Quoting Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org>rg>:
It certainly doesn't satisfy the GFDL. But
then again, none of the
pages on the entire website satisfy the GFDL.
That argument has been made before and a number of lawyers have
considered it to
be incorrect. I'm not a lawyer so I won't comment too heavily in that regard.
The only thing that'd
satisfy the GFDL would be to create a section, ==History==, and put
the names there, along with the years, title, and publisher. If
that's what we want to do, I'll be all for it.
Er no, as I understand it (again, I'm not a lawyer) having an explicit link to
the history is ok because we treat them more or less as one document.
And in any event, there's an obvious good faith difference between
questionably
satisfying the GFDL and definitely not satisfying it. This is clearly in the
second category.
I agree, but do you believe that having the information in the history
of an article which redirects to the one in question does satisfy the
GFDL? And what about the part of the merge that went into a different
page from the one the redirect went to? How does that questionably
satisfy the GFDL? I don't see it. Not at all. Whether you get to
the information by following "What links here" and then clicking on
"history" or you get it by clicking on "Talk" and then "merged
page
history", it seems equally (non)compliant to me.
And what about the article on Angela? Are we sure that nothing has
been merged from that article anywhere? I have a copy of that one too
if someone wants the list of editors.