Wikipedia talk:Merged talk pages
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Red and Blue
Ed, I feel we are wrestling with an essential dichotomy: we want the Wiki to be as open as possible, even encouraging anonymous edits, but we want people to disclipline themselves to NPOV. What do you think of this possibility? We have (for example) two counterpointed articles: George W. Bush and John Kerry. We make each talk page a manual redirect to Talk:George W. Bush and John Kerry. That way the discussion on appropriateness has to become mutual, or at least mutually transparent between the two sides. Of course we would have to protect the original separate talk pages. I made a few test pages to see if this would work with the current software, it does. Start with Test page, then click on [Discuss this page]. Please let me know when you're done with this and I'll delete the test pages (or you can, if you wish). -- Cecropia | Talk 02:48, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
- I like your idea: see the Mister Red and Mister Blue test articles I made, in response. I tried to set up their talk pages the way you suggested. --Ed
Yes, that's the idea (I hope you don't support that skanky "Mister" Blue). Two comments:
- I set up Talk:Test page and protected it so that editors can't add their comments there but have to go to the combined talk page. If we have to move editor comments who post there mistakenly or purposely it adds a layer of confusion and housekeeping.
- How do we implement this? I can already see the debate on it. Followed by the debate on whether consensus has been reached. Followed by the debate on what constitutes consensus. Followed by the debate on the spelling of consensus. Followed by the debate on which pages should have combined talk. Followed by the debate on what constitutes consensus for combining talk. Followed by ... ;-) -- Cecropia | Talk 12:16, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
Yes, that's the idea (I hope you don't support that skanky "Mister" Blue). Two comments:
- I set up Talk:Test page and protected it so that editors can't add their comments there but have to go to the combined talk page. If we have to move editor comments who post there mistakenly or purposely it adds a layer of confusion and housekeeping.
- How do implement this? I can already see the debate on it. Followed by the debate on whether consensus has been reached. Followed by the debate on what constitutes consensus. Followed by the debate on the spelling of consensus. Followed by ... ;-) -- Cecropia | Talk 12:16, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
Say your most recent with the "protected" notice. Looks good to me! Can we do it? -- Cecropia | Talk 02:11, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
This is a test of an idea user:Cecropia suggested. It's a joint talk page for two separate articles.
[edit] Articles having joint talk pages
- Augusto_Pinochet/intro_(succinct_version) - "Discuss this page" link redirects to talk:Augusto Pinochet.
Let's take the easy ones first. Maybe create a page like Wikipedia:merged talk pages listing those topics which already are doing this. Then list other topics which might benefit from a merge.
The idea probably won't fly unless a majority of contributors to the pages in question, will agree to the merge. Also, it would be good to show a track record of success. So I'd leave hot topics like talk:Bush and Kerry for last. --Uncle Ed 16:15, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Sample talk: Red and Blue
You guys are on drugs! Red is much better than Blue, are you blind or what? Floom has to go!!! --user:RetardedOne
Oh, yeah, Blue is better than Red. His record on Floom is spotless, you crouching dragon! --User:FlameBoy
Red is a bloody fool! user:HotAndBothered
Let's try to stick to the point, which is: how can we improve the Mister Red and Mister Blue articles. For instance, WHY does Red feel it's so important to get rid of Floom? Don't just say that it's obvious: an encyclopedia article should BEGIN by stating the obvious, and then get into deeper and more subtle points. --Uncle Ed 11:56, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
- Ed, don't play innocent, you KNOW that Floom is destroying the environment, and Blue doesn't care! --user:TipTapTyper
Okay, let's add to the Mister Red article the "obvious" fact that Floom is destroying the environment. Hm, we'll need a source for that... --Uncle Ed 11:59, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
- I can only agree to the remark that Floom is destroying the environment if we point out that Mr. Red never cared about Floom until he was kicked off the Floomco board two years ago, while Mr. Blue was always against Floom, but quietly. -- Cecropia | Talk 17:00, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
Have you considered the benefits Mister Yellow offers? --Auximines 12:10, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
- This is talk about Red and Blue. Yellow got 0.0027% of the vote last election, mostly from family members. But I'm willing to include him if others feel he is needed in this talk for balance. -- Cecropia | Talk 17:03, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
That skanky Mister Red places Scrumples above scruples. He's obviously in the pay of Floom merchants. --User:SkankSpanker
- If we use the term =Floomgate Scandal= how can we justify the term =Partisan Scrumple Allegations=. Not very balanced. -- User:SecretSquirrel.
Does this have to be in the article namespace? You could test it in user talk subpages, or on the test wiki. User:PleaseUseTheRightNamespace.
Now, don't get all in a snort, PUTRN, this is horribly important for the future of Wikipedia NPOV. When we've figured this out, Ed Poor and I will clean this up so you'll never know we were here. ;-) -- Cecropia | Talk 22:51, 14 May 2004 (UTC)