Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 22: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 15: Line 15:
*'''Keep''' – the hatnote disambiguation already at [[Eastern Orthodox Church]] is sufficient to direct people where they need to go. Anecdotally, the Eastern Orthodox church is the primary topic here, and Google Scholar would appear to confirm that, both when you survey search results for "Orthodox Church" (many search results about the Eastern Orthodox use "Orthodox Church" in titles without further clarification, whereas articles of Oriental Orthodox denominations appear to always immediately contextualize with the specific location or denomination, and it takes a page or two before OOC results show up for the first time) as well as when you compare raw counts of search results for each denomination (10,600 results for EOC, 239 for OOC). <sub>signed, </sub>[[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] <sup>[[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']]</sup> 03:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' – the hatnote disambiguation already at [[Eastern Orthodox Church]] is sufficient to direct people where they need to go. Anecdotally, the Eastern Orthodox church is the primary topic here, and Google Scholar would appear to confirm that, both when you survey search results for "Orthodox Church" (many search results about the Eastern Orthodox use "Orthodox Church" in titles without further clarification, whereas articles of Oriental Orthodox denominations appear to always immediately contextualize with the specific location or denomination, and it takes a page or two before OOC results show up for the first time) as well as when you compare raw counts of search results for each denomination (10,600 results for EOC, 239 for OOC). <sub>signed, </sub>[[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] <sup>[[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']]</sup> 03:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
*'''Retarget''' per Thryduulf as ambiguous. [[User:Narky Blert|Narky Blert]] ([[User talk:Narky Blert|talk]]) 13:07, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
*'''Retarget''' per Thryduulf as ambiguous. [[User:Narky Blert|Narky Blert]] ([[User talk:Narky Blert|talk]]) 13:07, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' - already has disambiguation with further information declared. By this action, shouldn't the Catholic Church article be solely retargeted itself?--[[User:TheTexasNationalist99|TheTexasNationalist99]] ([[User talk:TheTexasNationalist99|talk]]) 16:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' - already has disambiguation with further information declared. By this action, shouldn't the Catholic Church article be solely retargeted itself? Oh, might I also add it is the most common simple name for Eastern Orthodoxy. Oriental Orthodoxy is not classified solely as the Oriental Orthodox Church, but as Oriental Orthodox Churches. --[[User:TheTexasNationalist99|TheTexasNationalist99]] ([[User talk:TheTexasNationalist99|talk]]) 16:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


====$teve Job$====
====$teve Job$====

Revision as of 16:56, 25 June 2020

June 22

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 22, 2020.

Orthodox Church

Oriental Orthodox is also known as Orthodox Church and is not the same as Eastern Orthodox and has a separate article 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 23:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Orthodox#Religion (a dab page section) where all the various Orthodox churches are (or should be) listed. Thryduulf (talk) 00:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – the hatnote disambiguation already at Eastern Orthodox Church is sufficient to direct people where they need to go. Anecdotally, the Eastern Orthodox church is the primary topic here, and Google Scholar would appear to confirm that, both when you survey search results for "Orthodox Church" (many search results about the Eastern Orthodox use "Orthodox Church" in titles without further clarification, whereas articles of Oriental Orthodox denominations appear to always immediately contextualize with the specific location or denomination, and it takes a page or two before OOC results show up for the first time) as well as when you compare raw counts of search results for each denomination (10,600 results for EOC, 239 for OOC). signed, Rosguill talk 03:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Thryduulf as ambiguous. Narky Blert (talk) 13:07, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - already has disambiguation with further information declared. By this action, shouldn't the Catholic Church article be solely retargeted itself? Oh, might I also add it is the most common simple name for Eastern Orthodoxy. Oriental Orthodoxy is not classified solely as the Oriental Orthodox Church, but as Oriental Orthodox Churches. --TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 16:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

$teve Job$

Not mentioned at target article, not a common usage, was part of a bundled nom in 2010 that WP:TRAINWRECKed. Another creation of User:KennyStrawn, who has been indeffed for vandalism. See Kenny's talk page for many more notices of past deletions of redirects in this vein. Hog Farm (talk) 21:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, while it might be used for $atirical purpose$, Google $earche$ return nothing, saying "did you mean $steve job$?" which make$ thi$ job even more confusing. Regard$, $ONIC678 23:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as a joke redirect --Lenticel (talk) 10:10, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G$$gle

This is just nonsense. Not mentioned at target article, usage of $ to replace o is very uncommon ($ replacing s is more common), creator has been indeffed for vandalism. Hog Farm (talk) 21:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Honestly, you should just look at the list of pages Kenny created and do WP:BEFORE on every single one if you haven't already. OcelotCreeper (talk) 02:26, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 10:10, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Windozer

Not mentioned as an example in the target article, no evidence of common usage from Google search. Was part of a mass nom in 2010 that closed to WP:TRAINWRECK reasons. Hog Farm (talk) 21:21, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's gay.

