Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pied (pattern)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was wrong forum. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pied (pattern)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect created week ago solely to be placed on a disambig page, but there appears to be no need for it, as relevant articles are already lined there. See discussion at Talk:Pied Montanabw^(talk) 05:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete~~Opening comment~~: The article piebald already exists. Pied, a synonym, goes, apporpropriately to a disambiguation page. Why the above redirect was created seems unneeded and illogical, plus potentially creates confusion in searching for piebald article. Montanabw^(talk) 05:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As has already been stated on Talk:Pied, linking to this redirect on the disambiguation page rather than directly to Piebald is not a potential source of confusion; rather, it would be a source of confusion to link directly to Piebald. The direct link would be confusing to users because it suggests that Pied and Piebald are not synonyms but rather terms that may be mistaken for one another. While WP:MOSDAB states that linking to a redirect on a disambiguation page is normally not the best option, the guidelines are clear that linking to Pied (pattern) on the Pied disambiguation page is preferable to linking directly to Piebald; this is demonstrated by the James Cary example. Neelix (talk) 15:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: No dispute that the disambiguation page is appropriate and needs to be kept. At issue are the redirects only. Montanabw^(talk) 19:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The two discussions are inextricable. The reason these redirects exist is for their use on the disambiguation page. Neelix (talk) 03:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Which is why I feel like we have a "blind men and the elephant" discussion here. LOL! It seems wholly illogical to create redirects only so they can be used on a disambiguation page. And I think MOS backs me on this, but therein lies the rub. Good folks can differ, so this is why we are here. Anyone out there want to weigh in? Hello?Montanabw^(talk) 00:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong forum - not an article, should be listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. But, for what it's worth, it's harmless if pointless, and is probably unlikely to be deleted there. Warofdreams talk 02:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We already have the disambiguation page Pied, so people can already search for that word. We don't need the modifiers in the title. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Because this is the wrong forum, as Warofdreams mentions above, is it possible to move it to the list of rfd's? Users more familiar with rfd's might have more comments to include. Neelix (talk) 16:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If someone wants to move it to RFD, I don't care, but I think that deletion can occur via either forum. Montanabw^(talk) 00:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not convinced of that. WP:MOSDAB is pretty clear. Neelix (talk) 01:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - Here, we are not talking about the dab, we are talking about the redirects created solely to make piped links in the dab. Can someone other than Neelix and I weigh in on this? We two are never going to agree on this issue, and we'd like to keep some good faith going here. Help!! Montanabw^(talk) 05:10, 15 December 2009 (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 (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.