Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 19#Wikipedius
=[[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 19|January 19]]=
==NetHack/Amulet of Yendor==
: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.
- {{no redirect|1 = NetHack/Amulet of Yendor }} → :NetHack (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NetHack/Amulet_of_Yendor&action=history history] · [https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews?start=2019-12-12&end=2020-01-10&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=NetHack%2FAmulet_of_Yendor stats])
[ Closure: {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|(@subpage)|[{{fullurl:NetHack/Amulet of Yendor|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#NetHack/Amulet of Yendor closed as keep}}}} keep]/[{{fullurl:NetHack/Amulet of Yendor|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#NetHack/Amulet of Yendor closed as retarget}}}} retarget]/[{{fullurl:NetHack/Amulet of Yendor|action=delete&wpReason={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#NetHack/Amulet of Yendor closed as delete}}&wpMovetalk=1}} delete]}} ]
Implausible search term. Not a very active user (talk) 07:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
CommentStrong keep: This is both a redirect with old history and one from a merge; compare its former content and this insertion. Itshould probably (although not definitely)must be kept for attribution purposes alone. Glades12 (talk) 08:57, 11 January 2020 (UTC) updated 09:08, 11 January 2020 (UTC)Delete.The [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NetHack/Amulet_of_Yendor&oldid=673002838 content in the edit history of the redirect] is no longer/not in the target article. In fact, if it were in the article, I would recommend that it be removed per WP:NOTFANDOM; that content belongs on a fanpage, not here. Steel1943 (talk) 18:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC)- ...See my comment below the relist for the reason I struck out my "Delete" stance. (I still hold the opinion after my original "Delete" vote, but it doesn't seem like consensus is going that way at all...) Steel1943 (talk) 14:18, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Wug·a·po·des 22:52, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment {{u|Graham87}} Looking at the edit history for this redirect, can you confirm, expand on, and/or clarify what {{u|Steel1943}} means? If the history has been appropriately transferred to NetHack, as I think is the case, I'm fine with a delete; otherwise, I concur with "strong keep" per {{u|Glades12}}. Pinging {{u|S Marshall}} here for his expertise on WP:ATT and history merges. Doug Mehus T·C 23:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- ...No, the history should not be merged into the target page since no WP:CUTPASTE move happened. The edit history in the nominated redirect represents a batch of text removed from the target page in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NetHack&diff=420151&oldid=420149 this edit], but then was restored the same day in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NetHack&diff=541010&oldid=420161 this edit]. In fact, here's [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NetHack/Amulet_of_Yendor&action=history the edit] that resulted in the nominated redirect being converted to a redirect, and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NetHack/Amulet_of_Yendor&oldid=673002835 here's the original version of the redirect] and the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NetHack/Amulet_of_Yendor&oldid=673002838 revision before it was converted to a redirect]. So again, there is no reason to retain the edit history in this redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 00:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with Graham87 on this one. Where there's a good argument to retain the redirect, as there seems to be in this case, we don't need to take any special action to preserve the history.—S Marshall T/C 07:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Eh, I still think the redirect is useless as a search term and I don't yet see any strong argument to retain any content at this title including the redirect, but I have offered an idea about the edit history's location since other participants in the discussion feel that the edit history should be retained... Steel1943' (talk) 14:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
