Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 January 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 14[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 14, 2013

List of ancient Jedi[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 - Already FPP'ed. Salvidrim! ✉ 05:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is causing confusion. Repeated redirecting and restoring of information. All relevant information present in List of Star Wars characters. The Banner talk 21:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per nom. This has been around sense 2006 and we don't want to cause linkrot. According to nom all relevant information is present in List of Star Wars characters. Unless I'm missing something here no valid reason to delete has been presented. If the restoring is such a problem, maybe you could get the redirect protected. That's a far less drastic step then deleting. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment was this content merged to the target article? If so, the history needs to be kept somewhere. As for the issue of repeated restoration, I believe that editprotection is that way: WP:RFP -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 08:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - page is eight years old, and thus likely to be externally linked. Seems like the best place to send people. Given the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ancient Jedi and the current edit warring, I'll indef protect the page; restoring it can be discussed at DRV (although I suspect we know how that discussion will go). WilyD 09:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The protection is acceptable to me, as it stops the article from popping up and being redirected. The Banner talk 13:34, 15 January 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.

Up and coming musician[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 speedy delete. --BDD (talk) 23:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

I don't understand why this was created. The nominator even requested that Dalton Hall be redirected to Up and coming musician, not vice-versa. [1] Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 20:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, no claim to notability/spam/ignore all rules (there does seem to be a band by this name). Siuenti (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as promotional and irrelevant. --BDD (talk) 23:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertising -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 08:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete At that time I quite new to Wikipedia and the AfC Helper script, which may have been the reason. If that wasn't the reason, I have no idea, two years is too long ago to remember. In any case, I agree the redirect needs to be deleted. Apologies for the bad creation. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 22:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems this qualifies for A7 speedy deletion now. --BDD (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I already tagged the redirect under CSD G7 and it has been deleted. Anyone can close this discussion up now. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 22:52, 16 January 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.

WiDi (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 keep. Non-admin closure. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no two pages called WiDi (capitalization), so no disambig needed. There's already Widi (disambiguation). uKER (talk) 16:52, 14 January 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.

Sexual disorders[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. Please, take all issues related to renaming to WP:RM. Ruslik_Zero 19:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dysfunction means the malfunctioning of an organ or structure of the body. A sexual disorder is a psychological disorder and does not fall under the category of dysfunction. To be clear I do not want the 'Sexual Disorders' page deleted. I would like it to be a page of its own, but I've just started contributing to wikipedia and am getting used to all the editing things. Am I able to make the new page instead of have the page deleted ? Robbiecee2 (talk) 06:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I have reconsidered and accept that the sexual disorders page should not be a separate page but rather that the title of the page should be changed from 'sexual dysfunction' to 'sexual disorder' Robbiecee2 (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Sexual disorders do fall under the category of dysfunction, as shown by various WP:Reliable sources. The two are treated as synonyms very often, both by medical professionals and laypeople. Flyer22 (talk) 07:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will inform WP:MED of this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 07:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And to specifically address the claim about which term encompasses psychological factors, the term sexual dysfunction may also cover psychological factors. Flyer22 (talk) 07:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change. The DSM-IV has a section 'Sexual and gender identity disorders' and within this section are 'Sexual dysfunctions' which are physiological problems (which could result from psychological problems) and then there are 'Paraphilias' and 'Gender Identity Disorders' which are psychological disorders of sexual fantasies and sexuality. ICD-10 says: "Sexual dysfunction covers the various ways in which an individual is unable to participate in a sexual relationship as he or she would wish." In the DSM there are sexual disorders which are psychological disorders such as Exhibitionism, Pedophilia and Sexual masochism which are not represented by this description because for instance, an individual exhibiting pedophilia obviously acts on sexual fantasies involving children, but this is them participating in a sexual relationship as they would wish, which is the exact opposite of the statement I cited from the ICD-10. There is a distinction between sexual disorders and sexual dysfunctions, albeit subtle, the difference is still there. In the ICD-10 these 'paraphilias' actually fall under the section 'Disorders of sexual preference' not sexual dysfunction. Therefore my conclusion is that paraphilias such as the ones mentioned (pedophilia, exhibitionism, etc.) are not sexual dysfunctions (according to the ICD-10 nor the DSM-IV) so the redirection should be changed and Sexual Disorders should be a page