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 delete. LizRead!Talk! 02:18, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Never mentioned on target page, nor any similar (that I found). No help to navigation and no worthwhile target. Richhoncho (talk) 23:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-charting single from 1989 lacking notability, to the extent where it's not even mentioned in the main article as having some sort of impact for the musical group. Unclear why the redirect was made within the last few months. I'd somewhat support changing the redirect to the discography page if kept, but I question why we need it if it has few (one) incoming links and whether it's an open door to creating redirects to all minor singles going to discography pages. Grk1011 (talk) 15:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nom.. If I had seen the song mentioned in the discography, I would have repointed and not listed here. OTOH, now listed, I am happy for the comments of the wider community to continue to take precedence.--Richhoncho (talk) 16:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with Grk1011, I don't believe this even warrants retargeting given the minor nature of the song and the potential then as justification to create new redirects for other minor songs. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:18, 1 March 2022 (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.
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 disambiguate. As to Amitchell's initial concern, CX Zoom has explained how to avoid that issue. (non-admin closure)-- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 19:18, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article Бульвар Гордона in the Russian Wikipedia is about the Ukrainian newspaper, the name translates to Gordon Boulevard (see here). This means when I attempt to use Template:Interlanguage link to link the newspaper, I can't, because of the current redirect. !! :) Amitchell125 (talk) 20:29, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You can simply use the following format {{ill|<!--English article title here-->|text=Gordon Boulevard|ru|Бульвар Гордона|uk|Бульвар Гордона}} which gives Gordon Boulevard (newspaper) [ru; uk]. (Note that I used Gordon Boulevard (newspaper) in place of the English title in the example.)---CX Zoom(he/him)(let's talk|contribs) 07:13, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Inability to use a template probably does not warrant deletion of a redirect. Now that our ability to use {{ill}} isn't hindered either, it's best to keep the redirect. May add a hatnote on top of the Virginia State Route 123 article. ---CX Zoom(he/him)(let's talk|contribs) 07:13, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jay: wouldn't that technically qualify for WP:G14, as the newspaper is does not have an extant Wikipedia page? Unless foreign-language WPs also count for that, which should be clarified. eviolite(talk) 00:44, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The bit in the template documentation against using {{ill}} in hatnotes appears to have been added without much discussion, and it supposedly rests on the guidelines of WP:REDHAT, whose advice against red links in hatnotes isn't relevant because the template also adds at least one navigable blue link. Still, hatnotes with interwiki links would look a bit cluttered and possibly confusing to some, so it may be a good idea to avoid them if there's any alternative option. As for the proposed disambiguation page, it won't be eligible for speedy deletion: for a page whose title ends in "(disambiguation)", WP:G14 is meant to apply only if the page simply links back to the primary article. Still, the current wording of G14 leaves room for ambiguity, and it is the case that even more obviously substantial dab pages are still likely to get tagged and then deleted (though this is down to the fact that most of the editors placing the tags, and many of those actioning them, don't seem to care much about the niceties of what the guidelines say). In my view, both the proposed hatnote and dab page are acceptable solutions, but both will likely lead to controversy, so it will overall be less trouble to avoid opening this can of worms altogether and either create a stub article for the other topic, or – as happens to be possible in this case – create the dab page at the base title. – Uanfala (talk) 20:14, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Go with Uanfala's drafted DAB at the redirect. Jay(talk) 07:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate. This obscure 30km-long section of a highway doesn't seem like a primary topic over the newspaper. I've drafted a dab page below the redirect, per WP:TWODABS. A third entry can also eventually be added for what seems like a prominent street with this name in Spanish Town (but there doesn't seem to be any content about it yet on Wikipedia). – Uanfala (talk) 20:14, 6 March 2022 (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.
