Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 July 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 30[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 30, 2014.

Xiao Na[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. --BDD (talk) 14:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect targets a single section of an article on a Microsoft product within which there is a single sentence referencing the redirect term. Further the redirect was previously the name of an article about a living person that was deleted for want of sources. IMO the minimal use of the term in the targeted article is insufficient to justify this particular redirect, especially given that it also appears to be the name of at least one, and possibly more, living persons. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:35, 30 July 2014 (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.

Legendtina[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. --BDD (talk) 14:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects should probably be deleted. A cursory web search of the word "Legendtina" reveals that it and "Legend X" are stan culture nicknames for Christina Aguilera; such nicknames are non-neutral, nonsensical, and very likely to be vandalism when added to Wikipedia (indeed, the edit history of the Legend X page shows that it was a frequent target of vandalism subsequent to its original creation. Mmrsofgreen (talk) 19:15, 30 July 2014 (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.

Legal age[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 no consensus. While there was an extensive discussion below, I don't see anywhere within it a consensus for any particular course of action. Keeping it as is and disambiguation (or retargeting to a dismabiguation page at a different title) are the options with the strongest support, but not enough for consensus. If anyone is still interested in discussing this, then the talk page is available as are relevant WikiProjects. Thryduulf (talk) 10:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should be it's own article not a redirect "Legal Age" when one is legally allowed to enter into contracts or wills. The colloquial "of legal age" referring to the age of majority was likely the reason for the redirect. In many countries this is separated from the Age of Majority and can trigger as early as 8 years of age and as late as 21 years. In North America those of 12-16 (depending on state/province) can enter contracts for bank accounts, interest in companies, etc even though they have not yet attained the age of majority. JMJimmy (talk) 15:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Legal age and minimum age are not connected as legal concepts so merge would be inappropriate. Legal age would be most closely related to Capacity (law) (aka Legal [age of] Capacity) and it would in fact be appropriate to redirect it there, however, the Capacity article takes a very US centric view and draws in multiple aspects of law. I'd like to build an article that takes an international perspective and isolates concepts that cross borders. JMJimmy (talk) 18:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The best way to build such an article is to add to the one already there. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close this redirect is not tagged for deletion. The disambiguation page legal age (disambiguation) is tagged for deletion, and disambiguation pages are not deleted via RfD. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • NOTE an admin has now removed the RfD from the disambiguation page (being as it isn't a redirect, this seems to be the proper course of action) -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: What should be taken into account is WP:Primary topic. If the vast majority of our readers will be looking for the age of majority topic when they type in "legal age," then "legal age" should redirect there with a disambiguation WP:Hatnote at the top of the Age of majority article pointing to other uses of "legal age"...which is the way this matter was for years without any problem. The Legal age page even currently suggests that "age of majority" is the WP:Primary topic for "legal age." WP:Disambiguation expert BD2412, you mind weighing in on this matter? What is your take on it? Flyer22 (talk) 09:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did a quick Google Books search for "reached legal age" and immediately found that the vast majority of hits referred to people having reached the age of majority for their jurisdiction. I think that, despite there being different ages at which it becomes legal to do certain things (drive, smoke, drink, run for President of the United States), the term "legal age" is most commonly nearly synonymous with "age of majority". Minimum age is not so much, with Google Books references being as likely to refer to someone having "reach minimum age" to enter kindergarten or to retire and begin taking social security. In other words, for most purposes, "legal age" means "age of majority" while "minimum age" remains ambiguous. bd2412 T 13:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Challenge to assertion the assertion is made that the vast majority of hits referred to people having reached the age of majority. In looking into this further, I found that was not the case. Ensuring &pws=0 was used to eliminate personal results, this is what I found:
