Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 24

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. Legoktm (talk) 02:15, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Bombing of the Oklahoma City → Oklahoma City bombing  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. The use of the definite article makes this a highly unlikely search term. It does not appear that the city has ever been called "the Oklahoma City" as opposed to just Oklahoma City. An anonymous username, not my real name 20:39, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Seems like this is trying to be Bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building or the like, but just doesn't get to the end. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:49, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not a useful redirect. I don't think anyone refers to the incident this way. And Oklahoma City is never called "the Oklahoma City". -- MelanieN (talk) 17:42, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since the whole city wasn't bombed. Steel1943 (talk) 18:13, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:22, 27 November 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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 23:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ḯ → Í  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not explained at target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 20:36, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nom. Í is not the same thing as Ḯ. The dieresis is notable if the article is specifically about a character. TartarTorte 01:57, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• It is mentioned at ISO 843 (in lowercase, but the first letter of a Wikipedia page name is automatically capitalised and a separate lowercase version is not possible). The Greek version ΐ is explained at Greek diacritics#Description. Peter James (talk) 16:58, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:49, 28 November 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:03, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Edward Ryall → Ian Stevenson#Case of Edward Ryall  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Opening this at the request of RYALL EC. I will quote them initially: "Edward Ryall ... referenced in the article is an Edward W Ryall (author without a profile or Wikipedia biography), and is a completely different person from the Edward Ryall, that I would like to create a biography for. So yes it is very clearly Apple and Orange situation as there are 2 different Edward Ryall's. If a new Wikipedia profile is created for Edward Ryall (entrepreneur), and any form of redirect link is maintained with Ian Stevenson it will be completely incorrect and misleading." 331dot (talk) 15:20, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: As is for now. Revisit once Edward Ryall (entrepreneur) is an article. I don't think this would count under WP:REDYES as the current links to Edward Ryall are mostly if not all in reference to Stevenson. TartarTorte 15:24, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you help me understand how an article can be written for Edward Ryall (entrepreneur) given the fact that Edward Ryall (a dead author with insufficient notariety to have his own page) is being redirectired to Ian Stevenson's page.

  An article with numerous external links has been written for Edward Ryall (entrepreneur) has been written twice but is deleted each time the re-direct is put back in place.

  I am struggling to understand how the profile of Ian Stevenson profile can "block" the creation of an article/profile of a different person (or in this case two different people, both called Edward Ryall). In any case, it seems reasonable that a profile can be created for Edward Ryall (either for the author if sufficiently notable, or the entpreneur). RYALL EC (talk) 20:51, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  To create an article for Edward Ryall (entrepreneur) write it at Edward Ryall (entrepreneur), then we can have a move discussion as to whether or not it should be moved to be the Wikipedia:Primary topic at Edward Ryall. If that's the case we can move the current Edward Ryall to somewhere else and take care of the linking. The best way to get an article on Edward Ryall (entrepreneur) at Edward Ryall is to start at the page I'm suggesting to write it at. I don't have any issue with Edward Ryall (entrepreneur) in theory being the primary topic, if it's determined to be so. I also am not trying to block the creation of an article on Edward Ryall (entrepreneur); I'm just saying to keep the redirect where it is, for the time being, until there's an article written on Edward Ryall (entrepreneur). If you want move details on page moves, you can read Wikipedia:Moving a page. TartarTorte 14:21, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  "the current links to Edward Ryall are mostly if not all in reference to Stevenson" - this seems somewhat of a circular argument given that Edward Ryall REDIRECTS to Stevenson and no profile has yet been created for Edward Ryall. RYALL EC (talk) 20:53, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I added an anchor after this discussion started to have this specifically target the portion of the page that it was meant to be targeting before the section header was removed. If that's against protocol, I'm more than happy to remove it. TartarTorte 15:29, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Tartar.

