Talk:Retroactively amended purchase: Difference between revisions
m Mingyee moved page Talk:Retroactively amended experiences to Talk:Retroactively amended purchase: This was originally “retroactive amended purchase experience”. It was renamed to avoid an appearance of impropriety and juvenility. The new article title, however, does not accurately reflect the content. It is not an experience that has been amended, but the purchase (whose amendment the consumer experiences this). |
→Why not merge instead of deleting: new section |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Also, this comes across as a bit of a chatgpt dump. | Also, this comes across as a bit of a chatgpt dump. | ||
-Keith | -Keith | ||
I move that [[Retroactively amended experiences]] be deleted rather than a redirect. The title "retroactively amended experience" is nonsense. It was an attempt to fix the problem mentioned above, which I later corrected to the current [[Retroactively amended purchase]] by moving the page. At the moment, though, moving pages makes a redirect rather than simply renaming the page. There are also no remaining links to "retroactively amended experience", anyway.[[User:Mingyee|Mingyee]] ([[User talk:Mingyee|talk]]) 10:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
: The moving of a page not deleting but redirecting is intented behaviour to avoid broken links in cases of pages already populated and part of the wiki. I have deleted the redirect for this now though. [[User:Kostas|Kostas]] ([[User talk:Kostas|talk]]) 12:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== Why not merge instead of deleting == | |||
If it is deleted, we lose the history. I agree that there are too many articles of the same topic, but think merge and then change to redirect might be more useful than delete. (But I am not going to appeal it, as long as this winds up a redirect to whichever article we pick to be the final.) [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 05:50, 19 October 2025 (UTC) | |||