Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 26[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 26, 2023.

British NVC Community M23 Juncus subnodulosus-Cirsium palustre fen-meadow[edit]

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:36, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Detele. Confuses British NVC community M23 (Juncus effusus/acutiflorus - Galium palustre rush-pasture) and British NVC community M22 (Juncus subnodulosus - Cirsium palustre fen-meadow). —Ketil Trout (<><!) 22:32, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Job loss[edit]

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. With thanks to Edward-Woodrow and Mdewman6. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:55, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not exclusive to target, and not necessarily synonymous with the target either since the target could represent lack of job availability when such an availability was never there, and thus "loss" does not apply. This phrase can be synonymous with the subjects at Layoff or Dismissal (employment). Steel1943 (talk) 20:51, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate as vague. I'll work on a draft below the rfd tag. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 20:53, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I can appreciate that, but since this is also not an actual alternative name for either of the topics I just mentioned, but rather a phrase which may describe them, a disambiguation page technically does not seem to be the correct solution. There may be some sort of WP:BROADCONCEPT rationale here, but otherwise, it may be best to use search results in the event there may be another subject readers are looking for. Steel1943 (talk) 20:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate with Unemployment, Termination of employment and Dismissal (employment). Sincerely, Key of G Minor. Tools: (talk, contribs) 22:54, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate with draft dab. Could refer to loss of an individual's job, or losses of jobs from the market, i.e. unemployment. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Mancession[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 3#Mancession

Male unemployment[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 4#Male unemployment

Disoccupation[edit]

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. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:53, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target's subject unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 20:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Out of work[edit]

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. Jay 💬 13:58, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target article, not synonymous, and ambiguous. Did someone run out of work to do? Did an employed individual leave work for the day? Etc.? This redirect is too vague to be helpful. Steel1943 (talk) 20:26, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added text in italics. Steel1943 (talk) 21:26, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure I see the problem here. Out of work is used to say one is unemployed. An alternate meaning is to have nothing to do, but I think the unemployment meaning trumps the latter in the battle of WP:PTOPIC; see below.
    Dictionaries that had just unemployed: Cambridge, Merriam-Webster, Collins.
    Dictionaries that placed unemployed first: Dictionary.com, Wiktionary)
    Dictionaries that placed having nothing to do first: I found none.
    So keep. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 21:24, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Edward. Sincerely, Key of G Minor. Tools: (talk, contribs) 22:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Still no mention in the target article. Without a clear connection discussed in the article, this connect cannot be assumed due to possible ambiguity. (I can't see a place to put it in the article, and still some see how confusion is not possible.) Steel1943 (talk) 23:01, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think there needs to be mention in the target article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, so we don't need to list every synonym at every article. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 16:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Edward. Though I do understand the nom's concerns, and how this redirect can be viewed as vague by some readers. CycloneYoris talk! 01:08, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Judging that I've heard this phrase fairly frequently, and that the search results are chiefly British, I'm fairly confident this is an ENGVAR thing. The primary topic for the term, I think – probably most likely to be searched up by someone like the nom who finds the expression and doesn't know what it means. J947 † edits 03:25, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Employment creation[edit]

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 Unemployment#Remedies. (non-admin closure) J947 † edits 03:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is odd, and probably unhelpful, since it seems like an unhelpful antonym. (This redirect previously targeted Job creation program, which itself is now a redirect.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Work relief program[edit]

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 Unemployment#Remedies. (non-admin closure) J947 † edits 03:18, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target article, leaving at unclear what the connection is between the redirect and the target's subject. (The redirect formerly targeted Job creation program, which is now a redirect towards Unemployment#Remedies, which is a section of the nominated redirect's target article.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:01, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

"Transitional work" and "Transitional job(s)"[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 3#"Transitional work" and "Transitional job(s)"

Leave entitlement[edit]

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:35, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target article, leaving it unclear what this redirect is meant to refer. Without context, one could argue that the redirect is incorrect since the target subject is not an entitlement. Steel1943 (talk) 19:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Personal leave[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 4#Personal leave

Strich[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 4#Strich

Peter Benjamin[edit]

