Information icon.svg Consider taking the RationalWiki Community Survey 2017 or see the results.

RationalWiki:Duplicate articles

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, (new)

Shortcuts:
There are 49 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.

Finished discussions should be archived periodically.

Merging Hydroplate theory and Soft-sediment deformation into Flood geology[edit]

I think that both HT and SSD should be merged into FG, as these are inherently two sub-sections of FG. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I kept HT separate. It's not about interpreting current geology but rather about a potential water source for the flood, a la the firmament. Leaving this open, if you disagree. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 13:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
The question is, does HT belong in FG?
The summary of FG says:
"[FG] asserts that the Biblical Great Flood was an actual historical event and attempts to interpret geology in terms which make it consistent with the flood myth."
Allright, so we know what we're looking for.
The summary of HT says:
"Hydroplate theory is a creationist hypothesis that Earth once had huge chambers of water sandwiched between the earth's crust and its mantle. It was invented solely to explain the question "Where did the water for the great flood come from?""
Ah.
Well... I'm thinking, HT could probably fit in FG as well, as it appears HT is entirely a form of flood geology. Then we'd have something to work towards front page quality, etc. Thoughts? :3 Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Methinks it's a bridge too far. Lunar bukkake theory is related to geology -- yet it surely doesn't belong in flood geology, aye? Moreover, our hydroplate page is one of the top Google results. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 15:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

👎—вιgℓʝвιgℓ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 00:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

👍 ClickerClock (talk) 04:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Cold fusion and Fusion woo[edit]

Read the articles, lots of overlap. The FW article has CF as a subsection, the CF article's hatnote specifically notes that the article deals with the woo surrounding CF. Both articles contain a "Soft woo"/"Probably woo" segment, as well as a "Non-woo" segment. They could and ought to merge. They both deal with fusion woo. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can see, FW deals with all fusion woo that is non-cold. Cold fusion is important enough to have its own article. The fact that both have "soft/prob woo" and "non woo" bits probably means that there's such semi-woo exists both for cold and for non-cold fusion.--JorisEnter (talk) 21:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
I think that it's extra important that we cover all the fusion crankery into one article, not only because it's got a great shot at front page if we do, but also because we explicitly do not cover actual fusion in any major article, only the woo surrounding fusion (in accordance with the mission statement). Splitting our articles up into "cold fusion" and "fusion woo" drives a wedge right through the middle of the exact same topic - crank claims regarding fusion - in a way that I don't think is necessary. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
You've got a point there. If we merge FW and CF into the main NF article under separate headings ("CF" and "Other woo" or something) this might become a nice page.--JorisEnter (talk) 22:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for hearing me out Joris; It's not that I don't agree with you fully that Cold Fusion is the main fusion crankery. I think that the vision for this merged article is not just "these two articles mashed together". I was essentially thinking of a rewrite wherein we use the name Fusion woo for the title, but the text itself is largely on cold fusion, but with subsections on the fusion woo... et cetera. Something frontpage-y. I mean, come on - we need a fusion woo frontpage article. :D Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
That's also an option. Fusion woo appears to be quite something (given the WP edit wars) so they could probably be merged.--JorisEnter (talk) 22:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I think so too. And it's generally the same pseudoscience nuts that provide the manpower for the entire range of fusion woo claims. Attacking them in a Unified Shit Theory (that is, fusion woo) article isn't a bad idea, if you ask me - along the lines of what I propose here. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:07, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah sure. I wouldn't break it into "cold" and "other", though; the other approaches can't be lumped in together.

👍 Merge!!! 04:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

That said, the article is certainly not ready for gold or even silver -- its explanations are too technical and too dense for the average reader, and it covers too few approaches. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 22:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Which article do you mean?--JorisEnter (talk) 22:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
FW. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 22:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
...which is why I recommend a rewrite based on the two existing articles, not a literal mashup of the two. So, that makes three for "merging", then? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I personally support the rewrite idea. —вιgℓʝвιgℓ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 00:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Conflict thesis and Non-Overlapping Magisteria[edit]

Compare the first sentences of the summaries.

  • "The conflict thesis refers to the idea that science and religion are incompatible. It may be considered as either a philosophical or historical issue."
  • "Non-Overlapping Magisteria (NOMA) is a philosophical world view that places religion and science in separate domains of questioning ("magisteria") in order to avoid one contradicting the other."

