This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 06:19, November 12, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Support. This merger proposal follows from discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Motosakura Castle (not yet concluded). Yes they should be merged, with redirection from the alternative name. The older article is Motosakura Castle, created 13:22, 20 May 2017 by User:Deathlibrarian, while Moto Sakura Castle was created by User:柴錬アワー at 00:27, 12 August 2019. We can assume that the 2019 creation was in good faith, that the creator was just not aware of the previous existence of the other. The older article is the one that should be the merger target, i.e. should survive as Wikipedia's mainspace article, preserving its longer edit history with the article. That way the original creator is more properly/prominently credited. The second article's edit history would/should also be preserved, at what becomes a redirect. There is a recommended way to give credit, in an edit summary at the merger target, towards the contributors of the merged-out-of-existence article, although I can't find that guidance at wp:MERGE or anywhere else right now. The edit summary would be something like "merge material from Moto Sakura Castle; credit is due to contributors there". Indications of credit can also be given implicitly by merger discussions like this, which will remain at one or the other's Talk page, and/or by some note referencing the merger at the other one's Talk page. Talk pages are less likely to be seen by and cited by users/reusers of the Wikipedia content however, so it is good for the direct edit history of the surviving article to contain some mention of the contributors at the other version. Hope this helps and is not too much to be trying to explain. --Doncram (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SupportYes makes sense, older article (the one I created) was there 2 years before the second article, so makes sense the newer one should be deleted and merged, and the older edit history preserved. At the moment the original older article is deleted and the newer one is the one that is re-directed to. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