of its own which I will gladly write and would appreciate contributions. Robbiecee2 (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Robbiecee2, the point that I have been making is that the term "sexual disorder" is not restricted to psychological sexual disorders, and extends to physical sexual disorders as well. And the term "sexual dysfunction" is not restricted to physical sexual disorders, because it also extends to psychological sexual disorders. It's pretty much vice versa. Like I stated, the terms are "treated as synonyms very often, both by medical professionals and laypeople." The ICD-10 includes a Sexual dysfunction section that includes sexual disorders; some of these are things that you would classify as sexual dysfunctions, such as erectile dysfunction. Erectile dysfunction is alternatively called "male erectile disorder." And hypoactive sexual desire disorder, for another example, is commonly listed as a sexual dysfunction. The ICD-10 says: "Sexual response is a psychosomatic process and both psychological and somatic processes are usually involved in the causation of sexual dysfunction." And even Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) treats "sexual dysfunction" and "sexual disorder" as synonyms, with a "Sexual Dysfunctions, Psychological" heading while naming sexual disorders beneath that. While paraphilias, which are usually described as sexual disorders and/or as mental disorders, may not be commonly described as sexual dysfunctions, I don't agree that this means that we should not have the term "sexual disorder" redirect to the Sexual dysfunction article. Creating a Sexual disorder article and trying to maintain a difference between that and sexual dysfunctions would be difficult because, as various reliable sources show, it would be arbitrary. It might be best to rename the Sexual dysfunction article to Sexual disorder, which would of course cover physical and psychological sexual dysfunctions, as well as paraphilias. But the term "disorder" can be more so stigmatizing, and so an argument can be made, based on that, to leave the article titled as it is.
On a side note, perhaps most pedophiles act on their sexual fantasies. But there are some pedophiles who don't, and who actually seek help for those desires. And as engaging in sexual activities with prepubescent children is illegal, this does fall under being "unable to participate in a sexual relationship as he or she would wish." Flyer22 (talk) 00:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. I would accept for the page title to be changed from dysfunctions to disorders because I agree with your statement that physiological conditions come under disorders as well as psychological disorders, but by definition, the converse is not true. I would also like for the category 'Symptoms' to be altered slightly.
If someone had sexual fantasies about children but they didn't act on these urges or experience some type of distress due to the fantasies, then under the DSM-IV they would not meet the criteria for pedophilia. And no they are not "unable to participate in a sexual relationship as he or she would wish." They ARE able to do so, but it just so happens it's illegal. They can still do it, whereas someone with erectile dysfunction CANNOT "participate in a sexual relationship as he or she would wish." It's not a matter of legality, it's a matter of whether it's physically possible or not. Robbiecee2 (talk) 01:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whether meeting the DSM's diagnostic criteria for pedophilia or not, if they have strong sexual fantasies about prepubescent children, they would still be considered a pedophile by most researchers on the topic of pedophilia. And when I stated that "engaging in sexual activities with prepubescent children is illegal" is something that falls under being "unable to participate in a sexual relationship as he or she would wish," I meant (and mean) that pedophiles (most of them) would love to be free to do this. Besides the illegality of it, what I mean by "free" is "without social condemnation." These things ruin the fantasy for a lot of pedophiles because the majority of them believe that engaging in sexual activity with a prepubescent child is not wrong, is only wrong because general society sees it as wrong, and that it's a sexual orientation that is being discriminated against. That lack of freedom prevents most pedophiles from having the type of sexual relationship he (usually a he) or she desires. And, again, the ICD-10 says: "Sexual response is a psychosomatic process and both psychological and somatic processes are usually involved in the causation of sexual dysfunction." But this discussion is not about pedophilia, and I don't have much more to state on the topic of "sexual dysfunction vs. sexual disorder"; I've made my points, and it's time for others to weigh in on it...or not. Flyer22 (talk) 01:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I was just playing (regarding criteria for pedophilia). However, the "ability to participate in a sexual relationship as he or she would wish" is about the physical ability, i.e. is it physically possible for the individual to do so? and if it is then they don't fall under that statement. You said it might be best to change the title from sexual dysfunction to sexual disorders but you would not support this due to the stigma which may be associated with the word disorder, is this the only reason you would not support such a change, even if the change would be more definitive? Robbiecee2 (talk) 01:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, regarding that line, the ICD-10 is not only talking about physical ability; this is very clear from its full description of sexual dysfunction and listing sexual disorders (under that description) that are not only about physical ability. So I am unsure of how you are still concluding otherwise. As for not changing the "Sexual dysfunction" title to "Sexual disorder," I did not state that I would not support it. Instead, I stated that "an argument can be made, based on ["disorder" being more so stigmatizing], to leave the article titled as it is." Flyer22 (talk) 02:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I shall request for the title to be changed. Robbiecee2 (talk) 02:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Treating this as a psych-only topic is not helpful, since the readership of Wikipedia is not composed solely of psychologists/sociologists/psychiatrists/psychoanalysts. The general public will expect the current title to be available if the target article exists. Further, treating this as a DSM issue is also highly biased, in that that is a US manual, and is not a global perspective. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 08:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is clear that in lay usage there is no distinction made between a sexual dysfunction and a sexual disorder, and as Wikipedia is a general purpose encyclopaedia not a medical one it is the non-specialist usage that matters. I have objection to swapping the redirect and article titles, but if that is what you are after then you need Wikipedia:Requested moves not RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 11:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was taken to Wikipedia:Requested moves; it was moved from there and taken to the Sexual dysfunction talk page because it is a move that is likely to be contested/controversial. Flyer22 (talk) 17:25, 15 January 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I now accept that the redirect and article titles should be swapped, rather than maintaining two separate pages. Can I delete this whole redirect request since I have now requested a move? Also my concern about the term 'dysfunction' is that in layman terms (and by definition) the term refers to "malfunctioning, as of an organ or structure of the body." A psychological disorder does not necessarily fall under this category. Therefore an article with this title should not include psychological disorders that do not result in a malfunction of an organ or structure of the body. Robbiecee2 (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Robbiecee2, we've been over this above. The medical sources are very clear in how they use "dysfunction" and "disorder." Flyer22 (talk) 18:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you're aware that it's not only medical people who use wikipedia, and I said in layman terms. If you look up the word 'dysfunction' the definition would not include mental disorders, and this would be the definition used by the general population. Therefore, the term disorders is more definitive because it would include psychological disorders, as well as physical dysfunctions.Robbiecee2 (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Robbiecee2, I've been editing Wikipedia for 5 years, 6 going into this year; of course I am aware that "it's not only medical people who use wikipedia." It's also common sense. Even if Wikipedia only covered medical topics, laypeople would visit this site to gain information on those medical topics. And you are somehow neglecting that, above, I stated "The two [terms "sexual disorder" and "sexual dysfunction"] are treated as synonyms very often, both by medical professionals and laypeople." The laypeople aspect was also addressed by 76.65.128.43 and Thryduulf, and they argue the exact opposite of what you do on that -- instead stating that the general public makes no distinction between sexual disorder and sexual dysfunction. Flyer22 (talk) 19:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some definitions of the word dysfunction:
  • Abnormality or impairment in the function of a specified bodily organ or system.
  • an abnormality or impairment of function or the inability of a body, organ, or organ system to perform normally.
  • malfunctioning, as of an organ or structure of the body.
So if the general population understand those definitions to be true, then this definition would not include sexual mental disorders. Therefore the title should be changed from 'dysfunction' to 'disorder' to be more definitive. Robbiecee2 (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Robbiecee2, notice that two of those definitions use "or" in a way that a person could perceive the information before "or" to not necessarily have to do with the latter. The final example uses "as of" in place of "for example." And any of those descriptions can be stated to be due to psychological factors, in part or in full, as sources above show.
More importantly, you need to read WP:Original research. Flyer22 (talk) 20:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever you say. It's obvious that 'disorder' would be more definitive and you even accepted that so I don't know why you're arguing with me now. Stop following my activity please. Robbiecee2 (talk) 20:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Thryduulf. However, I now accept that the redirect should not be deleted, rather the title should be changed from 'sexual dysfunction' to 'sexual disorders' due to the reasons listed somewhere above. Robbiecee2 (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Robbiecee2, if it's obvious that "disorder" would be more definitive, then you would not have everyone thus far stating the opposite of that. And I didn't agree that "disorder" would be more definitive and certainly not for the reasons you listed. And as following your activity, besides this topic being a topic that I am currently involved in (which means that it makes sense that I am commenting on it at Talk:Sexual dysfunction, you are going to articles that I edit and/or look after. That stated, since you do not yet have a handle on how things are supposed to work on this site, it is acceptable that I follow you out of concern for the articles that you are editing. But so far, the fact that we have been interacting is mostly due to you editing topics/articles that I am involved with. Flyer22 (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you are going to persist I will simply ignore you. Robbiecee2 (talk) 21:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well, and don't be surprised when you keep getting reverted. But you might also want to check out (emphasis on "read") WP:COLLABORATE and WP:CIVIL. Difficult to work on Wikipedia when you generally don't know how to edit it and plan to ignore article contributors. Flyer22 (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't "plan on ignoring article contributors", just you, that's singular. You should also read the WP:CIVIL section that mentions harassment and make sure you don't get banned. Again. "the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely." < exactly the outcome of what you're doing. Robbiecee2 (talk) 21:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And ignoring me won't go over well either. It's not working for you now, for example. I don't need to refer to WP:CIVIL. But you need to refer to Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding. It states: "Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam. The contribution logs can be used in the dispute resolution process to gather evidence to be presented in requests for comment, mediation, WP:ANI, and arbitration cases."
