Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 October 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 4[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 4, 2013.

List of overused jokes on reddit[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) 16:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion. It's highly unlikely that someone would expect to be redirected, it's obscure and designed around internet trivia at best. The target article will not contain the information as it's not encyclopaedic content. Even if it were possible to create a list of jokes used, 'overused' is arguably NPOV.

  • Deletion - as nom Philipwhiuk (talk) 23:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a very obscure synonym to the target article's contents. Besides, I agree with the nom that "overused" is highly subjective.--Lenticel (talk) 07:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - improbable search term and likely created as an eponymous joke. The Whispering Wind (talk) 19:55, 5 October 2013 (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.

Thriller (album)[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 as is. Ruslik_Zero 19:34, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is NOT a deletion nomination. Instead, it is nominated to discuss retargeting this title to either the disambiguation page (Thriller) or the Michael Jackson album. Since the recent failed request did not address this issue, perhaps it can be heard here. WP:INCDAB might help, but there are also WP:NCM, WP:redirect, and other sorts. WP:IAR is too weak here, as other rules are stronger than it. George Ho (talk) 19:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thriller. There are other popular music albums by the same name. It is likely that some readers will be looking for an album other than Michael Jackson's. Binksternet (talk) 19:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thriller. First of all have the decency of clean-up the mess that you and others with their stupid ideas create, and later discuss other things. Second, it's time to leave this fucking album alone. It was a stable article for years until an idiotic wrongly formulated "rule" (PDAB) appeared into the scene and suddenly it was incorrect, now this shit? It's time to move one with this stupidity. Congratulations Wikipedia, you are more worried about technical stuff like album titles than what the readers read, clearly demostrated by the pathetic contributions from all of those who managed to this. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 22:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Michael Jackson This is clearly the primary album titled Thriller and what our user expect to see. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:41, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. This is a redirect that resulted from a page move. It should stay targeted precisely where it is so the many links to it will not be broken. This includes the mountain of links from outside Wikipedia on the vast Internet. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 07:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Seems to be a little too much energy wasted on this redirect. Someone's English has improved to the extent that it's a little too good.  :>)  I know a few Italian cuss words; should I spew them all over the page, too? Sounds to me like it's WikiBreak time! Get a grip because this one's a no-brainer. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 07:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As I've been working on fixing the links using WP:AWB I've run across a couple that show that Thriller (Michael Jackson album) is still ambiguous. Perhaps it should be moved to Thriller (1982 Michael Jackson album) to avoid mixing it up with Thriller 25, as I've seen a couple of articles had mislinks to Thriller (album) that should have been to Thriller 25. ;-) LOL Now y'all don't go on wikibreaks now, I would appreciate some help. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:38, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the purpose of a redirect is to assist the reader in finding the information they seek as efficiently as possible. In this case since the current target is likely to be, by far, the article being sort then then the present target, in conjunction with the hatnote, seems just fine. The Whispering Wind (talk) 19:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is - When someone types "Thriller (album)" there's a higher chance that they're looking for the best selling album(and the most notable bar any album by The Beatles) then two albums by barely notable bands and one only notable for it's controversy. --AshFR (talk) 06:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. This is a primary topic inquiry. The question is, when an editor types in "Thriller (album)", what do they expect to find? There is one answer that is substantially more likely than all other answers combined, and that should be where the link leads. Also consider this: should Thriller (album) and Thriller album lead two different places? bd2412 T 13:29, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep as is - Redirecting this away from Thriller (Michael Jackson album), while hundreds of links remained in article, portal, file and book namespaces, all but a couple of which were clearly intended for the Jackson album, is bad form in my view, as it clearly disrupts the readers' experience. Apparently the template links were cleaned up after the June 2013 move to Thriller (Michael Jackson album), but that's insufficient cleanup, and the rest lingered unchanged for too long. I've finished updating links, so the prerequisite cleanup is now  Done. Still, 606 links remain, but these may be acceptable as they only affect editors:
    • 73 Talk
    • 84 User
    • 280 User talk
    • 139 Wikipedia
    • 27 Wikipedia talk
    • 3 Template talk
I'm less concerned about external site links, as we cannot control those. Over time, they should adjust and conform to what we do. Sure, there is the disruption of the link to the dab, but readers should still be able to get to the proper destination with an extra click. So at this point, it is at least an acceptable option to redirect to the Thriller dab. The question is, should we? If the goal is to get the majority of readers to their desired destination in as few clicks as possible, then this is a case where primary topic still applies. If a clear majority of readers searching for Thriller album, or possibly its unnatural cousin Thriller (album) want Jackson's album, then we should redirect there. In working on fixing links, I lost count of how many times I was reminded that this was the best selling album of all time. Lacking a competing title that breaks into the top hundred of all time, this should clearly be the PT. With the term album in the title, long-term significance arguments relating to thriller (genre) melt away. The issue of what the title of the primary topic should be is a matter for article naming conventions to determine. De facto naming conventions sometimes call for the title of a primary topic to be non-ambiguous, either by using parenthetical or natural disambiguation. We don't title Apple unambiguously as Apple (fruit), but we do title Inverter unambiguously as Power inverter, as we now title Thriller album or Thriller (album) unambiguously as Thriller (Michael Jackson album). When to title primary topics unambiguously, versus when to title them ambiguously, is an issue that should be explored further. – Wbm1058 (talk) 14:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that PDAB is no longer a guideline. --BDD (talk) 17:41, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right. WP:PDAB is downgraded to an essay. Something I may develop with some critique and analysis, which might help to find a path forward. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would be easy to move Thriller (Michael Jackson album) back to Thriller (album) at this point. Links don't need to be changed, as there is no harm in redirecting Thriller (Michael Jackson album) to Thriller (album). That would be an {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. As I'm not sure that tag is necessary, don't expect me to go back and RCAT them all. More specific, less ambiguous internal links are better, and redirects are cheap. {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} applies to titles that are too ambiguous to identify an article, which are not primary topics, which redirect to dabs. It would be interesting to see all of the redirects from incomplete disambiguation that {{R to primary topic}}, do we have an RCAT for that? Paine, what redirect category should Inverter be in? Wbm1058 (talk) 20:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Wbm1058. If I had just come across Inverter, then rather than tag it with Rcats I would see if I could get Inverter (disambiguation) moved to Inverter. I would not consider Power inverter to be the primary topic. I would place that in the body of the Inverter page and just begin with "Inverter may refer to:". – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 21:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PS. In reference to the general question about tagging, there is {{R to subtopic}}, which is just an alias for {{R to related topic}}. (PS added by – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX!)
I think {{R from alternative name}} is better than those. Inverter is an alternative name for the primary topic power inverter, not a subtopic of it. See the comments I added to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Primary topic and parenthetical disambiguation. Regards, Wbm1058 (talk) 19:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...and {{R from incomplete name}} is even better. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Paine is our resident redirect tagging expert, but I don't think that would be appropriate. I'm sure we can all agree that the actual name of the album is simply Thriller. Anything parenthetical is just a navigational device added by us. This is just what {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} is made for. --BDD (talk) 16:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point about the name simply being Thriller. But the documentation for {{R from incomplete name}} says from a title that is an "incomplete" form of the full article title. Note how "incomplete" is in quotes. Thriller (album) is an "incomplete" form of the full article title Thriller (Michael Jackson album). I'm concerned that {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} is too widely understood to imply {{R from incomplete disambiguation to disambiguation}}, when it also could mean {{R from incomplete disambiguation to primary topic}}. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see. There's a distinction between (actual) name and (Wikipedia) title that I presumed from the title of that template. If the documentation says otherwise, ok. But I think you're misunderstanding {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} in a way that gets to the heart of the matter. That template is so widely understood as a redirect to disambiguation because that's precisely what it's supposed to be. There shouldn't be incomplete disambiguation redirects to primary topics, because primary topics require less disambiguation (often none) by virtue of their primacy. If you support the idea of sub-primary topics, the article should be titled with (album). If you don't, (album) should redirect to the dab as insufficient to identify the subject. --BDD (talk) 18:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the idea of sub-primary topics is only at the "essay" level right now, and there isn't clear-cut guidance on that from any policies or guidelines. See the lower part of Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Primary topic and parenthetical disambiguation, for my analysis of the issue. Wbm1058 (talk) 19:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I can see arguments both ways for moving Thriller (Michael Jackson album) back to Thriller (album). This is a matter that should really go to WP:RM/CM once this RFD is closed. The Whispering Wind (talk) 13:50, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Recent RM consensus favored keeping the page name that way after PDAB was removed. --George Ho (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IMO If it isn't moved it should be kept as a redirect to Thriller (Michael Jackson album), this is a primary topic and the great majority of people using this search term will benefit from going straight to the article they were looking for. Siuenti (talk) 19:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep redirect for now. The WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the album named Thriller, aka Thriller (album), is unquestionably the Michael Jackson album, so if it remains a redirect it should continue to redirect to the article about that topic. However, ideally the overly precise Thriller (Michael Jackson album) should be moved back to Thriller (album). --B2C 20:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Thriller, as per normal practice. There have been 4 RM discussions regarding Thriller (Michael Jackson album) the last two have come down firmly in favour of the present title - notwithstanding opposition from a number of socks etc. Why should a redirect discussion effectively overrule what was decided at the article namespace? There is pretty much a consensus now with song/album titles that where there are two or more articles ALL the albums/songs should be disambiguated by artist name... which is confirmed in WP:SONGDAB which actually uses album titles as examples! Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 06:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This redirect is part of a guideline debate at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Add WP:PRIMARYALBUM ?. Sigh. A lot of energy is being needlessly spent on this page name which is an unlikely and unnatural search term, and has been completely removed from the article, template, portal, file and book namespaces. In practical terms we are debating where to redirect historical links in the editors' archives, and nothing else. While some purists keep arguing in support of their interpretation of parenthetical disambiguation, I still think the pragmatic thing to do is to keep redirecting to the place the editors who created these talk page links intended. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Thriller. There are other popular music albums by the same name. BluesFan38 (talk) 13:36, 26 October 2013 (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.

Climate change skepticism (denialism)[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) 16:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nominate as per discussion here. Redirect is irrelevant and confusing. Gaba (talk) 16:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There are, not counting this nomination, 15 redirects to this target. This confusing one can go. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 17:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No sane person would search for that exact character string, and any reasonable alternate search strings will still get them there NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per prior 2, and per WP:NPOV, possible attempt at pejorative redirect. . --Pete Tillman (talk) 04:09, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unlikely search term and Pointy to boot. The Whispering Wind (talk) 19:49, 5 October 2013 (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.

Fallout 5[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) 16:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fallout 4 hasn't even been announced yet, so this redirect even existing is premature. The redirect was created as a result of a page move, which led to the creation of the Fallout 4 article, which is also nominated for deletion as being TOOSOON. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 08:03, 4 October 2013 (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/2013_October_4&oldid=1138579294"