Talk:History of Pittsburgh: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>John Stephenson |
imported>Russell D. Jones (That's the right plan) |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
::::I'll have a go, but these pages are a real mess. I've just discovered that the articles actually started out at [[History of Pittsburgh (disambiguation)]], and then people have just copied-and-pasted everywhere. So whatever happens, we will lose some of the history lists. Perhaps it would actually be better to copy everything to [[History of Pittsburgh (disambiguation)]] and then rename that to [[History of Pittsburgh]], in order to preserve the upload by the original author (who wrote it on Wikipedia and imported it from there, apparently). [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] 21:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC) | ::::I'll have a go, but these pages are a real mess. I've just discovered that the articles actually started out at [[History of Pittsburgh (disambiguation)]], and then people have just copied-and-pasted everywhere. So whatever happens, we will lose some of the history lists. Perhaps it would actually be better to copy everything to [[History of Pittsburgh (disambiguation)]] and then rename that to [[History of Pittsburgh]], in order to preserve the upload by the original author (who wrote it on Wikipedia and imported it from there, apparently). [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] 21:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC) | ||
:::::That sounds like the right plan. [[User:Russell D. Jones|Russell D. Jones]] 12:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 07:49, 29 August 2013
Pittsburgh article(s)?
Is it necessary to have two articles on the history of Pittsburgh? Both are approved but could be merged into one. Also, there is no article on Pittsburgh itself as I write this - perhaps the history articles could be copied there and cut down into a shorter history section, with room for non-history sections. John Stephenson 19:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- This is essentially a WP import: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Pittsburgh&oldid=124941132 from 2007. There is some re-writing here, but not enough for my taste. Essentially what the CZ editors did back in 2007 was to approve a WP article. I'd prefer to see the approval status removed and the article re-combined with Pittsburgh, History since 1800 (also another approval of a WP article whose approval IMHO should be removed) to form History of Pittsburgh. You can see also in the edit history an edit war between Jensen and Sanger over the name of the article.
- The "discussion" to split the article is found here: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Talk:Pittsburgh,_History_since_1800/Draft
- Russell D. Jones 20:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- I agree. As you're a History Editor, and the previous Editor is no longer active, I think your view is enough to start this process. Unless anyone objects, I'll try to de-approve and merge them in the next few days. John Stephenson 21:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- As part of the process, the talk pages should be merged too so that we don't loose this history of decisions... Russell D. Jones 21:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'll have a go, but these pages are a real mess. I've just discovered that the articles actually started out at History of Pittsburgh (disambiguation), and then people have just copied-and-pasted everywhere. So whatever happens, we will lose some of the history lists. Perhaps it would actually be better to copy everything to History of Pittsburgh (disambiguation) and then rename that to History of Pittsburgh, in order to preserve the upload by the original author (who wrote it on Wikipedia and imported it from there, apparently). John Stephenson 21:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- That sounds like the right plan. Russell D. Jones 12:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)