It also states, "The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason." Exactly not what I've been doing. Not only have I stated why I have reason to follow you, but also that "so far, the fact that we have been interacting is mostly due to you editing topics/articles that I am involved with." Like I stated at Talk:Sexual dysfunction, you asked for my help, and are now shunning it because I am informing you of things that are going to take time for you to learn and/or things that you don't want to read/hear. Well, this is what editing Wikipedia is like.
But go ahead and report me at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. See what happens. Flyer22 (talk) 21:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How can you say what I am feeling? In actuality, you ARE causing "disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing" you're also "raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress", so stop. Yes I asked for your help but now I'm asking you to leave me alone because you have not been helpful to me, you have basically been annoying and you're certainly making this an unenjoyable experience for me. Robbiecee2 (talk) 21:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say how you are feeling. I stated that I am not harassing you. Your interpretation of the policy does not hold up because of what I stated about it above. Feeling harassed is not the same as being harassed. You are basically telling me that I can't continue to show up at the articles that I edit/watch over because you will be there. It is your right to state that I have not been helpful, but I consider pointing you to our policies and guidelines and explaining how things work when you ask, which is what I have done, to be helpful. You shouldn't expect me or anyone else to look the other way when you are doing something wrong at an article. But I will try to refrain from pointing you to any more policies or guidelines, since it's clear that you don't take the time to thoroughly read them. Flyer22 (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"You are basically telling me that I can't continue to show up at the articles that I edit/watch over because you will be there" For me (and probably others), that would be great, but I don't expect that. I'm not asking you to look the other way when I do something which is in your opinion, wrong, but what I don't want you to do is follow me around critiquing everything I do because I don't find the way in which you do it helpful to me. I wish I could just block you but there is no way of doing that, so am I going to have to put up with you being annoying towards me? Or would you like for me to just delete my account and not contribute? (Just say yes or no please, don't say "no, I want you to ....". I'm interested to find out if you have anything positive to say about me. Do you? Robbiecee2 (talk) 22:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My pointing out that you have done things wrong has not been based on my opinion. But rest assured that I won't be following you around critiquing everything you do. I am asking you to stop assuming bad faith (I know that I stated that I would try not to point you to another Wikipedia policy or guideline, but keep WP:Assume good faith in mind). Given your main editing interests, you should not be surprised when you see me at an article you decide to edit. And while at those articles, if I see an edit that violates a guideline, I am likely to revert or tweak it. If it violates policy, I will revert it. Flyer22 (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will be changing some articles involving sexuality no doubt, and please by all means TWEAK my changes to follow these guidelines you love, if they violate them, but I'm glad you will no longer be following me around.
Note: I said tweak. I'd rather you didn't just blow off what I've said like you've been doing, but tweak what I've added so it follows guidelines. Robbiecee2 (talk) 22:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I of course was not only speaking of your interests in sexual topics, but also psychological/medical topics. And, again, I didn't have to follow you around much; you are showing up at articles that I edit/watch over. You need to learn the policies and guidelines because you won't be able to edit here successfully if you don't. As for tweaking, don't always expect me or others to clean up after you in that way. Sometimes, we just revert bad edits and don't take the time to tweak them. And when you are reverted, you should expect that such edits will sometimes be discussed on the talk page to be worked out and/or to form WP:CONSENSUS. That is what I meant when I stated "ignoring me won't go over well." Wikipedia is about collaborating, even with people that we are not fond of or dislike. If editors here mostly ignored each other when disagreements arose, then hardly anything good would get done here. Flyer22 (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I won't edit most psychology pages except ones that are in the field of psychiatry and a few other areas, so hopefully my other interests do not intersect yours. You've linked me to at least 37 million pages to read, I'll do my best to write correctly but I will not stop editing what I think needs to be edited.
Note: Did you realize that you didn't say anything positive? Robbiecee2 (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Editing sexual, psychological, medical topics will sometimes (more times in other cases) result in you editing the same articles that I do. And if I ever feel that I have reason to state anything positive about your edits, I might...as I take it that you won't mind me leaving a message on your talk page about that. Flyer22 (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I won't mind. Robbiecee2 (talk) 23:23, 15 January 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_January_14&oldid=1050184817"