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. ✗plicit 23:34, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any proof that this is his pen name? Also the target doesn't have the word "Benjamin" anywhere. ErceÇamurOfficial (talk) 10:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • It used to be mentioned in the article, but was removed, apparently at the subject's request. The sources given were [3] and his website. – Joe (talk) 12:38, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: so the redirect serves no function if he is not known under that name. ww2censor (talk) 10:54, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    the word used to be in the target, but we don't need it for now, or anymore. ErceÇamurOfficial (talk) 17:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The edits of Annemariescully to the target (this user's only edits to Wikipedia) should probably be reverted as article subjects don't determine what content is in Wikipedia articles. This pen name appears to satisfy WP:V. A7V2 (talk) 02:38, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really, see WP:BLPPRIVACY. Subjects do have a say regarding their personal information on enwiki, unless there is wide coverage already, in which case Wikipedia simply reflects the coverage there is. Jay 💬 12:59, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Joe. ErceÇamurOfficial (talk) 21:14, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Adria (region)[edit]

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 without prejudice to recreation if a DUE mention can be added somewhere; thus far attempts to do so have not been successful. signed, Rosguill talk 21:19, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Adria (region)" isn't a synonym for "Western Balkans". The Adria region encompasses a broader set of countries. — GeographieMan[~MSG~] 19:54, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A fact that is adressed in the section it redirects to ImStevan (talk) 20:24, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, WAS adressed until you reverted the edits, despite knowing it would tip the discussion into your favour ImStevan (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ImStevan:
  • Western Balkans encompass Bosnia, Serbia, Kosovo, Montenegro, Albania, and North Macedonia (source)
  • I only found one source mentioning "Adria region" online from 2015 (here) where it isn't exactly clear what the term is even supposed to mean but nevertheless seems to encompass Slovenia, Croatia, (then) Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Albania, Bosnia and Kosovo.
— GeographieMan[~MSG~] 21:29, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can also look at the usage of the word Adria in bussiness, such as countries covered by Vogue Adria, (former) MTV Adria, X Factor Adria, Bloomberg Adria, WWF Adria or any organization or company that sets up hubs for the entire Western Balkans instead of individual countries.
Quote by WWF Adria:[1]

As a name, Adria is something new that comes to replace the name Western Balkans, which has become very politicised. Adria encompasses the area of former Yugoslavia plus Albania. It contains parts of not one region, but three: the Alps, the Danube-Carpathians and the Mediterranean. WWF Adria participates in all three programmes.

ImStevan (talk) 21:56, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ImStevan: The quote is completely illogical. At the beginning it states that the term has come to replace the name "Western Balkans" but then continues with "Adria encompasses the area of former Yugoslavia plus Albania" which would imply that Western Balkans = all ex-Yugoslavia states + Albania which just isn't true. Slovenia and Croatia weren't ever placed in the "Western Balkans".
Clearly, the terms aren't interchangeable. As I said in my first response the term Adria seems to, besides the Western Balkans, encompass also Slovenia and Croatia. — GeographieMan[~MSG~] 08:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: your claims are entirely based on primary sources which is not advised. — GeographieMan[~MSG~] 08:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, for any explanation in an article, we need secondary sources that discuss the use of the term, rather than primary sources that use it. The WMF source is doing the former, which is good (although it's an interview, so not really a secondary source), but really we'd need more such sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:58, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cordless Larry and GeographieMan: Would you suggest creating a new section of the article to adress the Adria region and then redirecting to there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImStevan (talk • contribs)
I don't believe the term has anything to do with the Balkans per se. It has probably a lot more to do with the Adriatic so it might be better to add it there. — GeographieMan[~MSG~] 11:01, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But first we need reliable secondary sources. — GeographieMan[~MSG~] 11:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GeographieMan: I've not been able to find a single usage of the word "Adria" related to Italy in this context, while all the aftermentioned companies that stick Adria in their names do bussiness in Western Balkan countries.
Bloomberg Adria: Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia, North Macedonia
WWF Adria: Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia, North Macedonia, Montenegro, Kosovo, Albania
X Factor Adria: Serbia, Bosnia, FYR Macedonia, Montenegro
Vogue Adria: Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia, Montenegro
MTV Adria: Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia, North Macedonia, Montenegro, Kosovo
It has nothing to do with the Adriatic sea other than taking the name and the European Commision itself describes it as a "bussiness" term for Western Balkans,[2] much like what WWF said. The news site "Blic" lays out that the Adria region consists of Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia, North Macedonia and Montenegro.[3] Forest Stewardship Council even connects the terms by calling the region "Adria-Balkan" region for the 6 (recognized) countries of ex-Yugoslavia. United Media uses the term to describe ex-Yugoslavia bar North Macedonia.[4] Lex Adria (primary?) even includes Bulgaria in its bussiness coverage. There is a clear connection between the (Western) Balkans and Adria despite there being disagreement on which countries count when you say Adria as it has no clear definition, but is used as an umbrella term to say "we operate in the (Western) Balkans". Including it in the article is absolutely justified. ImStevan (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first source wasn't published by the EU but rather Ipsos and the document seems to me to be a PowerPoint presentation. It includes all kinds of subjective info such as listing weird positives/negatives of the Adria region: "Positive: • Tennis, basketball, football, water ball, handball, … • Adriatic sea,….." All in all not a very good source. Forest Stewardship Council does indeed use the term "Adria-Balkan region" but it doesn't offer any explanation of the naming. It might be just that Slovenia and Croatia are in the Adria region but not in the Western Balkans so instead of calling it just "Balkan region" it uses "Adria-Balkan region" to include Slovenia and Croatia. But then again it exludes Albania and Kosovo (which are members of the Western Balkans) so not very useful. The third (broadbandtv) source doesn't mention anything that you pointed out. Lex Adria as you said includes Bulgaria (a non Western Balkans member) and also excludes Kosovo (a Western Balkans member).

