Talk:EM-50 Urban Assault Vehicle

Redirection[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

Please continue this discussion at Talk:Stripes (film)#Merger proposal

As far as I can tell, there is some evidence of independent notability here, so if this should become a redirect, we'll need consensus. --Slashme (talk) 09:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would say we do not have to just redirect. We should merge this article's content to Stripes as a section. Per WP:PAGEDECIDE, the article is not likely to be more than a permanent stub (Google Books/Scholar shows almost nothing), and the vehicle is best discussed in the context of the film. (Especially as opposed to a vehicle that has a recurring appearance in other media.) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Also, WP:MERGE seems the revelant guide. UW Dawgs (talk) 04:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheOldJacobite: You appear to be in the suppress camp with your multiple WP:BOLD edits. Care to join the discussion? UW Dawgs (talk) 04:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is on the target page, as Erik already told you. I would suggest that you assume good faith in the future and be more careful about your comments. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheOldJacobite: Slashme created the redirection discussion, here, at 09:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC) with a voice of concern and opposition after you repeatedly redirected the article without engaging in any Talk page discussion. I share that view of your actions. Three days later (17:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)) you decided to attempt to fork the discussion elsewhere for unknown reasons. As multiple editors appear to disagree with your actions, please begin to engage them here in discussion as part of WP:BRD starting with your rationale which has varied significantly in your edit summaries. UW Dawgs (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Link is here: Talk:Stripes (film)#Merger proposal. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:06, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. Discussion actually began here three days earlier, regardless of the apparent ongoing attempts to avoid these editors. UW Dawgs (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:MERGE, the merging discussion needs to be done on the proposed destination's talk page. Please comment there. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TheOldJacobite performed two redirects without moving any of the associatef article content. If their goal has now changed to merge, they can still start engaging with the editors who are in disgreement with their actions and want to understand their rationale. UW Dawgs (talk) 15:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel very strongly about this article. The subject weakly passes the GNG: it has actually been discussed in various sources, but the quality of those sources isn't top-notch, and the depth of discussion just barely exceeds a passing mention. I would prefer this content to be merged to the film article, but I won't go to war about it (especially not in an EM-50). --Slashme (talk) 14:26, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]