Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 August 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 20[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 20, 2014.

Gift Wrapped[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 converted to a disambig so now out of scope for RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 00:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of results for this. Is Gift Wrapped (album) really the primary topic? If not, a disambiguation page should be created. Launchballer 16:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - No it's not - that's why I moved it. Disambiguation page required. Unreal7 (talk) 16:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good enough for me. The question is, what do we do about Gift Wrapped (album)? We have articles on three albums under that name.--Launchballer 17:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually pretty simple. We can just move Gift Wrapped (album) to Gift Wrapped (The Arrogant Worms album), and then point the redirect left at Gift Wrapped (album) to Gift Wrapped. Besides the disambiguation page currently at Gift Wrapped, there's only one page pointing to Gift Wrapped (album), {{The Arrogant Worms}}, so there aren't a bunch of links to clean up. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 07:44, 21 August 2014 (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.

Capital of Hong Kong[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 Victoria, Hong Kong (a.k.a. City of Victoria (a redirect), or Victoria City (a disambiguation)) Nabla (talk) 20:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no capital of Hong Kong. 84.141.7.42 (talk) 11:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Agree per being Hong Kong resident for life and never heard of a capital existing in the city. 野狼院ひさし (t/c) 01:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there is the possible target of the legislature... Legislative Council Complex -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 04:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Lenticel (talk) 07:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Hong Kong was a territory in its own right and its capital was the "City of Victoria" q.v. which is now known as "Central". While Hong Kong is now part of China, Chinese states have capitals, so there is nothing incongruous there. Remember this is a redirect, not a cited fact that needs references etc, and as such if it is useful it should be kept. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC).
  • Retarget or Keep. This should not be a red link per Rich Farmbrough and also because this is a very likely thing for people to look up (between 90 and 160 hits in each of the first seven months of 2014 for example), so deleting this would harm the encyclopaedia by making it much harder for people to find what they are looking for. I think that Victoria City would make the better target, as the third sentence of that article starts "It was deemed to be the capital of Hong Kong from 1842 until the 1997 handover" (with two references) whereas the word "capital" is not used in the Central, Hong Kong article. The present target is not though wrong and keeping it is a much better option than deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 00:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck and change to retarget to Victoria City, with reference to the historical context provided by Rich and Thryduulf. If possible, do put a note explaining that context for the uninitiated. Finally trout welcome for not knowing this despite "being Hong Kong resident for life". 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 02:10, 27 August 2014 (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.

"B-Double-O-T-Y[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 deleted by Shirt58 as WP:G7. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 00:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No idea what the initial double quote is doing there... Fram (talk) 08:02, 20 August 2014 (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.

John Bunnnion[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 deleted by Alexf as WP:G7. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 00:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Too many typos to be a reasonable alternative spelling. "Bunion" or "Bunnion" may be somewhat plausible, but "Bunnnion" with three Ns in a row? Fram (talk) 07:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Its only one typo, "Bunnion" was the spelling used in the indulgence issued by the king, for example, and in the muster rolls, and this spelling exists in parish registers back to 1581. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:38, 20 August 2014 (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.

Ronald Reagan Election Eve Speech "A Vision For America"[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 October 14#Ronald Reagan Election Eve Speech "A Vision For America"

한채영- Han Chae Yeong[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 October 7#한채영- Han Chae Yeong

Potpoupri (album)[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 withdrawn by nominator. Per the two arguments below. Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 21:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible typo. Has existed for years so not eligible for R3. Safiel (talk) 00:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep it appears Potpoupri is an alternative spelling/pronunciation/word for potpourri. Strange but true. Either that or it s a plausible typo. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC).
  • Keep, when a redirect has existed for years we need evidence of it actually causing harm or a detailed explanation why it will (not may) cause harm in future before we should even consider deleting it and we have neither here. When, as Rich Farmbrough demonstrates, the redirect is plausible the burden for deletion becomes significantly higher. That burden becomes much higher again when, as here, the stats show evidence of use. So to sum up we have evidence of plausibility and of use and no evidence of harm, so deletion would be detrimental to the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 00:40, 23 August 2014 (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'd like to reopen this discussion, how should it be done? I can't agree with Rich Farmbrough's assumption that it's "an alternative spelling/pronunciation/word for potpourri" (could he please provide a single valid source?). The references found on Google are the result of other sites cloning wikipedia content. In fact it's wikipedia that's making this completely implausible typo look like a plausible one. Wikipedia should not be a source of information that's clearly wrong. —capmo (talk) 02:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • You need to start a new nomination, clearly linking to this one, with a clear reason why you want it deleted. For the record, if you do nominate it I will again recommend it is kept. Thryduulf (talk) 10:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_August_20&oldid=1085561800"