The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: Keep. After the move has been performed, there seems to be no basis for the nomination left, and the nominator seems to agree. —Kusma (t·c) 19:50, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:English language[edit]

Portal:English language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

After the last MfD was closed as no consensus I made a reasonable editorial decision to redirect the automated portal to the non-automated long standing Portal:English. This was immediately reverted and User:NorthAmerica1000 templated me [1] claiming my controbution was unconstructive, like I was some common vandal. I don't think it reasonable to have both Portal:English and Portal:English language. Since an Admin is templating me over combining them we need to discuss deletion of one or the other. Legacypac (talk) 22:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep per WP:SK#2. The previous AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:English language was just closed 1.5 hours ago on 21:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC) as no consensus, not as redirect. Immediately renominating for deletion again when one doesn't get their way is disruptive in this instance. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:54, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirection of one page that has exactly the same scope to another is perfectly reasonable and normal conclusion from the close. There is no unique content so nothing to merge. My action was within the scope of the closing statement. If a redirect is unacceptable we pretty much have to delete it, so here we are. Templating a regular and insisting on two pages on the exact same topic is disruptive. Time to step away and stop the battleground behavior Northamerica1000. Legacypac (talk) 23:01, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note the closing statememt says "The result of the discussion was: no consensus No consensus to delete this one, but some have suggested a merge or redirect to Portal:English, so maybe that's worth discussing" which allows me to redirect the page. Legacypac (talk) 23:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The last MfD revolved around the need for a broken automated portal. This one revolves around the need to have two portals of identical scope. Two very different discussions. Legacypac (talk) 23:09, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep per WP:SK point 2. If you think the portals should be merged then start a merge discussion on the talk page. The closing statement suggested a merge "might be worth discussing", but you did it without discussion - very bold. Your action was reverted, so it obviously was not uncontroversial. The correct action now is to either (a) accept the status quo and move on, or (b) propose a merge and discus the pros and cons civilly with those whose views differ from your own, accepting any consensus that emerges. Renominating the page for deletion is not appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 23:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Agree one portal is enough and the two should be merged. However there's a mess here -- this has the history of the old portal, and should therefore not be deleted without fixing that. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience suggesting history merges it seems that would be rejected as these have parallel histories. I'm happy with a redirect, but that was rejected by Northamerica1000. There is no content to be merged in the automated version, it's all code pulling content from elsewhere. Legacypac (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep in the spirit of WP:SK point 2c. It's not exactly that the same arguments were used, but no new arguments were presented here except a mis-interpretation of the closing statement from the recent MfD. The behavior of another editor is irrelevant. A merger discussion is the correct approach. RockMagnetist(talk) 00:36, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The closing admin said redirection was a reasonable action [2]. Legacypac (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so, but this MfD is definitely not. I hope that you will heed the rest of the linked response. Your best option would be to withdraw and start a merger discussion. RockMagnetist(talk) 00:50, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep, too soon. Portals need a thorough community discussion, not individual MfDs, not CSD new criteria, but at least a 30 day RfC. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the nom statement and followup SmokeyJoe? We just don't need two portals on the same subject. This is to get the redirect by discussion. Legacypac (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac, I stopped reading when the facts went askew. The nomination says "the non-automated long standing Portal:English".  ?! Portal:English has three versions in its short history. This hurt my head last time, and if you can explain this, I am not sure I have the patience to listen. I would be OK with deleting Portal:English in favour of the long standing Portal:English language. Are you mixing them up? Has someone done a page swap or history merge and demerge again? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Facepalm – I think what happened is:

1. Portal:English was created in 2006
2. This 9 Sep 2018 permalink is the most recent version of the original Portal:English before it was moved (it doesn't render because of the subsequent page move)
3. 9:05 31 Oct 2018 the portal is wiped and replaced with an automatically-created-in-less-than-a-minute portal ("MinutePortal"?)
4. 9:06 31 Oct 2018 Portal:English is moved to Portal:English language, and Portal:English is turned into a redirect to Portal:English language
5. It stays that way for five months until 2 Mar 2019 when the original (9 Sep 2018 version, I believe) Portal:English is restored.

Now we have two of them, and the history of the original Portal:English is now on the page of the new one (Portal:English language). The new/current Portal:English has no history worth saving, just three entries: the Oct redirect, the Mar restoration, and a tweak. What should happen next is:

1. Portal:English language and its page history should be moved back to Portal:English with a redirect from Portal:English language to Portal:English. This should be done for no other reason than to restore the page history to the right page.
2. The 9 Sep 2018 version of Portal:English should be restored. If any editor wanted to merge anything from the MinutePortal version (Portal:English language) back into the original Portal:English, they would be free to do so from the page history.

For my part, I'd encourage any editor with the necessary rights to just do Step 1 and 2 and then close this discussion. Worst case, Step 2 can be reverted under BRD and a discussion can be had on the portal's talk page. Leviv ich 02:17, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That appears correct and if someone can do the needed work I'm happy to see this MfD closed as long as no one reverts the redirect restoring a duplicate portal. Legacypac (talk) 08:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have merged the two portals.

• Deleting this one was wrong, as it had the correct history (going back to 2006 or so) while the other one had only a recent history starting with the page move
• Keeping the two portals was unwarranted, as the subject was identical
• Both the revert of the redirection (or at least the reason given for it) and this MfD were disruptive, not looking for actual solutions but simply standing your ground. Continuing this discussion, where confusion reigned (mainly thanks to the rather convoluted history), is rather pointless
• I moved the portal to the old page because all the subpages still resided there. Moving all the subpages to the new name would be a lot more effort for the same result. I have no opinion on where the portal should end up, and if people want to move it (and its subpages) to the "English language" location, that's fine by me and no need to contact me.
• I have not closed this MfD, even though I think this is the best solution at this time. I hope someone else will close it and let calm return here, but if people want to continue this useless discussion instead, be my guest. Fram (talk) 14:17, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.