RationalWiki:Duplicate articles/Archive5

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Racialism and Racial realism (Merged)[edit]

These articles are fundamentally the same. Furthermore, merging the articles allows all of our sources to be more compactly used. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 06:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree - merge. Racial realism is just a pretty name, attempting to disguise what it actually is. A redirect from racial realism to racialism would clarify the point. ProblemChimp (talk) 22:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Million-dollar challenge and James Randi (Merged)[edit]

Someone wanted to merge these. I agree. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 16:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

At least in theory, the challenge article could list all the people who have taken it or failed to appear, which wouldn't be very suitable in the article about Randi.--ZooGuard (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Million dollar challenge doesn't label itself as specific to James Randi. (I'm sure there are other million-dollar challenges.) Merging would make their relation clear. Further, the article is currently a stub, and can always be unmerged. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 01:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
If someone doesn't oppose again within a week or so, I'll merge. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 01:03, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Feminist internet laws and Internet Law (Separate)[edit]

Go! Zero (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure, why not. --Raysenn Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 21:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I feel it's a useful page, but if it needs to be merged, perhaps do so as a subsection within Internet Laws? The separation is useful, especially in light of "Internet rule #37." StealthBadger (talk) 03:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Disagree, there is something useful about having one specifically on feminism and is a function that no other side covers --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 07:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Nope. One originated on the internet, the other originated out in the world and then on the Internet - David Gerard (talk) 14:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I oppose because the articles can stand and are unique. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 00:48, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Moved from Talk:Feminist internet laws#Merge:


  • I think having them separate is kinda silly and would benefit from a unified article. Zero (talk) 15:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
    This was already the result of a merge - look at the page histories. (Just a reply, not a vote.) --ZooGuard (talk) 16:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


  • Seems fine as-is. --Kels (talk) 16:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • There seem to be enough of them that it warrants being its own page. PowderSmokeAndLeather (talk) 16:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Disagree, the article is relatively lengthy and is something that no other website offers --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 07:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC).


Two persons support a merge: Zero, Raysenn
Four persons oppose a merge: PowderSmokeAndLeather, Drowninginlimbo, David Gerard, FuzzyCatPotato
One person did not explicitly support either side: StealthBadger
By vote of 4 to 2, the pages shall remain separate.
FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 22:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Moderate and Centrism (Separate)[edit]

Someone wanted to merge these. I think the political sections of Moderate can be merged into Centrism, and a separate "religious moderates" article can be created. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 17:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

This is the sort of example that makes this page look like needless proceduralism for the sake of proceduralism. It's vastly less productive to tag articles for someone else to do work you propose than it is to start doing the work yourself - David Gerard (talk) 14:20, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, FCP has been keen on "merging" articles. How well and how justified are separate questions, but at least they are willing to do the copy/paste work.--ZooGuard (talk) 15:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Originally ~50 articles were marked. Now 6 are. I've added effectively 0 articles that weren't marked by others. It may be proceduralism, but it's not my proceduralism. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 23:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I've kept them separate, but turned Moderate into two articles. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 02:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

List of actions prohibited by the Bible and Actions punishable by death in the Old Testament (Merged)[edit]

These articles both cover actions prohibited by the Bible. "Actions punishable by death in the Old Testament" is just a more-specific version of "List of actions prohibited by the Bible", and both have similar quality. Adding both together makes a better list, not least because of its length, while keeping each separate adds little, if anything.
I say merge both into "List of actions prohibited by the Bible", because it's more general. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 22:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Obvious merge. I'd say just go for it, both could do with some actual writing skill applied to them - David Gerard (talk) 10:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Merged. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 02:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Richard Lenski and Lenski results challenge creationism (Merged)[edit]

As Fr. Vivian notes on the talk page of the article with the weird title, it's a weird title for an article. Given the brevity of the Lenski article, I will call this merge a no-brainer. There is no need for the weird title to redirect anywhere; it can just disappear, with maybe a note on Talk:Richard Lenski pointing at the weirdly titled article's talk page. What did I miss? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 20:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC) Merged. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 01:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Just asking questions and Sealioning (Merged)[edit]

They are the same thing. Merge Sealioning into Just asking questions as a subsection. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 21:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed Samstr (talk) 05:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I find it hard to agree or disagree since I still can't figure out what exactly "sealioning" is supposed to mean, and the current text of the article doesn't help. I suggest just leaving a redirect.--ZooGuard (talk) 07:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Merged. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 01:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Foreskin and Circumcision (Merged)[edit]

Foreskin is a stub, and any useful/missional information from it can be cut from it and go into Circumcision, where it would help the overall article. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 15:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Merged. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 01:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Plate tectonics with Pangaea and Continental drift (Merged)[edit]

