User talk:Mangojuice/Administrators are not slaves

Mangojuice, why do you think "Merge" votes are requests for the closing admin to do the merge? I think probably they're just opinions that the articles should be merged by someone. The most I would expect from a closing admin would be to put mergeto and mergefrom tags on the articles. Cheers, Kla'quot 06:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me put it this way. Someone has to implement the merge if that's the way the debate turns out, right? If the closing admin doesn't do it, who will? Regular users are slaves even less than administrators! And, adding {{

mergeto}} and such doesn't really implement anything, and is in fact confusing, because those tags open new discussion on the article talk pages: if merge is the outcome of an AfD, it already has consensus and should be performed, and further discussion is unnecessary. I think a lot of people do mean that someone should take the time and effort to do the merge, but not them, and those people don't think about who will end up doing it... my point is, they should. :) Mangojuice^talk 05:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Yeah merge AFDs usually take the longest to close... everyone wants to suggest a merge but nobody wants to do it. Those AFDs just sit there for days and no one feels like doing them. Here's a great closure comment on one that just lingered around for 5 days after it was eligible to be closed, long after every other AFD from that page had been closed. One thing I'd add to this essay is something along the lines of, "If you really want an AFD you participated in to be closed as a merge, take the time to do a good merge, leaving just the AFD tag. Even if you get reverted, mention this in the AFD and the closer, if they decide to close as a merge, will be much faster in closing the AFD". --W.marsh 02:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, the essay says "If you must make a complicated request, do volunteer to do the work if your request is accepted. I think that's better advice, because it doesn't ask someone to do work that might not be accepted as the AfD outcome. The one disadvantage is that your way, people would actually have to think about whether their solution is feasible or not, and might change their minds. I would think they might reconsider their recommendation if they have to volunteer as well, but probably not as carefully. Mangojuice^talk 12:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and bring me a cup of coffee. Nice essay! Jehochman ^Talk 22:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually agree with the essay, although I often vote merge myself - my understanding of merge in AfD is that an AfD being closed in that direction makes it somewhat enforceable in case someone tries to edit-war the result, although it can be performed by any user. Orderinchaos 16:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I always interpreted "merge" as simply a "keep". Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 04:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but that's not what people always mean. Sometimes they mean that they want to keep all the material but present it at another page. Sometimes they mean that there should be a redirect and very minimal coverage at another page. Most of the time, though, it's not even clear what they mean. But certainly in most cases it doesn't mean "keep", as these people are generally conceding that the topic doesn't need its own page. Mangojuice^talk 13:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the bottom line though is that the history will remain. There are basically only two major outcomes: Delete (which encompasses delete and redirect) and keep (which encompasses merge, redirect, move, etc.) Personally, I think we should basically never delete unless it's an oversight type of issue, but that's a

political question. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I renamed the page to User talk:Mangojuice/Administrators are not slaves, a more accurate and descriptive title. I hope Mangojuice is not displeased.

I am mentioning this essay at Wikipedia talk:Non-deleting deletion discussions.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]