RationalWiki:Duplicate articles/Archive3

Horseshoe and Horse (Merged)

Horseshoe merged into horse. Thunderkatz^Ho! 02:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Trinity and Holy Trinity (Merged)

Trinity is a better article, and probably what the true title should be, IMO. Someone can probably just scour Holy Trinity for anything useful and stick it in. Thunderkatz^Ho! 03:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a shot at it. Тy^rannis 03:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Betterish? Тy^Yarrr 03:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Looksit to me. Thunderkatz^Ho! 03:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Then I'll set up the redirect. Тy^{sic semper} 04:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Dan Brown and Da Vinci Code and The Lost Symbol (Merged)

We may as well fold all the books into either one article, or into the Dan Brown one itself. That means we can discuss the silliness of every book without feeling the need to do an entire article on each one. ^gnostic 14:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I support keeping Da Vinci Code separate. The book & film are both much more famous & controversial than other DB works. Other less notable novels can be mentioned in the Dan Brown article. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll go along with the foul-tempered little mustelid on this one. Totnesmartin (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd be in favour of one 'Dan Brown' article, with sections on each of the books. I don't think he's relevant enough to the mission or readers to justify having separate pages for the author and the book. Instead, I'd have a brief lead section about him, then one section on each book - with comments about all of the pseudo-science and conspiracy nonsense in each. ^EXTERMINATE 20:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, one article, unless the articles on the books get drastically expanded. Blue (is useful) 21:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

This Dan Brown one has been going on for an hilarious amount of time. ADK^{...I'll legislate your driptray!} 10:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

If by "hilarious" you mean "depressing" then I agree. And I know those words are often used interchangeably. Thunderkatz^Ho! 12:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I always apply "fun" in the DF sense, but this has been going on for too long. Тy^Ahoy! 12:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I've merged Da Vinci and Lost Symbol into Dan Brown. Blue (is useful) 01:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Mudskipper and Lungfish (Separate)

These pages are very similar. Vaporize one/merge them?--Thedoctor80 (talk) 18:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Lungfish is a bigger article, while Mudskipper was "based on Lungfish" according to its originator. I suggest redirecting Mudskipper to Lungfish. Real first name and last initial (talk) 18:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I know nothing about this subject, but having checked the WP articles on both for a few seconds, I see that these fish are not particularly closely related. Perhaps they are both "an example of the kind of life forms that creationists are very quiet about" (I have no idea) but merging one into the other could be misleading. I guess they could both be merged into an article on counterexamples to creationism, if we have such an article. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Transitional form redirects to transitional fossil. Perhaps we can change that. Real first name and last initial (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Not for some time. And the fish aren't that similar.Тy^talk 13:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that these articles need to be separate and the article on mudskippers expanded. A quick search on Wikipedia indicates that mudskippers are ray-finned fishes, while lungfish are lobe-finned. They belong to separate classes, Actinopterygii and Sarcopterygii, respectively. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 20:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Bestiality and Zoophilia (Merged)

Zoophilia merged into Bestiality. Thunderkatz^Ho! 05:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Conservapedia:L.A. Times and Conservapedia:LA Times article of June 19, 2007 (Merged)

Merge 'em and move the whole thing to CP space. Thunderkatz^Ho! 20:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Whaddya know. Already in CP space. No longer care. Thunderkatz^Ho! 20:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Тy^Talk 20:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Merged the first into the second, redirected. Blue (is useful) 01:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Cydonia Mensae and Face on Mars (Merged)

Cydonia Mensae doesn't offer a whole lot (I should know, I wrote half of it). We should move what little there is into Face on Mars and redirect CM. Thunderkatz^Ho! 05:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Considering there's more general stuff about the Mensae's hills looking like pyramids, it might be better to put it all in there and create a few redirects around "face on mars" and synonyms. ADK^{...I'll castrate your snake!} 17:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Better keep them separate. There are some other "faces on Mars" that could be included in that article.--ZooGuard (talk) 06:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah of course, the smiley crater! ADK^{...I'll voice your salad fork!} 13:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. Only one sentence was really worth keeping feel free to undo if you wish. Тy^talk 13:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Blogs 4 Brownback and Sisyphus and Psycheout (Merged)

