Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 16

January 16
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 16, 2016.

Portal:Organized Labour/January/16/Selected article



 * 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. The concern in the RfD nomination has been resolved without requiring the redirect to be altered. Deryck C. 22:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Portal:Organized Labour/January/16/Selected article → Dutta Samant (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Organized_Labour/January/16/Selected_article&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

The purpose of the redirect appears to be to transclude the page Dutta Samant on the page Portal:Organized Labour, but the page Dutta Samant contains a non-free file (File:Dutta Samant.jpg), so transcluding the page Dutta Samant on Portal:Organized Labour is not permitted per WP:NFCC. Stefan2 (talk) 23:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I've added  tags so the image will not be displayed in the portal. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:40, 17 January 2016 (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.

Romans 1:27



 * 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 target both to appropriate sections of Epistle to the Romans, i.e. retarget first, keep second. Deryck C. 22:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Romans 1:27 → Romans 1 (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Romans_1:27&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * Romans 12:17 → Epistle to the Romans (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Romans_12:17&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

These verses aren't individually discussed at the target articles. The section the first is supposed to redirect to doesn't exist at all. --BDD (talk) 16:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Retarget 1:27 to its old target. The verse is important, it reads:


 * And is hence is relevant, nay - critical, in the discussion of Christianity and homosexuality. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC).


 * Conversely retarget Romans 12:17 to Romans 12. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC).

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I'm cautious with this one because we're essentially suggesting to swap the purposes of the two redirects.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 10:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: the way this is organized is pretty confusing. We have Epistle to the Romans with a pretty detailed summary and analysis of the contents of Paul's letter/essay, but in addition we have Romans 1, Romans 2, and so on right up to Romans 16 with a separate detailed analysis of each chapter of the epistle. Also, the Epistle article doesn't link to the more detailed chapter articles, which were written later by . I think that the Epistle article needs to be reorganized to present a set-index of the chapters, and the analysis ported to the chapter articles where possible, or else just merge everything back into the epistle article, otherwise we have a lot of duplication of material and competing analysis going on. As for the redirects, the "verse 27" section was blanked by an IP with no explanation so I have restored it. Without further comment on the redirects, I'm going to ping WikiProject Bible for input on the whole situation. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That removal of the section was probably warranted, because right now it's just giving the text of the verse. That's WP:NOT what Wikipedia is for; it's going to need some analysis or other discussion. --BDD (talk) 15:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You're probably right, but that's basically all that's on those pages, so an IP removing just one with no edit summary feels like vandalism to me. Trout me if you like, I haven't had breakfast yet. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * * shrug* A reminder of the importance of edit summaries, I guess. The IP might just as likely have been thinking what I was thinking and figured the removal was a no-brainer. --BDD (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Retarget both to Epistle to the Romans, with appropriate anchors. WikiProject Bible didn't respond and doesn't seem particularly active, so I'm going to throw my own interpretation into this. All of the "chapter" articles seem to be unnecessary content forks. The Epistle article gives a critical review of the content and theme of Paul's letter, while the chapter articles give a technical analysis of the letter's structure. Nevertheless they are all articles about the same thing; they should all be merged or interlinking between them cleaned up, and I'm going to propose it just as soon as I can figure out a good way to do it. I don't like getting involved in Bible stuff on here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 20:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Retarget as per Ivanvector - this is very confusing, but I don't like to delete as these are good search terms. At least at the article on the book a reader can start looking into the topic and go into whatever detail they want. Legacypac (talk) 20:10, 16 January 2016 (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.

MGTOW (Men's rights)



