Talk:Pollywog

Deletion contested
This would still serve perfectly well as its original redirect version. A simple revert is really all that's needed to fix this issue. -- WikHead (talk) 19:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it wouldn't. This paragraph is an exact copy of the source and so should be deleted. A redirect may then be created to Tadpole. Adam Mugliston  Talk  19:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well then have it your way... I guess. A simple revert back to the original redirect version would efficiently deal with this, and all without intervention from an admin. -- WikHead (talk) 19:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry, I may have misunderstood you. Your idea is to simply revert back to the redirect? Adam Mugliston  Talk  19:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes ! - and that way the issue is BAM, resolved! -- WikHead (talk) 19:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * How does that deal with the article being a copyright violation? Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 19:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * To WikHead: Yes, of course let's do that. Sorry, I misunderstood the first time round.
 * To Jenova: The text will no longer be there, so there will be no copy vio. Adam Mugliston  Talk  19:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * When i came here the talk page was a redirect to a talk page about tadpoles?? The article itself is still an exact copy of the only citation. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 19:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * To Jenova - If copyvio was suddenly added to a long standing article, we could simply revert it and keep going. The same could apply here by simply reverting and restoring the long-standing useful redirect. I've personally always called tadpoles pollywogs, but I'm also familiar with the navy ritual... which has a completely different name altogether. The participants however, are referred to as pollywogs. -- WikHead (talk) 19:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Nice work Ryan, i never noticed someone had destroyed the redirect on the article. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 19:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)