Talk:Daily Times-Advocate

Problem with this article
The new Times-Advocate has nothing to do with the old one, as our article makes very clear and see this ref in our article - the name of the old institution had simply fallen into the public domain. Content about the old Times-Advocate should be under San Diego Union-Tribune where the files and institutional legacy of the old paper reside or should be under this title and content about the revival under some title that shows that like Times-Advocate (2014 revival). Lumping these very separate entities under one title is not what we do - it would be like having one article combining Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Jefferson (Caymanian politician). It also gives the current paper prestige (not to mention notability) way, way beyond its due. Jytdog (talk) 17:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * My amended delete !vote at the AfD calls for WP:CONSPLIT for content about the old institution and deleting the remaining article on the new institution. We could do the split now.  What do you say, User:Voceditenore? Jytdog (talk) 18:24, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Per your comments there, Jytdog, I suggest moving this to page over the current redirect to or Daily Times-Advocate and deleting this title. Apart from the issues raised at the AfD, there are quite a lot of other papers in the US and Canada known as the Times-Advocate. In the meantime, I will amend this article accordingly in preparation for the move. Voceditenore (talk) 18:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That makes some sense but doesn't deal with what I am actually saying, which is that this article is an invalid chimera; what shall we do about that? Jytdog (talk) 18:40, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, given the changes I've just made to the article, it is no longer "an invalid chimera". It's now solely about the original paper and makes clear that it has no connection to the 2014 publication. The only thing left to do is the name change and deletion of the previous title. As this requires an administrator, that should be be discussed at Articles for deletion/Times-Advocate. Voceditenore (talk) 18:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Note also, as I said at the AfD, WP:CONSPLIT requires keeping the source article (minimally as a redirect) to preserve the edit history. It is therefore much more preferable to do a page move instead. However, I think it is a very bad idea to do a page move in the middle of an AfD. Let's just leave it to the closing administrator. In the meantime, Jytdog, are you happy with the changes I've now made? Voceditenore (talk) 19:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes you really did the refocus in this dif at 18:50 today.  I have again revised my !vote at AfD and yes I think we can just handle this by a page move once the Afd is closed. Jytdog (talk) 19:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * While reading this revised article, shouldn't there be two separate pages for each paper (current and original)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.72.96.130 (talk) 20:29, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If the one currently owned by Roadrunner were notable, yes. But it's not remotely notable enough for a stand-alone article. I'd personally nominate it for deletion if it were to be created. This article was created to make it look as if they were basically the same publication relaunched after a 20-year hiatus. I have to admit, on the face of it, it seemed quite convincing until Jytdog pointed out the quote in the North Coast Current for which I am very grateful. Having said that, the line between "relaunched" and "name revived" is blurred on several newspaper articles here, e.g. The Pembrokeshire Herald and General Advertiser. In that case the "relaunch" occurred 100 years after the original closed. But at this point, the mention of the "name revival" in this article is the limit of WP coverage that Justin Salter's publication merits. Voceditenore (talk) 07:13, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * User:Voceditenore I agree with your suggestion to move to and delete this page instead of leaving a redirect.  Do you want to do both or shall I do and just speedy/technical tag the redirect? thx! Jytdog (talk) 23:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not an administrator, thus I can't delete Times-Adovcate once it becomes a redirect. There may also be an issue of being unable to move this over the current re-direct since it has been subsequently altered . If so, it will also require an adminstrator to move it. I'm going to try now and see what happens. Voceditenore (talk) 07:13, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Why the heck did i think you were an admin? stupid me, sorry. Jytdog (talk) 07:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've just tried the move and as I suspected, Jytdog, it requires an administrator to move the page because of the previous edit to . So, we can either move it to Daily Times-Advocate (the paper's original title) instead and then change the redirect at to point to the new location. Or, we'll have to file a request at Requested move.  I'm not fussed either way. Of course, a separate request to speedy-delete the redirect from Times Advocate will be needed regardless of where the page is moved. Voceditenore (talk) 07:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's go with the original title, shall we?  I was thinking about the remaining redirect - how about we just immediately make it a disambig page pointing to Exeter Times-Advocate and Daily Times-Advocate? Jytdog (talk) 08:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Okey-Dokey. I've now moved it to Daily Times-Advocate and changed to redirect there and checked all the incoming links. I'll now set up a Dab page at . Voceditenore (talk) 08:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)