Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 4[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 4, 2020.

Pittsburg Teachers Gorillas football[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) feminist (talk) | free Hong Kong 03:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No mentions in target articles, unlikely search terms, seems like errors on our end. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 21:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This was not an error. These are historical names and the redirects are necessary to so as not to present anachronisms at places like Template:1927 Kansas Collegiate Athletic Conference football standings. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:32, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Jweiss.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 17:03, 11 October 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.

Plot armour[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 20:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Delete. These were mentioned at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 24#Plot armor but were not deleted. — Anita5192 (talk) 19:16, 4 October 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.

Hades (imprint)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 11#Hades (imprint)

Dabhari Beach[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. Can be freely recreated if a sourced mention does happen to find its way into the target. ~ mazca talk 11:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target. An internet search suggests that this beach is near Surat, but without a mention at the target it doesn't help readers much. Delete unless a duly sourced mention can be added. signed, Rosguill talk 17:35, 4 October 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.

Wikipedia:NLIST[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 Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists. Frequently misused. Consensus is that past usage is so often wrong that it is preferable to fix the ambiguity rather than persist with a confusing status quo. If someone wishes to hatnote at the new target, they are welcome to, but the section already has multiple hatnotes and I can't think of a worthwhile way of phrasing this rather niche one. ~ mazca talk 11:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's unclear why this redirect ever pointed to the rarely helpful section about lists in the people notability criteria as opposed to notability concerning lists more generally (i.e. WP:LISTN).

I retargeted it a few years ago but undid myself after noticing its use in some templates, but didn't follow up. Still, years later, I constantly make the mistake of linking to NLIST instead of LISTN. As far as I can tell, so does everybody else. Let's fix it. Bringing it to RfD to determine the best way to do so. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:23, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I agree it's confusing, but this redirect has been used in hundreds or thousands of deletion discussions, sometimes even correctly! Won't deleting it leave confusing red links in these historical records? pburka (talk) 22:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not proposing deletion. If anything it should go to the same place as LISTN, since that seems to be how most people intend it. As for whether it will affect past discussions: It certainly will. So the question is whether eliminating confusion moving forward is worth added confusion to the past. Continuing with something we know is constantly confusing people doesn't seem desirable. The second question is, I guess, whether it would then be worth going back and retargeting instances of its use (probably not, since that would require assessing which someone meant or making wrong those that weren't wrong before). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:59, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we don't rewrite the old ones, then the meaning of existing AFD comments will change. If we rewrite them with a pipe, then the meaning will be ambiguous since the displayed and linked meaning will be different. I could be persuaded that they should be rewrite them to something like WP:~NLIST, which can preserve the old meaning while visibly indicating that it's special in some way. I'm uncomfortable with potentially changing the meaning of so many historical discussions and I don't know if there's any precedent for a change like this. pburka (talk) 22:28, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • All true. Though the reality is that many of those already don't mean what they were intended to mean because of this confusing redirect. Again, I see clarity moving forward as more valuable (in the context of a redirect, anyway) than [more] ambiguity in archived threads, but I don't have a strong opinion about whether (or how) to change the past threads. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists, as expected. Hatnote there if necessary for those following past usage. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 00:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per above. The highly confusing nature of the redirect means that until a change is made, people will inadvertently link to the wrong guideline. Making the change will eventually turn this error into a thing of the past, rather than a perpetual nuisance. signed, Rosguill talk 23:50, 5 October 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.

Reading book[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 was keep and create separate disambiguation page -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This page should be retargeted to "Book" because types of books, like chapter books and comic books, are used to read. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 15:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but add a hatnote The current target is known as reading books, so it's probably correct. A hatnote to book should straighten any confusion out. Hog Farm Bacon 17:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you search up reading book on Google, it gives "Book" as the default result, so I suggest moving "Book" to "Reading book" and "Book (disambiguation)" to its base name instead. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 18:09, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add hatnote per Hog Farm. Someone searching for "reading book" is more likely looking for information about the type of book known as a "reading book" rather than the generic "book". Thryduulf (talk) 19:04, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify – The draft below the redirect looks good. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 14:30, 5 October 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.

Micropapillary[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 -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Using Search is better than this disambiguation page target. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:59, 4 October 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.

Template:Other uses (disambiguation)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 11#Template:Other uses (disambiguation)

Memorial High School Debate[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 20:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as ambiguous, and not disambiguated by the current target. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:14, 4 October 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.

OTOP[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 One Tambon One Product. signed, Rosguill talk 20:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This originally redirected to One Tambon One Product but was retargeted to the current dab page in 2012. Is the Thai programme the primary topic for the abbreviation? Google search results (with the region set to UK or US) appear to be overwhelmingly about the Thai version, which is only linked in the See Also section in the current target. Paul_012 (talk) 13:00, 4 October 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.

Marrow (TCM)[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 -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "TCM" here means Traditional Chinese Medicine, this redirect having very briefly been a single-sentence article in 2006. "Marrow" is not mentioned at Traditional Chinese medicine. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:01, 4 October 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.

Manly, Australia[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 11#Manly, Australia

Lydia Pinkham (disambiguation)[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 -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Lydia Pinkham" is not ambiguous and whilst the target is a disambiguation page, it does not disambiguate "Lydia Pinkham". (G14 declined). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The only other close thing is Lydia Pinkham House, and as a partial name mention, it wouldn't count for creating a dab page, so this is not a good redirect. Hog Farm Bacon 17:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Hog Farm. There's nothing but Lydia Pinkham House to disambiguate. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 12:47, 5 October 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.

