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. --BDD (talk) 19:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Hospital VIA → Help desk  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target article. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete as not an abbreviation pertaining to hospital terms [1] Note this is different from VA Hospital AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per nom. "VIA" is an acronym for "visitor information assistant"; however, there is nothing specific to hospital VIAs in the target article. The redirect has no critical page history, no significant incoming links, and only 34 pageviews since July 2015 (pre-RfD). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:44, 27 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[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.

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. While not resounding, it does seem in this discussion that deletion is a preferred option to doing nothing. Killiondude (talk) 02:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Snout-vent length → Anolis cuvieri#Description  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This term would appear to be a standard measurement for all reptiles, but is not mentioned at Reptile (although it is mentioned in virtually every article about a reptile species). If someone with more familiarity with this field and relevant sources could add a mention to Reptile then I think we should redirect there, otherwise it should be deleted. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• SVL Mercy11 (talk) 22:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What are you trying to say here? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete or write article. The redirect was changed to SVL. This doesn't make sense – SVL is a disambiguation page. It might make sense if the disambiguation page linked to a number of articles about different interpretations of the phrase "snout-vent length", but that isn't the case here – there's just a single entry there that just links straight back to Snout-vent length.

I realise now that the only mention of it at Anolis cuvieri is giving the figure for this particular species – it doesn't explain the measurement or anything like that, let alone in a way that encompasses a range of species as one would expect of an article on the topic. As such, as it stands at the moment there doesn't seem to be any sensible page to redirect this to. — Smjg (talk) 23:48, 25 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When I first saw the redirect my impulse was to redirect it to Reptile anatomy, but that's just a redirect pointing back to Reptile. I think it's feasible that we could add content about it there as opposed to having a separate article about this single measurement. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:54, 25 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree now, there's probably no point in a separate article for this topic, so delete or put suitable content on the topic somewhere suitable and redirect to it. That said, I'm not sure where would be "somewhere suitable" as it stands at the moment – there doesn't seem to be a section on Reptile about how reptiles are measured. I thought maybe there's an article somewhere on animal measurements more generally, but can't find one of those either. — Smjg (talk) 14:29, 29 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete or write appropriate article. Snout-vent length is also used as a measurement for amphibians. The isn't any article more specific than herpetology that would make a good redirect target. Herpetological measurement (a la fish measurement) is perhaps a topic worthy of an article. Glossary of herpetology is noticeably absent from Category:Glossaries_of_biology.Plantdrew (talk) 15:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Retarget to Wiktionary - Ideally we'd have a Glossary of herpetology for a target. Right now, wikt:svl has a definition, so ((wiktionary redirect)) should be used to target that until the day that the glossary is written. This situation is why we have the template. --Nessie (talk) 15:44, 30 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per WP:REDLINK. Its use in many article will help make sure readers aren't completely in the dark over this. It seems mostly self-explanatory, even though I don't know what a reptile or amphibian's vent is. --BDD (talk) 19:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Just fix it; otherwise Weak delete per WP:REDLINK. It would make the most sense (i.e., would be less bureaucratic and more user helpful) to add it to Herpetology. We do not need an entire Glossary of herpetology article; a simple Herpetology#Glossary section will do. And in the interim, just a sentence stating that reptiles and amphibians are measured from snout to vent would suffice. Other variants should redir to the same anchor (Snout–vent length, Snout to vent length, Snout-to-vent length, Snout–vent, etc.) And we don't need an entire article on the term, per WP:NOTDICT. Finally, I don't agree with a trans-wiki redirect to wiktionary; we have no evidence these are actually helpful for readers, and it's pretty likely they're confusing for a lot of them. 2601:643:867F:5370:CDB0:4476:46F5:1603 (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[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.

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 Heim. (non-admin closure) James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 14:09, 28 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Heimr → Hel (location)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target. The wiktionary entry for this term would suggest that it is an Old Norse word for "world". While both of these terms likely played a role in Norse cosmology, I think it's a bit of a stretch and possibly misleading to redirect Heimr to Hel. Norse cosmology would be a more suitable target, but the term isn't used there either. I would suggest deletion unless someone can find an appropriate target. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:24, 4 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed that Hel isn't an appropriate target. Norse cosmology does mention the níu heimar ("nine worlds") including Vana-heimr etc. and would be okay as a target. Haukur (talk) 12:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If heimar is just a different form of heimr, I have no problems with targeting there. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 12:53, 4 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah yes, to clarify, heimar is the plural and heimr is the singular. Haukur (talk) 13:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually "heimr" is home and and its meanings as "world, abode, etc." are figurative (Just like for the English word). And there is a considerable discussion about this in Talk:Norse cosmology# Translation of "heim" and I am wondering why none of it in the article. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• soft redirect to wikt:heimr - there is no mythological meaning in the word at all, it is a regular common Old Norse word, and with several meanings, too, and the VAST MAJORITY of the usage in English wikipedia is "home". Staszek Lem (talk) 01:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  That's also a fair point. Haukur (talk) 10:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• What about Heim? Wiktionary says it's the accusative form of heimr in Old Norse. I'm just hesitant since the heimr form isn't given there. --BDD (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Yet another option that would be an improvement on the status quo. We could maybe add ON heimr and Icelandic/Faroese heimur to the preamble of that page? Haukur (talk) 17:41, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I like the idea of targeting Heim and mentioning the alternate form in the lead. Soft redirect to wiktionary is second choice. Wug·a·po·des​ 05:00, 25 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Retarget to Heim, mentioning it and other forms as appropriate. I think we might as well keep this on Wikipedia over pointing it elsewhere. --BDD (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The comments arguing for a retarget to Heim are convincing. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:17, 22 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[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.

