| Revision as of 05:11, 8 February 2010 editAthaenara (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users54,866 edits adding archive box, removing duplicates of inactive discussions from February 2004 through December 2006 which are preserved in Talk:Wizard (fantasy)/Archive 1← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 16:27, 26 August 2018 edit undoEmausBot (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,854,114 editsm Bot: Fixing double redirect to Talk:Magician (fantasy)Tag: Redirect target changed | ||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| #REDIRECT ] | |||
| {{oldafdfull|date= 23 November 2006 |result= '''Keep''' |votepage= Wizard (fantasy) }} | |||
| {{Archive box|search=yes| | |||
| * ] <small>(Feb 2004–Dec 2006)</small> | |||
| }} | |||
| ==]== | |||
| {{seealso|magician}} | |||
| {{seealso|alchemy|alchemists}} | |||
| {{seealso|shamanism|shaman}} | |||
| {{seealso|witch}} | |||
| {{seealso|warlock}} | |||
| {{seealso|jedi}} | |||
| In general, if the information you are thinking about adding here is more suited to one of the above articles (or any similar article), then place it THERE and not HERE. | |||
| Just because one of the names some person or persons may have been called is a wizard, does not mean that such persons should be listed in this article. {{unsigned|Jc37| 03:53, 22 July 2006 UTC}} | |||
| == Tidying page == | |||
| I am starting to try and work out what has happened here. See the ongoing analysis at ]. Please comment on the talk page if you see any problems. Also, please don't do any more redirects or moves until things are a bit clearer. Thanks. ] 14:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :The <b>last</b> move and redirect shouldn't have been done in the first place! It needs to be put back, and I'll be addressing that with Administrators. ] <small> ] </small> 20:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Would you consider concentrating on editing and adding content to the Misplaced Pages Magic pages? I promise to not take too long over my analysis, and I think that when it is complete it might make things a bit clearer. ] 00:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Would you consider explaining to us exactly what you find so unclear about this split? ] 00:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Goldfritha has made extraordinary contributions to the content of the Misplaced Pages magic pages; and I will concentrate on those issues as I see fit - whether it be content or other technical issues of Misplaced Pages. ] <small> ] </small> 02:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::What split? There has been a recent move, but no split that I can see. The split of content happened before the latest split. The history of this page is still , it hasn't gone anywhere, it is just at a different title. As I say, I think this is confusing, and it needs to be documented before anything more happens. I guess I am offering to mediate here, and part of that would involve me analysing what happened, though as that will take a while, I thought you might all want to get back to writing the encyclopedia - it is just a friendly suggestion, so please take it in the spirit in which I offer it. The point I was making about contribtions is that you all have made great contributions, and I want to see you carrying on with that instead of getting bogged down in this dispute. If you don't want any unofficial mediation, I'll carry on with my analysis and leave you three to carry on discussing things, but I would like to help you resolve this amicably. ] 02:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Mediation is part of the dispute resolution process, a process which jc37 has ignored in favor of making the edits as he sees fit - making a confusing mess in the process. As far as I can see, this situation now requires Administrator action, which I will be moving forward on. It's time for offical not informal action. ] <small> ] </small> 03:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::My feeling is that the options at ] are not yet exhausted. Talking of "Administrator action" misses the point. What administrator action do you propose an administrator should take? Administrators should only act if there is a clear action to take. Content or article naming disputes are resolved by discussion among editors, not by appeal to administrators. The best thing to do, in my opinion, is to get more people commenting on this, to help decide what to do and what not to do. I've made my position clear: stop moving or redirecting things until there is agreement. To that extent, jc37 shouldn't have carried out the latest move, but undoing that will be tricky. Please, can all of you, jc37 especially, agree to not move or redirect things associated with the 'Magic' pages until this is sorted out? ] 03:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I'm going to ask an administrator if it's possible and the right thing to undo the changes that were made while the issue was under dispute. I know administrators who specialize in "tricky" and find those types of things to be a challenge. I'll also be asking an administrator to block jc37 if he continues making changes to what is being disputed. ] <small> ] </small> 03:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I don't think