Result 1: refers to age of retirement. Result 2: refers to majority (psychology paper not legal referrence) Result 4: legal age (on the surface it appears to be majority, until you read the section after the first appearance where it has separated those who are of "legal age" and those who are "major") Result 3,5,6,7,10:: legal age (again, appears to be majority but it must be taken into context of law. California law at the time, the civil code prohibited minors from owning real property/anything not in their immediate possession until the age of majority (age 18f/21m), except if they were married (age 15f/18m) or if they were "bound to a master" (age 14). "Legal age" in this case would refer not only to majority but majority or married minor or bound minor. Put another way "legal age to conduct ones affairs" - these exceptions did not confer majority as if the person was divorced/widowed/unbound they and their property would be put under the management of a guardian). Continuing further there are examples like "Intercountry Adoptions: Laws and Perspectives of "Sending" Countries" which refers to adopters capacity requiring "reaching legal age (18 years)" and in the very next sentence states that "minors can adopt if married" and "the only requirement is that an adopter be 15 years older than the person to be adopted". Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law comes up - majority = "the status of one who has reached legal age", that should be definitive against my case. However, looking further, "Legal Age" is defined as "an age at which a person becomes entitled under the law to engage in a particular activity or becomes responsible for particular acts". Not exactly consistent. The detail matters though, in the definition for "legal age" it states: "broadly : Age of Majority". Broadly is used to introduce an extended or wider meaning of the preceding definition (as apposed to "esp" which denotes the "most common meaning"), colon denotes a second definition. Age of Majority's definition specifically indicates that "making a binding contract....does not necessarily correspond with the age of majority". JMJimmy (talk) 06:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
comment above inserted after Flyer22's August 1st comment
JMJimmy, your argument seems to be somewhat (note: I stated "somewhat," not "is") a semantics issue. Dictionaries (taking your example of Merriam-Webster into account) define legal age the same way that they define age of majority, as seen here, here and here and here compared to here and here (that last source isn't a dictionary, at least not strictly, but still). Yes, with some of these definitions, there is some wiggle room, such as in the case of the emancipation of minors, but, for the most part, the sources mean legal adulthood. This source provides some of the wiggle room you are referring to, though it still states, "In almost all states the basic legal age is 18." Because I cannot shake the belief that the vast majority of our readers will be looking for the age of majority topic when they type in or click on "legal age," I stand by my vote below. Editors looking for other meanings of "legal age" can of course find it by it showing up in the search bar as a suggested item they may be looking for when they type in "legal age" or by clicking on the Legal age (disambiguation) page at the top of the Age of majority article. Flyer22 (talk) 07:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One argument is based on meaning in language or logic, yes. The matter being discussed is that of a legal nature, non-legal dictionary definitions are not really reliable Wikipedia:Law_sources_as_reliable_sources#Dictionaries.2C_encyclopedias.2C_restatements.2C_and_finding_aids. You need to be very careful with them as there's a lot of junk mixed in with the good and you can't just look at the definition, you need to compare it to other sources and look at it all as a whole. Lets take some of your links, dictionary.thefreedictionary.com first you link the lay persons definition of "legal age" and then the legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com of age of majority. Even within that site the legal-dictionary vs dictionary definitions of "legal age" are very different. Looking at where they got the definition (West's) I noticed it was out of date. The book has since been renamed (Gale's) and is in it's 3rd edition. In that it states: "The time of life at which a person acquires full capacity to make his or her own contracts and deeds and to transact business or to enter into some particular contract or relation, such as marriage. Identical definition, except