File:White x in red rounded square.svg Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
: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
. This is a mildly WP:INVOLVED close since I offered some opinions, but consensus is quite clear that this is inappropriate, with the good-faith retarget suggestion also soundly rejected. --BDD (talk) 14:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
This seems an unlikely shortcut for this project discussion, and per WP:RFD#D1 could unnecessarily obstruct searches since it is a common term. Weakly suggest retarget to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history, which is the most likely place for editors to find Wikipedia resources for maintaining civil war topics. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- Retarget to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/American Civil War task force per nom. Regards SoWhy 15:44, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Retarget to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/American Civil War task force per nom and {{u|SoWhy}}. I JethroBT drop me a line 15:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)- Delete. Reviewing some of the rationales for delete here, I agree that this is an unlikely search term. Striking my original support for retargeting. I JethroBT drop me a line 17:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Retarget to Military history or even Civil War for the reasons Ivan points out in the nomination. It also wouldn't be absurd to just delete. Civil War can apply to many possible civil wars (not just US as the preceding two users suggested) with FRAM unlikely to be what the user is looking for. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed and I thought about that too but WP:ACW is the only civil war related project or task force I found (on a quick search), so it makes more sense targeting this page for now. If and when there are more projects or task forces about civil wars, this can always be converted into a DAB page. Regards SoWhy 15:53, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- Just to be clear (and difficult) I oppose retargeting to the American civil war task force. There are many civil wars besides the American one; a project-space shortcut should not pick and choose. The main MILHIST page is a better general resource for the numerous other civil wars we write about. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- I also oppose; there are plenty of civil wars other than the American one - such as, for instance, the one currently ongoing in Syria. Gimubrc (talk) 17:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- Again, valid points if this were a redirect in article space but there is no other civil war related page in Wikipedia-space than WP:ACW. Targeting MILHIST's main page makes no sense because there is no mention of civil wars on it except for the link to the ACW taskforce. Someone looking for the taskforce on the American Civil War will be served by retargeting there but someone looking for a taskforce for another civil war will not be served by a redirect to MILHIST. Regards SoWhy 18:54, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- I disagree, although this has become somewhat off-topic. Someone looking for information about writing about any war would find useful general information at MILHIST, including the American Civil War. If we were talking about something like WP:WikiProject Civil War or WP:CIVILWARTASKFORCE (redirects specifically indicating a wikiproject, I mean) then I would be more inclined to agree with you, but even in those cases I'd think an editor would find more useful information about writing about wars generally than writing specifically about the American Civil War. ACW probably has little useful information for someone writing about the Second Islamic Civil War, for example. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:04, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - no need for a cross-space redirect. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:51, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
::It's not cross-space and neither are any of the proposals. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:55, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
:::{{u|Barkeep49}} suggested a retarget to Civil War, which would be a cross-namespace redirect. Not wanting a cross-namespace redirect could simply be an opposition to that proposal, but that is not a rationale for deletion since it's not currently a cross-namespace redirect. {{u|Beyond My Ken}} and {{u|Gimubrc}}, could you please clarify your rationales? -- Tavix (talk) 17:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
::::I hesitate before suggesting it for precisely that reason but I will note that the CNR focuses on redirects from article space. It doesn't actually talk about from Project space to Article space and we do in fact allow redirects to article spaces in other instances (i.e. after a page move from Draft). I do agree that it's a reason to oppose that particular redirect suggestion but wanted to provide another alternative especially in light of the suggestions to target it to a US centric place. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
:::::It would be such a huge WP:SURPRISE for readers, though. I couldn't support a CNR here. --BDD (talk) 18:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per BMK. Gimubrc (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- Retarget per SoWhy et al. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- Retarget to the taskforce if they want it ({{ping|Ivanvector}}'s point is also valid, but if no other task force wants it first come first serve is normal for claiming shortcuts), or just delete - this isn't really a "war within the community" as one would make a parallel to civil wars with. — xaosflux Talk 17:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
::This is a good point, and from comments below it seems MILHIST doesn't really want it. Nobody had created it until it was created very recently as a joke redirect to a serious discussion, and there seems to be widespread interest in removing it on that basis, so it seems "delete" is the right outcome here. Will leave for discussion, though, it's hardly unanimous. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
::One for Martin, two for Martin! Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Wrong in its current form. Ambiguous for any other. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- 'deleteorweak Retarget to Military history. Lets get over ourselves, I really do not think the average punter is going to be looking for "mymategotbannedgate" if they do a search for civil war. Also "civilwar" (one word) is a reasonable typo of "civil war".Slatersteven (talk) 11:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- I will add that there is more the one civil war, so retargeting to any one seems like exceptionalism.Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Delete I'm responding to the notification at WT:MILHIST. There have been huge numbers of civil wars over the years, so redirecting to the US Civil War is inappropriate. I don't think that anyone is likely to want to use WP:CIVILWAR as a quick route to WP:MILHIST. As for the current target, it's inappropriate: while the issue is important and is leading to very extensive discussion, it isn't a civil war tearing Wikipedia apart or similar. Nick-D (talk) 12:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Leave or delete - "CIVILWAR" (one word) is not to be confused with "civil war" which is a subject of military import. I would say once the issue to which it redirects is resolved, then simply delete it. Cadar (talk) 12:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Retarget as a plausible and useful shortcut to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/American Civil War task force. Much easier than typing out the whole thing. Jonathunder (talk) 14:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. The current target is obviously disruptive, but the proposed alternative of the American Civil War Task Force is implausible; I certainly can't imagine anyone typing WP:CIVILWAR with the expectation of getting there. Not every combination of WP: and a bunch of capital letters needs to be blue. ‑ Iridescent 15:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - There is no plausible need for this redirect in Wikipedia name space. Civil War covers article space needs well enough.--agr (talk) 18:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Delete this particular bit of POV pushing. No redirect is needed. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Retarget to MILHIST's Civil War taskforce as a more plausible redirect. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 22:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Delete a redirect to Milhist ACW isn't needed (it already has WP:ACW), and frankly, America's civil war isn't the only civil war, so this is inappropriate. The current redirect is also inappropriate as it isn't a term associated with the Fram discussion. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:27, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - Needlessly inflammatory and implausible. Oppose redirection per the above, such a redirect itself is implausible (no one at actual MILHIST has seen such a need for it, and they have a shorter redirect already), and also, equating the term "civil war" to "American Civil War" as if it is the only or default civil war is...ignorant, at best. ~Swarm~ {sting} 00:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
- Delete This isn't reflective of the ongoing discussion of this ban. It's not a war, it's a discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:02, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Nobody up to now has thought to create this is a useful and needed redirect to civil war related topics, so I see no justification for keeping it. I guess it won't be long before someone creates a similarly pointless redirect to WP:FRAMBAN from WP:TOXICSHOCK or a myriad other clever names (WP:MAHERSLAYER, WP:HARASSINPARIS, WP:CHIPOFFTHEOLDBLOCK, WP:YOUVEBEENFRAMed etc etc) which would only serve to inflame rather than to help the situation. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:54, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
- Delete unacceptable as it is, and there's no good redirect target for it. SportingFlyer T·C 00:16, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
- Delete The current target is not appropriate for this redirect per many above. I hesitate to support the proposed retargetting as the US civil war is far from the only civil war - see for example Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Wars of the Three Kingdoms task force which covers the period of the English civil wars. Thryduulf (talk) 15:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
