Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log/July 2008

 __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 No consensus..  MBisanz  talk 20:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed mergers/Log/July 2008


These logs don't do anything that the categories already do, and they contain a large number of completed merges and deleted pages. There is no evidence of updates since August. There is a long list of additional pages to delete for the same reason. D O N D E groovily  Talk to me  04:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: Can you tell me how to use the category system to provide this functionality? It is worth recording that deleted pages were discussed in this process. Also, we don't delete pages just because they're out of date. Graham 87 12:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So we can mark these as historical instead? And what functionality? D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  13:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Completed merges and discussions about deleted pages aren't logged anywhere else, and there's no good reason to delete the logs that have been generated. Marking the pages "historical" would be fine with me. I'm fine for the process of logging these things to be discontinued, but once again, I don't see the point of deleting the logs that we already have.Graham 87  04:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The completed tags are noted on the individual talk pages using the merged-to and merged-from tags. And this merely logs that there was a suggestion, it doesn't indicate if there was discussion or what it concluded, nor does it preserve discussions on deleted pages. I don't see a reason to have a single running log of completed merges. D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  04:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep: While these are redundant to Category:All_articles_to_be_merged, the logs would help an editor that wants to work on closing merges chronologically from the oldest to newest requests. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 16:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * They hinder someone trying to do that, as we already have monthly categories. This forces us to look in two places instead of one. And the completed merges, reject ones, and deleted pages contained here make it even worse. D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  23:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, there are monthly sub-categories in Category:Articles to be merged which are a better place from which to work chronologically. These lists also include rejected merges. – Fayenatic L (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I added Proposed mergers/Log to the list, I neglected to include it the first time. D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  03:56, 10 March 2012 (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.