Talk:Blonde bombshell

This article was nominated for deletion on 3 may 2012. The result of the discussion was keep.

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

help making red links blue

[1] Lot a paywalls hiding articles that would be used to make an article for Harlow: The Blonde Bombshell. Dream Focus 03:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article for Trisha Noble states she won an award for The Blonde Bombshell. I search but don't see that in the Google news archive search. The album might've gotten reviewed somewhere, but I'm tired and going to bed now. I made stub articles for two of the formerly red links. Dream Focus 03:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 06 November 2014

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the disambiguation page to the plain title, per the discussion below; content discussion may continue, as determining the appropriate scope of the relevant articles it is not within the scope of this RM close. Dekimasuよ! 22:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blonde bombshell (disambiguation) → Blonde bombshell – There is no primary topic – Wbm1058 (talk) 01:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). EdJohnston (talk) 04:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is a proposal to move the DAB page to the base title. But Blonde bombshell has its own edit history. In the past it has been redirected variously to Bombshell (sex symbol), Blonde stereotype or Stereotypes of blondes. There probably needs to be a discussion of how to best organize this material. EdJohnston (talk) 04:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I moved the attributions that were on Blonde bombshell to Blonde bombshell (sex symbol) as an effort to exclude attribution issues from having a bearing on this move discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 05:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are actually two distinct articles in the history:
- The original version created at 02:50, 13 May 2006 which as of 20:38, 7 May 2012 redirected to Bombshell (sex symbol). This segment of the history would be appropriate at Blonde bombshell (sex symbol)
- The version started at 04:55, 10 May 2012. This second segment would be appropriate at Blonde bombshell (stereotype)
I'm not sure what is technically possible as I don't have the tools myself. Can the history be split? Hoping an administrator can sort it out. – Wbm1058 (talk) 13:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that as well; however, the bold move was, in essence, to take action before any "oppose due to attributions" votes come in, or even worse, the closing administrator doesn't notice the attributions and deletes the page. (I've seen both happen before, so in my mind, it was best to do whatever steps could be taken to prevent human error before it happens.) But, to answer your question, yes, it is possible, as long as there are not parallel histories in the edit history. Steel1943 (talk) 13:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support a reader searching for "... bombshell" should not be forced to look at "bombshell ..." without consultation. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:36, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, the target of Blonde bombshell was Stereotypes of blondes until the target was changed a couple of days ago. Steel1943 (talk) 13:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ "blonde bombshell" as sex symbol and "blonde bombshell" as a stereotype are one and the same. Since the introduction of this cliche it seamlessly evolved into a more general term, "bombshell", described in page Bombshell (sex symbol). Any attempts to distinguish "blonde bombshell" from "bombshell" will be splitting hairs or unnecessary forking. (Yes, if you look carefully, Stereotypes of blondes#Blonde bombshell is nothing but a content fork of Bombshell (sex symbol), and the contents of the two must be reshuffled per Wikipedia:Summary style.) So leave the dab page as it is. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The best bargain could very well be using "Blonde bomshell" as the disambig page, making it the target page for "Blonde Bombshell", and deleting "Blonde bombshell (disambiguation)" as redundant. Keeps everything nifty.

