Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 22[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 22, 2022.

List of highest-grossing anime films in the United States and Canada[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 List of highest-grossing animated films in the United States and Canada and restore the article at that title. @TompaDompa: I will leave it to you to decide whether to now take the article to AfD. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 09:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The target does not list highest-grossing anime films in the United States and Canada. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:42, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This previously redirected to List of highest-grossing animated films in the United States and Canada, a former list article which itself was redirected to the current target last month. There'd be no problem deleting the nominated redirect, alone but if the animated films one (and the several that used to redirect there) is also considered problematic (as there's no such list at the target either), it should be restored and discussed at AfD. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • REVERT List of highest-grossing animated films in the United States and Canada to being an article. It seems to be an edit war. One editor boldly redirected and was reverted, and still redirected AGAIN it without finding a consensus, clearly failing the BRD procedure outlined for BOLD edits -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 05:17, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore article per IP and Paul. Clearly more discussion was needed before blanking and redirecting. CycloneYoris talk! 23:17, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Paul_012, and as no mention per nom. I would have bundled the animated redirect to this, but animation is not anime, and the animated redirect discussion should happen separately. Create a new RfD for the animated redirect. Jay 10:01, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the animation article is reverted, then the anime redirect will have a proper target again. Since this redirect targeting the wrong article is the result of a redirect blanking, then it should be sorted after the animation article is handled, and not before it is handled. And all anime are animations. -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 21:46, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Understood, this is a dependent redirect. Rephrasing my vote to Delete unless the animated redirect (with or without a separate RfD) is restored. Jay 02:10, 1 August 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.

Perelman's theorem[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 1#Perelman's theorem

Gay, Asian, Immigrant[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 Ushmey Chakraborty. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 20:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the name of a film screened at the festival, but is not mentioned at the target, nor would it be DUE to do so given the target's current length. Deletion seems appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 19:57, 22 July 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.

Eric Blumrich[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 29#Eric Blumrich

Ana Đurić[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 procedural keep. While there is only one article the redirect is correct, when the other article is written the redirect can be replaced by a disambiguation page without needing formal discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 20:20, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See the Talk page for the redirect of Ana Đurić -Sb008 (talk) 19:22, 22 July 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.

American Beauty (color)[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 23:48, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The word "American" is not mentioned in the target article; the word "American" is also not in Shades of rose. I could not find a retargeting option for this redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 19:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It's doubtless intended to refer to Rosa 'American Beauty', but having "(color)" in the redirect name is misleading and is very unlikely to be used as a search term. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:11, 22 July 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.

Khaka[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 29#Khaka

Mint (credit cards)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 29#Mint (credit cards)