These are literally on the exact same issue. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Nope. You missed the point of one of the two, dunno which. NOMA says "They can't ask the same questions" and conflict thesis says "When they ask the same questions they produce contradictory results implicitly putting them at odds". That is to say these are competing answers to the question of conflict between religious and scientific examination of the world.
By way of analogy, one is saying "My car and your truck have separate parking places marked clearly" and the other is saying "Our parking lines overlap and one of us is gonna have to move." ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I suppose you're right - thanks for clarifying that! Still, as NOMA is one of several answers given to the problem of the conflict hypothesis (the philosophical question of the compability between religion and science), I would support merging NOMA into Conflict thesis, and then growing that article into a Silver-or-better article. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I guess so. They certainly both fit into the umbrella of mixing science and religion, and are both considered elements of theology. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, in fact, you were right to explain how one is a subcategory of the other. Right now, they exist separately as Bronze-ish articles when they could unify to become Silver or better, and they are currently written in a way where one article doesn't seem overly aware of the other (though NOMA gets a stub mention in the Conflict thesis article). So, two for a merger, then? (Merging NOMA into Conflict thesis). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
ABSOLUTELY DO NOT MERGE NOMA INTO CONFLICT THEORY, PLEASE. Sorry for the boldcaps, but NOMA is a concept that's thrown around in casual apologetics all the time, and is really really really really important to any atheists who might be interested in the topic. Conflict theory, by comparison is relatively obscure and academic alone. The chances that NOMA is a landing page for outside searches is pretty high, and people are likely to be interested specifically in it and how to counter it as an argument. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm with Ikanreed here. For popularity reasons alone, NOMA must survive -- just as Last Thursdayism did. If anything, a merger of conflict thesis into NOMA would make more sense -- since the only reason conflict thesis is notable for our readers is because NOMA exists. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 00:07, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Then, how's the support looking to merge conflict theory into NOMA? The point being that we consolidate a single article of higher quality, one that ties better into the wiki generally. (e.g. right now, the articles are a bit oblivious of each other). I'm for, by the way. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:10, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
That nets an "Oh alright, why not?" from me. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:43, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
That makes two for merging CF into NOMA, then. Fuzzy? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
These pages should absolutely not be merged. The Conflict Thesis refers specifically and discretely to a discrete historical context between 1850 and 1900, while the issue non-overlapping magisteria has its own entirely philosophical tradition going back to Augustine. The two traditions were never in contact with one another, and they make separate claims. The overlapping magisteria comes from the theology of the Church and its attempt to find a place for Aristotelian natural philosophy in the hierarchy of the university. The conflict thesis merely states that the Catholic Church held back the development of Western Science. They are entirely unrelated.HistSci (talk) 16:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I can see your concern, and I don't plan to argue with you just yet. I'd just like to point out the obvious; that you are overselling your point by stating that the two (CF and NOMA) are, quote: "entirely unrelated". In strictly logical terms, not even your mother and I are entirely unrelated. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

A cursory glance through the sources cited in both articles doesn't suggest that these are synonymous or especially closely related theories. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

That's because they are two competing theories that disagree with each other? Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 12:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
So why merge them? WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm against merging -- but we often include both the theory and the counter-theory in the same article, to more easily contrast them. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 13:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
These are not theory and counter-theory. They are entirely unrelated. One is a theological argument originating in Augustine, while the other is a scholarly thesis making a discrete claim that the Catholic Church held back scientific development. HistSci (talk) 16:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I've seen other places on the wiki where a sub-header of one page links to another page with a {{hatnote|See also: [[Example1]]}}, then that page has a subheader with another hatnote that links back; I think that's definitely more what this calls for, if anything. In general, I find the merge protocol on many wikis pretty heavily abused/stretched far beyond the intended use. ~ 17:59, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I'll just note that both the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and Wikipedia bring up CF and NOMA under the roof of the same article. In the former case, the article called Religion and Science. In the latter case, the article called Relationship between religion and scienceWikipedia's W.svg. So please, whatever you do — spare me the whole "they're entirely unrelated" canard. I'm willing to entertain that they should not be merged here, but insisting that the two issues are not contextually joined at the hip is daft. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure why HistSci seems to be trying to extend the fact that they had unrelated origins to mean that they are unrelated in entirety, but as it stands the two pages do have not-really-that-subtle links to eachother, and I personally find that enough. After all, that is basically how just about any wiki (or almost any website, for that manner) works; you see something you want to know more about, you click it. (Sorry if we don't yet have Siri asking aloud "Would You Like To Know More?" about the arachnids for you, at least not yet.) ~ 18:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
👎 No merge ClickerClock (talk) 04:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Merging Condom into Birth control[edit]

