Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 February 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 18[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 18, 2014.

Wikipedia:Thanks[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 Wikipedia:Notifications/Thanks. Anybody is free to add hatnote(s) to the page. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 06:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wikipedia:Notifications/Thanks, more important page currently. Tito☸Dutta 22:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 20:25, 18 February 2014 (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.

770 Account[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 3#770 Account

Agender[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 Neutrois. Per responses, seems that most of the consensus seems to either agree or partially agree with this option. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 00:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I want we re-target to wikitionary redirect and make interwiki(d:Q505371) Asdfganistan (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment. This currently redirects to Genderqueer, but it is being proposed to make it a soft redirect to wiktionary:agender. I've fixed the nomination above and added the RfD tag to the page. Thryduulf (talk) 20:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I alerted WP:LGBT to this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 21:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was a bit surprised to see we don't have an article on agender/genderless identity, and didn't realize that genderqueer usually encompasses that identity. I haven't seen this written down anywhere, but there should be a rule that we should never soft redirect to Wiktionary when a regular Wikipedia redirect will do. --BDD (talk) 22:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Neutrois has been created, could that be a valid spot? Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Good find. Retarget to Neutrois. If that article is redirected or merged to Genderqueer, this can go with it. I'll establish or change other redirects like agender to point there. --BDD (talk) 23:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't believe agender is synonymous with neutrois, but there is definitely some overlap. Agender can be seen as the lack/absence of gender identity whereas neutrois can be considered a gender identity itself. Regardless, neutrois would probably be a better redirect target than genderqueer, as the latter is more of an umbrella term encompassing numerous nonbinary gender identities. Funcrunch (talk) 23:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Neutrois people seek to lose their physical traits to have a neutral sex. It's a huge change between neutrois and agender. I think if neutrois is notable, we can find agender's notablity by finding news references --Asdfganistan (talk) 00:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Generation LGBTQIA, M Schulman - The New York Times, 2013; Language and gender variance: Constructing gender beyond the male/female binary., Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality, Volume 12, Feb. 12, 2009, "Please Select Your Gender: From the Invention of Hysteria to the Democratizing of Transgenderism," Routledge (January 17, 2010). Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Odd, that page has a disambiguation page template but from the look of its contents it isn't really such a page? I think agender maps to genderless more directly than to neutrois, but I suppose it doesn't make sense to add it to the Genderless page if Agender doesn't have its own entry. Funcrunch (talk) 01:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support redirect to Neutrois, and merge/redirection of Genderless and Genderlessness there also. bd2412 T 03:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Make article There are more than ten news about Sasha Fleischman, 18 years old agender boy, of Oakland, California. (z)he is a victim of hate crime whose skirt was set on fire by a 16-year-old boy on a California bus. These newses describe agender as having no gender. I now think agender is notable. --Asdfganistan (talk) 07:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fleischman (who is not a boy and prefers the pronoun "they") did make national news when their skirt was set on fire, but I think we'll need more than that to make a separate article. I would be in favor of its creation if we can find enough references to support it though. Funcrunch (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment facebook recently allowed Agender as a one of gender option in facebook as well as Neutrois --Asdfganistan (talk) 08:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's plenty enough to make a good article about Fleischman, there is already content at History of violence against LGBT people in the United States. I'd like more information on how to treat agender, genderless, and genderlessness, and related terms, like Gender systems, Intersexuality. Would a terms article like Terminology of gender identity outside binarism be suitable. Perhaps major terms could be summarized, and direct people to various articles, rather than assuming they have the right term, or know what they are looking for? Sportfan5000 (talk) 08:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that I would support a separate article on agender people, not on Fleischman specifically. An umbrella article with brief definitions could be titled something like Non-binary gender terminology, though the existing Genderqueer article does list and very briefly define several terms. (I would be cautious about including Intersex in an article specifically about gender identities though; that's a contentious issue.) Funcrunch (talk) 08:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Contentious or not, we are sharing information. As the majority of people know nothing of these issues, or at least very little, it makes sense to find a way to explain why many do not consider intesex a gender identity, but it remains a related term to understanding the subject. I like your title suggestion better. This also solves that we can provide a home for emerging terms that may not be notable enough on their own, or otherwise don't have an article. Sportfan5000 (talk) 09:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Intersex is not a gender identity, it's a sex designation (like male and female). Intersex folks can identify as any gender identity. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's the point to make in the umbrella term article, it's a common misconception, so we explain that and refer people to the article where they can get more information. Sportfan5000 (talk) 06:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create umbrella article for the non-gendered identities (similar to Funcrunch's suggestion). Actually "Non-gendered identities" would make a good title. Can merge agender, neutrois, and genderlessness. Individually each does not have much information, but together they would make a decent article. Frankly, I do not think they should be merged with genderqueer as that term can be too broad and generally implies the existence of a gender identity. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would support the creation of such an article and help edit it. I've seen numerous objections to the term "transgendered" though, so I wonder if the same objections would arise to "non-gendered". Also, as I noted above, I believe many neutrois people do consider neutrois to be a gender identity. Funcrunch (talk) 08:03, 20 February 2014 (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.

