Talk:Hostage Crisis (Star Wars: The Clone Wars)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hostage Crisis (Star Wars: The Clone Wars). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100328092820/http://starwars.com/theclonewars/guide/episode022.html to http://www.starwars.com/theclonewars/guide/episode022.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 5 February 2021

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 (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 05:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

---

Hostage Crisis (Star Wars: The Clone Wars) → Hostage Crisis – simpler name 777burger ^contribs 03:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose, hostage crisis properly redirects to the primary hostage, and the upper-case version should as well. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

  But Hostage crisis and Hostage Crisis are not the same thing, one is a proper noun and one isn't. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. As much as I love me some Clone Wars, this is not the primary topic for this search term. An episode of the Clone Wars is too obscure to use WP:SMALLDETAILS. If I were to be confronted with a specific "Hostage Crisis", I would be more likely to think of something like the Iran hostage crisis than this TV episode. Hostage Crisis should redirect to Hostage the same as Hostage crisis. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:26, 5 February 2021 (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.

Undiscussed Move to Draft

I have requested technical assistance to revert the undiscussed move to draft space.[1] This is ineligible for a bold move to draft, per WP:DRAFTIFY. Page is 14 years old, which by my maths is significantly more than 90 days. The immediate update to the redirect prevented me moving this back myself and also could be interpreted as backdoor deletion, as it hides away the existing text. Suggest this be taken to AfD or else returned to what it was. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

We don't leave articles like this in the mainspace just because they have been there for a long time, I was certain that a discussion about this would have led to the same action which is why I just went ahead and WP:BOLDly made the move. If you have good reasoning for keeping the article in mainspace then I am happy to discuss that. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Noticed there were four such moves. I have requested that all 4 be reverted. This page has been to AfD twice and kept twice. You will need to use AfD to establish a new consensus. (You will note that I was the sole voice for delete in the second AfD, so it is not like I disagree with your intent. But no, there is no consensus for such a move). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

There is no consensus for deleting, that is why I didn't delete them. If the editors who felt these articles met WP:GNG and could be improved to an appropriate standard want to make those changes then they can do so in the draftspace and we can move the articles back to mainspace when that is done. That is what the draftspace is for. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

There is established consensus for the page existing in article space. A new consensus will need to meet the appropriate WP:CONLEVEL. Take it to AfD. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

There is consensus for the article to not be deleted, and I am not trying to delete the article, so there is no need to return to AfD. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

No. There was not "no consensus". The consensus was "keep". I'll leave it there. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

You have just repeated what I said (?) - adamstom97 (talk) 10:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)