The only source that could be useful is the Blic one.

"/../ but is used as an umbrella term to say "we operate in the (Western) Balkans." Source? And also even if the term was talking about the Western Balkans why would then Slovenia and Croatia be included in it? Western Balkans were always Bosnia, Serbia, Kosovo, Montenegro, Albania, and North Macedonia.

And yes, it seems that the term has no clear definition. That being said it doesn't make sense making a redirect of it to the Western Balkans or anywhere else if we don't even know which countries are included. Additionaly if Slovenia and Croatia are included a redirect to "Western Balkans" comes out of the question. — GeographieMan[~MSG~] 16:03, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
""/../ but is used as an umbrella term to say "we operate in the (Western) Balkans." Source?" Is it not paintfully obvious while looking at the various usages and sources I mentioned? broadbandtv states "United Media has signed a licencing agreement to launch Forbes editions in Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, Montenegro and Bosnia & Herzegovina across multiple platforms including digital, audiovisual services, conferences and events." so idk what you're on about there. And what you pointed out at the very end only shows that it should be its own section in the article, rather than pointing towards Western Balkans ImStevan (talk) 19:47, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No it is not "painfully obvious". And saying that would be considered original research. We need reliable secondary sources that state that. — GeographieMan[~MSG~] 07:44, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had added another source to the relevant paragraph, surprisingly not addressed afterwards in this RfD nomination:[5] Geographically and politically, the Adria region includes the area of the Western Balkans, i.e., Albania (ALB), Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH), Croatia (HRV), Montenegro (MNE), North Macedonia (MKD), and Serbia (SRB). @User:Cordless Larry: please explain how is this a primary source? –Vipz (talk) 15:35, 25 June 2023 (UTC) @GeographieMan, @ImStevan[reply]
Where did I say that it's a primary source? I don't think I've seen it before. As it happens though, I don't think it's a great secondary source - it doesn't survey use of the term in other sources, for instance. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cordless Larry: I think you did here: Special:Diff/1160869513. It doesn't survey use of the term in other sources, but it defines the geopolitical scope of "Adria region" and directly links it to "Western Balkans". Regarding other contested sources such as WWF Adria (which also links it to Western Balkans and provides an explanation for usage), I don't see how is it a "primary source" for the concept of Adria region, because they [their regional section] are only named after the term which already existed. Blic also defines its geographical scope. There is a general consensus among sources found so far, although scarce, that Adria region corresponds to Western Balkans, and both either include or exclude Slovenia (and importantly, include Croatia). I've seen some "Adria region" (incl. in native languages of the region) mentions on Google Books but the access to these works is restricted and search excerpts do not produce anything useful. There may be more about it in such literature, but the thing is, it exists and is linked to Western Balkans. –Vipz (talk) 18:33, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I presumed you were referring to discussion here; so I have seen the source before. The problem with its use in the edit I reverted is that it doesn't support the statement "This region is sometimes referred to as the 'Adria region', which includes all countries of the former Yugoslavia plus Albania..." but is rather an example of such use. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:43, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not to debate semantics, but I positioned relevant references after parts of the sentence they are supposed to back up. The part you quote was backed up by WWF Adria source. –Vipz (talk) 20:04, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's still just an example of that use, not a statement about frequency of use. