Talk:Canaanites

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles

Ethnic groups

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups articles

WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks:

Meta-tasks:
- Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project.
- Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups
Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution:
Start an article:
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests

Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

Ancient Near East

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East articles

Redirect or article

@Editor2020, Dbachmann, M.Bitton, Largoplazo, Furius, Ermenrich, P Aculeius, T8612, Gog the Mild, and Carlstak: I am pinging the editor who turned this page into a redirect, the editor who reverted it and editors who participated in Talk:Punic people#Requested move 5 July 2021.

I do not think this insubstantial article is a valuable addition compared to the redirect to Canaan. What do others think? Srnec (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Hopefully Canaan can be a root article for a whole clutch of sub-articles. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:29, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree. Canaanites is really a term for a variety of closely related peoples (Moabites, Ammonites, arguably Israelites and Phoenicians too). The subject is better handled at Canaan.—Ermenrich (talk) 16:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Ermenrich summed it up. M.Bitton (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree per above. Carlstak (talk) 18:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Insubstantiality" is not a reason to redirect, it just means that the article needs to be expanded and improved. Editor2020 (talk) 20:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on whether a person looking for information on the Canaanites is better served coming here or to Canaan. If the latter, then "insubstantiality" is most certainly a reason to redirect. Srnec (talk) 05:20, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Editor2020: I see that we are cannibalizing the other article now. Wonderful. This is not useful and there is a 4–2 !vote against the existence of this article. Srnec (talk) 00:36, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just separating information into the different articles to make this one not insubstantial. Editor2020 (talk) 01:03, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but moving material from A to B cannot be "a valuable addition". Srnec (talk) 01:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I recently revived the Canaanites article which had been redirected to Canaan and have been moving Canaanite information which was at that article here. So, should this article be kept or merged into that article? It's been long enough and I have done what I can for now, so if the result is remerge, I won't resist.Editor2020 (talk) 01:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone? Editor2020 (talk) 22:36, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You subverted the whole purpose of Srnec's survey—not very collegial. Carlstak (talk) 03:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We were unable to reach concensus, so I moved the information that was at Canaan to this article, where it would have been without the redirect. I asked everyone to review this article to see its current shape and decide whether we should keep it or return the article to a redirect, promising to go along with whatever consensus is reached. No disrespect to Srnec was intended. Editor2020 (talk) 05:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I read it, it is 4–2 for restoring the redirect (i.e., merging), although I was hoping for more participation. As I see it, asking readers to decide if it is "Canaan" or "Canaanites" they are interested in is not helpful. It would only make sense if the Canaan article were reduced to geography. Srnec (talk) 15:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While 4 to 2 is hardly a consensus, and I too was hoping for more input, Ill go along with this. Editor2020 (talk) 19:43, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]