RationalWiki:Duplicate articles
(→Year 2000 problem and Y2K) |
(→Year 2000 problem and Y2K) |
||
| Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
::::::Yeah, that's why I said 'low priority' on this one. But they should remain as duplicates until they are properly merged. Thanks for undeleting; I was gonna do the same. [[User:Weaseloid|<font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"><big>w</big>easeLOId</font>]][[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]][[User Talk:Weaseloid|~]] 19:30, 9 October 2008 (EDT) | ::::::Yeah, that's why I said 'low priority' on this one. But they should remain as duplicates until they are properly merged. Thanks for undeleting; I was gonna do the same. [[User:Weaseloid|<font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"><big>w</big>easeLOId</font>]][[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]][[User Talk:Weaseloid|~]] 19:30, 9 October 2008 (EDT) | ||
:::::::I don't see why we can't do the merge slowly - we can even leave a note at one saying not to add anything, since it's being superseded. '''[[user:human|<font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"><big>ħ</big>uman</font>]]'''{{User:Human/sigtalk}} 20:12, 9 October 2008 (EDT) | :::::::I don't see why we can't do the merge slowly - we can even leave a note at one saying not to add anything, since it's being superseded. '''[[user:human|<font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"><big>ħ</big>uman</font>]]'''{{User:Human/sigtalk}} 20:12, 9 October 2008 (EDT) | ||
| + | ::::::::Good plan. I suggest merging to the Y2K article because it's longer so the other one will be easier to pick bits out of. [[User:Weaseloid|<font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"><big>w</big>easeLOId</font>]][[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]][[User Talk:Weaseloid|~]] 20:21, 9 October 2008 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 00:21, 10 October 2008
|
No duplicates |
Create a new section for each case, linking to the two (or more) articles concerned. Add comments below, and sign your name.
Please also put the template {{dup|x}} at the top of each of the duplicate articles, replacing "x" with the name of the other article. This 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. If a decision is made not to merge the articles, the {{dup}} template can then be removed from them.
If you want to merge any of the pages listed here, 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. The {{dup}} template should then, of course, be removed from the articles. Please also add a note to the relevant section here, confirming that you have merged the articles.
Details of articles already merged will be archived periodically.
Atheism and Atheist
The atheist article is a short light-hearted one, so arguably could remain separate. Or it could be merged as a section at the end of the atheism one (e.g. "symptoms of atheism" or similar). Keeping "atheist" and "atheism" as separate articles isn't really consistent with usual wiki convention - e.g. Christian redirects to Christianity. weaseLOId
~ 14:33, 7 October 2008 (EDT)
- Yeah, I keep seeing this one but "atheist" got expanded to be like a snarkier version so they're currently very different articles... Not sure, my instincts would be to merge but the smaller one has potential. ArmondikoVmoral 15:28, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
- I like the "atheist" one, so I resurrected it when it had been deleted a while back, but I'm not sure that it should be separate from "atheism". Sooner or later I think it should be merged. Could possibly be kicked to Funspace instead, but that tends to be where we throw the trash that won't float anywhere else. Anyway, I've whacked the new "dup" template on both of them, so hopefully we'll see a few more people's views before taking action. weaseLOId
~ 16:05, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
- I think these deserve to remain seperate, for no better reason than we might actually do justice to both, as opposed to most "ism" vs. "ist" topics. I will feel free to to be overruled by the mob on this one, of course. It's just my thinkies, is all. ħuman
03:14, 9 October 2008 (EDT)
- I think these deserve to remain seperate, for no better reason than we might actually do justice to both, as opposed to most "ism" vs. "ist" topics. I will feel free to to be overruled by the mob on this one, of course. It's just my thinkies, is all. ħuman
- I like the "atheist" one, so I resurrected it when it had been deleted a while back, but I'm not sure that it should be separate from "atheism". Sooner or later I think it should be merged. Could possibly be kicked to Funspace instead, but that tends to be where we throw the trash that won't float anywhere else. Anyway, I've whacked the new "dup" template on both of them, so hopefully we'll see a few more people's views before taking action. weaseLOId
Human and Humans Merged
Humanity is currently a red link & should redirect to whichever of these swallows the other. weaseLOId
~ 16:47, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
- I vote for the singular title, which the style we usually use. ħuman
22:11, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
Year 2000 problem and Y2K
Lengthy duplicates; would take some work to merge, but probably should be done. Low priority. weaseLOId
~ 14:33, 7 October 2008 (EDT)
- Definitely, I think to "Y2K" as main title. ħuman
17:59, 7 October 2008 (EDT)
- They're both quite sizable though, which is the best version? I think "Year 2000" is written better, or at least arranged better. We'd also want to create a "millenium bug" redirect if that isn't already there and if it is, ensure it goes to the right one to prevent double redirects. ArmondikoVmoral 15:34, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
- Urgh, I know you merged them to the longer title, but isn't Y2K a much more likely to be used link? No biggie, just curious. ħuman
18:47, 9 October 2008 (EDT)
- Groan. There was a load of content lost here. I should probably clarify what is meant by merging: it involves reading (or at least scanning) both articles & copying any info across from one that isn't in the other - so that the contents of both articles are merged, not just choosing one & deleting the other! weaseLOId
~ 19:02, 9 October 2008 (EDT)
- I undid the redirect; yes, this one's gonna take work, there is some duplication, and yet much good content in both to be combined. Perhaps we should just step-by-step cut chunks of the plural one and move them over, carefully integrating them, until there's nothing left but commas? ħuman
19:21, 9 October 2008 (EDT)
- Yeah, that's why I said 'low priority' on this one. But they should remain as duplicates until they are properly merged. Thanks for undeleting; I was gonna do the same. weaseLOId
~ 19:30, 9 October 2008 (EDT)
- I don't see why we can't do the merge slowly - we can even leave a note at one saying not to add anything, since it's being superseded. ħuman
20:12, 9 October 2008 (EDT)
- I don't see why we can't do the merge slowly - we can even leave a note at one saying not to add anything, since it's being superseded. ħuman
- Yeah, that's why I said 'low priority' on this one. But they should remain as duplicates until they are properly merged. Thanks for undeleting; I was gonna do the same. weaseLOId
- I undid the redirect; yes, this one's gonna take work, there is some duplication, and yet much good content in both to be combined. Perhaps we should just step-by-step cut chunks of the plural one and move them over, carefully integrating them, until there's nothing left but commas? ħuman
- Groan. There was a load of content lost here. I should probably clarify what is meant by merging: it involves reading (or at least scanning) both articles & copying any info across from one that isn't in the other - so that the contents of both articles are merged, not just choosing one & deleting the other! weaseLOId
- Urgh, I know you merged them to the longer title, but isn't Y2K a much more likely to be used link? No biggie, just curious. ħuman
- They're both quite sizable though, which is the best version? I think "Year 2000" is written better, or at least arranged better. We'd also want to create a "millenium bug" redirect if that isn't already there and if it is, ensure it goes to the right one to prevent double redirects. ArmondikoVmoral 15:34, 8 October 2008 (EDT)