Talk:Subjection of women

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was nothing. This is not a WP:RM, but a WP:MM. —Nightst a llion (?) 08:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two articles on the same essay. I believe Subjection of women is a more in-depth analysis of the essay than The Subjection of Women but I haven't read the essay in question, so I can't be totally sure. The Subjection of Women is the correct title of the essay, so the merged article should be under that. Kerowyn 01:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-directed the other article to this one, and added a couple of elements that were in that article to this one. --Apeloverage 18:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your redirect was reverted. Please check the discussion below. Thatcher131 02:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and rename request (Move)[edit]

While I agree a merge is more appropriate than a simple redirect, there is very little content in the The Subjection of Women that isn't also in Subjection of women. To merge the articles by cutting and pasting the whole of the more in-depth Subjection of women into The Subjection of Women would destroy the edit history of both articles. I posted the article to Wikipedia:Requested moves for comment and advice. My intent is to create an article named The Subjection of Women that would contain the merged content of both articles while preserving the edit histories. A redirect would be left at Subjection of women. Please leave your comments below. Thatcher131 02:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Support. ~~I understand your desire to tidy up the articles as they currently stand, but to me~~ "Subjection of women" is a broad topic in which Mill's essay is a single, if significant, element. I would support ~~creating~~ moving the current article to "The Subjection of Women" ~~about Mill's essay,~~ and linking it to ~~the~~ a more general ("Subjection of women") article ~~and then encouraging editors to expand both (but especially the latter)~~. To use the 'Wikispeak' I've found, I suppose I am more 'eventualist' than 'immediatist'. Best wishes, David Kernow 15:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fine, and it would be easy to do a copy and paste, then leave "Subjection of women" blank for a future editor to write an article. However I am unsure if that is permissable or if it will destroy the edit history of the articles? If "The Subjection of Women" was deleted, then "Subjection of women" moved to the other name, that would preserve the edit history and talk pages, then "Subjection of women" could be recreated. I agree with your outcome but I am unsure how to properly do it. Thatcher131 15:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I forgot whilst entering the above that nothing would be left for (the beginnings of) a "Subjection of women" article (sorry!) so I have amended my vote. So long as we have sufficient votes in support of the move – incidentally, I discovered that you can (should) vote in support of your own proposal – then an admin (most likely User:Nightstallion) will make the move a few days hence. In the meantime, I searched Wikipedia for "Oppression of women" and was redirect to Sexism. Maybe that is where a mention and link to a newly-renamed "The Subjection of Women" article should sit ...? Regards, David Kernow 15:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to start with, the article on Mills' essay should have a see also link to Sexism. Instead of a redirect, the page "Subjection of women" could have disambig links to sexism and the Mills essay. That would leave the page in place in case someone later wanted to write it up. Thatcher131 16:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Accurate title rendition of Mill's essay; merge histories. If sufficient content about the topic independent of the essay materialises (which isn't the current state), the redirect can be started as an article anew. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 11:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.