Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/David King Dunaway


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

The result was: merge and delete. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

David King Dunaway
This page is not quotes by David King Dunaway, but quotes by Pete Seeger from a book by Dunaway. I suggest moving the quotes to Seeger and deleting this page. Tyrenius 21:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Vote closed. Result: merge and delete (7 merges, 5 w/ deletes after, plus a suggestion to avoid delete from Tyrenius; no dissent). I will do any cleanup work necessary. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete and merge with Pete Seeger. 121a0012 04:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to Pete Seeger Koweja 04:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and delete per Tyrenius. Let's not forget to copy the edit history of this article on Talk:Pete Seeger to satisfy GFDL. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * GFDL solutions: 1) Do you mean copy and paste text of edit history? Will suffice I presume, but not ideal as diffs won't be accessible to show each contribution individually 2) history merge (I steer clear of such things) 3) keep David King Dunaway as a redirect and make this clear (with links) in edit summary. The last is easiest and fully fulfils GFDL. Maybe even better and less confusing if Dunaway page has a soft redirect on it. Tyrenius 12:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I just reviewed WP:MM and discovered to my confusion that there is no discussion of copying edit histories there. There is definitely a rationale, based on the needs of Transwiki, that demands edit-history copy-and-paste when original pages are ultimately deleted (the usual fate of transwiki sources), which would implicitly apply to (intraproject) merges with deleted original pages. But the current policy there only allows for redirects, without any apparent awareness of how badly redirects might violate the principle of least astonishment. (If you go to a person article, you expect to see quotes from or about the person, not quotes from someone they wrote a book about that include none of their own material.) I fear there is a lot of GFDL violation going on simply because no one is looking at what happens when all theses messes get deleted over time. As far as specific contributions, from what I recall of transwiki discussions on Meta, access to diffs to show individual edits is a extra benefit of MediaWiki that isn't required by GFDL, anymore than listing authors for other copyrighted works also requires that each author be able to cite every word, punctuation mark, and formatting element they contributed. But I admit I'm operating on information I learned at least 1-2 years ago. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Check out WP:CPMV. You can merge entire histories (if you're cleverer than me). How's about keeping the original page and putting a statement on it about the book and where the quotes are with a link? That would solve all the problems very easily. Tyrenius 19:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and delete, concur with Tyrenius. ~ UDScott 14:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and delete. In the future, when you're suggesting a merge right in the nomination, it probably isn't necessary to list the page for VFD (you can perform the merge yourself, or use the mergeto and mergefrom templates. —LrdChaos (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought at that time the best solution was to delete the original page, because it's not a very good redirect and it would end up with nothing on it. The discussion has thrown a few things up for consideration... Tyrenius 19:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge, delete. - InvisibleSun 05:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and delete. Cbrown1023 18:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and delete.--Jusjih 16:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Struck vote after close date, without prejudice as no sysop had closed vote by then. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:07, 30 January 2007 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.