to Enclosure (disambiguation). The relevant articles are listed there and it is being tagged as {{tl|R from ambiguous term}}. -- Tavix (talk) 03:34, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
- {{no redirect|1 = Animal enclosure }} → :Cage (enclosure) (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Animal_enclosure&action=history history] · [https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews?start=2017-08-31&end=2017-09-29&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Animal_enclosure stats]) [ Closure: {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|(@subpage)|[{{fullurl:Animal enclosure|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Animal enclosure closed as keep}}}} keep]/[{{fullurl:Animal enclosure|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Animal enclosure closed as retarget}}}} retarget]/[{{fullurl:Animal enclosure|action=delete&wpReason={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Animal enclosure closed as delete}}&wpMovetalk=1}} delete]}} ]
G5ed while under discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_September_28#Animal_enclosure , now recreated.
A cage is only one of numerous ways to enclose an animal. We don't need a dab or link the term, or waste more time cleaning up after this dictdef / non dab / non issue. A target is hard as they're all specific ways to enclose. e.g. Pen (enclosure) . Animal is broad, enclosure too. A list of enclosures is a maybe. We don't have such a list. To illustrate, a broadconcept How to enclose an animal is HOWTO flawed, Human enclosure shouldn't redir to house, keeping ants in a cage or pen is hard. Widefox; talk 12:22, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
:::User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) Seems we already have :Category:Buildings and structures used to confine animals. I've just put that in the enclosure dab. Can we rid ourselves of this now, as we have it covered IMHO, and this dictdef disruption (of the blocked editor) is still giving. Widefox; talk 08:36, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
::::Do we ever target redirect to a category? Category:Buildings and structures used to confine animals does seem the choice with the most options. --RAN (talk) 12:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
:::::Not that I know of, no. I seem to have misled you to think I was proposing that, I wasn't. I did however, do the highly unusual/wrong thing of putting that category in the dab Enclosure (disambiguation), basically because it illustrates the issue here, and I'm going beyond what I know can/should be done. If anyone removed it, I'd consider it normal. Widefox; talk 01:16, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
::::::{{replyto|Widefox|Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )}} redirects to categories do exist and are fine when the category is a reader-facing one, e.g. Cancer organizations redirects to :Category:Cancer organizations. Thryduulf (talk) 13:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
:::::::{{replyto|Thryduulf}} I don't think (you or) anyone here is proposing redirecting the singular Animal enclosure to :Category:Buildings and structures used to confine animals ? I must also note that "enclosure" also has a duality of structure and land (the land enclosed) as shown at the dab, with at least some of the animal dab entries should fall into both section names which, of course, isn't possible as they can only be in one section. That is possible with categories (i.e. tags). Widefox; talk 14:25, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
::::::::I'm not proposing to retarget this to the category, just correcting your apparent misapprehension that redirecting article space pages to categories is never done. Thryduulf (talk) 14:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::Thryduulf It's nice to hear it's done, thanks, but it is a straw man that I claimed it is never done, I didn't. My point being it isn't relevant for this RfD, and I had to clarify that I'm not proposing it, and you aren't either. Widefox; talk 23:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. The target article should probably be deleted; there's no reason to have a redirect point to it. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
::I started an RM to make this target the broadconcept primary topic. If that goes ahead or not, this redirect still doesn't fit. Widefox; talk 21:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. It's rather vague and may be a common enough word like container to not require linking. Are you planning on linking this from some articles? Thera are also aquarium enclosures [https://www.dasaquariums.com/products/freshwater-fish-enclosure?variant=741877163] so should tanks be added? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
- Comment there's emerging consensus to expand Cage (enclosure) into a broad concept primary topic and move to Cage. It's already changed to be broader than just animal cages. This makes it slightly
better less bad as a redirect target for this, but a cage is only one of many enclosures it's a solution still looking for a problem. The cat :Category:Buildings and structures used to confine animals shows just how overly narrow it is to link to any single article or dab due to the handfulls of entries. Widefox; talk 12:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Weak Keep but perhaps Retarget to enclosure (disambiguation): I suspect this may have been a redirect left behind after a move, but even if it wasn't, redirects are cheap and though it is targeted to a too-narrow topic, it could be retargeted to a better one. Montanabw(talk) 15:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
::It was created by a blocked editor who's latest sock made 4K edits of such disruption. It was CSD G5'ed. Then it was recreated by legit means. The problem is that this edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enclosure_(disambiguation)&diff=803610768&oldid=802930459] has an entry without a link "*Animal enclosures, including", which by this proposal would turn into an incoming link. I've just cleaned that dab, and I would either link that Animal enclosure entry or remove it. It's a selflink, as...it's a dict def best CSDed, not in use, no history. Widefox; talk 08:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
:::User:Montanabw targeting the dab is incorrect (per below). If you see the number of entries we have in the category (above), how does linking to any one help readers? Widefox; talk 01:07, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
