Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Book:Vietnam War

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was already merged. T. Canens (talk) 06:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Book:The Vietnam War
The book is an inferior duplicate of the recently created Book:The Vietnam War. It should be deleted (or histmerged?) so Book:The Vietnam War can be moved to Book:Vietnam War. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Not sure exactly how to handle this, but Book:The Vietnam War does seem to be better, so getting rid of this one somehow seems to be a good plan.  Hi 8 7 8   (Come shout at me!) 20:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment "The Vietnam War" is an incorrect name for the book as it following the name of the actual conflict would be much better. Why not just move the latter to this title? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Let's be careful. What exactly does this book cover? The French War (1945-54)? The American War (19XX-75)? One good option which would at least recognise our tendency to American-heavy systematic bias would be to add the dates this book covers. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm not sure that MfD is the correct venue for this. As I see it, all that is required here is a merge and redirect of one to the other, with no deletion required. PC78 (talk) 23:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The move requires a deletion. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said, this requires a merge and redirect, not a delete and move. Book:Vietnam War was created first, has the correct title, and has at least some content not present in the newer, incorrectly titled yet supposedly better Book:The Vietnam War. So oppose on that basis. PC78 (talk) 17:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * These two books can be easily switched around with one another (title names, that is) before we do away with the "inferior" version. Best, --Discographer (talk) 18:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, done that. These books can be switched back by the editors if not liked by this way - just undue my edits. Best, --Discographer (talk) 19:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No they can't, as cut-and-paste moves do not preserve edit history. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * To help expediate matters I've had a crack at merging the two books. The end result is still largely a cut & paste job (only with the additional links added), but my edit summaries clearly indicate that a merge has occured and link back to the merged book. Edit history is still intact at Book:The Vietnam War, so nothing is lost. AFAIK this is all good and proper, but someone please set me straight if that's incorrect. The only other thing to do would perhaps be a history merge, but I'm not sure. PC78 (talk) 01:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * History merge Book:Vietnam War and Book:The Vietnam War per the compromise reached above. Cunard (talk) 19:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  bibliomaniac 1  5  08:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Note to Closer: It looks like no further action is necessary, this is being handled as a standard merge, so no histmerge needs to be done. It is a little less than ideal that the history of the "Good Version" is going to be at the redirect and not at the article, but that doesn't seem like a big problem. We have satisfied all attribution requirements for merges. Gigs (talk) 20:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.