Talk:Apostles

Discussion

@The Banner: I see you are unwilling to open the talk page to discuss the change you want to make to the redirect. That is ok, I will revert to WP:QUO once again and then you will be able to come here and discuss. Veverve (talk) 15:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You also accused me of reverting back to STATUSQUO in the name of editwarring to make [my] point (despite the fact I changed the target more than one month ago). My reasons for retargetting have already been given here and there (the latter invokes WP:PLURAL which you called "messing up"). You have provided as argument for restoring the old target: This breaks way, way,way too many links. I fail to see how having a word in the plural form targetting its singular form in this case breaks anything. Also, I ask you to revert you last edit - I decided not to revert it to stay civil - to the STATUSQUO version, i.e. target to Apostle, until a consensus for change is reached. Veverve (talk) 15:40, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not unwilling but at this moment you are busy with disruptive editing and editwarring to make a point. You have clearly no idea or no interest in that effects of your edits and expect others to clean your mess up. And the nice think is: you were changing redirects without any discussion only to ask for discussion when your edits were reverted multiple times. So, it is up to you to explain why this prior undiscussed changes are a good idea. The Banner talk 15:54, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain to me how this retarget created a mess up. You have not proved my edits of wanting to go back to the status quo were disruptive. Asking to come back to status quo before the disagreement is simply WP:QUO civility, and has nothing to do with being disruptive or changing redirects without any discussion only to ask for discussion when your edits were reverted multiple times, especially since we are only talking about one redirect, which is this one, the subject here is nothing else.

I have already given my arguments for the page moves in my edit summaries, and I have provided the links to them in my message above. Not every retargetting requires a discussion first; you certainly agree on this point since you recently moved Michael Cusack (Gaelic Athletic Association) without discussing it first. Veverve (talk) 16:06, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting a move. Please do your homework properly. The Banner talk 16:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner: what am I to understand to your answer? Veverve (talk) 17:04, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The same as in your actions: revert a faulty move and then start the discussion. Without editwarring. The Banner talk 17:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner: So, do you agree I revert the latest edit you made to this redirect or not? This discussion is really leaning toward WP:POINT which is not acceptable. Veverve (talk) 17:52, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I can interject here – now that a discussion has been started, it would be better to go forward from here, rather than argue about past actions. Veverve has provided their rationale for the retargeting (WP:PLURALPT). Banner, perhaps you could clarify whether you actually disagree with this rationale (and if so, why) or whether your concern is only about the process. Dan from A.P. (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1100 pages link to Apostles, including 450 direct links from articles. A sample I checked were all about Apostles in the New Testament. If we're to repurpose the title to apostles in general, those links need to be tidied by a subject expert who can determine the meaning of and best target for each link. Retargeting the redirect without doing that work will just result in almost all incoming links taking the reader to the wrong article. Even if the work is done now, the move leaves a legacy of clean-up whenever a careless editor writes Jesus met the apostles without checking the link. Who intends to take on that chore? Certes (talk) 20:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair argument. I think it's the same logic that has led Veverve to propose renaming "Apostle" to "Apostle (word)", in which case both "Apostle" and "Apostles" could redirect to the disambiguation page. So it probably makes sense to let that discussion run first, before deciding on a target for this redirect. Dan from A.P. (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that Ververe started with page moves without any discussing, creating a big mess. (And not the first time in my experience). The summaries are hardly the place for an in-depth discussion, Wikipedia invented talk pages for that. Then he (?) decide something, acts upon at and leaves the community with the mess. Not very nice. The Banner talk 23:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, the target to Apostle for this redirect was changed more than one month ago, and so far The Banner has refused to restore this version despite it being the STATUSQUO; instead, The Banner has been forcing their retarget and giving me warnings whenever I reverted to the version before the disagreement.

So, is the consensus that "Apostles" should not redirect to its singular? In this case, is it not leaving a lot of confusion for the community to fix later and a fortriory for the reader? And if the argument is that too many hyperlinks are wrong, then why not apply it to Apostle also?

I am also pinging @Hazhk: who made the page move creating this redirect. Veverve (talk) 06:33, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to retarget to Apostle (disambiguation) and try using Dab solver to clean up the incoming links (I do not know how to use this tool otherwise). Veverve (talk) 06:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found User:Qwertyytrewqqwerty/DisamAssist which works really well so I did not need to change the redirect. Veverve (talk) 07:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems the script does not work with redirect directly. Therefore, I am forced to do as I said and temporarily redirect this to the DAB page. Veverve (talk) 07:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DanFromAnotherPlace, The Banner, and Certes: I have fixed all incoming links for Apostle and Apostles (it took only three hours). Now all incoming links should be about the general meaning of "apostle". Since the complaint of The Banner has been fixed, I will allow myself to revert the redirect back to the STAUSQUO, i.e. target to Apostle. Veverve (talk) 10:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Veverve: Firstly, thank you for fixing the links. If you would like to keep new links correct, I can recommend GreenC's "Backlinks Watchlist", which can deliver a daily list of new incoming links to fix. I use it for other titles such as Model and Telegram where the popular use differs from the topic at the base name, but have a big enough list for now.

That is not the status quo ante. Until you retargeted it last month, Apostles redirected to Apostles in Christianity, later renamed Apostles in the New Testament, and Apostles was the actual title of that article until 2021. I do see merit in the move, but it requires discussion. Certes (talk) 11:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Certes: Thanks. No one has opposed the retarget I made more than one month ago until now, so I see the current version as being the status quo. Veverve (talk) 11:38, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One month is a flash in Wikipedia time -- especially on something like a redirect. Simply because no one noticed until now doesn't make it valid status quo ante. older ≠ wiser 12:19, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the fact that it went undiscussed, you got no opposition. But also no support. The Banner talk 17:13, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]