Talk:Photoshopping

Don't Merge Photoshopping

I don't think you guys should merge this article with photo editing, as this, I think, is a form of pop culture distinct from conventional editing. - Blakegripling_ph

Ideas

Just dumping some of my ideas here in case anyone wants to flesh them out.

history of photoshopping

Early examples. Examples before the internet.

prominent websites

only two or three of the best

external links

only sites which feature regular photoshop contest, and are not too narrow in variety (fictional example: automobilephotoshops.com)

There is already a entry for 'photoshop contests', and those links would be suitable there. This entry is for the process of photoshopping itself, and any major site that displays such images, contest or not, should be linked

Ways to Detect if a Picture has been Photoshopped

There currently arn't 100% sure ways to tell if a picture has been photoshoped or not, people can take a good look at the picture itself, and take a good zoom in and, if edge's that shouldn't be blurred, are blurred(Feathered) this could be a big ruiner of the photoshopers secret.

Non funny digital manipulation

things like ford? digitally removing a black person from a photograph of thier employees - can't remeber the details.

I don't know what you're talking about, but it wouldn't belong here. There should be a page on image manipulation (there's a red link to image editing on this page) that would include serious instances such as that and Stalin's removal of "non-person" former Party members from historical photos, perhaps with a mention of similar manipulation in Orwell's 1984. Putting those sorts of things on the same page as pictures of "great tits" makes light of serious historic, racial, and philosophical issues and would be a poor, inaccurate juxtaposition. --BDD 16:58, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

How to photoshop

I should note that the image given is awful...but I guess since it's suppose to serve as to seperate photoshopping from just humorous images, the stark constast makes a good example. Still. Crtrue

I've my original example back in as well. It was removed a while back by an anon user but I'm not sure why. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 07:34, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

less controversial sample images, please

I assume someone thought it was humorous to include 'a pair of great tits' as the primary example of photopped images.

It isn't? --Shaddack 18:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, there's something of a Wikipedia inside joke here. Look on the right hand side of the user page for prominent adminstrator Theresa Knott. -Joshuapaquin 04:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

What's the deal with the red cross (The flag of England?) on the chests of the photoshopped tits, anyway? Obli (Talk) 21:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Argentina handbags

I've just uploaded Image:Argentina_football_2002_handbag_mockup.jpg, for the England and Argentina football rivalry page. Worth adding here? I thought there might be a "photoshopped" category. Jooler 11:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

External Links

I'm not sure who cleaned up the external links but that person removed actual photoshopping sites. A couple of them were spam, but not all of the ones that were removed.

Part of discussion about illustrative examples:

This is cut from the discussion page of User: Alkivar :
When an article is so small, and with two perfectly good images in it already, two more images are really unnecessary.  ALKIVAR™ 22:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

You refer to simple guidelines that do not actually indicate a formal law of ratio as described in your "math example", and as I see it, my own suggested examples do contribute to an enhanced visualization of the possibilities in the use of modern techniques, and are not merely "two more images". Furthermore, I still would appreciate if you could say something about the denied right to publish the suggested pictures, as asked above. Articles can, obviously be constructively improved by adding and replacing both text and images subsequently, step by step. And when an artist is willing to contribute I think one should show some appreciation. Perhaps the image even could carefully be moved into nomination [[1]] instead of thrown out in a crude way. --Profero 02:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Are there any points to be added to the discussion? Please see the discussion page of User: Alkivar and the history of the Photoshopping article. --Profero 11:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, personally I'd like to see something better than the Tolstoy picture, it's not a very outstanding piece of work, and as a frequent photoshopper, I'd like to see something more advanced than a cutout of the same BW head placed over four bodies on a drawing. It's just not representative of how powerful the software is, if I'm not mistaken, that could have been done just as easily using MSpaint. -Obli (Talk)^? 18:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge to Digital image editing

