Talk:Jailbait (disambiguation)

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 12:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jailbait (disambiguation) → Jailbait – There is nothing really to say about this slang for underage women which isn't said in the sentence which begins this page, but for whatever reason people keep trying to put subjects related to this on the unqualified page. There's no need for a separate disambiguation page. Mangoe (talk) 12:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Our current article on "Jailbait" isn't a model of great scholarship, but it is a start. Certainly, there is room for expansion to cover feminist critique of the concept and its sociological implications. I disagree with the assertion that one sentence can accurately summarize the concept, and I do believe that the concept is the PRIMARYTOPIC as against the songs and films listed at the disambiguation page, all of which are named after it. Xoloz (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Xoloz and others, see Talk:Jailbait#reducing to redirect for the main discussion about the Jailbait article content. A WP:Permalink (in the case of that section being archived) is here. For reasons I stated there, I oppose the disambiguation move. Flyer22 (talk) 16:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose RM shouldn't be used to accomplish AFD. In fact Talk:Jailbait#reducing to redirect shouldn't be used to accomplish AFD either. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:NOTDICT. The Ed Wood film alone is more encyclopedically notable than the word. Ideally the article on the word should be deleted/redirected per WP:DICDEF. There doesn't appear to be any content in it that is uniquely about "jailbait", i.e. not about age of consent or other terms. — AjaxSmack 02:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AjaxSmack, keep in mind that, as noted at Talk:Jailbait#reducing to redirect, the article was previously not simply a dictionary entry (it goes beyond a typical dictionary entry on the term either way). Some of its content is currently at the Age of consent article, and the aforementioned discussion is debating that as well. I also agree with Xoloz that "slang for a minor who is younger than the age of consent for sexual activity, with the implication that an older person might find him or her sexually attractive" is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term jailbait, which is also why that definition is currently first at the top of the Jailbait (disambiguation) page. Flyer22 (talk) 03:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"That definition is currently first at the top of the Jailbait (disambiguation) page" because an editor put it there, not because it magically percolated up the list on its own. I agree that it is the primary dictionary meaning but not that it is the most encyclopedically notable topic of that name (cf. glamour, Nice, me). I reviewed the previous iteration article and there is still no source cited that uses jailbait as anything more than a definition. The "Images" section seems to actually cover an encyclopedic concept but the text should probably be at jailbait images as it diverges a bit from the "article". Other than that was and is nothing in the article that shows that "jailbait" is anything other than an alternative term for "a person who is younger than the legal age of consent" and the one line etymology does not make the word itself notable. — AjaxSmack 01:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AjaxSmack, I saw your reply to me a little after you made it, but I became busy and then sleepy and so I put off replying until now. Anyway, given what the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is, as we both agree, the editor who put that definition at the top of the Jailbait (disambiguation) page was right to do so. As for whether or not there should be a Jailbait images article, I already commented on that at the Jailbait talk page. To summarize my opinion on the matter, the Jailbait article can be expanded to cover more than just its definition, as is seen with the jailbait images topic, and it's acceptable that the jailbait images topic be covered in the Jailbait article. I don't see how a Jailbait images article can exist without first explaining what jailbait is and the legal issues regarding it. Sure, a Jailbait images article could do that, but then that would still (essentially) be the Jailbait article. Flyer22 (talk) 15:00, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article "jailbait images" are not merely images of jailbait, i.e. persons under the age of consent. It is a different and specific concept that can be treated separately just as lithia water does not require and article on lithia. As far as your contention that "the Jailbait article can be expanded to cover more than just its definition", by all means proceed but until then, it's just crystal ball gazing. I would settle for a single source that treats "jailbait" as an encyclopedic concept (not just a definition) and not a synonym for person under the age of consent. — AjaxSmack 03:08, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "'jailbait images' are not merely images of jailbait, i.e. persons under the age of consent." If you mean that the topic also covers people under the age of majority, that it's not always an age of consent matter, then so does the topic of "jailbait." I don't see this matter as similar to lithia and lithia water. And even if I did, the Lithia water article explains what is meant by "lithia," as it should. Similarly, if one wants someone to understand the topic of jailbait images, that person must first explain what jailbait is. I never stated that the jailbait images topic cannot have a Wikipedia article of its own, but I highly doubt that the topic can be expanded much beyond a stub and is as encyclopedic as you are making it out to be. I am certain that if that article is created, it will eventually either be nominated for WP:Deletion or proposed for a WP:Merge with the Jailbait article (if that still exists at the time) or with the Age of consent article (though that article currently covers this topic). I don't see my suggestion of expansion for the Jailbait article as WP:CRYSTALBALL matter, considering that I am not speaking of whether or not it can be expanded after WP:Reliable sources cover it in an encyclopedic manner; I am speaking of the fact that it can be expanded now because WP:Reliable sources already cover it in such a manner. To split the jailbait images topic from the Jailbait article so that the there is a Jailbait images article is an unnecessary use of WP:Split, in my opinion, for the reasons I stated on the Jailbait talk page and above. Even if it's decided via WP:Consensus that the jailbait images topic should be covered at a different Wikipedia article, a summary of it should be in the Jailbait article, per WP:Summary style. Flyer22 (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural oppose you cannot overwrite an article through RM, you need to either move the article elsewhere, or go through AfD for deletion first. This seems to be deletion through the incorrect process. Wikipedia has a specific deletion process that deals with issues that the nominator's rationale uses, which is not the same as using it to support renaming article, which is not possible, as WP:RM is not a deletion process, and those points are not relevant to renaming the page. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:21, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No, "you cannot overwrite an article through RM" but you can argue that an article with marginal to no encyclopedic notability is not primary vis-à-vis the other articles on the dab page. — AjaxSmack 01:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - The proposal as it stands does not encourage a move of the article that currently is using the proposed pagename. There's no suggestion it should be moved. Moving the other page does not appear as part of the nomination, but then the other article will need to be moved under the conditions you describe. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:11, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as per my comments on the talk page for Jailbait, which for whatever reason User:Mangoe did not reply to. Other editors please note, Mangoe boldly removed about half the content from the article before requesting it be moved. This is what the accepted version of the article looked like before his bold edit and move request. [1] Freikorp (talk) 05:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.