On 1/14/07, theProject &lt;wp.theproject(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: If you read all of the paragaph that you quote, it says: "Simply dumping the text from one page onto another *is* progress, because it puts all of the information on the same topic on the same page. This, however, seldom results in a smooth-flowing article. Fixing that may require a great deal of time and rewriting. If you can do that, terrific! Future readers will greatly benefit from your contribution. If you do not have the time or expertise to do so, please tag the article for attention; select a template from Wikipedia:Cleanup resources<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cleanup_resources>es>, such as {{cleanup <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cleanup>}} or {{ cleanup <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cleanup>|January 2007}} (using the current month and year as the parameter)." In other words, you're only halfway there if you do a text dump merger: you end up with one article, but it's worse than it was before, and it will need further cleanup. Considering that the {{cleanup}} backlog is even worse than the merge backlog, producing lots of merged pages that need to be cleaned up seems like it would be going nowhere fast. True, it's work to do mergers by hand (and we could certainly improve the instructions on how to do them) but you do get everything done in one go, and often end up with a much better article in the end (since obvious merge candidates are often not the best quality to begin with). So, I'd be inclined to take that entire paragraph out. I also wish that I could invent a cluestick that would keep people from just redirecting pages without making an attempt to merge in useful content, but sadly that's probably not possible. -- phoebe (brassratgirl)