The term photoshopping should be called what it is, a "misuse" that contributes to the dumbing-down of professional language. Anyone looking up that term should learn that digital photo manipulation is not limited to Adobe Photoshop. Having a separate page will only tempt those who misuse language to explain the technology of digital photo manipulation on this page instead of the page where it belongs. Oicumayberight 03:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Strongly Disagree. The article itself says that Adobe is not the only maker of "photoshopping" software. Digital "image" editing is also not entirely limited to photos, but photoshopping, or digital photo manipulation, usually involves photographs. If it should be made more clear that the term is "dumbed down," perhaps it should just be expanded in the article. Look at the title of this page. http://www.worth1000.com/default.asp It does not say Worth 1000 Digital image editing contests. Also, Wikipedia is the first hit in Google for the term out of about 800,000 results. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=photoshopping&btnG=Google+Search It would cause complete confusion to merge the well-established term to a lesser known term. Further more, Kleenex does not redirect to facial tissue. And finally, the Digital image editing article is technical and long. The Photoshopping information wouldn't fit the flow of the article.

Also, why does the link to Discuss lead to Digital image editing talk page yet the discussion was started here? --Hobbes747 19:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Fine. We'll just have to keep watching this page to make sure it remains mainly about the terminology without going into too much detail of the process. Oicumayberight 00:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Everything about the term, other than the fact that it's an inaccurate trademark infringement, is original research or redundant to a complete article on digital photo manipulation. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Strongly Agree. I believe this should be merged, because the term "Photoshopping" is a label for digital image manipulation. "Photoshop" is a noun, not a verb, and should not be used as such. You might as well call word processing "Wording", or driving "Chevying". "Kleenex" doesn't redirect to "Facial tissue" because Kleenex is a brand name, which the article talks about. By your logic, "Photoshopping" should redirect to Adobe Photoshop. Semantics aside, this article simply talks about image manipulation under a different name. If nothing else, all the uses of the terms "photoshopping" and "photoshopped" should be changed to something like "manipulated". Bottom line: "Photoshop" asn't a verb. Stop treating it like one.--bicostp 18:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Merged/redirected to Photoshop, as Photoshopping just means "to use photoshop" -- photoshopping not just generic image editing, that's "image editing". 216.165.158.7 02:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Please strive for some consensus before arbitrarily removing an article. You can take a poll, or nominate the article for deletion, or just talk about it here first.

Note that "photoshopping" is a term that has been widely used in reliable sources: [2]] - Dicklyon 06:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Doesn;'t help your case, as those sources use it to mean "use Adobe Photoshop" and NOT "whiney leet dudes makefunny peektures". Hence the redirect. 216.165.158.7 06:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, from the conversation here it looks like there's a consensus to redirect this to either Photoshop or to image editing or an article of that nature. The number of people calling for a redirect here outnumber those who claim it should stay, not to mention keeping it here as a separate article violates several Wikipedia policies, including Wikipedia:Fork files, WP:Neologisms and so forth. That means a redirect is clearly in order. 216.165.158.7 06:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

This really should be redirected, or made a small subsection in Image Manipulation, because that's all "Photoshopping" really is. This is merely a duplicate article.--bicostp 13:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be useful to have your opinion in the current poll below, not just in this old merge discussion. Dicklyon 14:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Repeated blanking withokut consensus is vandalism