Birth control is already silver, and with the addition of the content currently in the semi-stub Condom article (alongside polish and some new material here and there) Birth control could be on its way to front page glory. The question of overlap regarding the subjects is non-existent, as condoms are literally nothing but a form of birth control. Thoughts? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Something something not an encyclopedia, something something obvious.--JorisEnter (talk) 15:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Something something what did you vote for (merge or not)? Also — if you're worried it's getting too encyclopedic — in the process of merging, I plan to add more relevant content. :3 Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Wait, I think I just got it. You agree that Condom should be merged into Birth control because we're not a general encyclopedia. Did my brain-smarts do me well? :D Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
They most certainly did.--JorisEnter (talk) 01:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I do not believe this will be a sinful union. Nerd271 (talk) 01:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
...and since you're presumably an atheist, and since all atheists wanna do is hate God and revel in sin, you don't support the merger (due to the lack of sinfulness resulting from said merger)...? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Which god are you talking about? There are so many of them. In any case, I think we should let those two move in together. Perhaps Aphrodite or Hera will show up to bless the new couple. Nerd271 (talk) 10:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Their blessing, to birth control? And here I was, under the impression that Hera and Aphrodite were likely rubber-refusing dames! (You know, based on their whole fertility-and-kink gimmick...) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure about Hera but Aphrodite practices free-love, does she not? Nerd271 (talk) 00:11, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I guess Hera supports birth control whenever Zeus is banging some other god/demigod/nymph/human/whatever.--JorisEnter (talk) 00:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
"toO LaTE!" Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
@Joris Goodpost.gif
@Percy Forgive me, great Zeus! But is that why they call you the father of gods and men alike? Nerd271 (talk) 00:16, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Eh, guys! This has been around since mid-August. I think we have unanimous support for merging. Nerd271 (talk) 13:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Let's do it. Condom into Birth control... Does it get any more obviously valid? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
I oppose this. Condoms have more use than being birth control, and should remain a separate article. —вιgℓʝвιgℓ (тαℓк/ѕтαℓк) 22:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Merge!!! ClickerClock (talk) 04:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Merge Birth control into Safe sex[edit]

For the reasons presented by Bigljbigl. The article isn't just about the preggo even now. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 08:46, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

No, they're not the same thing - David Gerard (talk) 10:09, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, they are. Both are about preventing the consequences of unsafe sex, and I agree with FCP. —LJL (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 22:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
No merge. Different enough ClickerClock (talk) 04:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Merging Last Thursdayism into Omphalos hypothesis[edit]

The LT article clearly belongs as a refutation segment in the OH article. Together, the resulting, grand OH article is easily Silver, with a good shot at future frontpage quality. I could merge the two skillfully. Please let me. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Didn't we already have a "yep do it" for this one? In any case please do - David Gerard (talk) 14:49, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Only if done well. LT and OH are both excellent articles in their depth, ordering, and presentation. (LT is frequently linked as a counterexample to creationism, and presumably draws many visitors.) I fear a merger might make a more scatterbrained article with fewer viewers. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 18:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

...Which is why I said "skillfully" (and which means; I agree). If I ever actually get around to attempting the merger (ADHD), I will take care to sandblast any rough edges. Thanks, old timer. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
My main objection is that LT gets a lot of visitors and it's very useful to have as a separate in-depth explanation. It might be better as a fun page, with the nonsnarky material moved to the Omphalos page. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 00:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
I think that a summary of last thursdayism with a link to the main page would be the best idea.Vorarchivist (talk) 18:07, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Dog whistle politics and Code word[edit]

Code word is the definition; dog whistle politics is the application. DWP has useful description and examples that would help out CW. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 01:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I support a merger, but into which one? I actually think dog whistle is the more useful term; I think we should merge CW into DW (and drop the word "Politics"). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Code word appears to be more common: [1][2] and trends. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 02:02, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Bird evolution with Bird and Neornithes and Neornithine 'Big Bang' and Paleornithology[edit]

The pages are mostly EvoWiki stubs. Together, they could present a very interesting synthesis of modern research on bird evolution, up to about 2000-2010 or so. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 20:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Just do it - David Gerard (talk) 20:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Smash that mf-ing merge button (and don't forget, we're not an encyclopedia Th hug.gif). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Merge Indohyus with List of transitional forms or possibly Pakicetus and Basilosaurus[edit]

The three species are transitional forms.-ⅅℐᎯℳᎾℕDⅅℐЅC1 (talk) 04:22, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, some kind of article on whale evolution would be good, especially because, as artiodactyls, they are honorary goats. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 04:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't merge to the big list, but there's a good article that could be written from merging Indohyus, Pakicetus and Basilosaurus. I basically wrote a merge, for the RW blog way back when. I should try to recover that text - David Gerard (talk) 13:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif What David said. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Merge 21st Century Science and Technology and Lyndon LaRouche[edit]

