This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 24, 2016.
Moderate conservatism
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. This discussion has established that the title may refer to different concepts in different places and we can't agree on an appropriate target. There's a majority favouring deletion so it is appropriate to delete. Deryck C. 13:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In American usage only, these terms would be equivalent, but in a global context, it's a very misleading redirect. I don't know if there's any page that really addresses moderate varieties of conservatism in general. This has some of the same problems as Progressive conservatism. BDD (talk) 18:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The best analogy I have for this would be to compare them as Dungeons & Dragons alignments: The redirect is "Neutral Good" or "Neutral Evil" whereas the target is either "Lawful Evil" or "Chaotic Good", depending on one's opinions regarding political stances. Anyways, the redirect is not the same as its target. Steel1943 (talk) 18:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cast a spell of delete per Steel1943. If it's not the name of a specific political ideology, then "moderate" is just an undefined modifier on conservatism. It could be middling conservatism or mild conservatism or conservative-ish or leaning conservative or compassionate conservatism but none of those actually mean anything. There are many possible targets but none that are really matches in an encyclopedic sense, so we should let the reader refine their search before we try to guess at what they're looking for. Ivanvector🍁 (talk) 19:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In the European context "liberal conservatism" and "moderate conservatism" are used mostly as synonims. --Checco (talk) 22:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I find this interesting, considering that this term means different things in different places ... which actually creates a WP:XY issue. Steel1943 (talk) 00:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Synonyms? In practical terms, it appears more that 'liberal conservatism' is a general philosophy with a reasonable definition and 'moderate conservatism' is a poorly defined ideological frame that's both a subset of the former concept and also an amalgamation of other influences. It would be somewhat like considering 'silverware' versus 'plastic forks' as synonyms. The latter is a partial subset of the former that also has peculiar elements (happening to be plastic) unlike much of the larger set. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 14:33, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As above, it works as a redirect for a synonymous term. Also, En.wiki is a 'world' resource, and should not be limited to North American English terminology.--Autospark (talk) 00:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then, that means this term has initiate ambiguity, depending on where the term is used. That seems more likes grounds to delete or disambiguate this title. Steel1943 (talk) 00:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not disambiguate this. Without a proper definition, listing various ideologies under a heading of moderate conservatism (as we would on a dab page) is entirely POV. We might as well have a crunchy apple dab page where we list all the varieties of apple which are crunchy. Ivanvector🍁 (talk) 14:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a not at all well-defined adjective-noun combination that you could basically apply in so many different ways similarly: intelligent liberalism, thoughtful progressivism, caring socialism, homespun conservatism, et cetera. I would contrast with labels such as 'progressive conservative' because those are actually used in political party names and direct statements by party leaders elaborate on things. I can maybe support a retarget to center-right politics, which discusses the variance between what is 'moderate, leaning conservative' and 'conservative, leaning moderate' as well as the differences in 'right'-ness depending on the circumstance. That would be less optimal, though. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 14:10, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It may be worth relisting this to go through the points a bit more, particularly in terms of rearget possibilities. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:01, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 20:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think "moderate conservatism" is a vague term which means different things to different people. "Liberal conservatism" is a somewhat more precisely defined term, and sometimes when people say "moderate conservatism" they indeed mean "liberal conservatism", whereas other times they don't mean anything that specific. SJK (talk) 20:23, 24 April 2016 (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.
Mike Strong
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.
Retarget to Michael Strong. Mike is a common nickname for people named Michael. --Tavix(talk) 16:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per Tavix.--Yankees10 17:02, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Make a dab page and retarget there. There are a few other Michael Strongs listed on Wikipedia that would make a DAB legitimate (Murder at the ABA, County Court of Victoria). I see no evidence the actor is known as Mike, so pointing it to a theoretical DAB seems like a better choice. Nohomersryan (talk) 14:40, 25 April 2016 (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.
Crap (rapper)
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 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.
History teacher
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. Deryck C. 13:55, 2 May 2016 (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.
English teacher
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 all. Deryck C. 13:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are also English teaching, Teaching English and Teach English, which all redirect to Teaching English as a foreign language; these don't appear to be the names of anything mentioned in the articles. Peter James (talk) 20:47, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Peter James: I added 3/4 of the redirects you mentioned to the nomination.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 21:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, as WP:RFD#D1 hinders search per WP:XY. An English teacher could be someone teaching English language either in England or elsewhere; or any of the English people teaching the language or anything else. I am English and teach something other than the English language in somewhere other than England, for example. Si Trew (talk) 14:21, 26 April 2016 (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.
