RationalWiki:Duplicate articles
(→Sex with Sexual intercourse: new section) |
(→Sexual attraction with Exhibitionism and Voyeurism: new section) |
||
| Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
One is sex. The other is sex. {{:User:FuzzyCatPotato/sig}} 15:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC) | One is sex. The other is sex. {{:User:FuzzyCatPotato/sig}} 15:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == [[Sexual attraction]] with [[Exhibitionism and Voyeurism]] == | ||
| + | |||
| + | Is anyone gonna search for the second one? {{:User:FuzzyCatPotato/sig}} 15:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 15:20, 26 January 2015
Please use this page to highlight any examples you find of duplicate articles or other pages which you believe should be merged. Create a new section for each case, linking to the articles concerned.
Please also put the template {{dup|x}} at the top of each of the duplicate articles, replacing "x" with the name of the article which should be merged into. Doing so shows that the articles have been identified as duplicates and gives a link to here, where editors can discuss merging the articles.
If you have a comment or objection regarding any of the proposed merges below, please add your comment and sign your name with ~~~~.
If a decision is made to merge the articles, please look through both articles and ensure that you copy or incorporate any relevant content from both into the final version. The title that ends up not being used can then be replaced with a redirect to the other. The {{dup}} template should be removed from both articles.
If a decision is made not to merge the articles, the {{dup}} template should be removed from both pages.
Details of successful or failed merges should be archived periodically.
Contents |
Simulated reality and Simulation argument
These articles are fundamentally the same. ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 06:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed: same topic, different sets of authors. Bongolian (talk) 07:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- No. "The Simulation argument" is supposed to be about (a) specific argument(s) - Nick Bostrom's - and goes at length discussing it. It's summarized and linked in the "simulated reality" article, which is how wikis are supposed to work (if a section is overlong, it gets spun off into a separate article). If the "argument" article strays into more general discussion, it should be pruned and the appropriate content moved to the "reality" article.--ZooGuard (talk) 21:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- "Simulation argument" doesn't label itself as specific to Bostrom and has concepts that apply to the idea of simulated reality in general. I think a unified article, with in-depth looks at arguments for and against, and cross-application of those articles, and not just Bostrom's, would be beneficial. ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 01:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- The article itself describes it as "developed by Bostrom". It's just poorly written, describing it as "the", not "a" simulation argument.--ZooGuard (talk) 11:42, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- If we wanted an article on Bostrom's simulation argument, then we should have an article entitled "Nick Bostrom's simulation argument". Instead, we have "simulation argument". The "simulation argument" furthermore does not solely discuss Bostrom's argument, but general arguments for and against a simulated reality, making it quite applicable for a merge into "Simulated reality". ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 17:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- The article itself describes it as "developed by Bostrom". It's just poorly written, describing it as "the", not "a" simulation argument.--ZooGuard (talk) 11:42, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- "Simulation argument" doesn't label itself as specific to Bostrom and has concepts that apply to the idea of simulated reality in general. I think a unified article, with in-depth looks at arguments for and against, and cross-application of those articles, and not just Bostrom's, would be beneficial. ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 01:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- No. "The Simulation argument" is supposed to be about (a) specific argument(s) - Nick Bostrom's - and goes at length discussing it. It's summarized and linked in the "simulated reality" article, which is how wikis are supposed to work (if a section is overlong, it gets spun off into a separate article). If the "argument" article strays into more general discussion, it should be pruned and the appropriate content moved to the "reality" article.--ZooGuard (talk) 21:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- They could be seperate articles, but the content in "Simulated reality" really just talks about the simulated reality hypothesis pertaining to our experienced reality, which is pretty much what any simulation argument is about. Most of the content in the "simulated reality" article looks good, except the "Thought experiment" section, which completely misrepresents the simulation argument. The other article looks decent too, if a bit long. I'm not sure if they'll fit together into each other very easily if merged though. If merged, I'd also suggest having the final article at "Simulated reality hypothesis", since that's what's really being discussed. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
RationalWiki:History and RationalWiki:Timeline
They're both crap. But maybe less crap together? ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 20:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- *cough* ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 23:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- No. They are different things. The fact that they may be poorly written/incomplete does not mean that they should be merged. Also, I don't believe that many people watch this page, or the Recent changes, so expecting a reaction a few hours after the proposal is... unrealistic. Unless you want to keep coughing in three hour intervals.--ZooGuard (talk) 08:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- Obviously the pages have different setups. However, I don't see why can't just change to one setup versus the other, or why we should keep them separate, when there is no need to have a history and a history timeline.
- Usually Gerard stops by to tell me that I should have just merged them, rather than posting here. ^_^ ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 21:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- COUGH HACK SPLUTTER. Dunno, the timeline is less inane than the history, I'd merge both to the timeline - David Gerard (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Colonialism with Imperialism
There's really no difference. It's the forced acquisition of other nations's land, people, etc., through minorly varying methods. If they're together, makes the article stronger. ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 18:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Rationalism with Rationality
One is the philosophy. The other is the behavior that acts out the philosophy. Huge difference. ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 15:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Sex with Sexual intercourse
One is sex. The other is sex. ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 15:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Sexual attraction with Exhibitionism and Voyeurism
Is anyone gonna search for the second one? ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 15:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)