. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:19, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- {{no redirect|1 = Soldiers' Oath }} → :Hitler oath (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Soldiers%27_Oath&action=history history] · [https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews?start=2018-02-03&end=2018-03-04&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Soldiers%27_Oath stats]) [ Closure: {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|(@subpage)|[{{fullurl:Soldiers' Oath|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Soldiers' Oath closed as keep}}}} keep]/[{{fullurl:Soldiers' Oath|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Soldiers' Oath closed as retarget}}}} retarget]/[{{fullurl:Soldiers' Oath|action=delete&wpReason={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Soldiers' Oath closed as delete}}&wpMovetalk=1}} delete]}} ]
- {{no redirect|1 = Soldier's Oath }} → :Hitler oath (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Soldier%27s_Oath&action=history history] · [https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews?start=2018-02-03&end=2018-03-04&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Soldier%27s_Oath stats]) [ Closure: {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|(@subpage)|[{{fullurl:Soldier's Oath|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Soldier's Oath closed as keep}}}} keep]/[{{fullurl:Soldier's Oath|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Soldier's Oath closed as retarget}}}} retarget]/[{{fullurl:Soldier's Oath|action=delete&wpReason={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Soldier's Oath closed as delete}}&wpMovetalk=1}} delete]}} ]
Term does not appear in target article: no indication that this is a useful redirect. Creator's edit summary noted, but the term "Soldier's oath" does not occur in the article: if it should be there, then please include it with a source showing use of this term in English. PamD 14:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
{{Comment}} I combined these two into one section ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:09, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
- Rename Article, Disambiguate and/or Keep Redirect Wikipedia is the first place where I've seen this called "the Hitler Oath"; I've always seen it referred to as the Soldiers' (or Soldier's) Oath. [For example, an early chapter of Peter Calvocoressi's and Guy Wint's well-known Total War (Pantheon & Penguin, 1972) is entitled "From Versailles to the Soldiers' Oath: 1919-34".] So my own prejudice would be towards renaming the article itself as either the Soldier's or the Soldiers' Oath (with a redirect from "Hitler Oath"). But, although I share BDD's scepticism, it's plausible that this might confuse those seeking other military oaths, so a disambiguation page might also be a good solution. What would not be reasonable is to just delete the whole redirect, which would leave others who (like me) have only known this as the Soldiers' Oath without a clue. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:50, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
:::
{{Ping|Shakescene}} Thanks. Could you for now add a mention of this term to the article, citing your sources? Then the redirect would be unproblematic and I'd be happy to withdraw nomination and add a "redirect" hatnote to point to the film. You could then open a "Requested move" discussion to get the article renamed though anything in this area is probably likely to be contentious and take some time! PamD 06:47, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
- Additional comment: I only now clicked through the link of User:BDD to find that A Soldier's Oath was the name of a silent film and a (currently-stub) Wikipedia article about it. To my mind this would be just as legitimate a target as Hitler Oath, so a disambiguation page would be justified save for the rule that eschews disambiguation pages where the alternatives number only two (in which case, editors are supposed to magically choose the more primary one with a hatnote directing those seeking the other article; something I resisted in the case of Greater New York and Greater New York City where I think the two targets are equally valid). Perhaps as BDD suggests, a disambiguation page could also include other soldiers' oaths. ¶ This also raises the question of how to distinguish the two articles, e.g. "A Soldier's Oath (film)" vs "Soldiers' Oath (ceremony)". —— Shakescene (talk) 05:32, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
:*{{ping|Shakescene}} Three points:
::# you seem to misunderstand the position about dab pages: if neither use of a term is considered "Primary" then a dab page at a term with two meanings is perfectly OK - see Margaret Cookesley as an example. (The pages which get jumped on for deletion are those where there is a primary topic "Jane Bloggs" and a single disambiguated topic "Jane Bloggs (astronaut)", where a dab page is not needed as a hatnote on the primary topic article does the job.
::# Creating a dab page doesn't solve the problem: if "Soldier's Oath" is not mentioned in the Hitler Oath article, then a dab page entry is likely to be ruled out as inappropriate. If the term is used, and you have sources to show so, then add it to the article.
::# You can draw someone's attention to a post by using {{tl|ping}} (also known as "Reply to", "Yo", and various other names). Just put {{ping|PamD|BDD}}, for example, in a post which you then sign, and we will be notified. No need to run around to different user talk pages. Makes life easier all round! PamD 08:58, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- Disambiguate - I'm not exactly sure what the page would include, but it seems clear that we should create one. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:53, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:11, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- Withdraw, as nominator, now that that term has been added, sourced, to the target article (thanks, {{ping|Shakescene}}); I've added a hatnote there to point to the film. All is now well. PamD 11:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
{{ping|BDD}} That work? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:11, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
:Sure. --BDD (talk) 13:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
: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.
