Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 July 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 10[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 10, 2012

Engology[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. JohnCD (talk) 14:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus term. A frankly bollocks article was written by the owner of engology.com, and for some reason turned into a redirect to engineering technologist. Whilst it is the case that the owner of engology.com wishes to promulgate the term, Wikipedia need not join him. This neologism has no place even as a redirect on WP. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC) Tagishsimon (talk) 22:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per nom. not a real term. no sources indicating its relation to either the redirect or in fact anything.-- The Red Pen of Doom 23:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as overlooked spam, possibly speedily. This was drafted in the userspace in 2009, moved out without discussion in 2010 and moved back less than a day later with some rather harsh words for the page creator. Several months later and with no substantive improvement, he/she moved it back into the mainspace. The overwrite with a redirect was a polite way to shut down the inappropriate content. The user's contribution history is very single-purpose, adding links and italics to entries containing the word "engineer", generally in violation of the Manual of Style and quickly reverted. The similarities between the contributor's chosen username, the article title and the links to his own blog strain my ability to assume good faith. Rossami (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yes, it's bogus, and is merely used to promote some misguided website. Not exactly a hoax, but more of one person's neologism, and nothing to do with an encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 09:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have moved Talk:Engology to User talk:Engology/Archive 1. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am an engineering technologist (or technician in the US), and I've never heard this term. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're an engologist, Donde. Just get over it ;) --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:40, 12 July 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.

National IQ[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 Nations and intelligence. This is the best target among those that exist. Ruslik_Zero 17:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This either needs to be deleted or another target found. The current target is an article about book that contains national IQ estimates. And those estimates in the book are utter crap that no actual scientist or social scientist of any repute would stand behind. If one of our readers comes searching for actual encyclopedic content about "National IQ"s, they need and deserve something far far better than to be directed to this piece of crap.-- The Red Pen of Doom 18:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Nations and intelligence, which discusses IQ and Global Inequality, IQ and the Wealth of Nations, and other literature on the subject. I don't feel it's appropriate to judge content on its value and use those judgements to vary article visibilities, but I agree that someone searching for the general concept of national IQs will likely be disappointed upon arriving at the current target. BigNate37(T) 08:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • note that as it currently stands, Nations and intelligence is not any better target than the current inppropriate books. That article is simply an aggregation of the bad works on the topic by the same authors and not anything about actual scientifically valid discussions of nations and and their relation if any to IQ. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nations and intelligence is just a POV fork of Race and intelligence. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 14:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:Sofixit. Put the articles in question through AfD or RfC if they're really that bad. We do not delete redirects as a method of commentary on the legitimacy of encyclopedic content. As far as redirects are concerned, that content is there—end of the story. Any discussion about the merits of the content should happen on the article talk pages; redirects are subject to a lower threshold of neutrality and accuracy than articles are, and they are not the place to impose those judgements on the articles. If the page(s) in question get deleted, these redirects will end up as WP:CSD#G8, which is the proper way to go about this. The only real question here is whether National IQ makes sense to point to an article called Nations and intelligence (or to a more fitting article). BigNate37(T) 18:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I just found an ArbCom case on Race and intelligence that seems to encapsulate the problems mentioned in this RfD. Thought it was worth mentioning, though I'm not sure what exact implication that may have here. BigNate37(T) 18:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • retarget per BigNate. The scope of Nations and intelligence means it is the target that best mathes what people are likely to be looking for when searching for this title (and stats show people do use the redirect) - i.e. an article about the general concept of the intersection between nationality and intelligence rather than a specific book on the topic. If the suggested target article is not meeting its scope or is otherwise not in accordance with policies or guidelines then use the processes that exist to deal with those issues or take it to AfD if you believe them insurmountable. As which pages link to an article has an almost infintesimal impact on its quality RfD is not in any position to help.
    As for the arbitration case, I don't think it has a direct bearing on this redirect or either current or proposed targets, but an informational notice on the talk pages so that editors are aware of it would probably be prudent. Thryduulf (talk) 20:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • i am pretty certain that when a user types in "National IQ" they are not looking for "a consolodated list of the controversial studies of Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen," which the proposed target article is, and to make the proposed target something other than that would require nuking existing article (which would certainly be an improvement, but one that is likely to cause much dramahz and very careful editing by people who know the subject). do we set new targets based on hopes the target artcile will be reformed (eventually)? Or is the reader better served by not being sent on a wild goose chase? -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Our readers are best served by taking them to the article that best educates them about the topic they are looking for. As the suggested target has as its scope a neutral discussion of all notable research into the topic of links between nationality and intelligence, then this is clearly a relevant target. If you know of a better target then suggest it here as nobody commenting has been able to find such. If the suggested target needs improving then fix it, optionally with the assistance of one of the appropriate processes, or nominate it for deletion. The way to improve the article is not to make it harder to find. If you still think that the redirect should be deleted then explain why with reference to which of the points at WP:R#DELETE apply and why the ones at WP:R#KEEP either do not or are outweighed. If you do so, bear in mind that the quality of the target is not really a significant consideration in the question of whether a reader looking for this topic is better served by a relevant article or a redlink - we do regularly redirect readers to pages that need work in the knowledge that this is a wiki. Thryduulf (talk) 00:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • the studies are notable mostly for their being utter crap. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • That's completely irrelevant. For an article all that matters us that the subject is notable, regardless of why. It matters even less for a redirect where notability is not a consideration. - we routinely redirect non-notable songs to articles about the artist or album for example. All a redirect needs to be is more useful than harmful - this redirect has several reasons to keep (likely search term, discouraging a duplicate article, etc) and no reason to delete (it's not in the way of anything, there is a relevant target, etc). Thryduulf (talk) 06:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • For a particular article the reason for its notability doesnt matter, but for a redirect we need to find the article that most likely represents what the reader was searching for and the reader was not looking for controversial crumble jumble. -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Users searching for this term are almost certainly looking for a neutral treatment of the notable research and any other notable aspects (e.g. popular culture) relating to the intersection between nationality and IQ. This is exactly the scope of the proposed target. It is irrelevant to the redirect that some of the most notable research does not hold up to a rigorous scientific analysis - that is for the article to educate them about. If the afticle is missing other notable research then add it. If the article is not neutral, tag it and/or fix it. If the article is irredeemable junk, nominate it for deletion. Deletion of this redirect will not have any impact on the article other than making it harder for readers who are looking for it to find (including those who could improve it). If there is a better target propose it here, if one should exist but doesn't start it and then propose it here. Note that the entire field is controversial, but that does not mean that people aren't looking for it, that it is any less notable or that we should not have a neutral article on it. Thryduulf (talk) 12:38, 14 July 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.