calls for blocking are justified here, and such calls are not very helpful in general anyway. ] 04:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Me, I just think that this article here should be moved back to "Wizard (fantasy)" to preserve the history, as was decided -- by total agreement -- in the discussion about deleting it. ] 03:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::You are so right Goldfritha, The changes made by jc3 are completely contrary to spirit of the AfD findings. Your suggestion is probably the best way to move forward. We'd have to get the current and newly created ] article deleted, which should be easy since it is brand new and has no edit history to speak of - unless we can just move the history to it....? If not, can you put in the AfD? The only remaining part would be asking an Administrator warn jc37, so he doesn't pull this type of stunt in the future, and follows the dispute resolution process instead of taking pre-emptive solo action. ] <small> ] </small> 03:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Please don't ask for the redirect at ] to be deleted. You are only asking for the history to be moved from one redirect to another - it really doesn't make much difference. It should be somewhere else entirely, but that is not possible because the text was cut and pasted to another article. ] 04:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::If it makes no difference, jc37 wouldn't have done it in the first place. Furthermore, there would be absolutely no reason not to revert it. ] 04:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Goldfritha, the history has not been lost. Please don't worry about that. It has been moved, but not lost. I agree the moving is not good, but from what I can see it was already difficult to trace from text to edit history due to earlier splits of the article at that earlier location. ] 04:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Carcharoth, you have been repeatedly telling us, in effect, that nothing jc37 does matters, and we shouldn't worry about it. We haven't be persuaded by it, so please stop repeating it. It's annoying and uncivil. | |||
| ::::::::::The history was sliced off "Wizard (fantasy)" and shuffled elsewhere. If it doesn't have its own history, it's been lost. ] 04:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::('''Please''' accept my suggestion in the first part of that. Your manner is substantially hampering your ability to persuade me, at least, of anything.) ] 04:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::OK. I tried. I'd appreciate a note on my talk page to discuss how my manner hampered you. One thing I will say is that you saying that someone is being uncivil when they are actually trying to help, is not very helpful. I hope you are more accommodating to the next person dealing with this. Even better, I hope you three manage to resolve this by yourselves. I'll carry on my analysis and let you know what I find. I'll also do a very brief analysis on a sample piece of text right now, and report back today. ] 12:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::Well, today-ish... :-) I'll try to finish it off tomorrow. ] 02:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Clean slate== | |||
| <s>I couldn't make head nor tail of all of that and I was having trouble loading the page so I've archived it. Now can someone from either side help me out and explain what content has been moved where and where they think it should go. Keep it simple and don't point fingers, let's focus on the content. And pick one section to edit, A or B and don't edit the other. Just your own point of view, nothing responding to the other side at this point. ] <small>]</small> 14:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)</s> This offer is retracted. I apologise, but I am simply too busy at this stage to see the process through. I apologise once again. ] <small>]</small> 14:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ===Side A=== | |||
| The problem is that Jc37 proposed "Wizard (fantasy)" for deletion, and it was soundly rejected, on the grounds that the edit history had to be preserved. (See ].) | |||
| Jc37 then did an endround around a clear consensus by moving the article and creating a new one. This achieves the effect of the deletion, namely getting rid of the edit history. | |||
| That this occured in the middle of edit disputes is irrelevant to the central issue.] 01:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :As I have pointed out before, the edit history still exists. It has been moved, not " rid of". I agree there probably wasn't really any reason to move the article, but equally you shouldn't misrepresent what has happened to the edit history. ] 02:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::You are misrepresenting what has happened. "Wizard (fantasy)" does not have its edit history. It has been gotten rid of. ] 02:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Look at the . The first entry in the history, seen at the bottom in the previous link, and on the left in says: ''"moved ] to ]"''. '''This is what tells you that there is an earlier history to the page.''' You can then go to the and you have found the edit history you are after. There are literally thousands of pages all over Misplaced Pages where this sort of 'follow the paper trail' game has to be played to track down an edit history. It is part of how the system works. Too much moving can be confusing, as here, but you should claim that the move has caused ''confusion'' (I would support you if you said that), not that the move has ''gotten rid of'' the edit history. Do you understand the distinction I am making here? It is important that people editing Misplaced Pages understand how edit histories work, and how sometimes you have to jump from page to page to track down the correct attribution for a piece of text. ] 03:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ===Side B=== | |||
