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
. Aervanath (talk) 22:02, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
double typo that could refer to either Mount St. Helens or Mount Saint Helena, and perhaps other targets, suggest deletion. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- Move and retarget. This was created when the Hurricane Jeanne article was moved to that title from here in 2004. As best I can tell, it was page move vandalism but because page moves were only recorded in the history of the source page back then it's tricky to be certain. Even though it is vandalism, this being the only record of that page move does mean we need to keep it around for attribution purposes though. I agree it's not a useful redirect to the current target, or to the hurricane, in it's present form and nothing notable includes "Halenas" as far as I can see (only usernames, a non-notable possibly sole-trader clothes retailer, and very occasional French pages (:wikt:halenas informs that it's the second-person singular past historic of halener, meaning "to exhale" or "to scent")). So I suggest moving it, without a redirect, to a name that's a useful redirect for the hurricane and retargeting it there - the modern logging of moves and showing up in whatlinkshere for the hurricane will make it as easy as possible for someone to find if they need to. Maybe moving an then separately deleting the resulting redirect (rather than suppressing the redirect) will allow for log entries to be even clearer? Anyway, that necessitates finding a useful redirect to the hurricane that doesn't already exist - Hurricane Jeanne 2004 or Hurricane jeanne are the most obvious to me, with possibly a marginal preference for the latter. Thryduulf (talk) 00:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom as a ambiguous typo. I strongly oppose Thryduulf's proposal. The idea that attribution would be necessary for page move vandalism is—frankly—ridiculous and sets a dangerous precedent. -- Tavix (talk) 00:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- :It might sound ridiculous to you, but nowhere I've ever seen in either the GFDL (which applied at the time) or cc-by-sa attribution requirements is vandalism distinguished from any other edit, despite what an essay might imply. Thryduulf (talk) 03:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- ::Nowhere I've seen that all page move vandalism before 27 June 2005 must be kept, which is what you're implying. Vandalism need not be attributed—quite the opposite in fact because vandalism is prohibited. -- Tavix (talk) 11:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- :::You are correct that vandalism is prohibited, but I've seen nothing in either the GFDL or cc-by-sa licenses' attribution requirements that distinguishes between prohibited edits and allowed edits. We don't get to choose which bits of the law we follow, so unless you can show me where, in the legal text, it says vandalism is exempt from attribution requirements we don't have a choice to keep this. Thryduulf (talk) 05:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
::::::If the contributions have been removed (not meaning from the database, just from the article), then the requirement to attribute the article's text does not include people whose contribution have been removed from it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- ::Unless I'm missing something, I kind of doubt that page move (or any other) meets the threshold of originality. Rummskartoffel 17:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- :::The only time moving a page to another title would arguably not be a significant edit would be when doing simple substitution of similar characters (e.g. hyphen to endash). Moving "Hurricane Jeanne" to "Mount St. Helenas" is far more significant than a typo fix in an article and we always ensure to maintain the attribution of those edits. Thryduulf (talk) 04:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
::While I don't think we necessarily need to preserve that bit of confusing old history and simple deletion would be fine, I don't think there is any harm in Thryduulf's proposal either. In that case I think the redirect can just be suppressed when doing the move along with a detailed edit summary rather than doing a move/delete. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
:::Unnecessarily preserving vandalism is harmful. -- Tavix (talk) 19:47, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
::::We wouldn't be preserving vandalism, we would just be preserving the record that it occurred with page history, which is a normal occurrence. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 12:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- {{re|Thryduulf}}, would a link to the user who did the move and a brief description of what they did in the edit summary of a dummy edit be enough for attribution? That's basically what the current system does anyway in regards to moves. If so then I absolutely believe a delete is warranted. eviolite (talk) 19:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Relisting comment: By which of the ways do we achieve attribution for a probable page move vandalism that happened here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:47, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, don't bother with attribution. There's nothing in the history of these redirects that need to be retained for attribution per the GFDL/CC licences, as the article text, which is what we care about, isn't recorded in any of the permalinked versions of the redirects, and any modifications made are in the history of the main article. (See also Headbomb's above comments.) While the edit summaries left behind are useful as breadcrumbs for tracking down what happened in that instance of vandalism (you can see from the vandal's contribs that they first moved the page to Tropical Storm Jeanne, then to Hurricane Ivans, then to Mount St. Halenas, before it was finally reverted, all in a window of six minutes), we don't usually consider the need to facilitate such detective work in retaining redirects, and routinely delete more recent redirects created as a result of vandalism anyway. The only difference for these older cases is that there's no log entry left behind, so non-admins would not be able to do said detective work if the redirects were deleted. I don't think that's a realistic use case. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
- Delete and attribute per suggestion by Eviolite. Huggums537 (talk) 02:35, 1 December 2021 (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.
