- Retroscripting (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
The AfD was closed as "redirect to Home Movies (TV series)". However, the title is too generic to redirect to that specific TV series. As a case in point, Poochie (The Simpsons) contains a mention that Poochie's farewell episode was retroscripted to show that Poochie died on the way to his home planet. The reader expects the link "retroscripted" to go to an article about retroactive changes to scripts, but is instead taken to an article about an entirely unrelated TV series. JIP | Talk 19:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse- The close is an accurate evaluation of the consensus at AfD, and there is no indication that the closing administrator made a mistake, or misinterpreted either policy or consensus. This nomination is an argument that should have been made at the AfD, but DRV is not AfD round 2. If you want the redirect to point somewhere else, the better venue is WP:RFD. There is certainly no way of overturning this to keep. Reyk YO! 19:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, if that's the case, I'll wait for the discussion to be closed, and if the outcome is "endorse", I'll take it up at WP:RFD. JIP | Talk 20:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- RFD is not a solution unless there is some other article to redirect to. —teb728 t c 20:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: The AfD found unanimously that “Retroscripting” is not “notable” in the sense of having received significant coverage in reliable sources. Unless such coverage can now be found, there should be no article on the general subject of retroscripting. (Wikipedia is not a dictionary.) As for the Simpsons example, the redirect link should be removed, possibly with an added explanation if the word is not clear enough by itself. —teb728 t c 20:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I am withdrawing my Endorse in light of Thincat’s comment below. In particular, deletion would have been at least as appropriate a closure. But I don’t see recreation as a possibility unless notable coverage can now be found. —teb728 t c 00:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The best solution for me would be to restore the article retroscripting. But if neither DRV or RFD can accomplish this, the appropriate action to take would be to remove the redirect from every single place where the link is used to mean retroactive changes to scripts in general, not the specific TV series (whose name bears no hint about the word "retroscripting"). I still feel that the name is too generic to be about any single specific TV series, but I will abide by the outcome of this discussion, even if it means I will have to remove the redirect from every unsuitable place I can find (which I'm pretty sure I will). JIP | Talk 20:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I had originally suggested Deletion Review, but I concur that Redirects for Discussion is better, since the unexpected problem was not discussed at AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I suppose, strictly, there are no grounds for overturning the close but the discussion was so very poor, shockingly poor, that something needs to be done somehow. Anyone reading Home Movies (TV series) would have learned that the technique followed on from Dr. Katz, Professional Therapist (and that article also uses the word). As well, there are articles on other shows using the term.[1] A far better redirect or merge target would have been Improvisational theatre#In film and television, as suggested. Also to delete would have been reasonable leaving Wiktionary to pick up the pieces (which it presently does not). Perhaps instead of closing RoySmith could have provided some editorial guidance hoping that better judgement might prevail in the end. Thincat (talk) 21:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreationRedirect to better target. I closed this, but I agree with Thincat that the discussion was flawed. One only needs look at Special:WhatLinksHere/Retroscripting to see that the term is used in many places, unrelated to Home Movies (TV series), so the redirect makes no sense. I wish I had noticed that at the time, but to be honest, when the discussion is as unanimous as this one was, I don't spend a lot of time looking for reasons to do something else. That being said, it would have been better to ping me directly before going to DRV; we might well have sorted this out much quicker. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]- Endorse The only argument given at the help desk was that some pages redirect there. Only 2 articles link there, see [2]- so simply solution is remove those 2 links. No evidence it's notable per WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps I should adjust my statement above. It's an open question whether it makes sense for this to exist as a stand-alone article, but certainly the current redirect to Home Movies (TV series) makes no sense. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- If we're just debating the redirect, it should be at RFD not here. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, retroscripting is a word used in multiple places. However, reliable secondary sources for it as a topic are very thin. Instead, it is a WP:NEOLOGISM. As such, the first hurdle to get an entry at wikt:Retroscripting.
- If wikilinking is demanded from other articles unrelated to "Home Movies", then add a section at Ad libitum. If that section requires more space than that article allows, then spin out from there, a new article in parallel to Improvisational theatre. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
|
