Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 March 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 29[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 29, 2013

Philip gale scientology[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. Thryduulf (talk) 00:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this is a plausible search/linking term. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 05:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: multiple reliable sources within the article mention Philip Gale's association with scientology, and several of those link Philip Gale's involvement with scientology to his suicide.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:49, 29 March 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.

My Master[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. It's disambiguated, and probably deserves more attention. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This title is required for article on this book. In case, this is not a mandatory redirect, this can be deleted, so that I can start the article on the book keeping with proper article history! Tito Dutta (contact) 23:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The word "rabbi" means "My Master"; this is a valid redirect and should not be deleted simply because another article is about to be created with the title. I recommend creating the new article at My Master (book). Once the article is created, you can start a move discussion to have the article moved to My Master, which may or may not happen depending on consensus. Neelix (talk) 23:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article has more redirects My Masters, My great one. If you search in Google the first result you get is the book in question, and the other results are not related to Rabbi. See also, my reply to Mangoe below! --Tito Dutta (contact) 23:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTDIC Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary ; alot of things means that, just look at the martial arts teachers using titles from East Asia. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 01:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm dubious that any of them mean my master, can you provide an example? Siuenti (talk) 20:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete It's a phrase used in so many contexts that simply linking the translation of "rabbi" is uncalled-for and misleading. Mangoe (talk) 13:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, the page can be converted to a disambiguation page with link to both Rabbi and the book. But, redirecting the title to Rabbi is inappropriate, because (see my reply to Neelix above)! I'll wait for the consensus! --Tito Dutta (contact) 23:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Why not just write the article about the book, overwriting the redirect? There is no need for deletion. Gorobay (talk) 14:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That'll not give the author article creator's attribution! --Tito Dutta (contact) 23:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why does it matter? Trying to collect new page creation points or something? -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 01:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If article creator's credit matters (if you know about registered users, we have lots of ways to keep tracks of list of created pages, edit records of individual editors! If you want to see what happens when an article is created overwriting a redirect see this DYK nomination. I regularly suggest to delete previous version if the new article is not related to the previous one! --Tito Dutta (contact) 01:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since it can describe other term aside from rabbi. If we decide to keep this, then this should be transformed into a dab page.--Lenticel (talk) 01:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overwrite with an article or dab page without deletion. It is clear that there should be something at this title, but there is no need to delete what is already here before creating that content. Fix the system that determines "creator credit" (if that actually matters) to account for situations like this rather than seeking unnecessary deletions. Thryduulf (talk) 17:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create dab page. Rabbi isn't the only or primary usage of the phrase "My Master" in English. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 16:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 02:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no restriction on overwriting with an article or a dab page. Siuenti (talk) 13:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I think a dab page is the best option. I noticed that this page has received about 20 hits in the two months prior to this discussion, while that is low it shows that people are looking for something.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:15, 30 March 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.

Wikipedia:TRUTH[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:Verifiability, not truth. The comments pointing to linkrot/commonsense are worthy, so I expect to catch some flak over this, but most people here do find VNT a better use of what is and will continue to be a popular shorthand. In particular, the high value of VNT is something many editors below noted, which is even linked to from the lede of Wikipedia:Verifiability. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate There are many informative essays about "truth" on Wikipedia; see Wikipedia:Truth#See also for a selection. So I'm concerned that this redirect is taking up prime real estate. If I were to choose one new target, I think Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth is the best choice, but ultimately, the redirect is too vague to really guess what people want. BDD (talk) 17:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why not retarget to Wikipedia:Truth? JohnCD (talk) 21:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Mostly because there are too many other good options. Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth is probably the best, IMO. Wikipedia:Truth would be a better target than Wikipedia:The Truth (humor pages are fun, but rarely the best choice for a well-used shortcut), but the former isn't in great shape. It has an empty section, for one. That's why I think a WP:CONCEPTDAB-type page in W-space would be the best option, with a very brief overview of the meaning of truth to Wikipedia, along with relevant links. --BDD (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point it at WP:Verifiability, not truth so it affirmatively goes somewhere that means something in the sort of context in which this shortcut is typically used; it's pointless to make this a DAB page – that would effectively ban the shortcut, since using it in any context will no longer make sense. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 09:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be plenty happy with that, but there's precedent for "banning" vague or misleading shortcuts. See WP:NOTNEWS, which continues to get many uses nonetheless. --BDD (talk) 17:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    A deprecation as clear as the one at WP:NOTNEWS would work for me, too. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 13:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth per SMcCandlish. And high time too. The humorous essay sets a very negative tone when cited in the course of an argument over whether or not material should be included in Wikipedia. It's much better to make the most obvious shortcut point to a serious/informational page. -Thibbs (talk) 13:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, but revise existing links. Changing the redirect target would effectively hijack the several thousand existing wikilinks. I agree that WP:VNT is a much better target for this shortcut, but the existing links should remain targeted to the humor page so the authors' links are not refactored. VQuakr (talk) 15:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see that as being a practical use of time. I've personally always used it to mean VNT myself. --Izno (talk) 13:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to VNT per SMC. --Izno (talk) 13:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth I think this is a much better essay than the current one and it gets the point across pretty well for what I intuitively think that WP:TRUTH would tell people. I agree with VQuakr that we should evaluate and modify existing links. Zell Faze (talk) 11:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wikipedia:Truth - neither Wikipedia:The Truth, where it currently points, or Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth, are where this should be pointing. WP:TRUTH should point to Wikipedia:Truth per WP:COMMONSENSE - several times I've wanted to link to Wikipedia:Truth and accidentally gotten Wikipedia:The Truth at first as the all-caps alphabet soup doesn't point to the lowercaps that has the exact same title. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate as while VNT is probably the most commonly used single meaning, I don't see that it would raise to the level that would get it primary topic status if these were articles. I agree with Bushranger's point above, but as Wikipedia:Truth is clearly not the primary topic I would resolve the issue by moving that essay to a different title (perhaps "Wikipedia:Wikipedia and the truth" or something like that). The see also section of Wikipedia:Truth would be a good starting point for the dab page. Thryduulf (talk) 17:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't care where this ends up redirecting (although it should be somewhere) but it must not be changed unless/until all past discussions using it as an abbreviation are updated to point to the previous redirect target. Otherwise we'll be post facto revising what thousands of people have said, inappropriately. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the intent, but that seems wildly impractical. What about all the discussions out there that continue to link to WP:NOTNEWS? --BDD (talk) 15:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 02:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. Pretty much everyone who knows about WP:TRUTH thinks of it as going to its present target, and if we change the target, we'll suddenly give new and unintended meanings to tons of statements. Read a couple of sentences from WP:Link rot: "Like most large websites, Wikipedia suffers from the phenomenon known as link rot, where external links, often used as references and citations, gradually become irrelevant or broken, as the linked websites disappear, change their content, or move...prevention of link rot strengthens the encyclopedia." Changing the target will break ridiculous numbers of links without substantial benefit; let's be good web citizens and avoid surprising tons of people. Nyttend (talk) 07:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wikipedia:Truth per The Bushranger. Steel1943 (talk) 01:12, 9 April 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.

Heer[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 April 11#Heer

Mike Dyball & Vince Nudo[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 April 10#Mike Dyball

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2013_March_29&oldid=1138579044"