As for the article "Bombshell (sex symbol)" I think there is much little there that isn't a redundancy over the "Stereotype of blondes" (a target page for "Blonde stereotype"... I like this shorter and more popular title better) or isn't a challengeable fact. The little that can be salvaged can very well be merged into the the stereotype article, which serves as the mother article. As WP forking policies discourage tiny content forks floating out of decent sized summary articles, I propose the sex symbol article be merged into the stereotype article. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support the combined action. Normally I would oppose merging of a wider term "bombshell" into a narrower "blonde bombshell" (article or section). But I agree with the latter observation about small articles. Since I don't really see potential for expansion beyond listing more and fresher bombshell names, I support whatever possible simplification of the structure of the pages on the topic. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We need a conclusive participation. I have made two complementary proposals. Please comment. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 19:55, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Blonde bombshell was created today as nothing but a redirect page with people disagreeing where that redirect should be even. [2] It has no real history. So get rid of it, and rename Blonde bombshell (disambiguation) to it. Blonde Bombshell, spelled with a capital B, has no history either, other than as a redirect, so just redirect it to the proper spelling of Blonde bombshell, lower case second B. Dream Focus 02:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Highly agreeable, except for the spelling of title part. WP:LOWERCASE says it must be in lowercase unless it is a proper name. BTW, Blonde Bombshell redirects to this page. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:17, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus: Your statement regarding how Blonde bombshell has no edit history is fundamentally false. As I stated above, I moved the edit history of Blonde bombshell to Blonde bombshell (sex symbol) to prevent attributions being an issue with the opinions in this discussion. If you would like to see the history of Blonde Bombshell before I moved it, here's the history. Steel1943 (talk) 19:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article was a redirect to bombshell (sex symbol) last I edited it [3] then someone started a new article there. Bombshells, regardless of hair color, should just be in one article. Anyway, anyone searching for Blonde bombshell might be looking for the bombshell sex symbol article, or something else. So best to send it to them to a disamb page, renaming this to this article to that as suggested. Dream Focus 20:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus: and @Steel1943: I believe you two are talking about two separate pages - Blonde bombshell and Blonde Bombshell. Right? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Staszek Lem's reasoning Asdklf; (talk) 17:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per my own argument above . Putting in my stand formally. Can we close this now, please? I can't because I am involved. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update. I have cleaned up (or at least tried to clean up) the Blonde bombshell (disambiguation) page, which should become Blonde bombshell now as their is no toponym article. The cleanup should also solve the organization problem. As for the article Bombshell (sex symbol) - I have expanded and cleaned it up too. Now the whole set of articles and cross links make sense (with disambiguation moved to the article name Blonde bombshell). Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This really is a bit of a mess. The current disambiguation page should be moved to Blonde Bombshell, as most of the entries are titles or names with both words capitalized. Most of the persons known as blonde bombshells are likely known by a mix of usage varying by the sources. I think the current bombshell (sex symbol) article could stand on its own. While the origin may be derivative from the alliterative blonde bombshell, the use of the term bombshell in reference to stunningly beautiful women is not limited to blondes. older ≠ wiser 14:55, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update I have undone Bkonrad's revert, because - (1) the revert re-instated a redirect page as the "primary topic" instead of piping the link to the target article; (2) there revert also re-instated a poorly put together WP:DIRECTORY of people whose connection to the subject is trivial; (3) the revert removed the link to the content fork of the top article; and (4) the revert removed the wlinks and expansion added to other usage. He suspected an attempt to "contest article content" in the cleanup and put that as a reason when reverting. That I thinks needs some explanation, as there is no such thing evident.

Also there is no mess here, unless we over-ride WP:LOWERCASE for little reason to move the page to Blonde Bombshell. And, yes, the Bombshell (sex symbol) article can stand on its own, but that is not the discussion topic here. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 02:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I have undone your revert as it is not compliant with WP:MOSDAB guidelines. 1) At present, there is a primary topic. It makes no difference that it is a redirect to a topic with a different title. This is described at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. 2) And while you might regard these as a poorly put together WP:DIRECTORY of people whose connection to the subject is trivial, that is irrelevant as each of the articles linked clearly describes the person as being known by the term. That is the only relevant criteria. If you dispute that the reference mentioned in the articles is trivial, the place to dispute that is at the talk pages of those articles. 3) The content fork is linked at the primary topic article which IMO is the correct place for such a link. 4) These additional links are entirely inappropriate for a disambiguation entry. There should in general be exactly one navigable blue link per entry. WP:LOWERCASE is irrelevant here are the articles being disambiguated here are mostly upper case titles. The disambiguation page should follow the form of the titles that are being disambiguated. older ≠ wiser 03:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure about the articles describing the person as being known by the term, as opposed to having the term applied to them. There's a difference between "she's a blonde bombshell" and "she's blonde bombshell" in terms of dablink entries; otherwise, Person (disambiguation) would be quite crowded. Dekimasuよ! 19:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree some of the mentions are more tenuous than others -- i.e., there is a difference between a sportsman with the nickname "The Blonde Bombshell" and a woman who might have been described as a blonde bombshell. But some of the women do appear to have been commonly known by the epithet. So I wouldn't object to some trimming, but it really depends on how that information is presented in the person's article. In fact, I have already trimmed several entries where the person's article did not so much as even mention the term (even though they might be listed elsewhere as examples of the type). older ≠ wiser 20:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Thanks. I have discovered much of the conventions about disambig pages already. And, doing it in title case - Blonde Bombshell - looks alright. I think the lowercased title - Blonde bombshell - should also redirect to that one. Also, I have expanded on the new content of the disambig page already. I little more work can make it even more robust. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.