An anonymous editor keeps converting the page to a redirect, blanking the content. If this is what is needed, we should decide that here, or at least get a poll of editors to see what the arguments are. In my opinion, the large number of BOOKS that use the term photoshopping as a generic verb provide plenty of verifiable sources that this a true common neologism, not a fleeting little-used neologism. The policy on neologisms says not unless there are sufficient verifiable and reliable sources, or something to that effect. We're there. Dicklyon 05:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not "blanking," it's a redirect to more appropriate existing content. The BOOKS that use the term Photoshopping do so in reference to using Adobe Photoshop, which already has an article we need to redirect to in that case. Furthermore, as already directed on your talk page, you need to read the actual Wikipedia:Vandalism policy before you throw out aggressive accusations. Specifically check Wikipedia:Vandalism#What vandalism is not. these edits are made to improve Wikipedia quality and therefore clearly do not fall under vandalism, your attempts at intimidation not withstanding. 216.165.158.7 06:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Since the article is not about Adobe Photoshop, you are blanking the content when you redirect there. If you feel the article title is inappropriate, then proposing an alternative title might be more constructive. Quite a few of the BOOKS (did you follow the link?) use the term photoshopping generically, referring to the action of modifying photos, not referring to using the particular program from which the word is derived. Dicklyon 06:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Dicklyon, "photoshopping" is used as a generic term. In addition, the article specifically mentions that the term is used generically, and that some people have modified it as "photochopping" to emphasize that. Regardless, this ("Photoshopping") is probably the best title for this article, at least in my opinion: it is the most widespread, partly as a result of Adobe's dominance. It would be NPOV to use it, whereas other titles would reflect an attitude against corporate monopoly, regardless of its effective existence. Nihiltres 14:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

No, the term IS about Photoshop, and claims that the article isn't about Photoshop only goes to prove how screwed up and unencyclopedic the current article is. The book links speiafically refer to the use of Photoshop to edit photos and not the content of this article. Claims from a couple of editors tossing around terms like "blanking," "vandalism," and "NPOV" when it's clear they have not read and understood those policies are just silly. DreamGuy 11:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge/redirect/move/keep poll

Please indicate your preference(s) on what to do with this article. The repeated anonymous redirect to Adobe Photoshop seems to be outside the space of sensible possibilities, but all the others have some possible logic to them, so let's at least see where we stand. Dicklyon 04:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Dude, that's just nonsense... It is 100% sensible to direct the term to the one that spawned it. Your opijnion on what is logical or not is clearly at odds with reality. DreamGuy 11:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep, or possibly merge to photo editing if we can say there that photoshopping is a modern term for photo editing, derived by ripping off Adobe's trademark. Dicklyon 04:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep, the article seems to be appropriate. A merge to an article on photo editing, while perhaps a good idea, seems inappropriate to me because the articles to which this would be merged are about topics only tangentially related: detailed technical methods of such editing are discussed in digital image editing, and non-computerized editing in photo editing. This article is largely concerned with social activity regarding photoshopping and the terms involved. A rename is, perhaps, in order if someone can find a term better than the memetically-popularized "Photoshopping". Nihiltres 15:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutral: I've expressed most of my reasons above. This article is high maintenance. There isn't much to say about the term except that it's slang. There is no "photoshopping" technique that isn't better described by a more formal and professional term or article. Yet people are tempted to write about techniques on this article as if there are such techniques that can only be described by the slang term. That's misleading to those who don't know better, competes with professional language, and dumbs down the related professions. I'd be fine with seeing it merged with photo editing. But I don't dispute that there may be enough to say about cultural usage of the slang term to warrant it's own article. I'm experiencing worse scrutiny and disruption over an article that isn't slang, so I empathize with the advocates of keeping this article. I only ask that the advocates to keep also help to keep the technique speak out of the article. Oicumayberight 18:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge, "Photoshopping" is merely a slang name for digital image manipulation. I believe it should be a subsection of Photo editing, not in its own duplicate article.--bicostp 17:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep or Merge to digital image editing. Possible trademark violation, even as a redirect (except the incorrect redirect to Photoshop), but that's a matter for the Foundation. I would have suggested a merge to digital image editing, but that seems to be a more technical article, and a non-technical article on the subject seems appropriate for a slang term. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete/redirect to more appropriate term (voting as such instead of merge as for some insane reason people invoting votes on such things like to try to pretend that merge votes were votes for keeping as is, and if this is deleted certainly anything that might be worth saving could be salvaged... probably put on Photoshop contests for what this article currently has, which is different from standard use of the term) redirect either to Adobe Photoshop or photo editing or image editing or one of the other many similar articles. "Photoshopping" is used in the graphics design world to simply mean edit using Adobe Photoshop. Photoshop is also a trademark. A few kewl kiddies misusing the term for a specific kind of entertainment editing is strictly a nonnotable neologism. And the last thing we need are a bunch of wannabe hip kids making up articles about themselves and insisting the rest of the world treat them as special. DreamGuy 11:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