that thefreedictionary has added to it changing it's meaning. Referring to Black's Law 8th (same publisher, but a dictionary not an encyclopedia, ie: higher quality source) the primary definition for both "lawful age" and "legal age" is referred back to "age of capacity": The age, usually defined by statute as 18 years, at which a person is legally capable of agreeing to a contract, maintaining a lawsuit, or the like. See Capacity. Capacity states The power to create or enter into a legal relation under the same circumstance in which a normal person would have the power to create or enter into such a relation; specifically, the satisfaction of a legal qualification such as legal age or soundness of mind, that determines one's ability to sue or be sued, to enter into a binding contract, and the like. Ok, so that's one view - Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. are the source of the 2nd definition there. Unfortunately, they publish dictionaries which hold lay person explanations that are not accurate to law. They also do not cite their definitions. It's come out in numerous forms, "The People's Law Dictionary" (you'll notice that as law.com's source), "Real life dictionary of the law", "Nolo's Plain-English Law Dictionary". It was a husband and wife team, no editorial oversight beyond General Publishing Group (1992-1999 bankruptcy). All in all a highly suspect source. There's the Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law "an age at which a person becomes entitled under the law to engage in a particular activity or becomes responsible for particular acts". There's the Oran's Dictionary of Law "The age at which a person becomes old enough to make contracts to which the person can be held.", Lexic.us "The age at which persons are considered competent to manage their own affairs." this also says it's a synonym for majority, however, it's source is Wiktionary - I would not consider it a reliable source since it uses algorithms, American Heritage Dictionary 5th "The age at which a person by law attains the capacity to engage in certain transactions or be treated legally as an adult.". Then we can go to various statutes: Tennessee "(11) Minor means an individual who has not attained twenty-one (21) years of age, although the minor may already be of legal age;" but then New Hampshire says the opposite "21:44 Age of Majority; Adults. – Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, the words "adult", "majority", "age of majority", "full age or lawful age, and all other terms of referring to those persons who are to be considered adults, shall mean those persons who have attained the age of 18 years." Though they recognize a minor of legal age from Tennessee as being legal age while not having reached majority. It's a messed up system I'll grant you that. My only question is, given all this, if not "legal age" then what do you suggest to use for this concept? JMJimmy (talk) 16:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For a lot of topics, using a dictionary source is not adequate; so it's not just legal topics that have that problem. However, dictionary sources can often be suitable (such as in the case of using a dictionary source to define theft), which is why there is no Wikipedia guideline or policy against it; the page you linked to is a Wikipedia essay. And, to my knowledge, TheFreeDictionary.com doesn't add on to definitions; it simply reports definitions that it's gathered from other sources. As for what title to use, how about you simply expand on the legal age aspect at the Capacity (law) article? Or do you think that your legal age material would be so big that it would make that article disproportionate in size regarding other aspects of capacity in law? Either way, that's one way that WP:Split or WP:Spinout works; we split out sections that overwhelm an article and deserve their own Wikipedia article. Above (your "18:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)" post), you stated, "Legal age would be most closely related to Capacity (law) (aka Legal [age of] Capacity) and it would in fact be appropriate to redirect it there, however, the Capacity article takes a very US centric view and draws in multiple aspects of law. I'd like to build an article that takes an international perspective and isolates concepts that cross borders." Well, that can be done at the Capacity (law) article, like Oiyarbepsy also suggested. If you feel that you need a separate article, you could title it Legal age (capacity). Flyer22 (talk) 12:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is that taking the international perspective it doesn't always have to do with capacity, that only in *some* British influenced states. In non-British states there's aspects of competence or neither. I was trying to isolate the age as the common factor to bring in capacity/competence issues within the article without getting confused with what it's actually about. As to TheFreeDictionary, I have a copy of Gale's encyclopedia, this is the separation:
West's/Gale's definition

