Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 February 5

Also nominating Traditional marriage which currently also redirects to Marriage. These are protected redirects, thanks to the repeated creation of the deleted Traditional Marriage (AfD) article. That article was a content fork of Marriage. The issue for discussion is not so much deletion as whether the target of Marriage is more or less appropriate than the target of Traditional marriage movement or possibly Same-sex marriage (specifically, one of the sections talking about controversy or opposition). Due to some discussion on the two redirect talk pages, I fell it's best to bring this to a forum where the community at large can comment instead of having a fractured debate. Based on a quick google search, the term "traditional marriage" has definite connotations against same-sex marriage. I still favor Marriage as a target, because the "movement" doesn't really exist as any kind of organized thing, it's rather a media term that is used occasionally to refer to groups opposed to same-sex marriage. Mangojuice^talk 21:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prior commentary at Talk:Traditional_marriage incorporated here by reference. Sdsds 00:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Traditional marriage movement - Although I would argue that the name is highly highly inaccurate, a person typing this in is likely looking for the movement, or at the least something specific to its agenda rather than the info in the general marriage article. For those that are not, it is clear and easy to jump from the TMM article to marriage. Though this is my preference, I should note that I certainly see how either could work, and I would have no serious objection to it either way. --John Kenneth Fisher 23:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Traditional marriage movement, per John Kenneth Fisher and as the admin who originally changed the target of the protected redirect. Keeping the present target preserves the POV nature of the original fork given the term's connotations. --Coredesat 23:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Traditional marriage movement - In response to the assertion above that this is a "media term" only, please note, as shown in the article referenced at Traditional_marriage_movement#_note-0, that this is a self-descriptive term, not a media term. That is, they call themselves a movement, so ipso facto we should assume they are, until proven otherwise. Sdsds 00:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Traditional marriage movement per above. To echo John Kenneth Fisher, this is what someone's going to be looking for if they type this in. delldot | talk 03:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Heterosexual marriage. If there can be a same-sex marriage article, then why shouldn't there be a heterosexual marriage article? Polygamy has its own article. Perhaps the Traditional marriage movement article should be merged into the heterosexual marriage article. There'd certainly be less warring, infighting, etc. with the umbrella marriage article. As I understand it now, there is a marriage category which implies there are probably many forks. ZueJay^talk 03:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are proposing forking the marriage article. This is not the right place for that, it should be at Talk:Marriage. —Dgies^t c 06:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have, since my posting here, mentioned it on Talk:Marriage. I was subsequently informed that that action has all ready been attempted and 'knocked down'. In which case I should now say Redirect to Traditional marriage movement. Thanks for reminding me to add a note here regarding this. ZueJay^talk 06:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does not appear in the target article except while the unsourced section is present, contrary to WP:RS and the invisble text in the target article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As I said before, the term "wet willy" *should* appear in the target article and does quite often in between its removal. --- RockMFR 05:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Find a reference, then. As far as I can tell, there has never been a reference in Wet willy or in School prank. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment wet willy used to redirect to wet willie which, until the last edit, was a disambig between the prank and a band. --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 11:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per the page histories, wet willy never redirected to wet willie and wet willie was never a disambig. Are you perhaps thinking of Wet Willy & Wet Willie? -- JLaTondre 05:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - While you need RS for statements in articles, redirects are also an aid for common search terms. Since there are 85,000 Ghits I think this is common enough to merit a redirect. —Dgies^t c 17:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is not only offensive but also implies it is a part of the "Wikipedia:" namespace. Delete. — coelacan talk — 06:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. This redirect doesn't even make any sense. Stebbins 14:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as R2 (redirect from article space to user space). I have tagged it. Gavia immer (u|t) 17:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect used to be useful in that Gough's Cave is covered in the Cheddar Gorge and Caves article however there is now a article specifically on this cave at Gough’s Cave— Rod ^talk 13:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The redirect has already been retargeted – not by me – to Gough's Cave (only difference is the punctuation style), so there's probably no need for further discussion of this. Gavia immer (u|t) 17:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep now that it's been re-redirected --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 11:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect was created fresh, but there's nothing in the target article to explain it — no mention of the term at all. It seems to be some sort of attack on the target (to which the redirect creator hasn't contributed). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as attack – Qxz 18:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Uhhhh... delete. This is probably some joke in the show. If so, and the joke is mentioned in the article, the redirect can be recreated. Until then, WTFberries? delldot | talk 20:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's more than likely not an attack as this joke was probably used in the series, but it's still not a viable search term. --Coredesat 23:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's not an attack, it is a word that has been used in the series a few times. However, it isn't used frequently enough to merit a mention in the article, let alone a redirect. Stebbins 03:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]