RationalWiki:Duplicate articles
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.
Once a decision has been reached and the merge either carried out or not, a template should be placed on the page(s):
- In the case of a merge, {{merged|etc}} should be put at the top of the resulting article's talk page, with the redirected article's name in place of "etc"; the date may also be included as: {{merged|etc|10 Oct 08}};
- If the decision was not to merge then on each page place the similar template: {{unmerged|etc|date}}.
Details of articles already merged should be archived periodically.
[edit] Colonialism/Imperialism
Thoughts? Anyone? Tytalk 00:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC) You may not be able to have colonialism without imperialism, it is possible to have imperialism without colonialism. Empires can be based off of economic relationships, and "Sphere of influence" empires can exist in the absence of colonies. Therefor, I believe we should keep these separate.
[edit] Popular quote mines/List of quotes out of context
I guess theoretically they serve different purposes, with the first being repeated quote mines and the second being anything mined even once, but I don't see much reason to keep them distinct. Merge first into second? ThunderkatzHo! 17:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Blessing/Curse/Blessing and cursing
Blessing and cursing doesn't seem to be much of an article, but I don't really have a strong opinion on any of them. Opinions? — Unsigned, by: Thunderkatz / talk / contribs
- Turn into a fork perhaps? TyBother me 18:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Who would type "blessing and curse" into an encyclopedia? Yuck! sterileevolutionist story telling 06:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
[edit] RationalWiki:Webpage links/RationalWiki:Websites
Same idea, different pages. Someone just needs to go through them. steriletalk 06:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- The former into the latter, yes? Peter with added ‼Science‼ 06:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- I guess that makes sense. Really, all three pages (including the "webshites" page) could be merged. sterileevolutionist story telling 06:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Macroevolution/Microevolution
Although the macroevolution page is lame, I still think it's worthwhile to have both. It would be nice to have someone work on them. (Or port over the Evowiki page.) If no one objects in a few days, I'll remove the merge template. sterileevolutionist story telling 06:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep both, and keep the tag. It's pretty fucking funny.
[edit] Jesusland/Fun:Jesusland
Which one? I would argue that Jesusland is a real concept, albeit approached snarkily. sterileevolutionist story telling 06:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- If so, there's no reason to not have a "Fun" page as well, where we can be extra snarky and hyperbolic. Reverend Lucifer (talk) 22:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Faith/Blind faith
- See discussion here.
[edit] Divination/Fortune-telling
You could make an argument for them being different (the method versus the act), but the articles don't really do much to distinguish themselves. Thoughts? ThunderkatzHo! 18:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'd say that one is a subset of the other, if not just a different wording for the same thing. Reverend Lucifer (talk) 01:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Doppler Effect/Red shift
Given that the Doppler Effect is applicable to all wave-forms, and not just auditory waves, it stands to reason that including sections on red-shift and blue-shift could be included in the Doppler Effect article, rather than requiring articles of their own. Reverend Lucifer (talk) 00:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Makes sense to me. I'd say maybe make red shift a section of the Doppler effect article. Not really sure how to go about merging/deleting articles, or I would do it myself. Mcnamara12 (talk) 18:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- These two need to be separate, so you can read one while heading towards your monitor, and the next when you've gone past it. SophieWilder 18:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Good call, Sophie. Here I was, stuck in the mindset of the article being observer invariant, but I forgot to take into account readers that may be moving in relation to the monitor while they read. In that case, I also propose that we seperate the "time dilation" and "Relativity" articles, just in case anyone reading the site is moving at or near the speed of light. *lol* Reverend Lucifer (talk) 22:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- These two need to be separate, so you can read one while heading towards your monitor, and the next when you've gone past it. SophieWilder 18:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Grey's Law/Hanlon's razor
Both laws are pretty much the same. Hanlon's razor is better referenced. I suggest making a short subsection on the Hanlon's razor page explaining that it's an Arthur C. Clarke reference--"Shut up, Brx." 16:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- Unless we can say who/what Grey is & where/when the "Law" originated (which the article currently doesn't), I don't think Grey's Law is justifiably notable. Merge to Hanlon's Razor if Grey's Law is sourceable, otherwise delete it. Wēāŝēīōīď
Methinks it is a Weasel 16:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- Merging the two articles would mask the underlying point behind Grey's Law. Hanlon's Razor is to excuse stupidity, Grey's Law is to condemn it by pointing out that the consequences of an idiot and a villain are indistinguishable past a certain point. Considering that rogues often use the 'I didn't mean it!' excuse to justify the blowback from their willful ignorance, I think that the articles should be separate to emphasize this point. Dr. Swordopolis (talk) 15:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Walter Brown/Hydroplate theory
Wally's the only guy left in our articles to de-consevapaedify. I think we could condense the intro and debate paragraph into a section for the hydroplate theory article and leave a re-direct so we can say we've de-conservapaedified the wiki. File:Planarian Latin.pngI like planaria, but I don't speak Latin 04:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
- The debate doesn't even seem significant, the guy and his credentials are already mentioned in Hydroplate, so I say just delete Walter Brown. Sam Tally-ho! 05:14, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
- *nods* Do it, if you want then. I really couldn't care less if it goes; I just want to say "we've de-conservapaedified the wiki". File:Planarian Latin.pngI like planaria, but I don't speak Latin 05:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Tokenism/Special snowflake
I am the creator of the special snowflake article, which was marked for a merge discussion with tokenism. I feel the two articles cover different topics for the reason I mentioned on the talk page:
"A special snowflake is a person who holds views that further their own oppression. Tokenism is when you claim that the presence of a special snowflake in your organization means you're not discriminatory or politically biased. They are similar but not the same thing (a special snowflake is a person, tokenism is an act performed by a group).