*Delete with {{WikiThanks}} to {{u|Steel1943}}. Looking at the diffs on the subject redirect, it looks like there was a short poem or something from {{u|Antone}}, the redirect's creator, but that was in no way used at NetHack, correct? If I have that wrong, let me know and I'll change my !vote. But, history merges aren't just for cut and paste moves, correct? My understanding is they can be necessary in many other cases, such as when two people create the same article at the same time or at different times (sometimes in different namespaces) and they're subsequently amalgamated and/or redirected. Doug Mehus T·C 01:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)- Keep: {{replyto|Dmehus}}:, I'm really glad you notified me of this nomination, since I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=NetHack%2FAmulet+of+Yendor actually created the redirect]. The page is listed at my user subpage at User:Graham87/Page history observations. As it says there, the actual merge edit is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NetHack&diff=700844&oldid=577015 this one]. It doesn't matter whether the text is still there ... as long as it was put there at some point, the redirect should be kept. Also, history merges should really only be used for cut-and-paste moves, especially where parallel histories could be created. Graham87 03:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep and Restore History Revisions circa 2003 to NetHack per {{u|Graham87}}. What a mess. It does look some missing attribution is a problem here. Doug Mehus T·C 03:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- {{replyto|Dmehus}} Thanks, but maybe I wasn't clear enough ... there's nothing to restore now and nothing that needs to be done with the history. everything's fine as it is. Graham87 04:04, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
:::{{rto|Graham87}} Are you just satisficing because it's not worth restoring the actual history revisions, or have they been restored to NetHack and/or Talk:NetHack? If they have been restored, why do we want to keep this redirect again? Doug Mehus T·C 04:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
::::{{replyto|Dmehus}} I restored/imported them to "NetHack/Amulet of Yendor", which is exactly where they should be. Graham87 04:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
:::::{{rto|Graham87}} Oh, well, I'd actually prefer they be at NetHack, since those editors contributed to that article. This would eliminate the need for this redirect. So, I'll leave my !vote as is, as there's a definite need for keeping the revisions—ideally at NetHack but am fine with at this redirect. Doug Mehus T·C 04:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
::::::{{replyto|Dmehus}} Again, we don't normally do that. See the "parallel versions" section of the guide on cut-and-paste moving (I probably should've linked it above). A move to another title as that page mentions would be my second choice for this redirect, but my first choice is still to leave it as it is. Graham87 04:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
:::::::{{rto|Graham87}} Okay, thanks, the redirect is somewhat implausible then. If you're fine with keeping the history attached to a redirect, what above moving it, without leaving a redirect, to something like NetHack/HistMerge or, alternatively, History preservation for NetHack? This would accomplish the same thing. Nevertheless, I don't see how we can have anything other than a "keep" result here. Doug Mehus T·C 05:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
::::::::{{replyto|Dmehus}} Yes, I said I'd be OK with moving it as a second choice ... but the redirect titles you suggested are even more implausible (the Amulet of Yendor is a huge part of the game NetHack). If it was moved, the talk namespace would be a better location ... something like Talk:NetHack/Old history. Graham87 06:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- ...Oh geez. If this edit history is going to be kept, please move the edit history away from this title to a title that is useful as a search term for its target and is not in the "Talk:" namespace. One, this title is useless as a search term, and for two, edit history that is moved to the "Talk:" namespace, as I have found in my many years of "gnoming" forever gets lost in obscurity since it's not a standard location at all for readers to find this stuff. Ya'll want a title to move this edit history to that could meet these requirements?: Try Amulet of Yendor (NetHack). Steel1943 (talk) 14:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
::Support a move to another title, without leaving a redirect, and I have no preference as to what the title of the moved redirect page should be. The one proposed by {{u|Steel1943}} is as good as any and the rationale about/against moving to Talk: namespace makes sense so I would modestly prefer keeping it in the Main: namespace. Although consensus likely exists to keep the redirect where it is, to maintain good editor-to-editor relations and to having unanimous consensus, other than the nomination, this is a reasonable approach. Doug Mehus T·C 14:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - Needed for attribution, unless histmerged. Probably should be moved to amulet of yendor, per [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NetHack&type=revision&diff=700844&oldid=577015 this edit summary], to make the attribution flow naturally. If not, a redirect/note should be put there to navigate to the author information WilyD 05:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- I suggested Amulet of Yendor (NetHack) because {{No redirect|Amulet of Yendor}} exists and is a redirect to a different target: Rogue (video game). Steel1943 (talk) 13:36, 21 January 2020 (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.
