Talk:Extinct

Extinction
There are two significant issues with this page - in the first place, I don't think it needs to exist per WP:DPAGES. Secondly, if it does exist, it surely needs to include a link to extinction. This is no doubt what most people will be looking for if they search for this term. There's no call for them to have to visit the Extinction (disambiguation) page on the way. Indeed, this should redirect to extinction as the primary topic. The split was done "per WP:D", but there is nothing on that page to justify this split. StAnselm (talk) 07:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Another consideration is that the "split" broke links in over 3,000 other Wikipedia articles. Presumably the user who considered the split necessary is now busy fixing all those links, so it may be a while before we hear from him/her.  :-)  R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reminding me where I left off RnB! (Rome wasn't built in a day.)  Boy am I glad it's not necessary to go in and fix ALL those links.  Whew! The fix was fairly simple. I created the page Extinct (disambiguation) and made that the DAB.  I left the list item "Extinction of species" on there, in deference to StAnselm.  (That one is not a big deal for me at this point.)  Then I changed Extinct to a REDIRECT to the article Extinction, as I agree with StAnselm as quoted from above: "Indeed, this should redirect to extinction as the primary topic"; this is something I had planned to do last night before I got distracted by other real-world business.  So now those 3000 articles will redirect to Extinction, where one would expect them to go.  I added a second hatnote to Extinction, so now there are two {other uses} redirects, one for Extinction (disambiguation), and one for Extinct (disambiguation).  Regarding WP:DPAGES, StAnselm, extinct (an adjective) and extinction (a noun) are two different parts of speech and WP:DPAGES (specifically: Combining terms on disambiguation pages) does not apply, as different parts of speech indicate separate disambiguation.  Also StAnselm stated, "The split was done "per WP:D", but there is nothing on that page to justify this split."  The split was not done per WP:D ; my edit summary "edit per WP:D" was for other edits I made to the page at the same time; in addition to the split — sorry if I wasn't clear.  Thank you both for your comments and input.  Best Regards,  JMax   (Okay, tell me. What'd I do this time?)  15:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)