Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 May 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 20[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 20, 2012

Religious perspectives on dinosaurs[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 no consensus to delete, either keeping as the current redirect or converting it to an article would be in accordance with the consensus here. Thryduulf (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A misleading redirect because the section it points to is all about Christian perspectives, not "religious perspectives" in general (and then only a subset of Biblical literalist Christians). I'm leaning toward deletion, because I can't think of where this might be retargeted to. it also has only one link from article space ( here), and strikes me as a somewhat unlikely search term. 69.111.79.119 (talk) 22:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This page has an extensive history. It was moved from the original title to Creationist perspectives on dinosaurs in May 2007 for exactly the reasons you cite but the redirect was retained in order to preserve history and to minimize link rot. I have no objection to retargetting to a more universal article if one exists but as far as I know, the existence of dinosaurs are only relevant (religiously, that is) to the fundamentalist Christian debates. Absent a better target, this redirect is more helpful than harmful. Rossami (talk) 00:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to stub the redirect to a Christian viewpoint provides a biased view that religion means Christianity. So, instead, a stub should be placed in its place. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the above concerns that redirecting a "religions perspectives" title to the perspective of only one segment of one religion is misleading. After all, there have been some deeply religious paleontologists who also believed in the conventional scientific view of dinosaurs. Furthermore, there are bound to be different views on dinosaurs that are of significance to other religions. For example, I recall reading that the Hindu Vedas have some passages about ancient beasts that are interpreted as referring to dinosaurs. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Convert to article. Move Young Earth Creationism#Paleontology and dinosaurs here. Split out any information specific to certain religions into their own sections, and add further section stubs for those religions not yet covered. Has the potential to be a fascinating and informative article once fleshed out. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:02, 29 May 2012 (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.

Thomas Doret[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. Ruslik_Zero 18:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe we should create redirects for an actor to one film they've appeared in. This person seems notable for other films too, and should be left as a redlink to encourage creation. I guess there could be possible BLP issues too. Lugnuts (talk) 09:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note. When the redirect was created, this was (at least according to IMDB) the only film this actor had appeared in. The second one, Renoir, will only be released in the coming week when it is screened in the Un Certain Regard section at the 2012 Cannes Film Festival.  --Lambiam 19:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is it standard practice to create BLP redirects to a film a person has been in? Lugnuts (talk) 07:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the person in question is not notable enough for their own article then it is quite common to redirect their name to the article about what they are known for, particularly if there is material about them in that article. Thryduulf (talk) 09:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Can you provide a link to where this is stated in any policy on WP? Maybe I've missed it. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 11:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • There isn't any overarching policy that states this, but it is common practice and is mentioned or implied in several individual policies and guidelines. Perhaps the most relevant for this discussion is Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event. It is also a corollary to the guidelines at WP:RED that redlinks encourage article creation, that redirects discourage article creation in cases where we don't want one (e.g. not notable or there is an existing article already). At the time of the redirect's creation it was clear that Doret was not notable enough for their own article, and so the redirect was obviously the right thing. If however he now does meet he notability criteria (and at this moment I don't think that is clear either way), then the redirect can be overwritten by an article without the need for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • That whole arguement is redundant. He's not notable, but create a link for him anyway? Is it even a likely search term? The correct answer is no, BTW. Lugnuts (talk) 18:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • 44 page views in April and over 100 in March say that "Thomas Doret", regardless of how likely you think it is as a search term is actually being used. Thryduulf (talk) 20:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • I suspect alot of those are coming from 2nd Magritte Awards, the only article the link is on. And now that he's in a second film, there's even less reason why the redirect should point to the above film, let alone exist in the first place. Lugnuts (talk) 06:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't matter where people are coming from, or why, just that they are (as that's the only thing we can know). We know that people are looking for information on him, and we don't have an article to give them. There are three choices available to us:
    1. write an article.
    2. take them to another article that has some content about him.
    3. present nothing but a suggestion that they might want to try searchin.
    As he isn't notable, option 1 is a non-starter. Option 2 is the most helpful, as it gives people somehting close to what they are looking for. Option 3 is unhelpful as the search results would likely bring up the target from option 2 anyway, and the redlink would encourage the creation of an article we don't want.
    So we just need to decide which target is best, and the current one has far more content about him than the article about the new film does (at least currently). So I don't see what the benefit in doing anything other than keeping the status quo brings. Thryduulf (talk) 09:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. If/when he definitively meets Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion criteria for biographies, the redirect can be easily overwritten with content. In the meantime, the redirect provides the reader with at least a little bit of context. (The redirect also keeps the Talk page live so editors have a place where they can debate whether and when he meets the inclusion criteria.) And yes, there is long precedent for this practice. Rossami (talk) 14:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's no real context, no talk page for this redirect and no policy for this "long precedent for this practice" that anyone can supply me with. Apart from that, it's fine. Lugnuts (talk) 14:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Context = "he's an actor in that particular film". That's not much but it's what Wikipedia has right now. Re the Talk page - granted, it's not currently being used but if the redirect is deleted, that Talk page will never be usable (per CSD#G8). Lastly, I said "precedent", not policy. Not all precedents are enshrined as policy, nor should they be. That does not mean that the precedent doesn't exist. Many such redirects have been created over time and either explicitly or implicitly encouraged by various editors. More importantly, however, there does not have to be an explicit policy allowing this practice. To satisfy the burden of deletion, you have to show that there is a policy against the practice. The precedent is evidence that no such policy exists. Rossami (talk) 17:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • So if something is done from day one and it is wrong, but it's a "precedent", then that's OK? This redirect makes no sense and offers NOTHING to the reader. A better redirect would be to go offsite to IMDB, or to his Facebook/Twitter account, if the aim is to educate the reader to what he has done. Lugnuts (talk) 18:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, lots of us would disagree with your value judgment that what was done in this case "from day one" was wrong. Regardless, there are very good reasons why policy forbids redirects external to the WikiMedia family of projects (and limits even those to soft-redirects.) A redirect to IMDB or Facebook is infeasible and inappropriate. Rossami (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2012 (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.

