Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 29

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 procedural close as this is no longer a redirect. This is without prejudice to an AfD if anyone desires. Thryduulf (talk) 08:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Spyz → James Bobin  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There's no mention of "Spyz" at the target article. Someone seeking information on something named "Spyz" will not find what they're looking for via this redirect and end up disappointed or confused. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it looks like someone is trying to turn this into an article. So this should go through AFD instead. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:21, 30 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.

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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Pete& → Pete's Dragon (2016 film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Is there any usefulness to this redirect? -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as vague there are lots of "pete and" and "pete &" where this redirect can point to but no "pete&" --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:42, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree. This seems totally useless. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'd guess this arose from someone trying access/create something along the lines of Pete&#x27;s Dragon—Ketil Trout (^<><!) 00:25, 31 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.

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. This was a difficult call; I gave some weight to the result of the January–February discussion, where a more general target for "Mrs. Trump" was preferred. This is the right decision for now, but it's one of those cases where I wouldn't at all be surprised to see consensus change in the future. --BDD (talk) 21:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Mrs. Donald Trump → Donald Trump  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Retarget to Family of Donald Trump, an article that delves into further detail concerning his three marriages. --Nevé–selbert 22:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I still don't think it's a useful search term. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or retarget'. The very recent consensus was that this is a useful redirect so it should not be deleted. The suggested target was not discussed last time to a speedy close is not appropriate either, but I don't at present have a strong opinion between the two. Thryduulf (talk) 00:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 23#Mr. Trump, including discussion on the redirect Mrs. Trump. --BDD (talk) 15:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support retargeting – I think this is a much more logical target, as the current target suggests that Donald Trump is a woman, and Donald Trump's wives are discussed in very little detail on that article. ~Mable (chat) 18:06, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to either the family article or Donald_Trump#Family, where his wives are immediately discussed. This style of referring to husbands is dated, but still used. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Melania Trump as originally created. If this is ever used by anyone at all, it's probably someone looking for Donald Trump's wife who can't remember her first name. But it doesn't matter much. Station1 (talk) 22:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remember that Donald Trump's previous wives, especially Ivana, were very famous in their time. Retargeting to Melania would be WP:RECENTISM. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Twelve years isn't all that recent. And former wives are no longer Mrs. Donald Trumps; there can be only one at a time. I still think if anyone searches for the term they more likely want Melania than Ivana. Station1 (talk) 17:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, there is no Mrs. Donald Trump. See Wikipedia:Hoax. UpsandDowns1234 00:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@UpsandDowns1234: I disagree with you and I agree with @Patar knight:: this is a dated but common way to refer to someone's wife. --Mr. Guye (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, plausible search term with relevant information, WP:TIMELESS. Retarget as appropriate. Siuenti (talk) 16:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to family article. Neither of his wives are primary topic. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget and refine to Family_of_Donald_Trump#Immediate family, where his wives are discussed. I oppose retargeting to Melania Trump per WP:RECENTISM. Also, I slightly  Disagree with Neve-selbert in that I think retargeting to the Immediate family section in the Trump family article is superior to targeting the general article, as you proposed. -Mr. Guye (talk) 19:41, 31 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.

