Jump to content

Talk:Lyconet

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proposed merge of LYCONET into Lyconet

[edit]

The name isn't capitalised on the company website or the sources cited, so new article LYCONET should be merged to the older article with the correct title. Wikishovel (talk) 14:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wikishovel it would appear you are proposing a move along with a history merge rather than a standard article merge, is that correct? 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:17E:835A:FA7:58C3 (talk) 16:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just from a glance over I believe there is a better case for merging LYCONET into Lyoness. Regardless of whether it is independently notable, splitting content that way is unlikely to be the best way of presenting information to readers, an Template:R to section will get readers where they want to go if searching. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:17E:835A:FA7:58C3 (talk) 16:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, merging to Lyoness would seem to be consistent with the established redirect at Lyconet.
But there was never an AFD on this, or even a merge or redirect discussion here at the talk page.
So maybe LYCONET should go to AFD instead, to discuss whether this better-referenced article is notable enough as a standlone article, or should be merged. I wasn't aware that a new article can be reverse-history-merged to an old one (I guess that would require some round-robin page moves), but I'm open to suggestions on this. Wikishovel (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedurally WP:MERGEs are a separate type of discussion that are not held at WP:AFD, I mean we are technically having one now. WP:BLAR with no merge is a separate issue. Per WP:ATD-R they can be done boldly, but if challenged as through reversion then must go to AFD instead with the only difference being that the nominator proposes redirection rather than deletion.
I am no expert on history merges, but per the documentation if the histories are not parallel, which is to say so long as they are separated by time, they are uncomplicated. Delete one page, move the other page to that title, delete again, then undelete all the revisions. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:17E:835A:FA7:58C3 (talk) 17:05, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The edit history shows an edit war between two SPAs, rather than a good faith WP:BLAR left unchallenged. So it looks like it should go to AFD, per WP:ATD-R. Wikishovel (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the footnote, it says the current wording is from 2020, and the procedure dates to 2018, so that should be grandfathered in. In practice it tends to be the case that with obviously non-notable pages a second or even third redirect attempt prior to AFD is tolerated when well-explained, though I guess that would not apply to SPAs edit-warring with each other. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:17E:835A:FA7:58C3 (talk) 17:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I came here from a helpdesk query. Two things

You might want to place a note on Talk:Lyoness to inform interested editors that you're having this discussion to have a standalone article.
The earliest version of LYCONET (https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=LYCONET&oldid=1185400262) doesn't look like it was built upon the prior version of Lyconet (https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Lyconet&oldid=670255034) before it became a redirect, so this is not a candidate for history merge. You can preserve the two histories separately with a normal redirect.

--PeaceNT (talk) 22:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the messy links above, I can't quite recall how to present a link to a historical version.--PeaceNT (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:PeaceNT just link it the normal way you would an external link like so [1]. There's also some fancy way to do it using a special page, but I do not remember the specifics. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:E5E1:5125:75FC:21FA (talk) 00:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, thank you. --PeaceNT (talk) 03:02, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tailthatspeaks and Old-AgedKid: the proposal title is to merge to Lyconet, the correct capitalisation. No objections to that? Wikishovel (talk) 09:40, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikishovel sure, I don't mind renaming the page to correct capitalizatioin if you mean this page: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Lyconet&redirect=no but it is occupied by some sophisticated redirect. Old-AgedKid (talk) 13:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikishovel, yes, I don't object the page to be renamed to Lyconet - but not deleted or redirected (soft-deleted). Tailthatspeaks (talk) 08:54, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lyconet&oldid=1190696460"