RationalWiki:Duplicate articles/Archive14

Bird evolution with Bird and Neornithes and Neornithine 'Big Bang' and Paleornithology

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. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (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 ). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I would argue against it. It is easier and better to link between articles than within them.Summa Atheologica (talk) 13:42, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Neornithine 'Big Bang' and bird evolution are certainly not stubs. Paleornithology could be merged into bird evolution as they're essentially the same thing (PO is the study of BE); and Neornithes could almost be deleted or certainly merged into BE or NBB. Keep bird as a less technical introduction. --Annanoon (talk) 13:54, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Since the Neornithine 'Big Bang' is primarily a fringe idea promoted by Alan Feduccia, I'm just changing it to a redirect to bird evolution. Bongolian (talk) 02:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Arab nationalism and Pan-Arabism

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)

not the same thing. EK (talk) 15:15, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Removed the stub tag and added hatnotes. — Godless Raven 🌹 ^Heretic 07:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for better distinguishing them. Bongolian (talk) 16:05, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Merging Last Thursdayism into Omphalos hypothesis - no consensus

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)

Reverend Black Percy merged the two articles Last Thursday. Unfortunately, that was about 5 minutes before the universe was destroyed and then reconstituted, which is why it appears that it has not occurred yet. This also goes to show that the universe simply does not want these articles merged.97.75.152.6 (talk) 23:10, 15 July 2019 (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. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (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. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (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)

It's well over 200 Thursdays since this was proposed, and nothing has happened. I'm going to close this as no consensus. Avida Dollars^{her again} 12:10, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Turning Point UK with Charlie Kirk

Seems like very similar content, while Turning Point UK is a stub. Turning Point USA redirects to Charlie Kirk. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 04:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Turning Point UK is a spinoff of Turning Point USA. Even wikipedia has them in a single page. They should be merged. Tulpa001 (talk) 09:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree, although, I think this has gone stale. But hopefully the merging gets done. Andrew5 (talk) 20:36, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Given the weak consensus to do so for over a year, I have merged the articles. Andrew5 (talk) 13:59, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Merge Oy vey and with Alt-right glossary

CowHouse (talk) 10:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

No. Oy Vey is a separate term. I'm not sure it deserves an article, but neither should it be in the Alt-Right glossary

Archiving, stale for over 3.5 years and no consensus. Andrew5 (talk) 15:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Not an argument with Ben Garrison

Merge not an argument with Ben Garrison—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 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. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 21:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Nope. —ClickerClock (talk) 02:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Archiving. Consensus against adding for over 4 years. Andrew5 (talk) 15:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Merge Scientology Volunteer Minister with Scientology

-ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 04:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll second that motion. Comrade GC (talk) 04:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

That article was merged years ago. Andrew5 (talk) 16:33, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Merging Hydroplate theory and Soft-sediment deformation into Flood geology

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. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (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. FuzzyCatPotato of the Common Flans (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)

Oppose merge with HT. I don’t think that creating one huge, sprawling flood geology article will be an improvement over a series of reasonably thorough articles, such as hydroplate “theory” etc. Consider how long the article would get if we merge FG not only with HT, but also with lunar bukake “theory” (proposed below in a separate entry). It might be a good idea, though, to have the FG article act as a sort of “hub” for the others via See also and/or See the main article on this topic. ScepticWombat (talk) 12:53, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Closing, as there has been no discussion for 33 months and a proposal for 61. Andrew5 (talk) 18:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Merge Hydroplate theory with Lunar bukkake theory

X4Unknown (talk) 8:37, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Merge!—ClickerClock (talk) 10:52, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Both are pretty long. How would you merge? (Personally I wouldn't want to lose the title Lunar bukkake theory, but that's not sufficient reason to keep). --Annanoon (talk) 10:05, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Oppose! These two “theories”, while both concerning the Flood, adress different issue: Hydroplate “theory” is supposed to explain (away) where all the water of the Flood came from, while the lunar bukake “theory” tries to explain (away) the craters on the Moon. This means that there is not much overlapping matter in each of the current articles and I don’t see the point of creating a single, huge article. ScepticWombat (talk) 12:42, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Oppose! Both are different Creationist talking points. Why don't we just stitch together all Noahacian Flood articles and nuke the nav while we're at it? --Goatspeed. _{Watch me}CircularRasoning^{My experiments} 07:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Closing as no consensus, though leaning towards oppose as nothing really happened in the last little while. Andrew5 (talk) 21:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Merge Panspermia With Exogenesis - merged

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)

Exogenesis is a more general concept, but panspermia is a nicer word. I guess a merge to exogenesis is logical, which can cover all theories of extraterrestrial origin. --Annanoon (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

After doing more research, the term "panspermia" seems to be used for all version of the theory of extraterrestrial origin of earthly life, whether it's the original meaning (that life/seeds/sperm are all around us in space) or the more modern and scientifically-based version that life comes from somewhere extraterrestrial (without assuming the origins of life are everywhere or space is dotted with seeds). This is particularly true in more recent reporting. As panspermia is a more commonly used term (as well as a more poetic one), this makes a merge to panspermia the more logical option. --Annanoon (talk) 16:47, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Strongly support merge as per above. Can someone do the merging already? Andrew5 (talk) 22:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Cold fusion and Fusion woo

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. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (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)