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 the nominated redirect, create a list of other local sites and create redirects from those titles pointing to the list. Thryduulf (talk) 12:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Yonkers Daily Voice → The Daily Voice (U.S. hyperlocal news)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The Daily Voice is a news site that has individual sites for many regional and local communities. Many of those are cited as sources in articles as their local names (e.g. Yonkers Daily Voice), so they are apparently known by those local names. Thus, I created Yonkers Daily Voice as a redirect to The Daily Voice (U.S. hyperlocal news). I spot-checked a few of the others listed here and found many references in enwiki articles. Therefore, I'm (unusually) proposing keep for this redirect and seeking consensus to create redirects for the few dozen other local names. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 20:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• AlanM1, is it practical to list the individual sites at the article? If there's no apparent connection between the redirected names and the Daily Voice, that could cause confusion. Yonkers isn't mentioned at all right now. Are all the sites named "[Place] Daily Voice"? --BDD (talk) 13:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @BDD: The ones I checked are. It seems like there should be a "List of local Daily Voice sites" section (or separate linked article), with redirects to it from the individual local names. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• AlanM1, I also think you should add a list of individual sites to the article, and then create the relevant redirects. Deryck C. 11:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[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.

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. --BDD (talk) 19:13, 29 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Dong A → Láng Tròn  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Đông A → Láng Tròn  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This redirect name makes abosulutely no sense, not a single location in Vietnam has this name. Cn5900 (talk) 06:36, 10 October 2019 (UTC) Just found the diacritic version of it, so I added it hereCn5900 (talk) 06:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete, not in target. Zerach (talk) 06:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment: According to the target, the former name was "Phong Thạnh Đông A." I don't know enough about Vietnamese to know if this would be a partial title match or not, but I'd prefer to lean on the side of caution if nothing else could plausible be called this. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:36, 19 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[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.

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. --BDD (talk) 19:04, 29 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Delete: trailing colon not required. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per nom, not a useful redirect. PC78 (talk) 21:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• delete Implausible link Andy Dingley (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[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.

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. Deryck C. 11:50, 30 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Michelangelo's Dave → David (Michelangelo)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible that anyone would search for the subject using this name. Ham II (talk) 19:51, 22 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per nom as neologism. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Apparently it's a Simpsons reference and it is mentioned in this Guardian article. Not sure that makes is a likely search term or useful redirect though. PC78 (talk) 17:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Possible retarget to Itchy & Scratchy & Marge? PC78 (talk) 17:55, 25 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I must say I'd forgotten that one. (That exhibition review must have one of the flimsiest pretexts for a Simpsons reference I've ever seen...) It seems that at least one redirect from a Simpsons gag has been deleted before for being too obscure. Also, the joke isn't currently mentioned in the episode's article. Ham II (talk) 14:35, 26 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete Nothing inherently wrong with a redirect from a Simpsons gag, but there needs to be some greater significance to it. --BDD (talk) 19:04, 29 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[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.

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. Deryck C. 11:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Medical Herbalism - European → Herbal medicine  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is an old redirect, but I'm not sure how helpful it is. As with many topics, there are mentions of Europe or individual European countries scattered throughout, but if a reader really wants to know, "What's this thing like in Europe?", it's going to be very hit-and-miss. I could also see this as a search term for medieval European medicine (i.e., Medieval medicine of Western Europe), but would hesitate to retarget there given that that's not explicit. The formatting of this redirect is nonstandard enough that I wouldn't oppose deletion, but mostly just wanted to have it discussed. BDD (talk) 15:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete - There already is the redirect Medical herbalism, which goes to Herbal medicine, and pops up when you start typing Medical Herbalism - European. I don't see this redirect serving readers. --Nessie (talk) 14:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[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.