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 disambiguate. I will restore the DAB from 2015 that Mdewman mentioned, and clean it up to accommodate the points made here. (non-admin closure)-- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 06:20, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, having done this, and having cleaned up all 30+ backlinks (most of which, for what it worth, intended physical attractiveness, not interpersonal attraction), I realize that Attraction dabs this better than can be done at a dab for an adjective. Since there was no consensus regarding how to dab these terms, just that they should be dabbed, I will redirect both pages there. I will add Attractive nuisance doctrine, the only "Attractive" page that doesn't fit as an "attraction" one, under "See also". -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 07:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirected to interpersonal attraction in 2015, but there's also physical attractiveness (e.g. the physical part of interpresonal attraction, often shortened to just "attraction") plus the physics definition. There is currently no hatnote at the destination, so if we don't retarget we at minimum need to add that. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 06:31, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteAttractive. There are no links and I would consider this an ordinary word that should not be redirected. KeepAttractiveness that has 90 links, the vast majority of which seem to correctly mean Interpersonal attraction. Some mean the more generic "beneficial", so these should be unlinked and others possibly retargeted. Will mention this at WP:BPAT. MB 17:14, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dabify, or merge into existing dab Attract or Attraction. I diverted 27 incoming links to Physical attractiveness, many of which are piped as "eye candy" or similar. I've unlinked 24; again, many were piped to "eye candy" but refer to objects such as GUI elements. I made miscellaneous changes to seven, leaving 49 links for which Interpersonal attraction seems appropriate. Sexual attractiveness might also be a good target for some changed or remaining links. Certes (talk) 18:40, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Same preference as Certes. Both redirects have a fair number of views, so someone's using them. There are multiple options (interpersonal,sexual and physical, as well as the physics meaning, at a minimum), multiple of which are used in links and which are feasible for someone to expect (to the point of WP:SURPRISE). There are also too many to have all of them comfortably in hatnotes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xurizuri (talk • contribs) 01:52, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay(talk) 18:44, 26 February 2022 (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.
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 retarget to Kyiv offensive. This is part of a three-way close of
I will be copy-pasting the same close rationale to all three.
The key question here is whether "Kyiv" vs. "Kiev" is sufficient disambiguation on its own under WP:SMALLDETAILS. At the Kiev Offensive RM, Mhawk10 and Mlb96 make the case that they are, but at the Kyiv offensive RM, no one seems to contest CentreLeftRight and HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith's argument that the distinction is obscure to most users and that the transliteration "Kiev" remains in widespread use; Walrasiad and Eduardog3000 make similar points at the Kiev Offensive RM. Thus I find consensus that Kiev/Kyiv is insufficient disambiguation on its own.
The outcomes of these three discussions follow easily enough from this:
There was no discussion of what to do with the resulting redirect at Kiev Offensive, but since the consensus to move was based on the premise that the term is ambiguous, I will retarget it to the DAB at Kyiv offensive, without prejudice against an RfD to review that decision.
There may appear to be an inconsistency in capitalization here, but it represents the consensuses at both RMs, and to me appears justified based on the fact that one is a descriptive title and one a proper name. (non-admin closure)-- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 05:36, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as the 1920s offensive is generally referred to as the "Kiev Offensive", and the use of "Kyiv" to refer to the city is unambiguously recent, it may be best to retarget this to Kyiv Offensive (2022), or to allow the 2022 offensive to usurp the redirect. — Mhawk10 (talk) 16:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Kyiv Offensive (2022) and hatnote the current target from there. Although the redirect was created in 2020 as part of the change of name per the KyivNotKiev campaign, what most readers would be searching and looking for will be the 2022 conflict. Jay(talk) 17:19, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to the lowercase dab and start a separate RM for Kyiv offensive (2022) → Kyiv offensive. The current RM is sidetracked because of the capitalization difference. Jay(talk) 08:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Start requested move. The current offensive may very well be the new primary topic, but that should be decided via a requested move discussion to consider movingKyiv Offensive (2022) to the base name without parenthetical disambiguation. The base term "Kyiv Offensive" cannot be a redirect to Kyiv Offensive (2022), it must either be a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT as it is currently, host the article about the primary topic, or host a disambiguation page. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've opened an RM per above. — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jay and Mdewman6: given the open move discussion, should this be procedurally closed? — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:41, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with this being closed early.Mdewman6 (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, it was boldly moved to the lowercase form shortly before the RM suggested above began, hence the confusion. And the dab page at Kyiv offensive was just created by BilledMammal prior to his comment here. Mdewman6 (talk) 07:33, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to the former disambig page (as per BilledMammal). Failing that, this should refer to the current offensive. As mentioned, Kyiv is a recent spelling in the English-speaking world. —AFreshStart (talk) 11:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate: Both offensives should be at (1920) and (2022) to avoid confusion, and all variants of KO spellings should be a disambig or target one. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:09, 3 March 2022 (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.
