Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 8[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 8, 2020.

Parc Sir-Wilfrid-Laurie[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 Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7. Thryduulf (talk) 01:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion. I created redirect page this morning, but made a typo in name. Intended redirect page (Parc Sir-Wilfrid-Laurier) already exists. QuentinQuixote (talk) 22:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Tagged for speedy deletion per author's request. CycloneYoris talk! 22:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[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.

List of awards and nominations received by Nicole SCherzinger[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. Participants feel this is too unlikely to be a useful redirect. ~ mazca talk 12:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely spelling (SCherzinger), redirect already exists for Scherzinger AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 20:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Unlikely typo/mispelling, unlikely to be useful. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, but if it isn't deleted it should be refined to the "Awards and nominations" section of the target. Thryduulf (talk) 01:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Thryduulf and Mdewan6.

–Cupper52Discuss! 19:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[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.

Grand Mufti of Pakistan[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 16#Grand Mufti of Pakistan

Wolfe Sr.[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 15#Wolfe Sr.

Shit negro, that's all you had to say[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. signed, Rosguill talk 17:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably a quote from the film, but there's no mention or discussion of it in the article. (Some other quotes get a passing reference, but not this one.) Lord Belbury (talk) 14:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a quote from the film, when Wallace tells Jules that the Wolf is coming to clean house. But it's a minor quote, and hardly worthy of even a redirect. There is no improvement to the project by including this. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:54, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if it's not notable enough to be mentioned at the target article (and it isn't), then I can't see how it warrants a redirect Spiderone 14:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It might be worth looking at other recent redirects created by this editor. Many seem marginal at best. Liz Read! Talk! 19:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to encourage article creation, it's not mentioned at the target (nor, really, should it be). WilyD 06:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - No need to presume - wikiquote:Pulp Fiction#Dialogue. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 08:25, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[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.

I have a bad feeling about this[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 keep. signed, Rosguill talk 17:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unremarkable phrase, not mentioned in target article. Lord Belbury (talk) 14:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Its a notable phrase, very commonly associated with Star Wars and deliberately inserted into as many of the movies as possible and played with. However whether it's notable or not isn't the issue here. Is someone really going to come looking for the Star Wars article by entering that phrase? No I don't think so. Therefore it's not particularly useful. It does not harm, but it also does no use. Canterbury Tail talk 14:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[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.

Punjab, region[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 15#Punjab, region

Punjab (Province)[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 Punjab Province. signed, Rosguill talk 17:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Punjab, Pakistan which is the actual province. Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 08:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[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.

Hindhu river[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 15#Hindhu river

Yìndù[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 Names for India#Yìndù. signed, Rosguill talk 17:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – "Yìndù" means "India" in Chinese, not "Indus River". Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 08:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[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.

Gaelic Wikipedia[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 Keep. (non-admin closure) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 07:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could also refer to Irish Wikipedia or Manx Wikipedia. I suggest dabification a la Scottish Wikipedia. Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 08:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Gaelic language redirects to Scottish Gaelic with hatnotes to Goidelic languages and Irish language, so it is the primary topic. Hatnotes to the Irish and Manx Wikipedias can be added at Scottish Gaelic Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 10:54, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabbify per nom. As there are three entries, the Scottish Gaelic one can be made a primary topic to address Thryduulf's point -- 67.70.26.89 (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • You seem to be arguing for both a primary redirect and a primary dab page but both cannot exist at the same time. If there is a primary redirect you don't need a dab page for the two other uses as a hatnote can easily cover both. If you want disambiguation then you believe there isn't a primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 20:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm trying to address your concern. But if you don't like that case, then just list it like all the other Wikipedias, on the new dab page, without indicating the Scottish Gaelic one with any preference. That would just be Soumya's initial suggestion. I would choose the nom's suggestion over redirect keep. -- 67.70.26.89 (talk) 10:34, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add {{redirect|Gaelic Wikipedia|Irish-language Wikipedia|Irish Wikipedia|Manx-language Wikipedia|Manx Wikipedia}}. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:55, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[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.

English language reform[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 15#English language reform

