. Participants cite WP:RFOREIGN — Wug·a·po·des 05:58, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- {{no redirect|1 = Rio rojo }} → :Red River (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rio_rojo&action=history history] · [https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews?start=2019-11-22&end=2019-12-21&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Rio_rojo stats]) [ Closure: {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|(@subpage)|[{{fullurl:Rio rojo|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Rio rojo closed as keep}}}} keep]/[{{fullurl:Rio rojo|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Rio rojo closed as retarget}}}} retarget]/[{{fullurl:Rio rojo|action=delete&wpReason={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Rio rojo closed as delete}}&wpMovetalk=1}} delete]}} ]
No entrants in the dab page are called "rio rojo". Anarchyte (talk | work) 12:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
:Well, there's one entry for a river in Spain (presumably called Rio Sojo in Spanish), and one or two entries for places in the southern United States (whose original names are likely to have been in Spanish). – Uanfala (talk) 15:00, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
::I'm not seeing any examples in Spain (did you confuse Grenada with Granada? Additonally, the specific southwest US articles don't appear to have been named Rio Rojo in Spanish (at least one of them has a link to an esWiki article where it's called "Red River (Nuevo Mexico). signed, Rosguill talk 19:58, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
:::Oops, yes, I did get Grenada and Granada mixed up! So that river's off the table (no Spanish in Grenada), but we still have at least one river in the American Southwest with a potential Spanish history: Red River of the South (corresponding to :es:Río Rojo (Misisipi)). – Uanfala (talk) 21:25, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. I don't see a strong-enough WP:RFOREIGN claim. The closest is probably Red River of the South, but the article does not account for how the river was named nor does it give any Spanish history. -- Tavix (talk) 00:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - Directs reader to the article they're looking for (or, really, a list of candidates). No rationale has been presented for deletion. WilyD 13:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
::Comment. Two editors have cited Wikipedia:Redirects from foreign languages as rationale. Narky Blert (talk) 15:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment This is a tough one, as I concur with {{u|Uanfala}} and {{u|Tavix}} that the redirect is ambiguous...there are multiple rivers named Rio to which we could be referring. We could also be referring to the Spanish translation of whatever rio means. So, while I initially leaned delete as ambiguous, in consideration of alternatives to delete, I have to say keep per {{u|WilyD}} but we should add See also references (to one or more related DAB pages) and/or additional references to the existing DAB page, and continue to add references boldly as needed. Doug Mehus T·C 16:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- I never said the redirect is ambiguous. Also, I want to point out that per MOS:DAB: {{tq|References should not appear on disambiguation pages. Dab pages are not articles; instead, incorporate the references into the target articles.}} -- Tavix (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
:::{{u|Tavix}} Can you clarify what you're arguing then? That makes me see even less of a delete case then. Regarding the references, I'm referring to a == See also == section with links to related topics, but which don't necessarily fit within the existing DAB page structure. I've seen it fairly common on our DAB pages. For clarity, I didn't mean citations (which I only just learned should not be on DAB pages) Doug Mehus T·C 16:46, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
::::My !vote was an appeal to WP:RFOREIGN, not ambiguity. Please clarify how you think my !vote means "ambiguous" and I'll try to help you out if necessary. WP:REFERENCES in a Wikipedia context mean citations, so please be careful about that in the future. -- Tavix (talk) 16:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
:::::{{re|Tavix}} Thanks for your reply. I'm not familiar with WP:RFOREIGN so my "keep" !vote wasn't on that basis. I just think that since rio means river and rojo means red, it's a plausible translation. Perhaps we need to update the redirect categories to the redirect page. You mention Red River of the South, but also note why retargeting there isn't necessarily appropriate. There's all Canada's Red River and, presumably, a lot of "Red" rivers, including those that appear red in the sunset but aren't named that way. Because of the ambiguity, I don't see a WP:FORRED argument here since there's obviously no clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I think just keeping is the best way to go, possibly by adding some links to one or more related DAB pages. Regarding my incorrect use of "references," my apologies as I was just thinking in a library sense. --Doug Mehus T·C 17:05, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
::::::WP:RFOREIGN can be summarized as: redirects from languages that have no relation to the subject are unlikely to be searched for and should be deleted. For example, no one is plausibly going to search for "Rio rojo" in the English Wikipedia looking for Red River (Asia). Spanish is not relevant whatsoever to that region, so no English sources are going to refer to the river that way. On the other hand, Red River of the South does have some relationship to the Spanish language, given that Spain is one of the Six flags over Texas and the river borders Texas. If the river was named by the Spanish, historical accounts of the river would follow suit and call the river that. However, without evidence of Spanish history on this river, I'm leaning towards deletion. I don't see ambiguity as an issue either way because the Red River disambiguation should catch any usage of "Rio rojo" given it is a direct translation. -- Tavix (talk) 18:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
: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.