The time of life at which a person acquires full capacity to make his or her own contracts and deeds and to transact business or to enter into some particular contract or relation, such as marriage.

What has been added to the definition

In most states a minor attains legal age at eighteen, although for certain acts, such as consuming alcoholic beverages, the age might be higher; for others, such as driving, the age might be lower. Legal age is synonymous with age of consent or age of majority.

If you look at their site, you'll notice that the definitions are in italics where the portions added separately are regular text. JMJimmy (talk) 13:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're making this topic more complicated than it has to be; Wikipedia has done fine for years without creating an article for what you think needs an article in this case. As for TheFreeDictionary.com, if you mean they provided a definition to go along with the Gale's encyclopedia definition, with theirs in non-italics, which TheFreeDictionary.com link shows that? If they did, that doesn't mean they are citing their own definition as being a part of Gale's encyclopedia. It's also likely that they are citing a version of Gale's encyclopedia that is different than the one you are citing. Flyer22 (talk) 05:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, BD2412, that settles it for me: I vote to re-redirect the Legal age page to the Age of majority article and to recreate the Legal age (disambiguation) page. The Legal age (disambiguation) page should have remained as it was while this discussion was ongoing, instead of being histmerged with Legal age. Flyer22 (talk) 13:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Usually a histmerge would have left the disambiguation page at the location it was pasted to (in this case Legal age (disambiguation); illustrated in the history of cases at WP:SPLICE) with the source page left in the state it was in at the time the histmerge was done; this didn't happen in this case. Though this nomination was still tagged improperly, as it was the disambiguation page with the RfD nomination attached to it, and not the redirect. [1] -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of references to legal age being age of majority, there are equally as many referring to it as meaning age of consent, and so on. The concept that is not currently being addressed is when someone can enter contracts. Reading through various constitutions/civil codes/etc for the age of majority article it's one concept I have found frequently separated. Capacity (law) and Capacity in English law deal with assessments of a persons mental capacity in terms of contracts, aka Legal Capacity. Laws in many areas have been establishing fixed ages for these rights, partly due to court rulings like in Ontario (review of the issues). To avoid the mess freedom of contracts brings for those without legal capacity they establish a fixed age where contracts can be entered into. Some in combination with assessment of legal capacity, others fixed outright. I would estimate that, of the 30 countries I've reviewed, 70% of them had such a law. Currently there are a smattering of references to the concept scattered across various articles (child rights in X country, capacity, Contract#Affirmative_defenses) but nothing that clearly explains it. Definitions from various sources:
  • the age at which a person acquires full legal rights and responsibilities, such as the right to make contracts and deeds. [1925 30]
  • the age at which a person enters into full adult legal rights and responsibilities (as of making contracts or wills)
  • 1762 the age at which a person enters into full adult legal rights and responsibilities (as of making contracts or wills)
  • Constituted or authorized by law; rightful; as, the lawful owner of lands. [1913 Webster]
  • the age at which persons are considered competent to manage their own affairs
The concept stems from the the conflict between Age of majority and Lex loci contractus (and further back into Roman law) and dealing with the granting of rights to minors without emancipating them, since once emancipated they could not go back. Discussion of concepts at play
I'll freely admit, I am cherry-picking the definitions. I only do so because various other articles that already exist deal with the other definitions with their more appropriate terms. I cannot find any other term which is defined in a similar manner. Also, I completely agree with Flyer22 that the disambiguation page should have remained as these concepts are difficult to distinguish for many. JMJimmy (talk) 21:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With how commonly "legal age" refers to "age of majority" (as also acknowledged in your "15:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)" post above), and seemingly far more to "age of majority" than to age of consent, going by sources on Google Books (BD2412's post), and considering that "legal age" redirecting to the Age of majority article has worked fine for years, I cannot agree that it's in the best interest of readers to keep the Legal age page targeted to a disambiguation page. My opinion remains that it should redirect to the Age of majority article. Flyer22 (talk) 22:42, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So terms with multiple definitions can only address the most common in the US? JMJimmy (talk) 23:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that it's just the U.S. factoring into "legal age" seemingly most commonly referring to "age of majority." Like I noted above, I'm simply infusing WP:Primary topic into this matter. The sources, at least according to BD2412's research, demonstrate that they usually mean age of majority when they state "legal age." Wikipedia doesn't work by saying, "Oh, the vast majority of the sources are American, so, for example, WP:Primary topic or WP:Due weight doesn't apply," especially considering that this is the English Wikipedia and most of the sources used on it are going to be U.S. sources, Canadian sources and/or British sources. The English Wikipedia allows non-English sources, but states, in part, the following at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources: "Citations to non-English sources are allowed. However, because this is the English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available. As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request that a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page. (See Template:Request quotation.)" Flyer22 (talk) 23:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confident I'll be able to properly source the information. There are 93 countries/entities (excluding corporate entities) where English sources can be found without resorting to foreign language sources. Many others have translations available since English is the de facto language of business and this deals with contract law. For the age of majority article I've only had to foreign language source for 2 countries so far (Mexico surprisingly and Colombia). The main issue is secondary sources for foreign language, that will likely require a naitive language speaker to verify sources but this is wikipedia, I don't expect I'll be doing 100% of the work. JMJimmy (talk) 00:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:DABCONCEPT is our answer here. There are so many possible things for legal age, but the one thing they have in common is when one is old enough to do something. The ages are different for different rights and different places, but that doesn't nullify the concept. Age of Majority is the best article we have for the DABCONCEPT page and so it should continue to redirect there. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you might be confusing concepts here. You state "one thing they have in common is when one is old enough to do something" and interpret "Age of Majority" to mean that. (also see above challenge) That applies the colloquial or broad interpretation of legal age(s) and applies it to the legal concept of "Age of Majority" which is not accurate to it's meaning. To quote the article "The age of majority is the threshold of adulthood as it is conceptualized (and recognized or declared) in law.".

