Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 22

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. Converted to a surname page.

(non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Delete the redirect or disambiguate it with the surname and possibly other topics. The current target is a microstub about some small obscure village in Azerbaijan / Republic of Artsakh and does not mention "Ayyad" at all, but Wikipedia discusses various people who have that as a surname or as part of their name. It is also part of the name of some institutions. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:14, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - this was given as an alternate name for the village from when the target was created until this edit [1] by Golden. I this [2] for example which lists this amongst other alternate names but I'm unsure if it is reliable. But given there are many people on wikipedia with this surname I think some kind of disambiguation page would be better than keeping as is or deleting. A7V2 (talk) 08:11, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:36, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Drafted a surname page (and was gonna close as dabify, not sure why this was relisted...) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 23:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert to surname page, drafted one looks good. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 18:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Həyat, a redirect to "Hayad" (that same village again). And then there is Hayat, which is apparently an Arabic word meaning "life", and has another link to the village. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 14:36, 24 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

).

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

(non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:11, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• Staatliche Museeun →
  Berlin State Museums  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete
   ] 

Keep - I don't agree that this is an unlikely misspelling. Searching online for "museeun" brings up a number of uses, including some pages (eg. [3]) which refer to "Staatliche Museeun, Berlin". While some of these results are copying information from Wikipedia, I don't that's the case with all of them (such as the example linked earlier). Some of these results are on German and Dutch language pages, so I don't think it's restricted to English-speakers. – Scyrme (talk) 05:18, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, tag with R from incomplete name and R from misspelling to help avoid accidental incoming wikilinks; no reason to delete. I doubt much citogenesis is happening from a redirect. Skynxnex (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't notice the double redirect. Retarget and tag as an {{

  Staatliche Museen along with {{R from incomplete name}} and {{R from misspelling}} (or just with those last two if the first isn't needed). – Scyrme (talk) 15:42, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I had originally thought about avoided double redirect but we don't need that because Stattliche Museeun is clearly intended to be Staatliche Museen zu Berlin. A theoretical redirect that is at Berlyn State Museums I would retarget to Staatliche Museen zu Berlin and tag with avoided double and misspelling. I think in this case just incomplete and misspelling expresses what we want. Skynxnex (talk) 16:31, 23 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

).

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. Seems pretty even between keeping or doing a complicated history merge. No activity after last relist. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Salem R Rajendran → R. Rajendran (DMK politician)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

"Salem [North]" is the constituency that R. Rajendran (DMK politician) represents. It is not a part of his name. It would be like if Richmond Rishi Sunak existed as a redirect. However, this redirect contains significant pre-merge history, that is probably needed for proper attribution. So, I'm not sure what should be done with it. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 18:53, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to something like Talk:R. Rajendran (DMK politician)/Merged content (someone else can probably come up with a much better title) to preserve the page history for attribution reasons. 192.76.8.86 (talk) 20:04, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I strongly oppose burying edit history in talk space. The edit history is article content, not discussions, and would therefore misclassify these edits in the wrong namespace. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:33, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This is an implausible search term but is ultimately harmless, and should be kept due to the merge. I don't see any benefit that comes from moving this, and a harm that comes from moving without leaving a redirect (since it would break links left in edit summaries, for example). A7V2 (talk) 00:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Draft:Salem R Rajendran. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:33, 3 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 19:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with Tavix. Jay 💬 14:53, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There's no reason to delete – it's a harmless redirect, and given an article was created at this title, it seems to be a somewhat viable search term (it's getting a couple of pageviews a month). There's also attribution concerns – those could be solved by a history merge, but when the action taken doesn't change even if a history merge is performed, it's outside RFD's scope. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 23:08, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or move edit history (where?) without leaving redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:40, 22 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

).

