Talk:Martin Roos

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move. The band member will be found easily enough with a hat note.Cúchullain ^t/c 14:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Martin Roos (bishop) → Martin Roos – Between the bishop and the band member with no article of his own, I would say the bishop is the primary usage, and we can place a hatnote in his biography leading readers to the band member. Relisted. Favonian (talk) 19:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC) - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. 3 readers in April [1] vs. 158 for the base name redirect [2], leaving 155 who reached the band satisfied. The primary topic for a title does not have to reside at the title (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

  For one, the article on the bishop did not exist until May 16. For another, we have no idea what readers typing in "Martin Roos" were expecting to find. How about an argument from the standpoint of reliable sources? "Martin Roos" Kent gives 32,000 hits and "Martin Roos" Timisoara gives 20,000, but at least at first glance, the percentage of forums/blogs/fansites/facebook/myspace/playlists seems higher for the band member than for the bishop (which is to be expected). - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

  Ah, that would explain it. Well, if was cannot wait for a month or two to see how the actual usage goes, there is still the matter of incoming links for the musician vs for the bishop. If the bishop article is moved to the base name (which the original editor could have done by editing it, simply enough), those wikilinks would need to be updated. I'd still prefer to check this in a few months. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support All things being equal I would tend to treat the person with his own article as primary. You don't need to be a fan of the Catholic Church to recognise bishops as fairly important. Treating a member of a band which may not quite be a household name as primary is an example of the sort of bias in favour of popular culture which people have complained about on Wikipedia. Having to change incoming links is a poor objection. PatGallacher (talk) 00:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

  All things being equal, but they're not equal here. The article hasn't been around long enough yet to see if all things are equal. What's the hurry? -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

  The article may not have been around long, but the person described has been. He is RC bishop of the diocese based in the 3rd city of Romania, and has held the post since 1999. The band member could be a relatively transient case. PatGallacher (talk) 01:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

  Redirect/article was created in 2008, hardly a transient. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

  Can I once again try and steer the discussion in the direction of who might have more usage in reliable sources? Yes, Martin Roos was created in 2008 — by somebody with a total of 32 Wikipedia edits, 31 of them on the same day, about half of them dealing with Kent. OK, so Kent had a fan who made it to Wikipedia before someone who wanted to write about a bishop. That hardly proves the musician is the primary topic. He may be — I'm not implacably opposed to having him as the primary topic — but then again he may not be, and the way this is proven is by applying WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. My own instinct is that the bishop has greater long-term significance — he's led a diocese of over 100,000 people for thirteen years, as opposed to playing background guitar for three. And from what I've seen, the bishop also has more reliable sources discussing him. I may be wrong, and I'm glad to listen to an opposing view, but let's focus on the salient issues. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

  Can I once again suggest that the easiest way to clarity is to let the new article settle and then check? I'm happy the Kent fan made his or her contributions to WP. I do not believe I've introduced any non-salient issues, so yes, let's continue to focus on them. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• JHunter, who is more notable, the Bishop or the band member? I think the Bishop is. His religious achievements have been making him appear in more reliable sources. The band member, uh... I think he's only notable for being in Kent (band). Where are the reliable sources about the band member? If you don't provide me any, I'd plain support. Hill Crest's WikiLaser (Boom). (talk) 22:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

  You've mistaken me for either the requester of this move or the author of the Kent-related article(s). You're of course welcome to !vote as you like, but without assigning responsibility for your !vote to me. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support. The band may yet make a name for themselves, but they are little known outside of Sweden, while the bishop has some claim to significance. There may be a case for a two-way DAB at best, but the current situation, with the undisambiguated name redirected to the band, is unsatisfactory. The proposed move would be an improvement. Andrewa (talk) 02:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Martin Roos. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20120903125429/http://www.gerhardinum.ro/puspokseg.php?menu=3&lang=Ro&op=puspok to http://www.gerhardinum.ro/puspokseg.php?menu=3&lang=Ro&op=puspok

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)