Build Back Better[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 Build Back Better (disambiguation). signed, Rosguill talk 20:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An IP editor has been retargeting this page to its original target, Building Back Better, after it had been changed to point to Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign. A discussion was started at Talk:Building Back Better#Someone keeps redirecting this to a page about Joe Biden!! and a user cited WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as the rationale for the change. While the presidential campaign is more recent and may have seen more use, the original UN program occupied that space 19 January 2020 – 10 September 2020. I remain neutral on this, but my question is: should the redirect remain targeted at the current page or retarget the original page, Building Back Better? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:28, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should redirect to the Biden campaign because that is what most editors are looking for when they type that in. The Wikishark tool shows that interest in the article picked up after Biden adopted the term.[1] The usual name for the UN program is Building Back Better, so one would expect readers to type that in if that was what they were looking for. TFD (talk) 22:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Except there's next to no information about Build Back Better at the Biden page! :S 51.219.141.160 (talk) 22:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The term Build Back Better is being used in the UK (among other countries). By a political party. Despite the term being pretty self explanatory, I wanted to know more about to what the term referred, when and where the term/slogan originated, etc. That's what the Build[ing] Back Better page provides. The Biden page doesn't. Also, the Build Back Better campaign by Biden models / copies / is inspired by the original Building Back Better program. So the fact there are a few letters different ("-ing") is neither here nor there. It's not true that a user would type in the name of the UN program if that was what they were looking for, because the reader won't necessarily have heard of the UN program: that's the sort of thing they would find out if they landed on the right (Building Back Better) page when they typed in, "Build Back Better". "Building Back Better" is OBVIOUSLY much closer to "Build Back Better" than "Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign". And yet again, I remind you that the USA != the world. The world is a big place, the idea that a phrase like "Build Back Better" should direct to something about the 2020 campaign of a politician in just one of the almost-200 countries in the world is ridiculous.

51.219.141.160 (talk) 22:50, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Observation: The phrase "Build Back Better" shows up three times in Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign: As part of {{redirect}}, in the slogan parameter of the infobox, and reference 11 (Build Back Better: Joe Biden’s Jobs and Economic Recovery Plan for Working Families, Joe Biden Official Website). Checking the WikiShark offered by TFD, the redirect has starting seeing more use around May 2020 and peaked up at September 7, so there's no denying that the redirect became much more useful during the campaign. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If someone searching for "Build Back Better" should land on a page about Joe Biden's campaign because it's a slogan (or attitude or similar) they've adopted, then by the very same logic, someone searching for "Build Back Better" should [also] land on a page about the UK's Conservative Party or its leader, Boris Johnson, because "Build Back Better" is a slogan (or attitude or similar) that they've also adopted. But what about landing on the pages of other political parties, or other non-profit organisations etc., etc., that have also adopted the slogan/attitude?? Or does it only matter if it's American centric? So shall I go ahead and stick a few mentions of "Build Back Better" in the page about the Conservative Party (UK) and then have the term redirect to that page?51.219.141.160 (talk) 11:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A comment regarding your Observation, Tenryuu: I hardly think people search for things in Wikipedia only to come across articles that merely *mention* the phrase for which they searched! The phrase "Build Back Better" merely showing up in an article can't possibly be justification for redirecting to that article!!51.219.141.160 (talk) 11:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is why we need a proper disambiguation page, as pointed out in the two prior sections of that article talk page. After all, it's jarring to search a slogan for the Biden campaign and find a page about a UN program that has nothing to do with it (which by the way, created by someone that was here for two months solely for disaster relief topics and may have even been here for promotional purposes, to the point that a conflict of interest notice was later given to the user).
And I think formally changing the article name was seen as a signal clearing the way for such a change.2600:1012:B02B:4128:0:44:DC77:B601 (talk) 00:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think this should hopefully satisfy all concerned parties. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:52, 11 October 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.

Christ's sacrifice on the Cross[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 Crucifixion of Jesus. signed, Rosguill talk 20:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While this has been at the current target for 13 years, so it's probably worth a discussion, Crucifixion of Jesus seems like a more likely target. Salvation in Christianity is also another possibility. Hog Farm Bacon 04:17, 4 October 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.

SFLB[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 20:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be too ambiguous to redirect here. There's also a NN song and a medical test, I doubt anyone searching for this is looking for mullets. Hog Farm Bacon 04:13, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. "Short Front Long Back" isn't mentioned and there are no other uses in Enwiki. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:59, 4 October 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.

Commonwealth Crewcut[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 20:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not appear to be a common name for the subject. In fact, when I searched for this term, the hairstyles that came up were far from a mullet. Hog Farm Bacon 04:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I can't find this exact term used anywhere other than Wikipedia and a hairstyle wiki (that may have sourced the info from Wikipedia). Thryduulf (talk) 12:52, 4 October 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.

Good Satire[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 20:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rather ambiguous, this is far from the primary topic here. We don't have Bad satire, so I'm not sure that this is particularly reasonable with the qualifier. Hog Farm Bacon 04:08, 4 October 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.

Disco Booty Junction[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 20:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Enwiki does not appear to have content on this subject. Hog Farm Bacon 04:05, 4 October 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.

Keto diet[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) CycloneYoris talk! 07:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re-target to Low-carbohydrate diet. The current target is about the medical diet, but the shortened term more often refers to a variety of low-carbohydrate diets for weight loss. 143.244.37.117 (talk) 03:25, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The current target has a good hatnote. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but so does the proposed target. I think it's more likely that someone searching for "Keto diet" is really looking for the fad diet. For example the top 5 Google search results for "keto diet" (using Startpage to avoid personalization) are all about the non-medical diet. 143.244.37.141 (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I actually agree that readers are more likely going to be looking for the fad diet, but that's an argument for moving Ketogenic diet. As long as the medical therapy is considering WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the full phrase, pointing the shortened version elsewhere just doesn't make sense to me. --BDD (talk) 15:06, 5 October 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_October_4&oldid=983123674"