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. Killiondude (talk) 05:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Sonic the Hedgehog (2019 film) → Sonic the Hedgehog (film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not released in 2019. Mysticair667537 (talk) 14:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. No need for misrepresenting this film with inaccurate facts. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:12, 22 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete (as page creator). My original thought process was, "Well, the film was originally going to be released in 2019, so now that it's been moved, there's still probably no harm in keeping the old redirect around." However, then I realized that it might indeed be confusing to readers to have this redirect continue to exist in search and in links. Since the film is indeed no longer a 2019 film, it would create more confusion than benefit to keep this redirect around. Mz7 (talk) 11:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mz7 Should I tag the redirect for WP:G7 then? James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 12:26, 23 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ach, I do think Tavix makes a good point below about how previous sources up to this point will be referring to the film as a 2019 film, so I can understand the argument that a reader of these sources might search up the movie as a 2019 film. I think I'll strike my comment and let others decide. Mz7 (talk) 18:32, 23 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep. Since the film was originally scheduled for a 2019 release, all sources before the release got pushed back would refer to this as a '2019 film'. Likewise, I feel this is a plausible redirect so long as there are no other Sonic the Hedgehog films this may be confused with. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete as confusing. I appreciate Mz7's thought process and Tavix's comment above; however, the scenario that Tavix describes is better handled through the Search function instead of an inaccurate redirect. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:30, 27 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Per Tavix, we should Keep this. Fairly standard practice as long as it's not actively confusing or years old. No harm, only helping. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:03, 28 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep per Tavix. I think this differs from the usual "faulty crystal ball" film redirects, since the film was ready to go in 2019 before public reaction pushed it back; it wasn't just a case of development hell or guesswork on our part. --BDD (talk) 18:56, 29 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[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.

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) feminist (talk) 16:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Trump transcript → Trump–Ukraine scandal#Trump-Zelensky call transcript  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unused redirect that points at a no-longer-extant anchor. Ich (talk) 11:58, 22 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Neutral: This topic is still covered in the 3rd paragraph of the target's "Summary" section, which says:

Additionally, the whistleblower alleged that records of the Trump–Zelensky call were moved from the system where presidential call transcripts are typically stored to a system reserved for the government's most sensitive secrets.

I would advocate restoring the anchor, but this does not seem to be a plausible search term. Geolodus (talk) 13:23, 22 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep If one were to think of a "Trump Transcript", they'll think of this. Also restore the deleted anchor. James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 13:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep This is a plausible search term, and currently, the document reproduced and discussed in Trump–Ukraine_scandal#Communications_with_Ukrainian_officials is likely to be what the searcher means. XOR'easter (talk) 16:02, 22 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep - I agree that this a plausible search term and it should stay. Just change the redirect to what User:XOR'easter suggested. At the time, the redirect was fine but as the article has changed, the redirect has not. So I favor in changing the redirect to User:XOR'easter's suggestion. Aviartm (talk) 18:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. Useful and plausible search term and restore anchor. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:06, 22 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep - echo Steve Quinn's comment. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:56, 27 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[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.

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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Retard sterilization → Compulsory sterilization  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Offensive and implausible. Most google hits for "retard sterilization" are about retarding the process of sterilization, not compulsory sterilization. The page only gets about 20 pageviews a year, and I suspect most of those come from people typing naughty words into the search box for laughs, rather than people who genuinely want to know what the term means. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 07:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete Implausible. Recommend speedy deletion per WP:G3 as utter vandalism. James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 13:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete I see no reason for the existence of this redirect apart from it being deliberately offensive, therefore delete per WP:RFD#DELETE reason #3, Hzh (talk) 00:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[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.

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. Already deleted by Athaenara per WP:G7. PC78 (talk) 06:44, 22 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Who is Tulsi Gabbard → Political positions of Tulsi Gabbard  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Per this recent RFD here, there's consensus that we shouldn't redirect arbitrary questions to the answers of said questions. Wikipedia is not a search engine. Also, if kept this should point to Tulsi Gabbard, not Political positions of Tulsi Gabbard_signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Rosguill, Understood, was unaware of that RFD … ok with deletion; not needed to point to Tulsi Gabbard. Thx for rvw of Poli Pos page. Humanengr (talk) 05:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[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.

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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator, sources justifying the redirect were provided. (non-admin closure) _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:18, 26 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Toulun → Yujiulü Shelun  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I can't find any indication that this is an alternative name of the target. I would suggest deletion unless a justification is provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:30, 22 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The spelling "Toulun" appears in Edward Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Chapter 30.[2] Since that book is still widely read, the redirect should be useful. For the identification of Gibbon's "Toulun" with Yujiulü Shelun, see the link [3]. In the same chapter, Gibbon writes "Moko" for Yujiulü Mugulü, "Geougen" for Rouran, and "Sienpi" for Xianbei. BTotaro (talk) 00:32, 26 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but it's not clear to me from reading the Imperial Asiatic Quarterly Review source that Toulun is identified with Yujiulü Shelun; rather, it says that Gibbon erroneously gives [the Geougen's] first Khan's name as Toulun, a mistake all the more important in that a century later the Geougen Khan really was named Toulun. While Shelun did rule roughly a century later, I don't think that this is enough to go on, and I note that a few decades later we also have Yujiulü Doulun, who could have also been the "real Toulun" that the author is referring to. At any rate, given the confusion in the sources, it may be more appropriate to convert this to a disambiguation. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:39, 26 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for looking into this. Still, I think the identification of Gibbon's "Toulun" is unambiguous. Try another link, from "A Thousand Years of the Tartars" [4]: "This grandson, Shelun or Zarun (whom Gibbon, misled by the French translators, calls Toulun)," BTotaro (talk) 03:05, 26 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, this new source is unambiguous. Thanks for providing sources. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:18, 26 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[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.