Talk:Charles Andrew

Redirection target

OK, so given that the AfD for this article was closed as a specific redirect quite recently, I'm not sure that changing the redirect without discussion is really the thing to do here. But the options need to be considered, given the nature of the name.

I'd suggest:

• moving this article to Charles Andrew (cricketer)
• redirecting this page to Charles Andrews, which is a dab page with such a similar name - Charles Andrew is already linked from that dab to here, so that'll need changing
• then adding anyone else to the dab page - Charlie Andrew certainly, but there might be more unlinked dabs that'll need changing down

An alternative would be to create this as a new dab for Charles Andrew, although I'm not sure that with the similarity of name that this is the way to go in this case. Thoughts anybody? Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:24, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice this reply. I don't see the point of your first suggestion. For your second point and third points, that seems like a reasonable target, though I'm not sure if a hatnote at Charlie Andrew would be better; which is the primary topic for Charles Andrew?

Regardless, I think we can both agree that the correct target of this redirect is not the cricket player; if you want to redirect it to dab page while we discuss, I have no objection. BilledMammal (talk) 23:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

That's why we move the article first - the whole point of the redirect was to preserve the page history etc... There are books on early Sussex cricketers. I don't have access to them, but someone might in the future and it might just turn up a scad load of information on Andrew. So we need that history at that point for attribution purposes - that's half the point of redirecting articles like this.

Then it's a choice between adding to the already established dab page or a straight redirect. I don't mind which of those happens, but just trashing the history of an article that might turn up again in the future is, you know, actually really out of order in this case. We can wait a few days to decide what to do with this - you never know, someone else might turn up with a view as well. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:01, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@Blue Square Thing: That doesn't explain why we move the article first; it just creates a redirect that no one will use. In addition, redirecting this article to Charlie Andrew or Charles Andrews doesn't trash the history; it will still be here. Regardless, if you feel so strongly about that, why haven't you just done it? BilledMammal (talk) 06:06, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

To preserve the article history and attribution should further details appear about Andrew. Which is possible. Sure, the history isn't trashed with a redirect somewhere else, but no one will ever be able to find it. Which makes it useless. I didn't just do it because the consensus from April's AfD was to redirect this page. Now, it's entirely probable that if the Charlie Andrew article had been mentioned there, that moving this article first would have been part of that AfD close. This came up very recently in a different discussion and ended up happening I think - move first, then redirect someplace else. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:38, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh, you did mention it there and we had a very brief discussion about a dab. Given the AfD close, though, this should still be agreed. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:39, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Can you clarify what needs to be agreed? BilledMammal (talk) 06:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Whether this becomes a dab to the two relevant articles (this is the only option that was discussed at the AfD - Rugbyfan22 was certainly in agreement with this approach at the AfD), whether it is a redirect with a hatnote (which I can see some merit to) or whether it's a redirect to Charles Andrew with both relevant articles dabbed there. Do you want to consider pinging interested parties or not? Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:10, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

For now, I've just redirected it to the dab page. Since we clearly agree that the correct target isn't the cricket page, this is indisputably an improvement and if needed we can discuss further. BilledMammal (talk) 00:22, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Redirect

@Blue Square Thing: Looking at the links here, none come from article space, which is appropriate given the cricketer was not notable. As such, I've now restored the redirect; if you think a dab page would be appropriate then you are welcome to create one and we can have that discussion, but I don't think anyone will disagree that in the absence of a dab page the redirect should point towards the notable producer by the same name, rather than the non-notable cricket player. BilledMammal (talk) 23:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC)