Talk:Comparison of lightweight markup languages

Untitled
Instead of waiting for someone else to create it I just took a handful of languages and added a very bare skeleton of what I thought should go up on this page, I encourage people to contribute as much as they can. Ddipaolo 22:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge?
It seems to me that List of lightweight markup languages covers pretty much the same material as this article. Is there any reason to have both of them? -- RoySmith (talk) 13:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

MERGE: Obvious overlap/near dupe. No reason at all to keep them. This doesn't seem to have gotten any attention in months, so if no one voices objection in the next two weeks, I'll go ahead and perform the merge at that time. &mdash; Animated Cascade talk 11:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Against Merge: Different content. --NeutralPoint 23:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * @NeutralPoint -- Would you be okay merging List of lightweight markup languages and Comparison of lightweight markup languages into the article called Lightweight markup language? This is really what should happen IMO, and what I would have done in performing the merge. There's no reason to have three stubs when the three can easily be merged into one full document. -- Animated Cascade talk 01:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Renewal of Merge Proposal
The result was to MERGE into Lightweight markup language.

Because there hasn't really been any discussion on whether these pages should be merged, and therefore no consensus has been reached, I'm renewing the motion to merge, but this time with more specifics. I propose that List of lightweight markup languages and Comparison of lightweight markup languages both be MERGED into Lightweight markup language. Please comment so that we can put this issue to rest. &mdash;Animated Cascade talk 08:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)