Talk:Tullock's spike

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics 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.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles

Transport

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Transport 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.TransportWikipedia:WikiProject TransportTemplate:WikiProject TransportTransport articles

Automobiles

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles 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.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles

This article was nominated for merging with Gordon Tullock on 1 April 2017. The result of the discussion was Merge.

RfC on merger

Consensus for merge. The articles are already merged, and the redirect is already in place.

Both articles are sort, with Tullock's spike being particularly short and unlikely to see major expansion. Consensus is that Gordon Tullock is a sufficiently related broader topic under WP:MERGEREASON. Readers of Tullock's biography will be well served by finding the spike section within that article. Readers looking for the spike article will be well served by the redirect and the option to read the surrounding biography, especially given how little information they would find in an isolated spike article.

If the spike section ever grows uncomfortably large to fully include within the biography, or if the biography becomes uncomfortably large and needs trimming, the spike topic could very well be split off to its own page.

P.S. I caution both Dennis Bratland and Amisom about Editwarring. Take special note of Three Revert Rule policy! You both pushed right up against the limit of the three revert rule on the two pages, and you were both on the verge of discretionary administrative blocks. An admin should not have needed to intervene to edit-protect the page.[1] Bold initial edits are encouraged, and reverts of bold edits are fine. However once you start reverting-reverts then you both know that you are making disputed edits that are likely to face further reverts. Once you start reverting reverts then you both know there is a dispute that needs to be resolved. Disputes belong on the Talk page. Alsee (talk) 10:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should this page continue as a stand-alone article or merged into Gordon Tullock? Amisom (talk) 13:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retain stand-alone article None of the WP:MERGEREASONs apply. Tullock's Spike is a discrete topic from that of Gordon Tullock, its creator, and WP:MERGEREASON explicitly says that we should not merge. The current article meets the notabbility standard. Dennis Bratland (talk · contribs) seems to think that he OWNs the article and has the right to merge it without discussion and without following the proper procedure. But he doesn't. Amisom (talk) 13:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge — The section on the spike topic at Gordon Tullock#Tullock's spike is two sentences. Two sentences an article does not make. By all means, expand the spike section of Gordon Tullock with all the citable content that exists. Does such content exist, by the way? If someone were to find it and show it to us, that would be helpful. Maybe the spike section will grow so large that spawning a sub-topic would be obvious, and uncontroversial. Nobody will fault any editor who expands Gordon Tullock with good content. Nobody will fault an editor for spawning a new article when the spike section has grown to prodigious size. Why not take the path of least resistance? Rather than try force through a proposal to keep a two sentence article that merely defines a term Tullock is known for having once made a quip about? Even if an expanded spike section of the Tullock bio article doesn't grow large enough to merit a new article, the effort spent expanding it is a worthwhile addition to the encyclopedia. Win-win. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:13, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- It can always be un-merged later if needed. -- The Anome (talk) 17:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What does 'if needed' mean? It meets the GNG. What more do you want? Amisom (talk) 20:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. This is a very short article and there is no likelihood of it getting any larger. The overall presentation of the article is clearer for readers with them merged. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:45, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But WP:MERGEREASON says that this is a reason not to merge: The topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, even though they might be short. What do you say to that? Amisom (talk) 20:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Mostly I wonder why you haven't been blocked for edit warring yet. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  [2] [3] [4] [5] Amisom (talk) 21:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge --Seems like it is a minor mention. If the section is greatly expanded, then maybe an article should be created.--ZiaLater (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: "If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic." - WP:MERGEREASON; and "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." - Wikipedia:Notability. --RexxS (talk) 22:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
merge per WP:MERGEREASON - text. After all, if expanded sufficiently it can be unmerged any time. --Kostas20142 (talk) 07:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.