Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 24[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 24, 2017.

Wikipedia:Gunturu Seshendra Sarma[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. Deryck C. 00:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:XNR. Per its edit history, it's creation doesn't seem to be an error. Steel1943 (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:Godwin's law[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 7#Wikipedia:Godwin's law

Royal Rumble Championship[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 no consensus. Will tag with {{R from incorrect name}}. --BDD (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as the Royal Rumble Championship. It has NEVER existed. Should be deleted. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 21:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm dissapointed to see that a redundant redirect was here for ten years. Nickag989talk 21:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I was the one who turned it into a redirect t today. Before that it was actually a completely redundant and factually incorrect article. There's an annual Royal Rumble. It has a winner (predetermined like everything else in pro wrestling, of course). There's no such thing as a "Royal Rumble Championship". oknazevad (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore content, send to WP:AFD. Oknazevad, see WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT. If the subject as defined in the redirect truly is a WP:HOAX (it's not completely obvious to me), that needs to be agreed upon through WP:AFD. (Also, alternately, my 2nd option is "Keep as a {{R from incorrect name}}", but I think the restore and WP:AFD seems like the clearer path.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't intend for this to be sent to RFD when I boldly redirected it. {{R from incorrect name}} is probably the best solution. Restoration is the worst. It's not a hoax, in that is intentionally false, but it is completely erroneous and restoration would be a grave disservice to our readers as perpetuating an error. oknazevad (talk) 22:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or restore per Steel1943. Thryduulf (talk) 02:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP as {{R from incorrect name}}. There was an article here for a decade. There are almost certainly links outside of Wikipedia pointing here, and they need to be redirected to the correct page. That is a firm reason to keep this redirect as valuable.
I think this could be closed now. Over the last four responses (including mine), this discussion has evolved to a clear result. Alsee (talk) 01:04, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's no such thing as a "Royal Rumble Championship". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.159.195 (talk) 11:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as {{R from incorrect name}}. Not everyone knows what exactly is awarded at these events, and unless there is no winner of the Royal Rumble, it certainly does have a crown a champion and is technically a championship. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Libraries Without Borders[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. Thryduulf (talk) 13:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Half-real half-procedural nomination on the behalf of Katktrujillo, who in a help desk request (thread "Inaccurate article title") was pointed to RfD but likely does not know how to format such a request.

I have not checked the factual assertion that Librarians without Borders is a separate organization than both Bibliothécaires Sans Frontières and Libraries Without Borders but, if true, it justifies deletion of this misleading redirect - without prejudice against the creation of an article. TigraanClick here to contact me 16:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I based the redirect off the fact that the article Bibliothécaires Sans Frontières lists www.librarieswithoutborders.org as an official website. There is also the article Librarians Without Borders. I'm the first to admin I'm not entirely savvy as to which is which, and there might be a need to create a new article entirely and to merge the two which we have (if they indeed are the same thing — which only seems logical as bibliothécaire = librarian). Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 17:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as misleading – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't really solve the problem though... Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 23:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the official website uses this title in English, and the hatnote to the Librarians Without Borders organization is at the top. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
After a bit more investigation, it seems that Libraries Without Borders could plausibly be the primary title for what's currently at Bibliothèques Sans Frontières - I'll sort that out when this discussion is done. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Tom Glynn-Carney[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. Deryck C. 01:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actor link redirects to a film article, which is misleading because the connection is not immediately apparent (especially with the actor not being a star). Also problematic is that it is a blue link in the film article's "Cast" section, which means the link leads back to itself. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I agree. This doesn't seem appropriate. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If an actor is not notable enough to have an article (yet) it's better to leave a redlink. With a redirect, a reader searching for the actor in the search box would immediately go to the redirect article, get redirected, and end up at one film the actor's been in. With no redirect (ie no article), a searcher won't be distracted by that redirect article and will get a list of pages the actor's name appears in: more useful. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Shhhnotsoloud explained it well. The existence of this redirect is an active nuisance. Alsee (talk) 01:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Barry Keoghan[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. Deryck C. 00:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actor link redirects to a film article. Actor appears in two films so far, so the redirect is problematic. Also, the existence of a blue link yet the absence of a stand-alone biographical article is misleading. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete. See my comment on Tom Glynn-Carney above. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create stars in The Killing of Sacred Deer, Dunkirk (2017 film), and Love/Hate, the last of which has gained notability as "Wayne the cat killer". Also some indie films Light Thereafter, Mammal and American Animals which have made the film festival rounds. Also has a supporting role in King of the Travellers and '71 (film) [1] Should meet WP:ENT based on that. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    AngusWOOF, creating would be fine, but I don't think that's really a meaningful RFD !vote. That cannot be an RFD outcome unless someone steps up to built that article, and that can be done by anyone independent of the RFD. Having this title be a useless bluelink camouflages the fact that we want an article here. Alsee (talk) 01:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, striking that vote. Delete would work for now. Someone can create the article; I think there are enough reliable sources and notability. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, same as Tom Glynn-Carney RFD above. Alsee (talk) 01:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Fionn Whitehead[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. Deryck C. 00:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actor link that redirects to a film article in which the actor appears. This is problematic because when we link to the actor in the "Cast" section, it shows a blue link that is ultimately circuitous (redirects to the film article). It is best served as a red link until a stand-alone article that meets notability guidelines can be created. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Agree. See my comment on Tom Glynn-Carney above. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete was created as a redirect, so it never even had a chance to make into a useful article. WP:TOOSOON to call the film strongly tied to Whitehead's career. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, same as above two RFDs. These redirects are actively unhelpful. Alsee (talk) 01:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Nose to the grindstone[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 Wiktionary redirect. Deryck C. 00:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it normal practice to redirect idioms to an article vaguely (but not exclusively) connected with their meaning? Amisom (talk) 10:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Skyroof[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 disambiguate Skyroof and retarget Sky roof to Skyroof. Consensus has emerged in favor of disambiguation, especially after the third term was found. -- Tavix (talk) 21:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Inaccurate. More generically, a "skyroof" or "sky roof" is a large transparent ceiling window that allows people inside to see the sky. It happens to have also been used by a particular car manufacturer, and associated advertising has biased hits for this roof. It is not appropriate to have a redirect biased to a promotional term at the expense of the generic term. With no redirect, people arriving at the title will see the Wikipedia search engine results, which include a mix of both uses, generic ceiling windows, and a particular car brand. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey, Joe. May I please fix the nomination procedures for you? George Ho (talk) 03:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC) Never mind; already done it. George Ho (talk) 04:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add a hatnote. The recent DRV shows plenty of uses of this term as a synonym for "sunroof" meaning that it's a likely search term. There are uses to mean "skylight" but the vehicular term is the primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 10:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Skylight and skyroof are different thinks. Skylights are for letting light through. Often with reflective tubing, often with an opaque lower aperture. Skyroof allow direct viewing of the sky. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to WP:DAB page. If a term has more than one meaning, a DAB page is exactly the right solution. Full Disclosure: I closed the DRV. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't realize this is two sources and multiple targets. So, make it sky roof redirects to skyroof, which in turn is a dab page. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sounds good. Makes it easier to add the missing things. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dab I'm seeing uses for both the skylight and the sunroof in news articles, so two dabs / hatnote could work, or a dab page, whereas sunroof / moonroof is clearly for motor vehicles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • DAB. Multiple meanings should be get a disambiguation page. Alsee (talk) 01:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add a hatnote convert to disambiguation page Changed 05:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC) per the sources I provided at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 February 13#Skyroof demonstrating that Skyroof is used as a synonym for "Sunroof". Keep and add a hatnote per Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Disambiguation page or hatnotes?:

    If there is a primary topic located at the base name, then the question arises whether to create a disambiguation page, or merely to link to all the other meanings from a hatnote on the primary topic article.

    If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed—it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article. (This means that readers looking for the second topic are spared the extra navigational step of going through the disambiguation page.) If there are two or three other topics, it is still possible to use a hatnote which lists the other topics explicitly, but if this would require too much text (roughly, if the hatnote would extend well over one line on a standard page), then it is better to create a disambiguation page and refer only to that.

    There are only two topics mentioned here that "skyroof" could refer to. The first is sunroof and the second is skylight. I agree with Thryduulf that sunroof is the primary topic.

    Therefore, per the guideline, keep skyroof and sky roof redirected to sunroof and add a hatnote at sunroof mentioning skylight. If there is a third term that "skyroof" can refer to, then I have no objection to creating a disambiguation page.

    Cunard (talk) 00:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • "Skyroof is used as a synonym" but only in the context of a tradename, and as such these uses should be given less significance. Hat notes are disruptive to reading articles, and are less helpful, especially looking forward, compared to DAB pages. Considering the rarity of genuine use of the term skyroof (see google ngram), your suggestion for hatnoting is at the worst end of hatnoting. If every obscure term, including tradenames, warranted mention in hatnotes, the hatnotes would become large. "Skyroof" does not warrant a hatnote. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Skyroof is used as a synonym" but only in the context of a tradename, and as such these uses should be given less significance. – Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Disambiguation page or hatnotes? does not say that tradename uses should be given less significance. It instead says, "If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed—it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article."

    I have provided evidence at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 February 13#Skyroof showing that skyroof has been used numerous times to refer to sunroofs. No one has provided evidence showing that skylight is used as much such that there is no primary topic for skyroof.

    Cunard (talk) 03:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • The primary topic for skyroof is Roof window, except for noise generated by commercial promotion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have any sources indicating that "skyroof" has been used for "roof window"? I was not able to find any in a brief search of Google, Google News, and Google Books. If you do have a source, then I support a disambiguation page listing roof window, sunroof, and skylight. Cunard (talk) 06:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following articles, Don Bosco School, Manila, Integrated biotectural system, KSKY, Garden City (Booragoon) include "skyroof" or "sky roof" or "sky-roof" to mean a large ceiling window. If someone reading the article were to put the term into the Wikipedia search engine, the current redirect would taking them to an astonishing result, in these four examples the term has absolutely nothing to do with a vehicle. "Sources" to add to this would come from dictionaries. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:42, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral/Abstain - I was the one who requested a redirect. This led to DRV and then this RFD nom. I tried finding the synonym, but I see this source saying "skylight and skyroof" and this source using "skyroof" and "skylight". This source uses "sky roof" but also uses "skylight". I can't tell whether both are interchangeable or not. I don't mind either outcome as long as option A is proven to benefit more than option B. George Ho (talk) 05:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:NP[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 7#Wikipedia:NP

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_February_24&oldid=1142586881"