The age at which the person acquires full capacity to make his own contracts and deeds and transact business generally (age of majority) or to enter into some particular contract or relation, as. the “legal age of consent” to marriage. See Capwell v. Cap- well, 21 It. I. 101. 41 Atl. 1005; Montoya de Antonio v. Stiller, 7 N. M. 2S9, 34 Pac. 40. 21 L. It. A. G99.

Note the "or". The concept for which I'm trying to establish an article would be defined as "The [legal age] is the threshold of minors to enter into contracts as it is conceptualized (and recognized or declared) in law."
Under the previous Scots law (derived from Roman law), a child to the age of 12 if female, or 14 if male, had legal status of "pupil" and was under legal control of an adult (usually parent or parents) deemed "tutor". From that age until the age of majority the child had legal status of a "minor", and might have a responsible adult deemed "curator" or have no responsible adult (being referred to as "fors familiated"). The Scottish age of majority was originally 21 until reduced to 18 by the Age of Majority (Scotland) Act 1969. Pupils lacked any capacity to enter into legal contracts. Minors had capacity to enter into contracts, which included the capacity to make a will, but subject to rights to have these reduced by a court in certain circumstances, and sometimes requiring their curators consent. The rules as to when contracts did or did not require consent, and which were potentially reducible by court were complex. The age to enter into marriage was originally the age of minority, but this was raised to 16 years by the Age of Marriage Act 1929, and confirmed in the Marriage (Scotland) Act 1977.
This highlights for both RfDs, the separation of "age of majority", "pupils" (historical term), "age of minority" (concept commonly now "minimum age"), and the legal right to enter a contract. Scotland specifies a specific age (16) with provisions for those from 12-16. This differs from the age of majority in Scotland which is 18. Legal capacity is currently redirected to a DABCONCEPT page for capacity in law. Capacity differs from "Legal age" in that those who would otherwise deemed "incapable" due to age can be deemed capable with a declaration of the legal age in law. Legal age also does not confer absolute responsibility/liability like majority does. Protections of minors are still in place until majority is reached. In territories that do not specify a "legal age" but still use legal capacity they tend to evaluate based on Competence (law) and maturity. Further to why DABCONCEPT is not appropriate, should such an article exist it would not be under "Age of Majority" it would be under "Age limits in law" or some such. There would be a significant amount of information to compress into a single article, and it still wouldn't address the lack of "legal age" concept:
Age of majority, Age of consent, Voting age, Marriageable age, Emancipation of minors, Legal drinking age, Mature minor doctrine, Minimum legal ages in Belgium, School leaving age, Smoking age, Legal working age, Defense of infancy, Age of candidacy, Minimum_Age_Convention, 1973, Minimum legal age in Romania, List of countries by minimum driving_age, Age of candidacy, Age of criminal responsibility in Australia, issues listed here Adultism#Internalized_adultism, Retirement age child pornography law, etc.
This concept is being scattered and poorly defined among many different articles, that is causing confusion. Suitable age and discretion by example attempts to assert concepts of "legal age", "minimum age", etc as being a part, however, the concept of "suitable age and discretion" only applies to process servers and legal entry and has no application outside of those laws. It did open up an interesting avenue, in that it mentioned the age of legal discretion. Upon researching "age of discretion" I discovered that old English law used this concept (originally from ecclesiastic law) in a very similar manner to "legal age". The term would be appropriate, however, the doctrine had several issues with it that led to it being largely abandoned in common law. First, it allowed contracts to be severable meaning a minor could pick and choose which terms of a contract they wanted to ad-hear to. Second, it conferred criminal responsibilities which were inconsistent with modern law ("age of discretion" included that a person knew what was "right"). Third, a complex relationship between wills, chattel, mortgages, licenses, borrowing, and more. There are still remnants in law, especially in relation to wills (Pennsylvania, Alabama) but it has largely been removed and replaced elsewhere. JMJimmy (talk) 06:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Focused Idea based on discussion[edit]

