Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 20[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 20, 2018.

Shared Service and Outsourcing (SSO)[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. --BDD (talk) 21:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be an WP:XY between Shared services and Outsourcing. Interestingly enough, SSO is defined in the Shared services article as a "shared-service organization". -- Tavix (talk) 21:16, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as above. There are a few organizations that combine the two functions, but it isn't commonly known as SSO like that. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:32, 21 December 2018 (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.

Business and industry/Outsourcing[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. --BDD (talk) 21:57, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Business and industry was deleted, and I believe this one should follow. This is not an intuitive search term for the target. It is the only remaining redirect that begins with "business and industry", so it was not a well-used format. -- Tavix (talk) 21:11, 20 December 2018 (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.

Outsourcing 3.0[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. --BDD (talk) 21:57, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A SPA created an article of what looks to be a neologism that was subsequently redirected instead of deleted for whatever reason. The term is not mentioned at the target, and, per the author there is no agreed definition of the term. -- Tavix (talk) 20:36, 20 December 2018 (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.

Redirects without mention to Gallatin County, Montana[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 31#Redirects without mention to Gallatin County, Montana

Book:"Alternative medicine", as at 2014 CE[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. MBisanz talk 15:10, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unlikely search terms in the Book namespace. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:34, 20 December 2018 (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.

Rivals[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 7#Rivals

Sharpe's Rifles[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 move Sharpe's Rifles (novel) to the base title. Not much of a consensus, but this seems to be slightly favored among participants. Also note that the status quo is the novel being the primary topic. -- Tavix (talk) 23:12, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is the primary topic here - Sharpe's Rifles (novel), Sharpe's Rifles (TV programme), Sharpe's Rifles (disambiguation), or Sharps rifle? Where should Sharp's Rifles (the search term I used looking for the TV programme) and Sharp's rifles point? Thryduulf (talk)

Retarget all 3 to Sharpe's Rifles (disambiguation) since no primary subject. Add the two that don't exist, targeted at the same place. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:58, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You can't redirect Foo to Foo (disambiguation) leaving nothing at the base name: you should move Foo (disambiguation) to Foo. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:03, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This RfD is created because there's a malplaced disambiguation page at Sharpe's Rifles (disambiguation) which exists without a page at the base name. Another course of action would be to post a Requested Move to move Sharpe's Rifles (disambiguation) and discuss there, but given that's a bit of a faff and we are here already, I'd say move Sharpe's Rifles (TV programme) over the redirect at Sharpe's Rifles, with a hatnote like the one already at Sharpe's Rifles (novel), and create the other 2 current redlinks to redirect there too. I say this because I think the TV prog is the primary topic by pageviews, and by long(ish) term significance since 25 years after broadcast here we are talking about it. And delete Sharpe's Rifles (disambiguation) as no longer required. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Shhhnotsoloud: if I was certain about what should be primary then I would have just boldly moved it/gone to RM. I choose RfD as I wasn't sure what (if any) topic of the three was primary and this needed discussion. In my experience RfD handles discussions of this nature much better than RM. Thryduulf (talk) 16:31, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:49, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move Sharpe's Rifles (novel) over redirect. The book Sharpe's Rifles is the primary topic. The television "episode" or (TV programme) is an adaptation and is secondary topic. The ones where it says Sharp's Rifles or Sharps Rifles (without the e at the end of Sharp) can go to the rifle. A hatnote can then go back to the book. Don't create new redirects though, that would be more confusing. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:32, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why should new redirects not be created? I encountered this because I was looking for content at Sharp's Rifles not knowing that this was an incorrect spelling. Thryduulf (talk) 11:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, fine, you can create those, I just recommend any spelling variants of Sharps without the e go to the rifles product; and any variant that includes the e, like Sharpes' Rifles go to the book. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move Sharpe's Rifles (novel) over redirect.. I agree with Angus here. Unless there is overwhelming statistical evidence that a derivative work has eclipsed the original work in terms of prominence, the base title should go to the original work, and any derivative work's article titles disambiguated. Deryck C. 18:41, 3 January 2019 (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.

Tony Bray[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 7#Tony Bray

Template:Redirect form stage name[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. Anarchyte (talk | work) 07:12, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a good idea to support typographical errors in the maintenance template space. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:29, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It's a good idea if you make typos. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:58, 20 December 2018 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. These redirects allow typos like this one to remain for a couple years now, which is very much not a good idea. -- Tavix (talk) 17:00, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These aren’t forms. Steel1943 (talk) 23:15, 20 December 2018 (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.

Warrington Gillette[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. --BDD (talk) 21:09, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should an actor really redirect to the cast list of a film he was in? --woodensuperman 13:01, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this isn't helpful as it's not his film. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redirecting an actor to the cast list of a specific film can occasionally be appropriate, specifically if it's plainly verifiable that said film was the only role the person ever actually had — but Warrington Gillette has several credits in his IMDb page, and it's not patently obvious that this performance wildly outstrips any of the others in comparative notability either. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 24 December 2018 (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.

Tariff Man[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. Anarchyte (talk | work) 12:03, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target. I would also consider this a POV name. Catrìona (talk) 02:37, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Possible retargets to Trump tariffs or 2018 China–United States trade war as per this context https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-tariff-man-tweet-william-mckinley-trade-china-2018-12 but only if any of the articles mention his quote "I am a tariff man" with the nickname sticking. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:39, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although this certainly has had some momentary currency in the past couple of weeks as a sarcastic nickname, it's not discussed in the article at all — and it's neither a likely search term in its own right, nor all that likely to stick around as a permanent epithet for the Donald. In addition, it's worth noting that former president William McKinley also once called himself a "Tariff Man", and the term exclusively referred to him until three weeks ago — so even if this were to be kept for some unfathomable reason, it would need to be a McKinley-Trump dab page. But I still don't believe we need that. Bearcat (talk) 17:33, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As previously mentioned, name is ambiguous and can refer to McKinley and other pro-Tariff figures. Notability and recentivism is also in question. Marquis de Faux (talk) 03:47, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Ambiguous term, and lacks notability. Drdpw (talk) 07:27, 27 December 2018 (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.

Anchorage mayoral election, 2017[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 per WP:G5. These were created by a sock of Winterysteppe. -- Tavix (talk) 14:53, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can discern, the city of Anchorage, Alaska holds its mayoral elections every three years (see e.g. Ballotpedia): there were elections in 2015 and 2018, but not in 2017 or 2019. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 00:28, 20 December 2018 (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/2018_December_20&oldid=1036305944"