Talk:Aeschentor
 | 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 Aeschentor page were merged into Walls of Basel on 18 July 2018 and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
Etymology edit
I consider a vowel shift from "A" to "Ae"/"Ä" highly implausible. I don't believe that the Aeschentor has anything to do with ashes (any meaning). It was the gate on the road to Aesch, less than 5 miles away. The name "Gate of Ashes" looks to me like WP:OR. Narky Blert (talk) 16:52, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- It may be original or it may be research or even both... we have no evidence. Agree with your phonology (but that's also OR of course). I've removed the claim (I almost said boldly, but the material is unsourced so it's not even a bold edit IMO, and wouldn't be even if we had no consensus here and we do have it). Andrewa (talk) 22:56, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Requested move 17 June 2018 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. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: moved as requested (with the redirect retained) per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 17:11, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Gate of Ashes → Aeschentor – This is, quite frankly: WP:OR, an extraordinarily bad translation, and hopelessly wrong. The German name is Aeschentor. That has nothing to do with either ash or ash trees. It relates to Aesch, Basel-Landschaft. Gate of Ashes needs to be killed with fire as a made-up name. Narky Blert (talk) 21:04, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- Support. No evidence that this English name existed before Wikipedia used it. Andrewa (talk) 23:23, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- Also support merge per User:Sandstein below, very good call, and merge other gate articles as well. But still best if this move takes place to preserve the page history at a better title. Andrewa (talk) 18:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- Support, as a German-speaker I can confirm that this is a made-up translation. But also merge to Walls of Basel, of which this is a relatively minor (former) feature. Sandstein 08:49, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- Support. We don't use WP:BOLLOCKS titles for our articles. Also support merge proposal. This is a micro-stub with pretty much no hope of expansion. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:08, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Discussion edit
This is trickier than it may first appear. Many other websites do use the name Gate of Ashes and don't cite Wikipedia, but all the ones I have found are post-2006 when the article was created, so is it just circular reporting? My opinion is that it is most likely to be so. As has been pointed out elsewhere, the unsourced etymology I've now removed from the article is phonologically improbable.
As it's now attested, Gate of Ashes should remain as a redirect, but it shouldn't be the article title.
The creator has made only one edit to English Wikipedia since 2016, and was only occasionally active after 2008... somewhere in the range 1500-2000 contributions in all. They were an admin on German Wikipedia (may still be, I speak no German) but are no longer active there either. [1] Doubtful if it's worth pinging them IMO. (I should note however that User:Sandstein and User:Narky Blert both speak German, and that I am a linguist best qualified in language survey.) Andrewa (talk) 18:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think we should retain the redirect if it appears all attestations of that name postdate the article itself, since it reeks of WP:OR. Retaining it might give the impression that it is an accepted name. I also note the article itself has zero sources cited. Hairy Dude (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- We retain the redirect so as not to break incoming links, which would have a negative effect on readers. Deleting this one would violate WP:PMRC in my opinion. It should be kept.
- And in any case, the damage has been done. People will now search for this information by this name, whatever its sins. So again, for reader experience, the redirect is useful. Andrewa (talk) 03:16, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.