When I reverted the anon (which was probably you, right?), I reverted that person because he had used a merge vote as an excuse to redirect the article immediately, before it was merged anywhere. That's different from pretending that merge votes are keep votes. See the history of "Photoshop tennis" - while my initial edit summary for the revert is certainly wrong (accidentally overwrote part of my statement while using laptop, pressed enter blindly and soon noticed it, was horrified at what looked evil), I immediately clarified my summary with another in a null edit. Be civil, DreamGuy/216.165.158.7. Nihiltres 14:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge or Keep: I really wish I could come up with a better name for this article, but until someone comes up with that name I would suggest merging with photo editing. As mentioned previously, the title photo editing might seem to be targeted at non-computerized photo editing, but I think with a little luck the two could be merged successfully. Personally, I wouldn't mind having this article be kept, but I think a merge may sooth tensions a bit. Metavida 00:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Redirecting

There may be consensus that the article should be merged somewhere, but that does not mean it can be arbitrarily redirected without merging. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The info in the article is still available in the history so anyone can merge any salavageable text at any time. Most of what's here belongs on Photoshop contest if anywhere, as people with that small subset of the overall topic in mind took over the article. Just because you opposed the consensus and don't want to do the merge yourself (hey, if you thought it was worth keeing then you should think it's worth moving to an article that stays, but your not doing so indicates that it's really not worth keeping in the first place) mean you can stand in the way of the clear consensus. 216.165.158.7 17:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Article has been merged and redirected

Content of this article was more in line with Photoshop contest than any encyclopedic article on Photoshopping in it's full or even slang use, so the text from this article was merged there. It may not read smoothly there, and may have more photos than necessary, but I put a cleanup tag there and certainly the minority of people who wanted this page to be able such contests can go there and clean it up to their liking.

I redirected this term to photo manipulation article, as it was more in line with what the term meant (though technically Adobe Photoshop would have made more sense, but we have to go with consensus I guess). It appears someone else just moved photo manipulation elsewhere, so that may have to get cleaned up later.

But, bottomline here is that the Photoshopping article no longer exists, as it was clear from discussion that it never should have in the first place but that a few editors with misplaced motives ignored for a long time and edit warred across several articles over. Kind of sucks that even an admin or two was involved, but then I guess even admins can make mistakes and work in bad faith. 216.165.158.7 18:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

You've made quite a mess of it now, merging one place, redirecting to another, and not representing the main point of the content, which is that "photoshopping" is a popular term for a style of photo editing. I suggest we unwind, come to a consensus, and try again to do a good job of it. Or leave it. Dicklyon 19:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

No, no, no... It;s NOT a mess... The term was redirected to the content that best fit the term, and the content was moved to the article that the content best fit on, as you yourself admitted on my talk page that it belonged on Photoshop contest. We have a consensus and we did a good a job of it. Furthermore the so-called "main point" IS WRONG and against consensus, so stop trying to force your WP:Neologism into an article somewhere. 216.165.158.7 05:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

And speaking of bad faith, it's strange to hear that from one who causes so much trouble and warring all over, and gets banned for incivilities and such. Let's leave that stuff out and talk about the content. Dicklyon 19:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I got banned for being a sockpuppet of another person that I am clearly not a sockpuppet of, and the rogue admin decided to keep me banned instead of admit he made a mistake. Furthermore, it's bad faith to try to use such things to disregard edits made in good faith. You are just trying to bully your way into getting what you want, but you already lost consensus, so you're not going to get it anyway.

