Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November 15

November 15
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 15, 2013.

A'Tong



 * 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. --BDD (talk) 20:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * A'Tong → Atong language (Tibeto-Burman) (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Procedural re-listing. User:Seino van Breugel placed RfD core on the page, but apparently did not list the redirect here. I will ask the user to offer a rationale. Cnilep (talk) 23:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The same user previously PRODed the redirect with the concern, "a language with this name does not exist". Cnilep (talk) 00:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Apparently the editor is mistaken.  Dwpaul  Talk   00:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Curiously, however, an individual with the same name of the editor is referenced extensively in the target article as an expert on the Atong language and the author of both a grammar and a dictionary of it. It may be that the editor is speaking as a purist, but apparently there are others who disagree about the validity of the "A'tong" form of name for the language (and hence a need to redirect to what the editor may be asserting is the correct name).  Dwpaul  Talk   00:40, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, the editor named above themselves created a redirect A'tong language → Atong language (Tibeto-Burman). I think what they are actually saying is that there is no language with the "T" capitalized (and this redirect is now redundant).  Dwpaul   Talk   00:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Correction: the editor above did not create the redirect from A'tong language, but also nominated that redirect for deletion (which was declined) with the rationale that "The spelling A'tong is incorrect and does not deserve a separate page." I think the editor misunderstands the purpose of a redirect (not to validate an incorrect spelling or alternate name, but to direct readers to the correct information should they use it).  Dwpaul   Talk   01:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep for the reasons explained in my last comment above.  Dwpaul  Talk   01:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC) Delete but only because/as long as it is redundant with the existing redirect A'tong language.   Dwpaul   Talk   15:54, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is an entirely plausible search term for the language eg ]. No WP:RFD reasons for deletion. The Whispering Wind (talk) 21:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes -- but note that there is already another redirect with this spelling: A'tong language, differing only in capitalization (this one not matching your citation) and the absence of the word "language." There is also a redirect A'Tong language.  This one is redundant.  Dwpaul   Talk   21:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The default for redirects is 'keep'. WP:RFD states "Therefore consider the deletion only of either really harmful redirects or of very recent ones." This one was created in 2004. Being used in a reliable source shows its plausibility as a search term and the fact that it may not be technically correct is not a factor. No harm has been demonstrated so there are no policy grounds for deletion. We have countless redirects that are variations on the same form. Redirects are cheap so possible redundancy is not a ground for deletion. The Whispering Wind (talk) 22:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * What precedes the "therefore" in that guidance is primarily the fact that old redirects typically have accumulated many articles linked to them that would require remediation if the redirect was deleted. This redirect, even though created in 2004, has accumulated links from exactly -0- articles in mainspace (versus Talk and User pages, and this discussion).  The counterpart redirects to the same article A'Tong language and A'tong language DO have articles linked to them, so should remain.  Hence now is the time to delete the effectively unused and redundant redirect discussed in this RfD.  Dwpaul   Talk   00:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.

The Soundtrack
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November 25%23The Soundtrack

User:Bonkers The Clown/Death by ice cream



 * 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) Steel1943  (talk) 07:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * User:Bonkers The Clown/Death by ice cream → User:Demiurge1000/Death by ice cream (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Misleading - not in BTC's userspace  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 17:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The redirect is linked from Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Bonkers_The_Clown/Death_by_ice_cream, Articles_for_deletion/Death_by_ice_cream, User_talk:Bonkers_The_Clown, the deletion log for Death_by_ice_cream, and a few other places. &mdash; rybec   08:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't have any opinion on this (just passing through), but I'm confused on the deletion nomination. BTC created the page, it was sent to AfD, and the consensus there was to userfy so that he could work on it. BTC was then given an indef block, so logically he couldn't work on it, but another user wanted to pick up the task. I would think that this redirect would make sense simply for the AfD page, so that people could see what eventually happened to the userfied draft.


