RationalWiki:Duplicate articles

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, (new)

There are 6 pages marked as duplicates:

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


[edit] Simulated reality and Simulation argument

These articles are fundamentally the same. 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (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. 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (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". 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 17:36, 14 December 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)

[edit] RationalWiki:History and RationalWiki:Timeline

They're both crap. But maybe less crap together? 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 20:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

*cough* 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (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. ^_^ 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (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)

[edit] Sexual attraction with Exhibitionism and voyeurism

Is anyone really gonna search for the second one? 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 15:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe they'll search for exhibitionism or voyeurism seperately? Eitherway, neither exhibitionism nor voyeurism is a sexual 'attraction'. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I think you've maybe overdone it on the merge thing, potato pal, I think you should stop actively looking for things to merge. These are loosely related. Ikanreed (talk) 15:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
They have managed to merge Society into Culture. It's too late.--AndYourFoesShallRejoice... (talk) 15:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
And that when the Society page specifically distinguished itself from the term "culture" through the sentence "A society can (and generally does) contain many cultures [...]" Hmm. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 15:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I've undone that merge.
E&V definitely seem to me to be sexual attractions, in that people are sexually aroused by them. 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 17:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I think you're starting to pump a dry well with all this merging FCP. --Inquisitor (talk) 17:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I think you guys don't understand. Until the entire content of RW has been merged into a monolithic central page, with a web of redirects chanelling all traffic on the site, and an obscenely long 10-column reflist that contains only in-jokes, I shall not rest. 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 18:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
O_o 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I presume that that face is wide-eyed with awe at the glorious future. 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 00:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
That something arouses people doesn't mean that they're attracted to it. Do you think people want to make love to pornography when they're aroused by it? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
You give a false parallel - to be sexually attracted to something is not to want to have sex with it, necessarily. For example, some people think lingerie is attractice, but they wouldn't have sex with lingerie. (Probably.) If something is attractive that only means that it causes arousal. 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 00:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Okay, different example then. Do you think coprophiles finding feces sexually arousing makes them consider it "attractive"? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 07:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Alright, I'll buy this point. If so, then what should the article be changed to so that it could allow inclusion of coprophilia etc.? 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 22:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
You'd have to start a new article under the title "sexual arousal" and make everything a subsection there, I guess. (Please don't do this.) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Then what should happen instead? (Assuming that any of these philias merit any space on RW:) Should each sexually arousing thing get its own page, or what? 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 23:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, if you want something for the -philias not found at Sexual attraction, you could start an article on paraphilias and fetishes. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. I really don't want more articles on niche sexual arousal topics. That said, if we really need to discuss fetishes like this (I might go for an AFD instead, since I'm uncertain of how this relates to, say, authoritarianism or pseudoscience), I'd rather that they weren't spread across 50 million articles, but in your paraphilia article. 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 23:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support