This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Electronic cigarette and e-cigarette liquid marketing article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from Electronic cigarette was copied or moved into Electronic cigarette and e-cigarette liquid marketing. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There used to be an article called "Marketing of electronic cigarettes" ( talk, last version slightly earlier version), which I created. Numerous editors, including QG, worked on and debated the content from May 2018 to August 2019. QuackGuru simultaneously repeatedly ( indirectly) sought to delete the article, and eventually got consensus for replacing it with a redirect on the 18 of August.
On the 7 September, QuackGuru created this "Electronic cigarette and e-cigarette liquid marketing" article, apparently using a draft QG had developed in private before proposing the redirect.
The new article, while heavily re-written, seems to me to be sufficiently derivative of the old one that the history of the old article and its talk page should be retained in the new article. Are there any objections to this? Cunard, could the histories be simply spliced together, since they don't overlap in date?
on QG's talk page, saying:
QG replied on my talk page, saying:
|
I can't imagine serious dispute over the scope change (
the new-title scope had been used for the original title, unopposed). The titlechange is trivial. I don't think anyone raised objections to the draft content except QuackGuru, who
refused to move it into the article when Chumash11 suggested this during the redirect discussion. So now I'm not sure why we went through a formal process here.
QG, could you please give a link to your draft? It was at User:QuackGuru/Sanx during the redirect discussion, but the page seems to have been deleted and re-created and now deleted again, removing it from the history. HLHJ ( talk) 06:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
There was no re-written version of the old Marketing of electronic cigarettes article. I created a new article from scratch. There was consensus to redirect the article you created...[4hrs]... The new marketing article is not a derivative of any other marketing article. The edit history of a redirected article should not be merged with a different article. The edit histories of different articles should not be spliced together. The talk page is used for improving the marketing article. Comments that are not about improving the article should not be posted on the talk page of the new marketing article. QuackGuru ( talk) 13:05, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Hey all, this title is pretty unwieldy. Anyone opposed to "Marketing of electronic cigarettes"? An article by that title existed until summer 2019 and was merged into this one. I propose we return to the simpler title! Crunchydillpickle🥒 ( talk) 18:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Electronic cigarette and e-cigarette liquid marketing article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from Electronic cigarette was copied or moved into Electronic cigarette and e-cigarette liquid marketing. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
|
There used to be an article called "Marketing of electronic cigarettes" ( talk, last version slightly earlier version), which I created. Numerous editors, including QG, worked on and debated the content from May 2018 to August 2019. QuackGuru simultaneously repeatedly ( indirectly) sought to delete the article, and eventually got consensus for replacing it with a redirect on the 18 of August.
On the 7 September, QuackGuru created this "Electronic cigarette and e-cigarette liquid marketing" article, apparently using a draft QG had developed in private before proposing the redirect.
The new article, while heavily re-written, seems to me to be sufficiently derivative of the old one that the history of the old article and its talk page should be retained in the new article. Are there any objections to this? Cunard, could the histories be simply spliced together, since they don't overlap in date?
on QG's talk page, saying:
QG replied on my talk page, saying:
|
I can't imagine serious dispute over the scope change (
the new-title scope had been used for the original title, unopposed). The titlechange is trivial. I don't think anyone raised objections to the draft content except QuackGuru, who
refused to move it into the article when Chumash11 suggested this during the redirect discussion. So now I'm not sure why we went through a formal process here.
QG, could you please give a link to your draft? It was at User:QuackGuru/Sanx during the redirect discussion, but the page seems to have been deleted and re-created and now deleted again, removing it from the history. HLHJ ( talk) 06:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
There was no re-written version of the old Marketing of electronic cigarettes article. I created a new article from scratch. There was consensus to redirect the article you created...[4hrs]... The new marketing article is not a derivative of any other marketing article. The edit history of a redirected article should not be merged with a different article. The edit histories of different articles should not be spliced together. The talk page is used for improving the marketing article. Comments that are not about improving the article should not be posted on the talk page of the new marketing article. QuackGuru ( talk) 13:05, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Hey all, this title is pretty unwieldy. Anyone opposed to "Marketing of electronic cigarettes"? An article by that title existed until summer 2019 and was merged into this one. I propose we return to the simpler title! Crunchydillpickle🥒 ( talk) 18:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)