User:Taylornate/draft

Redirection of muscle articles
Folks, I've seen the warring that's been going on over all of these muscle articles, and it absolutely has to stop. The RFC above has been disputed, and it's arguable that it was not conducted as well as it should have been (though I do not offer any judgment on who was right and who was wrong). The edit war, which has been going on for way too long, has repeatedly turned a number of articles into redirects and back again. The articles in question are... I think we need to look for consensus regarding one simple question aimed just at settling the edit war. As an uninvolved admin, I'm offering to judge the consensus for you (and if necessary, I'll seek further help). So, here's the question... Please respond below (and please stick to answering the question, and avoid accusations, incivility, etc). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Extensor pollicis longus muscle
 * Extensor indicis muscle
 * Extensor pollicis brevis muscle
 * Extensor digitorum muscle
 * Extensor digiti minimi muscle
 * Extensor carpi ulnaris muscle
 * Extensor carpi radialis brevis muscle
 * Extensor carpi radialis longus muscle
 * Common extensor tendon
 * Abductor pollicis longus muscle
 * Should the above articles be redirected to Extrinsic extensor muscles of the hand, or should they be kept as individual articles?
 * Keep as individual articles, for the reasons stated above. --Arcadian (talk) 18:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Absolutely keep as individual articles, but I have no objections to also keeping the new article. Some of us began discussing such an optionhere. Manfi (talk) 14:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I also have no objection to keeping the new article. --Arcadian (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Can we close this? As anyone reading the above can see, there is no serious debate over the correct outcome. --Arcadian(talk) 00:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect the articles. These articles were merged and per WP:Merge, a page that describes communal consensus, they should be redirected.  Per WP:Redirect, one reason to redirect is sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article. The rationale I gave in the RFC for merging is quoted below:


 * To elaborate, these articles have been stagnant for a long time. Several of them are stub class and seem likely to remain that way for years to come. If someone wants to add more information on these muscles, they can add it to this article.  If it becomes too lengthy, it can then be split per WP:Split. In the RFC, several uninvolved editors supported the merge.
 * Per WP:Consensus (emphasis added), consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy . I have not seen a logical policy, guideline, or communal consensus-based reason for opposing the merge or redirection.  For other concerns, I have offered solutions.--Taylornate (talk) 04:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Consensus
It's unfortunate that more people did not choose to offer their opinions here, but nevertheless, I think 2 weeks is enough time. Given that the condition prior to the dispute was that these separate articles all existed, the only two editors who have responded here have opined that the articles should be kept (for reasons outlined further up this page), and no reasons why they should be changed into redirects have been offered, I judge the consensus to be to retain all of the individual articles and to also retain the new general article. Any change to this should, in my opinion, require a new consensus. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Zebedee, I told you it would take me a while to comment because I would be busy, and you said there was no rush. As a side note, I also disagree with your statement that the articles all existed at the start of the dispute.--Taylornate (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If I recall correctly, you said you would need a week before you could comment, and it's been two weeks. But if you want to make a comment above, I'll be happy to consider it and reconsider my judgment of the consensus - but please make it asap. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

RFC
Should the merge of articles on individual muscles to Extrinsic_extensor_muscles_of_the_hand be reverted?

A brief history

 * December 28: I post on two project pages proposing the merge.
 * With an explicit go-ahead from user:Jmh649, I start work on the merge.
 * December 29: Merge completed. The individual articles merged are listed at the top of this page.
 * January 8: user:Arcadian makes a comment . I missed this comment, but looking back, it seems moot because I didn't merge away hundreds of articles and making a case for the merge is exactly what I did when I proposed it on the two project pages.
 * From December 29 to February 19, the merge attracts only the above comment by Arcadian and a passing comment by user:Xris0 who did not follow up on my response.
 * February 19: An edit war erupts when user:Y12J reverts the merge. There is some discussion between us until he loses interest.  A few editors support the merge and a few are against.  user:Arcadian and user:Fama_Clamosa continue the edit war but refuse to participate in discussion, and the three of us are blocked for 24 hours.

Why merge?
This is not about the individual muscles being important or unimportant, it is about how to best present the information. Pick up any anatomy text—chances are, there is not a separate chapter for each muscle. Rather, they are usually discussed in logical groups. To discuss each muscle in a vacuum results in much redundancy, and puts unnecessary burden on the reader to consolidate. For example, take this quote from the merge: ''The ECRL is supplied by the radial nerve and the ECRB by its deep branch. The remaining extrinsic hand extensors are supplied by the posterior interosseus nerve, another branch of the radial nerve.'' This is much more understandable to the reader than parsing nine similar statements from nine different articles. The individual pages are full of such redundancies, and they are short. These are two reasons to merge given in WP:MERGE.