The result was merge to Syrinx#Syrinx_in_popular_culture. Merged content to Syrinx#Syrinx_in_popular_culture - delete title as unlikely search. SilkTork * YES! 21:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC) reply
This is just trivial listcruft at best. If there is any actual important notes: they belong in the main article only. RobJ1981 ( talk) 19:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The solution is for editors like Mintrick to not take the lazy way out in the first place, and to address cargo cult writing head on in the article at hand. This may, indeed, involve talk page discussion, which was not done in this case.
The idea, that human knowledge that is merely the perception of "the common" is not human knowledge, is going to impede that process, and Mintrick would do well to lose that attitude. It's just as valid to address the portrayal of something in 20th and 21st century literature and art, based upon sources that make that analysis, as it is to address its portrayal in 19th century literature and art. The correct solution to bad writing is good writing, not taking the lazy way out and sweeping the bad writing under the rug (and then edit warring without discussion when someone reverts that).
There's no reason to keep this fork; it's authorship is not correctly attributed in its edit history; this isn't a title that we need as a redirect; and the correct action for Mintrick to have taken, when xyr erasure from Syrinx was reverted, was discussion on Talk:Syrinx. Indeed, the correct action in the first place was rewriting, so that the article addressed literary and artistic representations properly, not sweeping bad content under the rug at all. (It's worth noting that the content on 19th century representations isn't any better in quality than that on 20th and 21st century representations. That's cargo cult written bad content, too.) The same outcome should happen here as has happened so many times before: Delete. The disagreement over the content in the original article should be discussed on its talk page. Uncle G ( talk) 13:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Syrinx#Syrinx_in_popular_culture. Merged content to Syrinx#Syrinx_in_popular_culture - delete title as unlikely search. SilkTork * YES! 21:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC) reply
This is just trivial listcruft at best. If there is any actual important notes: they belong in the main article only. RobJ1981 ( talk) 19:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The solution is for editors like Mintrick to not take the lazy way out in the first place, and to address cargo cult writing head on in the article at hand. This may, indeed, involve talk page discussion, which was not done in this case.
The idea, that human knowledge that is merely the perception of "the common" is not human knowledge, is going to impede that process, and Mintrick would do well to lose that attitude. It's just as valid to address the portrayal of something in 20th and 21st century literature and art, based upon sources that make that analysis, as it is to address its portrayal in 19th century literature and art. The correct solution to bad writing is good writing, not taking the lazy way out and sweeping the bad writing under the rug (and then edit warring without discussion when someone reverts that).
There's no reason to keep this fork; it's authorship is not correctly attributed in its edit history; this isn't a title that we need as a redirect; and the correct action for Mintrick to have taken, when xyr erasure from Syrinx was reverted, was discussion on Talk:Syrinx. Indeed, the correct action in the first place was rewriting, so that the article addressed literary and artistic representations properly, not sweeping bad content under the rug at all. (It's worth noting that the content on 19th century representations isn't any better in quality than that on 20th and 21st century representations. That's cargo cult written bad content, too.) The same outcome should happen here as has happened so many times before: Delete. The disagreement over the content in the original article should be discussed on its talk page. Uncle G ( talk) 13:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply