Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 28[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 28, 2024.

Sepersontics[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 23:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The term "sepersontics" is not defined in this or any other articles (nor should it be). From my web searches, only 7 results have come up, including a satirical blog post and a forum comment. This is a protologism used only by a half-dozen people (perhaps even less). Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 23:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete my search didn't turn up anything too. Per WP:R#DELETE #8 Ca talk to me! 13:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as something silly made up by some friends on the couch one day. (and for those that don't get it, it's just replacing "man" with "person" inside the word) Fieari (talk) 02:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Raymoo[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 6#Raymoo

Wokepedia[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 Criticism of Wikipedia#Partisanship. ✗plicit 23:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The similarly spelled Wokipedia redirects to Criticism of Wikipedia#Partisanship. Since the term is no longer used by just Orlowski and both spellings are common as criticism of Wikipedia they should have consistent locations or whether the redirects are necessary at all as they are a violation of redirect neutrality. 92.40.204.110 (talk) 17:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Criticism of Wikipedia#Partisanship. As per WP:RNEUTRAL redirects do not need to be neutral; anyone who finds the term 'Wokepedia' (or 'Wokipedia'), doesn't know context, and plugs it into our searchbox should be taken to the info we have on the subject. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 22:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Redirects to Herzegovina#Medieval period[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 Duchy of Saint Sava which has now been reverted back to article form. signed, Rosguill talk 13:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These redirect titles are misnomers; it does not exist in scholarship on the subject in this form. ౪ Santa ౪99° 17:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The redirect Duchy of Saint Sava cannot be deleted. It has a substantial history. Srnec (talk) 20:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • This redirect, and other similar redirects that were listed above, should not be deleted since previous actions were result of an improper merge, as was indicated here. The long standing article "Duchy of Saint Sava" should be restored, not deleted, since it was reduced to a redirect without proper discussion or consensus. Sorabino (talk) 00:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      There was absolutely nothing improper about the merge. Indeed, I think it's a borderline WP:ARBMAC violation that you keep pushing this unsubstantiated line after being given literally years to produce evidence for your position, all of which is well documented on the Talk page. --Joy (talk) 19:43, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Duchy" article/redirect(s) was no more-no less than unsourced WP:SOAPBOX for the subject matter now finally properly framed and sourced in Humska zemlja article, however, I understand what you mean for that particular redirect so I scraped it from this nom. Thanks @Srnec:! ౪ Santa ౪99° 01:59, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh boy, the history dive (or specifically, the talkpage archive dive) was *interesting.*
    It turns out, that talks of big change at the article for Duchy of Saint Sava have been going on since 2021 at the latest; from renaming to merging. user:Sorabino (who's already here) and user:Santasa99 (listed the redirects here) were two of the biggest voices in those discussions, joined by user:Joy, user:Thhhommmasss, and user:Mhare, among others (there was even drama regarding a sockmaster. Fun!)
At this point it is quite clear that there's some sort of conflict resolution that needs to happen between Santa and Sorabino; I don't know exactly what needs to be done, but this feud has gone on far longer than is healthy for anyone's sanity. My first instinct is to restore Duchy of Saint Sava and send to AfD as a contested merge, if that helps anything. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 12:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (I intruded into a middle of 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 post or she left too much space between rows which I confused as two distinct posts/posters, either way this comment of mine is unintentionally in the middle of Lunamann's post.) It's not fun, it wasn't fun, it was time and energy-wasting endeavor to push (or prevent, depending on which side of the argument one is) something that has no bases in historiography and is tendentious (even very close to discourse flirting with nationalistic point-of-view on history) - as another, one you missed to mention, neutral and uninvolved editor, User:DeCausa, noticed and argued in that long discussion. DeCausa starts with this remark: Should this article exist? There’s virtually nothing about this Duchy in the text of this article. It seems to be merely a vehicle to acknowledge the existence of the title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santasa99 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not fun, it wasn't fun That was sarcasm. Dealing with socking is never fun. Also, I used "among others" as a catchall for people I neglected to mention, including DeCausa, you silly. Listing EVERYONE would've taken too much time and effort lol
    Other than that, I'm gonna bow out of this lol. This has quite quickly reached Above My Pay Grade level, as I've already touched on in my reply to Santa ^^; 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 22:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually thought that this first para of your post (above) was one of the involved editor's stance which would really be inappropriate after everything we went through back then. This also include my remark on DeCause -I was convinced that the first para of your post was one of the involved editors' comment. All is OK. ౪ Santa ౪99° 22:38, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But I can't help but notice how you correctly concluded how "this feud has gone on far longer than is healthy for anyone's sanity", and then in attempt to help, you nonchalantly (in bold) suggested to go all the way back to beginning of what in essence was the "feud far longer than is healthy for anyone's sanity" and start it all over again (that's years back and against n-bytes long discussion that actually had its conclusion in consensus to merge, which had positive consequence in creation of proper article on the subject matter based on sourced facts). Allow me to say, please don't help us :-) ౪ Santa ౪99° 13:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't pretend to know what's best here ^^; My wheelhouse is RfD, not conflict resolution
Please ignore my recommendation up there and do something else ^^; 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 14:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Joy would probably explain this more eloquently vis-a-vis policies and guidelines and wikivoice-wise.--౪ Santa ౪99° 13:32, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would evaluate this differently - we can keep any of these WP:POVTITLE redirects if there's reasonable likelihood that an average English reader might stumble upon a term described by the redirect somewhere relevant, and the search engine output wouldn't get them to the right place. --Joy (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those redirects should have never been proposed for deletion in the first place, particularly the present redirect "Duchy of Saint Sava" with its important talk page history, nor it was proper to reduce the previously long standing article to a redirect without discussion and consensus. It is quite clear, from the talk page history, that after a long pause (more then a year) discussions were renewed there on 25 April 2024, and a very selective "merge" was conducted already on 26 April 2024, only a day later, thus reducing the long standing article to a redirect. Non of that was done in a proper way, nor it was justified, and community should take into consideration all of those questions. Sorabino (talk) 07:55, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone interested in this should read a short analysis of Sorabino's (not exactly complete) narrative and the history of this issue Here. ౪ Santa ౪99° 13:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reminding the community on the history of these disputes. Administrators of English Wikipedia should also be aware that back in 2021, similar disruptive changes were attempted in relation to the same article on Bosnian Wikipedia, but those unilateral actions were reverted by administrators of that project, who had to protect that article against vandalism (here). It should be also noted that similar articles on the same historical subject, related to feudal polity called the Duchy of Saint Sava (1448-1482), currently exist on 13 (thirteen) Wikipedia projects, with their stable scopes and identical titles. The only proper outcome would be to restore the article here on EW, and reopen the discussion on all relevant subjects. Sorabino (talk) 15:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now, out of desperation, you simply spreading aspersions - especially by misinforming, to put it mildly, readers about what happened in Bosnian Wiki. I put together that post so that anyone interested can see how it played out regarding article and TP history, who did what and how, who argued what and what was the community stance since 2000's. We are done, you and me. ౪ Santa ౪99° 16:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are wasting everybody's time for years now, with your continuous attempts to discredit a legitimate historical subject (Duchy of Saint Sava). Please, take a look at a very recent scholarly paper (2019) by dr Luka Špoljarić, a Croatian historian from the History department of the Faculty of Philosophy in Zagreb. Writing on Stjepan Vukčić Kosača (the first duke of Saint Sava), Špoljarić stated (page 156): In 1449, in order to emphasize his independence from the Bosnian king and cater to the sensibilities of his Orthodox subjects, he took the title of Duke of St Sava, in honour of the Serbian saint whose relics were held in the Mileševa monastery located in the easternmost parts of his duchy. While this large and powerful Duchy thus remained outside of papal influence, the Catholicization in the king’s land continued. In the same paper, Špoljarić included a historical map (page 158), presenting geopolitical situation in 1460, with the Duchy of St Sava. That is just one of many possible additions to the long list of scholarly sources on the subject, that were already mentioned in previous discussions on relevant talk pages. Please, inform yourself, reconsider your recent actions, and revert your dubious reduction of that long standing article to a redirect. Sorabino (talk) 00:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is more of the same scraping Google for phrases and key words - Špoljarić is historian of Catholic Church and Renaissance,and mentioned this phrase literally in passing. I will not revert my "dubious reduction" because it was not some unilateral move but a result of a consensus reached between Joy, Mharre, Mikola, Tezwoo, and DeCausa; it was done after two years of waiting for you to provide reason not to move it, and on the suggestion of Joy ! ౪ Santa ౪99° 17:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep redirects The name Duchy of Saint Sava and its variants is attested to in more than half a century of scholarly literature:

  • Pitcher, Donald Edgar (1972), An Historical Geography of the Ottoman Empire: From Earliest Times to the End of the Sixteenth Century, Leiden, Netherlands: BRILL, p. 71, After the death of Tvrtko I in 1391 the Bosnian Empire collapsed, and the land was torn between civil war and encroachment by Hungarians and Serbs, while the south-west gradually became independent as the 'Duchy of St. Sava' or Herzegovina (from 1435, though the title does not appear before 1446).
  • Petrovich, Michael Boro (1976), A History of Modern Serbia, 1804-1918, Volume 1., New York City: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, p. xvii, The Serbs of Hercegovina (the Duchy of Saint Sava), Bosnia, and the Croatian lands of Dalmatia, Croatia Proper, and Slavonia also played a significant role in the rise of the modern Serbian nation.
  • M. Th. Houtsma et al. E.J. Brill's First Encyclopaedia of Islam 1913-1936 . Leiden, Netherlands: BRILL, 1993, 755. "The history of Bosnia from 1137 to 1878 may be divided into six periods. I. Bosnia under Bans who ruled the whole land (1137-1251). II. Bosnia under Bans who ruled various parts contemporaneously (1251-1314). III. the period of the two Kotromans (1314-1377). IV. the Bosnian kingdom and the Duchy of St. Sava (1377-1463)."
  • Zlatar, Zdenko. Our Kingdom Come: The Counter-Reformation, the Republic of Dubrovnik, and the Liberation of the Balkan Slavs. Boulder, Colorado: East European Monographs, 1992, 414. "...came to see him as "ambassadors of the Patriarch and in the name of the Voivodas and Barons of that province " /i.e . Serbia / "of Bosna , the Duchy of St. Sava" / i.e. Hercegovina..." [1]
  • Nicol, Donald M (1997), Theodore Spandounes: On the Origins of the Ottoman Emperors, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, p. xv, Another branch of the post-Byzantine ruling families in the Balkans with whom Theodore Spandounes could claim a connection was that of the Duchy of St. Sava in Bosnia.
  • Elsie, Robert (2003), Early Albania: A Reader of Historical Texts, 11th-17th Centuries, Wiesbaden, Germany: Otto Harrassowitz Verlag, p. 53, Lord Ercecho was Lord of the Duchy of Saint Sava which was situated in the Kingdom of Bosnia in the direction of Ragusa (Dubrovnik) and borders on Ragusan territory and Castelnuovo (Hercog-Novi) , which belongs to him.
  • Short, Elliot (2022), Building a Multiethnic Military in Post-Yugoslav Bosnia and Herzegovina, New York City: Bloomsbury, p. 18, The Kindom of Hungary occupied territory in northern Bosnia during the conquest to build a military frontier against the Ottomans, while the herzog managed to preserve the independence of the Duchy of Saint Sava until 1481.
  • Djukanovic, Bojka (2023), Historical Dictionary of Montenegro, Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, p. 39, By the middle of the 15th century, northern parts of the Bay region became incorporated into the Duchy of St. Sava (Vojvodstvo Svetog Save).

