Talk:Retroactively amended purchase

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

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)