And speaking of bad faith, you claimed you did not oppose redirecting to photo editing yet you blind reverted the change for no reason and left it that way even after the merge was complete AND you insisted upon trying to do more of a merge. Therefore your only so-called justification for the revert no longer holds true. If you want to demonstrate good faith instead of proving bad faith you should have undid your revert so that the article was redirected, per the consensus. IF we dispute where it goes that can always changed later, but at this point all you are doing is ignoring consensus and doing what you wanted to do in the first place with a shoddy excuse. 216.165.158.7 05:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge, OK. Where?

As far as the poll is going, I am seeing a general consensus that this article, and perhaps some related articles, should be merged into one longer and hopefully more encyclopedic article. The real question is: to where should we move this content? In my humble opinion, the article clearly deals with what photoshopping has been called, and how it happens in a social context, especially given the "competitive photoshopping" section I merged in earlier. Photoshopping is in and of itself digital manipulation of pixels, whether or not those pixels originally came from a camera or were created from scratch. It is, however, usually based off of images originally taken from some sort of camera, so the "photo manipulation" moniker may be appropriate, if merged well as a subsection of the idea of the culture involved. I'm not - by any means - sure about this, so please, if you have a good suggestion about where this article should be merged, announce it here, and present good reasons for your suggestion. Let's figure out where this content should go, rationally and through consensus - our ultimate goal here is to improve the encyclopedia. A single article dealing with the subject is most likely to be able to cover the subject well, and perhaps if we can agree on something, we can eventually push it to GA or even FA. Ideas? Nihiltres 21:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

This is wanting a discussion over something already solved, at least until Dickylon decided he was going to blind revert everything and then wholesale copy and paste inappropriate information to an article it clearly does not belong on. At this point you're just being difficult for the sake of being difficult. 216.165.158.7 05:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I have put a "photoshopping" section into photo editing, so it would now be OK by me to redirect there. Mr.7 has redirected there indirectly, redirecting off photo manipulation, but had dropped the relevant content. The stuff about photoshop tennis and contests has been put into the photoshop contest article. So I think it's now pretty much captured and merged, but please check. Dicklyon 21:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

You absolutely CANNOT put the silly ridiculous "Photoshopping" nonsense on the photo manipulation page. All of that information is already on Photoshop contest and so it doesn't need to waste space in an article on a more general topic. That article already does (or did, with all the edits flying aaround I can't guarantee it's still there) link to Photoshop contest so there's no reason to duplicate it again. Furthermore you absolutely CANNOT continue to try to push "Photoshopping" as some official term that means "Photoshop contests by little loser kids just playing around" because it means "use Adobe Photoshop," hence the word. For the love of god, stop your POV-pushing of this ridiculous neologism, follow Wikipedia policies, and accept that the Photoshop contest is exactly the article where all that information belongs. 216.165.158.7 05:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I thought we were getting close to a consensus, but apparently I was wrong. Dicklyon 06:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

216.165.158.7, I don't mean to push a POV (WP:AGF). I base my opinion on that the information in Photoshop contest seems too specific, especially if we don't have an article on photoshopping with which to begin. In addition, photoshopping has been noted as something not specific to "little loser kids just playing around [with Photoshop]." As such, I'd say that the photo manipulation page seems very conducive to this. By the way, if Photoshopping (Photoshop contest, oops Nihiltres 17:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)) is just "little loser kids just playing around", why shouldn't we speedily delete it?. As for "wasting space", I'd note that Wikipedia is not paper. I suggest that both Photoshopping and Photoshop contest be merged into Photo manipulation, as a subsection dealing with the culture of digital photo manipulation. If we have fewer articles on these topics to deal with, I think that we can get them to higher quality. Thoughts, everyone? Nihiltres 15:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to see the photo editing article accumulate too much distraction from the sidelines like the contests. But it should acknowledge that photoshopping is a common neologism for photo editing, and should have a redirect from there if we're not going to have an article on the word itself, which does seem like overkill. Dicklyon 17:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Another poll

Mr.7 thinks we need to flush the neologism "photoshopping". My impression based on searching books and things was that it has become a pretty well established term; and my impression was that others here agreed. So we have a different perception of what the consensus is/was on this. So, how about another poll? Flush it, or keep the term photoshopping in some article about photo editing?