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:22, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cordless Larry: it would seem to me it is an issue of wording then, frequency of use (i.e. "sometimes") can be excluded until it is backed up with RS. Do you think Adria should not be included in the article at all instead? (please ping me in each reply so I don't have to check for new replies manually, thanks) –Vipz (talk) 20:43, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it should be included on the basis of a handful of examples of its use, but rather only if secondary sources about use of the term are found. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/?255690/Adria%2DA%2Dworld%2Dundiscovered
  2. ^ https://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/db_indicators/surveys/documents/workshops/2015/s2d1p8_-_crt_dumicic_-_eu_cbs_in_adria_region_ppt.pdf
  3. ^ https://www.blic.rs/vesti/ekonomija/unikredit-najveca-bankarska-grupa-u-adria-regionu/ldrmhkr
  4. ^ https://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2022/11/28/kresimir-duic-joins-spi-international/
  5. ^ Borojević Šoštarić, Sibila; Giannakopoulou, Stavroula; Adam, Katerina; Mileusnić, Marta (2022). "The future of mining in the Adria region: current status, SWOT and Gap analysis of the mineral sector". Geologia Croatica (75). Croatian Geological Society; Croatian Geological Survey: 317–334. doi:10.4154/gc.2022.26. Retrieved 19 June 2023.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 09:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as lacking in sufficient secondary sources demonstrating that this is an alternative name for the Western Balkans. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:48, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This recent redirect was created on 15th and came to RfD on 19th. It looks like we're not yet ready for it. It may be recreated once we have an article or section having the Adria region in its title. Jay 💬 14:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Racially motivated abuse of Native Americans in the United States[edit]

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 Racism in the United States#Native Americans. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 08:08, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Broad topic being redirected to a specific example. If this is felt to be a reasonable search term it should be retargeted somewhere more general. 192.76.8.65 (talk) 11:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Native American is not a racial classification, as the US Supreme Court just upheld just ruled 7-2 in Haaland vs. Brackeen. Additionally, it may be difficult to determine motivations. Yuchitown (talk) 15:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 09:34, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per Presidentman Sincerely, Key of G Minor. Tools: (talk, contribs) 22:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Twelve Tribes in Czech Republic[edit]

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 Twelve Tribes communities#Expansion. Due sourced mention appears to be sticking at the target, so the deletion rationale is mooted. signed, Rosguill talk 05:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Target article does not mention the Czech Republic or have any relevant content. 192.76.8.65 (talk) 09:51, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 09:34, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Refine to Twelve Tribes communities#Expansion. Two disparate mentions is annoying, and results in umming and ahhing inevitably. But this option edges out over keeping unrefined or refining to the other target, for me. Deleting is effectively akin to keeping without refining and inefficiently, given it is the first search result. J947 † edits 03:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine to Twelve Tribes communities#Expansion per Edward and J947, where a mention was added; thanks to Invasive Spices. CycloneYoris talk! 01:07, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Wikipedia:NCT[edit]

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 Wikipedia:Notability comparison test. The WordsmithTalk to me 21:50, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest dabifying this redirect. The shortcut utilizes the Wikipedia namespace shortcut, but its current target is a category. This shortcut is linked to a small number of pages:

