Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 March 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 3[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 3, 2015.

Violence against adults[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. Abuse and violence aren't synonymous, and there's sufficient consensus here to delete. --BDD (talk) 14:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the purpose of this redirect. It appears to have been made to make a point on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Violence against men (4th nomination)‎. Haminoon (talk) 23:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:REDLINK. There are some google hits that I got that talk about violence against older adults and adults with disabilities. Perhaps there's a potential for an article here. --Lenticel (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Criteria 10 of R#DELETE only applies where the target contains "virtually no information" about the sub-topic. That clearly isn't the case here. Criteria 10 is primarily aimed at redirects to (usually lengthy) unannotated lists of redlinked names. James500 (talk) 00:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I've looked at bit harder, I find we do also have an article on Elder abuse which should be summarised in Violence. James500 (talk) 01:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How about a dab to Elder abuse (abuse of older adults) and Disability abuse (abuse of adults with disability)? There might be more but I think the two of these will suffice for now. --Lenticel (talk) 01:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've no problem with that, though I would probably add Violence to the end of the list, because many adults are neither old nor disabled. James500 (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Snowball keep. Preposterous nomination. WP:POFRED says that we may redirect sub topics to their parent topic in which they are discussed. That is the case here. Violence against children already exists. This redirect seems obvious and might possibly have scope for expansion. The expression produces results in GBooks and GScholar. This redirect was not created to make any point. I could easily accuse the nominator of doing the same thing, and it would be equally unfair. This redirect does not meet any of the criteria for deletion (WP:R#DELETE). "I can't see the purpose" isn't one of them. I think that the redirect satisfies WP:R#KEEP in that it will prevent readers looking for an imagined daughter article that they will probably expect to exist (especially in the context of vulnerable adults) but which, as far as I am aware, doesn't exist (criteria 2, 3 and 5). James500 (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could you address or specify your claim about this being a redirect from a "sub topic to their parent topic in which they are discussed?" I checked, but I didn't see any discussion or even a mention of "violence against adults" in the violence article. Tavix |  Talk  01:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article repeatedly refers to "persons". Adults are "persons". So adults are impliedly mentioned and violence against them is discussed over and over and over again. And the section on "elder maltreatment" is clearly about violence against adults. The words "violence against adults" do not need to appear expressly for POFRED to be satisfied. James500 (talk) 01:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then maybe the redirects should be Violence against persons or Violence against people. I'm unconvinced about this argument. If the topic is "violence against adults" it should discuss "violence against adults." Which it doesn't. Adults ≠ persons. Tavix |  Talk  02:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot agree with this line of reasoning. I think it misunderstands the meaning of the word "discussed", which doesn't mean "named". Moreover, it would make it very difficult to redirect anything. It would exclude very obvious redirects, for no apparent gain whatsoever. James500 (talk) 03:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Battery can include the slightest touching. It might not necessarily be regarded as "violent". James500 (talk) 00:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Guye is right, battery can be the smallest touch...violence against women help at all (not as a retarget but as some clues to where to go?) Si Trew (talk) 17:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We do have an article on Violent crime. I don't think that is an unreasonable target, since there are sources saying that violence against adults is "inherently non-normative", though it is possible to have lawful violence against adults, such as self-defence and capital punishment. That article presently excludes violence against property. I suspect that Affray might be the closest individual offence, but it doesn't include all violence and includes threats of violence, a fault not obviously shared by Battery (crime). That said, we are looking for the nearest target, not a perfect target. I wouldn't be bothered if this was retargeted to any of those three articles. James500 (talk) 18:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFD#DELETE #3, due to the fact that "Violence against adults" isn't discussed in the article. WP:REDLINK could apply, but it is a weak argument because I don't think the topic is different enough for its own article. Tavix |  Talk  02:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Criteria 3 of WP:RFD#DELETE is for redirects that are "offensive or abusive", such as redirecting "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs". There is no way that this redirect possibly could be either of those things. Surely you must mean some other criteria. James500 (talk) 03:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK to encourage creation of an article in this place if it is indeed a notable topic, although I think it's too broad to be useful. "Violence against adults" is at once far too vague to determine the intended sub-topic being sought by someone reaching this page, yet at the same time far too specific to determine that they meant to find an article about violence in general. The extremely wide net cast by "against adults" catches a smattering of articles which includes the aforementioned elder abuse, as well as intimate partner violence, sexual violence, religious violence, Islam and violence, lateral violence, ethnic violence, communal violence, prison violence, ... the list goes on. It seems this was created in good faith merely to be an opposite of violence against children but that's not a good use of redirects. Also consider deletion per WP:RFD#DELETE #1 (misdirects if looking for a specific violence topic), #2 (violence also discusses violence against non-adults and the concept covers non-humans), and/or #10 (as above). Ivanvector (talk) 22:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as Ivanvector says "misdirects if looking for a specific violence topic". There isn't any specific discussion of this sub-topic, so redirecting to violence is promising something that isn't delivered. Siuenti (talk) 22:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per [[WP:RFD#2] "may cause confusion". While I see the attraction in redirecting to a specific crime, that also has the problem that it would only make sense in a particular jurisdiction... for example what is a felony0 and what is a misdemeanor is a distinction made by most US states but not by the UK (let alone anywhere else in the world) so WP:WORLDWIDE comes into play a bit... Si Trew (talk) 06:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem, as I see it, with the "misdirection" argument is that the other articles said to cover this topic should be (directly or indirectly) summarised in, and linked to from, the article Violence, which should effectively disambiguate them. If they are not, there is something seriously wrong with the content of the article Violence.
  • Doesn't this "misdirection" argument also apply, possibly with greater force, to the redirect Violence against children? It presently redirects to Domestic violence which doesn't obviously appear to include corporal punishment or "bullying" (ie sadistic beatings from other unrelated children) in schools or other institutions for children, or many forms of violence that affect both adults and children. (Although it redirects to Domestic violence#Violence against children, I cannot find a section headed "Violence against children" in that article. James500 (talk) 01:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That section existed (along with "against women" and "against men" when the redirect was created in 2007. However, in early 2010 the article was significantly rewritten by Doc James, and all of those sections were moved to Epidemiology of domestic violence. I have retargeted that redirect as a matter of maintenance (it should have been fixed in 2010, I'm just taking care of it). I think that a better target would be child abuse but it should be put up for discussion if it's going to be retargeted. Ivanvector (talk) 04:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing so, but I don't understand why you think "Child abuse" would be a better target. That would be {{R from antonym}} or something like that, surely, {{R from opposite}}? It is not abuse from adults but by them... male or female... I better shut up I guess as a man abused by a woman, I have no rights. Si Trew (talk) 10:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No no, I meant that Violence against children could be redirected to child abuse. Sorry for the confusion, that redirect should be discussed separately. Ivanvector (talk) 14:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Adult abuse presently redirects to Abuse#Adult abuse. Would either of those be acceptable targets if they were expanded? There seem to be entire books on that subject in GBooks. James500 (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That could be a good target if it was expanded; right now it's just one sentence. I can see how "adult abuse" could be what "violence against adults" is meant to refer to. Ivanvector (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2015 (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.