 * So what is "misleading"? -- Ned Scott 02:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The redirect isn't of much use, but it's harmless. It's a little useful because of the links to it (as Ned points out). There's nothing misleading here, we usually have a redirect when a page is moved from one userspace to another. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 07:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * What do Bonkers The Clown and Demiurge1000 think? --BDD (talk) 00:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * (I was pinged asking me to comment here, so I shall do so.) I think that I do not see any misleading element to this redirect. As for the other party: as someone who has been asked by Bonkers The Clown to minimise the destruction of his legacy caused by anti-Singaporean elements coloured by systemic bias, I am quite sure he would not object to the continued existence of the redirect in his userspace. He cannot comment here as he has been blocked from doing so by a Westerner. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Harmless former name. It's only marginally misleading, and its status as a former title outweighs that. --BDD (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.

Côte d'Ivoire/Archive1



 * 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 deleted for CSD G6 by RHaworth. (non-admin closure) Steel1943  (talk) 16:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Côte d'Ivoire/Archive1 → Ivory Coast (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Implausible redirect. Not clear why this was created. note this is in article space, not talk space. Nothing relevant links to it. Just delete. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - implausible redirect. Otherwise, Speedy Delete for CSD G6. Steel1943  (talk) 04:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as G6, as a page created in error. Some guy was looking at the talk archive page and hit the "article" button and accidentally created the page, I bet. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.