Survival arms[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 no consensus, but retarget. There *is* a clear consensus that Varmint rifle is a poor target for these redirects. Consensus is otherwise split between deleting them and retargeting them elsewhere - Jay's suggestion appears to be the best compromise. We lean towards avoiding deletion where possible, and I agree that a basic concept article covering survival weapons at one of these targets would be the best long term solution. In the meantime, survival kit seems to be an okay target that's an upgrade on the previous one. It seems most appropriate to retarget it there and draw a line under this particular discussion - if further concerns continue, this can be renominated in future.
Separately, Aircraft survival weapon seems to have been solved by a disambiguation page at Aircrew survival weapon which it will be retargeted to - further development at that page may be needed, but at a minimum it's not productive to continue considering this one with the other redirects in this mass nomination, as the issues are clearly distinct. ~ mazca talk 16:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Not mentioned at the target, usage on the internet, Google Scholar, and Google Books does not suggest that the term is equivalent to the current target. The most common results are false-positives such as ...survival. Arms... and medical literature where this is a term of art for clinical outcome patterns. Within the field of firearms, it still does not appear to unambiguously refer to a varmint rifle, with most results either being about companies named Survival Arms or descriptions of "aircrew survival arms" that are not limited to this sort of rifle. Survival weapon, meanwhile, again primarily seems to refer to "aircrew survival" contexts, and appears to refer to a wide range of light weaponry not limited to a varmint rifle ([1], [2]). In the absence of evidence that the search term refers to any target in particular, deletion seems appropriate, although many of these would be appropriate redirects to Aircraft survival weapon, a likely notable topic. signed, Rosguill talk 17:57, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete in the absence of a reliable source. I am unaware of any widespread use of these terms to refer to the type of rifles typical used for varmint shooting. Thewellman (talk) 23:36, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I'm also confirming nom's findings of "survival. arms" and the company "Survival Arms" hits. --Lenticel (talk) 06:30, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to M6 Aircrew Survival Weapon, or a similar article like Armalite AR-5. 53zodiac (talk) 20:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Per the investigation I detailed in the initial nomination, the M6 Aircrew Survival Weapon does not appear to be the only aircrew survival weapon, and my sense is that the topic is better served by a general article covering the category of weapon rather than redirecting to a specific model. signed, Rosguill talk 20:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, please don't remove tags from redirects or change their targets while discussion is ongoing: it makes it much more difficult for additional participants to join the discussion, and the current state of discussion does not suggest that you currently have a consensus for the change of targets you implemented. signed, Rosguill talk 20:50, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisting to include Aircraft survival weapon
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting a disambiguation article for Aircrew survival rifle, with the potential to expand in the future. Survival rifle, survival weapon and survival arm should redirect there. 53zodiac (talk) 21:04, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So much talk, but nothing is done. I'm going to redirect these entries to aircrew survival weapon rather than waste any more time waiting for opinions. 53zodiac (talk) 20:41, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's appropriate to wait for a discussion to be closed before taking action, otherwise the action may end up being a waste of time, not sure what you're complaining about here. signed, Rosguill talk 19:22, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
True, making changes midway only confuses the discussion. A non-admin close is fine but has to be from a non-involved editor. I have undone the changes. Jay (talk) 02:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm complaining about the pointlessness of having a discussion in the first place. Why can't somebody simply change the redirects to a more relevant article? 53zodiac (talk) 19:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, bold changes are encouraged. The RfD is only for cases where we want the community's feedback and action. Jay (talk) 11:17, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All of these terms are ambiguous ad the current targets are likely to cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to 53zodiac's drafted Aircrew survival weapon. Jay (talk) 03:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Retarget Aircraft survival weapon to 53zodiac's drafted Aircrew survival weapon. Retarget others to Survival kit per IP64, as an WP:ATD compromise until we have a WP:BCA which can ideally reside at Survival weapon or Survival arms. Oppose targeting to Survivalism as a mere mention is not sufficient, if it had a section, it was fine. Jay 07:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The newly created DAB does not feature most of these entries mentioned here, so deletion would be best for avoiding confusion. CycloneYoris talk! 00:59, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @CycloneYoris: which entry is not mentioned in the DAB? Is it the current target the Varmint rifle, but that article doesn't have a mention as survival weapon (although the citations provided in the nomination do)? Jay (talk) 02:20, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jay: Yes, the Varmint rifle is missing. But I'm also referring to the fact that the casual reader may not be aware that all of these "Survival weapon" redirects are synonymous with the entries mentioned at the DAB. CycloneYoris talk! 07:19, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Won't the retarget to the dab make them aware? Or is your concern about the specific wording of "aircrew" and you are looking for some kind of rewording of the lead at the dab? Jay (talk) 07:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, I understand the dab is only a draft and some improvements can still be made; but I'm not entirely convinced it would helpful to retarget these redirects there. CycloneYoris talk! 11:42, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get the proposed dab page checked on.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 08:02, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Possibly retarget to Survivalism, which mentions 'armed survivalism'. Verbcatcher (talk) 10:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Survival knife exists and is a bladed weapon. So "weapon", "arm", "arms" does not just mean guns. Astronauts once were equipped with the NASA survival knife in their Mercury capsules. Older eras, there's pioneer swords and bowie knives. -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 04:38, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting again for the consideration of survivalism and survival kit as possible other targets for some of these.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:24, 22 July 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.

Extreme prejudice[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 29#Extreme prejudice

Folly (color)[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 Shades of rose#Folly. Yep. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 14:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems at one point this subject was mentioned in the target article, but now it's not. Either way, it seems that this color is actually a shade of pink, not a shade of crimson. Steel1943 (talk) 14:40, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Shades of rose#folly, which is where we can find info about the color. That way we can avoid misdirecting readers to a place where it isn't mentioned. Regards, SONIC678 14:49, 22 July 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.

