Talk:Rasna (drink)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:06, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Rasna-85711774.jpg

Requested move 10 April 2024

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. Colin M (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Rasna → Rasna (drink)
 * Rasna (disambiguation) → Rasna

– I had disambiguated this recently, and Talk:Rasna (disambiguation) contains a pretty good explanation based on data on why there is no primary topic by usage. User Fram reverted this move now, so here's a formal RM to gather more community input.

Fundamentally, we do not have much reason to believe that the term "Rasna" is strongly associated by the average English reader with the drink made in India, and a simple disambiguation list is the easy and reliable solution here. India is certainly a huge English-speaking country, but this product does not appear to be well-known globally (at least according to the current article content).

With regard to long-term significance, it's not clear that the drink would come even close to overshadowing the other homonyms, which include the Etruscan civilization, and half a dozen small settlements across Europe. Joy (talk) 17:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Natg 19 (talk) 23:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Support. Clear absence of a primary topic for the term. BD2412  T 18:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose, clear primary topic, and I hope you do know that "the average English reader" also includes a massive amount of Indians, for whom the drink is clearly the most obvious association? |R%C3%A4sna|Rasna,_Po%C5%BEega|%C5%98%C3%A1sn%C3%A1|Rasna,_Brest_Region This is the number of page views in 2023 for the drink, compared to the other "Rasna" variations we have an article for. The daily average for the drink alone is 61, the daily average for the four others is 1... The comparison with the Etruscan civilization is false, the search term is not "Etruscans" or "Etruria" or "Etruscan civilization", but the rarely used "Rasna", a term used by the Etruscans for themselves in their long extinct language. It's not a term the "average English reader", from India or elsewhere, is familiar with, but a highly specialized one. Clickthrough at the disambig was more than 4 times as high for the drink as it was for the Etruscans, which again indicates a clear presence of a primary topic. Fram (talk) 07:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * We know from the clickstreams at "Rasna" that there has been at least a noticable amount of readers who actually used that rarely used term to navigate to the Etruscan article, and while their numbers are not huge, they are comparable, and I've already shown how they help indicate a lack of primary topic by usage together with the rest of the readers. The fact that even such a rare, specialized term competes with something that's supposed to be a primary topic should make us consider the latter claim more carefully. --Joy (talk) 14:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * But they are not "comparable" and repeating this won't make it true. It is not "competing", it gets less than 1/4th of the clickthroughs of the drink. Fram (talk) 14:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I've already explained this in the previous discussion, all I can ask is that you try to re-read it again and try to avoid thinking of these imperfect measurements in such black and white terms. --Joy (talk) 18:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "Comparable" and "Competing" are rather black-and-white terms without a factual basis, and re-reading the previous discussion doesn't change the numbers one bit. You are trying to force some interpretation from the numbers without convincing arguments as to why that interpretation would be the right one. Your explanation is utterly unconvincing. Fram (talk) 07:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I'm finding it hard to continue this argument when I am faced with this level of flamewar-like behavior. You've decided that the no-clickthrough traffic is to be completely ignored as a factor, and draw all your conclusions based on that premise, but you haven't explained the rationale for that at all, and now we're apparently just spinning in circles. --Joy (talk) 12:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, no PRIMARY by long-term significance.--Ortizesp (talk) 12:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. No primary topic by long-term significance. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)