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. While there's an overwhelming majority here favouring deletion, there is disagreement on why this redirect should be deleted, so this RfD should not set a precedent for similar redirects involving other invisible unicode characters. Deryck C. 14:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If it's a clear-cut case of WP:XY, then lets just trash it. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Both articles clearly link to each other in their respective "see also" sections. A redirect to one of them puts the reader on a path to finding his/her answer instead of blindly trying to guess what this unicharacter is. WP:XY is a lesser problem than leaving the reader stranded with no way to find either X or Y. Rossami(talk) 05:50, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Godsy(TALKCONT) 00:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As a matter of principle, I don't think there should be any redirects whose titles consist purely of non-printable or whitespace characters. I can't see how anyone would actually use such a redirect. Even discussing such a redirect is painful, as this very discussion attests (the section heading is blank, you can't click the link) SJK (talk) 11:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt all non-printing characters (if not already). There is no reason to have a redirect that you can't see. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is a reason to have redirects from single invisible characters: though they can’t be seen, they can be copied and pasted into the search box by people who want to know about them. Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. Gorobay (talk) 17:13, 26 April 2016 (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.
Incels
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. Although there's an even split of opinions between keep and delete, the general consensus is that wikt:incel is the only item that uses the plural form "incels". This topic affinity means that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (4th nomination) is a binding precedent for this discussion. In the lack of an overwhelming consensus for any particular course of action here, the decision at AfD is taken as a guide and I'm deleting this redirect by implication of the AfD outcome. Deryck C. 11:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
None of the disambiguated subjects at Incel takes an -S to pluralize (all three are proper nouns). This page was deleted at AfD. I thought there was at least one page that mentioned it that could make sense to redirect to, but I couldn't find any. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 13:42, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Harmless. The Wiktionary entry, linked from the disambiguation page, can be plural. SSTflyer 01:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the only possible plural, it might make more sense to retarget to wikt:incels then. --Tavix(talk) 01:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Harmless isn't a very good keep rationale. A redirect from asdfafadfasdfadfasdfadf to Cat is also harmless, but isn't the point of a redirect. I would also argue that it's not harmless, as someone searching for "Incels" will almost invariably not be looking for one of the subjects we disambiguate between -- and that one item that takes a -s on Wiktionary is specifically what we've deleted and salted to keep off Wikipedia. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 00:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I believe it's the case that the term "incels" pretty much exclusively refers to "people that claim to have a particular kind of sexual dysfunction", and we don't have an article specifically on that for good reason as per the past AfDs. To be honest, I'm not really comfortable with going to wikt:incels either since even the use of the term there is questionable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per SSTF, WP:CHEAP the wiktionary pointer would use it correctly for the plural form. Tag as ((R from plural)) -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 07:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Breaking down the idea of a [soft] redirect to Wiktionary.
The only pluralizable "Incel(s)" is the one on Wiktionary.
That "Incel(s)" definition on Wiktionary is the abbreviation for "Involuntary celibacy" (member of the community of people who identify using that term)
The fourth and final AfD was closed by a panel of three uninvolved admins as "delete and salt" -- no redirect, no merge.
If Wiktionary wants it, that's not my concern, but taking the unsalted version of the page on Wikipedia and redirecting it to the very subject there was consensus to delete and salt undermines that decision. Wiktionary can have it because their inclusion criteria and processes are different from ours -- and that's also why existing on Wiktionary isn't an automatic soft redirect here. Given this context, arguments based on "redirects are cheap" or "harmless" are insufficient. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 16:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't undermine that decision - the question there was whether it's something that an article can be written about and not just a dictionary definition. Peter James (talk) 20:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is. The controversies over "involuntary celibacy" make that an irrelevant discussion here. The disambiguation page is the least-bad target and while it would be unusual to refer to one of those in plural format, it's plausible - if not deliberately then at least as an error. The redirect to the disambiguation page includes those plus the Wiktionary entry. And by the way, "harmless" is a very good reason to keep a redirect as long as it does not create confusion for our readers. If someone took the time to create a non-harmful redirect, we should assume good faith that at least they found it helpful. The bar for redirects is intentionally quite low. Rossami(talk) 05:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Godsy(TALKCONT) 00:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even if it doesn't make sense for a person to pluralise any of the current disambig targets, someone might nonetheless do so by accident. Pluralising something which doesn't take a plural (e.g. a proper noun) is the kind of error which a person could conceivably make, so it is harmless in a sense in which redirecting asdfafadfasdfadfasdfadf to Cat is not (totally arbitrary redirects are harmless, but keeping this redirect is not totally arbitrary.) SJK (talk) 11:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer to keep primarily because there are three pluralized links in the former dab page: first the interwiki link already mentioned above, second, under a link in a discussion page on the talk page, and third, in at least one interlingual page. Ninefive6 (talk) 06:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. And I'm calling out this charade. We know damn well someone who searches for "Incels" is looking for the subculture that was deleted at AfD. For better or worse, we don't cover that topic. Let's at least own up to it and be straightforward. Don't tease readers with a runaround to a dictionary entry. --BDD (talk) 19:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In case there was any doubt that this is an attempt to subvert the delete/salt consensus of the last involuntary celibacy afd, the same user who created this subsequently created redirects for Involuntary celibate and Love-shy (which had not been salted, and which were speedy deleted). — Rhododendritestalk \\ 19:55, 9 May 2016 (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.