We currently have 3 crap articles, instead of 1 meh article. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 04:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Merged. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 01:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Norse mythology and almost everything else in Category:Norse mythology (Merged)[edit]

Pretty much all of the articles are just stubs that give a tiny summary of the entity and then reiterate the same stuff about neo-Norse mythology and racism. There's no real reason to have them all be separate, and crappy. Thoughts? FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 16:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

We can have an article about God but not Thor? That's theistic discrimination! (talk)
Yeah. Those articles are crap. I think the best thing to do would be to make them all redirect to the Norse mythology page and add sections about all the major deities and creatures from Norse mythology on that page. Spud (talk) 03:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Merged. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 01:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Wiki with RationalWiki:Wikinode[edit]

Wikinode is just a crappy stub, now. Can it die? FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 02:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Just merge IMO - David Gerard (talk) 12:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Merged. Wanted to make sure it wasn't special or something. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 19:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Metapedia with Rightpedia (Merged)[edit]

RP is boring fork of MP for now. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 04:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Sexual attraction with Androphilia and Gynephilia (Merged)[edit]

The sexuality article is currently quite short and quite bad. The androphilia, gynephilia, and autogynephilia all explore specific sexualities, but are relatively short on their own; adding them into the sexuality article (presumeably alongside femmephilia, homophilia, etc.) would expand and improve it and reduce stubbiness. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 20:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe a page on attraction? That's the core concept here. That might throw in some attraction woo, like pheremones, love potions, and the like too. — Unsigned, by: Ikanreed / talk / contribs
Sexual attraction sounds like the right spot. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 21:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't think autogynephilia really fits in there. It seems more like a fetish than a sexuality. (talk) 21:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Autogynephilia does not belong here - it belongs in gender, it's a transphobic explanation of transgender - David Gerard (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
That works a lot better, thanks, apologies. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 00:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I merely added autogynophilia in to avoid it being confused with gynophilia. A subsection of the main sexuality article would be good so it can be linked to when one clicks androphilia or gynophilia, thus the terms can be explained. Asarelah (talk) 00:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
However, I must disagree with the proposed merging of the polysexual article. It is a unique sexual identity, as distinct as bisexuality and pansexuality are, and it is emerging as label. It thus has potential to be expanded. 00:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm happy with the present state of merge and unmerge. Autogynephilia is its own article, the others are in one sexual attraction article. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 02:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Primate and Ape (Merged)[edit]

Having just merged the information from Orangutan into Primate, as the great David Gerard originally suggested when "orangutan' was nominated for deletion, I then find out we've also got Ape. It's a bit redundant, isn't it? Spud (talk) 06:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I suggest just do it - David Gerard (talk) 11:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
A very wise suggestion. Done. Spud (talk) 15:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Rationalism with Rationality (Definitely not merged)[edit]

One is the philosophy. The other is the behavior that acts out the philosophy. Huge difference. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 15:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

You have it backwards, but you're right. Do not merge. Do not merge at all. One is a behavior. The other is a philosophy that alleges the personal and social value of the behavior. You don't need to believe in rationalism to act rationally. In fact, most people acting rationally don't. Ikanreed (talk) 15:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
And anyone failing to make that distinction does not belong on this wiki.--AndYourFoesShallRejoice... (talk) 15:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
No - as Rationality notes, "Rationality should not be confused with rationalism. Rationality is used to describe a quality of discourse or behavior; rationalism is a philosophy recognizing reason as the prime (or only) "way of knowing." " - David Gerard (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Yep I definitely misread these articles. Not merging. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 17:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Colonialism with Imperialism (Merged)[edit]

There's really no difference. It's the forced acquisition of other nations's land, people, etc., through minorly varying methods. If they're together, makes the article stronger. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 18:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

No. Colonialism was a particular period of European Imperialism with far reaching consequences lasting into the present. And it was characterized by particularly racially charged beliefs about who is better than whom. Leaving other Europeans alone to spread your empire in lands that were possessed by people who looked different than you, at very long distances from the homeland was a unique character. Ikanreed (talk) 15:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
All right. Then Imperialism with Colonialism. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 17:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Huh? Your alternative to merging two articles is merging the same two articles? How about not merging them? WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 08:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Ikanreed said colonialism is an example of imperialism, which it is. Therefore, instead of merging imperialism into colonialism, I suggested merging colonialism into imperialism. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 04:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
What's so bad about having two short articles instead of one big one? (talk) 07:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Take the "American Imperialism" section of Imperialism and compare it with the "American colonialism" section of Colonialism. There are two problems: Imperialism has a weak section and Colonialism has basically turned into "American colonialism". If they are merged, both problems are resolved. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 04:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Given that this is not a specialist history wiki, merging one into the other makes sense. AgingHippie (talk) 04:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Merged. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 22:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Sex with Sexual intercourse (Separate)[edit]