Is this really the best target for this? Hog Farm (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Napol

Seems about as likely to be a misspelling of Naples as Nepal, I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 20:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IDo

This currently targets a non-notable entry "iDo" in a list article, but is possibly ambiguous with Ido and IDO. I prefer delete, pending an article on the music act "iDo". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Ido (disambiguation) and add a link to the list there. Thryduulf (talk) 20:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget. "Non-notable" here is a matter of opinion, considering iDo scored a number-one club song—a number-one song generally makes an act notable. However, I support retargeting per Thryduulf above. I don't see why these things need to be put to a discussion every time. Ss112 04:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Left-hander and Southpaw

Left-hander and Southpaw currently redirect to Handedness, but these redirects should point towards the page list of people who are left-handed because it is more closely related. When users search for left-hander or southpaw they are more than likely looking for people who are left-handed, not a page describing what handedness is. JustinMal1 (talk) 05:39, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment combined & fixed nominations. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 05:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose no evidence that users would be looking for people rather than definition of the term. However, Southpaw may be better retargeted to Southpaw stance. Polyamorph (talk) 09:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Left-hander and retarget Southpaw to Southpaw stance per Polyamorph. Captain Galaxy (talk) 11:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Southpaw to Southpaw stance, which discusses a topic related to but distinct from left-handedness. I don't think that readers searching these terms are most likely to be looking for a list of people, so I oppose the other move. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 11:50, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep left-hander as it's far more likely that someone using this search term is looking for an article about the concept rather than a list (which can be found via the hatnoted dab page). No opinion about Southpaw at the moment. Thryduulf (talk) 12:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Left-hander at its current target (like with Right-hander) per Captain Galaxy and Thryduulf, as readers are likely to be looking for the concept as the latter points out, neutral on Southpaw. Regards, SONIC678 16:03, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Wherever southpaw redirects, there should be a {{redirect}} hatnote to The Southpaw. Narky Blert (talk) 16:15, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate southpaw. This could refer to handedness, the southpaw stance, or Glossary of baseball (S)#southpaw, as well as The Southpaw. Enough possible meanings that it's probably best not to pick a single meaning to target to, and too many to effectively hatnote without a dab page. Hog Farm (talk) 03:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hog Farm: A disambiguation page already exists for this at Southpaw (disambiguation). So, do you think this page should be moved to the base title? Regards, SONIC678 15:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I don't think there's a primary topic imo. Hog Farm (talk) 15:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see a consensus to keep Left-hander but we haven't converged on a consensus for what to do with Southpaw
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Left-hander, RetargetSouthpaw: Left-hander seems like people would want to search for handedness not the list of people who are left-handed. {{3125A|talk}} 19:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • More than one target has been suggested for Southpaw, please could you clarify where you think it should be retargetted to. Thryduulf (talk) 19:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • To the proposed target by the proposer. {{3125A|talk}} 22:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Minister for Community, Rural & Gaeltacht Affairs

Proposed deletion of each of these articles. Nothing currently links to them, and they incorrectly redirect to Department of Rural and Community Development. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 08:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget all that are correct titles to Department of Rural and Community Development. If they are correct titles then they are useful search terms. Thryduulf (talk) 16:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's actually a little complicated. The correct institutional successor of the department with these names is the Department of Children and Youth Affairs. The transfers of responsibilities and renaming along the way show these transitions. I am planning a separate article which will hopefully be helpful on all former names of Irish government departments, with both the institutional successors and the current departments with these responsibilities. However, in the mean time, as these pages do not have any links to them, rather than redirecting to DCYA, I would argue it safe to delete them, and certainly those with non-standard formats. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 17:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Captain Galaxy (talk) 13:06, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: From OP again. Thanks for relisting. These are each non-standard titles that incorrectly redirect to the Department of Rural and Community Development (a department created in 2017) when the correct successor is the Department of Children and Youth Affairs. As can be seen in the page I've since created, Disused titles of Departments of State (Ireland), these are a long and messy process. But as non-standard or alternative titles, they're unlikely to be linked as such even in historical references. They each have no links to them, so can now be safely deleted. I can't see any benefit even in retargetting them. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 21:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Struck duplicate !vote: you're welcome to make further comment on a discussion, just don't !vote multiple times. — J947 [cont] 22:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all to Department of Children and Youth Affairs, as it seems to have been established last week that that is the correct target some suitable target. Something should exist at these titles because they are plausible search terms; we do not delete redirects merely because the current target is suboptimal. If there's any useful information to be had, anywhere on the wiki, we should try to direct users to it. --NYKevin 04:23, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not that plausible that a variant of the official title that hasn't been used since 2011 would be a search terms here now, and while DCYA is a technical successor, the functions of the department have been transferred to two quite separate departments: Department of Rural and Community Development and Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht. If anything, it could be helpful to redirect them to the new page I wrote, Disused titles of Departments of State (Ireland). It's because they are variants of a disused title that I don't see any particular merit in redirecting them to the technical successor, and they currently have no target links. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 09:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Has some department of the Irish government meticulously destroyed and reissued every single piece of paper which might conceivably refer to those old titles? If not, then it's plausible someone will find one of those old names and search for it. I am neutral about what the target should be, but deletion is clearly the wrong outcome. --NYKevin 16:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • In which case, Disused titles of Departments of State (Ireland) is the best, as it doesn't presuppose why they might be looking for it, whether functional or legal successor. That said, I don't think we would now if it didn't already have these pages as redirects create them afresh, with ampersands in place of and for each historic title, where any search function would give Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs or its current equivalent. There are many more than these possible variants that existed up to 2011, and search functions will find these close texual variants in current pages or redirects. So while quite happy to redirect them to a page I recently created, I think preserving them is an overabundance of caution! —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 09:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosauce313