Currently the 21st Century Science and Technology page is a stub and describes other topics about LaRouche so they might as well be merged. Vorarchivist (talk) 15:52, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree, merge and leave a redirect. The LaRouche article already has similar (sub)sections on his various organisations and outlets. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Merge passive resistance with Civil disobedience[edit]

they are both a single paragraph about a similar topic. The only problem is what the single page would be called. Vorarchivist (talk) 16:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Merge!!! —ClickerClock (talk) 02:39, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Merge Humanistic psychology with Psychology[edit]

I don't think that this should be merged since both cognitive behavioral therapy and Freud's theories are off the psychology page and I think that writing a proper paragraph on each psychological theory in the psychology page would make it to crowded. Vorarchivist (talk) 16:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Merge! —ClickerClock (talk) 08:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Mass immigration and Illegal immigration and Myths and facts about immigration to the United States to Immigration[edit]

The dispersed information would be better if organized into one article. FuzzyCatPotato of the Bloody Playstations (talk/stalk) 04:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Merge!! —ClickerClock (talk) 08:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Roosevelt Recession into Great Depression[edit]

The 1937 recession was part of the Great Depression. If the Great Recession doesn't need its own article, why does the Roosevelt Recession? However, the Great Depression is major enough to keep its own article. —вιgℓʝвιgℓ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 03:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Merge Panspermia With Exogenesis[edit]

Both are stubs, and the two things aren't different enough to require being separate articles. —вιgℓʝвιgℓ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 11:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

agreed, there doesn't seem to be any difference big enough to not merge them.Vorarchivist (talk) 21:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Merge homosexual recruitment with homosexual agenda[edit]

-ⅅℐᎯℳᎾℕDⅅℐЅC1 (talk) 15:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Merge !!!! ClickerClock (talk) 04:25, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Merge Émile Durkheim into Sociology[edit]

The former had lots of influence on sociology.-ⅅℐᎯℳᎾℕDⅅℐЅC1 (talk) 03:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Merge! ClickerClock (talk) 07:57, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Merge Pagan and Paganism[edit]

Obvious.-ⅅℐᎯℳᎾℕDⅅℐЅC1 (talk) 02:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Merge!! ClickerClock (talk) 04:26, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


Merge Infofascism with either Newspeak ,Fascism, or Censorship[edit]

-ⅅℐᎯℳᎾℕDⅅℐЅC1 (talk) 02:03, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

If anything, it should be merged into FUD -- or we should create an article on disinformation including both of the above and a section on "active measures". Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 21:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Arab nationalism and Pan-Arabism[edit]

Says in the articles themselves that pan-Arabism is just Arab nationalism taken to its extreme. Pan-Arabism would work better as a section of the Arab nationalism article. —ℓσωℓу ѕуѕσρ вιgℓʝвιgℓ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ωσя∂ѕ σf ωιѕ∂σм/α¢нιєνємєитѕ) 12:59, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I think no. —ClickerClock (talk) 08:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Merge Post-Modernism and Post-Secularism[edit]

The latter into the former.-ⅅℐᎯℳᎾℕDⅅℐЅC1 (talk) 03:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Sure. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 21:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Merge Salt therapy with Alternative medicine[edit]

-ⅅℐᎯℳᎾℕDⅅℐЅC1 (talk) 19:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

No. This makes no sense. If we merged every article we had about a specific kind of bullshit fake medicine into alt-med, we'd have an alt-med article ten thousand pages long, and no easy-google debunks of bullshit. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:29, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Not an argument with Ben Garrison[edit]

Merge not an argument with Ben Garrison(((CheeseburgerFace))) (talkstalk) 01:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Disagree. First, the phrase is Stefan Molyneux's and not Garrison's. Second, the phrase has escaped Molyneux's bubble and deserves its own independent debunking. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 21:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Nope. —ClickerClock (talk) 02:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Help:Links and Help:Linking style[edit]

They are both about links. —ClickerClock (talk) 02:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Help:PermaDiff and RW:Sysop Guide[edit]

Pretty much no one reads Help:PermaDiff and Help:PermaDiff is related to patrolling. —ClickerClock (talk) 02:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Merge Ashtar with Pleiadians[edit]

Ashtar is better as a section of Pleiadians.-ⅅℐᎯℳᎾℕDⅅℐЅC1 (talk) 06:09, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Merge! —ClickerClock (talk) 06:03, 4 November 2017 (UTC)