Feast day



 * 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, keep, keep, keep, and retarget to Calendar of saints, respectively (i.e., the nominator's proposal is endorsed). There's some support for making a Feast day article where the others could redirect. This could be done BOLDly, but for now, these should all point to Calendar of saints unless there's consensus for something else. --BDD (talk) 20:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Feast days → Calendar of saints (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * Feast Days → Calendar of saints (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * Feast Day → Calendar of saints (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * Feast-day → Calendar of saints (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * Feast day → Religious festival (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Couple of months back Feast day was redirected to Religious festival. I suggest that the redirect to be restored to Calendar of saints (which was the case from 2003). My reasons are: When at this, Why is this redirected to Religious festival, why shouldn't it be redirected to festival? what makes feast day "Religious"? Also if this redirection is accepted, then numerous articles have been redirected to feast days, they all of those should be fixed may be using a BOT. --Jayarathina (talk) 06:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The term feast day is explicitly used in Christianity and popularly meant to mean a christian feast day.(google oxford)
 * I don't think any other religion uses that term to describe its festival.
 * If evangelical don't celebrate saint's feast days is considered a reason, then this article should be created to mention different POV rather than redirecting.
 * Article_titles states: Use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources.
 * Oppose Calendar of saints, support Religious festival for all, please see the discussion at the redirect talk page. Even within Christianity, "feast day" is not limited to saints' days, and includes holidays like Christmas. Some traditions only celebrate non-saint feast days. --JFH (talk) 15:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * JFH, I can see why you want to oppose that page. But why not redirect it to festivals? Even atheist can have feast days I suppose? What makes feast day a Religious festival? --Jayarathina (talk) 23:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be opposed, though I've never heard an atheist festival (festivus perhaps?) referred to as a feast day. --JFH (talk) 19:19, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't atheists participate in Christmas? Halloween? St. Patrick's day etc?Tstrobaugh (talk) 15:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - Feast Day currently redirects to Calendar of saints so that should follow the outcome of this RFD too. The Whispering Wind (talk) 18:08, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, corrected the nomination. --Jayarathina (talk) 11:14, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Support It's a more useful answer, although I'd like to create a separate article about the concept of feast days. JASpencer (talk) 12:54, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Support My experience has generally involved the coupling of Feast Days with Saints (in addition to certain liturgical celebrations like Christmas, Pentecost, etc.). - FitzColinGerald (talk) 15:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Question; is the proposal Calendar of saints or Religious festival? Above we have three going to Calendar of saints and one to religious festival, but the nominators argument seems in favor of calendar of saints. I'm going to clarify my oppose above, and I recommend others do the same. --JFH (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * JFH, The proposition is very clear. I suggest that the redirect to be restored to Calendar of saints This was the proposition from the beginning. I have boldened it just in case. And everyone who has commented here has explained their comment. so it is pretty clear to what they are opposing or supporting. Three links go to Calendar of saints and one to religious festival, because it represents the current status of the links. All those links will be affected as the result of this discussion. --Jayarathina (talk) 18:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment, may I suggest liturgical year, for those who are arguing that this is a strictly Christian term, but agree that it includes non-saint feast days? --JFH (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment, Feast Day is the common term for the saint's day. It should have a separate article about the concept and how the days are celebrated. Some feast days are Holy days of obligation, etc. A Feast Day article would be interesting. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Support for Malke 2010 (talk). I too would be interested in such an article, how the term applies to saints' days and days like the Feast of Christ the King.  --Sephiroth9611 (talk) 17:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Malke 2010, Sephiroth9611 There already exists another article for that purpose. See: Ranking of liturgical days in the Roman Rite --Jayarathina (talk) 19:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia always amazes me with the titles of some articles. Feast Day should really be it's own article IMHO because it is that common and also that significant. It conjures up an immediate image and understanding of the meaning of the term. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Support for Malke 2010 (talk). That Ranking of liturgical days in the Roman Rite is absurdly technical and doesn't tell you what a feast day is. The common concept of "feast day" sort of transcends the official liturgi-babble there. Another topic a separate Feast Day article could cover is the practice of many ordained and vowed religious of celebrating their own "feast day" on the feast of their namesake saint. Religious orders celebrate the feast day of their founders in a special way, etc. (But if we're redirecting, I agree Calendar of saints.) Sweet kate (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sweet kate, You're right, the religious do celebrate their namesakes and their founders. That would be an interesting bit to add to an article on Feast day. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Support, At this point, it would make sense to redirect to Calendar of saints over something like Ranking of liturgical days in the Roman Rite although it might make sense to have a separate article just about what feast days are, since the linked page deals with only the Roman Rite, and there are many other Rites that celebrate feast days other than the Roman. At this point, the article for Calendar of saints includes a link to the page with the rankings and would be a suitable destination for those looking for more information--Minimidgy (talk) 20:36, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Support for now, as it makes sense to redirect to Calendar of saints because it will prevent any edit warring. But I think Feast day can stand on it's own and would be interested in writing an article on the redirect. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:31, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Calendar of saints definitely appears to be more relevant. I'd put a disambiguation for these redirects to Religious festival or Festival as well, just to cover our bases and recognise that some are probably just not being terribly accurate in their use of the term. Gabrielthursday (talk) 07:25, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose I think we should have a separate article for Feast day including details from Calendar of saints & Ranking of liturgical days in the Roman Rite with their See Also. It should also specify what major denominations consider a feast day to be in their own traditions.~ ScitDei Wanna talk? 07:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment to second that "what major denominations consider a feast day to be in their own traditions" feels paramount here. Sweet kate (talk) 19:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose I also feel Feast Day should be its own article, not just a redirect, but if it were between to Religious festival and Calendar of saints, then clearly the latter. InfernoXV (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Right now, there is not enough on Wikipedia to justify "feast day" in the Christian sense to have its own entry. Likewise, there are Christian Feasts that are not correctly seen as being part of a calendar of Saints' Days: Annunciation, Bright Week, etc. In addition, there are both Feasts and Fasts in Christian tradition. There are the Fast of the Apostles; the Fast of Annunciation (before the Feast of Annunciation); some events are honored with a fast rather than a feast, depending upon specific jurisdiction. "Religious festival" covers the issue more completely.Dogface (talk) 17:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Support redirect to Calendar of saints, which seems to be more relevant. I agree with the suggestion by Gabrielthursday to also add "a disambiguation for these redirects", e.g., "Feast day. For Christian feast days, see Calendar of saints.  For other religions' feast days, see Religious festival." Eagle4000 (talk) 03:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Support – As I've always known, Feast day is synonymous with the Calendar of Saints. If a separate article needs to be created later for Feast day, so be it.  But for now, redirect to Calendar of Saints. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.