Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 March 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 2[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 2, 2012

Suggestive dialogue[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 into a disambiguation page. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This redirects to Dialogue, however that article does not say anything at all about "suggestive dialogue," instead covering dialogue as a literary and theological device. Logical Cowboy (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Allusion or something of a kind. As far as I can see from "suggestive dialogue" web search, the main meaning of the wording is the dialog, leading to the adult scenes in the movies. If so, it would be a useful search term, though I'm not sure about the best target. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Suggestive dialogue" is a term used in the TV Parental Guidelines. That may be an appropriate target. - Eureka Lott 17:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can find no reference to the phrase "suggestive dialogue" that demonstrates anything other than the self-evident "dialogue which is suggestive". There are no inbound links to the redirect nor have I been able to find any indications that such links existed in our pagehistories. "Allusion" has the connotation of a reference to more classical works and does not seem to fit well with the modern connotation of "suggestive dialogue". And while the term is used in the TV Parental Guidelines, so are several other commonly understood phrases which are not (and should be) be redirected. On the whole, I think deletion is better. Rossami (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make into DAB page. That's my preferred position. This is an ambiguous phrase. It should have a dab page whose opening sentence includes a link to dialogue, and which lists as candidates at least TV Parental Guidelines and innuendo. Neither clearly appears to be a primary topic for this term, although I think innuendo has a slight edge, so the DAB page, rather than a hatnote, is preferred. As my fallback position, if it's not going to be a DAB page it should be deleted for substantially the reasons set out by Rossami. In the absence of a DAB page it shouldn't redirect anywhere. It's more likely than not that it will redirect to someplace that will be unhelpful to the reader. The reader would be better served if it resulted in a page of search results. Finally, if it must redirect somewhere, it should be redirected to innuendo. I volunteer to make the DAB page if that's the consensus. TJRC (talk) 18:08, 7 March 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.

Template:Further.[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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Created less than 1,5 year ago. It contains an uncommon full stop at the end. It should be speedy deleted by R3 but speedy deletion was rejected. Magioladitis (talk) 12:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: particularly harmful redirect as the difference is not that easy to spot from the first glance. The single possible use case – complicating the tasks of bot masters. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree that it qualifies for an R3 (or T3) Speedy deletion. I don't see the Speedy request that the nom refers to in the redirect's history. TJRC (talk) 18:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The "recently created" clause in CSD#R3 requires that content have existed at the page (or the redirect existed) for only a few hours, days at most. That clause was added during the debate to approve that CSD criterion out of documented concerns that external links often exist to the original title. The possibility of link rot and the balance of that risk against the value of the redirect requires case-by-case evaluation. That kind of analysis can be well-executed during a deletion discussion (such as here) but is not suitable for a speedy-deletion criterion which must be so clear and unambiguous that the deletion can be allowed without oversight or confirmation by anyone beyond the deleting admin.
    Whether or not this redirect should be deleted (I abstain on that point), at a year and a half old it was explicitly not a valid speedy-deletion candidate. Rossami (talk) 21:26, 8 March 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.

