Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NGC 1531 and NGC 1532

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was history merge. Chick Bowen 17:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NGC 1531 and NGC 1532

NGC 1531 and NGC 1532 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Procedural nomination for an anon. "This is an unnecessary article, and not a real disambiguation page 132.205.93.32 03:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)" --Wafulz 03:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - useless disambiguation page due to its title. Why would I need to disambiguate the two? MER-C 05:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete There is no disambiguation on this page - they are two separate objects with distinct names. (aeropagitica) 05:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Since the article was split, how should GFDL be handled here (as in "the edit history should be preserved")? Shouldn't it be history-merged with one of the child articles? ColourBurst 06:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - If history-merging is appropriate, I suggest merging with NGC 1532, the larger of the two galaxies and the primary topic of the older version of NGC 1531 and NGC 1532. Dr. Submillimeter 12:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to NGC 1531 to preserve edit history (GFDL) or do some sort of history merge (sysops plz). --- RockMFR 07:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. It's already been a redirect. It was nominated for deletion with the result of being turned into a disambig. -- JLaTondre 13:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - This was originally the page for both NGC 1531 and NGC 1532. I split the page into two separate articles. Afterwards, I needed to decide on what to do with NGC 1531 and NGC 1532. I first turned it into a redirect to NGC 1532 as a short-term solution, and then nominated the redirect for deletion. The nomination failed for two reasons: other editors thought that the edit history should be kept, and other editors thought that external links may still lead to NGC 1531 and NGC 1532. Afterwards, it was turned into a disambiguation page. I honestly do not think that the page or the edit history is needed. Dr. Submillimeter 09:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think you understand- the edit history MUST be kept. --- RockMFR 14:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Could you please point me to a Wikipedia policy page that explains this? At the very least, I would like to understand other people's point of view on keeping this page. This may also be a problem in the future, as I may split several other articles on pairs of galaxies. Dr. Submillimeter 18:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The history needs to be kept for both articles. Merging history with just NGC 1532 would create a GFDL issue for NGC 1531 as there would be no record there of who contributed some of the original content that it came from. That could be remedied by coping the history page to the talk page of both articles or by merging to 1532 and making a note at 1531's talk page. But why bother? This isn't hurting anything. -- JLaTondre 13:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment does the edit history need to be kept with both articles? I don't think so - I believe under GFDL we can merge the edit history to one article and be fine ... I'm not a lawyer, though. WilyD 14:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Content was moved from the original article to both articles. If we just merge to one, there is nothing indicating in the second article that Submillimeter wasn't the sole author of the content he added. I believe the history of each article needs to be able to be recreated as they can be exported individually. However, I'm no lawyer either. I know we have worse GFDL issues then this one, but I just don't see any harm in leaving this page. -- JLaTondre 20:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorta keep: Ok, here's a plan. Revert the split, delete the two new articles. Move this title to NGC 1531 and then re-split the article leaving a reference in the history of NGC 1532. That is how this split should have happened... is it too late to do it right now? ---J.S (T/C) 21:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Why not just merge the history into one of the articles, and retroactively note that the other article was split from it? 132.205.45.206 00:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware there isn't a function to merge histories. (because then you would have edits not making any sense... etc) + reply
  • Comment - What about the material that currently exists at NGC 1531 and NGC 1532? Those two articles contain referenced information, whereas NGC 1531 and NGC 1532 contained unreferenced information before the split. Moreover, the two separate articles currently contain different information; the infobox data and the "See also" links are different for the two entries, and NGC 1532 contains an additional section that should not belong in NGC 1531. I would prefer to see this material preserved instead of the edit history. However, if both the material and edit history can be preserved, then I would find the plan satisfactory. Dr. Submillimeter 11:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I left a notice at the Administrators' Noticeboard about this weird situation. I also wonder if this demonstrates that Wikipedia needs a "Requested split" mechanism. Dr. Submillimeter 12:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - I just found that Wikipedia has a WP:SPLIT. The information at WP:SPLIT, however, did not address the issues brought up here. Dr. Submillimeter 12:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.