Perniciously[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 Lethality. It seems to be the only option left now that the dab has been deleted. --BDD (talk) 14:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing. Likely better somewhere related to destruction, virulence, or lethality. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • retarget to Pernicious (disambiguation) instead where the term is linked to wiktionary. --Lenticel (talk) 00:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Lenticel (though, the disambiguation page itself should probably be renamed to "pernicious" ) -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 05:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Lethality to be consistent with Perniciousness. The "Pernicious" disambiguation page consisted entirely in partial title matches, so I redirected that title to the main article. Neelix (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The "pernicious" of pernicious numbers is not a partial title match because it can be used by itself, eg " perfect numbers are pernicious". I've added to the hatnote. Siuenti (talk) 22:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm okay with retargetting to Pernicious instead since the hatnote and the wiktionary entries still cover perniciously. --Lenticel (talk) 23:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The hatnote on Pernicious is now up to three links. If it's going to be that large, we're better off re-establishing the disambiguation page and pointing the nominated redirect there. - Eureka Lott 03:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The other two links should be removed from the hatnote. The Wiktionary link is superfluous because it provides the definition found at the Lethality article by way of the Perniciousness link. Pernicious number is a partial title match; one does not refer to a pernicious number as a "pernicious", and no one would type only that word in the search box and expect to find that article. We wouldn't include Blue cheese on Blue (disambiguation) just because we can write "blue cheese is blue". Lethality is the best target for the Perniciously redirect because that is the sole article that could be intended if someone typed the word "Perniciously" into the search bar. Neelix (talk) 01:26, 6 March 2015 (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.

Glorification of death[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 Death and culture#Glorification of and fascination with death. --BDD (talk) 14:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May be better off somewhere else. Current target inadequate. Might need to be deleted. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The Glorious Dead" is no good cos that's just lists of films... so no good there.... hmmm.... Patriotism is way out, Death and Glory is red, Honi soit qui mal y pense is stretching it rather... Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori at a push ("It is great and honourable to die for your country") which is The Big Lie, but that's a film, Wilfred Owen wrote that in a different sense... but none seems very satisfactory. Si Trew (talk) 11:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Retarget per Lenticel, to a general discussion not to individual examples. Siuenti (talk) 22:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget as above. I am not entirely sure that readers will get what they want, but my guess is that 90% of them will, which is better than nothing. Si Trew (talk) 10:24, 6 March 2015 (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.

Celebrity deaths[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 March 10#Celebrity deaths

Unafraid[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 March 11#Unafraid

Afeared[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. --BDD (talk) 14:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible typo. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2015 (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.

Afear[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. --BDD (talk) 14:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible typo. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2015 (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.

Afears[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. --BDD (talk) 14:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible typo. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2015 (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.

Afearing[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. --BDD (talk) 14:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible typo. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2015 (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.

Dread (fear)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 March 11#Dread (fear)

Afeard[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 an adjective, though. --BDD (talk) 14:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible typo. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep tag as {{R from verb}} since this is a verb form of the noun "fear" -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 05:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as with all above. All in Shakespeare (but he was a rubbish speller). Si Trew (talk) 10:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A real word with a directly related target. Neelix (talk) 21:20, 4 March 2015 (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.

