Talk:Itinerary for travelers with children

VFD discussion
Redirects to Charlotte with children. Obviously not an appropriate redirect, should either be deleted or instead redirect to Travelling with children. --Nathan868 (talk) 12:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to travelling with children. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 13:42, 10 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't think that a seperate article is required for 'travelling with children'... and it contains the basic things. We always know who qualifies as a child... and it is also that the page mostly contains links to other articles. Arepticous (talk) 16:46, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect -- this discussion isn't about the Travelling with children article. If there are problems with that article, we should fix them -- it is a perfectly valid travel topic. Ground Zero (talk) 16:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete this redirect. I don't think that either article is actually an itinerary, and those looking for general advice can find Travelling with children just as easily. The redirect has no history that matters, having always been a redirect. AlasdairW (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * We cannot delete this redirect per copyright as we need to preserve attribution for the content in Charlotte with children that originated with this article. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:16, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * In this case, since there was a page move and not a manual merge, all the proper attribution info is already at Charlotte with children, if that changes anything. ARR8 (User talk:ARR8 | Special:Contributions/ARR8) 22:24, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. The caution is good, though in this case there's no copyright issue, as ARR8 points out. Still, I'd say weak keep as a redirect to Travelling with children—it does no harm. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:42, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This originally redirected to Charlotte with children, so technically it would not be a "keep vote" that you are making but instead a "redirect" vote. Makes sense? --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 23:46, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, I guess we can delete it if necessary. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:40, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Also worth stating that the user who made this nomination Plunged forward and changed the redirect target from Charlotte with children to Travelling with children even though this discussion continues. So I understand what went wrong. To be clear, the original redirect target was Charlotte with children and it should remain so until a consensus is reached here (per policy, in 14-21 days). "Travelling with children" is not the topic of discussion but instead the redirect is.  Please remember in future that you must wait until a discussion here is complete before making the necessary adjustments. Thanks! --Comment by  Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 23:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Is this being kept for attribution? If so, the attribution is specifically for Charlotte with children, right? So changing the redirect to a separate article would remove its use as attribution. I do agree however that the title "Itinerary for travelers with children" does not make sense as a specific redirect to Charlotte. The likelihood of Charlotte being the destination of choice is slim-to-none for such a broad search. If attribution is what it is for, that should be dealt with first if possible and then this should probably be redirected specifically to Travelling with children since it is specifically about itineraries. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 01:55, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * ChubbyWimbus' solution looks like the best one to me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:58, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no attribution factor here. The desired outcome can be put in place directly. ARR8 (User talk:ARR8 | Special:Contributions/ARR8) 02:05, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Result: redirected to Travelling with children. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 14:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)