Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 November 7

November 7
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 7, 2014.

Torched



 * 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 move Torched (disambiguation) over redirect. --BDD (talk) 19:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Torched → Arson (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Regarding the Arson (disambiguation) discussion, it would save navigation steps if this redirect pointed to the dab page instead of to the main Arson article, and we could save another hatnote. Ivanvector (talk) 22:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Torch (disambiguation), where Arson is listed. Torching is redlink. Si Trew (talk) 23:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. "Torched" doesn't equal "Torch" in spelling. The hatnotes currently on Arson are substantial to disambiguate the term. Steel1943  (talk) 00:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * In addition, I have now created Torched (disambiguation) as a result of the fact that there are three different articles which "Torched" could refer. On a related note, I am neutral on moving Torched (disambiguation) to Torched. Steel1943  (talk) 01:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Retarget to Torch (disambiguation) and merge the new Torched (disambiguation) there as well. "Torched" can also be used to describe having used a blowtorch, which is not arson, which is listed at torch (disambiguation) but is missing from the new disambiguation page. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 07:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * We're in danger of becoming a dictionary, but to set fire to a car is known as torching, isn't it? The word itself is in that form at this article:




 * Fourth at my search is WP at Vehicle fire. The first three are all about spates of this in northern France. Si Trew (talk) 08:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That article is about car fires in general, not just those that result from arson. (See also: Ford Pinto. heh) Ivanvector (talk) 19:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Car fire redirects there. Carrefour doesn't. Si Trew (talk) 01:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * We also have "Torchers" at:
 * Si Trew (talk) 09:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If we want, redirect Torchers → Arson. Arsonist already redirects there. Ivanvector (talk) 19:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If we want, redirect Torchers → Arson. Arsonist already redirects there. Ivanvector (talk) 19:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I suggest that Torched (disambiguation) be reverse merged to Torched, replacing the redirect. --GCarty (talk) 13:35, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I prefer merging Torched (disambiguation) to Arson (disambiguation) because "torch" as a verb refers to setting fire (see torch) and all of the entries are already listed on the Arson dab page. Similarly, we can make a case for redirecting Torching → Arson. Ivanvector (talk) 19:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I see those entries have been moved. Hmmm. *scratches head* Ivanvector (talk) 19:10, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually I agree with the IP. The Torch and Torched dab pages should be merged to Torch (disambiguation), and all of the "torch-" terms should redirect there. We can add a note about the terms being used colloquially for arson at the top of the page, I think (it's currently an entry near the bottom). I think we could also merge Arsonists (disambiguation) into Arson (disambiguation), because there are not many entries on either page. Otherwise all of the new dab pages we've created over the last couple days would be eligible for deletion under WP:TWODABS. I also notice there's a Quickfire (disambiguation) which is a related concept, but I'm not suggesting any action there. Ivanvector (talk) 19:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, I realize that this isn't the forum to discuss what to do with dab pages, so if we're not confident with consensus here to do those merges I'm happy to propose merges on the dab pages for more feedback after this discussion is closed. Ivanvector (talk) 19:26, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * In regards to the above discussion, I strongly oppose any merging of "Torch***" and "Arson***" disambiguation pages. The purpose of disambiguation pages, in essence, is to help the reader find an article when the name of the subject matches the name of another subject. It's not for synonyms. Thus the reason for my edits on Arson (disambiguation); the only really proper place for synonyms on a disambiguation page is its "See also" section, and even then, the links there should really only be limited to other disambiguation pages. (Plausible misspellings of the title of the disambiguation page could be put there as well, but focusing on that is a tangent in this discussion and point of this comment.) Steel1943  (talk) 00:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. The Torch and Arson pages should not be merged. However, I don't think it's useful to have separate dab pages for "Torch" and "Torched" and -ers -ing and so on, nor "Arson" and "Arsonists". Ivanvector (talk) 01:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * If I may add to that, I know I am in a minority, but there is no WP:DAB pages for Discussion. I think that Rs and DABS are kinda mutual friends. I think we ask ourselves, "what are people likely to want to find?" and sometimes a DAB serves that, sometimes an R, sometimes better deleted to let the search engine take care of it. Si Trew (talk) 01:24, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * A DfD has been discussed before, as has expansion of RfD to cover dabs, or using MfD instead of AfD. IMO, RfD should be expanded to cover dab pages -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 06:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * To be pedantic, since dab pages are articles, the appropriate place is on the dab page's talk, or if deletion is proposed, at AfD. But we run across redirects turning into dab pages and vice-versa here quite often. Practically, different discussions make sense in different places - as long as we can find them later. Ivanvector (talk) 19:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Being even more pedantic, are DAB pages articles? We had this grumble about whether Rs are articles, but searching MoS (which I very rarely do) now for Rs it says "pages" – it used to equivocate on saying "a redirect article..." or "a redirect page..." but I can't find any more that a redirect is an article. I made a DAB for some surname the other week and that was then go to a name set-index, which presumably is an article. I agree with 67.70, the discussion of them would be better combined, since quite often we turn an R into a dab, and less often but sometimes into an article. Ivan is right in theory about discussing on the talk page, but in practice nothing ever happens if you do, until it turns up at an XfD. I have left so many notes on articles' talk pages without a squeak, let alone on Rs an DABs. Si Trew (talk) 01:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Most actions involving dab pages can probably be done WP:BOLDly without admin intervention, e.g. replacing a WP:TWODABS page with a redirect, or expanding a redirect into a dab page. If you did something controversial, you'll hear about it, trust me. Retargeting a redirect can be done boldly as well. We really only need this forum for redirects that may need to be deleted because then we need admin help. But it is useful for evaluating consensus. I'm not strictly opposed to discussing dabs here, but I also see that there are already a lot of demands on the dwindling admin pool's time. Ivanvector (talk) 16:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. WP:DDD clearly says at the top "Disambiguation pages are not articles" (their emphasis). Si Trew (talk) 10:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Alright, this discussion went off the rails a bit. I've collapsed the good-faith discussion about "dabs-for-discussion" - I realize that I'm the one that started it and it's probably a good conversation to have but it's off-topic here. Looking at the rest, I think we have a very weak consensus for this:
 * Merge Torched (disambiguation) → Torch (disambiguation)
 * Merge Arsonists (disambiguation) → Arson (disambiguation)
 * Retarget Torched → Torch (disambiguation) per #1
 * Is this a reasonable summary? Ivanvector (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.

