Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 17[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 17, 2014.

Ignoring laws[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) 16:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible synonym/redirect to target article: "Crime" Shearonink (talk) 04:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It depends on what one would mean by "ignoring laws" doesn't it? If it is simply disobeying laws, then that should go to Crime (assuming we just mean the criminal laws, not ignoring civil laws etc). If we mean a deliberate ethic of disregarding the current law because of not recognising it as valid, it should go somewhere else. Si Trew (talk) 10:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For example Wikipedia itself has a policy WP:IAR, "Ignore all rules". Si Trew (talk) 10:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Mens_rea#Ignorance_of_the_law_and_mens_rea, though I'm not sure "ignoring law" should be equated to "ignorance of the laws" -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 05:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ignoring something is vastly different from ignorance of it. "Ignoring" the law is the process of intentionally disregarding the law, while being ignorant of the law means that you're unaware of it. If you ignore the law, you do it by doing what the law says not to do, and that's crime by definition. Nyttend (talk) 22:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a really, really stupid redirect. Ned1230|Whine|Stalk 15:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Grumble. No possible connection. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's too broad: ignoring laws is not always a crime. It says "ignoring laws" and not "ignoring criminal laws"; ignoring civil laws, laws of equity, or even "laws" of physics (for example to establish aerodynamics or the General Theory of Relativity) is not ignoring the criminal law. Ignoring a civil law is generally an act of tort and would not be a crime (though a crime may be a tort). So, the redirect is vague in the extreme. It's also too broad in that people who wish to demonstrate against a law might deliberately do so by breaking it (being quite aware of both the law and the possible consequences) but that does not mean they are either ignoring it or ignorant of it. Si Trew (talk) 20:53, 23 March 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.

Katharine Cook Briggs[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. --BDD (talk) 16:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The action you would like to occur: deletion

The rationale for that action: The redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject; it is better that the target article contain a redlink than a redirect back to itself

My Wikipedia (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This runs in circles. There is no information on Katharine Cook Briggs in the target except a mention in the lede, which leads of course via the redirect back to the target. No good is done by this. Delete per WP:REDLINK. Si Trew (talk) 21:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've removed the circular link in question. — Scott • talk 22:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not helpful. --NE2 23:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, it is. Firstly, it reduces potential reader confusion/annoyance. Secondly, it frees up discussion of the validity of whether Katharine Cook Briggs (of whom source coverage appears to be in short supply) should redirect to Isabel Briggs Myers, without the existence of a pointless self-link getting in the way. — Scott • talk 17:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • No. Per the comment below, this will simply need to be reverted once the redirect is deleted. --NE2 21:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • "No" yourself. Circular links should never be allowed to remain - ever. If the redirect is deleted, a redlink can then be created at that point (not that it will be particularly useful given the paucity of reliable sources regarding this woman), and not before. — Scott • talk 22:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Peep and weep: Wikipedia:Redirect#Self-redirects: "It is not necessary to remove redirects if they are marked with {{R with possibilities}} as they have the potential to become independent articles in the future." --NE2 23:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • That's ridiculous. Is the person who added it completely ignorant of the normal expectations of everyday readers? I've removed it from the guideline. — Scott • talk 16:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - given the existence of e.g, [1], this seems a suitable target to redlink to encourage creation. WilyD 11:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep redirects don't negate the creation of an article, which is the basis of the deletion rationale. --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I can't believe what a mess I found here after following a trail that led me here from a "drama board". Think and do some analysis, before you make faulty snap judgments. First, what does Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, the main article about the only thing it seems this mother and daughter are notable for, say? "The original developers of the personality inventory were Katharine Cook Briggs and her daughter, Isabel Briggs Myers; these two, having studied extensively the work of Jung, turned their interest of human behavior into a devotion of turning the theory of psychological types to practical use." And Isabel Briggs Myers says "Isabel Briggs Myers (October 18, 1897 – May 5, 1980) was an American author and co-creator of a personality inventory known as the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). Co-creator is my emphasis. So, why are we giving undue weight to the daughter? This makes it seem like her mom was some mascot who tagged along and helped out a bit while her daughter did most of the work. Do we have reliable sources that portray this duo that way? So, how did we get here? I'd guess there might be more recent information available about the daughter if she outlived her mother by many years. It didn't help that someone misspelled the mother's name Katherine Cook Briggs. I suggest restoring this version and moving it to Katharine Cook Briggs to fix the misspelling. Then maybe someone can work on expanding that stub. Lacking that, I would merge both mother and daugher's bios into Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), as it seems that this is the only thing that they are notable for. Redirecting the mother to the daughter's article, without merging any actual content, just seems boneheaded to me. How would you feel if your Wikipedia "biography" was a biography of your child, that barely mentioned you? See Talk:Katherine Cook Briggs. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wbm1058. I do tend to do my analysis but the circular link got in the way. I am not sure it was the best thing to change it while it here for discussion. Si Trew (talk) 08:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info; Katherine Coo Briggs and Katherine Cook Briggs are {{R from misspelling}}'s related to the subject of this discussion. The second of these has significant history. - TB (talk) 15:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Surely some of the redirects listed are misleading and could be deleted? It is not the purpose of rediects to defeat the search engine. Si Trew (talk) 08:21, 19 March 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.

