Talk:Boy next door (stock character)
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Staszek Lem in topic Retargeted redirect
 | This is the talk page of a redirect that targets the page: • Girl next door Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:Girl next door |
 | This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
NO original research edit
Please do not add text into the article which is not based on references which discuss the subject, i.e., "Boy next door". This is against wikipedia rules WP:CITE, WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:47, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Retargeted redirect edit
I retargeted the term to wiktionary for two related reasons
- GND article does not define the term, while wiktionary does.
- There is no evidence that BND is basically same as GND (otherwise we could have written this up in GND arrticle, right?) Staszek Lem (talk) 20:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- The AfD was closed as redirect, where there was discussion and 4 different editors believed that this should be redirected to girl next door. The closing editor found these opinions to be the consensus and redirected the article. Your argument should be taken to redirects for discussion, as you should not override extremely recent AfDs unilaterally. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 20:03, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- Do you have any real arguments against mine? And if you want tell me what I should or should not do during editing, please cite the relevant guidelines. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- I figured someone with thousands of edits would know that WP is built on consensus. That means, since there was a recent discussion (in August 2019) which resulted in an agreement that this article should be redirected to Girl next door, that is the status quo, and you cannot change it without reaching a new consensus. Which means, your unilateral decision is not what rules. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boy next door (stock character). See also WP:BRD which means if you make a bold change (ie a change that goes against consensus/status quo) and are reverted, you should discuss the change rather than re-instituting it. Again, if you think this should be changed, nominate the redirect at redirects for discussion. Please do not edit war. This is not about whether I have real arguments, it's that WP is built entirely on consensus and unilaterally ignoring it because you disagee completely goes against that. Thank you. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 00:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for the explanation. As someone with thousands of edits I had no idea that retargeting a redirect must be discussed in WP:RFD. I had never had problems with retargeting redirects before. I thought that, as usual, page content is to be discussed in page talk, which I did. OK. posting at WP:RFD: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 September 4 . Staszek Lem (talk) 01:09, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
- P.S. That done, let me humbly remind you about WP:CCC. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:24, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
- I figured someone with thousands of edits would know that WP is built on consensus. That means, since there was a recent discussion (in August 2019) which resulted in an agreement that this article should be redirected to Girl next door, that is the status quo, and you cannot change it without reaching a new consensus. Which means, your unilateral decision is not what rules. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boy next door (stock character). See also WP:BRD which means if you make a bold change (ie a change that goes against consensus/status quo) and are reverted, you should discuss the change rather than re-instituting it. Again, if you think this should be changed, nominate the redirect at redirects for discussion. Please do not edit war. This is not about whether I have real arguments, it's that WP is built entirely on consensus and unilaterally ignoring it because you disagee completely goes against that. Thank you. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 00:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
- Do you have any real arguments against mine? And if you want tell me what I should or should not do during editing, please cite the relevant guidelines. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- The AfD was closed as redirect, where there was discussion and 4 different editors believed that this should be redirected to girl next door. The closing editor found these opinions to be the consensus and redirected the article. Your argument should be taken to redirects for discussion, as you should not override extremely recent AfDs unilaterally. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 20:03, 3 September 2019 (UTC)