One is sex. The other is sex. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 15:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Could be okay to merge, but who doesn't want more sex? Ikanreed (talk) 15:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
No. I suggest moving the things related to sexual intercourse to that article and make sex about sexual reproduction and sexual dimorphism from a biological/evolutionary perspective. Also, throw in a few words about the sex/gender distinction.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
ZG's plan sounds good. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 23:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Do you realize you did the opposite of what ZG was suggesting? O_o
Why did you put all the text about sexual reproduction in the sexual intercourse article? (talk) 16:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Got confuzzled FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 16:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Crimenav & Template:Law (Separate)[edit]

Because. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 01:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

What a compelling argument. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 03:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, forgot to put the reason.
Because both templates discuss the law. The whole point of laws is that, when broken, it's a crime; so the law template seems to cover everything the crimenav template needs. For example, should tax protesters get a crimenav sidebar or a law sidebar? FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 04:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
*headdesk* Criminal law is just a subset of law, and that template/category also deals with lawyery stuff and the legislative process. The crime template/category covers not only lawbreaking, but also stuff like criminology. In other words: No.--ZooGuard (talk) 08:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
There's not much overlap between those two categories. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:53, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't merge them, Law is more about the laws themselves - David Gerard (talk) 19:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Gerard. As some TV show intro put it, these are "separate but equally important" things. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Everyone has cogent points, I'll take back my merge proposal. Thanks for discussion. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 19:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Bigot with Bigotry (Merged)[edit]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bigotry (talk) 23:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 23:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Stereotype#Implicit_association with Implicit stereotype (Merged)[edit]

They both cover the same topic, "Implicit stereotype" is a bit small and could use more context, and "Stereotype" would benefit from more information on implicit association. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 01:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

List of quote mines with List of quotes appealing to authority used by creationists (Merged)[edit]

Since some of the quotes on that page aren't strictly quote mines (removed from context), we could rename the page "list of fallacious quotes" or similar. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 21:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Merged. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 00:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Deepak Chopra and ISHAR (Merged)[edit]

Anyone opposed? The Chopra article could use expansion, and the ISHAR article is short enough to merge in. Is there anything ISHAR does that doesn't in some way relate to Chopra? FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 16:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Breastfeeding and Lactivism (Merged)[edit]

Lactivism is entirely about breastfeeding, the politics and woo surrounding it can easily be covered in one article. BicyclewheelModerator 19:02, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Do it - David Gerard (talk) 20:11, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Second. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 20:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Simulated reality and Simulation argument (Merged)[edit]

These articles are fundamentally the same. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 06:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed: same topic, different sets of authors. Bongolian (talk) 07:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
No. "The Simulation argument" is supposed to be about (a) specific argument(s) - Nick Bostrom's - and goes at length discussing it. It's summarized and linked in the "simulated reality" article, which is how wikis are supposed to work (if a section is overlong, it gets spun off into a separate article). If the "argument" article strays into more general discussion, it should be pruned and the appropriate content moved to the "reality" article.--ZooGuard (talk) 21:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
"Simulation argument" doesn't label itself as specific to Bostrom and has concepts that apply to the idea of simulated reality in general. I think a unified article, with in-depth looks at arguments for and against, and cross-application of those articles, and not just Bostrom's, would be beneficial. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 01:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
The article itself describes it as "developed by Bostrom". It's just poorly written, describing it as "the", not "a" simulation argument.--ZooGuard (talk) 11:42, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
If we wanted an article on Bostrom's simulation argument, then we should have an article entitled "Nick Bostrom's simulation argument". Instead, we have "simulation argument". The "simulation argument" furthermore does not solely discuss Bostrom's argument, but general arguments for and against a simulated reality, making it quite applicable for a merge into "Simulated reality". FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 17:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
They could be separate articles, but the content in "Simulated reality" really just talks about the simulated reality hypothesis pertaining to our experienced reality, which is pretty much what any simulation argument is about. Most of the content in the "simulated reality" article looks good, except the "Thought experiment" section, which completely misrepresents the simulation argument. The other article looks decent too, if a bit long. I'm not sure if they'll fit together into each other very easily if merged though. If merged, I'd also suggest having the final article at "Simulated reality hypothesis", since that's what's really being discussed. (talk) 02:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Wedge Document and Wedge strategy (Merged; see Wedge issue and Wedge Strategy)[edit]

The wedge strategy article is pretty unclear and pretty short except on areas where it duplicates the Wedge Document article. Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 21:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

So that's a reason to improve it & add further examples, not merge. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Even beyond that, the term is rarely used except for intelligent design. See Wedge strategyWikipedia. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 15:44, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
See wedge issueWikipedia. WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Wedge issue =/= wedge strategy. Hence the merge; make a new Wedge issue article. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 18:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)