DNA testing[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 redirect. [redirected to proper synonym Genetic testing ] Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:21, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, an editor boldly changed this redirect to a disambiguation page; however, the page created was a WP:TWODABS page which pointed to the closely related concepts of Genetic testing, and DNA profiling (which is merely one kind of genetic testing), and therefore fails WP:DABCONCEPT. Since DNA testing and Genetic testing are basically synonymous, and since DNA testing encompasses the subtopic of DNA profiling, I would propose to retarget the existing redirect to Genetic testing. bd2412 T 14:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Disambiguate. It is good to have 2 entries, one pointing to the medical test and the other to the forensic uses. Bwrs (talk) 03:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The meanings are not ambiguous to one another - the forensic use is just an example of the sense which also covers the medical test. See WP:DABCONCEPT. If this is not going to redirect to one or the other, than an article must be written at this title on the broader concept of DNA testing. bd2412 T 05:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
    • I was looking for a page on the use of DNA testing in genealogy and specifically in one-name studies. I came to DNA testing and thus by the redirect to this page which tells me nothing about DNA testing in genealogy. Nor does YDNA. There needs to be a page about YDNA testing for genealogy. It is generally known as "DNA testing" or "YDNA testing" amongst genealogists. Mike Spathaky (talk) 00:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK. I now see there is an article Genealogical DNA test. There needs to be a disambiguation page "DNA testing" which lists Genealogical DNA test, DNA profiling and possibly other articles. Mike Spathaky (talk) 01:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are these unrelated concepts? Is it impossible to write an article about the relationships between them? bd2412 T 01:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


There are at least four main areas in which DNA testing is used. They are forensics, medical genetics, genealogy and human evolutionary genetics. There is considerable interest in these subjects by general readers as well as by specialists and students. Many general readers will start their searches on WP with the query "DNA testing." So this needs to be a disambiguation page which lists the main articles in the above fields.

The phrase "DNA profiling" will not serve this purpose since, as the article of that title states, "DNA profiling or genetic profiling mainly refers to DNA profiling in forensics." "DNA profiling" should not therefore be the disambiguation page. (There is a disambiguation page of that name too but it does not cover fields other than forensics.

The article Genetic testing states, "This article focuses on genetic testing for medical purposes." so it is in my view not suitable as a redirect target for "DNA testing."

A start list of the articles that a "DNA testing" disambiguation page should link to is here:

DNA profiling - DNA profiling in forensics.
Genetic testing - This article focuses on genetic testing for medical purposes.
Medical genetics (I include this abd the next item because they're on the existing "DNA profiling" disambiguation page.)
Preimplantation genetic diagnosis
Genealogical DNA test
Human evolutionary genetics

In short I do not think that "DNA testing" should redirect to "DNA profiling" but should be made into a disambiguation page across all relevant fields.

Mike Spathaky (talk) 10:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perhaps I am not clearly explaining WP:DABCONCEPT: we do not disambiguate if it is possible to write an article on a concept. What you have just written here, "[t]here are at least four main areas in which DNA testing is used", demonstrates that DNA testing is a concept with subtopics, not an ambiguous term with unrelated meanings. Mercury is an ambiguous term with unrelated meanings; it might refer to a car, or a chemical element, or a Roman god, or a planet, or various songs, newspapers, etc. Soft drink is not an ambiguous term, even though there are different kinds of soft drinks (diet, cola, fruit-flavored, etc.). It is probably better to write a general article on what DNA testing is (taking biological samples from a subject and using various methods to extract the DNA and determine its characteristics in order to obtain any of the above kinds of information about the subject), and move the current "Genetic testing" article to Genetic testing for medical purposes. bd2412 T 15:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
BD2412, while I generally defer to your expertise on disambiguation, I think you may be misrepresenting DABCONCEPT in this case. If it's possible to write an article on a concept——and I agree that in this case, it is——that article is preferable to disambiguation. Unless I'm misreading your argument, you seem to be suggesting we shouldn't disambiguate because there can be a DABCONCEPT article. Wouldn't it be better to have a disambiguation page for now, and allow an editor to convert it to a DABCONCEPT as appropriate? We can slap a {{dabconcept}} on it in the meantime. --BDD (talk) 17:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The point of DABCONCEPT is that we should not label things as "ambiguous" when they are, in fact, unambiguous topics/subtopics. DNA testing is a tool that can be used for different things (determining paternity, checking susceptibility to certain diseases, tracing evolution), but that does not make "DNA testing" ambiguous any more than hammer is ambiguous to hypothetical articles on hammers used to drive in nails and hammers used to beat out a dent in a car. bd2412 T 17:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Ok, but if we didn't have a Hammer article, would it really be preferable to have that red as opposed to a dab? --BDD (talk) 22:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not proposing to delete the link, I'm proposing to point it to Genetic testing. bd2412 T 02:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to reiterate that the problem here is not ambiguity, but breadth. "DNA testing" and "genetic testing" effectively mean the exact same thing, but the article, Genetic testing currently has too narrow a scope for that title, since genetic testing can be used for many things other than medical diagnosis. bd2412 T 16:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget per nom. --BDD (talk) 16:03, 24 March 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.

T. Siddique Kozhikode[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) 16:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

T. Siddique Kozhikode page was wrongly created. I moved this article to the proper name T. Siddique as Kozhikode is a place name in Kerala while T. Siddique is a politician. This redirect is not needed. Logical1004 (talk) 12:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The name in the lede is Thuvacode Siddique. This article is already marked with multiple issues, but I suggest at the very least it be moved to the name of the fellow (and your redirect can then point to that). Si Trew (talk) 20:59, 23 March 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.

3rd Hum Awards[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) 16:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary redirect. UBStalk 07:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — TfD has had fairly recent discussions about the Hum Awards. From memory, the second awards would be this year. The third won't be until next year. I think WP:CRYSTAL applies here. —PC-XT+ 00:56, 19 March 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_March_17&oldid=1050183799"