I was thinking about the comments that have been made, and based on Flyer22's suggestion of Legal age (capacity), I came up with the following structure:

  • Legal age → Full article detailing the nuances of the term/concepts/etc in both law and society without getting into any specific ages related to specific concepts
  • Codified ages → disambiguation page (perhaps cross-linked with legal age as "related topics?)
  • Legal age (disambiguation) → redirect to disambiguation page (Codified Ages)
  • Common law ages → redirect to disambiguation page (optional)
  • Of legal age → redirect to disambiguation page
  • Legal age of → redirect to disambiguation page
  • Legal age of [insert term] → redirect to appropriate page (to allow consistency. Example: Legal age of consent currently redirects to Age of consent)
  • Legal age (contract law) → article for the concept I've outlined above, with explicit clarification & link regarding majority
  • Lawful * → create "lawful" equivalents of all of the above which redirect to their "legal *" equivalent

In this way we better serve those searching for "legal age" (or lawful age) by providing an article to understand the differences (rather than the current "not to be confused with..." list at the top of many pages), we can make clear the scope/common usage/context/etc, we don't confuse terms either with multiple meanings or different meanings internationally, and we keep a simple version of disambiguation page to allow for quick navigation between topics. (side note, by using "codified ages" instead of "legal age (disambiguation)" as the primary disambiguation page allows us to include non-law ages, such as religious codified ages, as appropriate). I think this would satisfy all the issues that have been brought forth to date (including DABCONCEPT). Thoughts? JMJimmy (talk) 20:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is this compromise amenable to all? Comments/problems/ideas? JMJimmy (talk) 03:50, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's too many WP:Content forks and unneeded disambiguation pages. Flyer22 (talk) 05:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2 articles and 1 disambiguation page? (The rest are just redirects - or do you consider that a fork too?) JMJimmy (talk) 06:33, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't consider redirects a content fork; neither does the WP:Content fork page. Flyer22 (talk) 14:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So your only objection is to Objective 2 listed below since Objective 1 is supported by content fork guideline? JMJimmy (talk) 14:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I read and re-read WP:CFORK and read 3 associated essays to try and understand your objection. The above proposal seeks to accomplish 4 main objectives:
  • Create an article for the alternate definition of "Legal age"
  • Create an article from an existing redirect page to make clear the differences of a set of related pages
  • Update the disambiguation page
  • Create a set of consistent, term agnostic, user friendly redirects for easily mistaken or highly similar terms
Reading the WP/essays, I found the first objective is supported by this guideline. "Further, in encyclopedias it is perfectly proper to have separate articles for each different definition of a term; unlike dictionaries, a single encyclopedia article covers a topic, not a term."
The second article is neither supported nor rejected by the guideline. This is a somewhat unusual case in that normally (or at least ideally) a single "meta-like" topic would be flushed out and split as needed. This series of articles grew individually and, in my view, could benefit the community from having a common article which unifies them without duplicating their content. I've found there's a lot of confusion and misunderstanding between the articles. I believe largely from not wanting to re-iterate everything that a topic is not. I do recognize that this could be considered redundant under CFORK. The question is whether or not the benefits it could provide outweigh any redundancy that is created. Given the subtle differences, common misunderstandings, and differences in personal perceptions I think it's important "hub" to have.