| *Currently in the process of writing a more detailed explaination, per suggestions at ]. Since this would seem to be the "where", I'll post here when finished. - ] 14:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ===Neutral=== | |||
| *I arrived as a neutral party, though at the request of Jc37. I tried to discern what was going on, but gave up after a few weeks. Well, I was actually told I wasn't helping (see sections towards the end of the archived discussions). Despite my request for clarification, the editor involved has not explained why my efforts weren't helping. | |||
| :See also ], which may or may not help. As far as I could make out, the dispute revolves around the history of text which was moved from here (or rather where this page used to be) to other articles, and the original page was then turned into a redirect. The editors involved thought that the redirect had to remain pointing in a particular direction because of the edit history, and resisted attempts to delete the redirect (rightly, because the edit history was still there), and also resisted attempts to repoint the redirect (wrongly, in my opinion). Jc37 recently moved the original page (]) to here, so the edit history for material now at ] is getting further away from where it should be. My opinion is that all is a page history problem mixed up with a redirect problem, mixed in with misunderstandings about how Misplaced Pages works. ] 14:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::You made a request for clarification. You simultaneously said that commenting on your comments here is "not very helpful". I can not comply with both comments and picked one. ] 01:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::You've taken my quote out of context. What I said was ''"you saying that someone is being uncivil when they are actually trying to help, is not very helpful"''. What I am saying is that I can't help if you don't want to be helped. I don't mind you telling me that you don't want me to help, but if you say that I haven't helped, it would be nice if you could clearly say ''why'' I haven't helped, because I have, seriously, been trying to help here. ] 02:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Your context does not exactly help your contention that you meant something other than that. ] 02:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Archive == | |||
| I'm still around if both sides want to try and move things forward. The one thing I think is clear is that this talk page does need archiving. I will do that if no-one else will. ] 15:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Though I honestly was opposed to archiving in the past because I had ''thought'' that this discussion was about to be finished, I think Hiding probably had the right idea (in archiving). Though I think we should avoid any more copy/paste moves. How about just ''move'' (page move) this to the archive, and restore his dispute header and "sides" here so that, as you say, we might move forward. - ] 15:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::] says that either copy-paste archiving or move archving is acceptable, but we should be consistent. I archive talk pages with copy-paste. The "move stuff to preserve GFDL" is really for articles. Talk page stuff is signed, and the history is known to be at the main talk page. Have a look at the history of other talk page archives to see what I mean. ] 16:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Article talk pages have been done both ways. The Copy/paste in more predominate since there may be already ongoing discussions, and it seems "easier". In any case, I think you understand my concerns about it, so at this point I'll leave how you do it to your discretion. - ] 16:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Requested move== | |||
| <div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:polltop --> | |||
| :''The following discussion is an archived debate of the {{{type|proposal}}}. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. '' | |||
| {{{result|The result of the debate was}}} '''PAGE MOVED''' per discussion below. --] 12:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ;List of wizards in fantasy → Wizard (fantasy) | |||
