June 27

Music of Martinique and Guadeloupe

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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasRe-targeted toMusic of France#French Caribbean. This suggestion provides the disambiguation per the hatnotes, but also provides some context. --JLaTondre (talk)13:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Music of Martinique and GuadeloupeMusic of Martinique and Guadeloupe →Music of Martinique(links to redirect •history •stats) 

Should either be: a)deleted as an implausible redirect, b)transformed into a two-item list, or c)redirected toMusic of France#French Caribbean.Nightw11:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because it seems perfectly plausible to me...╟─TreasuryTag►Syndic General─╢11:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Huh?Music of Martinique and Guadeloupe redirecting toMusic of Martinique whileMusic of Guadeloupe is a separate article? You think this is a plausible setup...?Nightw12:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think it's actively harmful, no.╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢12:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sorry, I must be in the wrong place. I was under the impression that this was the place to discuss the best option for redirects that are unlikely to be useful as they are. If that isn't the case, it should be erased from the description of this page's process.Nightw12:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Sarcasm?╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢12:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  ? Is this the place or not? If not, I'll withdraw the rfd and pick an option myself. If it is, either pick an option, suggest an alternative, or simply don't comment. There's no perceivable rationale for having "[Topic] of X and Y" redirect to "[Topic] of X". Around 50% of readers clicking on that link will get redirected to the wrong content.Nightw12:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate as this serves best people who arrive here by links from other sites, etc. Although I should note that this argument was rejected atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cuisine of Devon and Cornwall, I still disagree with the principle that consistent application ofWP:MOSDAB is a higher priority than helping people locate encyclopaedic content.Thryduulf (talk)12:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation is for articles using the same title. It would have to be a two-item list.Nightw12:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The argument in the linked AfD was essentially that a two-item list of this nature would be a disambiguation page by nature whether or not it was one by name. Regardless of this, my preference is for a page linking to both topics, whether a list or a disambiguation page.Thryduulf (talk)13:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. The only reason I mentioned it is I've had WPD members bring me up on that sort of thing before.Nightw13:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• There isn't aMartinique and Guadeloupe page, but the article was at the current redirect title for some time before it was moved, the page history is still there, and there are links from other pages, so it shouldn't be deleted. A redirect toMusic of France#French Caribbean would be better than the existing redirect, as the content there is about music of Martinique and Guadeloupe, and not just one or the other.Peter E. James (talk)23:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That and there are hatnotes on that section pointing toMusic of Guadeloupe andMusic of Martinique, so I think this is the best option aswell.Nightw08:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland

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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasKeep, there is no consensus that this is redirect is not a plausible search term. --Taelus (talk)08:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Lord Advocate Frank MulhollandLord Advocate Frank Mulholland →Frank Mulholland(links to redirect •history •stats) 

It is not in any way standard practice to refer to holders of the office ofLord Advocate in this manner, and that probably explains why none of themany holders of the ancient position have redirects with comparably absurd titles.╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢08:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a reason not to create such redirects, not one to delete them once they have been created. —Kusma (t·c)09:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  So you mean that if I created the redirectCountry Canada, North America, The World, The Universe (which I'm sure we all agree I shouldn't) it nevertheless shouldn't be deleted once made? I think that's a bizarre argument which could potentially be used against deleting anything. (I should also point out that, in this case, the small number of hits probably came from people who, like me, typed "Lord Advo" into the search-bar and were intrigued by the absurdity of the second suggested hit.)╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢09:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep. Please seeReductio ad absurdem, that is not a plausible search term. Searching for someone with their title is perfectly plausible. Retaining these redirects once created does no harm, so there is no reason to delete.Thryduulf (talk)12:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  So I should go ahead and createPrime Minister Margaret Thatcher,Prime Minister Park Chung-hee,Vice President Alberto Teisaire etc. then?╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢12:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  There is a big difference between creating redirects and deleting them once they have been created, and it is entirely consistent to discourage their unnecessary creation (such as to make apoint) and keeping them once created.Thryduulf (talk)12:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  ButWP:POINT is aboutdisrupting Wikipedia. So if redirects such as this aredisruptive then this one should be deleted. And if they are not disruptive, thenWP:POINT doesn't apply so I'm unclear as to why you linked to it?╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢07:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  He's saying that if you made a bunch of redirects like that now, you would be disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. We don't know why the Lord Advocate redirect was made.D O N D E groovily Talk to me15:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  If redirects such as this aredisruptive then this one should be deleted. And if they are not disruptive, thenWP:POINT doesn't apply.╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢15:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Redirects such as this wouldn't normally be disruptive, if they are plausible (which this one seems to be), but if you were to create the other redirects now, after nominating a similar one for deletion, describing it as "absurd", and implying that the others shouldn't be created,WP:POINT would apply - it's similar to the first example on that page. The "Country Canada" is obviously not comparable - this discussion is the only mention of that phrase that I can find - and "Prime Minister Park Chung-hee" is unlikely to be useful as that doesn't appear to be a title he used.Peter E. James (talk)22:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Furfag

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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasredirect to Wikitionary.BigDom09:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Furfag →Furry fandom(links to redirect •history •stats) 

This redirect previously existed, but wasdeleted. The rationale appears to be that some might find it offensive. I would have found it useful, had it not been deleted.

Being offensive is not a valid rationale perWP:NOT CENSORED and especially since you either have to search for the term, wikilink to the term, be patrolling new pages or search pages that redirect to furry fandom in order to even know it exists.Handschuh-^{talk to me}05:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Soft redirect to Wiktionary. This seems to be a notable term, and it is defined in Wiktionary:wikt:furfag. However there is no mention of the term on theFurry fandom article, and unless some is added the redirect isn't a brilliant one.Thryduulf (talk)12:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Soft Redirect - If Wiktionary has a definition, and we do not, that sounds like a good place to send people. -TexasAndroid (talk)17:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• restore redirect as the wiktionary definition fits the old target article, we should redirect to that article, since we have an article on the subculture. This is why redirects need documentation (like templates have), since not every term in creation for all subjects will exist on the article page the redirects target.65.94.47.63 (talk)04:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it better to redirect to a place that makes no mention of the term, instead of soft redirecting to a place that expressly defines the term? -TexasAndroid (talk)14:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article that covers the topic of a fan of furrydom, furfag is a synonym for the concept of a fan of furrydom; That article is furry fandom. The solution to the term not existing in the article is to add it. We can just put it in a wiktionary linkbox.65.94.47.63 (talk)04:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect isn't a good reason to add the term to the article, and at the last discussion (Talk:Furry fandom/Archive 10#Furfag.3F) there was consensus that it should not be included in the article. If reliable sources can be found, maybe you could suggest adding it to the article, otherwise redirect to the Wiktionary page.Peter E. James (talk)23:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We do not list every synonym of every topic covered in an article. If we don't add it to the article as a wiktionary box entry, we should still redirect it to the article, since the topic that "furfag" refers to, a furry fandom fan, is covered in the article 'furry fandom'.65.93.15.213 (talk)05:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]