RationalWiki:Duplicate articles/Archive4

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Grey's Law and Hanlon's razor (Merged)[edit]

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. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks 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)

RationalWiki:Webpage links and RationalWiki:Websites (Merged)[edit]

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)
I think webshites should be separate, because it's stuff we don't like, versus the websites pages, which should be merged, because they are both things we like. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 06:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Faith and Blind faith and Informed faith (Merged)[edit]

Moved from Talk:Blind faith#Difference between faith and blind faith...

Suggestion: faith includes both blind faith and informed faith? The term "faith" by its own is too vague anyways. Here is another one (bad joke): Blind_faith is a blues/rock band, Faith is a doom metal band [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 00:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

No real difference between blind faith and "ordinary" faith. I say merge. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 15:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Technically, no. But there's a certain derogatory connotation to "blind faith". — Unsigned, by: Armondikov / talk / contribs 18:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I would say no to a merge. The derogatory connotations allow for a distinction. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 08:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I say merge. The context for blind faith and faith would be on the same page, and the connection more readily apparent. sterileevolutionist story telling 06:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I am not saying whether we should merge, but if we are merging, merge informed faith as well please. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 22:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Merge... are "blind faith", "non-blind faith", etc., really different things, or are they different ways of looking at the same thing? I say the later. Zack Martin HolyMaratreanSigil.png 01:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I say merge. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 06:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Popular quote mines and List of quotes out of context and List of quote mines (Merged)[edit]

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)

I say merge. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 19:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Obama citizenship denial and Birther (Separate)[edit]

I suggest them being keep separate:

Each of the article is long enough to stand on their own. Let's start the discussion. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 03:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll support separate. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 16:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Church of the SubGenius and J. R. "Bob" Dobbs (Merged)[edit]

I say merge, nobody needs a separate article on Dobbs. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 19:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Far right and Wingnut + Far left and Moonbat (Separate)[edit]

Apparently someone wanted to merge Far right and Wingnut. I think the two are close enough that a merge is possible, but not necessary. Thoughts? 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 19:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

No.--ZooGuard (talk) 20:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Manosphere and Manosphere glossary (Separate)[edit]

I propose we merge the glossary with our manosphere article. The reason being that I feel list articles don't do well on their own. By adding it to the manosphere article, I think we'd strengthen that article and have one great article instead of one good article and one not-so-great article. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:04, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

"Manosphere" is already bloated as it is without loading it with more content (not to mention its problem with reification). The "glossary" page was... insired by the page at Manboobz We Hunted the Mammoth (down to its name - it would be something like "List of manosphere slang" if it was natively grown in wikiland). It's a useful target for redirect links from the "terms"; the larger article won't be.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Zoo. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 00:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Tokenism and Essay:Special snowflake (Separate)[edit]

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. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Illustration WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Divination and Fortune-telling (Merged)[edit]

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)

Macroevolution and Microevolution (Separate)[edit]

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.

Walter Brown and Hydroplate theory (Separate)[edit]

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)

White Commonwealth and Commonwealth of Nations (Separate)[edit]

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)

Hannah Poling and Autism omnibus trial (Separate)[edit]

I just found this redirect, and I have to tell you that the Poling matter was NOT part of the Omnibus. The government conceded the matter well before the Omnibus was finalised (March 2008 - 11 months earlier) and it was never heard by the same special masters that looked after the Omnibus. So I ask that the redirect be removed. It is certainly a part of the Autism/Vaccine conspiracy, and it deserves an article by itself. It is not a duplicate. BankBox (talk) 08:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Doppler Effect and Red shift, Blue shift, and Quantized redshift (Merged)[edit]

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)

Reverse speech and Backward masking (Separate)[edit]

Move if you like, but to my thinking the two phenoms are totally different. The allegation about back masking is that it's done deliberately for some woo effect. The whole point about reverse speech, on the other hand, is that the speaker is unaware of it -- thus, you see, unintentionally revealing HIS/HER TRUE THOUGHTS. Like Bill Clinton's "A fine girl to kiss." Then there was another point about reverse speech, what was it now??.. Oh yes, it's a nice little earner for a certain Australian scam artist. Ithaca (talk) 14:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Polyamory (Separate) and Polygamy and Bigamy (Merged)[edit]

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. Sterilesig.svgtalk 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. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:25, 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. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks 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)

Inverse stopped clock and Nobel disease and Ultracrepidarian (Separate)[edit]

I do not think these articles need to be merged. None of them is very bulky, but that in itself is not necessarily a defect. There are some differences in what they describe:

  • An inverse stopped clock refers to someone "who is usually logical, rational, or correct." Such an individual's reputation may be smudged by one bit of (uncharacteristic) crankery, or that crankery may be given an unwarranted appearance of legitimacy, considering its source.
  • A sufferer from Nobel disease is, by definition, a Nobel laureate who has branched out into crankery.
  • An ultracrepidarian is, or once was, a legitimate expert, known for making authoritative pronouncements on matters outside that field of expertise.

An inverse stopped clock need not be a specialized expert, and comparatively few of them have come within sniffing distance of a Nobel prize. An inverse stopped clock's mistaken views may fall within the realm of their actual experience. Few of the examples given in the RW article would be considered ultracrepidarians. Some Nobel disease sufferers have succumbed to crankery within their own field, if not their own narrow specialty. Seeing that, a case could be made that their set intersects with that of ultracrepidarians. It is not clear that they are a subset of ultracrepidarians. I believe they deserve their own article. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 23:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Men who have sex with men and Homosexuality (Merged)[edit]

Thoughts about merging this stub into this? I am happy to do it. Logiblocs (talk) 19:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Also this might do well to be merged into a differant page, perhaps the one on Homosexuality? The sodomy article takes a more religious perspective Logiblocs (talk) 19:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Men who have sex with men are not necessarily homosexuals -- they are distinct concepts. Also, MSM are people, sodomy is a practice -- different ideas, different articles. TeenageWasteland (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
MSM <> homosexuality but is it better included as a section (exception?) in the homosexuality page? Just a thought ... I don't have strong feelings about that. MSM and sodomy? Related, but definitely not mergeable.MarmotHead (talk) 19:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't really know what the policy about stubs here. The reasoning behind a merge (albeit as an exception?) is that the page will probably never grow beyond this state as TBH there really isn't much to talk about. It would do better as a sub-section of some other page if any seem to fit (and therein lies the problem). I don't know let me know what you think. Logiblocs (talk) 20:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not claiming expertise here, but, yeah, one of these looks like it'll never outgrow its stubbiness. Your merging idea is a perfectly reasonable thing to consider. If stub-policy says merge-or-grow, I won't fight it. MarmotHead (talk) 20:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Am I missing some point here? Sodomy is not necessarily homosexual. --Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 20:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

If you read the MSM page you will see that neither is Men who have sex with men. There is a distinction; it kind of is an exception to homosexuality. Someone who is not necessarily homosexual but still practices sex with men. The problem is that MSM is kind of a stub but doesn't really belong anywhere else except as maybe an exception to homosexuality. Logiblocs (talk) 20:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Maybe it doesn't belong anywhere. Not all articles are relevant. TeenageWasteland (talk) 20:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I removed the merge template, don't think this is going to happen. Logiblocs (talk) 07:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Plutonomy and Plutocracy (Merged)[edit]

Merge both into Plutocracy. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 16:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Atheism and Atheist (Merged)[edit]

Atheism is the mostly-serious version of the article, Atheist is the mostly-fun version of the article. I opt for taking any useful stuff from Atheist and placing it into Atheism and moving any "fun" stuff to Fun:Atheism. (This fits the general trend of having an article on the -ism, rather than on the -ist.) 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 05:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Moved from Talk:Atheist#What shall we do with this?
I don't see how "atheist" is justified as a distinct article subject from "atheism". I suggest what bits of it are relevant/interesting be merged with the atheism article & the rubbishy bits (dogma etc.) either be deleted or moved to funspace. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 02:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Fine by me--"Shut up, Brx." 03:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Go for it - David Gerard (talk) 09:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
I was kinda confused as to why they were seperate in the first place.Greatnecro (talk) 14:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Orwellian and Newspeak (Separate)[edit]

Someone wanted to merge these. Thoughts? 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 16:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Separate Spheres ideology and Different but equal (Merged)[edit]

Exactly the same thing. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 16:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Attachment therapy and Attachment disorder, Attachment parenting, Rebirthing, and Reparenting (Merged)[edit]

Each article, on its own, is pretty useless. They all are related to the idea of Attachment therapy and should be merged into it as examples of progressively worse methods of attempting to implement an already stupid idea. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 06:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Fish that survive on land and Lungfish (Separate)[edit]

The lungfish is an example of fish that survive on land, and not notable enough to merit an article. Take useful content over to the list article. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 05:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)