Talk:Colchester Film Festival

This article was nominated for deletion on 9 November 2021. The result of the discussion was merge.

	Film portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the Film festivals task force.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

East Anglia

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject East Anglia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of East Anglia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.East AngliaWikipedia:WikiProject East AngliaTemplate:WikiProject East AngliaEast Anglia articles

Merge what?[edit]

It is a strange quirk of AfD procedures that they can give rise to a mandate to merge information into another article with no expression of what it is that should be preserved and transferred. Perhaps @S Marshall:, @Bungle: and @Missvain: could flesh out their recommendations/decision into something specific. I have started a section in the talk page on the target site. Kevin McE (talk) 12:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin McE - As a AfD closer, it's not my job to tell the participants and nominator *what content* to merge on a page. That's up to the community. I suggest discussing it here with other folks who have contributed to the AfD and have a history of contributing to the Film Festival article and the Colchester article. Perhaps even discuss it on the Colchester article - it might have more traffic. Happy holidays. Missvain (talk) 15:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Err, that's why I directed you to the talk on the Colchester article... I'm afraid I do not see making a decision and disassociating oneself from how that decision is enacted does not seem constructive. Kevin McE (talk) 20:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kevin McE: Perhaps you could absorb my !vote on that AfD in its entirety and advise which part of my comment, specifically the bit where I suggest, "Some content is useful so i'd suggest merging the lead paragraph..", is ambiguous? This is, after all, just my suggestion, but for you to suggest "with no expression of what it is that should be preserved and transferred" is clearly erroneous, at least on my part. S Marshall may have their own views too, though the lead is the only part that has any meaningful sourcing to it and is not too long to look out of place as merged content. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:00, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentences in the lead is info already on the Colchester page (but is anachromistic as there is no evidence of any activity sonce 2017); the rest is detail that would be disproportionate to anything else in that section. One wonders whether you looked at the target before proposing that. Kevin McE (talk) 20:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kevin McE: No-one is mandating that it has to be copied verbatim, but of course it can be adjusted to expand the single sentence on the target article now. Even then, there is nothing stopping you or anyone else trying to find anything extra to put in or using one's own common sense to expand a section in a traditional way. I prefer the ultimate redirect option to delete as the history is preserved for future. Also, just be mindful about suggesting that the target article hadn't been checked beforehand when you evidently did not read my !vote in full (irrespective whether you agree or not). I don't think we'll have any issues regarding which content is or isn't merged - anyone can subsequently improve or amend if necessary. Probably doesn't need to be overthought. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:37, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]