike the previous discussion, my proposal is to create a disambiguation page at Palantir, not make a new primary redirect. I'll also point out, again, that the status quo effectively makes Palantír the primary topic, which it most certainly should not be. 162 etc. (talk) 21:39, 19 May 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.

Villa Pliniana

[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 00:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Villa Plinianina was wrongly moved to Villa Pliniana and I reversed the move and left a redirect following a help desk request at Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2021 April 2#Can someone help please. I think the redirect should be deleted as it is confusing and suggests that Villa Plinianina (Q4012433) and Villa Pliniana (Q4012427) are the same building, which they are not. There is potential for an article on Villa Pliniana see Draft:Villa Pliniana. TSventon (talk) 15:07, 7 May 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.

El Taco

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (+) 09:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I find no source at all that calls Taco Bell "El Taco". Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 06:30, 7 May 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.

Other lists of Catholic saints

[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 moot. The page moves that created these redirects have been reversed and a discussion about them opened at Talk:List of American saints and beatified people#Requested move 23 May 2021. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:19, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • List of Catalonian saints
  • List of Scandinavian saints
  • List of saints from Africa
  • List of saints from Asia
  • List of Central American and Caribbean saints
  • List of South American saints

Only concerns the Catholic Church, so these redirects should be deleted Veverve (talk) 01:16, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object the original pagemoves were undiscussed, and as I have pointed out on the proposer's talk page may well be disputed. I have already undone one for reasons given at Talk:List of Cornish saints. DuncanHill (talk) 13:31, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @DuncanHill: List of Cornish saints removed from the list, it was a mistake from me. All other articles always start by saying they only concern the Catholic Church, yet are called "List of X Saints". It does not matter that other Churches incidentally recognise some of those people as saints, it is a list of those that the RC Church considers as saints. Veverve (talk) 13:35, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object and roll back page moves These page moves are problematic and should have been discussed first. These pages also list venerable people and servants of God. If we are going to be WP:PRECISE, then the title would have to be List of Catholic saints, beatified people, venerable people and servants of God of India. Clearly, here the WP:CONCISE title List of saints of India is appropriate. In any case, why delete a redirect from a WP:CONCISE title when there is no disambiguation dispute? The Discoverer (talk) 20:17, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep title It might make more sense to look at the bigger picture before changing anything. The List of Mexican Catholic saints and beatified people is a perfectly legitimate title. And adding other people to these pages of lists of saints who are not sainted or yet beatified, e.g. venerables, etc., is perfectly fine as well. This is how it's done in the Catholic Church. Catholics and the clergy and religious communities like monks and nuns all nominate and promote their own members long before the Vatican is willing to take a second look. Padre Pio, for example, was very well known in the Catholic community as someone known for healing the sick and helping those in need long before he was considered for sainthood. So adding these people to any page is perfectly fine. And as far as Mexican saints, or any of the other pages for that matter, accommodates how things really work in the Catholic world from everything I've read on that particular page. I really don't think there is a need for some type of precision when discussing something as non-concise as Catholic saints. This particular page really does cover what someone searching for information on Mexican saints would be looking for. It isn't just saints and adding the beatified people makes it more likely someone searching for information would be more likely to take a look. It made me look. Bodding (talk) 20:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert pagemoves. For all of these locations, the Catholic church is by far the dominant recogniser of saints in the sense of "particularly holy person"; the term doesn't have significant usage for non-Christian religions (they have their own terminology, e.g. wali), you won't have lists of Protestant saints because of their common use to refer to all believers (and when they use it in the Catholic-like sense, it's for people who would appear on the Catholic lists), and none of these regions has a large population of Orthodox believers, let alone Orthodox saints; if articles exist for Orthodox saints from any of these places (e.g. the Americas), a hatnote could suffice. Plus, the nominator's new name for these pages has its own problem; it sounds like these are saints of the "Nationality Catholic" faith, and this can lead to confusion, e.g. if we had a list of English Catholic saints and beatified people, would it be English people who were Catholic saints, or people who were Anglo-Catholic saints (the former, but it could be confused with the latter), and the existing list of Polish Catholic saints could very easily be interpreted as being related to saints of Polish Catholicism (none of which is in communion with Rome), e.g. the Polish National Catholic Church. And finally, "list of saints of X" clearly focuses on geography, which isn't true of many of the new names, e.g. should "List of Breton Catholic saints and beatified people" be focused on Bretons (a Celtic people who lived there before the French) regardless of where they live, or should it be focused on people living in Brittany regardless of whether they're Bretons, or French, or anything else? Nyttend backup (talk) 12:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nyttend backup Not sure what you mean, but it seems the point of specifying the nation of origin of a Catholic saint is for the benefit of the Catholics in those countries. I don't see how anyone can be confused by a list of Mexican saints and other beatified people. It's a point of pride for people to see that and countries are always pushing for their own citizens of faith to be recognized. Katherine Drexel and Elizabeth Ann Seton are among the first in the United States, for example. I might be reading your comment wrong, but then I don't understand what the point of any of this is about. These are lists of saints. Whether the titles are expanded to add in 'beatified people' doesn't matter. Beatified means that particular person is on the path to sainthood. It's just a matter of time, and frankly money. Bodding (talk) 16:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've reverted all the page moves as requested by Compassionate727 at the RMT. Please look after the cleanup stuff once this RfD is closed. Thanks. ─ The Aafī (talk) 01:38, 23 May 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.

Lists of Russian saints

[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) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:17, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saints canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church
  • List of saints canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church
  • Sainthood in the Russian Orthodox Church
  • Saints of the Russian Orthodox Church

Only concerns the Russian saints of the Eastern Orthodox Church, not all Russian saints nor all saint canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church, so these redirects should be deleted. Veverve (talk) 02:09, 7 May 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.

Lists of Serbian saints

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 15#Lists of Serbian saints

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_May_7&oldid=1024698470"