Italian immigration to Italy[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 Oriundo. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 00:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsensical redirect, originally towards a non-existing article. eh bien mon prince (talk) 07:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's not nonsensical, because (as the "Italian diaspora" section of the target article explains) there are people of Italian ethnicity or citizenship who live outside Italy. However it's unused on the wiki, and there would be little reason for external sites to link to the redirect. If it's kept, it should be retargeted to the "Italian diaspora" section. —rybec 15:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm a little torn, between retargetting to Oriundo, where they're actually discussed, but which is a more general article, and redlinking to encourage creation. Neither is entirely satisfactory. WilyD 09:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Oriundo for now. A standalone article would be a good idea at some point, but until then, there's relevant information there. --BDD (talk) 17:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Italian immigration to Italy' in any case would be an awful title for any such article. There is no point in keeping it even as a redirect.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 15:40, 18 March 2014 (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.

Oh my goodness gracious[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) 17:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems a very obtuse redirect. The quote this is being used for is "Oh my good goodness gracious", which is not the same as the redirect's name. As this is a quite common interjection, I question whether this person is especially special concerning it 70.24.244.161 (talk) 07:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget' to the dab page at Goodness Gracious Me, where the above quote can be added if it is notable. The dab page links to Wiktionary. Thryduulf (talk) 09:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2014 (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:Shortpages/Ships[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. There is no clear consensus on which of the few options provided below would be the best option. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 00:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was a report, listing ship pages needing attention. Redirected in 2005 to a target that does not provide comparable functionality. Recommend restoring to original form and marking as {{historical}}, or deleting if it is not of historical value. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment if this needs to be kept, it should be moved to a subpage of WP:SHIPS, instead of hanging loose in WPspace and not involved with not much involvement in short pages. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 05:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Toss it out, a pointless redirect, per nom. — This, that and the other (talk) 05:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ideally, after the list was cleared, the page would be converted to a redirect to Wikipedia:Shortpages in case it might be needed again in the future. That was done in 2005. Then about three years later there was a merge. At that point a bot defeated the double redirect, and Wikipedia:Shortpages also presently redirects to Special:Shortpages. These redirects do no harm and should be kept as is to preserve links from outside Wikipedia. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 01:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where was the content merged to? If there was an actual merge performed, this should be retained for attribution purposes. --BDD (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: I had hoped to find a merge target by searching the contributions of the user who mentioned merging in an edit summary. That user, Tavix, made a similar edit here but I don't see how anything could be "merged" into Special:Shortpages. If Tavix remembers what happened here, it may enlighten this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and mark as historical per nom. — Scott • talk 13:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I guess. I really don't see the point in keeping a small cleanup page from almost ten years (!) ago. Marking as historical shouldn't be used as a soft delete; it should only be when there's some sort of value to the page in a historical context. I don't see one now. It doesn't look like a formal merge was ever performed here, but if it can ever be demonstrated that one was, then absolutely restore for attribution purposes. --BDD (talk) 17:06, 25 February 2014 (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.

DNA testing[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 17#DNA testing

Yoon Suk-min (disambiguation)[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 Procedural close. Since Yoon Suk-min (disambiguation) is now a disambiguation page, if there are issues with this page, this should be taken to WP:AFD. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 00:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suk-min Yoon is not the disambiguation page. I want to delete the redirect. Sawol (talk) 09:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - until there is another article to disambiguate, this is sending readers to the only thing they might be looking for. No argument has been presented to support deletion. WilyD 10:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Thryduulf - much better. That's clearly the right soln. WilyD 12:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replaced with a disambiguation page I have created a disambiguation page at Yoon Suk-min (disambiguation) as there are two notable South Korean baseball players with this name. Thryduulf (talk) 11:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An RM discussion in December determined that this was a WP:TWODABS situation, and thus that a dab was unnecessary. Please consider a new RM if you think the situation has changed. --BDD (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BDD. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm gonna put my two cents in here, and recommend that the disambiguation page be deleted, since this is a WP:TWODABS situation. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:55, 31 March 2014 (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.

RuneScape redirects[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) 17:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just as with Zezima, these are player names which have no mention in the article itself. As for Drakie... This redirect makes no sense. There is no major content named as such officially or by players. If anything, I assume it's a player trying to promote themselves.

Possible alternative for Zezima is redirecting it to Betrayal at Falador, as he wrote a comment on the back cover of the book moluɐɯ 15:12, 18 February 2014 (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/2014_February_18&oldid=1138579560"