| I have requested that this article, and its history, be moved back. ] 02:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Excellent! Let me know if there's anything I can do to assist. ] <small> ] </small> 02:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ignoring for a moment that this is no longer an "article" (by your request, at that), I'll just comment that I oppose the requested move at this time. I think there are certain things which need to be discussed first. - ] 10:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Whose request? I would have preferred to have kept the information about practicers of magic in fantasy right in "Wizard (fantasy)", as "Wizard" is, in my experience, the generic term -- and '']'' agrees with me. I proposed that "Wizard (fantasy)" be moved to "Magicians in fantasy" as a compromise, a concession to your claim that somehow wizards are a subclass of magicians. ] 03:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm not sure the article should be limited to practitioners of magic in fantasy. That's not what the article has ever been wholly about. ] <small>]</small> 15:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| In future please include the move template at the top of the talk page when placing a request on WP:RM --] 12:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| </div> | |||
| ==Page analysis== | |||
| ''Note: This page has had several names (the original of which - Wizard - is now the name of the disambiguation page).'' | |||
| ===Prior history=== | |||
| The article entitled '''Wizard''' was created by ] on 09:20, 23 May 2002 | |||
| The initial text of the article was: "A practitioner of ], especially in ] and ] fiction." | |||
| Several other editors edited as well. after what appears to be ]'s final edit to the page. Note its focus is very specifically ''wizards'' in D&D, folklore and fantasy fiction, and that it's already started to become a list, of sorts. | |||
| diffs of possible interest: | |||
| * | |||
| * - at this point, the page is rather looking like a list page, or at least a disambiguation page. | |||
| * | |||
| * and - two sequential edits which were the first copy/paste moves, which created the '''Wizard (disambiguation)''' page. (Remember that at this time, the page name was '''Wizard'''.) | |||
| * is the first addition of the "real-life" wizards section. | |||
| * removed the external links, leaving the page without references, again. | |||
| * is the addition of the 15th century etymology reference, and is when the etymology section is created. | |||
| * removed the comment that a Wizard is a male witch. | |||
| * is what the page looked like before the next copy/paste split (below). Notice that it's ''still'' rather clearly a list. Time/Date: 06:20, 24 December 2005 - That's over three and a half years, so far. | |||
| * is the next major split. The creation of what was then called: '''List of wizards in fiction'''. Note the edit summary: "Removed the every-wizard-in-the-universe list to separate article, added "See Also", culled the herd to the most well-known. Could be culled more, probably." Time/Date: 06:34, 27 December 2005 | |||
| * is someone removing an item because "already in ]". | |||
| * is a merge from ]. | |||
| * is the addition of the pinball wizard reference. | |||
| * is the addition of a wizard/witch/warlock explanation section. | |||
| * edit summary: "Max rspct, what's going on here? I am concerned because your edits (unintentionally?) seem to reflect some sort of religious-related pattern. Join me on the talk page." - The two proceed to have a mild reversion war between initial entry by Max rspct on June 16, 2006 and seeming to end in an apparent final reversion on June 27 2006 | |||
| * removes the entire previous merge of '''Mageborn'''. | |||
| * | |||
| * is the addition of a comment about being a male version of a witch in the introduction. | |||
| * edit shows a change to the "Real-life wizards" section, removing that section's list. | |||
| And finally: | |||
| * is what the page looked like before I started editing. Time/Date: 12:53, 19 July 2006 | |||
| Notice that it's ''still'' pretty much a list page at this point. | |||
| *. Time/Date: 07:26, 21 July 2006 | |||
| ===Comments=== | |||
| I'm stopping at this point, because I think that this should give enough information at this time. Of course, if necessary, there is quite a bit more, both of the page's history, and the talk page's history, and many other page's talk page edits as well (including userpage discussions). I've intentionally not as yet placed any "conclusions" based on the above. (I actually did ''quite'' a bit of research, and actually have what the solution should be, by policy.) However, I am curious as to thoughts/comments/responses first. | |||
| Also, I've said elsewhere that I've been involved in this for nearly a year. While I've been editing ''Misplaced Pages'' that long, I've only been editing this since July (as shown above). I suppose that it's just ''felt'' like it's been that long. - ] 11:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Impressive summary of the history. I'll be interested to see what conclusions can be drawn from this once you have finished the analysis. ] 03:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *I'm not sure what this is supposed to be telling me. For example, this edit , this appears to be a separate article from a list of wizards. Where is this history, is it all in one place? This is all a bit confused. And just where is our article on wizards? ] <small>]</small> 10:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **The history is not complete yet. What is really needed is some headings making it clearer under what ''page name'' these edits took place. For that, you have to trace the convoluted history of the various page moves. I looked through the page history, and searched for 'moved' and found two page moves have taken place: | |||
