Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 5[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 5, 2016.

Re-introductory[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 all except reintroducing, reintroduced, reintroductions and reintroduction. BDD said in his relist that we're past the Rubicon, so this is my best attempt to summarise the discussion and draw a conclusion by weighing the comments below with evidence and policy. From the arguments below, "reintroducing", "reintroduced", and "reintroductions" are close modifications and should be preserved to prevent breaking incoming links to "reintroducing" and "reintroductions". Incoming links agree with arguments below that "reestablishment" is primarily used in the political sense rather than the conservation sense, so they should be deleted to make way for a disambiguation page. Where we should put the page currently at reintroduction of a species, and what we should do to reintroduction, is left open for editorial decisions beyond RfD. Deryck C. 23:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found this series of redirects by Neelix pointed at an article called Reintroduction, but the article is all about putting animals into places they used to live - a very specific use of a very general term. The long time mistitling of the article confuses search results for me. To solve this mess:

  • Action taken: I've just moved the target to Reintroduction of a species
  • Recommendation 1: We delete all the "Re-" variations as spelling mistakes.
  • Recommendation 2: Someone build out a meaning + DAB on Reintroduction or Reintroduce because it is not a good redirect (even from a page move) to the renamed article. We can reintroduce a bill in government, reintroduce a product to market, reintroduce people that have not met for a long time and tons of other uses. Retarget all the remaining variations at the DAB
  • Recommendation 3: Someone build a DAB on Reestablish Businesses/governments/countries/dynasties/brands etc can be reestablished. Retarget all the remaining variations at the DAB Legacypac (talk) 23:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as inaccurate. Softlavender (talk) 23:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • (This vote happened while I was consolidating, formulating and writing the nomination. Legacypac (talk) 23:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete - they're inaccurate and unnecessary. Anarchyte (work | talk) 23:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the lot per above, Nonsensical crap. –Davey2010Talk 01:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the pile, although I have no objection to the listed recommendations if someone is motivated to build some sort of DAB. Alsee (talk) 01:56, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. All but one are double-redirects which, if fixed, would point a common english word with multiple meanings to a single very narrow usage of that word. No objection if someone would rather soft-redirect some or all to Wiktionary. I see no potential for a Wikipedia article on the generic concept of "reintroduction" or "reestablishment", though. (Note, however, that the "re-" variants are not necessarily spelling mistakes and even if they were, they wouldn't reach the threshold of implausibility.) Rossami (talk) 06:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoah! Keep/retarget reintroduce, reintroduced (not nominated here; nominated by me at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 31#Reintroduced), and reintroduction to target Reintroduction of a species: lots of articles link through these and are currently WP:NOTBROKEN, but we will break their links if we deleted them. I believe exclusively meaning animal reintroduction. Though I think Species reintroduction or Animal reintroduction may have been better places to which to move the article (there don't seem to be any uses for other kingdoms of living things). The others have fewer if any internal links. Si Trew (talk) 12:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep what Si said (and fix double redirects, or the bot will) and I'll throw a WP:RFD#K5 on top of that: they're obviously useful, in use, and refer to this usage. Delete the others though. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Re-introducing, Reintroducing, Re-introduces, Reintroduces, Re-introduce, Re-introductions, Reintroductions, Re-introduction, and Reintroduction per WP:RPURPOSE as "closely related words". I have no opinion on the rest. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This got a bit messy; it would've been better to attempt one thing at a time, but we've crossed the Rubicon now. We could have "Reintroduction" red with an article at "Reintroduction of a species"—that's not as bad as if we had the article at "Reintroduction (species)" or something. But it seems suboptimal. I might also move Reintroduction of a species to Species reintroduction, in case that affects anything, though I'll wait for this to resolve first.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm in favout of the simpler title "Species introduction". Lots of reliable sources use it, such as Scottish National Heritage,[sr 1] the International Union for Conservation of Nature[sr 2] and the National Wildlife Federation,[sr 3] so it's not as if we'd be inventing it. Si Trew (talk) 15:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "The National Species Reintroduction Forum". snh.gov.uk. Scottish National Heritage. 11 June 2015. Retrieved 7 February 2016.
  2. ^ "Guidelines for Reintroductions and Other Conservation Translocations (Annex 1)" (PDF). International Union for Conservation of Nature. 2013. p. 3. Retrieved 7 February 2016.
  3. ^ ""An Introduction to Species Reintroduction"". National Wildlife Federation. February 2012. Retrieved 7 February 2015.
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.

Radical Mongoose[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈(conjugate) 08:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non needed redirect CrashUnderride 12:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Rose tweeted recently that he is now going to use this as a nickname. I'm updating the ref in the article. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't mean it needs to be a redirect to his page. CrashUnderride 03:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it does, that's one of the main purposes of redirects, to get readers to the information they're looking for when they search for alternate titles. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ivanvector. Steel1943 (talk) 03:39, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as creator I added this because people may only be watching clips of WWE or hear slang reference to 'radical mongoose' but not know the wrestler, this helps them easily find him Ranze (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Radical Mongoose, just something Adam Rose says in Twitter. Not a wrestling nickname. Rose wants to be known as Radical Mongoose, it doesn't make it into a nickname. Also, the source was unreliable. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Forget it. WWE calls Rose Radical Mongoose. It's fine for me. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:14, 8 February 2016 (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.

