Talk:House of Music (Aalborg)

Two articles about the same topic
has correctly pointed out that this article is about the same topic as Musikkens Hus. I looked into this, and it appears that the mainspace article, which was created later by one of the editors of this one, is largely a copyright violation of http://en.musikkenshus.dk/musikkens-hus/byggeriet/historien-bag/. (Copyvios report). The copyright problem is right in the first edit. Shouldn't it be deleted and the title redirected? If so, is there a way to keep the Tenants and Facilities sections while providing proper attribution? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 10:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps an admin like can delete them as a vio. Perhaps could construct a new article then without the vio. Crisco can you delete Musikkens Hus but keep the infobox and the bare basics and place in Ipigott's sandbox? ♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * . is there some reason I can't just do this myself rather than have another admin do it? What does Ipigott have to do with it? I am perfectly capable of content merging two articles; my concern was in maintaining attribution when the history had to be deleted. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 10:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I wasn't aware you were an admin. Sure go ahead and merge this into Musikkens Hus and sort out the copyvio!♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * As for my involvement, I did in fact suggest to we should merge these two articles. Dr. B probably saw the comments I made on my talk page. I'm sure you can do a great job, Anne, and appreciate your willingness to take it on. I would however strongly suggest we maintain the title Musikkens Hus as the main title rather than the highly ambiguous House of Musik. Once you're done, I can probably contribute some additional content.--Ipigott (talk) 14:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Support merging the non-copyvio portions of this article with Musikkens Hus. Keep this title as a Redirect. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * , Ipigott, : Okay, it's done. I didn't retain the lead from the original because it had some copyvio in it as well and an unsourced claim.  Also, a couple of the editors who contributed did so by tweaking the material that had to be deleted, so there was no way to save their edits.


 * The page with the English title was created first, and then an editor copied the infobox and some other material into a new article, adding copyvio and some new text. What I did was copy that editor's original material back to the English titled article and then move combined the page to the preferred title.  That way the revisions that were mainly copyvio are completely deleted from the history, and the article is attributed to its original creator.


 * Sorry, I didn't see the off-page discussion, so the shortness of the discussion here caught me by surprise. I'm the one that found this draft, added info and references and submitted it without realizing that the topic was covered under a totally different title, so I felt that it was my responsibility to fix the problem. Please let me know if there's something I've forgotten.&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 15:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your highly efficient work.--Ipigott (talk) 15:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)