If the name of this polity is bogus , as Santasa claims, then surely all these scholars have been bamboozled. But let's leave it to an anonymous wiki editor like Santasa to tell us the real WP:TRUTH. Yes, the duchy went by different names, so I guess I can see why a good-faith editor might consider a renaming discussion, but trying to have even the redirects deleted (and in such a ham-fisted way, too) is way beyond the pale. This encyclopedia should not be a place for nationalist axe-grinding. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All these cursory mentions are part of the article Stjepan Vukčić Kosača, not to mention they are somehow missing in domestic sources, written by, say Serbian medievalists, who never use such labeling. I can't predict nor read minds and know what these authors were thinking and why would they utilize such label, unless they explain it thoroughly in their paper(s) - you know, like Sima Ćirković explained every minutia in his biography of "Herceg Stefan Kosača i njegovo doba". Unless you can find why would they use such label, these cursory mentions do not warrant another article on the same subject - maybe this is how they present status of vojvoda, hercegova zemlja, etc to an English reading public. But I can't find in these papers where they call primary sources (contemporary documents) to their aid to justify such labeling. Fortunately, we have WP:DUEWEIGHT. You know, like when medievalist explains properly when, why and what : "Vladić Ratković 1454. godine ipak o njemu govorio kao o bosanskome «duki» (hercegu)" (Ančić M. in "Šta je Bosna bez Hercegovine"), and "Širenje, pak, u dubinu društva najbolje potvrđuje činjenica da su se doseljenici iz Humske zemlje u dalmatinske gradove (Split, Trogir, Šibenik, Zadar) u svim prigodama, bez obzira na status i položaj, tijekom 14. i 15. stoljeća dosljedno identificirali upravo tako – bili su podrijetlom, ili su dolazili iz Humske zemlje (Comsqua semia). S druge se strane samo u jednome slučaju, zabilježenom u Splitu 1454. godine, dogodilo da se osoba identificira na način da dolazi iz «kneštva hercega Stjepana bosanskoga»" (Ančić M. in "Šta je Bosna bez Hercegovine"). ౪ Santa ౪99° 19:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - I've reverted the Duchy of Saint Sava back to an article; it should not have been converted to a redirect without consensus at a proper WP:MERGE discussion or WP:AFD. The argument that these names/titles are not found in scholarship is contradicted by the sources posted on Talk:Duchy of Saint Sava and its archives since 2021 (also by a cursory Google Scholar search). All of the others should be retargeted to Duchy of Saint Sava until/unless there's a proper merge discussion or AFD. Levivich (talk) 01:15, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - I don't actually care whether they are actually accurate or not, Amanuensis Balkanicus above proved that the terms are attested, and thus are plausible searches, and that the target is accurate for what someone searching these terms would be looking for. That's all we need for a redirect to be kept. Plausible and unambiguous. Fieari (talk) 06:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He provided keys for Duchy of S(ain)t Sava search quarries, not for Duchy of Herzegovina" and double misnomer "Herzegovina of Saint Sava", or complete nonsense "Duchess of Saint Sava". ౪ Santa ౪99° 22:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because this RFD has become moot by WP:AE admin actions, this RFD needs to be procedurally closed, so that we can open a fresh discussion about whether "Duchy of Saint Sava" content belongs in a standalone article or not. The way this is going, we're opening ourselves to claims that there'd now be consensus about the latter based on this discussion, which could preclude a proper discussion on the merits of that, which in turn would be madness. --Joy (talk) 23:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Yellow plant[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 5#Yellow plant

The arm test[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 23:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No explanation/mention in the article. There was this in the past, but none of this content is in the current version. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"arm test" could refer to any mix of actions known as tests performed on or with things known as arms, like arm wrestling or firearm maintenance. delete as vague cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 17:14, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

increasingly long redirects to bobobo-bo bo-bobo[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 23:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

in order, those are 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, and 13 too many bo's. all redirects created by one user. one or two extra syllables would be fine, but starting at 4 seems excessive, also bobobobobobobobobobobobobobobobo and bobobobobobobobobobobobobobobobobo got skipped cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 16:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ngl im surprised they didnt do Bobobobobobobobobobobobobobobobobobobobobobobobobobobobobobobobobobobobobobobobobobobobobobobobobobobobobobobobobobobobobobobobobobobobobobobobobobobobobobobo
But seriously, delete, just so Wikipedia doesn't spend more money than they have to on these seemingly unneeded redirects...
wait, this was made in 2010? Kxeon (talk) 23:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
that's 79 syllables, 72 too many :kekw: cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 12:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Gaō[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 23:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

that's an onomatopeia for growling. probably not primarily associated with the anime equivalent of xra. used to redirect to gaoh, but i don't think that would cut it either cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 16:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bo^7[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. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the 7nd root of bo is bo, as there's only one bo. if there were two, the result would be 128 bo's. also implausible search, i guess cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 16:19, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to 7 x Bo for mathematical accuracy Obviously a joke redirect Delete Ca talk to me! 14:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Garage Band (TV series)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 5#Garage Band (TV series)

SportAccord[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 5#SportAccord

Tristan Tate[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 5#Tristan Tate

Gallophone[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 5#Gallophone

JDX[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 5#JDX

Grand Duke of Hum redirects[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 5#Grand Duke of Hum redirects

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_June_28&oldid=1233705393"