@RYALL EC: Welcome to Wikipedia. I see your frustration from the various discussions in the one week you have been here. You are reading up and accepting feedback, which is the right way to go. I concur with what 331dot advised you on your talk page aboutfirst gain experience by editing existing articles andsubmit a draft article via Articles for creation and if accepted, it will be placed at the proper title. Strongly recommend against creating your article at Edward Ryall (entrepreneur). Your username previously was Neptune Mutual, a company founded by Edward Ryall, and your current name matches the subject you are interested to write about. If yours is a case of paid editing, you would need to make the required disclosures. As a caution, even as a draft, the page you create may be deleted without prior discussion as content that appears like a resume. Jay 💬 17:17, 1 December 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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 Thanksgiving (disambiguation). (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:55, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanksgiving weekend → Thanksgiving (United States)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

As thanksgiving is on a Monday in Canada and a Monday in Saint Lucia, both seem to use the term "Thanksgiving weekend" as well (as does Grenada when thanksgiving falls on a weekend or near to). It seems that this refers to more than just Thanksgiving (United States). I was originally going to BOLDly DAB, but I'm not sure if it would be a great DAB. Coming to RfD for opinions as I have no strong leaning as nominator other than I am not a huge fan of the current target as I find it ambiguous. TartarTorte 15:08, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Thanksgiving (disambiguation): as a {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}, many countries have Thanksgiving on or around the weekend Joseph2302 (talk) 15:30, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Joseph2302. AKK700 19:11, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• @TartarTorte: there has been only one suggestion, are you good with it? Jay 💬 15:23, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jay, Retargeting to that DAB works for me. TartarTorte 15:58, 1 December 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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. Jay 💬 15:18, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Tomas Laslo → Charter 77#Signatories  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There is nobody with this name, definitely not a signatory of Charter 77 per official list of known signatories: https://www.ustrcr.cz/data/pdf/charta77/panel19.pdf FromCzech (talk) 14:27, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The section of that article states there are 1882 signatories, and only lists notable ones (ie, with articles; we certainly shouldn't be creating redirects for all of them and targeting them there) so regardless of whether it was signed by this person, this is not a suitable target (I also don't agree with bare bare mentions as suitable redirect targets). A7V2 (talk) 01:09, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - see previous discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 26#Charter 77 signatories. A7V2 (talk) 01:11, 25 November 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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. Jay 💬 15:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Vincent Cheremi → Charter 77#Signatories  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There is nobody with this name, definitely not a signatory of Charter 77 per official list of known signatories: https://www.ustrcr.cz/data/pdf/charta77/panel19.pdf FromCzech (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - see previous discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 26#Charter 77 signatories. A7V2 (talk) 01:11, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The section of that article states there are 1882 signatories, and only lists notable ones (ie, with articles; we certainly shouldn't be creating redirects for all of them and targeting them there) so regardless of whether it was signed by this person, this is not a suitable target (I also don't agree with bare bare mentions as suitable redirect targets). A7V2 (talk) 01:12, 25 November 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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. Jay 💬 15:14, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Florin Kovach → Charter 77#Signatories  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There is nobody with this name, definitely not a signatory of Charter 77 per official list of known signatories: https://www.ustrcr.cz/data/pdf/charta77/panel19.pdf FromCzech (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - see previous discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 26#Charter 77 signatories. A7V2 (talk) 01:12, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The section of that article states there are 1882 signatories, and only lists notable ones (ie, with articles; we certainly shouldn't be creating redirects for all of them and targeting them there) so regardless of whether it was signed by this person, this is not a suitable target (I also don't agree with bare bare mentions as suitable redirect targets). A7V2 (talk) 01:12, 25 November 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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. (non-admin closure) ^Clyde!_Franklin! 07:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Russian occupation of Odesa Oblast → 2022 Snake Island campaign  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Russia occupied Snake Island for a time, but not Odesa Oblast. Delete as misleading. MB 04:06, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as misleading --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Snake Islsmd is an island belonging to Odesa Oblast, Ukraine. Russia occupied Snake Island and did not occupied other parts of Odesa Oblast. Sharouser (talk) 00:14, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 05:44, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Sharouser. "Russian occupation of Odesa Oblast" does not have to mean the whole of Odesa Oblast. Those who are familiar with the geography of Odesa and Snake Island will not find it misleading. Those who are not familiar, will get the required detail at the target. Jay 💬 06:23, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Sharouser and Jay. Plausible search term. CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:11, 1 December 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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 06:39, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Sturgeon Scotland → Premiership of Nicola Sturgeon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I have never seen a redirect of the form "Politician Country", nor see a reason this would redirect here instead of Nicola Sturgeon, Second Sturgeon government, or Third Sturgeon government. Recommend delete. MB 03:22, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for lacking a helpful target. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:45, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate Too many potential targets. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 03:24, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No obvious target for this, and a DAB page would have way too many tangential articles to be useful. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:31, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Odd form of redirect. If Nicola Sturgeon is known simply as Sturgeon in Scotland, and we wish to disambiguate the name, we could move this to Sturgeon (Scottish politician) since there are other politicans at Sturgeon (surname), and target it to Nicola Sturgeon. If the disambiguation is not needed, then delete. Also, too many potential targets should have been a delete vote, not disambiguate. Jay 💬 06:12, 1 December 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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 06:38, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Guayacán, Chile → Coquimbo  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target. According to the es.WP article, this is a neighborhood in Coquimbo. MB 03:21, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I see a Guayacán mentioned in multiple articles, but don't see any of them as a potential target. Delete. Jay 💬 05:58, 1 December 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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 03:41, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Greater Prussia → Prussia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete, as the term is mentioned nowhere on the target page and I can't find a single reliable source that has used it. An anonymous username, not my real name 01:32, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The term does seem to have been used (eg Otto Ballerstedt's book [1]), and appears in a couple of places on Wikipedia (such as First Schleswig War and Saint Petersburg Declaration of 1868), but it's not clear (to me) if they are referring to the same thing, and the latter is referring to the North German Confederation. I agree deletion is probably best without a target which uses/explains the term. A7V2 (talk) 23:50, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak retarget to North German Confederation: I am a bit unsure what to do here. The term Greater X when applied to a country is generally in reference to irredentism and there is nothing related to Prussian irredentism covered in the article on Prussia. As per above, the usage in the First Schleswig War article is using the term in reference to a larger Prussia, but the (what I believe to be) intentional use of lower case in the phrasing ofto offer a unique opportunity to create a greater Prussia by seizing territory that greater just means larger, but does not refer in general to a specific area that is "Greater Prussia"; however, the reference to the North German Confederation as Greater Prussia in the article on the Saint Petersburg Declaraion of 1868 squares a bit more in line with the Greater X usage, despite the lack of explicit terminology related to irredentism in the article. I am trying to determine whether this is a neologism or not, and it's hard to tell. I think that the pros seem to outweigh the cons here, but if it can be shown this is a neologism then I am more than happy with deletion. TartarTorte 20:19, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget or is this a neologism?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 02:34, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I am leaning delete per A7V2. The phrase does receive ~200 hits on Google Scholar, plus ~100 on GenealogyBank , so it does not appear to be a neologism. There doesn't seem to be a single definition, however. The newspapers from the latter link seem refer to the German Empire as a "greater Prussia" in the contexts of the Franco-Prussian War and World War I. Scholarly articles are broader, referencing both the empire and Nazi Germany . Without a plausible single target, deletion seems like the best option for now. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:12, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no-one looking for "Greater Prussia" wants to end up at "Prussia". CMD (talk) 02:58, 27 November 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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 restored article and sent to AfD. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Nia Noble → List of Marvel Comics characters: N  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. Character was removed from the target list article on 19:46, 29 July 2018, with the rationaledeleted: appears in six issues according to Marvel Wikia, links to redirect appear to be through Template:Invaders (not sure how to confirm that but it looks like it from what I checked). Natg 19 (talk) 01:31, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For an opinion on the page history.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 02:30, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore and send to AfD unless mention can be re-added to the current target. Original article existed for 7 years, and did have one reference (which was "downgraded" to an external link at some point). A7V2 (talk) 01:17, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore and send to AfD oer A7v2 and WP:BLAR --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:23, 27 November 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).