I am replying to a necropost here, but do not support merge. If anyone thinks P&F are some sort of oddity or touchstone in the fusion woo history has to run out and buy Bromberg's book right now. In the meantime, I can assure you this sort of woo has been going on since 1953 (Richter) and shows exactly zero signs of abating (General Fusion). I am removing the merge tags, they've been there for two years with no action taken and they shouldn't be there in the first place. 108.168.95.109 (talk) 11:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Closing as failed as there has been no discussion for 2+ years. Andrew5 (talk) 14:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Merge Martin Smith with Unite Against Fascism

Martin Smith is a national officer of UAF.-ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 05:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Merge!—ClickerClock (talk) 10:52, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

A merge would be confusing, especially a merge to UAF, as the sexual assault allegations occurred while he was with the Socialist Workers Party, and still reverberate in SWP/leftist organisational politics.[1] Someone who's been in so many organisations is awkward to handle, so keep separate is simplest, although a merge to the SWP could be considered here. --Annanoon (talk) 10:03, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Stale. No comments in almost 3 years. Andrew5 (talk) 14:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Merge Infofascism with either Newspeak ,Fascism, or Censorship

-ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(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". FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 21:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd merge to/mention in censorship as it's a form of state censorship, but I don't think there's much unique content here to keep. --Annanoon (talk) 13:57, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Closing as a fail as there has been no discussion for two years. Andrew5 (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Merge Neutralization to Denialism

Neutralism is among the tactics in the overall process of denial. The article on Neutralism is a stub and can be easily be a substantial subsection in "methods" in the Denialism article. Or, we can make an entire section in the Denialism article detailing common denial tactics of criminals, just a suggestion out of the top of my head. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 01:23, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Nah. —ClickerClock (talk) 06:54, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Is neutralization even missional? --Annanoon (talk) 16:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd call it periphery missionality. Cognitive errors, while not explicitly part of rationalism, are nonetheless complementary information to it. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Closing as no consensus, as this was stale for years. Andrew5 (talk) 01:26, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Merge Buttered cat theory‎ with Murphy's Law

Further discussion is found at RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Buttered cat theory.

—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 19:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Agree. A simple merge and redirect should be simple. ScepticWombat (talk) 12:56, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

But which way up will it land? --Annanoon (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Don't see much in the way of expanding the buttered cat theory article, and buttered cat theory is sort of a corollary to Murphy's Law, so the two are pretty related. Merge and redirect is probably all that's needed. Don't forget the fun box though. DietMondrian (talk) 00:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I will now do the merging. Andrew5 (talk) 01:29, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

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

The dispersed information would be better if organized into one article. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 04:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

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

It makes sense to merge Mass immigration and Illegal immigration under the simpler title, because neither is particularly comprehensive, but the country-specific entries Myths and facts about immigration to the United States and Britain is full are probably big enough to keep separate, with links from the main immigration article. --Annanoon (talk) 16:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose all except Mass immigration. Mass immigration is just Twitter refs and should be merged, others are fleshe out. Andrew5 (talk) 15:48, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Immigration was deleted and now is a link to Illegal immigration, oof, I gotta say outdated proposal and just close this. Andrew5 (talk) 15:00, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

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

The three species are transitional forms.-ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(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. Bicycle^wheel 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)

What David said. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ While consensus at the time might have favored merging at the time, it has been no less then 52 months since there were any comments - I'm gonna go it's stale on this one. Revert me if wrong. Andrew5 (talk) 21:57, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Merge Realist left and alt-right into Realist left

As the title of the former article title suggests, realist left and alt-right specifically talks about, as I understand it, the "realist left" label as a disguise for alt-right views, which is distinct from other forms/uses. The "realist left" article already talks about people on the right mis-using the term, so the content on the "realist left and alt-right" seems very much up its alley.

Also, evidently this was marked a duplicate 3 years ago, but there wasn't any discussion on here about it? DietMondrian (talk) 04:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

There seems to be no opposition to the idea. I went ahead with the merge. It’s done now. — 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 ^{talk stalk} 03:45, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Merge Saddlebacking into anal sex

Both are stubs, and saddlebacking is form of anal sex, so the two are very related. The anal sex article could be expanded and potentially unstubbed with info from the saddlebacking article.

Also, it was marked as duplicate in 2017, but it seems there was never a discussion here about it? DietMondrian (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Strongly support - If the two are related, and there is not enough content to justify spinning out an article, they should obviously be merged. And I hope RW agrees. Andrew5 (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Given the zero opposition, I went ahead and merged the articles. Andrew5 (talk) 22:28, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Holding therapy vs. Attachment therapy

The point has been raised about similarity. I'm not sure what I think, and I would love to hear other people's thoughts. Reasons to merge: "Holding therapy" is sometimes also called "attachment therapy." They probably have similar histories. "Holding therapy" could become a subsection of "attachment therapy." Reasons not to merge: Not all attachment therapy is holding therapy. Holding therapy is used in areas (mostly autism I believe) that general attachment therapy isn't typically used for. Some people use holding therapy without ascribing to the general principles of attachment therapy. These are all the reasons that come to my mind at the moment. What do you all think? Should "Holding therapy" become a subsection or remain independent? Why? Luna Rose ^{I'm shy; say hi} 22:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Attachment_therapy#Holding_therapy's content is quite minimal too, so support. Andrew5 (talk) 15:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Given no objection in 2 years, the articles have been merged.Andrew5 (talk) 16:51, 18 December 2021 (UTC)