Talk:Perpetua (disambiguation)
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Born2cycle in topic Requested move 7 September 2020
 | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Requested move 7 September 2020
edit- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Not moved. Consensus is that current redirect target is the primary topic so this dab should not be moved there. (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 22:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Perpetua (disambiguation) → Perpetua – Current redirect target Perpetua and Felicity is not WP:MAINTOPIC. I had simply repointed the rootpage to the dab, because when I have done so in the past, admins have reversed such redirections [Foo]→[Foo (dab)] to [Foo (dab)]→[Foo]; however this time JHunterJ reverted with message "rv WP:MALPLACED. Use WP:RM to move the disambiguation here if needed". I don't believe the reversion is appropriate or required by WP:MALPLACED. The only valid reason for the revert would be if JHunterJ actually believes "Perpetua and Felicity" is the mainttopic; to allow for that possibility I have put this move request here rather than in "Uncontroversial technical requests" jnestorius(talk) 13:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- The valid reason for the revert was given in the revert, which you quoted. I actually believe there's no indication that the previous primary topic is no longer the primary topic; such a change in consensus may form here, but your "simply repointed" redirect to bypass such a discussion does not mean the admin mopping up after it has to validate it, even if you've had that happen in the past. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:53, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- A redirect pointing to the wrong target is a more serious issue than a dab with a nonstandard name. Fixing a lesser problem by resinstating a greater problem is bad practice. jnestorius(talk) 15:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- There's no indication that the previous primary topic is no longer the primary topic. But I repeat myself. A valid arrangement with a primary topic is not a more serious issue than an incorrect arrangement of a disambiguation page. Fixing an incorrect arrangement caused by an undiscussed (and possibly non-consensus) change from primary topic to no primary topic, and pointing the editor to the way to get it addressed correctly, is good practice. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- If your concern was/is an "undiscussed (and possibly non-consensus) change from primary topic to no primary topic" then WP:MALPLACED is a red herring and your editsummary was incorrect and misleading. The correct policy would appear to be WP:BRD. jnestorius(talk) 19:07, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- My edit summary was correct and on-point. Just because WP:BRD also applies doesn't mean WP:MALPLACED doesn't. Now, why don't we let your RM play out and stop acting like admins are just here to validate your actions? -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- I've been in this situation before: in obvious cases I might retarget a redirect to a dab page and leave it to admins patrolling MALPLACED to perform the move, but on one or two occasions I've been reverted by the admin citing "MALPACED". This has been slightly irksome: either the admin disagrees with me that there's no primary topic, in which case they should revert citing their belief in the existence of a primary topic, or they agree with me, in which case they can freely cite MALPLACED when performing the move of the dab page. – Uanfala (talk) 20:21, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- I find myself in the third possibility: they disagree that it's obvious that the previous consensus has changed, and they revert citing their belief that it should be discussed in WP:RM. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:40, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- I've been in this situation before: in obvious cases I might retarget a redirect to a dab page and leave it to admins patrolling MALPLACED to perform the move, but on one or two occasions I've been reverted by the admin citing "MALPACED". This has been slightly irksome: either the admin disagrees with me that there's no primary topic, in which case they should revert citing their belief in the existence of a primary topic, or they agree with me, in which case they can freely cite MALPLACED when performing the move of the dab page. – Uanfala (talk) 20:21, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- My edit summary was correct and on-point. Just because WP:BRD also applies doesn't mean WP:MALPLACED doesn't. Now, why don't we let your RM play out and stop acting like admins are just here to validate your actions? -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- If your concern was/is an "undiscussed (and possibly non-consensus) change from primary topic to no primary topic" then WP:MALPLACED is a red herring and your editsummary was incorrect and misleading. The correct policy would appear to be WP:BRD. jnestorius(talk) 19:07, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- There's no indication that the previous primary topic is no longer the primary topic. But I repeat myself. A valid arrangement with a primary topic is not a more serious issue than an incorrect arrangement of a disambiguation page. Fixing an incorrect arrangement caused by an undiscussed (and possibly non-consensus) change from primary topic to no primary topic, and pointing the editor to the way to get it addressed correctly, is good practice. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- A redirect pointing to the wrong target is a more serious issue than a dab with a nonstandard name. Fixing a lesser problem by resinstating a greater problem is bad practice. jnestorius(talk) 15:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. The saint is the top find at Google Scholar. Srnec (talk) 17:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. I am not seeing a good case for the absence of a primary topic, particularly where nearly all of the topics on the disambiguation page are partial title matches, and therefore less likely to be searched for under the name "Perpetua" alone. BD2412 T 19:29, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.