. I realize how unsatisfying this is bound to be, but there simply isn't consensus for any one course of action. By my count, the thinnest plurality favored deletion, but this was still ultimately a minority position. Nor was there the sort of unanimous consensus against the status quo that would make me call no consensus but still retarget somewhere. Should anyone want to try creating a broad-concept article as discussed, that might be welcome. --BDD (talk) 19:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
No action recommended, just looking for feedback about the redirect. Prisencolin (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
:My thoughts for this redirect were that "Customs and Immigration", especially in that order, is most likely to refer to the process at airports. Customs, a related topic, is another possibility, with government agencies being a less likely intended search target. as far as I can tell, the only government agency with an article on Wikipedia that includes "Customs and Immigration" in their names in that order is States of Jersey Customs and Immigration Service. Confusingly, the previous target for this redirect, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), doesn't actually conduct customs checks at borders, a task left to U.S. Customs and Border Protection. ICE is mostly known for carrying out deportations. signed, Rosguill talk 01:44, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- I question the value of this redirect. Immigration and customs doesn't exist, even though in my experience that's the usual order of processing. Land and sea routes are also important, notably in Europe. One role of the UK Border Force is to check for illegal immigrants, so that checking the contents of a lorry is a combined customs and immigration operation. Narky Blert (talk) 06:39, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- My comments are similar to the above in that I would prefer to see Customs and immigration, with Customs and Immigration using {{tl|R from other capitalisation}}, target to a generic article on foreign affairs, immigration, customs, immigration and customs enforcement, and the like. Being targeted to the article on international airports is not the greatest. I think it's fine, for now, but without prejudice to a bold retarget to a more appropriate target. --Doug Mehus T·C 13:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
::{{u|Narky Blert}}, {{u|Dmehus}}, how would you feel about Customs as a potential target? signed, Rosguill talk 21:29, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
:::{{u|Rosguill}} Glancing at the sections of the article, it does focus on immigration enforcement and customs, import tariffs, and so forth, but it's actually not that great. I'd actually prefer to see Customs move to Customs and immigration, with Customs continuing as a redirect to the section on Customs. Or, instead of a redirect, Customs would then become a dab page for border-related "Customs" and topics related to social and political customs and traditions. Or, alternatively, if editors want to have a separate article on more immigration-related topics, then dab-ifying Customs and immigration. As to the order of the title, in Canada, as well as the United States, "customs" usually comes first and, alphabetically, this seems to make sense. Doug Mehus T·C 21:35, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
::::{{u|Rosguill}}: two separate things, so WP:XY. We may be lacking an article which describes even in general terms what can be involved in crossing a frontier, with or without goods. I can remember both currency controls on leaving and duty-free goods on reentering UK. (That redirect is very poor. All purchases made outside UK were subject to customs duty, up to a personal limit of something like 200 cigs and a bottle of booze. At one time, there was even a limit on the amount of money you could bring into UK on returning.) Narky Blert (talk) 21:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
:::::Comment. There is history, even recent history, in this. Immigration and customs aren't always about just routinely showing your papers to and opening your suitcase for a couple of bored officials. (1) In 1959, we went on a family holiday to northern Spain. The second or third day there, my father was up early in the morning with a pair of binoculars, birdwatching, when he encountered a policeman. To avoid possible trouble, he volunteered in broken Spanish an explanation of what he was doing; but the policeman just smiled, and said, We know. (2) In 1964, I went on a school trip to Russia. One of my friends had an orange, and the customs officer made him peel it. Why? So that he couldn't sell it on the black market. (3) In 1968, my parents were in Czechoslovakia when the Soviets invaded. They were advised to, and did, leave in a hurry. Neither the Czechoslovak nor the Austrian border guards had the slightest interest in their papers or in what they might be carrying; nor in those of anyone else crossing in the same direction. Narky Blert (talk) 22:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- Retarget to Customs which in its lead mentions migration/immigration authorities and has a link to Immigration. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:42, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:XY unless a retargeting option is found where this redirect is a proper name of something. Oppose retargeting to Customs or Immigration since redirecting to either one causes the WP:XY issue, since one target is inexplicably preferred over the other in such circumstances. Steel1943 (talk) 14:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Although no action was recommended by the nominator, and I am fine with closing this as no action if the previous participants {{ping|Prisencolin|Rosguill|Narky Blert|Shhhnotsoloud|Steel1943}} are as it's not a targeted to a terribly bad location, but it's also not great either. Like Narky and Steel1943, I would be oppose retargeting to Customs or Immigration per the above, and am more or less neutral on deletion. I think, ultimately, what we need here, if action is to occur, is for Customs and immigration to either be converted to either of (1) (a) a disambiguation page or (b) a broad-concept article or, in absence of consensus on how such a page would look, deleted or kept as is without prejudice (as is the case with all deletion discussions) to recreation in the future when suitable alternatives emerge. What do you guys think? Doug Mehus T·C 15:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
::Comment. I'd support a WP:BCA, which need only be very short; effectively, an annotated list of targets. I would not support a DAB, because there are no full title matches. Narky Blert (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
:::{{u|Narky Blert}} Yeah, I concur with your arguments re: the partial title matches. Any idea what one might look like? If you get a chance to draft it below the target, we can work on it. I think we should relist this to suss this idea out. Doug Mehus T·C 20:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}Relisting comment: Involved relist to further evaluate a brief
broad-concept article as an
alternative to deletion or, as was desired as an alternative by most of the participants in the discussion, to take no action.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doug Mehus T·C 20:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- delete (or...) per Steel1943. Plus, the search engine is good enough to find both "Customs" and "Immigration" - Nabla (talk) 11:22, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
:: PS: I think deleting is still better than "border control" (although it is better than "customs" or "emmigration") - Nabla (talk) 20:20, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- Retarget to Border control, which covers both topics. If "customs and immigration" (or "customs, immigration and quarantine") are combined together, they usually refer to the processes in the context of border control. feminist (talk) 09:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Neutral on either delete-ing, per Steel1943 below, or retarget-ing to Border control, per {{u|Feminist|feminist}} above. It's not necessarily ideal in that I'm not sure that article is appropriately titled, but I would concur that both aspects are broadly discussed. I would add {{tl|R to related topic}}, {{tl|R from synonym}} (broadly speaking, it is), {{tl|R for convenience}}, and any other rcats as may be appropriate. I would also encourage feminist to participate in some other close discussions—their participation is invaluable and welcome! Doug Mehus T·C 17:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}Relisting comment: Involved relist to discuss the retarget option identified by
feminist, which discusses both
customs and
immigration broadly speaking. Pinging the previous participants via {{tl|ping}} {{ping|Prisencolin|Rosguill|Narky Blert|Shhhnotsoloud|Steel1943|Nabla}} in order to update them on the potential target identified by feminist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doug Mehus T·C 17:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- FWIW, I oppose retarget to Border control since there could still be someone looking up this term looking to find specific information about Customs and Immigration combined. Best to just delete this redirect to help readers the most. Steel1943 (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- :I maintain my support for targeting Border control, because when "customs and immigration" is used as a combined concept it is usually in reference to border control (including at international airports, seaports, train stations etc.). Readers rarely combine the two concepts in any other context. feminist (talk) 02:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Noting {{u|Steel1943}}'s convincing counter-argument to retargeting to border control, I thought the suggestion was better than any of the other targets identified, but I was never completely satisfied with that target. I now think either retargeting per feminist or deletion per Steel1943 is probably best here, to encourage article, including a broad concept article, creation. What I'm only opposed to is to retargeting to Customs or Immigration. Revised and amended. Doug Mehus T·C 18:32, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- Retarget border control where readers may find relevant information about customs and immigration being enforced in the same place. Deryck C. 17:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}Relisting comment: WP:INVOLVED relist to close oldest log day. Any uninvolved discussion closer can close this at any time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- Just wanted to say thanks to Feminist for [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure&diff=945470322&oldid=945465219 listing this discussion] on WP:ANRFC as I was about to do that myself. Steel1943 (talk) 18:35, 18 March 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.
