Talk:William Fairbairn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



Tubular Steel?[edit]

It appears that the term "Tubular Steel" redirects to the William Fairbairn article. This may be appropriate (I don't know), but as it stands neither "tubular" nor even "steel" are mentioned in this article at all, so it is unclear why the redirect exists. Is this a mistake, or is there a valid reason for the redirect? If it is valid, I suggest that the link between William Fairbairn and Tubular Steel should at least be mentioned in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.225.207.97 (talk) 00:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Fairbairn worked with tubular iron structures. I will change the redirect to Cold formed steel. Well spotted! --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 8 March 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved.(non-admin closure) -- QEDK (TC) 16:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


William FairbairnSir William Fairbairn – this already directs here, current location would better serve as a disambiguation page, William E. Fairbairn is also very influential on history and I don't see why the engineer should take priority over the combat instructor. William Fairbairn (disambiguation) has 3 others too. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 07:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC) --Relisted.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Guidelines at WP:HONORIFIC do not actually oppose this move. For article titles, one is referred to WP:NCROY, which says "Titles of knighthood such as Sir and Dame are not normally included in the article title: e.g. Arthur Conan Doyle, not 'Sir Arthur Conan Doyle' (which is a redirect). However, Sir may be used in article titles as a disambiguator when a name is ambiguous and one of those who used it was knighted." Opera hat (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Relisting comment. @In ictu oculi: and @70.51.46.39: do you have any updated view on (a) if there should be a change in primary topic, and (b) whether the "Sir" disambiguator is acceptable, in light of Opera hat's citation of WP:NCROY?  — Amakuru (talk) 15:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
MOS:HONORIFIC ; if moved it should use "engineer" William Fairbairn (engineer) In ictu oculi (talk) 17:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
MOS:HONORIFIC concerns the first mention of a biography's subject within the article, and not the article title itself. Sir, Dame, Lord and Lady are specifically mentioned as titles that should be included within the article lead. However, none of MOS:HONORIFIC has any bearing on article title policy, and so is irrelevant to this discussion. Opera hat (talk) 21:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I could not find a single other Wikipedia main title header featuring a subject with a stand-alone honorific specifying a knighthood. Either "(engineer)" or "(shipbuilder)" would be acceptable as a qualifier. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 01:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Sir John Bull; Sir William Grant; Sir Francis Hill; Sir Sunder Lal; Sir William Morison; Sir Richard Pole. Pretty rare, I admit, but for better or worse WP:NCROY is an established naming convention. I don't have any particular opinion on which is the best title for this article, but opposing the proposed title just because it includes "Sir" is not consistent with article title policy. Opera hat (talk) 21:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
How about William Fairbairn, 1st Baronet? Dicklyon (talk) 04:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

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