Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 19: Difference between revisions

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 Procedural close. This is actually a request to move Dark Forest (disambiguation) over Dark Forest per a possible claim that there is no primary topic. In effect, this discussion has been moved to Talk:Dark Forest (disambiguation)#Requested move 19 February 2015. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 03:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Forest → Legends of the Hidden Temple (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Legends of the Hidden Temple is certainly not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. See Dark Forest (disambiguation). RJaguar3 | u | t 02:43, 19 February 2015 (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.

Fifty Shades of Grey: A XXX Adaptation

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The result of the discussion was withdrawn/retarget to Fifty Shades of Grey (film)#Pornographic adaptation lawsuit. Tokyogirl79, I definitely did not look at the film article prior to nominating this. Steel1943 (talk) 05:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fifty Shades of Grey: A XXX Adaptation → Fifty Shades of Grey (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]

I just recently retargeted this redirect to Fifty Shades of Grey#Origin as fan fiction, but I don't believe that target is helpful. (The only vague mention of the redirect's subject is in the last paragraph of the section.) Per some research, I found that it seems that this was to be the possible name of a porn parody of this movie, but due to a lawsuit, never saw the light of day. Might as well not redirect readers trying to find something that is not mentioned at its target in enough detail. Steel1943 (talk) 02:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but change redirect to Fifty_Shades_of_Grey_(film)#Pornographic_adaptation_lawsuit. The porn does exist and it was released, but it wasn't out on the shelves for very long because of the lawsuit. (It was out long enough for it to hit the torrent sites, though.) I'd argue that this would be better as a redirect to Fifty_Shades_of_Grey_(film)#Pornographic_adaptation_lawsuit, where it is discussed in far more depth. The thing about the porn is that although Smash tried to make a legal claim based on the fanfiction origins, ultimately all of the news about the lawsuit centered around the official film since the movie companies were the ones going after Smash. It received more than enough coverage to where I think it'd be a reasonable redirect to the subsection in the film article. Originally this did redirect to the main article, but that was before the film itself actually had an article and before the content was merged into the film's article with this edit. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:13, 19 February 2015 (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.

Plowback retained earnings

Plowback retained earnings → Retained earnings (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]

"Plowback retained earnings" is a made-up phrase, invented with the sole purpose of creating this redundant content fork which for some reason was redirected rather than deleted. The redirect should be deleted, not only because it's implausible and useless, but also because it confuses the reader as our autocomplete algorithm will display it every time "Plowback" is typed into the search box thus suggesting we have two separate articles on the subject. We don't. For a more elaborate rationale, see the previous discussion which was closed two months ago and apparently resulted in "no consensus:" Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_December_10#Plowback_retained_earnings. Iaritmioawp (talk) 00:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my rationale on the previous discussion, given that there seems to be no chance this phrase could refer to any other notable term, phrase, or subject. Steel1943 (talk) 02:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the invented phrase "plowback retained earnings" isn't ambiguous means nothing. We already have Plowback which makes Plowback retained earnings redundant. As for your previous "rationale," it was, in fact, nothing but an unsubstantiated assertion of the redirect's usefulness[1] which contributed nothing of value to the discussion. Consult WP:ITSUSEFUL for more information on why such contributions are to be avoided. If you'd like to argue that the redirect should be kept, you're more than welcome to present an actual argument. Iaritmioawp (talk) 05:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AADD doesn't always apply to RfDs. In some cases, arguments to avoid at AfD are actually strong at RfD. See WP:RFD#KEEP #5, which explicitly gives "Someone finds [the redirect] useful" as a reason to keep. --BDD (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 62: / Line 62: @@
 *'''Keep''' per my rationale on the previous discussion, given that there seems to be no chance this phrase could refer to any other notable term, phrase, or subject. [[User:Steel1943|<span style="color: #2F4F4F;">'''''Steel1943'''''</span>]] ([[User talk:Steel1943|talk]]) 02:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 ::The fact that the invented phrase "plowback retained earnings" isn't ambiguous means nothing. We already have [[Plowback]] which makes [[Plowback retained earnings]] redundant. As for your previous "rationale," it was, in fact, nothing but an unsubstantiated assertion of the redirect's usefulness[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_October_18&diff=prev&oldid=634836906] which contributed nothing of value to the discussion. Consult [[WP:ITSUSEFUL]] for more information on why such contributions are to be avoided. If you'd like to argue that the redirect should be kept, you're more than welcome to present an actual argument. [[User talk:Iaritmioawp|Iaritmioawp]] ([[User talk:Iaritmioawp|talk]]) 05:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
+:::[[WP:AADD]] doesn't always apply to RfDs. In some cases, arguments to avoid at AfD are actually strong at RfD. See [[WP:RFD#KEEP]] #5, which explicitly gives "Someone finds [the redirect] useful" as a reason to keep. --[[User:BDD|BDD]] ([[User talk:BDD|talk]]) 19:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)