• Keep – seems to me that photoshopping is a perfectly well supported neologism, deserving of mention. Dicklyon 06:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral - I am sure there are places where photoshopping is used for any kind of image editing. It may be jargon within one particular company in Rotterdam or so. However, it is very difficult to ascertain how widespread it is. With the currently available data, I have no opinion. Mlewan 08:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep – We already have at least one source, so I don't see why noting it as a neologism in wide use is a problem. Nihiltres 15:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• The main proponent of the flush option seems to have been blocked again, for a month this time. Anyone else want to represent that point of view here? Dicklyon 17:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • OK. Frankly, is there any reason for keeping the word? Will anyone look for it? Will anyone feel enlightened, if we keep it? Even if it is used in some pockets around the world, anyone who encounters it will realise that it has something to do with Photoshop, and that's all there is to it. If anything else should be added, it should be done at wiktionary. (That was said to give arguments against keeping it. Personally I maintain that I am neutral, and that the question is of no importance.) Mlewan 17:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, lacking any real opposition, I'll assume the current treatment of photoshopping is OK. So we can now redirect photoshopping to photo editing, right? If someone objects, claiming a consensus that nobody is willing to support here as far as I can tell, or removes the photoshopping section from the photo editing article, we can always go back. Dicklyon 06:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Good work Dicklyon, I think the combo photo editing/photoshop contest merge was ultimately the best solution. Metavida 11:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the support. It was a bit of a struggle, and when 7 is unblocked it may be again. Dicklyon 15:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Restore article, definitely. Nearly 900,000 google hits say that we should probably have some response for 'photoshopping'; possibly, we should even consider making this back into an article. I contest that there was actually consensus to merge; when you look over the talk page, there really doesn't even seem to have been a consensus to merge. The general sense I get, looking at it, is that there was one vocal editor who wanted to do away with the article, with about 50-50 lukewarm support of it otherwise. That's not consensus, and it's certainly not enough consensus to keep this as a protected redirect. Unprotect, too... I'll probably put in a request for that soon if someone doesn't. This is a content dispute with no clear consensus; protection is entirely inappropriate. --Aquillion 07:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is that what Dicylon claims is the definition of "Photoshopping" isn't, and the sources he has to support his side do not meet WP:RS guidelines and are majorly contradicted by multiple high quality sites that do meet the reliability guidelines. There's no point in making this be a whole article when the meaning is either "edit using Adobe Photoshop" or a nonstandard WP:NEOLOGISM that it just means photo editing in general (which alreay has an article), and NOT "kids playing around with photos separate from the normal definition of photo editing" like Dickylon wants. We have policies here we have to follow, so we're going to follow them. DreamGuy 00:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Both of you, we long since settled this as a merge into a Photo editing section and redirect there; there is no open poll to which "restore" is an option, and if one is started I will oppose it. But for the record, I never suggested any belief in any definition of photoshopping. It's about the usage, not the definition. In the merged article section, I found and added references (books and magazines, not web junk) to support the assertions of the article. I was never in favor of keeping the article that was here in its bloated state, but there was a bit worth saving, so we did that. And I don't think the dispute should be about "meaning", since we don't talk about meaning; again, it's about usage. For the record, the "Mr.7" above is shorthand for DreamGuy's non-logged-in IP address. Dicklyon 01:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you point me to where it was settled? I looked over the page carefully; the one straw poll that was held was generally ambivalent, but reading it I fail to see even a simple majority favoring a merge over a keep. --Aquillion 02:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

True, it was more of a compromise than a majority, based on the older responses and the objections and my own willingness to change a keep to a merge. But I did ask if anyone objected, and only got an attaboy for it. Dicklyon 02:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)