 * 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, default to keep. The "delete" side argued that this redirect propagates misconceptions about the topic; the "keep" side argued that this incorrect disambiguation is nevertheless useful to readers and gets a lot of hits. Deryck C. 21:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * MGTOW (Men's rights) → Men Going Their Own Way (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MGTOW_(Men%27s_rights)&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Please delete the redirect MGTOW (Men's rights). MGTOW are different and separate from "men's rights activists" (MRAs). MGTOW is not a "men's rights movement" but a social phenomenon. Evidence: (1) "At first glance, it's easy to lump MGTOW in with typical Men's Rights Activists (MRAs) who also believe that female oppression is a myth and that it's actually males who are oppressed—but that's not the case. The two groups differ significantly in how they make sure those tricky, tricky women don't pull any of their devious tactics. While MRAs are out to fix the problem through action and activism, members of MGTOW hold self-preservation above all else, and because of this the majority of the community seems to have decided to bow out." ; (2) "''Though often conflated with MRAs, the Manosphere, or "The Red Pill" communities, MGTOWs are a distinct culture focused less on fighting women or feminists than on living separately, due to what they believe to be a rational assessment of the modern risks of male-female relationships. There is very little malice or combativeness to them. They don’t want to fight. They just, as they say, want to go their own way." Also see the consensus on the the talk page discussion.  (Edited to add: Also, there are zero article pages that link to MGTOW_(Men's rights), so this redirect page is in fact completely useless.  Also, I think there is no need for Wikipedia to add'' to the "conflation".) —MaximumGrossTakeOffWeight(talk). 12:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep and tag with R from incorrect disambiguation. While MGTOW appears unambiguous, "(Men's rights)" is definitely incorrect capitalization if nothing else. If the association with MRAs is erroneous, it seems to be a common error (e.g., "often conflated with" in the source you've given). --BDD (talk) 14:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep and tag per BDD. --Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 01:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete First, it is unnecessary, even useless, as the user is guided to the same place easily with the system we have now: MGTOW direct to a disambiguation page, each article links to another, and users see and choose from "MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way)" and MGTOW (Aviation) when typing "MGTOW" in the search window. Second, it misinforms the user of the association between MGTOW and "Men's Rights". Chrisrus (talk) 05:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 23:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment - The issue of whether the two are related aside, in regard to "Also, there are zero article pages that link to MGTOW_(Men's rights), so this redirect page is in fact completely useless." (nom), there are many other reasons for redirects per WP:POFR. R from incorrect name may be due; whether or not this causes any harm, I'm unsure. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 16:36, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - I agree with Chrisrus and the blocked nominator. There's a negative association to the Men's Rights movement, and this not-particularly-necessary redirect implies an incorrect point of view on the target. We shouldn't do that. The ambiguity with MGTOW can be solved with a hatnote. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:59, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep and tag per BDD. This redirect is getting 200-300 hits per month consistently, which does not happen if a redirect is not linked from somewhere. It is up to the article to educate people on why MGTOW is distinct from the men's rights movement, not the presence or absence of a redirect. The existence of the, , , etc templates demonstrates well that an NPOV encyclopaedia is best served by allowing people to find the neutral article they are searching for even if they look for it using a POV or mistaken search term. Thryduulf (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 17:17, 16 January 2016 (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.

Pimmally square



 * 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 discussion moved towards the consensus that this place is no longer mentioned in the article, so the redirect is no longer helpful. Deryck C. 21:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Pimmally square → York High School (Virginia) (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pimmally_square&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

This is the name of the school's gym, which is unquestionably non-notable, and not even mentioned at the target article. BDD (talk) 19:36, 29 December 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete as no brainer. Now get back to class kids Legacypac (talk) 01:38, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Unless there is some potential for confusion (and the fact that it's been around without creating problems since 2008 suggests that there's not), keep. Redirecting a non-notable child-topic to a more notable parent is one of the primary uses of a redirect, especially when, as here, the content was moved into the target article.  The fact that the content was subsequently removed does not change the fact that it's still in the history.  Rossami (talk) 01:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 23:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep per Rossami. No reason to delete this. Thryduulf (talk) 12:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thryduulf, what about the fact that a reader searching for it will learn nothing about it? A reader who knows the name of the school's gym will learn nothing, and the rest will likely be ASTONISHed. The only sort of reader this could help is one who knows the name of the gym but has forgotten which school it's located at. To me, the harm to the encyclopedia of keeping redirects that we don't follow up on is self evident. --BDD (talk) 14:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. An alternative to the situation BDD brought up would be to add information about "Pimmally Square" to the article, but I failed to find any reliable sources that even attests the name, much less describes it (I found 22 Google hits, almost all are Wiki mirrors). Unless someone can find some sources, the only logical course of action is deletion. -- Tavix ( talk ) 16:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 17:15, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. I tend to argue that if, as User:Thryduulf points out, there is no content related to the redirect's title, then that is WP:RFD confusing. (There seems to be consensus that such an argument is valid, though not always successful.) The fact that there once was content makes no difference; the redirect's history will be preserved (even after deletion), and ideally the redirect should have been deleted when the content was removed. It would seem simple to be able to get an historical version of a page where the links were also versioned (i.e. for each wikilink, find the most recent version whose timestamp is no later than that of the page linking to it). Perhaps that has already been done: "WikiWayback"? (However I am not sure how this would work with deleted pages since I don't think it's possible for mere mortals to retrieve the history of a deleted page, nor to retrieve its content). Si Trew (talk) 08:53, 17 January 2016 (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.

Template:MetaCat
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 25%23Template:MetaCat

Maculation
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 25%23Maculation

Strong-smelling
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 25%23Strong-smelling