Objective three I don't think is really an issue for anyone, updating it is good regardless, just that which page is the disambiguation one will depend on the outcome of this discussion
The final objective is somewhat covered by CFORK in that it recommends redirects instead of redundant articles. These are not an "all or nothing" and not even "required", I suggested them based on Flyer22's comments about searches and consideration of specific vs subtle/ambiguous terms that qualify under WP:R. I'll briefly state my thinking for each:
  • "Legal age of [insert term]" / "Lawful age of [insert term]" These were to address a user searching for "legal age" or "lawful age" as that might be more common in some cases. In addition it provides a way to search without bringing up content like "Age of dinosaurs" or "Age of rock". Lawful is a synonymous term for legal, older countries are more commonly use "lawful age" in their laws so it may have a greater common use outside of Canada/US. These are 1 to 1 redirects, no disambiguation.
  • "Legal age of" / "Lawful age of" general versions of the above but without modifiers which redirect to the disambiguation page, pretty self-explanatory
  • "Of Legal age" this is a common variation and intended for those searching for "of legal age to [something]" or commonly as referring to majority or consent and since either is equally applicable so I thought it prudent to go to the disambiguation page as well.
  • "Common law ages" I'm not overly attached to this one, I just thought I should put it out there as it has a fair amount of usage though not nearly as much as other terms
  • "Codified Ages" / "Legal age (disambiguation)" This was strictly to avoid creating synth when adding religious age canons to the disambiguation page. They are not law in most cases but both are codified in their individual forms. I thought it important to include such similar topics in religion since much of it evolved from those sources even if they are no longer the law of the land.
Hopefully this is clear(er), I'm a little tired. And just to reiterate - this proposal is not an "all or nothing", parts can be accepted/rejected and the primary focus for me is Objective 1 (& 2 to a lesser extent). JMJimmy (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since there have been no further comments for some time I'm going to be WP:BOLD and begin implementing this sometime in the next few days, barring renewed discussion. JMJimmy (talk) 18:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've objected to JMJimmy moving the Legal age page to Codified ages. I, like others, had ceased reading/responding in this discussion because, as far as I could see, the discussion was over. Flyer22 (talk) 20:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not claim consensus, I claimed being bold since discussion did not result in any meaningful consensus either way with 2 restore/rewrite and 1 keep vote. Upon discussing the matter briefly in #wikipedia-en-help they seemed to agree that my plan, in combination with the addition of a navbox for these ages, was the proper course of action. JMJimmy (talk) 21:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You cited this discussion while moving the page, and it seemed to me that you were pointing to this discussion as a WP:Consensus point. My mistake if you were not. Other than what I stated on your talk page, I don't see what is left for me to comment on regarding the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 21:54, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also reverted JMJimmy's withdrawal of this entire discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 23:35, 31 August 2014 (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.