While a Reddit user by this name was involved in a 2020 controversy involving the College Board, they're not currently mentioned at the target and seem like a fairly minor detail that is not obviously DUE. I would suggest deletion unless a duly sourced mention can be added to the target. signed, Rosguill talk 18:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I agree that without a mention this is confusing. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not mentioned in the target (or anywhere else on Wikipedia). I'm going to remain neutral on whether there should be a mention. Thryduulf (talk) 19:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reddit user != fame. {{3125A|talk}} 22:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • FWIW, Wikipedia redirect ≠ fame as well. — J947 [cont] 22:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this going to develop into a Pascal vs. C-type slugfest? Narky Blert (talk) 22:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tannis root

Minor plot element not mentioned at the target. "Tannis root" is however mentioned in a bunch of other articles, although nowhere is it described in detail. I would suggest deletion and letting internal search results take care of this one. signed, Rosguill talk 17:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wiped off the map

This is a common phrase that I wouldn't implicitly associate with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. If we had a wiktionary page for it I would suggest redirecting to there, but in its absence I think that search results, and thus deletion, are preferable to this potentially surprising redirect. signed, Rosguill talk 17:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This redirect may cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's a metaphor and it doesn't refer to anything specific. Graham Beards (talk) 22:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wipe this thing off the map per nom, just like anything else that's had similar treatment (what, exactly?). We don't want to get readers lost by having it redirect to this particular controversy, and it only got four pageviews since July 2015, all of which were in this month. Regards, SONIC678 23:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Wiped off the map" and "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad" are completely different things. {{3125A|talk}} 00:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Magwayen

Could also refer to Madja-as#Death. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Challenge Show

Deletion. There is nothing in the target article that suggests why this redirect is appropriate. -- Fyrael (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There is no mention at the target, and I can see no alternative target. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ido (language)

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 per SNOW. (non-admin closure) — J947 [cont] 22:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I find it incredibly unlikely that a user would type in this, but not Ido. This redirect doesn't really accomplish anything. PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 13:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: its an {{R from move}} and has many incoming links. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Strong keep. Very clear example of a harmless {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} redirect. Entering this search guarantees that people will end up at the intended target without needing to know whether the language is the primary topic or not (note Ido (disambiguation) exists). Linking to this redirect guarantees that the link will continue to reach the intended destination even if the primary topic changes in the future. It's also a {{R from move}} and {{R with old history}} dating to 2004 each of which would also be reasons keep on their own. Thryduulf (talk) 20:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per others. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since there are other Idos and the searcher may add the "(language)" part to clarify. {{3125A|talk}} 22:40, 22 June 2020 (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.