Natalie Mariduena[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 no consensus (default to refine). Refining per WP:NCRET, as there is unanimous consensus that the current target is unsuitable. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 03:37, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Dobrik is a separate person who, although being associated with Mariduena, is not Mariduena. If a Vlog Squad page existed this would make sense, but such page does not exist. Gtag10 (talk) 05:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Refine to David Dobrik#The Vlog Squad, as Mariduena is mentioned there. signed, Rosguill talk 18:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    She is mentioned briefly but there is no substantive content about her on the subpage. I think maybe drafting a Vlog Squad article might be a good idea, but in the meantime, she shouldn't be on Dobrik's page. Gtag10 (talk) 05:41, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gtag10: By subpage, I assume you meant page section. The Vlog Squad used to be an article until redirected to David Dobrik via consensus at WP:Articles for deletion/The Vlog Squad. If there have been notable changes in the last year, and someone puts up a standalone article that is approved, then we can retarget Natalie Mariduena when that happens. Jay (talk) 06:28, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go ... consensus still not clear, but it doesn't seem as though the status quo is appropriate either ...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:23, 22 July 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.

Cisgender sexuality[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 11:04, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cisgender is a gender identity, not a sexual orientation. TraderCharlotte (talk) 03:39, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The human sexuality article is in no way limited to people who identify as cisgender, nor does it have a specific section on it. I can't find a suitable alternative target that refers specifically to the sexuality of cisgender-identifying people. ― Tartan357 Talk 05:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above; no good target, not applicable to current target. Crossroads -talk- 18:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't we have an article on this topic? In any case, I would think that Cisgender would be the best target. The distinction about cisgender not being a sexual orientation can be explained in the article, for those who may be confused. BD2412 T 21:41, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Cisgender. The term is thrown around a lot by the LGBTQ+ crowd, so it's easy to see why someone might mistake it for a sexuality. The article will explain the mistake, but the redirect is still useful. Fieari (talk) 05:00, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:43, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:REDYES. Per BD2412, cisgender people's sexuality is a valid encyclopedic topic, much like transgender sexuality. Unlike BD, though, I don't see the Cisgender article, as it currently stands—written about the term cisgender rather than the concept of being cisgender—as a reasonable target, as it contains no content about the sexuality of cisgender people. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 12:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 08:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – no good target. Mathglot (talk) 09:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The title is pretty much useless as it conflates gender and sexuality in a confusing and nonsensical way. I don't think the retargeting to cisgender suggested above is necessary but I don't object to it either. It would be an improvement on what we have now. If people think that it is plausibly useful then we can have it but personally I doubt that it is useful. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:13, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Inappropriate target and no good target, per Tartan357, Crossroads, Mathglot etc. Funcrunch (talk) 20:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all other delete !voters. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 17:48, 23 July 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.

Leopard Catfish[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 and retarget. Disambiguate Leopard catfish and retarget Leopard Catfish to the newly created DAB. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 09:27, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can also refer to Corydoras julii. TraderCharlotte (talk) 20:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:45, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundled the lowercased Leopard catfish. A disambiguation page can be drafted there.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 07:05, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dabify per Tryptofish's suggested entries. --Lenticel (talk) 07:07, 22 July 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.

Apeiron (physics journal)[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 11:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meant to be a redirect to Apeiron (disambiguation), which does not mention it. No other article seems to discuss this journal. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:03, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • It used to mention it. I've restored the entries. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There used to be an article about the journal that was deleted per an Afd. Per nom, there is currently no content or mention of the journal on enwiki to point the redirect to, and therefore no valid entry for the journal can be made at the dab page, and it would be inappropriate to target the dab page in any case, since it is not an ambiguous term. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:40, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The entries restored at the DAB were reverted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 06:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as we don't have content for said journal. --Lenticel (talk) 01:06, 23 July 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.

Dar ul Iftah[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 Darul Ifta. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 09:39, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Darul Ifta's are sub-institutes present in several Islamic seminaries. Darul Uloom Deoband has an old Darul Ifta, there are Darul Ifta's in Darul Uloom Karachi and several other institutes globally. Jamiat Ul Mominat having a Darul Ifta doesn't legitimate this redirect to Jamiat Ul Mominat. ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Omer123hussain, Do you mean that we should delete the redirect at Dar ul Iftah? ─ The Aafī (talk) 15:49, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ TheAafi, I mean Dar ul Iftah should not be rediredt to Jamiat Ul Mominat or vis versa, becuase both are different topic. So both need to be kept as independant articles. :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 12:08, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot keep an article that is blank. ─ The Aafī (talk) 13:42, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 06:48, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ TheAafi, we can add text and cite it, but redirecting "Dar ul Iftah" to Jamiat Ul Mominat, I think is like redirecting School of Fine Arts to University for the Creative Arts :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 13:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we can simply turn it into a disambiguation page mentioning all major institutions that have Darul Ifta's. Certain Darul Ifta's are definitely notable. I'll try making one in a draft. ─ The Aafī (talk) 13:29, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please make this redirect to Darul Ifta. Thanks, ─ The Aafī (talk) 14:01, 22 July 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.

