disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.
As already explained (briefly, so I'll make it clear here), do not cut the contents of one article and paste them over another article. This is a cut'n'paste move and, amongst other problems it loses the attribution for the authors that wrote the original article. It makes it appear that you wrote the article yourself, which is not the case. It is not possible to move Barila Sharif over Bareela since both articles have multiple edits, so you will have to make a requested move. Given that both articles gave existed for some years and have no-trivial edit history, I would suggest that such a move requires discussion first where interested parties can check that both articles really are about the same place and which should be the ultimate location. Lithopsian (talk) 19:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Philfromwaterbury
What are we going to do about this chap and his nonsense edit in the Cassiopeia entry? I don't think he even understands the text he is trying to insert. He has been blocked for edit warring in the past. Should we do it again? Cheers, Skeptic2 (talk) 01:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Talk page first. I've put a standard warning on the user talk page. You could start a section on the Cassiopeia talk page, for all the good it will do, just to show good faith. Otherwise, I've reverted the latest drivel. Feel free to report any further reverts. Lithopsian (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it would have been a lot more inclusive if you created a talk page. Sorry if I can not express what I am trying to add. I did include 4 different references. Would Wikipedia consider that vandalism? That I am not trying to add in "good faith".
I know people who were banned on social media. Some are back. I know people who were banned from coffee counters. They "won" the war.
Should "we" do it again? Take credit for your actions. You're not Lithopsian. Consensus is Wikipedia.
Did you really need to use the derogatory drivel? No need to use insulting terms. See Wikipedia:Civility
"Don't make snide comments."
I'd say "Patent nonsense" is the correct term to consider here.
The Wikipedia page indicates: "Content that, while apparently intended to mean something, is so confusing that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it"
I'd be comfortable if the addition was removed with the explanation: "Cassiopea was not used by Jean Picard to determine "an arc of the meridian"
Try this if your willing. I googled: "picard" Cassiopeia
AI response:
"In 1669, Captain Jean-Luc Picard used the constellation Cassiopeia to determine latitude while measuring an arc of the meridian in France"
Are you saying some form of this google statement is not worthy of the page?
Picard is considered the first to give a realistic measure. He didn't use Leo or Cygnus for a reason. The links explain why.
The long and the short of it. The four articles I referenced have the word Cassiopea in them. Referring to a use of the constellation. Similar to the use of Polaris by navigators. This is a valid addition to the page. If someone with better linguistics chooses to "create" it; instead of spending their time "banning" they're the better person. The article will be better off. Philfromwaterbury (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