In other words:
- A black Republican = Special snowflake
- A Republican organization showing that they have some black members = Tokenism"
If anything I think the tokenism article should be deleted and its contents made a section in the special snowflake article, which covers a wider topic and tokenism is a form of special snowflake behavior. All tokenism is special snowflakism, but not all special snowflakism is tokenism; the broader article should be kept. ShadowUltra (talk) 02:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- I see your point there, but I look at it like this: The purpoes of RW is to fight fundamentalism, authoritarianism, pseudoscience, and woo. In that vein, I think that the Tokenism article is much more on project, because it involves the superficial use of (allegedly) persecuted minorities in order to deflect claims of persecution; to use your example, th Republican party touting a black member as proof that the party is not anti-black, even though their policies negatively impact black Americans more than white Americans. That is misdirection to distract from fundamentalism/authoritarianism, and warrants an article. Your "special snowflake" seems to be simply the mechanism behind that action, and should certainly be a heading in the article, but I don't see it as warranting a separate article.
- To put it another way, the "special snowflake" my legitimately hold ceratin beliefs, even though those beliefs are oppressive towards that person, and even without that person realizing the oppressive nature, but they are typically the victim of the organization they support, fooled by rhetoric, bad evidence, or any manner of other tactics that their belief is in their best interest. The organization then puts them in front of the cameras to say "see, this person agrees with us, so we couldn't possibly have a bias against people like him, or he wouldn't have joined." Very rarely do you have a "special snowflake" that is aware of the oppressive nature of their beliefs while continuing to espouse them.
- However, can you provide sufficient examples of "special snowflakes" that are not used in Tokenism? I'm not familiar with anyone who fits that description (being a snowflake but not a Token). Essentially, it seems like the type of person you assert would meet that criteria is openly and knowingly oppressive to groups of which they are a part (i.e. black people who want to make it harder for inner city/urban youths to get to college), but that are not also used by the oppressive group they are a part of or identify with to dispel rumors of bigotry/prejudice (i.e. the American Civil Rights Institute, an anti-"affirmative action" group). Reverend Lucifer (talk) 01:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- This isn't the usual definition of a special snowflake (though it may be an example of it). A special snowflake is somebody who considers themself & their experiences unique & important, when they are actually statistically insignificant. E.g. anybody who goes to art school will be told at some point that only a tiny proportion of art school graduates go on to successful careers in art, but many of them will believe unrealistically that they will be one of those who do. This is special snowflake syndrome. ωεαşεζόίď
Methinks it is a Weasel 12:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- Illustration Ŵêâŝêîôîď
Methinks it is a Weasel 12:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- This isn't the usual definition of a special snowflake (though it may be an example of it). A special snowflake is somebody who considers themself & their experiences unique & important, when they are actually statistically insignificant. E.g. anybody who goes to art school will be told at some point that only a tiny proportion of art school graduates go on to successful careers in art, but many of them will believe unrealistically that they will be one of those who do. This is special snowflake syndrome. ωεαşεζόίď
[edit] White Commonwealth/Commonwealth of Nations
Websites on the commonwealth are ten a penny, but I don't know of a single webpage discussing this specifically even though the term and concept are not uncommon. For that reason alone it should be retained.
- If merged the material would either bias the commonwealth article or disappear as in the WP article.
- The Commonwealth in general isn't racist but the WC concept is.
The Commonwealth article should concentrate on CHOGM, the games etc.-Albannach (talk) 08:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Polyamory/Polygamy/Bigamy
Is there any reason for these to be two different articles? (talk to a) Nihilist 03:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- Is there a reason why there was an article on bigamy, polyamory, and polygamy? Nope. I just didn't realize there was a separate article on polygamy when I did stuff. Will be rectified shortly.--Token Conservative (talk) 03:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes. Polygamy and polyamory are two separate concepts. One is about a legally and/or societally sanctioned contract (marriage), the other is about romantic involvement with more than one person. And using the antropological terms for different types of polygamy to describe "types" of polyamory turns the article into grape stew.--ZooGuard (talk) 06:55, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- And I've proposed Bigamy for deletion.--ZooGuard (talk) 07:09, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- Obviously they're not the exact same thing, but i figured there was enough overlap between them that we only needed one article. (talk to a) Nihilist 07:21, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- Polygamy is kind of polyamory. That's why I put them together. And bigamy is often confused with polygamy. That's why I put them together.--Token Conservative (talk) 16:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- No, they are separate concepts. And bigamy shouldn't exist even as a redirect.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- If this is a real discussion, someone should put tags on the articles. If not, this should be archived.
talk 21:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- I suggest merging into one article, defining the terms/concepts within it, & trimming out some of the more vacuous content. Ŵêâŝêîôîď
Methinks it is a Weasel 23:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- I suggest merging into one article, defining the terms/concepts within it, & trimming out some of the more vacuous content. Ŵêâŝêîôîď
- If this is a real discussion, someone should put tags on the articles. If not, this should be archived.
- No, they are separate concepts. And bigamy shouldn't exist even as a redirect.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- Polygamy is kind of polyamory. That's why I put them together. And bigamy is often confused with polygamy. That's why I put them together.--Token Conservative (talk) 16:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- *Three days later*
So, are we going to do anything, or what? --Token Conservative (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Here's a draft for a section defining the various terms & related concepts, which I suggest putting at the top of a polygamy/polyandry article, followed by further content from the existing articles, refined & improved as needed. I'll try & work on a full draft article this weekend. ωεαşεζόίď
Methinks it is a Weasel 21:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'll put my comments in the talkpage.--Token Conservative (talk) 21:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)