Talk:Charver

From WP:RfD:

Charvers were commonly labelled simply 'charv' since early 90's in the north-east ---> derived from gypsy. The entire uk suddenly picked up on it but missed the 'r' out. Southerners eh...

Charver is a redirect which used to point at Charva, but the latter was deleted. This redirect now point at Chav. However, anon editors keep attempting to insert the vfd'd Charva material into this page in place of the redirect, to sneak it under the radar. No pages reference this redirect. -- Jon Dowland 15:03, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This seems to be an alternative spelling of Charva, which was VfD'd with an outcome of "merge and redirect", so that applies here too. To delete this redirect would just mean it would be re-created, so I will protect it instead. Noel (talk) 14:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why the constant reverts?

The constant reverts are because up until you've opened this discussion, all that there has been have been repeated attempts by (a) anonymous editor(s) to insert information in this article which was voted to be deleted. The author would clearly have preferred the Charva article to have remained which begs the question why the edit work and (lack of) discussion is not taking place there rather than this redirect and why any evidence to support Charva having remained wasn't brought up at the time of the vfd. But we know the answer to this, s/he hoped that editing a redirect would get by unnoticed.

A charver really is a totally different breed to a chav especially when you consider Ned (Scottish) has its own article.

I beg to differ, I personally believe that a charver and a chav (and a ned) are entirely the same thing, and I have yet to see any factual evidence or even reasonable arguments to suggest otherwise. I don't consider someone else's opinion to necessarily carry more weight than mine without this.

If you notice the article you'll see that Paul (the nameless one who has been doing all the edits and all here) has changed quite a bit.

I did look at the content and it was changed, although I do not believe very much. For example, Charvers often incorrectly regarded as being the same thing as chavs however this is incorrect though there are overlaps between the two groups. (unsubstantiated); The birth of modern charvers is often blaimed on the crippling unemployment and social breakdown during Margaret Thatcher’s time as prime minister. often blamed by whom? Any references? There is a general lack of attention in terms of grammar and use of punctuation. I don't believe it deals with any of the objections raised with the original vfd.

The previous article was very bad as it had only really been edited once or twice from something I cobbled together when I was really ill and that still formed the core, now though those bits are being removed. -Josquius

the previous article was subject to numerous modifications in the time I had it on my watchlist, mostly by User:Hedley, so I don't quite know what you mean (unless you are referring to a different article entirely).

What this basically boils down to, if we ignore the rather sly approach taken by those who wish the article to be re-instated, is an interesting wiki problem. When can a vfd'd article be raised from the dead, if ever? Is there any precedent? -- Jon Dowland 13:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we just have one article, Chav, redirerct everythiong to it, and then if necessary write about Charvers etc, in Chav. I would argue we should redirect Ned to Chave as well, SqueakBox 17:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah that VFD thing that took place when I was away and was totally unaware of it and so unable to have my say. Well that VFD did take place but some months prior to that another decision was made over on the chav article that charver should be its own article. For one article that was something I proposed when I was originally told to make the charver article except I believe this would be best with the totally neutral word townie rather then the London biassed chav. For there being no evidence charvers popped up with unemployment and all that- do you need evidence that dogs bark too? It is a pretty obvious well known thing. I've told Paul that just constantly reverting won't solve this and he is going to leave it for a while though he says he is working on code to automaticly create the article every time someone tries to make it a redirect.

That'd be one quick way to settle the argument - getting your IP block banned. I'd have a bit more consideration for unfortunate editors on the same subnet if I were him. -- Jon Dowland 17:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He is taking this whole thing a bit too far but this really does all stink of southern bias.-Josquius

Well I live in Whitley Bay so I am certainly not carrying a "southern bias". -- Jon Dowland 17:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell your friend Paul not to try to not use a code to automaticly create the article every time someone tries to make it a redirect. There are some pretty competent technical people, and such behaviour would not work and would probably result in a permanent block. the only way to deal with any disputes is through consensus. if Chav is too London based-CHANGE THE ARTICLE- but don't try a complex, encoded vandalism, SqueakBox 16:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ned

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ned (Scottish), SqueakBox 17:26, 25 September 2005 (UTC) SqueakBox 17:26, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]