Wikipedia:PETTIFOGG[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 rename to PETTIFOG. The arguments to delete were based on the assertion that the term is pejorative. The counter-arguments, while politely not including explicit examples, noted that Wikipedia precedent allows pejorative shortcuts (several that are far more inflammatory than this one). Oddly, no one in the debate noted that the target title (Wikilawyering) is itself a pejorative.
The decision to "rename" is complicated by the fact that title has already been independently created. Even if had not been, moving this page there would only have created a double-redirect which would have had to be resolved back to the current target. Taken together, that gets us back to "keep as is" even though only one person in the debate below worded it that way. Rossami (talk) 22:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even google doesn't show it without the ER added. Inflammatory, very unlikely to be of any use as it is not a common word. Not consistent with neutrality, and encourages incivility. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename to "pettifog" which appears to be the proper verb form, and does show up on Google. "Wikilawyering (and the related legal term pettifogging)..." has been the long-standing introduction to this article (2006), so the redirect seems reasonable, and I don't see leaving off the "ER" as any particular problem. "Wikilawyering" itself is pejorative and this appears to be another way to clarify what it means when making reference, as redirects often do, even if it's just as pejorative. In fact leaving off the "ER" seems to drive home the fact that it's referencing the practice and not the person. I'm not seeing a problem. Equazcion (talk) 02:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now, surely Equazcion you don't have to go to all this trouble to help out my spelling? Be——Critical 03:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename to WP:PETTIFOG, as that is a useful shortcut. I don't see the double "g" spelling as getting any uses other than as a misspelling, a name (which may or may not also be a misspelling), a username or as part of "pettifogger" or "pettifogging", etc. If this had uses or significant history then I'd argue for a keep, but as it has neither I don't see the value. Thryduulf (talk) 11:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spelling or not, I don't see the usefulness of an uncommon term that is derogatory and would be seen as incivil in use, by definition: 1. Quibble about petty points. 2. Practice legal deception or trickery. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • So basically, it's a synonym for wikilawyering... In other words: In pointing out discouraged behaviors, we do use negative terms. If someone is gaming the system, spamming, or even being a general douche, we tend not to shy away from saying so. This is just another veritable synonym for a behavioral "don't", no more inflammatory than the page it directs to. Equazcion (talk) 18:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to WP:PETTIFOG as plausible synonym.--Lenticel (talk) 03:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave alone just in case someone misspells pettifog.  --Lambiam 15:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Like me. My mother always said I'd rue the day I didn't learn to spell... it's been a number of decades, but now I know she was right... Be——Critical 07:36, 23 May 2012 (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/2012_May_20&oldid=1142587524"