Iron Man of the WWE[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 12#Iron Man of the WWE

(Far from) Home[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈(conjugate) 08:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect seems to exist solely so the song title isn't a redlink. A link to the band might make better sense on the Far from Home disambiguation page if needed. But a search of the wiki doesn't bring up this page unless you use the brackets. 🍺 Antiqueight chat 05:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a redirect because the song itself wasn't notable, so I BOLDly redirected it to the album from which it came rather than AFDing it. I have no objection to re-redirecting it to the band. Or to scrapping it altogether and having the DAB page merely point to the album as its one bluelink. DMacks (talk) 05:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've added {{R from song}}, and redirects are cheap. The article Tiga (musician) indicates the song charted on UK and AUS singles charts. The parentheses in the title are unlikely to be confused with other entries in the dab Far from Home. --Animalparty! (talk) 06:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Animalparty. Unlikely to be confused with another topic nor to confuse readers searching for Far from Home; saves some users a click. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Honestly? It confused the heck out of me - But if it makes sense to all of you, then let it be. 🍺 Antiqueight chat 15:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What you said - "a search ... doesn't bring up this page unless you use the brackets". So it's reasonable to assume that a user searching using the brackets is looking for this song title, otherwise why would you type the brackets? As such, it's reasonable to send that user to a page about the album the song appears on. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above. Does not seem unreasonable for someone to search by an exact title; I imagine many readers would guess that the song would not be at Home. Si Trew (talk) 16:00, 7 February 2016 (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:REFORMWIKIPEDIA[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. Though there's some interest in retargeting to Wikipedia:Reform, there's consensus to delete. Arguably, a WP shortcut with "Wikipedia" in the title is redundant anyway. And as for the second, well—some editors don't take kindly to that sort of thing. (I don't care too much.) --BDD (talk) 16:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

This is essentially a relist of the discussion for this redirect that happened a week or so ago. The last discussion was closed to "no consensus" when the redirect's target was Wikipedia:Reform of Wikipedia. As one can now see, that is no longer the case: The former target was userfied as a result of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Reform of Wikipedia. Steel1943 (talk) 04:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both per consensus at MfD that this does not belong in project space. These are now cross-namespace redirects. Guy (Help!) 11:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as they are cross name space redirects.Mrfrobinson (talk) 12:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both the community was clear that this essay should not be in project space. These redirects are a back door way to refer to it as if it still is. The creator has already tried to quote the "reforms" at ANI [1] and to imply an editor could be subject to a weeks/months long block [2] to chill discussion. With these, or any project space redirects, they can still make such bullshit claims and a naive editor may believe them. JbhTalk 12:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (both) - normally pseudospace shortcuts from project space to user space are not inherently harmful (WP:XNR generally applies to redirects from reader spaces) however this is an instance where one is being used in a deliberately harmful fashion, to intimidate users based on an editor's non-consensual opinions. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. Not only are they cross namespace redirects (which are allowed is some cases - see WP:1AM), but this and this show the clear intent of one of the primary authors of this essay to use it as a club during disputes. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both. If cross-namespace really was a hard policy no-go[citation needed], then redir to another related traget in WP: namespace. --.js[democracy needed] 23:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @.js: Do you have a recommendation of where these redirects should be retargeted? Steel1943 (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Steel1943: Perhaps one of these:
  • Keep both first or retarget. There is no policy against using them. There is a disagreement whether Wikipedia needs reforms. I have seen numerous user essays with redirect shortcuts. QuackGuru (talk) 23:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Updated comment. QuackGuru (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While it may be true that there is disagreement over whether Wikipedia needs reforms, there is strong consensus that your proposed reforms are profoundly misguided, if they are even possible (which in some cases they are not, at least without changes in the law). Guy (Help!) 01:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see any disagreement that WP needs reforms, only disagreement what reforms. But here is the place for discussing a redirect only. --.js[democracy needed] 01:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It appears the reason behind deleting the redirects is that JzG has a disagreement with the essay. That's not a valid reason to delete the redirects. QuackGuru (talk) 01:12, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This were all deleted save one retargeted. Being fair to QuackGuru and the other authors, I don't think there's any proposal to re-create those. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ivanvector. If they are to be retargeted, Tavix' suggestion makes the most sense, but I don't see the value of doing so; "cheap" as far as I understand it is just a warning not to base a suggested course of action on the consequent size of the database. Si Trew (talk) 21:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Reform which is more appropriate, encompasses all the possible targets, and isn't a cross-namespace redirect.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 19:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would normally be for this but when the target is shorter than the redirect we shouldn't have a redirect. Mrfrobinson (talk) 13:16, 10 February 2016 (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.

Telling lies to children[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. The general consensus is that this target isn't helpful to the reader. Deryck C. 22:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The target article is not at all about this subject. Rather it is about a neologism from a fantasy novel. Sammy1339 (talk) 02:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It may be relevant to know that the target article itself is likely to soon be redirected as it fails GNG. See here. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The actual practice of lying to children seems like a legitimate subject for a future article. This phrase is about a completely different concept (it's actually about simplifying, not lying). Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then it should point to Pedagogy.—Odysseus1479 08:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget. This should be redirected to Psychological manipulation, shouldn't it? It's a form of it. Hdjensofjfnen (Is something wrong?) 01:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I suppose we could retarget, but if so it seems like we could justify any "telling lies to [group]". Seems unnecessary, and I agree the current target doesn't make sense. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:12, 9 February 2016 (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/2016_February_5&oldid=1146029440"