Potential dab entries includes Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) (NCT), Wikipedia:Notability comparison test (NCT), and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite or indefinite article at beginning of name) (NCT, short for NCThe ✗plicit 01:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:04, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the talks of the current target, and suggested dab entry pages.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:38, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support DAB - I think you have a good point. Fieari (talk) 04:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabbify per nom. Current target is a bit astonishing. -- Visviva (talk) 04:38, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would first like to see a drafted dab with some amount of support. I do not find the definite article page (NCThe) as a suitable entry to represent NCT. The problem with television is, it's seen more as WP:NCTV, which is a good shortcut. Also, I find Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Tibetan) a better fit than the television page. If we end up with only one suitable entry (Wikipedia:Notability comparison test), then this will be a retarget, not a dab. Jay 💬 10:53, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Leaning towards the retarget per Tavix. Jay 💬 08:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support DAB per nom, seems odd indeed to redirect to a category, WP:XNR. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:40, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Notability comparison test. I have an extremely high bar to disambiguate shortcuts, because once disambiguated they cannot be used as such. I do agree with Jay's analysis, this is the only natural target suggested (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Tibetan) also fits but is too niche. WP:NC-T would be a good shortcut for it given WP:NC-TIBET). -- Tavix (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist due to the late retarget suggestion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 09:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per Tavix. NCTV and NCThe do not seem like likely targets to me, and NC-TIBET seems niche, while a XNR is just weird here without explanation or use. The only target left then is Wikipedia:Notability comparison test – editors can add hatnotes from there as they see fit. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 04:39, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Tamburo charleston[edit]

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. The WordsmithTalk to me 21:40, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No affinity to Italian, unless explained in the article. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 03:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a native Italian term, but musical terminology frequently uses Italian. Some musicians may coin new terms using Italian, even though they may neither be Italian, nor are the terms common (or used at all) by Italians. "Tamburo charleston" refers to a drum kit. I personally have never seen this term until tonight; I came across while revising an article about a work which utilized music by Dmitri Shostakovich. Apparently, "tamburo charleston" was often used by composers such as Shostakovich, Matvei Blanter, and Rodion Shchedrin, among others. For the latter two I have no citations, but for the Shostakovich it's in the list of instruments for the 2001 New Collected Works edition of the Suite for Variety Orchestra No. 1.[1] — CurryTime7-24 (talk) 04:10, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I don't understand the nomination statement, which does not refer to any ground for deletion that I am familiar with. I would lean slightly keep based on CurryTime7-24's helpful explanation, but it's not clear to me (as a musical ignoramus) whether this redirect-without-mention actually provides any value to the reader. If it does not, then it should be deleted. -- Visviva (talk) 03:48, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Visviva: AngusWOOF may be referring to WP:RFOREIGN by stating that the redirect term is Italian. Jay 💬 08:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! That does make sense. But if I'm understanding things correctly this isn't "really" an Italian phrase, but a (fairly rare) English-language technical musical term, so RFOREIGN wouldn't apply. -- Visviva (talk) 16:20, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's not defined anywhere on Wikipedia, and while it clearly is a (rare?) term of art, the available reference attested by CurryTime doesn't leave me confident that we've really narrowed down whether this means a specific kind of drum or drum kit vs drums more generally. `signed, Rosguill talk 00:49, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is definitely a term for a drum kit, specifically one outfitted with a high-hat. Again, this term was unfamiliar to me until May. That it is an exceptionally rare term (in English, at least) does not mean it doesn't exist. It does and is used in a composition by Dmitri Shostakovich, one of the most often-performed composers of the 20th century. The term appears in the score for the Suite for Variety Orchestra No. 1, which is one of his most popular works; André Rieu's recording of one of its movements became an international bestseller, made the sales charts in the Netherlands, and ended up being featured in the soundtrack for Eyes Wide Shut. The redirect should be kept, at least in order to save some other hapless Shostakovich enthusiast the trouble of having to do some serious digging as to just what exactly a "tamburo Charleston" is. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 07:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:00, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Rosguill, unless CurryTime7-24 would like to add information about it to some article. Jay 💬 06:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep and tag as {{R without mention}}. Eventually there will be information on it. Jay 💬 10:44, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Revisit if the French article is deleted as unsourced per Rosguill. Jay 💬 02:30, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just noting that I don't have any plan of nominating that article for deletion as I am entirely unfamiliar with their deletion procedures; the only cross-project deletion stuff I dare touch are hoaxes and spam. signed, Rosguill talk 05:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the term "Charleston" for the same is also listed among the instruments for Shostakovich's Orango.[2] There's also a French Wikipedia article for the term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CurryTime7-24 (talk • contribs) 08:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The French Wikipedia article is unsourced. I'm still not convinced that we've nailed down whether this term means "hi-hat", "drum kit w/ hi-hat", or something more idiosyncratic. That the current usage seems entirely limited to Shostakovich and adaptations of his work further raises concerns of neologism. signed, Rosguill talk 22:09, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Current usage is not limited to Shostakovich, although my examples are because his music is within my field of expertise. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:56, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to a lack of mention. If someone searches this term we need to be able to provide a definition of what it means. Otherwise this redirect will lead to confusion or disappointment, as demonstrated by Rosguill's query. -- Tavix (talk) 17:13, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Shostakovich, Dmitri; Atovmyan, Levon (2001). Yakubov, Manashir (ed.). Dmitri Shostakovich: New Collected Works. IInd Series: Orchestra Compositions. 33rd Volume: Suite for Variety Stage Orchestra. Moscow: DSCH Publishers. p. 6.
  2. ^ McBurney, Gerard (March 2023). "Shostakovich: Work List" (PDF). Boosey & Hawkes. p. 90. Retrieved June 17, 2023.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus; relist to clear day's log.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Yahoo! Inc.[edit]