After-birth abortion[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. There appears to be a consensus that this is a sufficiently plausible search term, thus falling under WP:R#KEEP 3. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Attention-grabbing nonce term used in the title of one article that's controversial at the moment. I don't see it being used in any reliable sources prior to the past day or so. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So it appears a number of well respected philosophers and bioethicists have used the term as well. Misread, sorry. I should say that it appears that the authors are reffing to infanticide specifically as afterbirth abortion. The source is very reliable, as it's published by the BMJ Group. Noformation Talk 00:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're misreading; the editor is referring to Giubilini and Minerva as the "authors" who use this term, not Singer et al. So it's exactly as I said; a neologism used in only one source that happens to be in the news right now. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I had already caught that mistake and edited it out :). Still, it is being used by dozens of sources now, albeit mostly news sources, but the fact that we have a direct sources equating the term with infanticide is enough for a redirect. Noformation Talk 00:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The sources aren't independent and can't be counted separately. If Source A is just reporting on the use of the phrase in Source B, rather than using or discussing the phrase itself, that's not really two separate sources to demonstrate its use. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(If the paper continues to be discussed in reliable sources, it might prove to be notable itself! But the news-y coverage of this one paper doesn't support the use of this term as a redirect.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree but I don't contest the validity nor the reliability of the claim considering the source, nor was I using the defense to establish independence. The journal has a decent amount of clout and if they are willing to make the statement that the terms are equivalent and if the editor is willing to personally write on the topic then it's something we should take at face value, at least for a redirect. The term is now being used by dozens of publications and people will surely be searching for it, no point in sending them to a "create this page" red link. And I have a feeling that you're on to something: this topic will probably have its own page soon enough (though it might be for the controversy more than anything else). Noformation Talk 01:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but make own page, saying, i.e., "after-birth abortion" is a contradictory [and it 'is' contradictory] term used to refer to infanticide for the purpose of discussing medical ethics, especially when discussing the ethics of abortion. It came into use..." etc. Redirecting is inappropriate, as it is acknowledging the feint of the wordplay as valid. Triacylglyceride (talk) 05:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that might be a valid solution if the term were used in more reliable sources, but it isn't. It's just this one paper. As I said above, if the paper itself becomes notable (ie. enduringly notable per WP:EVENT, because right now it's a news story) then we might one day have an article on the paper - but one source, even a reliable one, simply won't support an article on a neologism. See WP:NEO. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As stated, as of right now, this term is not widely used at all outside of the single article presented. It really doesn't have any other third party sources to help establish that this neologism is notable. While the incidents involving this paper being written are getting some media attention right now, that really doesn't help establish that this term itself should be created as a redirect. Rorshacma (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Whereas two of the above arguments are beside the point, owing to the fact that wp:NEO simply pertains to article titles, not redirects, as it is, nothing in wp:R#DELETE would indicate the redirect should not be in use and wp:R#KEEP # 3 would indicate it should be kept to aid those researching this term (which term generates dozens of Google News hits as well as a few applicable Google book hits).--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I would argue that wp:R#KEEP #3 does not apply in this case, however. The actual target article does not mention this term at all, thus someone who searches for the term "After-birth Abortion", and just gets redirected to infanticide with nothing in the actual article discussing it, is just going to get the mistaken impression that this is a common, widespread synonym, which is not the case. This is certainly not going to be useful in the same sense that is shown in that example, where an official, widespread nickname is used as a redirect. If the Infanticide article actually had a section discussing the term and the controvery surrounding it, then yes, a redirect would be appropriate. However, then we run into the problem of whether the word actually has any lasting signifigance that would allow it to be discussed in the article, which would be a different debate all together.Rorshacma (talk) 22:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: this term is a plausible search term. As the wording itself isn't self-evident and can be understood in different ways, the redirect with this name would be very useful for those who came across the term in media or papers. The fact that the name is a neologism would warrant the deletion if this was an AfD discussion, which is not the case. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the term can be interpreted in different ways, isn't that an argument against making it redirect to one of the interpretations? As I've said, we can't make these calls based on only one reliable source. If the paper titled "After-birth abortion" proves to be notable, it might merit an article (and it's what people searching on the term would be looking for), but we don't generally promote the creation of inflammatory material such as this redirect based on nonce coinages. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, definitely plausible per Czarkoff. Tavix |  Talk  16:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If it's controversial, that means the term is in the news, and a term that's in the news is a likely search target. Moreover, because the article whence the term is derived has unambiguously used it as a reference to infanticide, the target of a redirect for this controversy should not a matter of dispute. Nyttend (talk) 15:49, 9 March 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.

Killbox[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 —GFOLEY FOUR!— 19:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Kill zone Kill box. Good catch.--Lenticel (talk) 00:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget- To Kill zone, as a plausible synonym or machine translation of the ambush term. Dru of Id (talk) 10:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To Kill box; much likelier intended destination. Dru of Id (talk) 03:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Retarget to Kill box. It has nothing to do with the target. It was created when a two-edit editor created an article duplicating Iron maiden (torture), and another well-meaning editor redirected it instead of deleting it. It has generated genuine confusion, see Talk:Iron maiden (torture). The only incoming link is an erroneous one intended to link to an article on the software. I see no point in retargeting to Kill zone absent some evidence that "killbox" is used as a synonym for "kill zone." TJRC (talk) 15:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Kill box. TimBentley (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now that looks like a worthy retarget. I'm abashed I didn't think to check that. TJRC (talk) 01:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I found no mentions of the term as synonym for Iron maiden, and I see no other targets. Kill Box doesn't make the good target for me, as I see no mention of this target with the words joined together. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that there don't appear to be any mentions of "killbox" to mean "kill box". But I still think it's a good redirect for that target. It's likely someone would be searching on "killbox" when what they want is "kill box." "If someone could plausibly enter the redirect's name when searching for the target article, it's a good redirect." (WP:RFD#The guiding principles of RfD). TJRC (talk) 17:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to "Kill box" per TJRC and TimBentley. Rossami (talk) 17:12, 3 March 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_March_2&oldid=1138578376"