Coleisforeditor
| This is Coleisforeditor's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
 | This user is aware of the designation of the following as contentious topics:
|
The article 2026 Club Chemistry super-spreader event has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Article is not notable and its content has been merged into the more notable 2026 Kent meningitis outbreak. Doubt there is purpose for a redirect either as unlikely anyone would search up a "super spreader event".
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.
If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. BlunanNation (talk) 07:23, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- Hi, given you are merging it, the article history must be retained for CC-BY-SA 4.0 attribution. Thus the article should be redirected to 2026 Kent meningitis outbreak; this is particularly true as the consensus for allowing bold merges relies on the fact they can be easily reverted per WP:BRD, which a deletion cannot, and you have not had a formal AfD per WP:M1 (not that I dispute your closure). I have removed the PROD. Respectfully dissenting, Coleisforeditor (talk) 08:38, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
.dd
editHi, I notice you did a bold merge of .dd into the article about cctlds. To be clear I agree that article was ridiculous - I even did a parody of it on another site some decades ago. however in doing the merge into ccTLDs I think you may have missed the fact that that table does not have entries for several actual former TLDs such as .yu and .tp as well as the still technically existing TLD .gb. I think a section of .de might have been a better merge target. Given this information I wonder if you have any thoughts on the matter. Morwen (talk) 20:18, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
sorry i’ve just realised this message was misdirected and you merely prodded it and it was @User:Cyclopia who bold merged it! Hmm i wonder where we should discuss this? Morwen (talk) 20:43, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, I mainly prodded it instead of proposing a merge because I was unsure where it would be merged to, and the contents weren't reliably sourced anyways so it would be a hard argument to merge the contents elsewhere anyways. I suppose Talk:Country code top-level domain or Talk:.dd would be the proper place to discuss this, but so long as the appropriate talk pages are notified I would be fine myself for the discussion to continue here. Respectfully dissenting, Coleisforeditor (talk) 23:21, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
- Now that I have taken a moment to look at the contents of the article, the way it has been merged seems highly unusual and potentially misleading, it would appear to me that the list only shows currently existing ccTLDs as you said, and .dd never existed in the first place. I'm hesitant to revert yet, lest Cyclopia has any comment on where else it should be merged to, if at all. If any other sources can be found I would personally be in favour of merging into .de as you suggest, but I find it hard to support maintaining information not backed up by reliable sources. Respectfully dissenting, Coleisforeditor (talk) 23:32, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
- Yeah. As far as I can tell there was one "source" that actually was talking about .dd, which is . I think what he's saying is honest and entirely plausible; but ultimately, so what? I agree we can and should wait for Cyclopia, who seems to be around most days. Morwen (talk) 00:24, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
- Hi everyone! I don't think the article was "ridiculous", however I admit I did the merge hastily and I didn't check that the table only referred to current TLDs! My mistake, apologies. I believe it can be mentioned in this section, probably. cyclopiaspeak! 13:42, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
- Do you think the source we have for it meets WP:RS? Morwen (talk) 17:33, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
- There are others. See , , (paywalled), etc. cyclopiaspeak! 11:22, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
- Reliable sourcing was the main thing I was concerned about, given we do have reliable sources I would personally support a short summary style sentence/paragraph in the ccTLD article and more detailed content in .de. Respectfully dissenting, Coleisforeditor (talk) 13:51, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
- It turns out we already had such a sentence in ccTLD, so I've done the necessary and moved the paragraph we had from within the list to .de#.dd and updated the redirect. much better all round now, I think. Morwen (talk) 12:02, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, that does seem much better. Thanks! Respectfully dissenting, Coleisforeditor (talk) 12:04, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
- It turns out we already had such a sentence in ccTLD, so I've done the necessary and moved the paragraph we had from within the list to .de#.dd and updated the redirect. much better all round now, I think. Morwen (talk) 12:02, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
- Reliable sourcing was the main thing I was concerned about, given we do have reliable sources I would personally support a short summary style sentence/paragraph in the ccTLD article and more detailed content in .de. Respectfully dissenting, Coleisforeditor (talk) 13:51, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
- There are others. See , , (paywalled), etc. cyclopiaspeak! 11:22, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
- Do you think the source we have for it meets WP:RS? Morwen (talk) 17:33, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
- Hi everyone! I don't think the article was "ridiculous", however I admit I did the merge hastily and I didn't check that the table only referred to current TLDs! My mistake, apologies. I believe it can be mentioned in this section, probably. cyclopiaspeak! 13:42, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
- Yeah. As far as I can tell there was one "source" that actually was talking about .dd, which is . I think what he's saying is honest and entirely plausible; but ultimately, so what? I agree we can and should wait for Cyclopia, who seems to be around most days. Morwen (talk) 00:24, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
- Now that I have taken a moment to look at the contents of the article, the way it has been merged seems highly unusual and potentially misleading, it would appear to me that the list only shows currently existing ccTLDs as you said, and .dd never existed in the first place. I'm hesitant to revert yet, lest Cyclopia has any comment on where else it should be merged to, if at all. If any other sources can be found I would personally be in favour of merging into .de as you suggest, but I find it hard to support maintaining information not backed up by reliable sources. Respectfully dissenting, Coleisforeditor (talk) 23:32, 5 June 2026 (UTC)