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 Yahoo (disambiguation)#Companies. The WordsmithTalk to me 21:36, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retargeted from Yahoo (disambiguation) in March by @Rhain:. Either it should be changed back or Yahoo! Inc. (2017–present) should be moved to the undisambiguated title. Conifer (talk) 04:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:45, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Multiple suggested targets - the original target Yahoo! and the previous target Yahoo (disambiguation).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think the change of target after 17 years was for no reason. The new incarnation page of 2017–present was already created in 2017, and the change of target in 2021 was past due. And when it was retargeted (instead of a move), it was not opposed. Only in 2022, after an year, did CookieMonster755 try to change it back to Yahoo!, but only for a brief minute, before settling on the dab page. I agree with the nom that Rhain's retarget to the current incarnation has to be fixed. I would prefer the move from Yahoo! Inc. (2017–present) to Yahoo! Inc., but will leave that to WP:RM. For now revert target to Yahoo! per Visviva. Although it has a link to the parent company only in the Infobox, and not in the lead or body (unfortunately), it provides more specific disambiguation for the company, than Yahoo (disambiguation) does. Also note that Yahoo! Inc (without the dot) redirects to the dab, so if the outcome of this RfD is different from the dotless version, that may be changed accordingly. Jay 💬 10:54, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus and pseudo-procedural relist to clear the day's log.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:12, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Struck off in favour of the refined dab. Jay 💬 05:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Yahoo (disambiguation). With the way things are currently setup in terms of articles and titles, the most appropriate target for this ambiguous base name is a disambiguation page where it is disambiguated. Including the "inc." means the company, not the brand. For those seeking the brand, disambiguation is the way to go. If that proves unsatisfactory, then we're talking about WP:RM. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Yahoo (disambiguation). It's unambiguously ambiguous. So, if we're not up for choosing a primary use, then this title should point to the disambiguation page so that incoming links can be flagged as needing repair.—Ketil Trout (<><!) 06:19, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Yahoo (disambiguation)#Companies, which I just carved out from the existing "other uses" section and should address the issue of editors finding the dab page uninformative for this title. signed, Rosguill talk 04:58, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Yahoo (disambiguation)#Companies per Rosguill; this term is ambiguous enough that I think the DAB is the best target. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 01:05, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Yahoo! per Visviva. The question is whether a reader adding "Inc." as a search term is attempting pre-disambiguation (cf. Apple Inc.) or is aware of Yahoo's corporate history and is seeking a specific entity. The former still seems far more likely to me, and the odds that a reader isn't looking for either Yahoo! or a topic in its hatnote seem especially small. --BDD (talk) 22:10, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_June_26&oldid=1167129792"