| ***26 July 2006, Jc37 moved ] to ] | |||
| ***31 December 2006 Jc37 moved ] to ] | |||
| :::Hopefully this makes things clearer? :-) Basically, it means that this article, where lots of initial editing of text took place, has had its history moved around quite a bit. Periodically, bits would be moved away from this article and merged into other articles - notably ] (as least I think that is what happened, possibly it was the other way around). The second page move performed here makes it a little bit harder to track down the initial edit history, and the ultimate origin, of text scattered throughout other articles. That is how I've always understood this. I don't actually think this is as much of a problem as some people make it out to be. But there you go. ] 14:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::*But didn't the list get split off to ]? This looks like a bit of a mess, if I'm honest. I think something like this happened at Geroge W Bush and they locked the database trying to pull the histories apart. Where is the article on Wizard then? All I can find is an article on the ], one on ], one on ] and one on ]. This article currently redirects to ], but at one time used to be ], is that correct? Looks like there have been some interesting times had in the history which may not quite fit with the GFDL. I think that's probably the major issue. It all appears very complicated and unclear to me. ] <small>]</small> 16:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well , ] and ] are dab pages. Are you saying there needs to be an article, and that there might have been one at some point before all this happened? ] 16:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I'm saying I'd expect one, and that this edit has similarities in layout and scope regards Wizards as the current article on ]s does. It does seem at times on Misplaced Pages we disambiguate very similar concepts without ever describing the overarching thematic concept. What in reality is the difference between the wizards of Harry Potter and those of Terry Pratchett, and wouldn't an article presenting those approaches be of benefit. What about Heavy Metal's appropriation of the Wizard, or the counter culture's adoption of the idea. I don't know where that article should be, but a see also which links to a Magician (paranormal), an article which again loses a lot in its specificity, and a note that there is a religion known as wizardry. We've got to consider our scope, we are aiming at general readers, that we can go in depth is a boon, but let's not forget that we can and should also begin at the surface. Disambiguation is really for vastly unrelated concepts like Cream the bit of milk your cats like and Cream the band your dad likes. By all means have separate articles on Cheese sandwiches and Ham sandwiches, but let's not turn the article on sandwiches into a menu and lose the historical link with the place of sand. ] <small>]</small> 17:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::While such an article may be of benefit, unfortunately, that isn't the current discussion. (See also ].) The next stage of diffs, which includes my initial attempts to ReOrg the page, and remove the lists, and create just such an article, met with quite a bit of resistance. Thing is, it's never been much of an article, and has mostly (nearly entirely) been lists. Anyway, I was intending on staying out of the comments/discussion, at least initially, but I thought I should try to clarify. I'm still not certain if I should continue with the diffs, since the above (which are prior to my edits to the page) should be enough for our purposes. And to answer Hiding's question above, rather than say what you "should" be inferring from the information, I was/am curious as to what you ''do'' infer from the information (among other things). So far (I'm guessing), it's that you would like to find a Wizard article? Is there anything else you might infer? Is there anything else that you found noteworthy or interesting? - ] 12:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Well, I don't know. I don't even know what this discussion is about then. I can see there was an article, and that article had a list attached, and then someone split the list off, and then the article was tagged for cleanup, and some good cleanup happened, and now the article appears to be at a list "address" and redirects elsewhere. It appears the list that was split off is now at ], having been moved there from ], and it seems this page has moved a couple of times before ending up as ] and redirecting to ]. I don't get where the article that existed after the split '''is'''. It seems to have been magicked away. :) The edits involved between these diffs show a reasonable attempt at cleanup, and then the article gets merged, moved, nominated for deletion and moved again, the basis of which I don't understand. Apart from the server crash which affects the early history, (see below), I can't see much wrong with the history up until the split to ], which should be bluelinked in the edit summary, and the merge with ] on the 18th November. Then it appears the history is broken, because the