Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 July 10

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

July 10

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 10, 2012

Engology

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. JohnCD (talk) 14:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus term. A frankly bollocks article was written by the owner of engology.com, and for some reason turned into a redirect to engineering technologist. Whilst it is the case that the owner of engology.com wishes to promulgate the term, Wikipedia need not join him. This neologism has no place even as a redirect on WP. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC) Tagishsimon (talk) 22:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're an engologist, Donde. Just get over it ;) --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.

National IQ

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 Retarget to Nations and intelligence. This is the best target among those that exist. Ruslik_Zero 17:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This either needs to be deleted or another target found. The current target is an article about book that contains national IQ estimates. And those estimates in the book are utter crap that no actual scientist or social scientist of any repute would stand behind. If one of our readers comes searching for actual encyclopedic content about "National IQ"s, they need and deserve something far far better than to be directed to this piece of crap.-- The Red Pen of Doom 18:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Nations and intelligence is just a POV fork of Race and intelligence. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 14:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:Sofixit. Put the articles in question through AfD or RfC if they're really that bad. We do not delete redirects as a method of commentary on the legitimacy of encyclopedic content. As far as redirects are concerned, that content is there—end of the story. Any discussion about the merits of the content should happen on the article talk pages; redirects are subject to a lower threshold of neutrality and accuracy than articles are, and they are not the place to impose those judgements on the articles. If the page(s) in question get deleted, these redirects will end up as WP:CSD#G8, which is the proper way to go about this. The only real question here is whether National IQ makes sense to point to an article called Nations and intelligence (or to a more fitting article). BigNate37(T) 18:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I just found an ArbCom case on Race and intelligence that seems to encapsulate the problems mentioned in this RfD. Thought it was worth mentioning, though I'm not sure what exact implication that may have here. BigNate37(T) 18:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • retarget per BigNate. The scope of Nations and intelligence means it is the target that best mathes what people are likely to be looking for when searching for this title (and stats show people do use the redirect) - i.e. an article about the general concept of the intersection between nationality and intelligence rather than a specific book on the topic. If the suggested target article is not meeting its scope or is otherwise not in accordance with policies or guidelines then use the processes that exist to deal with those issues or take it to AfD if you believe them insurmountable. As which pages link to an article has an almost infintesimal impact on its quality RfD is not in any position to help.
    As for the arbitration case, I don't think it has a direct bearing on this redirect or either current or proposed targets, but an informational notice on the talk pages so that editors are aware of it would probably be prudent. Thryduulf (talk) 20:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • i am pretty certain that when a user types in "National IQ" they are not looking for "a consolodated list of the controversial studies of Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen," which the proposed target article is, and to make the proposed target something other than that would require nuking existing article (which would certainly be an improvement, but one that is likely to cause much dramahz and very careful editing by people who know the subject). do we set new targets based on hopes the target artcile will be reformed (eventually)? Or is the reader better served by not being sent on a wild goose chase? -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Our readers are best served by taking them to the article that best educates them about the topic they are looking for. As the suggested target has as its scope a neutral discussion of all notable research into the topic of links between nationality and intelligence, then this is clearly a relevant target. If you know of a better target then suggest it here as nobody commenting has been able to find such. If the suggested target needs improving then fix it, optionally with the assistance of one of the appropriate processes, or nominate it for deletion. The way to improve the article is not to make it harder to find. If you still think that the redirect should be deleted then explain why with reference to which of the points at WP:R#DELETE apply and why the ones at WP:R#KEEP either do not or are outweighed. If you do so, bear in mind that the quality of the target is not really a significant consideration in the question of whether a reader looking for this topic is better served by a relevant article or a redlink - we do regularly redirect readers to pages that need work in the knowledge that this is a wiki. Thryduulf (talk) 00:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • the studies are notable mostly for their being utter crap. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • That's completely irrelevant. For an article all that matters us that the subject is notable, regardless of why. It matters even less for a redirect where notability is not a consideration. - we routinely redirect non-notable songs to articles about the artist or album for example. All a redirect needs to be is more useful than harmful - this redirect has several reasons to keep (likely search term, discouraging a duplicate article, etc) and no reason to delete (it's not in the way of anything, there is a relevant target, etc). Thryduulf (talk) 06:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • For a particular article the reason for its notability doesnt matter, but for a redirect we need to find the article that most likely represents what the reader was searching for and the reader was not looking for controversial crumble jumble. -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Users searching for this term are almost certainly looking for a neutral treatment of the notable research and any other notable aspects (e.g. popular culture) relating to the intersection between nationality and IQ. This is exactly the scope of the proposed target. It is irrelevant to the redirect that some of the most notable research does not hold up to a rigorous scientific analysis - that is for the article to educate them about. If the afticle is missing other notable research then add it. If the article is not neutral, tag it and/or fix it. If the article is irredeemable junk, nominate it for deletion. Deletion of this redirect will not have any impact on the article other than making it harder for readers who are looking for it to find (including those who could improve it). If there is a better target propose it here, if one should exist but doesn't start it and then propose it here. Note that the entire field is controversial, but that does not mean that people aren't looking for it, that it is any less notable or that we should not have a neutral article on it. Thryduulf (talk) 12:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Wiki mapia

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 Withdrawn. — This, that, and the other (talk) 08:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Typo redirect, considered implausible. Not R3 as not recently created Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Map wiki

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 convert to DAB page with thanks to Rossami for doing the work to prepare it. JohnCD (talk) 21:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible, but not recently created so not an R3. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Dexters house

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. JohnCD (talk) 20:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's been under protection since 2006 and apparently was the result of a hoax. There's no page history of interest, and nothing links to it either (except for one entry in a log). I can't see it being of real use. Also, it's a somewhat generic phrase. Nothing about it is specific to the page it redirects to. Paper Luigi T • C 09:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_July_10&oldid=1138578253"