Talk:Retroactively amended purchase: Difference between revisions
Add topicNo edit summary |
→Why not merge instead of deleting: new section |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
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) | 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) | |||
Latest revision as of 05:50, 19 October 2025
I suggest a move and title change for this page - let's move away from the edgy analogies. (ok - have been informed that this is one that Louis has used. In that case, it's still not appropriate for an article title, but a section within the article can describe it as a popular coloquial term, and highlight why the comparison is made, and reference https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=R(etroactively)+A(mended)+P(urchase)+E(xperience)
Also, this comes across as a bit of a chatgpt dump. -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.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. Kostas (talk) 12:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Why not merge instead of deleting
[edit source]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.) Drakeula (talk) 05:50, 19 October 2025 (UTC)