Wiki mapia[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 Withdrawn. — This, that, and the other (talk) 08:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Typo redirect, considered implausible. Not R3 as not recently created Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is one of the most plausible misspelling redirects I've seen nominated here. There is no standard for whether a brand uses one or two words for their name, so guessing incorrectly is very likely as evidenced by 67 page views in May and 87 in June. 82.132.211.241 (talk) 17:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Page views suggest this is very plausible. We also have Wiki pedia, Wiki source, Wiki How, etc. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The accidental inclusion of a space is entirely plausible. And the capitalization variant is routine. The redirect does no harm and meets none of the reasons to delete a redirect. Rossami (talk) 17:37, 10 July 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.

Map wiki[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 convert to DAB page with thanks to Rossami for doing the work to prepare it. JohnCD (talk) 21:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible, but not recently created so not an R3. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep-Doesn't seem at all implausible to me, quite the opposite in fact.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep with a hatnote or disambiguate, it's certainly a very plausible search term. Thryduulf (talk) 17:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. OpenStreetMap, WikiMapia and maybe others are both plausible targets, and I'd rather we didn't choose one of them as more/most deserving of the redirect. Search terms including "wiki" are probably in need of extra attention generally – in this case, there are going to be a few less competent users just looking for our article on maps, as suggested by the first page of Google results for "map wiki" consisting of a list of Wikipedia articles about different types of map. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as plausible and not harmful, though I could see an argument to disambiguate the title with links to the above plus the original Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps destination. I've taken the liberty of posting a first draft of potential disambiguation content under the RfD tag. Rossami (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kudos for investing the legwork to make disambiguation an easy possibility. I have to say though, I'm not so hot on linking to project space from a DAB page in article space. I don't think having wiki in the article title changes matters as far as WP:SELF is concerned. BigNate37(T) 22:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Disambiguation pages often list Wikipedia-space projects if there is plausible ambiguity in the title. They are generally ranked lower than article-space pages but conceptually, they are no different from a hatnote on an article page. Or sometimes explicitly formatted as a hatnote. See, for example be bold. That'll get cleaned up over time. Rossami (talk) 23:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate as a set index, per all the choices here. -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 04:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace with dab page. This redirect is way too good SEO for Wikimapia, and there's no reason we should favor them over their competitors. -- Selket Talk 20:13, 16 July 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.

Dexters house[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. JohnCD (talk) 20:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's been under protection since 2006 and apparently was the result of a hoax. There's no page history of interest, and nothing links to it either (except for one entry in a log). I can't see it being of real use. Also, it's a somewhat generic phrase. Nothing about it is specific to the page it redirects to. Paper Luigi T • C 09:52, 10 July 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_July_10&oldid=1138578253"