Hecate (Dune)

Hecate isn't mentioned at the target. Is there a better Dune article? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The character appears in Dune: The Machine Crusade but is not mentioned in that article either. The simplest solution is to add a phrase mentioning the Titans' names to Organizations of the Dune universe#Titans. The alternative is to change the redirect to List of technology in the Dune universe#Cymek, where they are already listed. However this also would require that all the related redirects are updated as well: Agamemnon (Dune), Ajax (Dune), Barbarossa (Dune), Dante (Dune), Juno (Dune), Tlaloc (Dune) and Xerxes (Dune).— TAnthonyTalk 13:26, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing any more participation here, so I've boldly added the names to Organizations of the Dune universe#Titans. Thanks.— TAnthonyTalk 14:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Focus FM (Ghana)

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 20:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note This was the outcome of an AFD just last month. The station's operations are on the university campus and the university is a partial stakeholder. Raymie (t • c) 23:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 06:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It could've been relisted in the first place instead of concluding to delete it since the first nominator and I were the only ones who voted. I voted for a redirect in the AfD. Anyway, my search indicates that Focus FM is a campus radio station of KNUST. Hence, the redirect. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 08:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that if it isn't mentioned at the target, someone searching for this term is not going to find anything useful. It's not clear to me whether mentioning Focus FM is due for the target article. signed, Rosguill talk 22:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can create a segment about the station in the target article. A segment in a magazine talks about the station. Kojo Akoto Boateng, NY DJ and Lexis Bill are among the personalities who had their stints at the station. This article even mentions some of the station's programs. Therefore, the redirect deserves to be kept, IMO. I have explained more than enough. And I won't reply from hereon. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 16:26, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not mentioned in the target, therefore a reader will find no useful information there. No prejudice against keeping if someone actually gets round to adding a sourced mention to the target. Narky Blert (talk) 22:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ambush Commander~enwiki/Mover

WP:XNR. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 06:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep redirects from user subpages into other namespaces are almost always harmless and I see no evidence that this is any different. Thryduulf (talk) 07:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Romanica

Not mentioned on the article. Retarget to Pan-Romance language. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 06:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interlingvo

WP:FORRED. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 06:21, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ایدو

Retarget to Ido (disambiguation). Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 06:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IDO (disambiguation)

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 to Ido (disambiguation). Very clear consensus. Adding Narky's rcats to the redirect. (non-admin closure) Hog Farm (talk) 21:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Ido (disambiguation). Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 06:18, 22 June 2020 (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.

Ido (language)

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 withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 06:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Ido language. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 06:17, 22 June 2020 (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.

Ido alphabet

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 withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 06:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Ido language#Alphabet Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 06:15, 22 June 2020 (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.

Ido de Esperanto

Retarget to Esperantido, as there are several notable idoj of Esperanto. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 06:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ایدو

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 withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 06:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FORRED!? Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 06:12, 22 June 2020 (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.

Espéranto

WP:FORRED by a WP:VANISHED user. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 06:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep, this is French for Esperanto and the Esperanto article does suggest that there is significant association between French/France and this language. It's also plausible for someone unfamiliar with Esperanto orthography to see this in a French context and assume that the accented spelling is the native one. Thryduulf (talk) 20:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic cleansing in Chechnya

This redirect is the result of attempts to make an article heavily biased toward the Russian state POV more neutral. The article was moved to Anti-Russian violence in Chechnya (1991–1994) and in hindsight it was a mistake to leave behind the redirect, as it continues to perpetrate the narrative that only Russians have only ever been the victims of ethnic cleansing in Chechnya (the article was later turned into a redirect to the current target, and the redirect at issue was de-doubled by a bot). While there are several possible examples of ethnically motivated violence (the region has experienced a lot of wars), the state of the constant POV pushing on this topic means that as far as I can tell there are currently no articles on Wikipedia that document more than one at a time. I think that the redirect should be a red link until someone is brave enough to write a neutral article on this topic. signed, Rosguill talk 01:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question would a dab page be feasible? Thryduulf (talk) 12:33, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If we could get a subject matter expert, maybe, but the best I could do personally would just be to redirect to Chechen War, which lists every conflict that occurred in Chechnya and/or involved Chechens. That feels too broad, and not better than deletion IMO. signed, Rosguill talk 00:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Deportation of the Chechens and Ingush? --3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pandakekok9 (talk) 02:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3E1I5S8B9RF7, the problem with that solution is that it ignores the existence of the Russian narrative; Google Scholar search results are about 50/50 for articles about the Soviet deportations and the Chechen Wars of the 90s. signed, Rosguill talk 19:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, also what do the Chechen wars have to do with ethnic cleansing at all? {{3125A|talk}} 00:24, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In that case, delete until further notice. --3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 08:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Homonymic

Any reason to point to the disambiguation page and not just to homonym? 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 00:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • To answer the nominator, yes – by virtue of being an {{R from move}}. No opinion on the targeting of this redirect however, just pointing it out. — J947 [cont] 01:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Perhaps a more pertinent question is why Homonym (disambiguation) exists at all. See WP:ONEOTHER. Narky Blert (talk) 04:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Homonym. I've PRODded the disambiguation page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Homonym It's pretty obvious that the user will know what they want to read. A hatnote is placed at the top of the page so no need for a disambiguation. {{3125A|talk}} 00:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_June_22&oldid=964461636"