Happineſs[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 as unlikely but plaufible (non-admin closure) Si Trew (talk) 20:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible. What's "ſ"? Mr. Guye (talk) 22:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr. Guye: Hi! "ſ" is the long s. It's an antiquated method of writing the letter s when it is not the final "s" of a word. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's not mispelled, it's using 18th century spelling -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 05:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry I can't resist, you have managed to misspell "misspelled". :) Si Trew (talk) 10:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you mean miſspell "miſspelt" ? -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 06:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is a misspelling in modern english, but we are here to help people find where they want to go, and it is a common misconception. I checked Happineff just in case... it's red. Long S should never be in final, but someone would manage it.... Oh we have FFS as a dab, too...Si Trew (talk) 10:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - an amuſing uſe of antiquated ſpelling indeed, but if ſomeone manages to type this into the ſearch box, they'll ſee the information they deſire. Ivanvector (talk) 22:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC) no, i have abſolutely no idea if I'm uſing this right[reply]
Noffing wrong wiff it. You can't put it in final pofifiotion, that's all. It's essentially a ligature or crossbar (typography), so one would never bother to put it in final once tailing off. Si Trew (talk) 10:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a bit old school but a possible spelling variant. --Lenticel (talk) 01:32, 8 March 2015 (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.

Light-hearted[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 March 10#Light-hearted

Warm and fuzzy[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) 14:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vague, because it is figurative. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:14, 3 March 2015 (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.

User:Happy[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 revert, as James500 suggested. It's true that these sorts of user pages usually get converted to a soft redirect at RfD. That's usually because there's a fundamental tension between the idea that a user should be able to redirect his or her page to mainspace if desired, but that this can also be misleading. In this case, since there's no evidence that User:Happy him- or herself intended this, reverting to that user's own version seems the best outcome. --BDD (talk) 14:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing and not necessary. User has not edited since 2003! Mr. Guye (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete clearly harmful. Anyone trying to leave a message to this user by first clicking on their username and then on talk will end up on an article talk page. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 05:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to a normal userpage by reverting to this old revision, by User:Happy, which is not a redirect. (The userpage was turned into a redirect with this edit on 9 January 2015 by User:Alex Neman. As far as I am aware, we do not delete the user page of an inactive user just because another user came along and turned it into a harmful redirect. The original text was "*burp*", which is harmless.) In view of the high profile of this user page, and the inactivity of the editor to whom it belongs, we might want to consider protecting it, to prevent this happening again. James500 (talk) 07:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to soft direct per previous RFD discussions that have resulted in the same. (I know there have been quite a few during the past year, but I cannot think of any specific ones off the top of my head.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, the better option is to revert the user page to a state where it says "*burp*"? Steel1943 (talk) 22:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 70.51.200.101, please disregard my previous statement. Due to lack of bolding in the comment following yours, I thought that was part of your comment. Steel1943 (talk) 23:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Courtesy blank per WP:USERTALKBLOG (not exactly per, but the closest guideline I could find). I agree with 70.51 that this is harmful, but the harm is unlikely to be realized since Happy seems to be in their 12th year of Wikipedia retirement. The only case where I've seen a soft redirect used as Steel1943 suggested have been redirects to other users' pages (in the case of legitimate alternate accounts, potential misspellings, or strongly related users), or soft redirects to user pages on a different Wikipedia. I've never seen a user page redirected to mainspace, and I don't think I'd like to. Ivanvector (talk) 22:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those; good discussions. Itemized responses:
  1. In the first instance, a user created a draft on their user page and then left; the page was later moved to main space, so leaving a soft redirect for the user to find it should they ever return seems to have been appropriate. There was also the history merge.
  2. The other three were the same discussion, and were redirects that the users themselves created; obvious soft redirect is obvious.
In this case, the redirect was created years after the user left, with no indication that this was the user's intent. If we were to go by what we think the user wanted, we should soft redirect to burping apparently. I think it would be better in this case to either restore to the user's last version, or just blank it because the user's likely not coming back. Ivanvector (talk) 23:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft Redirect seems to be the best way out. I'm also open to Courtesy Blanking IF the soft redirect option isn't possible. --Lenticel (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I suppose the only concern is that it's a hard redirect from a user page to main space. Any solution that resolves that is fine by me, whether it's blanking, restoring the page, or soft redirecting. I slightly prefer blanking so I'll leave my comment above un-struck, but any of these options would do. Ivanvector (talk) 02:40, 5 March 2015 (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.

2007 Swiss incursion into Liechtenstein[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 Liechtenstein–Switzerland relations. --BDD (talk) 14:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Swiss incursion into Liechtenstein for an excellent description why this event was non-notable. Fast forward 8 years, and the event is nowhere to be found at the targeted article (and I don't think it should be added, the event was that minor). As such, the redirect is not helpful and should be deleted. Tavix |  Talk  01:43, 3 March 2015 (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/2015_March_3&oldid=1142587139"