Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 18[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 18, 2015.

Module talk:RfD[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep, early close per WP:SNOW and premature reattempt at deletion (non-admin closure) Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is misleading. I have PRODDed Module:RfD but the talk page should be at Module talk:RfD. I think the module is unnecessary, and its author (I think) has kinda slapped me on the wrist for doing so, but all the runaround with these redirects is crazy (it ends up at Template talk:Rfd which is a completely different thing). Si Trew (talk) 21:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep This is a normal way to do things. When a template is re-implemented using a module then the template has no code. Changes to e,g. add features or fix problems need to be made to the module code. But editors will often place requests on the talk page of the template. So it makes sense to combine them, so there’s only one place to discuss changes to the template/module, reached directly or via a redirect depending which talk page is accessed. If the module or template is deleted then it may be deleted under CSD #G8 but while the module exists it is useful.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 21:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I aint arguing against the module (at least not here, I am arguing that elsewhere),. But I think It is misleading to take Module talk:RfD to Template Talk:Rfd (and note the change of case in those letters please: We often distinguish things by letttercase). And templates are templates and modules are modules, or am I just being too simple? Si Trew (talk) 22:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
observation. And ironically you just used the module you nominated for deletion when nominating this redirect. If that isn’t proof to you that the module is useful I don't know what is.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 21:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's no irony. It gets in the way and does not work. I can't help what the back end of the Wikipedia software does, but we managed for 18 years or so without it. Do you want me to do a code review on it, I'm perfectly capable to do that. Si Trew (talk) 22:22, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how it doesn't work. Alakzi (talk) 22:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not everyone uses the same software you do. On mine, it constantly brings up error messages. I can explain but my professional rates as a software engineer are 100 pounds an hour and my rates at Wikipedia are 0 pounds an hour. It doesn't work because it constantly pops up on Mozilla Firefox with errors, have you tested it on that browser? Si Trew (talk) 22:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please outline the steps required to reproduce one of these errors in Firefox. Alakzi (talk) 22:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But that argument is irrelevant anyway. Patently, the place for a talk page to be is the talk page, not going via a redirect. That is what talk pages are for. So we end up discussing it here instead because the talk page has been redirected. Si Trew (talk) 22:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If there are errors what sort of errors and what page or pages you are seeing them on? It shouldn’t matter what browser you are using the output should be the same, but editors can test with different browsers to see for themselves. If we can actually identify the problem there’s a chance it can be fixed.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 22:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Richard Williams (tennis player)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. --BDD (talk) 16:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Currently a redirect for R. Norris Williams but not needed as he was either known by his article name or Richard Norris Williams or Dick Williams. Wolbo (talk) 17:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Are you saying he could not ever have possibly been known or addressed as Richard Williams? Unless there's a different tennis player named Richard Williams, I think this is harmless. Ivanvector (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, but then they're appropriately disambiguated. Ivanvector (talk) 14:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accoridng to the article he was not a player himself so I don't see that as an issue,--67.68.209.200 (talk) 00:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as harmless. According to the lede he was also occasionally known as "Dick" Williams (Dick being a common nickname for "Richard") but Dick Williams is another article and perhaps they should be crossreffed with a hatnote. Si Trew (talk) 22:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's a contrast from Richard Williams (tennis coach). Tavix |  Talk  00:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. That's a tough one since tennis playes often hava a sideline as tennis coaches: has he? Si Trew (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly when I gsearched for Richard Williams (tennis coach) I got the French article fr:Richard Norris Williams, where the lede says he is Richard Norris Williams II, but it doesn't say he was a coach, not even in French, as far as I can see. Dick Williams is an article at EN:WP but in the lede at FR:WP at Richard Norris Williams, saying that is what he was commonly known as, and there's no hatnote to Dick Williams (disambiguation): perhaps that's the way to do it, just add a hatnote or two. Noth are at the DAB in section 4.5. Si Trew (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

A Guerra não Declarada na Visão de um Favelado[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Closed as speedily deleted. (non-admin closure) Si Trew (talk) 21:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NBOOK, article was redirected to the author's article which subsequently was removed via AfD. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 13:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete WP:G5, creator evading ban. No point in keeping this that I can see. I will tag accordingly. Ivanvector (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Home (2014 comedy film)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An implausible redirect as the film was released in 2015, not 2014. Should be deleted. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. wrong but useful. Films are released at different times in different countries: to generate income essentially. It used to be because the film reels were literally sent over e.g. from the United States to the United Kingdom, because printing the reels costs a lot of money, so they would send over the reels. Now with Digital that rarely happens, but the film releases are timed to the season, California gets them first (surprise!) and the UK gets them about six months later, Hungary about three months after that. Seems entirely plausible redirect to me: This is now showing down at the cinema complex near the Arena Plaza, a posh shopping place near Keleti in 2015. I have had the good fortune of the rebuilt Broadway Cinema inLetchworth, a beautiful Art Deco cima that was restored and now in good order and the projectionist shoed me how to do it round on a Latham loop and run it all through the projector. Sometimes I talk, sometimes I listen.. Si Trew (talk) 08:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
HHmm the Broadway Cinema is in Nottingham apparently, but there is a beautiful one in Letchworth. I try to DAB that or hatnote it or something. Si Trew (talk) 08:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think, but don't know and it would be hard to source, that they were all built by Odeon Cinemas in the thirdies. It's a beautiful building with stained glass etc in the windows, very much in the Art Deco style. I'd have to source that by looking up the deeds but it is a typical ODEON. Unfortunately now most have been changed into bingo halls. They, in the 20s and 30s, made such beautiful picture palaces. Unfortunately a lot have been knocked down now. Si Trew (talk) 08:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A search for "Broadway Cinema Letchworth" immediately brings me up this so it is patently there, and a very beautiful bulding it is after its restoration. I am not sure that Nottingham should be primary, but not sure wat to do about it. That is off-topic anyway because we are discussing a film not a cinema, just I care for that cinema a lot, and probably went overboard a bit cos I love it so much. Si Trew (talk) 08:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how it is useful; in no country was it ever released during 2014 in any way, shape, or form, even though it was originally scheduled for a 2014 release. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not that just is not useful, it's also senseless. 1) I would not classify Home as a comedy film (comedy is a very common term expressed in movies, Pineapple Express and American Pie are also comedies but they are quite different then Home, aren't they? lol). 2) Also even the better point, the year was changed from 2014 to 2015 and now we can freely have Home (2015 film). — Tomíca(T2ME) 09:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We do not have Home (2015 comedy film). Not checked other years yet. Si Trew (talk) 21:48, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an implausible search term. There are two things that make this implausible: the wrong year and the extra "comedy" qualifier. Tavix |  Talk  02:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC),[reply]
You're right, @Tavix:. I checked Home (2014 film) → At the Devil's Door, a completely different film I think (I could be wrong, I am not a great expert on the flicks as I was usually behind the projector and never got to see the film). Si Trew (talk) 19:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_April_18&oldid=1142587299"