Ranked choice voting[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 no consensus. I would suggest that in the future, RfD is not the best venue for this, because it's fundamentally a content dispute. The salient question is "Is 'ranked-choice voting' synonymous with 'instant-runoff voting'?", not "Is this redirect appropriate?". Answer the former question and the redirects can be dealt with accordingly, without a subsequent discussion.
Edit: I hope this won't feel like a supervote, but I'll be retargeting the first to Instant-runoff voting, where it pointed until recently, since I hope we'd all agree these should point to the same place. This should be considered the status quo for further discussion. --BDD (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The similar and properly punctuated ranked-choice voting targets instant-runoff voting. There is some debate about whether ranked-choice voting is a synonym for instant-runoff voting or if it also includes some slight variations described at the broader ranked voting article. This redirect has a good amount of history about its best target, including some discussion on its talk page, but to my knowledge has never been to rfd. I believe there is consensus for ranked-choice voting to target instant-runoff voting, and this redirect should as well. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note I've added all the other variations that exist to this discussion as, whatever happens, they should all point to the same target. Note also that Ranked-choice voting in the United States is an article. Thryduulf (talk) 12:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all to instant-runoff voting or disambiguate set index on ranked-choice voting. Almost all instances of "ranked-choice voting" I recall seeing are intended to refer to instant-runoff voting. I suppose the term could also be used to refer to the multi-winner version, single transferable vote, and it is used that way a few times in Ranked-choice voting in the United States. If the STV usage is significant enough, ranked-choice voting could be made a disambiguation page (listing IRV and STV, and perhaps ranked voting in a "See also" due to possible confusion), with the other versions redirected to that one. But ranked voting as a target is too broad; "ranked-choice voting" is not practically used to refer to, say, a Condorcet method. cathartid - talk 06:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    After further consideration, a set index article would be better than a disambiguation, because if "ranked-choice voting" could refer to IRV or STV, it could simultaneously refer to both. With a set index article, incoming links would not need to be retargeted. cathartid - talk 07:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems like Ranked voting has RCV as one of its major sections, while Instant runoff voting claims it's an alias? AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep That needs to be said. Making this redirect vulnerable to deletion is not a solution, meaning you shouldn't have brought it here. That said, I think the explanation in instant-runoff voting seems more complete because it covers the variation. Ranked-choice voting in the United States also covers it decently but is an inappropriate destination because of its specificity. Even though [Ranked voting]] has a section on it, I wouldn't direct it there if it were my choice. What I would really like to see is a coordinated effort to unify the information so cross redirects work and explain information in each destination. Trackinfo (talk) 05:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[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.

Her Royal Hotness[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 no consensus. --BDD (talk) 16:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target; ambiguous subject. Jalen Folf (talk) 01:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Ambiguous and not mentioned at target. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the sister of the wife of a royal, Pippa is not, herself, a royal. This was someone's idea of a joke, and should be deleted on that basis. Geo Swan (talk) 05:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above. The creator was community banned, in part for excessive wastes of the community's time and has also managed to get themselves arbcom banned and banned by the foundation for TOU violations (all after this was created, so it's not G5 speedy deletable) so it seems unlikely this was a good faith creation. Thryduulf (talk) 13:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep It appears she was referred to as "Her Royal Hotness" by the tabloid press [1] [2][3][4][5] [6]. They do all seem to refer to Pippa Middleton, I don't think it's ambiguous.-- P-K3 (talk) 21:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Is the tabloid press a reputable source? But, Regardless, I don't think that anyone comes to Wikipedia and searches "Her Royal Hotness" in the place of Pippa Middleton, so it's not an incredibly useful tool.--Bettydaisies (talk) 03:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't really matter in this case whether tabloids are reliable sources, it's whether it's a plausible search term. I was just pointing out that it may be.-- P-K3 (talk) 21:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per PK3, it is an epithet created by the tabloid press, and thus a viable search term. Tag as {{R from nickname}} and add documentation (like the tabloids, or social media about that) about the source of the nickname -- 67.70.26.89 (talk) 18:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not mentioned at the target (nor at the page of any other person who's been called by this nickname) and not worth mentioning per WP:PROPORTION. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 03:24, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is neutral though, it is a use found in the mass media, that is not a subjective valuation by any Wikipedian editor. It also isn't WP:CENSORed currently, since it is a use found in the press, and a redirect exists. -- 67.70.26.89 (talk) 10:39, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm a yank, don't have a dog in this fight. I could care less about the royals on either side of the pond. This is a usage in the press, already sourced. Wikipedia's job is to inform the public. We are the number one source. If someone comes here for information, even on a casual search for the phrase "Her Royal Hotness" then we should inform and direct them to correct place and (potentially, if they know enough about how wikipedia sourcing works) the sources that use the phrase. That is our job. Not to inform because it is trivial or casual, in your opinion, makes wikipedia derelict in their duty. Trackinfo (talk) 05:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[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.

Türk Sanat Müzgi[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 15#Türk Sanat Müzgi

American Wikipedia[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 15#American Wikipedia

Protected page[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 no consensus / retarget to Wiki#Trust_and_security. There is broad dissatisfaction with the current target, with participants split between deleting it, and retargeting it - with this being the most numerically popular target. There are valid issues with this target too, but in the lack of a clear consensus this is at least broadly considered an upgrade on the previous situation. ~ mazca talk 13:00, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose retarget to Wiki#Trust and security. Reason: protected pages are not limited to Wikipedia; they are also present on other wikis. But there are other possible targets, like protection on Word docs, so I don't know. Aasim (talk) 06:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The meaning is ambiguous, and a cross-namespace redirect is not desirable. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Protection (disambiguation) which will help someone find whatever sort of protected page they are interested in, although the wiki use could do with adding. Thryduulf (talk) 15:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dissambiguate To Wiki, the selfref, protection dab; and protected memory (protected memory pages), and legally protected pages (which IIRC exist, where laws are written to protect such specific pages) [if we can find an article covering it].-- 67.70.26.89 (talk) 19:02, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[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.

Right to Bear Arms[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 Right to keep and bear arms. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is confusing because it's so close to Right to bear arms, which is what readers are much more likely to be looking for. I created Right to Bear Arms (Russian organization), which is a clearer redirect the extremely obscure organization associated with Maria Butina. R2 (bleep) 00:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a well known puppet organisation. Plus you have WP:DIFFCAPS. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 07:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't thought of that. That works for me. R2 (bleep) 16:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_December_8&oldid=1186037212"