Yesso[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 Ezo with a hatnote to Diego Yesso. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 15:38, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything called Yesso in direct connection to the Ainu — search indicates it is a historical name for Hokkaido, among various other uses. Should I retarget to that page, or disambiguate between Hokkaido and Diego Yesso? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:22, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LaundryPizza03: I am only familiar with Yezo and Ezo as referring to the northern Ainu / Hokkaido. See also wikt:蝦夷#Japanese. While there is a geminate "s" in Japanese, I have never seen one in any name for the Ainu or Hokkaido. And while there are terms yesso / esso in Japanese, those do not refer to the Ainu or Hokkaido:
  • 越訴 -- usually read osso (or in older texts, wosso), refers to a kind of legal suit that goes directly to a higher authority and bypasses lower courts. Made illegal since ancient times.
  • 越俎 -- refers to the act of going beyond one's duties or mandate and interfering in the work of another. Rare term, may be obsolete in modern usage.
Dictionary entries for both visible here at Weblio (in Japanese).
Looking further just now, I cannot find any Japanese-language sources that use the term Yesso or Esso to refer to either the Ainu or Hokkaido: only Yezo (in archaic usage) or Ezo (in modern usage, since phonologically the mora ye merged with e).
→ Ultimately, I think this redirection is a mistake. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:59, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nonexistent name per Eirikr. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate between Hokkaido Ezo and Diego Yesso.
    Eirikr is correct that in Japanese language there are no hits for esso (えっそ) or archaic yesso (𛀁っそ) related to Ainu or Hokkaido, but that is only if following modern romanisation conventions. We need to take into account archaic usage as well, from before romanisation was standardised, or from European explorers transcribing local place names inaccurately. Yesso is listed at wikt:Ezo#Alternative_forms and is mentioned in the lead of Hokkaido. Here is a 1878 map that uses Yesso. A web search will find derived uses such as "Yesso scallop" (google) and "Yesso spruce" (google). This would qualify Yesso as a redirect to Hokkaido as a historical usage or under "likely misspelling" criteria. However, vote to disambiguate due to existence of other article, since the historical usage is not important enough to justify treating Hokkaido as primary article. Also pinging mello to reconsider their vote. — 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 05:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730, I note that the lede at Hokkaido is sourced to a reference that does not actually list Yesso (bold italics mine):

Hokkaido. The northernmost of the four largest islands in the Japanese archipelago, and the second largest in area after Honshu, from which it is separated by the Tsugaru Strait. ... In the past called Ezo, Watari-shima, Yeddo, and Yezo, it has been called Hokkaido since only 1869. ...

Digging through the page history, I see that the Yesso variant was originally added without any reference back in December 2006 by Pinkville (talk · contribs), who appears to be still active. @2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730, your historical map link is much more definitively useful.
I would stress that any such list of former names should specify where such names were not actually used in Japanese. As noted above, differences in transcription schemes, and different routes of transmission for names, could give rise to some quite divergent spellings. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 07:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think your concerns are best addressed by edits to Hokkaido and/or Ezo. If the inline cited source doesn't support Yesso you can apply {{failed verification}} or just add the 1878 map or other source as support. — 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 08:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that goes back a bit. I don't recall the edit, but I'm confident it comes from the caption of a photo or photos taken in the 19th century in Japan by foreign or even Japanese photographers. I'll see if I can find an example. Pinkville (talk) 23:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so here's an unambiguous reference:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/A-Geological-Survey-Map-of-the-Island-of-Yesso-Hokkaido-produced-by-the-Colonization_fig13_282015467 Pinkville (talk) 23:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I would disambiguate because of the existence of Diego etc. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 05:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hokkaido is not being seen as the primary topic. However, there has not been any opinion about Diego Yesso as a primary topic. Do we treat them the same, or do we hatnote?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 06:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment/correction I neglected that there is a separate article for Ezo, which would be the more appropriate DAB target. Have amended my vote. Sorry for missing that earlier.
Re: the relisting comment, do not treat Diego Yesso as primary topic. Diego doesn't have a monopoly on their last name, and I'm not confident from a quick glance that the article would survive AfD since WP:FOOTYN was superseded.
— 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 08:02, 22 July 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.

Template:Apocalypse[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 29#Template:Apocalypse

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_July_22&oldid=1102539714"