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 delete. As an unopposed deletion nomination. Jay(talk) 21:29, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actor that has portrayed 29 different on-screen roles, so redirecting it to one project with no further information on the subject isn't beneficial for the reader. There is scope for an article one day, but it does not work as a redirect. – DarkGlow • 15:31, 26 February 2022 (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.
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 too soon. There appears to be no appetite to reconsider the last RfD at this time. Per WP:RENOM, feel free to refile in a month or two. (non-admin closure)-- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 05:11, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hong Kong is never independent through its history, all the monarchs mentioned above never refer themselves as Emperor/King/Queen of Hong Kong, and the search results of the term "monarchy of Hong Kong" in google are so less and only about Wikipedia[1]. Thus the term "monarchy of Hong Kong" is original research, and the thing that refer the monarchy of Hong Kong to the British monarchy is confusing and makes no sense.--Joker Twins (talk) 15:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. These exact arguments were presented earlier this month and failed to achieve consensus. What is different this time? Thryduulf (talk) 16:10, 28 February 2022 (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.
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.
I'm not sure the disambiguation page (as it now stands) is the right target. The article Tainan explains that in the Qing dynasty the title Taiwanfu was transferred from Tainan to ToatunShhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have just removed all three meanings of Taiwanfu (city, river, Qing dynasty province) from the disambiguation page. Either add them back or make a separate disambiguation page. —Kusma (talk) 13:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Taiwan Prefecture (to match Taiwan-fu) and hatnote for Zengwen River. Can also hatnote for Tainan and Taichung, though I think the potential confusion between the prefecture and the former name of either of its capitals is better handled by adding a sentence in the lede paragraph itself. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 01:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Build a new disambiguation page from the removed entries, and interlink the two disambiguation pages through the see also -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 18:59, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have attempted a disambig draft at the redirect, and bundled Taiwan-fu in the current discussion. Jay(talk) 22:20, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate as drafted and retargetTaiwan-fu to the disambiguation page. feminist🇺🇦 (talk) 14:31, 6 March 2022 (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.
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. Under G7 as Samatics, the creator of the redirect and target article, !voted delete. (non-admin closure)eviolite(talk) 19:58, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dot at the end of the name makes no sense Rfassbind– talk 11:47, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete @ Rfassbind, dot was a mistake made when creating the page. Thanks.--Samatics (talk) 11:59, 26 February 2022 (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.
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 delete. LizRead!Talk! 06:30, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A long-standing (2004) redirect, but Callao isn't in Chile, and I don't believe it ever was. It was occupied by Chile during the War of the Pacific, ended by the Treaty of Ancón, but I don't think you could really say Callao was part of Chile. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:31, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Incorrect, misleading, confusing, astonishing. There was one incoming link, which I have updated. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:50, 26 February 2022 (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.
