. This is a minor synonym of an extinct language, that's broadly documentable but very marginally "notable" by our usual meaning of the term, leading to a related lack of a decision as to whether it should be mentioned as such in the article. If the synonym had a sourced mention in the article, I think there'd be a comfortable consensus to keep it - similarly, if there was another language that could be demonstrated to be causing ambiguity or confusion with these redirects, I think we'd have developed a comfortable consensus to delete it. As it is, nobody seems to have a particularly strong opinion one way or the other, so the redirect will be kept by default as it's broadly reasonable and nobody's really articulated how it's hurting anything. It can be re-discussed if that changes. ~ mazca talk 14:23, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- {{no redirect|1 = Buenaventura language }} → :Ventureño language (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Buenaventura_language&action=history history] · [https://iw.toolforge.org/pageviews?start=2020-12-12&end=2021-01-10&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Buenaventura_language stats]) [ Closure: {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|(@subpage)|[{{fullurl:Buenaventura language|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Buenaventura language closed as keep}}}} keep]/[{{fullurl:Buenaventura language|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Buenaventura language closed as retarget}}}} retarget]/[{{fullurl:Buenaventura language|action=delete&wpReason={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Buenaventura language closed as delete}}&wpMovetalk=1}} delete]}} ]
- {{no redirect|1 = San Buenaventura language }} → :Ventureño language (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=San_Buenaventura_language&action=history history] · [https://iw.toolforge.org/pageviews?start=2020-12-13&end=2021-01-11&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=San_Buenaventura_language stats]) [ Closure: {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|(@subpage)|[{{fullurl:San Buenaventura language|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#San Buenaventura language closed as keep}}}} keep]/[{{fullurl:San Buenaventura language|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#San Buenaventura language closed as retarget}}}} retarget]/[{{fullurl:San Buenaventura language|action=delete&wpReason={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#San Buenaventura language closed as delete}}&wpMovetalk=1}} delete]}} ]
Neither the article nor the first cited reference indicate this language is known as "Buenaventura". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
:Same for San Buenaventura language. Both are (were?) used on MultiTree, local ISO code [qmc]. That's not worth mentioning in the article, but I created a rd for it for x-ref with MultiTree. Whether it's worth keeping an rd for that I don't know. — kwami (talk) 02:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
::I added San Buenaventura language to this nomination. Thanks. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- The point of the redirects is that all language names in various references, including Ethnologue, ISO, Glottolog, Voegelin & Voegelin and LinguistList/MultiTree should take the reader to the appropriate article in WP. The name might not appear in the article if it isn't notable enough, or if the article is just a stub and per WEIGHT you wouldn't want 20 alt names of the language, but at least it will get people where they need to be. — kwami (talk) 12:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- {{re|Kwamikagami}} But it's confusing to land on a page without knowing why you're there (is that an alternative name? Or is it a mistake? Who says it's an alternative name?...). If these are legitimate alternative names there's no harm in listing them, in the infobox, for example. I'd go as far as saying it's important to list them if there's a redirect (if there's a WP:WEIGHT issue then why is there a redirect?). That is the case in other classes of articles, such as for species. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
The problem I have is that we'd end up with articles that would be stubs apart from a long list of alt names. And we'd need a long list of sources for those alt names. Not RS's for the language, its grammar, ethnography or literature, but just alt or often mistaken names or spellings in old sources. But that's not what people would come to the article for.
I often get redirected to a biography from an alt spelling with no explanation in the article as to why. I've never found that confusing, and it would be weird to have a section on attested misspellings of the name. Would any reader care that Chosun Ilbo misspelled a tennis-player's name back in 1990? Would we want to clutter up the ref section with stuff like that? — kwami (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
::But these aren't hypotheticals or misspellings. If Ventureño language is/was known as Buenaventura language then let's say so. Otherwise, delete the redirects. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
- One-to-one synonyms are perhaps the most valid use for a {{t|R without mention}}, but I don't know if that's the case here. I can't find anything relevant at {{Google|"Buenaventura language" -wikipedia}} to link the term to Ventureño or any other language, nor can I find anything on Ethnologue. The [http://multitree.org/codes/veo MultiTree page] for Ventureño says it was spoken at San Buenaventura mission, but doesn't mention Buenaventura as an alternate name or give a language code qmc. (In fact, Google shows no relevant use of "qmc" from linguistlist.org.) I could certainly see that being enough to call the language Buenaventura, but wouldn't the same go for other languages spoken in places called Buenaventura (ex. Mexicanero)?
:My question for kwami would be "Are you certain this is a valid synonym for this language (and not others)"? I trust that you're more knowledgeable on languages than I am. --BDD (talk) 20:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
MultiTree, one of the standard references used by ISO (ISO provides each code with links to Ethnologue, Glottolog, Multitree and now Wikipedia [!] to clarify its denotation/scope), assigned the private-use ISO code [qmc] to the "San Buenaventura"/ "Buenaventura" language back before Ethnologue broke up its former code for Chumash. MultiTree defines [qmc] as the Chumashan language, so its identity as [veo] Ventureño is clear. The fact that you couldn't verify the name supports my opinion that it isn't notable enough to mention in the article. Also, the correspondence in names is obvious enough that it shouldn't cause any confusion.
As for whether I'm certain that no other language has ever been called by one of these names, of course not. But if we come across such a source we can handle in with a dab page or a hat note, just as we would any other rd that we come to find is ambiguous. That's not an argument for deleting the rd. — kwami (talk) 01:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 12:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per Kwami. Remember that a redir does not have to be from a {{em|name of}} something (though MultiTree apparently did use at least one of these that way); it can be for any sensible attempt to find the subject. If you know [San] Buenaventura exists, and know they have their own language or wonder whether they do, your first guessing attempt to find info about this is probably going to be something like these redirects. Mainspace redirs primarily serve the readers' interest, not editors' sense of logic or informational organization. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 13:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- :There are a lot of places called San Buenaventura, though. --BDD (talk) 16:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- :::Are any others associated with a language? — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:19, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- ::::Possibly San Juan Buenaventura, with Mexicanero. --BDD (talk) 15:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- ::{{re|SMcCandlish}} I would argue that it does not actually help the reader to land on a page with no mention of the search term and, apparently, no notability sufficient to warrant a mention. It's just confusing to end up there. If it's not notable enough for a mention, it's not notable enough for a redirect to exist. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:04, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- :::This seems to be simply a defect in the text; the fact that Ventura is presently called by that short name doesn't mean it's the only place-name form that has historical connection to this language. MultiTree's use of these as names for this language means some readers will encounter them, so the article should account for them, to ensure that readers actually do know they've arrived at the right page. That is, our goal of reader clarity is the same, but we are somehow not getting to the same answer. Also, "no notability sufficient to warrant a mention" is, as both you and Kwami should know, not actually a valid argument. WP:Notability applies only to determining what may have its own stand-alone article; it has nothing at all to do with what may be {{em|mentioned in}} an article, which is governed by WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. This name and the old code for it are clearly not indiscriminate, but things that should be mentioned in the article, even if shunted to a footnote. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:19, 31 January 2021 (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.
