Talk:Tween (disambiguation)

Inappropriate image

Do people think it appropriate to have an (arguably) sexually provocative image on a young girl on a page about 8-12 year olds? I have removed it. BernardSumption 09:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Reverting of changes

I reverted the changes made by Johndburger (talk · contribs). There was not enough room to explain in the edit summary, so I am explaining here.

1. A link to preteen is important as long as both articles (Tween (demographics) and preteen) exist.
2. "Tween" is not the name of a specific hobbit, it is a description of a phase of the hobbit lifespan.
3. The link to the jargon file is appropriate in the absence of an article on the subject. The text alone provides insufficient context to understand the meaning.

-- Powers 12:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Requested move 27 March 2015

The following is a closed 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: Move. Cúchullain ^t/c 20:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

---

Tween → Tween (disambiguation) – It seems clear to me that Preadolescence is primary topic. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 14:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support of course per nom Red Slash 04:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Note--tweens should also redirect there (it currently redirects here) Red Slash 20:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Oiyarbepsy and Red Slash, I don't understand this WP:Requested move. There is no Tween article (Oiyarbepsy merged the Tween (demographic) article into the Preadolescence article); therefore, there is no need for the Tween title to be disambiguated. Flyer22 (talk) 04:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

In other words, WP:Disambiguation is clear. If there was a Tween article, it would get the un-disambiguated Tween title, unless merged into the Preadolescence article, and the other tween matters would be covered at Tween (disambiguation). But in this case, there is no companion piece to Tween (disambiguation), so we would be unnecessarily disambiguating. Flyer22 (talk) 04:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@Flyer22:After the rename, Tween would become a redirect to Preadolescence. Sorry, I should have mentioned that up-front. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 14:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I mean, WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT exists... Red Slash 20:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Oiyarbepsy and Red Slash, I see; I have therefore struck my oppose vote above; I now support the move. Flyer22 (talk) 00:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support, overwhelming primary redirect topic. bd2412 T 16:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - no evidence presented at all that tween as a reference to "preadolescence" is primary. I haven't even heard of that usage, and in any case Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang. I think of either the tweenies (CBeebies) characters, or the Hobbit term. Readers are best served by a disambig here.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Rather amusing that you say we provide no evidence and then simply state you've never heard of it. For evidence, I'll start with the really easy one: https://www.google.com/search?q=tween - Google search, an entire first page that is almost entirely about kids between 10-14, an a single entry on a software animation program. Similar results for later pages, mostly preadolesence, an occasional reference to animation. CBeebies and Hobbits don't even register, aside from the mention in our own article on preadolescence. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 19:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

See WP:BUTIDONTKNOWABOUTIT Red Slash 04:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

---

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.

See also

There's probably room for a great deal of refactoring among articles and redirects related to this topic... preteen and tween particularly. But for now and until that occurs, best to link to all. Andrewa (talk) 17:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

We don't need to link to titles if they just redirect to something already linked. At any rate, see also sections are for things that are spelled similarly or could be confused with the name, not just terms that mean the same thing.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

That goes a bit further than MOS:DABSEEALSO to which you link. Disagree that We don't need to link to titles if they just redirect to something already linked. On the contrary, that's an important navigational aid, particularly for obscure terms, and particularly for those whose native language is not English. English Wikipedia exists for all English speakers.

The DAB and the articles to which it links both need further work. That was my point. You seem to agree with that at least.

Agree that MOS:DABSEEALSO should be followed, and that this is one area in which work is still needed. Andrewa (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I was speaking specifically to your addition of preteen and between maid. We don't need to link to "preteen", since the word itself is unlikely to be confused or misspelled as "tween", and it's also just a redirect to preadolescence, which is already included. And we don't need to link "between maid" since we already link to "tweeny" (which may indeed be confused for "tween"). That seems to be Bkonrad's point as well. But yes, some of the articles could use some work.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

No argument with these specific improvements. My approach was shotgun to begin with on the principle that it's far better to have redundant links than to fail to provide needed ones, in terms of reader experience, which is our bottom line. I intended to be more discriminating later after more important jobs had been dealt with. So if you're confident that these are completely redundant then remove them by all means, saves me the trouble. That's what collaboration is all about. Andrewa (talk) 01:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)