I feel that the articles on the contributers are minor enough that they could be merged without much trouble. Тy^Talk 20:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. Тy^talk 12:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

You're a machine, Ty!--^talk 12:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks :D Тy^talk 12:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Republican Faith (blog) and Tobin Maker and Mrs. T.D. Gaines-Crockett (Merged)

Like the Sisyphus/Psycheout/B4B thing, we really only need an RF article. Thunderkatz^Ho! 04:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Probably just add them to a "notable contributer section" Тy^talk 12:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. Тy^talk 14:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Fifty million Frenchmen and Argumentum ad populum (Merged)

It's just an example of Argumentum ad populum and should be another heading instead of its own article. Objections? SoCal ²¹² 23:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Go for it lad! 23:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Inclusive language & Gender-neutral pronoun (Merged)

New article on GNP doesn't really say anything that's not already covered in inclusive language. One or two sentences may be mergeable, otherwise delete/redirect. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

United States Armed Forces (Merged)

I propose that the three articles on the United States Navy, United States Army, and United States Marine Corps be merged into a single article on the United States military, with a more on-mission focus on the history of why there are four divisions, but focusing on the current problems of sexism, homophobia, and evangelicalism in these branches. - π 10:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

+1 for that. Blue (is useful) 01:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 20:12, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Anyone else? - π 08:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Politicization of science and Politicized pseudosciences (Merged)

I like the content of the psuedoscience one better, but the science one has a more objective scope. Certainly I think the fact that politicization tends to involve both real science and psuedoscience (politics being all about sides going against each other, politicization involves having branches of science fight against each other, when really in science there is only one "side"). A merger and expansion of the topic would be the best course, I think. ADK^{...I'll confuse your zealot!} 16:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the apolitical pseudosciences section could be dropped from the latter article. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Nebbie, and I also think the latter article offers little that couldn't be merged into the first. Politicizing psuedoscience is politicizing science - it's just politicization against science. Thunderkatz^Ho! 17:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

"Politicized pseudosciences" is a made-up term (6200 google hits, of which this is no. 1). so it really shouldn't be an article title. Edit it down, move it to a subsection. P-Foster_{The Grateful Dead were neither grateful nor dead. Discuss.} 13:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Alcohol and Ethanol (Separate)

While not the same thing entirely, the content of ethanol is entirely redundant. sterile^talk 14:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Alright, looks like a merge is on order. Ty^talk 14:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the redundancy, but they should be separate. Keep one for the chemists, and one for the alcoholics. ADK^{...I'll plagiarize your tire!} 16:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

After reading the article on ethanol, it seems pretty damn similar to the "Chemistry" section of the article on Alcohol. All we need to do is make sure that all the information from the ethanol article (which isn't that much) is transferred into the main article on Alcohol, and we can vaporize it. I'll do so in 24 hours unless there are any complaints.

Woah with this 'vape in x hours' thing... I think that Ethanol can be expanded to include things that shouldn't really go into the Alcohol page. Rocket fuel, anyone? Peter ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 19:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I remember from a Thunderf00t video that V2 rocket fuel was about 80% ethanol and 20% water, which is about the same mix you can find in certain brands of rum. So when they call it rocket fuel they're actually talking literally. ADK^{...I'll agree your lava!} 19:42, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

What would we include in the article on ethanol? If I wanted the chemical properties of ethanol, I would go to the other wiki. Don't get me wrong, I love chemistry. We still need to focus on the Mission, though. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 20:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Basically, the stuff under Ethanol#Fuel which has been added in the last half-hour :D. Considering that Alcohol talks mostly about 'drinking' alcohol I wouldn't say that that information belongs there. It's certainly more on-mission than much of the Alcohol article is anyway... Peter ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 20:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the Saloon Bar over the past few years has proven that Alcohol is very much on mission. ADK^{...I'll dance your xenomorph!} 20:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The, ah, official mission, I ment. Peter ^{talk, or type, or watever...} 20:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Book of Genesis and Guide to Genesis (Merged)

