January 3
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 3, 2016.
Non-Muslims
- 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 both.
JohnCD (
talk)
21:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
reply
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:
This term has multiple domain-specific meanings in Arabic, but in current use for non-Muslims it is a slur. A literal equivalent of "non-Muslim" is used in mainstream discourse instead. This is like redirecting "black people" to the N-word. Just because the term was once commonly used in this way and is still being used in this way in some quarters doesn't mean that it's acceptable to equate the two in an encyclopedia.
Eperoton (
talk)
18:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
reply
- In Islamic theology the term refers broadly to "unbelief" and related notions and it has been elaborated in various ways in application to both Muslims and non-Muslims. It is certainly used by some in everyday conversation as a derogatory term for non-Muslims.
Eperoton (
talk)
16:57, 5 January 2016 (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.
Purity and pollution
- 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.
JohnCD (
talk)
20:59, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
reply
This seems to be an idea in anthropology, especially applied to the Indian caste system, but it's not discussed at the target article. (There is an external link to a paper with this title.) There's a
handful of search results for the phrase on Wikipedia, so there might be potential for an article.
BDD (
talk)
17:38, 3 January 2016 (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.
Dislike
- 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
Like.
(non-admin closure)
sst✈
07:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
reply
You can easily dislike something without it rising to the level of disgust or revulsion. Delete, or retarget to
Like as {{
R from antonym}}.
BDD (
talk)
17:35, 3 January 2016 (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.
School-assessed coursework
- 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)
15:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
reply
not hyphenated terms, not useful in search as the search engines just ignore these. Still working on the Neelix list
Legacypac (
talk)
05:06, 24 December 2015 (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.
Disapproval
Puzzlement
쐃
- 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 as there's currently no feasible target that is useful for the reader.
Der
yck C.
21:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
reply
This is one of thousands of similar redirects to
hangul, which is a rather unhelpful target: it doesn't actually mention those redirects.
- The overwhelming majority are nonsense syllables like the one I nominated: not real words, have not ever been used in Korean, and show up on the internet only as
mojibake and in lists of Unicode codepoints
- A minority (e.g.
없) are real Korean morphemes or words but those words aren't specific to Korean culture so there's no obvious Wikipedia target for the meaning.
- An even smaller minority are real words with obvious Wikipedia targets (e.g.
이 →
Lee (Korean surname)), point to Latin-alphabet disambiguation pages consisting mostly of Korean-related topics (e.g.
정 →
Jeong), or are disambiguation pages themselves (e.g.
김).
- There's also a whole bunch of syllables which don't have redirects, e.g.
청.
I'm not entirely opposed to deleting these, but
in the discussion three years ago there was some mention of the idea that all Unicode codepoints are likely search terms and should point somewhere. In the case of the nonsense syllables, there's only two better targets:
hangul consonant and vowel tables (which explains how they're theoretically pronounced - but only if you know which of the collapse boxes to open, you can't use Ctrl+F to find it) and
Hangul Syllables (which has an uncollapsed a table listing everything in the Unicode Block, but it tells you only the codepoint and no other information). Which one do you all think is better?
210.6.254.106 (
talk)
12:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Comment I agree with the notion that "all Unicode codepoints are likely search terms and should point somewhere" (it may have been me that expressed it, I haven't checked). In the specific case I think that at present
hangul consonant and vowel tables is marginally more useful, but I'd really rather that article be split into more specific sub-articles that are more useful for non-Korean speakers. At that point the redirect targets could be changed to the more specific location.
Thryduulf (
talk)
21:16, 3 January 2016 (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.
Civil war in Yemen
- 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 speedy retarget. This was created as a redirect to the disambiguation page, and all edits since have been bots fixing double redirects, as related pages have moved. And that's about right—this should target "Yemeni Civil War" whatever it is. No human has tried to make it do anything else. --
BDD (
talk)
16:21, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
reply
Should be redirected to
Yemeni Civil War, a disambiguation page.
George Ho (
talk)
08:16, 3 January 2016 (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.
Chaowen
- 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 both.
JohnCD (
talk)
12:28, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
reply
"Zhengyin" and "chaowen" are Chinese words written in pinyin. The target is unrelated to Chinese and is not called "zhengyin" or "chaowen" in Chinese anyway. There's no better target; a user who enters these strings is best served by seeing the search results & all the partial matches therein, which consist of topics which are actually related to Chinese.
210.6.254.106 (
talk)
08:00, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Strong delete both.
- My best interpretation is that Zhengyin and Chaowen are
Pinyin transliterations of 朝文/조문 and 正音/정음 respectively. Both concepts are discussed in the target article, but the Pinyin romanisation scheme (a 20th-century Chinese invention) has no affinity to the Korean language, so they should be deleted along the lines of
WP:RFOREIGN.
- For both people named Zheng Yin, Zheng is surname and Yin is given name. All scholarly Chinese romanisation schemes separate surname and given name so it would at best be an {{
R from misspelling}} to
Zheng Yin.
- "Chaowen" is the given name of several Chinese people mentioned in other articles, so redirecting to
Chefchaouen is less useful than letting readers see search results.
Der
yck C.
11:47, 7 January 2016 (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.
FBS Radio Network
- 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 both.
JohnCD (
talk)
12:27, 10 January 2016 (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.
Baron MacLeod of Fairy
- 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.
JohnCD (
talk)
12:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
reply
Non-existent title. Not a plausible misspelling, as the correct title is Baron MacLeod of Fuinary.
The Traditionalist (
talk)
03:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
reply
- delete. I wondered whether this was a pronunciation spelling of
Fuinary, Highland Scottish place name pronunciations not necessarily being obvious to an English reader. I haven't been able to find any written references to how it is pronounced, but there is a folk tune, Farewell to Fuinary with several renditions on Youtube. In none of the videos I watched was "fuinary" pronounced as or approximating "fairy", rather something more like /ˈfjuː.ən.əe(ɹ).i/ (FEW-in-air-ee). That's not conclusive obviously, as it could be distorted to fit the meter, but in the absence of anything supporting a "fairy" pronunciation, I'm recommending delete.
Thryduulf (
talk)
21:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Could this be a
pejorative? --
BDD (
talk)
16:17, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
reply
- That did cross my mind, but nothing in the article seems to suggest he is more or less likely than any other person to be described in that manner, and so it's worth looking to see if there is a reason to keep or delete for definite. If it is deleted it doesn't really matter if it was intended as a pejorative or not.
Thryduulf (
talk)
18:27, 4 January 2016 (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.