-----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(a)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