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 delete. LizRead!Talk! 06:29, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It says it's {{R from misspelling}}, but I think it's very implausible, and may be just an insult to Yedioth Ahronoth. I also noticed on the creator's talk page that he has made some other odd redirects, to say the least. QuickQuokka[talk] 09:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless an explanation can be provided. These are obviously not misspellings of "Yedioth Ahronoth". —Mx. Granger (talk·contribs) 09:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mx. Granger: I may have a justification, but it is EXTREMELY far-fetched and implausible: Maybe if someone misheard Yediot Ahronot as HaIdiot Ahronot, which is unlikely because it translates to The latest ♀️p Idiot ♂️s. QuickQuokka[talk] 14:55, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So not so much a misspelling but more like a translation of an ungrammatical mishearing. Seems too far-fetched to merit a redirect. —Mx. Granger (talk·contribs) 15:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "The Last Idiot" is the title of a non-notable book by Kumar Kaustubh (I've not looked to see if they are notable) and google also finds a few other non-notable uses that mostly seem to relate to India in some way, and so may be related to the author (who is Indian and whose book is set in India) but seem unlikely to be connected to an Israeli newspaper. Most hits though are for a variety of partial title matches. Thryduulf (talk) 16:19, 28 February 2022 (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.
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 delete. signed, Rosguilltalk 01:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect was created less than 2 hours after deletion via this RfD by a voter who had opposed deletion. I am nominating it as a fresh RfD for Deletion as I was not sure if it could be tagged as a WP:G4 (as the target is now different). The current target was brought up at the previous RfD, but there ware no opinions about it, and the redirect was deleted irrespective of the merits of the current target. Jay(talk) 07:38, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Two of the delete votes at the earlier RfD were to facilitate uninhibited search results, and three (including the nomination) were because of no mention at the then target Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German. The closer Explicit can add the deletion rationale at that RfD (and here as well). Jay(talk) 07:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per the updated closure comment at the previous RfD, it was deleted for both reasons, and because there was no justification for a retarget. Jay(talk) 04:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sellers wrote "Blue Skies Again". --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have supplied a deletion rationale to my closure at the original RFD per Jay's request. ✗plicit 01:15, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous consensus. This redirect shouldn't have been re-created when the proposed targeting was rejected so recently. - Eureka Lott 23:35, 4 March 2022 (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.
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 retarget to Desire. Jay(talk) 15:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I forget now what the context was that prompted this redirect - it was quite some time ago. It seems quite reasonable to add an explanatory note as above - which would make it a disambiguity page. --Michael Goodyear✐ ✉ 18:11, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 06:44, 26 February 2022 (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.
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 the first and retarget the second. So both redirects now target the same article. (non-admin closure)CycloneYoristalk! 09:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With the previous RfD for Tectonic Plates being closed today as no consensus, I think it is worth trying again by considering both the uppercase and lowercase forms together so we can reach consensus on a target. Tectonic Plates has been targeting Plate tectonics since 2009, but Plate tectonics has been retargeted 3 times since 2017. Personally I favor targeting the list because use of the plural suggest users would be more interested in a list of specific plates rather than the general topic, but I would be fine with either target so long as they both target the same place. Note that the singular forms Tectonic Plate and Tectonic plate both target Plate tectonics, which seems appropriate and I have not included them here. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:41, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Both to List of tectonic plates. It seems more likely that they do have the actual plates in mind rather than the science behind their motion. Largoplazo (talk) 02:24, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Plate tectonics to match the singular. The most important thing, though, is that the two redirects should have the same target. To the closer: even if there isn't consensus for one target or the other, one of the redirects should still be retargeted to avoid the current mismatched situation. —Mx. Granger (talk·contribs) 09:23, 27 February 2022 (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.