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. --BDD (talk) 21:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Richard Gough (footballer) → Richard Gough (disambiguation)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Propose retargeting to Richard Gough as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Other footballer only appeared in one game and so just barely meets our football notability guideline. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:34, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The only two Richard Goughs I had ever heard of "off wiki" are the author of The History of Myddle, about whom we do not have an article, and Richard Gough (antiquarian), of whom I had only heard because it's important not to confuse him with the Myddle gentleman. I believe that the idea of a Primary Topic is often unhelpful, as it tends to both reinforce cultural biases and to make it hard to find and fix incorrect links. In this specific case, I do not see that any harm is done by Richard Gough (footballer) pointing to the dab page, and some harm - incorrect links - can be avoided by it. So I oppose the proposal, but frankly I am not overly bothered by the wikifate of these two muddied oafs. DuncanHill (talk) 15:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Systemic bias issues are important to consider in considering what a primary topic is, but in this case the only two footballers by this name are markedly at the opposite ends of the notability spectrum. The page views argument for retargeting is stark: with a 166:1 ratio in former of the more prominent one (or 165:1 if we assume that every single pageview for the Welsh footballer came from people who used the hatnote on the Scottish footballer's page). ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The bias is treating a footballer as more important than an antiquary. DuncanHill (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the antiquary is also a footballer, his importance doesn't impact whether "Richard Gough (footballer)" should go to the more prominent Scottish footballer or to the DAB. Anyone is free to move pages around/start RMs independent of this RFD. If Richard Gough becomes a DAB, the current page should be at Richard Gough (footballer) as the primary topic.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, I seem not to have made myself clear. I was objecting to having either footballer, or indeed anyone else, as Primary Topic. As well as that I think that as long as we have two footballers of the same name then the "(footballer)" page should redirect to the dab. But I really can't be bothered, so do whatever you like. DuncanHill (talk) 18:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, and if you can be bothered, start an RM. Your edit summary that we're dealing with "two utterly trivial footballers" is plainly wrong. The current page at the base name notes of the Scottish footballer that: He then captained Rangers to nine successive Scottish league championships. He also played for Scotland 61 times and played in the finals of three major international tournaments., while the Welsh footballer literally only played one international match. Even if you don't like football, it's pretty clear that the two footballers are not both inconsequential with no clear primary topic between them for the (footballer) parenthetical disambiguator.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He could have captained Rangers to the moon, he'd still be an item of pub trivia. You clearly haven't understood what I have been saying, so I'll try to make it as clear as possible - I don't care what you decide to do. I don't care about either footballer, I don't care about the stupid, anti-intellectual, and counterproductive "Primary Topic" rule, and I don't care any more about incorrect incoming links, the editors who lazily introduce them, and the readers who end up on the wrong pages because "Primary Topic" trumps all good sense and logic. I don't care. I wish I hadn't bothered, I wish I hadn't bothered trying to fix DPLBot's stupid errors, I wish I hadn't read the sodding dab page, and I wish I hadn't tried to bow out of this discussion gracefully in my very first post in this thread. I should have just ignored it. DuncanHill (talk) 20:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget as proposed. If DuncanHill or anyone else wants to make the disambiguation primary then they should propose this at WP:RM, but that is not relevant to the RfD as we deal with the situation as it might be after a discussion that has not even been started. Thryduulf (talk) 08:50, 30 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.

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 restore disambiguation. --BDD (talk) 20:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Baroness Young → Janet Young, Baroness Young  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Does Janet Young, Baroness Young qualify for a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT? I can't see why not, she is the only British peer to be known solely as "Baroness Young" without a territorial designation, and considering that she was the only female member of the Thatcher government (while a peer) she has a better than fair claim to wp:primary topic status. For those looking for a different baroness, the {{distinguish}} hatnote at her article should adequately disambiguate. Note that when the redirect was created about a decade ago, it was made as a redirect to Janet Young, so I boldly restored it to that revision a number of days ago. Patar knight reverted my edit yesterday so I've resorted here, where hopefully a consensus can be reached. --Nevé–selbert 14:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore DAB. These titles are really just baronies awarded to women with the surname Young, and don't have a geographic or ex officio component (e.g. Duke of Somerset, Duke of Cornwall).Many reliable sources refer to the other two peers just as Baroness Young without the geographic component (e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]). The other two Baronesses Young are also qualified, one used to be the Labour Whip in the Lords, headed numerous charities and public agencies and is the chancellor of a university, while the other is an accomplished actress and an emeritus professor. The three pages' page views are balanced, which is another argument for not having a clear primary topic. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore Dab - whenever someone mentions Baroness Young I feel compelled to check whether they mean Janet or Barbara, and often find that they themselves do not know. Such ready confusion seems to me to require clear disambiguation. DuncanHill (talk) 16:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore Dab per others. Also retarget Lady Young to this dab page. Note that the See also on the dab page is especially important because Baroness Young of xxxx could also be the wife of Baron Young of xxxx, of which there are a few. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:38, 4 April 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.

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) 20:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Rundeck → Comparison of open-source configuration management software  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:RDEL #10, entry was removed from target last year, no other suitable target Paradoctor (talk) 05:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:48, 29 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.

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) 20:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Rundeck (software) → List of job scheduler software  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:RDEL #10, entry was removed from target last year, no other suitable target, and disambiguation is not needed anyway for this term Paradoctor (talk) 05:49, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:48, 29 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.

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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Book (musical theater) → Musical theatre  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I personally was confused when the page targeted to such a general article. It doesn't even target a section. I know what a musical is. Tell me something I don't know.

This redirect should be refined, retargeted, created as an article, or deleted. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:24, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's right in the first section after the lead. Refined redirect accordingly. Paradoctor (talk) 05:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Refine target to Musical theatre#Book musicals which is what Book musical goes to. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:47, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep without refining. Judging from what I read in the target article, a book of a musical theatre (something different from a book musical) is a synonym for the script, and I imagine that book musicals aren't the only musical with scripts. – Uanfala (talk) 11:50, 8 April 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.