- Conquest X-30 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
- H.I.S.S. (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
There are background and discussion with the closing admin at User talk:Jayjg#G.I. Joe vehicles (permanent link).
Abridged summary:
- Each article was deleted as result of its respective AfD.
- They were restored as redirects, with full page history underneath.
- Content was merged to List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero vehicles.
- The redirects were re-deleted.
According to WP:Copying within Wikipedia and WP:Merge and delete, once content has been copied, the history of the source page cannot be deleted unless 1) an attribution workaround is used or 2) the copied content is permanently removed (deleted). The easiest fix is to restore the articles and redirect them to List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero vehicles. At this point, I think that a simple restore/redirect is the proper solution. I don't agree with the restorations, and I would like to discuss what process (if any) is appropriate before restoring articles for merging. Should they be treated as uncontroversial, something that WP:Requests for undeletion would be willing to handle? Flatscan (talk) 05:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I posted a notice for this DRV at WT:Requests for undeletion#Restoring for merging. Flatscan (talk) 05:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Having reviewed the AfDs and Jayjg's closing statement in particular, I struck my comment about the restorations. I do prefer discussion over repeated restoring/deleting. Flatscan (talk) 05:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- undelete and redirect also trout slap Jayjg. He stated in his deletion rationale he no objection to merging, but proceded to delete the redirect repeatedly when it was actually done. Wp:Merge and delete this way is not compatible with our licensing, which an experienced admin should know. As this is not a confusing redirect there is no reason to delete it and use something more complicated to satisfy attribution requirements. Yoenit (talk) 09:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There are two questions to consider here.
(1) What process is appropriate before restoring articles for merging? — If the consensus at the AfD is that a merge would be appropriate, no further "process" seems necessary to me. I can imagine that there might be times when it was appropriate to restore the material to someone's userspace, or to a temporary page, rather than to the redirect location, but this is down to administrator judgment. The administrator must at all times ensure that proper attribution is maintained, but it's for the administrator to decide whether this should be done by a dummy edit with an appropriate edit summary or by a link to the restored content. Once the merge has been performed the administrator may clean up in any way that seems appropriate to him, once again provided that the administrator has ensured that proper attribution is maintained at all times. (2) Should they be treated as uncontroversial? — Not necessarily, some of these may be highly controversial. This is another matter for administrator judgment. I want to clarify that when I say, "the administrator", I mean "the administrator who closed the AfD or performed the speedy deletion". Administrators, in the normal course of things, must be sure they don't leave attribution messes for others to clean up. I also want to clarify that, even in situations where there might be times when the material to be merged should not be restored to article space before the merge, preserving attribution is not optional.—S Marshall T/C 11:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Since it seems that everyone agrees that redirects at these titles are fine (Jayjg only seems to object to the content appearing under them), I've gone ahead and created them as redirects again. Conquest X-30 redirects to the list, while H.I.S.S. redirects to Hiss, a disambiguation page. I don't presume that someone searching for H.I.S.S. necessarily wants to know about the G.I. Joe vehicle, but anyone may change this if I'm wrong here.
As far as licensing requirements go, a simple mention of the source only suffices if the history itself is still available there (or a pointer to where the history is exists there). Proper attribution requires that individual authors be identified for each piece of the text, which generally cannot be done without the actual edit history. Because of this, I suggest that we undelete the history of the two pages under the redirects (or deleting my redirects, I don't care). The edit summaries used in the merger refer to these two pages as the sources, so they are the logical choice for edit history location. Other solutions exist, but I see no reason to complicate matters by using them. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 16:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There seems to be some misunderstanding here, neither the GFDL or CC require "that individual authors be identified for each piece of the text" for most media that would be a hugely onerous task if not impossible. Neither license is specific to wiki content. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Word-by-word attribution is not required – an advantage of CC-BY-SA is attribution by a List of authors. This allows things like revdel'ing the edit contents of large ranges (leaving usernames visible). Since such suppressions and deletions are rare, most content can be traced back to its original editor, who can then be consulted. Flatscan (talk) 05:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore history. When we delete an article and change it to a redirect, the normal procedure is to keep the material in the history. The only exception to this is when the material is actually harmful in some way--either as a copyright violation, a BLP violation, possible outrageous promotionalism, etc. Not for mere lack of notability. For mere lack of notability, the remedy is to not have a separate article. AfD is appropriate for that, and a redirect with the history behind the redirect is a very suitable way of handling it. I have sometimes defended keeps in such circumstances, not because I really think the material necessarily deserves a separate article, but specifically in order to keep the sort of abuse that took place here--of removing history, or of pretending to do a merge and not actually merging the content. DGG ( talk ) 21:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the histories available of best practice of our own licensing rules. If we don't respect our licensing rules, how can we complain when others subsequently don't? If there's any reason, the redirects can be protected. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore history with protected redirects in order to prevent people restoring the articles and making an end-run around deletion process. Stifle (talk) 09:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore history per Stifle, DGG, and SmokeyJoe. Jclemens (talk) 03:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore history to provide attribution per above. There are other solutions, but this is the easiest and there's nothing objectionable about the content to be restored. Hut 8.5 19:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
