Talk:Bob Wong (biologist)

Proposed merge of Bob Wong (ecologist) into Bob Wong (biologist)
Appears to be a second article on same person. "(biologist)" was moved into mainspace first, so should be the one which continues to exist. See Talk:Bob Wong (ecologist) for timeline. Pam D  13:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , I agree with the jist of 's comment on the ecologist talk that we should merge "(biologist)" into "ecologist" instead. We will probably keep more content from the eco article than bio one. For ease of attribution, we should see that content's writer directly in the main article's history without having to navigate to the redirect's history, if that makes sense. If you agree, the merge is uncontroversial; we should just go ahead and close this discussion, then boldly merge (biologist) into (ecologist). [On mobile; please forgive the shorthand, thank you.] Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 20:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I really think that the earlier-created article, "(biologist)", should be allowed to continue, with relevant material from "(ecologist)" merged into it and properly acknowledged. It's a pity that neither of the people who moved the two articles into mainspace thought to add a hatnote to Bob Wong to direct readers (and editors) to the new article: the person moving the second one would have discovered that the article was redundant. Both articles were being developed in draft at the same time, so neither creating editor could have been expected to know that the other draft existed (if "(biologist)" had made it to main space just a couple of days earlier, the creator of "(ecologist)" would (or should) have found it and the problem not arisen. Pam  D  22:46, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * But as the creating editor for the admittedly much inferior "(biologist)" article is an IP, not a registered editor who might be eager to have credit for creating it, then... OK, let's do it the other way round. Pam  D  22:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)