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

WP:NCRET—no consensus beyond "not keep". Though of the five suggested retargets, Lord (disambiguation) won on sheer numbers, I saw both it and Lord as the same fundamental position, i.e., to treat this as a variant of the base term "Lord". Retargeting to either of those is a reasonable outcome here. Without a clear usage of "Our Lord" at either place, I looked at other redirects to Lord and to Lord (disambiguation) to make the final determination. Your Lordship pointing to the former was the decider for me in what was essentially a coin flip. I expect we have not heard the last of this one. --BDD (talk) 15:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• Our Lord → God  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Vey ambiguous. I think this should be either DABified or deleted. Veverve (talk) 00:55, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the phrase "Our Lord" often refers to
  Walt Yoder (talk) 04:15, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Could point to Lord. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:18, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Too vague. Even when considering only religious interpretations, the title "Lord" isn't unique to Jesus or the Abrahamic God more broadly. In Hindu contexts, "lord" often translates the honorific "shri", and devotees frequently refer to "Lord Shiva", "Lord Krishna", and such in English sources. Without knowing the faith of the reader, there's no way to know what "our" means. While Lord covers many interpretations, someone searching for "our" Lord is probably expecting information particular to their faith. – Scyrme (talk) 22:15, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Lord - "Our Lord" is not only religious but can be temporal in nature when referring to a sovereign or feudal lord. estar8806 (talk) ★ 15:00, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Such lords are historical, and are not likely to be referred to as "our" lord today. While the UK still has lords, they are typicaly referred to as "his", as in "his lordship", not "our". – Scyrme (talk) 15:07, 14 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 02:34, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Lord (disambiguation) where feudal lord and Lord God are listed -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 08:03, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Does a pronoun fall within the scope of acceptable variation for a disambiguation page? – Scyrme (talk) 14:52, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Some have

  WP:DABCOMBINEd them before. It's up to our judgment as a consensus-seeking process whether to do this or not. "My Lord is lord of Chartres" "Our Lord is lord of Chartres" "The Lord is lord of Chartres" "Your Lord is lord of Chartres" "Their Lord is lord of Chartres" -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 03:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Weak Delete: overly vague: Our Lord could mean pretty much anything from a feudal lord to a deity, and would refer to different things in different contexts or locations. The page does get weak but steady pageviews, and I'd be okay with retargeting to
  talk) 17:16, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• It's currently linked in 3 articles: Roman Catholic Diocese of Bonfim where it should be piped to Jesus; Sanctuary of Maria Santissima dell'Alto where it is adjacent to a link to Jesus and should therefore be unlinked; and NOAAS George B. Kelez where it is probably best taken as a generic reference to God. Just looking for the phrase (not currently linked), the first 100 search results include 93 references to Jesus, 3 to Allah, 1 to Buddha, and only 3 (Hansard, treason and Al-Andalus) to "our Lord the King" or "our Lord the Sultan" – and in the latter cases the phrase "our Lord" should never be linked. So I think keep the target as "God". – Fayenatic London 20:21, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. There doesn't seem to an appropriate, non-astonishing option here. Lord, God, Lord (disambiguation) and God (disambiguation) are reasonable targets in the abstract but unlikely to be helpful to a user who is coming from what are (per Fayenatic's helpful research) the overwhelmingly most common uses of this phrase on-wiki, which relate specifically to Jesus or God in Christianity. On the other hand the fact that this is not used exclusively for the Christian deity (and undoubtedly EN Wikipedia's comparatively poor coverage of non-Christian religions is distorting the numbers here somewhat) means that retargeting to either of those articles would be inappropriate. Dabification could be a good solution here, but I have a hard time imagining exactly what a good disambiguation page for the phrase "Our Lord" would look like. There seem to be no great options, but having nothing at all here seems like the option that will least disserve the reader. -- Visviva (talk) 03:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Lord (disambiguation) as with The Lord, but tag with possibilities as separate disambiguation if there are songs, books, or other media titles. Compare with Milord (disambiguation). AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Jesus as the primary topic and hatnote to Lord which covers all the other contexts. Also see this from the Reference desk archives. Jay 💬 16:03, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think numbers should be the only factor, given that Jesus being "our" (that is, humanity's) Lord isn't an uncontroversial point of view. – Scyrme (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I had seen your earlier comment too, about other religions. Is it an assumption that it can be controversial, or do you know it is controversial? Jay 💬 17:09, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It's a major point of disagreement between Christians and Muslims; in Islam God (Allah) alone is the Lord (Rabb), not Jesus (Isa). (eg. this book which equates the view that Jesus is the Lord with blasphemy.) On Twitter it's not difficult to find statements spontaneously responding to "our Lord" with "not my Lord" from atheists (eg), muslims (eg), Jewish people (eg), etc. – Scyrme (talk) 18:40, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I would say the emphasis is on Our in the redirect under discussion. The opposition you talk about is about using "our" for all of humanity, but not on how Christians use it. We have moved on from using AD to the neutral CE. Are we looking at making enwiki politically correct by ignoring what Christians refer to as Our Lord? Jay 💬 15:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  but not on how Christians use it The whole premise of Christianity is that Christ is everyone's saviour (Salvator Mundi, saviour of the world); it absolutely is how Christians use it, that's why I mentioned it.

