I fixed the first Christian link that was going to the "Morman" view of atonement. I did however retain the information by adding Morman Atonement to the list. --Teacherbrock (talk) 20:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Not moved, a move may be considered if the current article is rewritten or a new version drafted in the user space.) Mike Cline (talk) 20:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Without seeing what you have in mind for the new article, there is nothing to move. Write the article first and then propose the move. older ≠ wiser 04:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, I could just be bold and do it myself, because an admin just deleted Atonement (disambiguation). But I should at least provide an article outline; 2 to 1 is not consensus, eh? --Uncle Ed (talk) 04:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, you could, but that could be considered as disruptive. It was not a proper deletion. older ≠ wiser 04:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I was thinking of describing atonement in ancient cultures; in Eastern religions like Hinduism and Buddhism; and even in Islam. It's not just a Christian concept.
I leave it to you and User:History2007 to discern whether enough of these are about the concept of Atonement. I really don't want to write the whole article first; I gave you my outline. --Uncle Ed (talk) 04:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Without an existing article to consider to replace the disambiguation page, in my opinion there is nothing to discuss at this time. The what links here are somewhat interesting, but don't necessarily indicate anything conclusive other than careless linking. From the random few that I looked at, they'd be better served by linking to wiktionary as none of the ones I looked at concerned the theology of atonement. older ≠ wiser 04:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
How about writing the outline/article in a sub-page here, say Talk:Atonement/NewVersion so the talkpage remains clean/clear. Then everyone can edit that anyway until they all agree, etc. You can even move the items above there for now. So I will start a clean section below for teh discussion anyway. History2007 (talk) 08:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps you're referring to this:
these days, editors who add these links to a list often have no intention of writing the redlinked article, ever. This may be simply because writing the article is more time consuming than adding the link to the list or template. "Someone else will do it," the editor reasons. Or the editor may be choosing to contribute anonymously, which means that editor cannot create any article. Lastly, it may be because the editor knows, maybe even from first-hand experience, that newly created articles that do not follow Wikipedia policies can be deleted, whether or not the editor is aware of Wikipedia's new pages patrol or is familiar with the details of the speedy deletion process or other deletion processes.
Take a look at my user page, where I list dozens of articles I've started. Despite being prodded or AfD'd a very high percentage of them survived and thrived. It's all about WP:TEAMWORK, my friend. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, no, that's not really what concerns me. It is rather that by proposing to move the disambiguation page, you are asserting that there is a primary topic. However, the article for that primary topic doesn't exist (yet). So far as I am concerned, it is next to impossible to evaluate whether such a hypothetical article is the primary topic for the term. older ≠ wiser 18:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Support. 'Oppose now, as below unless article is written first in a subpage..... This is by and large a dab page, without the parentheses. So this is not a major issue. The article re-org is a separate issue and can be viewed/discussed in a subpage by itself. History2007 (talk) 08:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Support. Hardly any articles that aren't about the cultural or religious concept of Atonement link here. So there's no point in requiring an consolidated or expanded on article on atonement to be written first. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually since you requested the move, I think you can not vote on it, sorry. History2007 (talk) 16:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose at present. Many, possibly most, of the links, to this article (which BTW, are not very many so far as links to disambiguation pages go) are for the dictionary definition. I cannot support displacing the disambiguation page with a phantasm. Create the replacement page and then there can be a proper discussion as to whether that should be the primary topic. older ≠ wiser 16:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm not asking to eliminate the disambiguation page; just move it to Atonement (disambiguation), over the redirect. Articles are built by collaboration, and main space is the best place for WP:TEAMWORK. Interwiki links to wikt can stay as they are, but many articles want to like to the concept of atonement, which should be at Atonement. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I understood that. However, I cannot support displacing the disambiguation page with something else which is as yet only an idea. and beyond that, displacing the disambiguation page effectively means that links to that page will not be identified as links to a disambiguation page. I see no evidence that such links should target an as yet hypothetical article about the concept rather that be targeted to a more specific article. older ≠ wiser 18:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I am beginning t agree with older&wiser. Considering the links above, I am not even sure if a general article on atonement can come about without major effort and discussion and I think unless Ed wants to develop it first, as older&wiser suggest I can not support a move. History2007 (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, he is older and wiser. There being no consensus for a move, I'll just drop it for now and go pick some lower-hanging fruit. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Ok, then you should probably mark/shade this as closed, so we can move on. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 21:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
On second thought, I've read the editing guideline for disambiguation, and I don't think it's a matter an involved admin should decide, ignoring 2 other contributors:
If the primary meaning of a term proposed for disambiguation is a broad concept or type of thing that is capable of being described in an article, and a substantial portion of the links asserted to be ambiguous are instances or examples of that concept or type, then the page located at that title should be an article describing the broad concept, and not a disambiguation page. Where the primary topic of a term is a general topic that can be divided into subtopics, such as chronologically (e.g., History of France) or geographically (e.g., Rugby union in the British Isles), the unqualified title should contain an article about the general topic rather than a disambiguation page. A disambiguation page should not be created just because it is difficult to write an article on a topic that is broad, vague, abstract, or highly conceptual. Where there are additional meanings that are not instances or examples of a "Foo" primary concept or type, those should be included on a "Foo (disambiguation)" page.
Atonement is a primary topic. The page should be an article describing it. The only reason not to do this immediately, is if someone can explain why this page should be an exception to the rule.
If the only objection is that links to the page should be identified as links to a disambiguation page, I will be happy to take care of that (see list above). So I've tagged the page with
This is the page title of a primary topic, and an article needs to be written about it. When a broad-concept article is written about the primary meaning of Atonement, it should be moved to this page title. Related titles on this page should be described in the new article, while unrelated titles should be moved to Talk:Atonement (disambiguation).
and I hope we can proceed from here. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, whatever... I used to be in favor, but after older&wiser changed my mind, I think a draft of that item is needed before a decision. History2007 (talk) 16:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Ed, I've not implemented any "decision" regarding the requested move and I resent that you imply any such thing. I have expressed an opinion here on the talk page exactly the same as you and History2007. In the normal course of affairs, some other editor will close the RM discussion based on their reading of the discussion. If you think "atonement" should be a broad concept article, then by all means, please draft a version so we can actually discuss something tangible instead of guessing at what you might hypothetically have in mind. older ≠ wiser 16:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Ok, but let us not resent now, else we will have to atone... pun intended... But anyway, this is not an earthshaking issue in Wikipedia. History2007 (talk) 17:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh, sorry. I must have misunderstood what you were saying. Now, how can I atone for this? ;-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
No problem my friend. The easiest path to atonement would be sending a nice wire transfer to myself, and all be fine. History2007 (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.