| Revision as of 21:34, 23 June 2006 editZaian (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers11,818 edits Why should this redirect to History of South Africa in the Apartheid Era← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:42, 23 June 2006 edit undoZaian (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers11,818 editsm Correcting case in my postings.Next edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| == Why should this redirect to ] == | == Why should this redirect to ] == | ||
| :''I have moved the following discussion here from my talk page. This follows an attempt to create a new article about international uses of the term Apartheid at ], which previously redirected to ] 21:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC) | :''I have moved the following discussion here from my talk page. This follows an attempt to create a new article about international uses of the term Apartheid at ], which previously redirected to ] 21:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ==apartheid== | ==apartheid== | ||
| Then why is the article called "History of South Africa in the apartheid era" rather than just "apartheid"?] 21:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC) | Then why is the article called "History of South Africa in the apartheid era" rather than just "apartheid"?] 21:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :I'm not going to start a revert war, but ] is a high-quality article, and South African apartheid is the only "indisputable" use of the term Apartheid, because that's where it was invented and officially used. The redirect to the specific name is to prevent the page being diluted with discussions of other countries, where the term has no official status. This is by far the preference of the editors of ] and I respectfully request that you, in turn, respect this. ] 21:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC) | :I'm not going to start a revert war, but ] is a high-quality article, and South African apartheid is the only "indisputable" use of the term Apartheid, because that's where it was invented and officially used. The redirect to the specific name is to prevent the page being diluted with discussions of other countries, where the term has no official status. This is by far the preference of the editors of ] and I respectfully request that you, in turn, respect this. ] 21:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| Why don't editors of ] want to move that article to ] then? ] 21:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC) | Why don't editors of ] want to move that article to ] then? ] 21:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :The consensus, achieved after much discussion and upheld over several years, is that ] should redirect to ] as the article about the official use of the term. The longer name is to prevent confusion and controversial editing involving other countries (in particular Israel) from taking place at that location. That debate should not take place under the official ] heading as it is very much secondary to the official historical use of the term in South Africa. If you would read the many archives at both ] and ] you would see that your recent editing of the page ] is a perhaps unintentional hijacking of this topic. Again, I respectfully ask that you allow it to be returned to the previous status quo. Otherwise I've absolutely no doubt that a great many editors of the South African article will disagree with your move and see it as unilateral. ] 21:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC) | :The consensus, achieved after much discussion and upheld over several years, is that ] should redirect to ] as the article about the official use of the term. The longer name is to prevent confusion and controversial editing involving other countries (in particular Israel) from taking place at that location. That debate should not take place under the official ] heading as it is very much secondary to the official historical use of the term in South Africa. If you would read the many archives at both ] and ] you would see that your recent editing of the page ] is a perhaps unintentional hijacking of this topic. Again, I respectfully ask that you allow it to be returned to the previous status quo. Otherwise I've absolutely no doubt that a great many editors of the South African article will disagree with your move and see it as unilateral. ] 21:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 21:42, 23 June 2006
- This discussion is continued at Talk:History of South Africa in the Apartheid Era
Archived discussions
Talk:Apartheid/Israel
Talk:Apartheid/Archive1
Talk:Apartheid/Archive2
Talk:Apartheid/Archive3
Talk:Apartheid/Archive4
Talk:Apartheid/Archive5
Why should this redirect to History of South Africa in the apartheid era
- I have moved the following discussion here from my talk page. This follows an attempt to create a new article about international uses of the term Apartheid at Apartheid, which previously redirected to [[History of South Africa in the apartheid era Zaian 21:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
apartheid
Then why is the article called "History of South Africa in the apartheid era" rather than just "apartheid"?Sonofzion 21:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not going to start a revert war, but History of South Africa in the apartheid era is a high-quality article, and South African apartheid is the only "indisputable" use of the term Apartheid, because that's where it was invented and officially used. The redirect to the specific name is to prevent the page being diluted with discussions of other countries, where the term has no official status. This is by far the preference of the editors of History of South Africa in the apartheid era and I respectfully request that you, in turn, respect this. Zaian 21:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Why don't editors of History of South Africa in the apartheid era want to move that article to apartheid then? Sonofzion 21:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- The consensus, achieved after much discussion and upheld over several years, is that Apartheid should redirect to History of South Africa in the apartheid era as the article about the official use of the term. The longer name is to prevent confusion and controversial editing involving other countries (in particular Israel) from taking place at that location. That debate should not take place under the official Apartheid heading as it is very much secondary to the official historical use of the term in South Africa. If you would read the many archives at both Talk:Apartheid and Talk:History of South Africa in the apartheid era you would see that your recent editing of the page Apartheid is a perhaps unintentional hijacking of this topic. Again, I respectfully ask that you allow it to be returned to the previous status quo. Otherwise I've absolutely no doubt that a great many editors of the South African article will disagree with your move and see it as unilateral. Zaian 21:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)