  The comparison to the AD/CE matter is a stretch. This is 1 redirect, not the written text in hundreds of thousands of pages. Additionally, while BC/AD dating is frequently used by everyone regardless of their personal beliefs, using "Our Lord" to refer to Jesus is exclusively a Christian practice reflecting an exclusively Christian point of view. The suggestions here aren't ignoring what Christians refer to, they're just also considering what other people might mean. Christians are not a global majority, so other perspectives are not implausible and warrant consideration; something determining a primary topic from Google search results does not do.

  Framing this as a dispute over "political correctness" is just bizarre. No-one here is pushing a political point of view. – Scyrme (talk) 15:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Lord (disambiguation), as this is a plausible search term, and is a potentially sensitive enough topic that disambiguation is preferrable to identifying a primary from Google search results. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  For the sake of a clearer consensus, if this isn't deleted this retarget would be my second preference. I'd prefer a redirect to a disambiguation page over one to Lord, as if this text gets linked in an article it would be more helpful to encourage it to be piped to a specific target rather than for it to send readers to Lord, given that it's more likely someone intends to link God or Jesus than to Lords in general, even if Lord does also cover "Lord" in religious contexts. – Scyrme (talk) 16:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Just delete. Lord (disambiguation) is unhelpful. Keeping as is is unhelpful – most are looking for Jesus. Even though Jesus is the primary topic, you can understand just how peeved (rightly) Muslims or Buddhists would be upon this being assumed to refer to one figure in particular, that isn't of their religion. Perhaps disambiguate at this title, but what would one include? Wherever you put the inclusion barrier for "Our Lord"s, people will be unhappy. To delete and make the reader search up a more specific term is the safe solution. J947 † ^edits 02:41, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't mind Tamzin's idea, but it's potentially a lot of clicks. J947 † ^edits 01:17, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Okay, here's an idea out of left field: Someone searching this is probably looking for a deity they worship, or that some entity they've interacted with worships. We can't guess which, but we can help them find what they're looking for. Retarget to Lists of deities. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:14, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Many deities are not commonly called "Our Lord", so there'd be a lot of noise to sort and that's after having to pick a list to browse through. In some cases, the reader might have to navigate through a list of a list of list eg. From List of deities by classification through Lists of deities by cultural sphere to a third list. Lord § Religion has a more relevant list which narrows things down considerably.

  That said, I think targeting a disambiguation page would be better than either. I don't think set indexes like

  link transparency; precise links would get readers where they're supposed to go directly without having to choose from a list at all. If readers searches it directly the disambiguation page puts them 1 click away from the list at Lord, so even in that scenario it's no worse than (and in some cases better than) Lists of deities

  .

  suprising since, unlike Lord (disambiguation), it doesn't actually use the word "Lord" anywhere and its formated as "lists of deities" rather than a "lists of titles held by deities" or "lists of epithets of deities". Someone might be confused why it doesn't go somewhere more specific, at least. – Scyrme (talk) 04:19, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  @Tamzin: Do you have a second preference? – Scyrme (talk) 07:14, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  MOS:DABONE violation), but sometimes that kind of approach is needed for complex DABs.

  Beyond that, I would support any other outcome over God or Jesus. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:46, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Retarget to
  primarily used in that context. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:51, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Retarget to Our God Hyphenation Expert (talk) 20:37, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]