link noting the merge in the edit summary at now lands you at ], so the history for the merged information is lost. That's technically a breach of the GFDL, although not beyond repair. I think the export history is disabled nowadays, but you can simply copy and paste the history of this article up to the merge into an archive of the talk page at ], and make a null edit to the article to note that history location and also note it on the talk page, and that should satisfy GFDL. Note "I am not a lawyer". :) The alternative is to follow the advice at ]; ''If a redirect page does not redirect to the page it would need to be redirecting to, the only viable strategy that respects page histories is to adapt the redirect on that page, without moving the page.'' I'm not fully clear on what that means, though, whether the page is moved back to ] and redirected to ], with ] being moved back to ], or if ] should redirect here. The latter would be easiest, I think, but brings into play the issue of a double redirect. Personally, the best answer is to move this back to ] and restore the article, undo the merge to ], which didn't comply with ] and start all over again. Perhaps. | |||
| :::::::Regarding the early history, I'd be careful describing the article as created by User:Ant on 09:20, 23 May 2002. That user's edit is the first in the history, but the page predates the great database/server crash of 2002, so if anyone really wants to fuss about the GFDL they should be aware it's beyond repair in those regards. I hope that all helps. I'm interested in your solution. Are you thinking of a history merge? I don't think that's actually applicable here because the merge may not have been the right move. If it is agreed that the article should exist, then that would be a move that would need to be undone, which would be horrid. I also don't agree that it's never been much of an article, and has mostly (nearly entirely) been lists. That's not my impression from rooting through the history. There's probably relevant info on the talk page that I've missed, but I note at the afd you were all directed to dispute resolution. Did that happen? ] <small>]</small> 14:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::*I've realised I've not taken the split to ] into consideration. Ugh. The solution depends on too many variables to be absolute or definitive. The article which was split off is where the article has been merged too. In essence it would be neat to properly merge them, but then that would make the history even more muddied even whilst tidying it up. I really think the first thing that needs to be decided is whether an article on Wizards should exist. The solution will differ depending on that point. ] <small>]</small> 14:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::*I don't think that anyone disputes that such an article ''could'' exist (though I could be mistaken). The issue is that we really don't have more than just some text copied from other articles, and a series of lists. That aside, considering the Requested move situation (an apparent attempt to bypass the discussion, though of course, I suppose that I'm being accused of the same thing), and considering the rather astonishing discussions on Dreadlocke and Goldfritha's talk pages (and in their page history, as Dreadlocke seems to have a history of not archiving/moving comments, but just deleting them), I suppose I need to continue posting the page history breakdowns. Perhaps by doing that, and explaining the various sources of text, and showing the clear POV pushing, perhaps we will get beyond all of this. If nothing else, I suppose that it will be decent fodder for an arbitration evidence page. I had honestly hoped (and continue to hope) that this will not escalate to that level, but hope continues to dwindle. - ] 17:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::There are two questions. | |||
| ::::::::The first one is, is there any reason at all why the history of "Wizard (fantasy)" should be moved to this location. | |||
| ::::::::The second and more complicated one is the question of a "Wizard" article. If you mean by that whether there should be a Wizard article distinct from the Magician article, or a Wizard (fantasy) article distinct from the Magicians in fantasy article, the answer is no, of course not. Jc37 has maintained that there is a distinction between the two types and that magician is the generic, but has cited no references, and not even a description of the distinction. ] 00:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Wizardly move== | |||
| From my talk page: | |||
| <div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"> | |||
| Thank you for the ] move! It was such the right thing to do, and I'm so happy to see such a great and thoughtful response! ] <small> ] </small> 02:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Err -- excuse me? I don't get this at all. The page that has the comment on the talk page about the move was "List of wizards in fantasy", which is still there. The page that got moved to "Wizard (fantasy)" was "List of magicians in fantasy" which was the page that "List of wizards in fantasy" redirected to. I think something may have gotten messed up. . . ] 02:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Oh, boy. I guess I'm totally confused now. Goldfritha, what needs to be done to set this right? Thanks Philip for helping us out with this. ] <small> ] </small> 02:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I guess we need to: | |||
