On 10/8/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Michael Snow wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
I wonder if we could agree to change policy to permit an administrator to "speedy redirect" a merge candidate and close an AfD where notability is the sole or principal reason given for deletion, or no reason is given. This would be a good way of ensuring that the possibility of merging articles was not unreasonably neglected. An article could always be renominated if good faith attempts to merge had failed.
I endorse that, although I don't see why the authority to merge-and-redirect should be limited to administrators. I've always found the resistance to merges puzzling. It's almost as bad as the polarizing notion that deletion debates orbit the twin suns of Keep and Delete, which are the only possible outcomes, and a "vote" to merge is in reality to be reinterpreted as a vote for one of these binary stars (which one depends on who's arguing). An argument for a merge is just that, and in these cases it's often by far the best solution.
Merge-and-redirect often *does* require admin attention, because the "proper procedure" is to perform a history merge, isn't it?
Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQEVAwUBQ0dAL7MAAH8MeUlWAQhQPQf+JUqu3Qc3jfeggXPZRpgwEeqL2DNy4KcJ y02ec0wcwwWE641GWdIzv4uBVZHufJAj3pqyTZyaccYxbUp9VinKzttZL9Y8ssno jDUrPUZtTIRpN9i9y4Yv+z/CPV4C3TQ9tuZb9CAQs4k7njIgWylKN+VSDtMTfybW wlu+0OItFOPRScOBX5IqRHtaE6zZAegwYYagzYj9G+tGhsgF+UQRTm9+7yi+uhvQ wihn9Cv81ExPF8LvX85a10htDF3OZKYQiBaR3IW3hwmx9fnyHBPIWBB0ybyTrTfF p7SJ+Lk6krR9VFqNREyqpFleZqPkwhX5RnFFRxKNa7Z74NzUzT9jog== =Zn+p -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Wouldn't that kill the usefulness of diffs over a period when both articles were edited? If article A was edited on December 1 and December 3 and you merge in an article edited on December 2. You get two diffs with massive changes without any explanation how that happened. You could mention the merge in an edit summary, but you'd have to list which edits have been merged in. Redirecting keeps the histories clean.
--Mgm