Talk:Porticus
Add topicLatest comment: 9 years ago by Nortonius in topic Deletion of redirect
 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms may be different or absent from (including January 2017) other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Deletion of redirect
[edit]I've taken the bold step of deleting the redirect, because "portico, porch" is an inadequate translation of "porticus", especially as used in discussing Christian church architecture (here it's definition 5), where the meaning is closer to ""Porticus II.B.", i.e. "A weather-board, shed", in Charlton T. Lewis, Charles Short, A Latin Dictionary. Currently, this meaning of "porticus" is not covered in the "Portico" article or by items linked at "Portico (disambiguation)". IMHO "Porticus" merits its own article – but, your view may differ! Nortonius (talk) 16:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- I have reverted your blanking (not deletion) of the page again. If you do not believe this is the proper place for this word to redirect to, you have a couple of options. Redirect it to a more appropriate place or take it to redirects for discussion and discuss what should be done with the redirect. Blanking a page and leaving it is never an appropriate action. GB fan 17:43, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comment, and point taken about deleting a redirect - I didn't know, now I do, thanks. Unfortunately, right now I have better things to do (I'm pointing to the essay, not making a veiled personal attack), but I'm firmly of the opinion that the re-instated redirect points to an unhelpful page as I described above, and was misnamed from the outset for that reason. As I indicated above, I think that a better solution would be to make an article of this redirect. You're welcome to do as you suggested to improve WP here yourself of course, but I can't see myself doing anything further about it in the foreseeable future. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 18:35, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- I am not knowledgeable of this subject so I couldn't make the article you suggest. I just found this page because it was tagged for speedy deletion. I declined the speedy deletion because there was no valid rationale to delete it and restored the blanked content on the page. GB fan 18:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- About writing a "Porticus" article, me neither! But, I know enough to make my initial observations above - I just meant about taking it to WP:RFD, armed with those observations, I've seen stranger things happen! No problem if you're too busy or disinclined, obviously that makes two of us! Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 20:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- Ok I've created a stub. Nortonius (talk) 17:25, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- I am not knowledgeable of this subject so I couldn't make the article you suggest. I just found this page because it was tagged for speedy deletion. I declined the speedy deletion because there was no valid rationale to delete it and restored the blanked content on the page. GB fan 18:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comment, and point taken about deleting a redirect - I didn't know, now I do, thanks. Unfortunately, right now I have better things to do (I'm pointing to the essay, not making a veiled personal attack), but I'm firmly of the opinion that the re-instated redirect points to an unhelpful page as I described above, and was misnamed from the outset for that reason. As I indicated above, I think that a better solution would be to make an article of this redirect. You're welcome to do as you suggested to improve WP here yourself of course, but I can't see myself doing anything further about it in the foreseeable future. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 18:35, 26 December 2011 (UTC)