Arson (disambiguation)



 * 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 wrong forum (non-admin closure) . A disambiguation page is not a redirect, and this wasn't the place to propose creating one. However, the proposal was a good one and has been implemented. Nothing more to do here. Ivanvector (talk) 22:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Arson (disambiguation) → Arson (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

I just created this redirect, not to subvert the system but I thought better to discuss here as I think Rs and DABs are hand in hand; listing at AfD etc is obviously nonsens when Arson is patently primary.

I think the hatnotes at the top of the target are very odd and out of kilter, and I think they would be better served by a DAB (at the title here I just made). Then obviously hatnote just to this DAB when I make it. But sometimes I am out of kilter and others will say "it is fine how it is", thus not just boldly doing it. (Surely, Special:Search in a hatnote is a bit odd?)
 * Arsonist → Arson. There is an Arsonist DAB page somewhere... search leads me mostly to WP:ANI discussions about arsonists. List of arsonists does not exist. (If you were wondering, it's because I like Guy Fawkes Night). Si Trew (talk) 09:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'm pleased to find Arson in royal dockyards exists. Si Trew (talk) 09:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that what you're proposing is not the purpose of this discussion board. Dabs are not redirects, and creating a redirect with (disambiguation) in the name is sort of useless. You're right about the hatnotes though, they're nonsensical. I'll take a run at building out a dab page. Ivanvector (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, ✅. I'm going to close this as completed and uncontroversial, since there's nothing here that requires admin attention and the template is breaking things. Anyone is free to revert but please indicate a reason if you do. Ivanvector (talk) 22:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.

Welfare check
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 15%23Welfare check