Merge proposal: Reply
Okumaya devam et...
← Previous revision | Revision as of 16:00, 2 May 2024 |
| Line 31: | Line 31: |
: o you also oppose merging proforestation and afforestation into here? [[User:Chidgk1|Chidgk1]] ([[User talk:Chidgk1|talk]]) 09:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | :o you also oppose merging proforestation and afforestation into here? [[User:Chidgk1|Chidgk1]] ([[User talk:Chidgk1|talk]]) 09:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC) |
| :::An analogy might be [[economic development]] and [[sustainable development]]. While logically the latter is a variation of the former, they are sufficiently different to merit their own articles. As I read the lead, [[proforestation]] would seem to be synonymous with [[forest conservation]]; since the latter redirects to [[sustainable forest management]], I think it would be okay to merge those two articles. And, indeed, [[clearcutting]] remains an active (and still debated) forest management practice. Rather than having one huge article, I would suggest thinking about ways of making [[forest management]] a broad, meta-entry; while maintaining subtopics such as [[sustainable forest management]] as standalone articles. My two cents... [[UserASonnenfeld|DA Sonnenfeld]] ([[User talkASonnenfeld|talk]]) 12:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | :::An analogy might be [[economic development]] and [[sustainable development]]. While logically the latter is a variation of the former, they are sufficiently different to merit their own articles. As I read the lead, [[proforestation]] would seem to be synonymous with [[forest conservation]]; since the latter redirects to [[sustainable forest management]], I think it would be okay to merge those two articles. And, indeed, [[clearcutting]] remains an active (and still debated) forest management practice. Rather than having one huge article, I would suggest thinking about ways of making [[forest management]] a broad, meta-entry; while maintaining subtopics such as [[sustainable forest management]] as standalone articles. My two cents... [[UserASonnenfeld|DA Sonnenfeld]] ([[User talkASonnenfeld|talk]]) 12:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC) |
| ::::Hi DA Sonnenfeld, Would you be able to help with making [[forest management]] a broad, meta-entry? Can you adapt its current structure accordingly, perhaps by using excerpts like I did for the section on "sustainable forest management" within [[forest management]]? This would help bring clarity. [[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]] ([[User talk:EMsmile|talk]]) 16:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |
| :''' Comment''': it's true that if we merged [[sustainable forest management]] to here then it would take up about 80% of the space of this article. This could be a bit imbalanced. The question is though, how do we want to describe any other forest management types in the section on Types? Which other types are there exactly if "sustainable forest management" is just one type of many? We can't really say that [[clearcutting]], [[deforestation]] is a ''type of'' forest management, or is it? If we did identify other clear types and if they had sub-articles then we could also use excerpts from there, instead of a merger. [[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]] ([[User talk:EMsmile|talk]]) 15:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC) | :''' Comment''': it's true that if we merged [[sustainable forest management]] to here then it would take up about 80% of the space of this article. This could be a bit imbalanced. The question is though, how do we want to describe any other forest management types in the section on Types? Which other types are there exactly if "sustainable forest management" is just one type of many? We can't really say that [[clearcutting]], [[deforestation]] is a ''type of'' forest management, or is it? If we did identify other clear types and if they had sub-articles then we could also use excerpts from there, instead of a merger. [[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]] ([[User talk:EMsmile|talk]]) 15:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC) |
Okumaya devam et...