Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pied (act)

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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pied (act)[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) 05:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comment: The article pieing already exists. Pied, a synonym, goes, appropriately to a disambiguation page. Why the above redirect was created seems unneeded and illogical, plus potentially creates confusion in searching for the correct title for the actual article. Montanabw^(talk) 05:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails naming conventions, and has an added unneeded modifier. No one will look for this. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:02, 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 Pieing is not a potential source of confusion; rather, it would be a source of confusion to link directly to Pieing. The direct link would be confusing to users because it suggests that Pied and Pieing are not different forms of the same verb 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 (act) on the Pied disambiguation page is preferable to linking directly to Pieing; this is demonstrated by the James Cary example. Neelix (talk) 16:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify: I am fine keeping the disambiguation page, it's these redirects (this and Pied (pattern) that I find confusing. The disambiguation page as it currently exists seems to work just fine. Montanabw^(talk) 20:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Working just fine is not sufficient. There are reasons we have guidelines, and this redirect is required in order for them to be met for the disambiguation page. Neelix (talk) 03:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CommentAgain, there is no need to create a totally useless redirect just so each definition can begin with the word "Pied," when in fact the MOS also states that redirects and piped links are normally discouraged. But good folks can disagree, and that's why we are here. Montanabw^(talk) 00:05, 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]

@ Neelix: I don't agree that "The direct link would be confusing to users because it suggests that Pied and Pieing are not different forms of the same verb but rather terms that may be mistaken for one another." It simply enforces the idea that when you look for a verb, you need to enter the present tense. If you still think a redirect is necessary, then put it at Pied without the modifiers. It's the whole modifier thing that's bugging me. If people want to look up pied, they can do so without the added modifier in the page title. They're simply not needed. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure if I understand your statement that "If people want to look up pied, they can do so without the added modifier in the page title." People look up concepts, but they must type titles into the search bar; someone looking for an article about throwing pies at people could type "Pied" into the search bar just like someone who is looking for an article about a particular animal spotting pattern. I'm not suggesting that the article titles be switched to include the modifiers; I'm arguing that WP:MOSDAB requires the use of redirects with these modifiers. Am I understanding your objection? Neelix (talk) 16:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this discussion be at WP:RFD instead of here? Propaniac (talk) 17:16, 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) 00:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not convinced of that. WP:MOSDAB is pretty clear. Neelix (talk) 01:04, 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.