Minimum age[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) 10:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should be it's own article not a redirect Minimum age is not "Legal Age". Minimum age is a distinct legal concept which can encompass the minimum age of employment/admission, the minimum age of criminal responsibility, age of consent, etc and is found in treaties like: ilo UNCRC Optional Protocol. As the age of majority sets a legal trigger between youth and adulthood, minimum age attempts to create a legal trigger between childhood and adolescence. The previous version of this page was confused and would need to be re-written. JMJimmy (talk) 15:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep redirected to the Age of majority article or redirect to Legal age disambiguation page. Not much of an article can be made out of this topic, as also indicated by the link The Whispering Wind provided above, which is why it was made into a redirect. We don't need WP:Content forks. Flyer22 (talk) 09:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As stated before WW linked it, the previous version was confused and needs to be completely re-written. I'd happily do so. Minimum age is becoming a significant issue internationally due to the implications of various international treaties like the UNCRC. There's significant pressure to negotiate a minimum age to protect parental rights, stop child brides, and various other issues. Internationally, they haven't been able to establish one, merely putting the concept as "minimum age" without defining a specific one. Many individual countries have established an age, usually between 8-12. As to forking, I'm treating this as a new law article not a fork. JMJimmy (talk) 22:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you can do an article on that topic justice, I'd be fine with you creating it. To the point of a WP:Content fork, I'm speaking of the fact that both age of majority and minimum age topics are about age and can often overlap. Per WP:Content fork, we should strive to keep aspects of a topic in one article instead of causing readers to go to multiple articles...unless necessary. Flyer22 (talk) 22:42, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding forking, it'd be akin to saying Addition and Multiplication overlap because they are both mathmatical operations used in Arithmetic. Yes, they could be incorporated into a single article, but are different enough within the context of their subject to be flushed out properly as unique concepts. JMJimmy (talk) 23:07, 1 August 2014 (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.

Malaysia 17[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. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 19:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a case of WP:RECENTISM, this name will mean nothing in the future, and meant nothing in the past a Google search for "Malaysia 17" with results from 2012-2013 have hardly any results about the flight. TheChampionMan1234 06:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Shorthands for airline flights are always redirected to the full name of the accident flight, regardless whether the accident occurred 50 years ago or a few days ago. Reliable sources such as:
    "How to figure out what brought Malaysia 17 down." KUSA-TV (9 News Colorado). July 17, 2014.
  • ... have been using "Malaysia 17" as shorthand.
  • WhisperToMe (talk) 10:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - CNN had this term in a box on its screen, when reporting on developments, for days. If the term becomes ambiguous we can disambiguate but, until then, there is no reason to delete. The Whispering Wind (talk) 18:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I like how the nominators best argument against the redirect is actually the best argument for it. The fact that it meant nothing in the past proves that this is what it means now and what it will in the future. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see the nominator's point. What's recentism about it? Are there any other uses on Wikipedia that can dispute the current target? -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WhisperToMe and The Whispering Wind. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 22:51, 4 August 2014 (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.

Sociedade anónima de responsabilidade limitada[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 Limited liability company#Portugal which provides worthwhile coverage of this concept. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 01:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the redirect is wrong/misleading since the French and Portugese company types might be similar but they are not identical. The redirect might as well go to Limited Liability Company or Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung where it would be also wrong. So just leave it red is the best we can do. S.K. (talk) 03:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment: Do you believe a separate article should be made for the Spanish type of company? WhisperToMe (talk) 10:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment: In the long term, yes. Those company types are similar, but there are always specifics per country which come from different legal traditions and context. So either we should have a comparative law article describing the history and distinctions between those company types or/and we should have articles describing them per country. --S.K. (talk) 15:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make the article then. Until that happens there is no good reason to delete this redirect. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment: The minimum should be to change the target, since as I said there is no particular reason to redirect this to the French article. It could go to the German GmbH article, since the type of company appeared there first, or it could go to LLC, since this is the English wikipedia and this article has info on many different countries anyway. --S.K. (talk) 15:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Limited liability company#Portugal. Gorobay (talk) 15:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Limited liability company#Portugal per Gorobay. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 22:49, 4 August 2014 (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/2014_July_30&oldid=1142587358"