Wikipedia talk:Proposed article mergers: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
:: I would be in favor of making a list of fixed issues at the bottom of the article. Good for follow-up purposes. If the list grows too long, it can be moved to an archives page. [[User:Olivier|olivier]] 12:23 Nov 9, 2002 (UTC) |
:: I would be in favor of making a list of fixed issues at the bottom of the article. Good for follow-up purposes. If the list grows too long, it can be moved to an archives page. [[User:Olivier|olivier]] 12:23 Nov 9, 2002 (UTC) |
||
--- |
|||
For merged articles, I prefer the most international and general name possible. I.e. Islands of the North Atlantic better British Isles. Perhaps a redirection from Islands of the North Atlantic to British Isles [[User:Mac|Mac]] 12:02 Mar 9, 2003 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 12:02, 9 March 2003
The page says "After a pair has been merged leave it on the list with a remark DONE." Why is that? What is the argument against just removing pairs from the list after they have been done? Andre Engels 10:14 Sep 27, 2002 (UTC)
- None that I can see! I'm all for changing that guideline -- Tarquin
- I would be in favor of making a list of fixed issues at the bottom of the article. Good for follow-up purposes. If the list grows too long, it can be moved to an archives page. olivier 12:23 Nov 9, 2002 (UTC)
--- For merged articles, I prefer the most international and general name possible. I.e. Islands of the North Atlantic better British Isles. Perhaps a redirection from Islands of the North Atlantic to British Isles Mac 12:02 Mar 9, 2003 (UTC)