| *Move "list of magicians in fantasy" from "wizard (fantasy)" back to the original name: "list of magicians in fantasy", then | |||
| *Move "list of wizards in fantasy" to "wizard (fantasy)" per ], | |||
| then we're good to go. ] <small> ] </small> 03:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, I think that would fix it -- I think the problem was that going to the "List of wizards" meant getting caught by the redirect, which you would then have to backtrack to move the actual article. ] 03:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| </div> | |||
| OK I have moved ] back to ]. But I do not understand what you mean by move "list of wizards in fantasy" to "wizard (fantasy)" as "list of wizards in fantasy" is a redirect page and has been since "". Please explain what you want and I'll help. Please put your suggestions on this page rather than my talk page. --] 11:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :As mentioned above under Requested move, the discussion is ongoing, and I think we should resolve the many concerns before moving the page again. Especially since there was such a tulmult based on my last attempt to compromise through a page move. (I presume that ] was closed as "no consensus"?). The two users querying you would seem to not understand GDFL, among several other things, and we're (hopefully) working this out. By the way: the ''original'' name of this page was '''Wizard''', ''not'' '''Wizard (fantasy)''', as has been clarified above. - ] 15:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Philip, the redirect ] has the edit history that belongs to ], so we need to have this moved back. Jc37's objection is superfluous because he is the one who originally and incorrectly moved the page ''during'' a dispute of the very same move, and over the objections and consensus of the other editors as well as the results of an AfD. ] <small> ] </small> 16:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::What Dreadlocke said here. ] 01:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :You know, all the "other stuff" aside, there is a comment that I'd like explained: | |||
| :"...we need to have this moved back" | |||
| :''need''? Why? | |||
| :You state as the reason: | |||
| :"...the redirect ] has the edit history that belongs to ]..." | |||
| :''belongs to''? | |||
| :I'm curious as to the reasoning behind this statement. - ] 16:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::We've gone round and round on this. Perhaps we can continue the discussion after the move you made without consensus is reversed. ] <small> ] </small> 17:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::A move doesn't require consensus. You would be better served in your ''accusation'', suggesting that the move was "contrary to consensus", though, if one reads the discussion prior to the move, it wasn't. However, moving the page now ''would'' be contrary to consensus. In other words, the issues need to now be resolved before the page moves again. All that aside, I offer you a second opportunity to respond to my query above. - ] 17:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::What issue do you think needs to be resolved before this page gets moved? ] 01:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| As it stands at the moment this page (]) can not be move because it is a ]. To be moved it has to have some content!--] 12:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :In which case, it is absolutely mandatory that it be moved back to "Wizard (fantasy)" because it was a redirect when it was moved. ] 01:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| If Dreadlocke and Goldfritha, you mean that you wish to demerge a page then go to the history of this page (]). It will redirect you to ], but at the top there will be a line that says ''(Redirected from ])'' click on that link and you will be at the current redirect page ]; then select a version from the history that you want, select the edit tab to edit it. It will warn you that you are editing an old version, then save it as per normal. Then go to the page ] and delete any content that you think should be only in this (]) article. However by what jc37 you will have to discuss this on the talk page(s) or there is a danger that it will end up as an edit war. When you have recovered the text on this page and agreed with others that it is the correct content, then I will move it for you to ] if there is the consensus to do that. --] 12:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Looking through the histoy of the page seems to be the last version before the merge. --] 13:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :No, Philip, we don't want to demerge the page. | |||
| :What we want is for the history of "Wizard (fantasy)" to remain at "Wizard (fantasy)" instead of being moved here for no reason. Which means we want this redirect here moved back to "Wizard (fantasy)". ] 01:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Done. --] 01:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you! ] 02:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 16:27, 26 August 2018
Redirect to: