List of bus routes in Bristol ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

When Buses in Bristol was created, the edit summary was "Material moved from List of bus routes in Bristol". If this is correct, the history is still needed and should be undeleted. The title is unsuitable for a redirect, as possibly misleading, but it could be moved to a subpage of Talk:Buses in Bristol and the content replaced with a note explaining its purpose. Peter James ( talk) 20:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• The text that needs attributation is :

Whilst many bus and coach companies operate over the Greater Bristol area, First Bristol and First Somerset & Avon has a virtual monopoly on ::the area's public transport. Although Wessex Connect has a growing number of mainly council supported services.

Other companies offering services include: Abus, Bakers Dolphin, Buglers, Eurotaxis, Megabus, National Express, Somerbus and Stagecoach.

I have fixed the attributation history by cut and pasting a list of the contributors to the now deleted list to a separate sub-page and redirecting this to Buses in Bristol. problem now fixed. [1] Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC) reply

Iron Man franchise ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

There is not a clear consensus to merely merge Iron Man franchise to Iron Man in other media. There was a discussion about the various scopes possible for the topic, and at the very least, there should have been a closure for no consensus and to leave the matter to the talk page to better define the scope and what specifics can fall under it. Erik ( talk | contribs) 15:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to no-concensus, based purely on vote counts. At 6 keep votes, 4 delete votes, 2 move votes and a merge vote, I don't see how the final merge vote takes precedence. Funny ^Pika! 21:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Consider where to merge We don't decide by counting votes.There was certainly no consensus to delete. i think there was a rough consensus to merge, and that is generally a very reasonable solution; however, there was no real consensus about what to merge it to. This is probably not the place to decide, nor is a Del Rev needed. The material can be discussed on some one relevant page, and then the material moved around without needing to come here. If there's deleted content that need to be undeleted to make whatever merge is decided on , I think any admin can reasonably do it. DGG ( talk ) 21:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC) reply

  Do you not see a move to Iron Man in film as a viable option here? Moving, not just merging, was part of the discussion, in order to better define the scope. The reason I posted at DRV is so that those who did not want a stand-alone article cannot just point to the closing argument to prevent a stand-alone option. Erik ( talk | contribs) 21:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Overturn Note: I participated in the AFD. That said, there was no clear consensus for a merge, and it did not seem like a popular idea with in the AFD; i.e. it was one of the lesser proposed and supported arguments. It's important to note that a move to Iron Man in film and a merge to Iron Man in other media are completely different scopes and outcomes to the article. Mkdw ^talk 06:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, it sounds as the most reasonable solution and does not conflict with the AfD consensus. The article (patently) is a (confused) sub-article of Iron Man in other media, and its contents does not even reflect what Iron Man in film should eventually be (the Marvel Animation films are not even mentioned and about one third of the article focuses on Iron Man in video games) .Merging the little non-duplicate contents in the parent article appears to me as a win-win solution. Cavarrone ( talk) 07:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC) reply

  I am arguing that there is no consensus to do a mere merge. Another option is to make it an article about Iron Man in a filmic scope. We have Superman in film, Batman in film, and Spider-Man in film. The "Video games" section was added after the AfD was closed, and I would argue that it should not belong. Several editors supported moving this article to adjust the scope, which is why I do not think there is a consensus to merge. Let's leave it to the talk page. I'd be happy to whip it into shape; I just want to ensure that the closure does not mean that we cannot do any work on a new stand-alone article. Erik ( talk | contribs) 13:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Overturn (weakly). I read the discussion as achieving a pretty clear consensus not to delete but don't see any consensus between the options of merging to Iron Man in other media versus renaming to Iron Man in film and rescoping. That said I think that the close is a reasonable attempt to cut to the heart of the matter rather than saying "No Consensus, work it out on the talk page". Nevertheless, I don't think that we can give our fully endorse the merge as something backed by the consensus of an AfD (since it really isn't) rather than the (good) idea of several users. Eluchil404 ( talk) 10:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• As the closing admin and after rereading the discussion and rethinking the situation, I have no problem changing the close to 'no consensus'. Had this been discussed with me prior to sending it here I likely would have changed my close but since there is an 'endorse' opinion here I'll let it run its course. J04n( talk page) 12:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC) reply

  Sorry I didn't message you beforehand! I read the instructions, and it seemed to only suggest making contact if the article was deleted. Erik ( talk | contribs) 13:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to no consensus, per analysis by FunnyPika ( talk · contribs), above. Cheers, — Cirt ( talk) 17:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn seems reasonable given the situation. Nom gets a small WP:FISH though I agree it isn't hugely clear that the same process is to be followed if the image wasn't deleted. Hobit ( talk) 19:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC) reply

  I've tried to clean up the language about contacting the closing admin to make it more clear... Hobit ( talk) 19:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC) reply

  That wording is much better. Thanks! :) Erik ( talk | contribs) 19:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Overturn There was no consensus to merge to a particular destination. Warden ( talk) 05:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the non-binding close. There is a consensus to look into doing something like that. The discussion should continue on the talk page. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC) reply

  That is all I want to confirm, that merging is not binding. It is completely possible for this article to continue being stand-alone when its scope and contents are refined, as I mentioned in the AfD. I don't want anyone to say, you can't do that, you have to merge. Erik ( talk | contribs) 12:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse I believe the AfD closer took into full account the content would still be present on Wikipedia at Iron Man in other media which can cover what is currently there. It's not like we're actually losing the content or saying teh topic isn't notable. At the moment a second article just doesn't justify what is there; if the "Film" section of Iron Man in other media is developed to the point that it could sustain an article in its own right then it can be split out, but until that occurs there is no point having a separate article. Betty Logan ( talk) 18:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC) reply

  Iron Man in other media never had the content that is currently at Iron Man (franchise). Part of the discussion was whether or not it was okay for the Iron Man films' figures to be solely encompassed at Marvel Cinematic Universe (outside of the individual film articles' reporting, of course). I'm willing to transform this article into Iron Man in film with content that fits that scope, such as greater context about the critical reception and box office performances (comparing between the two and soon the three). I hope you will not object to not merging when the article is changed and uniquely expanded. Erik ( talk | contribs) 18:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC) reply

I don't oppose an Iron Man in film article in principle, but I think the appropriate course of action would be to develop the section at Iron Man in other media, and once it is substantial enough to warrant a split, then it could be split out if there is a consensus to do that. I don't really see the point in just having a separate article to host just a couple of tables. Also, in a recent edit, User:Mkdw decided to add video game content to the Iron Man (franchise) article, so I'm still not quite seeing the distinction between a franchsie article and Iron man in other media. Betty Logan ( talk) 23:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC) reply

Betty, that "recent edit" was restoring content that was there since April 15th and 15 hours prior to the AFD result... I did not introduce new content after the AFD result... Mkdw ^talk 00:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC) reply

While you technically added the content a few hours before the Afd closed, your edits fundamentally altered the scope of the article that was discussed during the original AfD. What we discussed at the original AfD was a poorly titled film article, and the content you added extended the scope to a general franchise article. In short, your edits changed the whole nature of the debate. The AfD review should review the original debate in its original context i.e. the article should be the version that was actually discussed. Betty Logan ( talk) 01:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry but you've just done the very same thing. The whole DRV and the AFD close up until now has been based off a version that had video game content in it. You've now removed and changed the article significantly after everyone here has made a comment, effectively doing the same thing. How can you justify that? Mkdw ^talk 01:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC) reply

The article under review was created as a "film series" article, and the original discussion was torn between merging the article, deleting it, or turning it into a general Iron Man in film article. I don't think anyone is really arguing for a general purpose franchise article that would cover things like films, games, comics etc, since that would overlap too much with Iron Man in other media. There may be scope for replacing Iron Man in other media with Iron Man (franchise) and a List of Iron Man media, but I think that's a separate discussion quite honestly. This review should solely be focusing on whether we need a separate film article or not. Betty Logan ( talk) 02:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC) reply

I understand your 'point', but I hope you can understand that it basically looks like you've changed the article to support your comment in the DRV, changed the article so it's different in reference to those who have commented above, misrepresented the truth when you said, and I literally quote you above, " recent edit (Apr 18 dif), User:Mkdw decided to add video game content" when I was restoring content from April 15th, and you made J04n's close look even worse because he selected Iron Man in other media opposed to Iron Man in film since that decision was clearly based off the fact that there was other information in the article. He cited this in his closing statement. I added the video game content 15 hours prior to the close of the AFD and noted it in my comment so J04n clearly knew what was happening. He could have easily said merge to film. Rather than mentioning that occurrence here at the discussion and letting the article be actually representative of the state in which J04n actually closed the AFD. Furthermore, the result was merge, not change the article so it supports your idea of merge to film. Mkdw ^talk 03:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC) reply

For clarity, this is the main version [2] that ran for the majority of the Afd discussion, prior to Mkdw's later edits. Funny ^Pika! 07:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Overturn the merge and multiple redirects and, as consensus was not "clear", and endorse a simple move to the one appropriate title for a sourcable and searchable topic... per the growing consensus for such being created with the article while it was being actively edited to address issues while at AFD. And we do not dismiss improvements that work to address a nominator's concerns, specially as we encourage the improvement of improvable topics while they are at AFD. The multiple redirects (while well intended) and the expected merge to a wider topic (also well intended) would overtax the suggested target (if not immediately, then quite soon) because while all Iron Man films are part of the "Iron Man franchise", not everything in the "Iron Man franchise" (toys, games, video games, books, comic books, etc.) is part of the "Iron Man in film" topic. Second point: Expected and proper expansion at the target of the various films' analysis and commentary would eventually result in a proper and expected spin-out in any case. Let's take care of it now. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC) reply