On 7/18/07, Thomas Dalton
reluctant to definitively state that this is a violation, but that
information really should be available in some form or another. I think
there are lots of ways that could be done; for example, it would probably
be fine if the history section of the final article had a link to the
history section of the article that was merged in.
In other words, we should merge and redirect, not merge and delete,
which is exactly what we do. It would seem our understanding of the
GDFL is correct (in that aspect, at least).
Or a history merge, or a talk page copy of the history.. So yea,
thats consistent with our current approved practices.
Talk page copies of a history are useless because the links aren't
there. They let us know who edited, but give no details about what
edits they made.. A history merge may not accomplish that either.
Merge and redirect would not destroy the history. Could a special line
be devised on a history page to register a merger, and allow one to
trace bacvk into it?