-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 11/20/05, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher(a)student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
>I think it depends whether you look at it from a
content- or page-based
>POV. Those who want merges generally want the content kept, so they
>can't be considered fans of deletion. However, they certainly don't
>want the page kept (indeed, some will even ask for the article to be
>deleted, rather than left as a redirect ... presumably this will involve
>some ultra-complicated wacky history merge thing).
>
>It's not accurate to say that merge == keep *or* that merge == delete.
>Merge == merge. Fortunately, it's usually the people pushing an
>"inclusionist" or "deletionist" view that take the "merges
should be
>reinterpreted" line, and not the closing admins.
A merge vote means "merge the content elsewhere and then create a
redirect". Someone who votes merge doesn't want the page deleted,
they want the content merged elsewhere. It's important to understand
this, because if we copy content and then delete the original article,
we are violating the GFDL by failing to preserve the edit history.
Instead, we merge content and create a redirect.
Consequently, there is no need for the closing administrator to count
"merge" as anything but a keep vote. Someone who votes merge wants the
article kept, because the article must be kept in order to merge the
content and comply with the GFDL.
Ryan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird -
http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFDgIlz6MKb8lYmCtcRAoW6AJ9f0s4KYidpqNo++/wapnIpiIJrMACgrUSu
Oaywq1X6kE3XiWTKWSVsgg8=
=gqJh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----