Would anybody object if I merged these two under the "Genesis" name? There's duplicate content and the stuff not in the guide entry would fit within the guide framework just as well. Using the "Genesis" name would also standardize it with the other entries in the guide. Metz77 (talk) 15:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and did it, putting a redirect on Guide to Genesis. Hopefully nobody minds. Metz77 (talk) 15:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Jehovah and YHWH (Merged)

I'd argue that they're distinct enough to be kept separate, and we can just remove the templates. Thunderkatz^Ho! 18:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. Ty^{Bother me} 01:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Omnitheism and Maratreanism (Separate)

No one appears to believe this, although it exists as a philosophical concept, aside from one prolific user here. I suggest that this page be merged in with the article about that user's beliefs that now exists at Maratreanism.--^talk 11:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article about this topic, under an alternate name (Omnism), although it acknowledges omnitheism as another valid name in the first sentence. The WP article never mentions Maratreanism or myself. Wiktionary has an entry for the word. So that proves this is a belief system which non-Maratreans have, and it would be wrong to merge the article to Maratreanism. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 12:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest this proposal has been open for several months now, and it is surely time it be resolved. For the reasons I give above, I would suggest we close this one off and leave them as separate articles. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 04:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a legitimate concept, and hence i deleted the merge. ^{— Unsigned, by: Sterile / talk / contribs} 05:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

B4B:Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine and Blogs 4 Brownback (Merged)

There's really not enough info to warrant an entire article about one B4B post. Merge into main article. Thunderkatz^Ho! 18:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Merged. Ty^{Bother me} 18:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

RationalWiki:Bookshelf and RationalWiki:Recommended Books (Merged)

Latter one is older, but again, same idea, different pages. sterile^talk 06:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Merged these (awhile ago). sterile^{evolutionist story telling} 05:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Left Behind Wiki and Left Behind (Merged)

No reason to have a whole article on a fan wiki. I say merge the Wiki page to the main one. Cow...Hammer^time! 15:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. Peter ^{Subsisting on honey} 09:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Number woo and Numerology (Merged)

Number woo has some good info, but should be merged into Numerology as the main article. Thunderkatz^Ho! 18:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Obamacare and Affordable Care Act (Merged)

Sure why not? Тy^talk 20:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Medium and Spiritualism (Merged)

Hello, not that anyone cares, but please get some feedback here if possible from someone. I have been working on this article medium and this article spiritualism, but much of the data overlaps and it would be helpful/useful to have all the content on a single page. I request that I merge all the content of the mediumship article into a section on the spiritualism article. Is this ok? Agree or disagree? Cheers. Forests (talk) 04:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of which, there's a crapload of others we need to merge. Osaka Sun (talk) 04:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not up on my newage terms -- is a medium a subclass of spiritualists? If so, sounds like a plan!Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 06:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

To throw further confusion into this merge proposal, we also have articles on channelling and séance. I'm thinking the best thing is keep the articles separate. Some overlap in material is going to be inevitable. Channelling: the practice; medium: the person; séance, the event; spiritualism: the religious belief system more broadly. Secret Squirrel (talk) 12:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Template:merge sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 17:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I completed the merge and added photos. Here is the new article spiritualism. Forests (talk) 17:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Blessing and Curse and Blessing and cursing (Merged)

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? Ty^{Bother me} 18:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Who would type "blessing and curse" into an encyclopedia? Yuck! sterile^{evolutionist story telling} 06:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Currently, "curse" appears to be about a folklore topic, about mummy's curses and the evil eye and the like. "Blessing and cursing" is about a religious subject, the actions of deities. Going to take off the merger template from curse; the material is different enough to support two. If we don't have evil eye yet, it probably could be covered there. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Jesusland and Fun:Jesusland (Separate)

Which one? I would argue that Jesusland is a real concept, albeit approached snarkily. sterile^{evolutionist 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)