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 disambiguate. Disambiguation is tied for a numerical plurality, and the strength of the keep and retarget arguments somewhat cancels out, showing that there are multiple things a reader might plausibly be searching for if they enter this term, without much reason to think that one meaning should be primary over the other. As such, I see rough consensus to disambiguate. (non-admin closure)-- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 05:25, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think this should point at Territorial evolution of Russia, as this target covers the full expanse of "Russian land". My understanding is that the prior targeting is based on the etymological origin of Ruthenia as "Land of the Rus", but that is not equivalent to "Russian land" (see Names of Rus', Russia and Ruthenia for the history of these terms), nor is the latter phrase mentioned at the target, and the equation of "Russian land" with Ruthenia is arguably in line with fringe Russian irredentist POVs. Ruthenia is briefly mentioned at the target I am suggesting, so anyone that is indeed looking for Ruthenia will still find their way to what they are looking for. signed, Rosguilltalk 16:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, User:Rosguill, Russian land has nothing to do with Russia, this is a confusion. 'Russian land' (Руська земля) means the same as Rus' (region) which is synonyms with Ruthenia. And Ruthenia is not mentioned at the target you are suggesting, Carpathian Ruthenia is, but Carpathian Ruthenia is only small part of Ruthenia. Other parts are Ukraine and Belarus. There is no consensus between scolars whether to include Russia in Ruthenia (Russian land), although most of them include it too. --Heanor (talk) 16:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Surveying English academic texts does not support your translation/interpretation: this text uses "Russian Land" to refer to territory in the Urals, this text uses the term to refer to Muscovy, and the majority of the results use the term to talk about "Russian land reform", "Russian land acquisition", "Russian Land Commune" etc. (i.e. things to do with the land of the Russian Empire or Federation). A more fluent and contemporary translation of Руська земля would be Rus'ian land, as in [2], [3], [4]. signed, Rosguilltalk 17:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As for whether the target includes a link to content about the Rus' and Ruthenia, there's also this line in the first section: For the history of Rus' and Moscovy before 1547 (see Kievan Rus' and Grand Duchy of Moscow).signed, Rosguilltalk 17:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree with you that Rus'ian land is a more fluent and better term, but the difference with 'Russian land' is so small that I propose to mark it a {{R avoided double redirect}} of Rus'ian land. --Heanor (talk) 17:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that given the basic semantic meaning of the term "Russian land", readers could potentially search that trying to learn about Russia itself, and even peer-reviewed publications use the phrase that way, per my evidence above. I think that pointing to Territorial evolution of Russia and adding a hatnote at the top pointing to Ruthenia and Names of Rus', Russia and Ruthenia would be the most effective way to ensure that everybody finds what they're looking for. signed, Rosguilltalk 17:27, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is a very good point. But this is a proper name and the current redirect represents our best article representing the subject. Russia is prominently linked and discussed in the target article. Maybe it needs a hat note? —MichaelZ. 16:42, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep“Russian Land” is a dated or POV translation of Ru. russkaia zemlia, Uk. rusʼka zemlia, OES rusĭskaiȩ zemliȩ, more precisely rendered as Rus Land. In the Kyivan Rus period it was considered to be the lands around Kyiv, Chernihiv, and Pereiaslav, or sometimes more broadly as all of Kyivan Rus. This is not controversial: here’s a map based on three historians’ estimates: w:ru:Насонов, Арсений Николаевич, Boris Rybakov, and Petro Tolochko). Starting from the Muscovy period the term came to be used in Moscow to refer to its lands. Perhaps this proper name should be moved to capitalized Russian Land. —MichaelZ. 00:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if starting a stub article Rus Land already might be less work and more productive than concluding this discussion? —MichaelZ. 16:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate between historical and contemporary uses. (ie. territorial evolution of Grand Muscovy, and the land of the Kievan Rus) -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 06:07, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay(talk) 18:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate, the term is generic enough that readers may not be looking for this very specific meaning. CMD (talk) 10:03, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, eviolite(talk) 00:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate as per above. Veverve (talk) 10:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the expression was recently used by Patriarch Kirill of Moscow to refer to the Kievan Rus': "May the Lord protect the Russian land. When I say 'Russian,' I use an ancient expression from the 'Tale of Bygone Years' - 'Where did the Russian land come from?' The land, which now includes Russia, and Ukraine, and Belarus, and other tribes and peoples. So that the Lord preserves the Russian land from external enemies, from internal discord, so that the unity of our Church is strengthened." (English source, Russian original).
To me, this support the need for DAB. Veverve (talk) 09:51, 3 March 2022 (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.
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 5#Warp Zone (Wii)
