Talk:Transracial

This article was nominated for deletion on 14 June 2015. The result of the discussion was keep.

cleanup according to WP:MOSDAB

The problem is that this is an adjective, so more for wiktionary than WP. WP:NEO aside, it results in WP:PTMs:

Racial transformation, of a region (not in article per WP:DABMENTION)
Racial transformation (individual), of a person's appearance (a WP:NEO)
Transracial adoption, placing a child of one racial or ethnic group with adoptive parents of another racial or ethnic group (possible WP:PTM per above)

Widefox; talk 14:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tadeusz Nowak, if you see above, the rational is that entries failing WP:PTM have been placed in a see also section (as valid entries there). They may in fact be valid as synonyms but the articles don't define the term yet per WP:MOSDAB (alternative titles) / or WP:DABMENTION . I've marked for cleanup to gather more opinions as the other two entries may be valid and just need the synonym / MENTION listed in the articles. Those two entries are nothing to do with the NEO term and entry. I marked for cleanup so these issues can be checked, and my analysis of each entry placed in what I consider the correct section. Instead, you've edit warred as you've alleged (and refused to justify - WP:AGF) that's this is some NEO pushing conspiracy. Widefox; talk 22:14, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You placed the only established meaning of this word in a "see also" section, which is absurd, contrary to MOS and which appears to grossly promote the controversial hoax article currently subject to an AfD. I think this page should be deleted or redirected to transracial adoption. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Evaluation of each of the entries is (above) against the MOS (WP:MOSDAB), so which MOS are you referring to in "contrary to MOS" ? Widefox; talk 22:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Valid entries in the See also

Valid per WP:FURTHERDAB WP:INTDABLINK

Interracial (disambiguation)
Passing (racial identity), a person classified as a member of one racial group is also accepted as a member of a different racial group

Wikt:transracial lists the related word interracial. User:Haminoon care to explain why you've removed them? [1] Widefox; talk 23:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary isn't a reliable source and that particular relation was only added yesterday with no citation. I don't see how either of those two concepts relate to the word "transracial". -- haminoon (talk) 23:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dabs aren't articles, they don't need RS. Common sense indicates a relationship (e.g. "transnational" vs "international" company), and how do you explain the entry Transracial adoption redirecting to Interracial adoption? Widefox; talk 00:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the vaguely valid entry for the see also:

Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study

Widefox; talk 00:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haminoon not sure if you've seen the above? The dab actually has few viewers being sharply down from the peak at ~1.5k /day. Considering the level of scrutiny the entries were getting, and vigor for deleting them, some closure on this seems appropriate. Widefox; talk 02:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I see your points now. Objection withdrawn. -- haminoon (talk) 03:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed dab

Transracial may refer to:

Transracial adoption, placing a child of one racial or ethnic group with adoptive parents of another racial or ethnic group
Racial transformation (individual), of a person's appearance
Transracial Transformation, of a region

Removing valid entries

The Anome These two are valid entries per WP:MOSDAB so should be included here until the articles are deleted [2]. The AfDs are not obviously SNOW or speedie deletions, else speedie them first, and then remove them here. Hiding valid entries during the AfDs seems counterproductive to the process. The dab should remain just a navigation aid, and not an extension of the AfDs/content disputes. I will leave to you to consider self-reverting. In the meantime, it's still marked as needing cleanup due to the possible lack of legitimacy of those two articles (irrespective of including them or not). Widefox; talk 00:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Anome the first AfD has been closed no consensus so I restored both entries. I only didn't restore before because it seemed pointy given my bet of a delete outcome. It's held up another addition that I've now added. (in fact there's few readers/editors anyhow - see above) Widefox; talk 08:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Dolezal

Related to the entry Transracial identity which is presumably soon to be deleted and then removed here, opinions on including the entry, and which wording to use if deemed useful per WP:DABMENTION:

"Transracial", a term sometimes used in discussing Rachel Dolezal

Widefox; talk 01:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We should keep it to one Rachel Dolezal link, so either Rachel Dolezal or Transracial Identity. TBH this DAB seems a little over padded as it is without inflating the number of entries further. Artw (talk) 02:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Transracial identity is a valid entry per WP:MOSDAB (until it is deleted)

"Transracial" ...in... Rachel Dolezal is a valid entry per WP:MOSDAB

The two factions 1. promoting the NEO article and 2. countering it should only consider WP:MOSDAB to decide what to include here. A dab is just for navigation, not extending content disputes or saving WP from NEOs. If it's such an obvious NEO, WP:BOLD and speedie it, until then refrain from disrupting by assuming one editor can subvert normal process. I've asked for full protection. Widefox; talk 02:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at the current state of Transracial identity, the topic is the same NEO topic as in Rachel Dolezal. So, per WP:DABMENTION, while Transracial identity exists, I agree with Artw that we shouldn't also have an entry to Rachel Dolezal. I initially sub-listed the entry, but it didn't look right, so the current arrangement with no entry to Transracial identity is good iff readers can navigate to Transracial identity from Rachel Dolezal (essentially it's currently the wrong way around, but after the NEO deletion this way around will be correct). Widefox; talk 10:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, since there's now consensus I've removed the Rachel Dolezal entry. I didn't want to do it over the protection as I was involved earlier, but if everyone's agreed then that's all good. Black Kite (talk) 10:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ho hum...round again...Black Kite let me clarify I agree with Artw to just have one link to the topic. In the long-term the DABMENTION entry linking to Rachel Dolezal seems most appropriate (as I'm betting the NEO article will be deleted, so no more edit ping-pong here required). Your removal is not that agreement the two of us have. Please can you revert (I asked for protection for exactly this reason that experienced editors are forgetting this dab is neutral and just tracks the current articles however crap they are / nothing to see here). Regards Widefox; talk 13:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Done This edit to a fully protected page is controvercial [3] so per WP:PREFER should be reverted. Widefox; talk 13:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I misunderstood. I'll revert it in a second. You said above "So, per WP:DABMENTION, while Transracial identity exists, I agree with Artw that we shouldn't also have an entry to Rachel Dolezal". So are you saying you were agreeing that a link to Transracial identity is better? If so I'm quite happy to change it to that instead. Black Kite (talk) 13:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NP...

In theory Yes that's exactly it - a link to the topic is better - the topic at Transracial identity appears (difficult to say as there's no definition in the lede) to be the same topic as WP:DABMENTIONed in Rachel Dolezal. As the usage of the term in Rachel Dolezal is predominantly in quotes, we can't link from there to the topic. So I've added it there as a See also item for navigation.
In practice All this edit warring is just a mess. I'm looking into my crystal ball and the NEO article Transracial identity has been deleted and the dab as of now is correct. I'm not feeling like trying to track the articles here as closely as I was proposing above, and now that it's fully protected there's no urgency to do a temp fix, and then unfix it. Some cooling off is the right thing right now. Widefox; talk 14:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Post AfD

Now that the AfD on Transracial Identity has ended pretty much as expected I suppose we should look at whether we need the remaining link to Rachel Dolezal. Given that her 15 minutes of fame seems to be very much up and she was only using the term "transracial" for half a morning I would suggest retiring that link too. Artw (talk) 15:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a valid entry per WP:DABMENTION, being a reasonably likely term for readers to use to find her article per WP:MOSDAB. The issue of 15 minutes of fame is a red herring due to notability is not temporary for the BLP article WP:NOT#NEWS / WP:BLP1E. That is a consideration for the article not here, so is WP:OFFTOPIC here. WP:NEO is for usage in the article (again offtopic here, but is sourced, and while included in the article is valid here. Period. WP:DABMENTION has no guidance for neologisms. Disambiguation is not about notability just navigation. A content objection is offtopic here - take it up in the article, rather than all this disruption here. Widefox; talk 07:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]