Talk:Marks (Stargate)
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Vegaswikian in topic Requested move
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | The contents of the Marks (Stargate) page were merged into Tau'ri characters in Stargate SG-1. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
Requested move
edit- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
No consensus to move. I did go though and move all of the actual inbound links which would be the effect of the proposal. The big problem is that we can't redirect a redirect which is what the request is for. This is probably one of those cases where it would be the best choice. So now all articles are linked to the redirect that uses the actual name in the article that the redirect is to. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Marks (Stargate) → Kevin Marks (Stargate) — according to the List of recurring Earth characters in Stargate SG-1#Kevin Marks, this character is Kevin Marks, so the edit history should be moved there, should someone restore this as an article. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 11:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Conisdering that this is a redirect and not an article I don't see the point here. The propopsed target also redirects here.--76.66.182.164 (talk) 23:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- It moves the contribution history to a better named page, considering that "Marks" is a highly ambiguous term, that could mean the glyphs found in Stargate, the target of this page might change. Were the character to regain a separate article page, it would sit at the proper name, "Kevin Marks", so the previous version of the page should sit there, so that it would occur in the edit history should such an event come to pass. 76.66.198.128 (talk) 03:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Unnecessary - the article only existed as a non-redirect for 1.5 hours, back in 2006, so does not have a significant edit history. — Amakuru (talk) 07:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Makes sense I suppose, but I really don't see much point in doing it. As noted, the redirect does not have a significant page history, and I think it's unlikely that this will ever be restored as an article. PC78 (talk) 21:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.