Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 6[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 6, 2015.

Challenge (internet)[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 Retarget to List of Internet phenomena#Challenges. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 22:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose these "challenges" are a type of meme, but there's no discussion of them at the target article. There's a decent Challenges category that suggests to me an actual article on this topic could be written. BDD (talk) 18:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Two alternative targets have been proposed, so I'd like to see more discussion to help us decide on which to go for. Alternative that could be a sign we want to to delete this redirect per WP:XY.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 21:49, 6 September 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.

To anarchize[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 30#To anarchize

Brian Posworth[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) 13:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:XY. This isn't that significant nickname for him, but it might create confusion for those looking for Brian Bosworth. -- Tavix (talk) 18:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

iF Ifs and ands' were pots and pans then Rock and roll would be skiffle, Si Trew (talk) 08:23, 8 September 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.

Thomas Wrench[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 retarget to Hugh Owen Thomas#Medical legacy. --BDD (talk) 13:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There does not appear to be any person (real or fictitious) by the name of Thomas Wrench who is associated in any way with Godwin's Law, and the redirect therefore serves no useful purpose. I propose that the redirect be Deleted. Tevildo (talk) 16:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 17:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete useless redirect as per above, so that a Victorian surgical tool known as the Thomas wrench can be listed. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just retarget. RFD is for when you need an administrator to actually delete the redirect, so that it becomes a redlink (or so that you can move another article on top of it, though that one is usually done with a speedy unless it's controversial). In this case, no process at all is required; once the article is in place, just edit the redirect so that it points to the new article. --Trovatore (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update. On closer reading of the thread at WP:RD/Misc, it appears to me that Tevildo was not in fact proposing to write a new article, but simply wanted a redirect to Hugh Owen Thomas. I've sorted it. Someone please close this section. --Trovatore (talk) 20:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete as WP:RFD#D2 confusing, patently, if sonome say this and another says that, the redirect is confusing. For if not, why should not Thumb Wrench be added into the mix, since Tom Thumb is notable and Thumbscrews are a kind of wrench, and presumably both owned a spanner if only a small one. Si Trew (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment How is it confusing? No one, as far as I'm aware, says that "Thomas Wrench" has anything to do with Godwin's law. I don't see any prospect for confusion here. --Trovatore (talk) 21:01, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It would be confusing were it kept. It is kinda all right to have Monkey Wrench go to Charles Mönke, for whom it is but to which it doesn't.Si Trew (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it does now (see below). Sorry, I stated that unclearly. What I mean is that Thomas Wrench now points to a section of the inventor's bio, as you were suggesting would in some imaginable circumstances be OK for Monkey Wrench. Certainly, I don't think anyone is proposing that it should continue to point to Godwin's law. I assumed that was not even on the table. --Trovatore (talk) 21:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A little background: this is the gadget that Tevildo wants referenced by whatever article you get to by entering "Thomas wrench" into the search box. I have retargeted Thomas Wrench to Hugh Owen Thomas#Medical legacy, which I admit was probably slightly out-of-process, but as far as I can tell ought to satisfy everyone. If an article is written at Thomas wrench, then Thomas Wrench should just be retargeted there, as a routine case variant, not really useful but also not worth deleting. If there were really anyone who would be surprised to arrive at the H. Thomas article rather than something relating to Godwin's law, then I suppose there should be a hatnote, but I frankly doubt any such person exists; I conjecture that the original redirect to Godwin's law was some odd sort of joke. --Trovatore (talk) 21:12, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • no, since Thomas wrench is red there is no need to take Thomas Wrench there as some kind of {{tlx|R from other capitalisation]]. Si Trew (talk) 21:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • No need now, I agree. I said if such an article were to be written. --Trovatore (talk) 21:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I still consider, despite Trovatore's obviously well-meaning intervention, that Thomas Wrench should be redlinked (as there isn't, as yet, an article about a person of that name), and Thomas wrench should be a redirect (which I've created) to Hugh Owen Thomas. I was hoping for the initial redirect situation to be resolved before taking any other action, but events have overtaken us. Tevildo (talk) 21:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't agree that Thomas Wrench needs to be about a person of that name. In older capitalization styles, this is a perfectly plausible way of capitalizing the medical implement. If someone finds a notable person named Thomas Wrench and wants to write an article, nothing prevents that, but in the mean time I think it's a reasonable redirect. --Trovatore (talk) 21:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Thomas Wrench was red when I wrote it, but since has become blue, thus kinda invalidating my earlier argument? I didn't make myself clear either, so my fault there. My kinda vague point was that if we have an eponym such as Monkey Wrench, or vaguely as mentioned in the lede there a Ford Wrench, it makes sense to point them to where people can find out why a tool is called a monkey wrench or a Ford wrench, or a Birmingham screwdriver -> Hammer for that matter (which I've just tagged as {{R from slang}} but am going to bring here as not at target). But this one/these ones doesn't or don't seem to fit into that kinda thing, and seemed to me more like there should actually just be a person called Thomas Wrench. Tom Wrench is red, for example. Si Trew (talk) 05:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment. It's a bit of a distance, but thumbscrew is a DAB. It appears that Thomas Wrench is a real person, a Graphic designer, from Kalamazoo. However, at least in Britain it is also a Scottish device of torture (joke) for trying to fix club feet, www.rcpsg.ac.uk/library/archive-and-heritage/instrument-collection/thomas-wrench-for-club-foot.aspx, from the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow. Si Trew (talk) 16:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment. OK, it looks like it was imprudent of me to make the change out of process. I didn't quite understand that User:Tevildo's concern was that "Thomas Wrench" looks like a name, because to me it does not look like a name. I do not recall that, before this discussion, I ever heard of anyone surnamed "Wrench", although on searching it does appear that there are quite a few.
    In any case, if people really think a redirect from "Thomas Wrench" is confusing, I have no objection to deleting it. The MediaWiki engine will make sure that anyone who enters "Thomas Wrench" into the search box will arrive at the right place (namely the target of Thomas wrench), and surely we don't want anyone linking to Thomas Wrench. So I still don't think the Thomas Wrench redirect is confusing, but I also see no need to keep it if others find it a problem. --Trovatore (talk) 17:41, 10 September 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.

File:The Big Night poster.jpg[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) 13:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File rename recently created, All links updated, Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Per WP:FILEMOVE, In most cases a file redirect should be left on the original page, except if the original name falls under one of the revision deletion criteria (purely disruptive, grossly insulting, privacy breaching, etc.). BethNaught (talk) 13:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BethNaught. Rubbish computer 17:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Recently created (just a month ago), but it's not a silly or otherwise extremely implausible redirect, so it wouldn't be a good R3 candidate, and there aren't any other problems with it either. In other words, there's no good reason to create linkrot here. Nyttend (talk) 19:38, 7 September 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.

File:WSVA-AM 2015.PNG[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 speedily deleted by Nyttend; the target page was deleted. --BDD (talk) 18:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused file redirect - recently created. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per BethNaught's rational on the above discussion. Rubbish computer 17:05, 6 September 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.

My Boy (1921 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 keep. --BDD (talk) 13:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading redirect name: the film is from 1922, not 1921 (see film encyclopedia as well as all references in current article). SteveStrummer (talk) 06:34, 6 September 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_September_6&oldid=1037880921"