The redirect on Jacob's Ladder, Derbyshire is supported by the Derbyshire WikiProject, which is a collaborative effort to improve the quality and coverage of Derbyshire-related articles on Wikipedia.DerbyshireWikipedia:WikiProject DerbyshireTemplate:WikiProject DerbyshireDerbyshire articles
At least one photograph is included in this article
Proposed Merge and Redirect to the "Landmarks" section of Kinder Scout[edit]
@JMWt @Dave.Dunford A contradictory decision was made in the past in relation to the comparable Mermaid's Pool article which was retained. Please can we have some consistency? I propose that we retain this article and include a link to it from the Landmarks section of Kinder Scout, in the same way as Mermaid's Pool has been treated. Douglal (talk) 15:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus is merge. So that's it. There's no question to now keep it, the only discussion is how to merge it. JMWt (talk) 18:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have supported merging Mermaid's Pool (Peak District) into Kinder Scout too, if I'd been aware of the discussion (though I don't see any evidence of a merger proposal). I don't feel particularly strongly, I just didn't feel that there was much to say about Jacob's Ladder – most of the current article is about Kinder Scout more generally and other places around it, rather than the bridge and the hill, which is all there is to Jacob's Ladder. Dave.Dunford (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus means agreement reached by a group as a whole. I didn't agree! Merging my well-packaged article will make the Kinder Scout article more unwieldy. Your well-intentioned but subjective and inconsistent decision to get rid of my interesting, useful and reasonably well-visited article has prompted me to quit writing new articles. Wikipeidia is losing a good, diligent and productive content creator. I don't want to waste time and effort creating quality articles for them to be axed (unjustly in my view). It is especially frustrating when there are many thousands of less worthy stub articles all over Wikipedia that just sit there for years on end. Douglal (talk) 05:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest not taking it so personally. The problem is the notability of the topic, not your content (although it's not "your" article – beware WP:OWN). I sympathise, and I'm not sure a 2:1 vote really establishes consensus, but consensus doesn't require 100% support, otherwise every individual editor would effectively have a veto. But I'm not a wikilaywer. I'd suggest biting the bullet, moving the content (minus the general/repeated stuff) into a new section of the Kinder Scout article under a subheading and leaving a redirect. "Unwieldy" is in the eye of the beholder and I don't agree that the existing Kinder article is overlong. That way your new content isn't lost. We all have to live with decisions we don't agree with – I hope you reconsider, as I for one value your Derbyshire-related contributions (though we have had minor disagreements on content issues in the past). This is about policy, not personality or judgement. Dave.Dunford (talk) 12:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dave.Dunford Thank you Dave. It's the glaring inconsistency that is so annoying ... and the retrospective, subjective application of policy to this article (with minimal consultation of its author) and not to so so many other much poorer, less notable articles here. This one remains a useful, interesting, well-referenced, self-contained article until it gets the chop. Not my article so I'll leave the merge to others. I've got other more fun things to do. Best wishes. 90.217.246.148 (talk) 17:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Now done. Dave.Dunford (talk) 13:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC)