Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 9[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 9, 2020.

Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the saddest one of all?[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) 15:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a close, but not exact, match of the first line of a song off of You're for Me by Buck Owens. I wasn't able to find any indication that it's a line in one of Callum Beattie's songs. I would suggest redirecting to You're for Me or possibly deletion as it's not an exact match. signed, Rosguill talk 17:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 23:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is ambiguous and there are better ways than using an encyclopedia to find song lyrics. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:01, 10 August 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.

Discoverer of the americas[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 20#Discoverer of the americas

Dan Ryan (politician)[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 Daniel Ryan. --BDD (talk) 15:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 20:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I only mentioned it as an alternative. Currently, no page aggregates the 2020 Portland Commission elections, but Portland Commissioners are notable after they are elected. KidAd (talk) 20:33, 9 August 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.

!hej[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 21:57, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a strange placement of the exclamation point before the word, and it's not mentioned at the target. Googling isn't much help because it just returns a gazillion results for "hej" itself first. No indication why we have this. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Implausible search term. CycloneYoris talk! 23:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom. --Lenticel (talk) 01:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all. Narky Blert (talk) 06:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: !hej is name of mobile network within HT ERONET (link). I added this redirect probably because !hej was red link is some article, but in meantime it is changed and i can't find it now. --Smooth O (talk) 07:06, 10 August 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.

Doll customizing[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 17#Doll customizing

Worcester/Archive[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 21:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant subpage; unlikely search term Certes (talk) 17:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question I was going to ask if it was related to Talk:Worcester/Archive and it seems that was created yesterday when the page got moved based on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. – The Grid (talk) 17:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article subpage is from 2007. The talk page is new and move-related but can probably be deleted too. Certes (talk) 18:13, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete housekeeping, we don't create archive titles in article space just because a talk page has such a title. Its confusing since it might make people think its the name of something called "Worcester/Archive" but such redirect are un standard and it might be a good idea to run a database query to find others. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:04, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Why didn't I think of that? There are 141 others. Many were created by experienced regulars whose work I don't normally question, but those I checked have no incoming links. Either we're missing something or we should consider bulk deletion. Certes (talk) 20:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this redirect dates from 2007, when talk page archiving had to be done manually. If on an archived talk page, it wasn't always easy to click back to the article page, so redirects such as this seemed a reasonable solution at the time. --RFBailey (talk) 14:16, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this is closed as delete (which I think it will) then we could just nominate the others in a bundled nomination (with a collapse tab) but they could possibly be deleted under G6 anyway? Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of the similar redirects are useful because they make links from the corresponding Talk:*/Archive page to its article blue. I still think we should delete orphan pages such as Worcester/Archive, but we should keep those which have a corresponding Talk: page. Certes (talk) 10:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete exactly per C,S. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:09, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Housekeeping, though not created in error. Steel1943 (talk) 21:26, 11 August 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.

God's bachelor pad[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 21:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't appear to be an actual name for the Garden of Eden Hog Farm Bacon 16:52, 9 August 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.

County Borough of Worcester[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! 07:30, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing redirect, now pointing to a city that does not even mention the county borough. The Banner talk 10:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uncontroversial change to Worcester, England. It is the result of that page being renamed. MRSC (talk) 10:40, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen some emergency edits to fix the the problems. (Why not earlier?) Now that Worcester, England is saying something about the borough, it is clear that this indeed a sensible target. So: SPEEDY CLOSE AS KEEP, as nominator. The Banner talk 11:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • County boroughs sometimes have their own articles (such as County Borough of Carlisle) otherwise they're just redirected to their settlement so unless a separate articles is created keep without prejudice to creating a separate article. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: now that it is targeted at Worcester, England. This is a former name of the muncipal government which is more-or-less coterminous with the settlement, so the former municipality does not need a separate article. --RFBailey (talk) 14:40, 11 August 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.

Order of the Brilliant Star[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 disambiguate. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 07:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search brings up more results about the Taiwanese order (Order of Brilliant Star) than the current target. Maybe that should be the target? Paul_012 (talk) 07:15, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Thanks for the notification. The search results seem fairly evenly balanced to me. That said, I have no objections to this being re-targeted to the Taiwanese order if a hat note is provided there directing back to the Zanzibari one - Dumelow (talk) 07:38, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. Narky Blert (talk) 09:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. Draft provided. When this is done I suggest Order of Brilliant Star is swapped with Order of the Brilliant Star (Taiwan). Nb there are many incoming links to Order of Brilliant Star. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:55, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure about the renaming, since official sites in English appear to omit the article. This should probably be separately discussed on the article talk page. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:55, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Dab between the two targets --Lenticel (talk) 00:11, 12 August 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.

QutubeAllahabad[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 17#QutubeAllahabad

Tea table[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 Table (furniture). signed, Rosguill talk 21:48, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know that this is a {{R with history}} but the term seems to overwhelmingly refer to coffee table more than anything else. I could not find any sources in which it refers to the current target. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:22, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In short, I don't know what to do with this one beyond saying that the current target is wrong. Narky Blert (talk) 14:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See also Nippy, in particular the top photo which shows people having afternoon tea around a table. Narky Blert (talk) 14:23, 9 August 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.

Greek organization[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 16#Greek organization

Wikipedia:SOURCE?[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 to WP:SOURCEDEF. I'm interpreting this close based on the discussion, as the final suggestion was to retarget to an as-yet nonexisting shortcut signed, Rosguill talk 21:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The shortcut makes no sense in its present form. It also adds unnecessary confusion about reliable sources when WP:SOURCE links to a more detailed explanation of a reliable source. – The Grid (talk) 00:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question: If this shortcut is redirected to WP:RS, what would you suggest as a replacement shortcut to use when pointing to this specific section of the WP:Verifiability policy? Blueboar (talk) 00:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Blueboar: That's been the harder question for me. It appears the section is restating what a reliable source is from WP:SOURCE. I would suggest a hatnote that further information can be found at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources rather than a new shortcut. – The Grid (talk) 01:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok... I think I see the problem. Both WP:V and WP:RS have (what should be) identical statements defining what a source is... and that is a good thing. Both pages need that statement, and they SHOULD be identical.
Yet it helps to have a shortcut for each rendition, so that you can point to the definition in the policy when discussing the policy, and to the definition in the guideline when discussing the guideline. Perhaps SOURCE for one and SOURCEDEF for the other? Don’t really care which is which. Blueboar (talk) 01:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps that could work. – The Grid (talk) 04:39, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to WP:SOURCEDEF based on discussion above. – The Grid (talk) 17:52, 9 August 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.

🍜[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 16#🍜

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_August_9&oldid=973944660"