Wikipedia talk:HIJACK
Redirect change
[edit]User:Frost: This Special:Diff/1070548639/1250129489 redirect change was very ill-advised for a couple reasons
- The original redirect was in place since 2010 or 14-years. It has 169 usages, but probably many more in edit summaries, meaning all those existing uses would no longer work.
- The original redirect page Wikipedia:Don't hijack references has a notice saying "WP:HIJACK redirects here..." and other information, that was not updated and caused confusion
- The new redirect page did not have a notice about WP:HIJACK redirecting there, nor a link back to the old redirect page.
- The change was done without discussion.
- Lots of people, who have been here a long time, have a "mental memory" of where HIJACK goes and what it means.
Please be careful about changing these things unless there is a really good reason it's best to leave it alone. -- GreenC 15:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note, @GreenC. I boldly retargeted it (and WP:HIJACKING) because it seemed more useful for Wikipedia:Article hijack (121 vs 32 page views). I've seen a lot of article hijacking in the last few months but very rarely any reference hijacking. What do you think about merging the two essays into Wikipedia:Hijacking, as a compromise? Frost 16:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- Possibly merge, but they are different topics/essays coincidentally sharing this terminology, and not other terminology. This situation sometimes arises like with WP:USURP which became a disambiguation page for the different ways "usurpation" is used (in Wikipedia essays and guidelines). Possibly one could make "HIJACK" the dab page, it is a common-enough concept that future essays might want to use it also. In fact usurpation and hijacking are similar concepts, those two dab pages (HIJACK and USURP) could "see also" each other. -- GreenC 19:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- Dab sounds good too. I'll go ahead and make it. Frost 10:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- Possibly merge, but they are different topics/essays coincidentally sharing this terminology, and not other terminology. This situation sometimes arises like with WP:USURP which became a disambiguation page for the different ways "usurpation" is used (in Wikipedia essays and guidelines). Possibly one could make "HIJACK" the dab page, it is a common-enough concept that future essays might want to use it also. In fact usurpation and hijacking are similar concepts, those two dab pages (HIJACK and USURP) could "see also" each other. -- GreenC 19:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)