- Keep and redirect to Cage per Widefox. This might have to be reconsidered if the Cage (enclosure) AfD goes sideways. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
::User:Bri - my comment wasn't clear - a cage broadconcept is still a bad target. The disruption from the indeffed editor was time consuming to fix as they're based on dictionary/encyclopaedia conflation. per Widefox is still delete. Only the cat (above) or a broadconcept (we don't have) can handle this. Widefox; talk 08:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Enclosure (disambiguation) is fine for me, a better target. Good thinking. We should always be looking for the optimal target, rather than deletion. --RAN (talk) 12:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
:::Comment - note to closer: Invalid per guideline (asking for more opinions at dab project) RAN Except targeting a dab would just be an error {{tq|Links to disambiguation pages from mainspace are typically errors}} WP:INTDABLINK. (and this is also not a valid incomplete dab per WP:INCDAB). We should just close this delete now (or wait for more opinions), rather than agree to a direct inversion of guideline just to prevent deletion, and then let everyone realise that, and CSD it. It's gone full circle now, as it has no good target and the logic for keeping it, as you correctly say, is for keeping it. Widefox; talk 01:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
::::{{replyto|Widefox}} redirects to disambiguation pages are not invalid. While most links to them from the article space are in error, they are useful for people searching for ambiguous phrases - see for example :Category:Redirects from incomplete disambiguations and :Category:Redirects from ambiguous terms. Thryduulf (talk) 13:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
:::::{{replyto|Thryduulf}} correct as I said above - we do this for WP:INCDAB and this one is not a valid one like the example INCDAB {{tq|Aurora (album) could redirect as follows ... #REDIRECT Aurora (disambiguation)#Albums}} (emphasis own). Enclosure (animal) would be, but we have no ambiguous titles called "Enclosure" so no (also, as I said, the category link in the dab may go at any time as it's for illustration of this, but if the entry stays in the dab I guess it should move to the See also, I don't have examples of dabs with cat links and there's little discussion on INCDAB that I can quickly see). This is much effort for one out of 4K CSD-G5-able blocked sock edits! consensus at ANI was cleanup last time took a long time, and consensus was to G5 and mass rollback them including this. There's no history or usage, it's blocked sock cleanup (that's been recreated). Widefox; talk 14:25, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
::::::I can't make head-nor-tail of most of that, but look at the categories for hundreds if not thousands of examples of ambiguous terms redirecting to correctly redirecting to disambiguation pages, both with and without parentheticals. The redirect was created by a user in good standing, so that a previous version was deleted per G5 is completely irrelevant (unless you are alleging RAN is a puppet of the original creator?). Thryduulf (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
:::::::{{replyto|Thryduulf}} (tweaked my quick reply above - that better?) The blocked sock also created mass disruptive/WP:PTM entries at the dab which you propose targeting (below), so relevant in this discussion at both ends of the redirect, yes. The animal entries now don't exist to target. I've tried to differentiate the original blocked sock creation from the RAN recreation. If that's not clear, it's not from attempts at trying. I don't think it's helpful to link RAN and the sock as a serious question, is it? This is normal cleanup work. G5 was correct, ANI decided mass rollback of the 4K blocked sock edit disruption was right, and editors here have asked for the history of the deleted redirect, so providing those facts from the person that G5ed it seems helpful (non-admins cannot see the deleted history). I asked for more opinions on the category link at the dab project. Widefox; talk 02:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Delete Similar to AngusWOOF, I think it's overly broad, can mean cage, pen, zoo, preserve, et cetera.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:26, 5 October 2017 (UTC)- Question - sorry I'm late to the party, but was Animal enclosure always a redirect or was it a stub? As was already mentioned, an animal enclosure can mean many things, so there is a vast difference between a cage and an "animal enclosure". For example, a 2 acre horse paddock is an animal enclosure as is a 2,000 acre high-fenced area containing exotic animals. An airconditioned building with individual fenced-in areas for dogs is an animal enclosure. Cage just sounds so...uhm...harsh. If it was a stub and just needed expansion, I can fix that problem. If it's not, then my position is DELETE the redirect. Atsme📞📧 16:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
::{{re|Atsme}} "Animal enclosure" was never a stub. It was created as a disambiguation by an {{u|Fmadd}} sock on September 23rd, then redirected before being deleted per WP:G5. RAN subsequently recreated it as a redirect to Cage (enclosure). -- Tavix (talk) 17:11, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
:::It's new, it was never a stub. I G5ed it and it should have stayed usefully not there. It's misleading to assume they mean a cage, it's erroneous not helpful to target a dab (as there's no valid links in the dab). There's nowhere good. Widefox; talk 17:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Animal cage redir was newly created and covers this correctly, unlike this one. Widefox; talk 18:19, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
::::Well, as long as it doesn't get confused with [https://thetalkingpot.wordpress.com/tag/sex-kittens/ these kinds of cages]. {{FBDB}} Atsme📞📧 18:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
::{{replyto|Thryduulf}} bad target, not INCDAB or useful links at the dab 1. the animal enclosure entries aren't proper dab entries as they're more in the category "Enclosures" and WP:PTM so we shouldn't count on them staying there (it was my illustrative example section to see how it looked, that's all, and it's bad) 2. dab entries are for articles not categories (and I've included it for illustrating this, as I discuss above). Widefox; talk 14:25, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
