Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 April 24

Away team (Star Trek term)

Extended discussion on procedural matters has moved from the main discussion for readability purposes. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:12, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, the target has nothing to do with Star Trek. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:18, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- For the reasons I spell out in my recommendation, the nomination is entirely inappropriate and this delete !vote should not stand in the way of a speedy close. RfD is not DRV. Thryduulf (talk) 19:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - RfD is the correct location to discuss redirects. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:18, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - In general yes, it is though not the correct venue in which to attempt to overturn a very recent consensus - see WP:FORUMSHOP. Thryduulf (talk) 00:58, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - The AfD discussed an article and now we are discussing a redirect—not the same thing at all. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:57, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        The AfD discussed the article and came to the consensus that the title should be a redirect while discussions about a possible merger continue. This nomination is an attempt to overturn that consensus and delete the redirect that exists because of the AfD - if the AfD was a long time ago then it would not be inappropriate to see whether consensus has changed, but 30 minutes is disruptive. Thryduulf (talk) 10:03, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        No, this nomination is figuring out what to do with the resulting redirect—which was not established by nor the purpose of the AfD discussion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        The consensus of the AfD was to redirect this title while discussion about whether to merge happens. If you want to disagree with that consensus take it to DRV but the redirect is entirely appropriate pending the outcome of that discussion because deleting the redirect would prejudice the merge discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 18:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        This is that discussion... -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:59, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        This is not a merge discussion, it's a DRV masquerading as an RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 21:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        This is a redirect, and the central forum for discussing redirects is called "redirects for discussion", which is where we are now. If you feel the redirect should be kept, then you should be working to figure out how to make the merge work. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:59, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is wholly impossible to conduct a merge discussion in the shadow of a deletion discussion. Merge discussions take place on the talk page, are generally open-ended, and might be formalized into an RfC on an as-needed basis, but are more usually informal affairs. This discussion is nothing of the sort, and is also preempting the proper merge discussion from happening (because in a week, it'll be moot). So I think this recommendation is at best misguided. --N Y Kevin 23:29, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that this is "redirects for discussion", not "redirects for deletion". Redirects are not trafficked enough to conduct anything at the talk page—it is far better to do it at a central location like this. While deletion may be one of the outcomes for this discussion, finalizing a plan for merging the content and carrying it out is also a potential outcome, and a valid WP:ATD. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:34, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close - RfD is not a forum for overturning AfD results, no matter how wrong we might think the AfD closure was. Come back in a month or two, or take it to DRV. --N Y Kevin 23:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article is now a redirect as a result of that AfD. This is exactly the right place to discuss it. —Xezbeth (talk) 04:52, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"The article is now a redirect as a result of that AfD." - Yes, that was my point, actually. Take it to DRV if you want to overturn that outcome. --N Y Kevin 05:47, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion isn't to overturn that outcome, it's a follow-up discussion about what to do with the resulting redirect. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:26, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The outcome of the AfD was redirect. The only outcomes of this discussion possible are to either endorse that consensus or overturn it in favour of a different one. That is the exact purpose of DRV and very much not the purpose of RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 21:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The outcomes of this discussion are no different than any other discussion at RfD, either keep, retarget, delete, etc. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:59, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But a "keep" outcome is the same as endorsing the AfD consensus and any outcome other than "keep" is the same as overturning the AfD result. That is exactly what DRV is for and exactly what RfD is not for. Thryduulf (talk) 11:46, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, because this is a separate discussion with a separate purpose from the AfD. We are discussing a redirect which is exactly what "redirects for discussion" is for. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:27, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Except it isn't a separate discussion at all - it is an attempt to delete a redirect that exists solely because of the consensus in the AfD discussion (and, whether it is the intent or not, it is also in practice prejudicial to the discussion about a merge). The entire basis of this nomination is that the outcome of that AfD was wrong - which is a matter for DRV not RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 13:40, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD established that there should not be an article on this term, but it did not definitively decide on whether there should be a redirect in place. Sandstein left the redirect to facilitate the next discussion. Now we are having an RfD to determine whether or not there should be a redirect. These are different: AfD said "no article". Now RfD asks "redirect?" -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:26, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Close but wrong. The AfD said "no article, redirect to allow merge discussions to continue". This discussion is an attempt to overturn that outcome to "no article, no redirect, the merge should be decided without reference to the content that would be merged". This RfD literally cannot do anything other than endorse the AfD or overturn the AfD - both of which would be an abuse of RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 18:09, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The landing party article is just a stub and so needs expanding. I have added material about Star Trek and so most of the above comments are now moot. Andrew D. (talk) 13:48, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't agree with the addition there—the landing party article is too different and it doesn't flow due to the sudden break from history to Star Trek. I think if the content is added somewhere, it needs to be a Star Trek-related article. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:27, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you have an opinion about whether content should be merged into the article you should be discussing that on the aricle talk page in the merge discussion this pseudo-DRV is prejudicing. Thryduulf (talk) 13:40, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is not, nor should there be, parallel discussions on this matter. It is far better to keep everything in one place over having a discussion here on the redirect, another one at DRV because you think we also need to formally challenge the AfD close (which I don't think is necessary) and another one on the talk page specifically for a merge. We are all already here and it is perfectly fine for all that to play out here. What is not okay is the constant obstructionism from your repeated calls to take this elsewhere. The discussion is happening in spite of your obstruction, and I would appreciate it if you would actually take part in the discussion on the redirect—or not—but you have made your opinion on the procedural matter very clear. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:08, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Indeed there should not be parallel discussions, and the only that is actually required is the merge discussion. The RfD really isn't needed, because it's an obvious keep pending the outcome of the merge discussion (as I have made clear already). The DRV is only necessary if anyone wants to challenge the AfD closure - which you and the nominator apparently do but I don't as the closure was a correct reflection of the AfD discussion. I know you see it as obstruction for me to keep pointing out why your arguments are flawed but I couldn't disagree more. So as long as you keep making and repeating arguments based on fundamental misunderstandings or misrepresentations of policy I will keep explaining why they such. Thryduulf (talk) 17:58, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Since we agree there shouldn't be parallel discussions, it's best to have it where it already is. Since no one is wanting to overturn the AfD and we are discussing the merge here, it appears we're all set. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:15, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]