:::{{replyto|Widefox}} The term "animal enclosure" is (a) a plausible search term and (b) ambiguous, so it needs to be either a disambiguation page or a redirect to an existing disambiguation page. We have an existing page that disambiguates different types of enclosures so this is a perfect match. If style guidelines say that articles and categories about enclosures do not belong on enclosure (disambiguation) then the style guidelines need changing or ignoring because they are clearly harming the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 14:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
::::{{replyto|Thryduulf}} Only 1. dab or 2. redir to dab is a false dichotomy. In terms of OTHERSTUFF, I just deprodded Cat enclosure [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cat_enclosure&diff=804381360&oldid=803965505], so clearly there's valid opinions that deletion is OK too (not that I agreed with that one). AFAIK, the cleanup of these redirects left by the blocked sock were all G5ed, as they were timeconsuming to go through last time. Both "animal" and "enclosure" are broad, dab pages are for titles not search per WP:D {{tq|Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts that arise when a potential article title is ambiguous}} ... {{tq|A disambiguation page is not a search index}} There is no single article title ambiguous with "enclosure" for valid inclusion in the context of animal, it's more a category. e.g. Cat enclosure is a WP:PTM that shouldn't be on the dab. It seems more like a category (which we have) or a list (don't have). Sending readers to invalid entries on a dab is far from "perfect", no. If this was a long-standing redirect, or keeping something working that's one thing, but it's newly recreated, and tantalisingly seemingly useful. It isn't though. I concede I'm no expert on redirects to dabs, but readers won't be getting a list of animal enclosures. I'll put in a note at the dab project for more opinions on the inclusion of the category link, the dab Enclosure (disambiguation) (which I got a barnstar for fixing the mess there - see before when the dab and this redirect were edited by the blocked sock [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enclosure_(disambiguation)&oldid=802808204]), and this redirect. Widefox; talk 10:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
::::{{replyto|Thryduulf}} As I suspected after trying that animal section at the dab, I've moved the category link at the dab to the see also, and removed those WP:PTM enclosure entries so there's no valid entries for an animal section. Those entries were not in the dab before the recent blocked sock [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enclosure_(disambiguation)&oldid=782905903]. Does that clarify? More opinions on the validity of such redirects to dabs in general (with a link back to this one in particular) are welcome at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation#Redirects_to_dab_pages which may be a better venue to discuss your suspicion (and any evidence for) normal cleanup work harming the project. Widefox; talk 02:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 04:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
:::::I've undone my edit to add the category link in the dab after the discussion at the dab project. Widefox; talk 12:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
::ZXCVBNM which links can they then use at that target? Widefox; talk 11:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Widefox}} Right now, nothing, but cage could be added to the disambiguation under "structures" as well as zoo, which contains enclosures for animals. Or, I also agree with Thyrrdulf that there could be an "animal containment" section to the disambiguation. Either way, it's obviously a plausible search term. Ever since its creation pageviews have numbered in the dozens.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:43, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Zxcvbnm}} So none right? cage isn't in the dab, no. zoo also isn't. If we want readers to navigate to those, then redirecting to the dab does not do it. Redirects don't decide what's on the dab, that's tail wagging the dog for this RfD. Those weren't on the dab before the blocked sock disrupted it [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enclosure_(disambiguation)&oldid=782905903]. Now I've cleaned up the dab, they're not there as they're not valid. I tried an "animal containment" section (itself an unusual section name) and it was an experiment I've undone. There's many such general terms that don't redirect: Plant container doesn't redirect to Container (disambiguation). Container (disambiguation) doesn't list all containers, as they're WP:PTM / not bolded synonyms / examples of the broad concept / a category. Plant enclosure too. Enclosure has no broad concept article. If there's many views, we're confusing many readers! It's an argument not to relist but delete before we confuse more readers. Widefox; talk 08:54, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
- Update After limited discussion at the dab project about the general case of the validity of this type of redirect and category link in dabs (with this being the example), I've undone my addition of the category link in the dab. Both proposed targets have been fixed Cage (now moved, and a broadconcept not just about animal cages) and Enclosure (disambiguation) (has been cleaned up). Both aren't helpful targets for this overly general term with nowhere useful to target after an exhaustive attempt. Widefox; talk 12:49, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
- Retarget to Enclosure (disambiguation)#Animal containment. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 07:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
:: SMcCandlish that target doesn't exist. Widefox; talk 13:35, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
::: I think it's obvious he means that there should be a section created there for it. Please stop questioning literally every vote against your side of the argument, and assuming people have not read and understood both sides of the argument. Writing an essay as to why every vote besides yours is "wrong" is disruptive and just makes your stance look more flimsy.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 09:05, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
:::: Yes, thanks. I apologise for BLUDGEONing (to highlight policy/guidelines/norms which I don't consider disruptive, no), so this is my last comment. My point is that section does not exist, and the right venue to discuss the dab is there (or WT:WPDIS#Redirects to dab pages). Proposing something here dependent on something rejected elsewhere is folly. e.g. Computer (disambiguation) does not list instances of computers. Widefox; talk 12:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
