Talk:Bott–Samelson resolution

Merge

@TakuyaMurata: I note that you reverse the merge proposal close, which I closed on the basis of "no case made, no support over 2 years; case isn't obvious". Those templates were put up by you on the 11 July 2015‎, and you didn't present an argument on this (or the other) talk page; there has also been no support for the proposal since then. The merge was therefore stale as well as improperly proposed. One of your edit summaries states "no case for non-merger"; I disagree on the Stale merge proposals more than a year old with no discussion started. Having said that, there's no harm in starting a new merge proposal here. I'll amend the date so that this is a new proposal; can you please make a case here? Klbrain (talk) 21:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@Klbrain: (Please also see the edit summary in the other article). I didn't put a detailed proposal since it was clear that the two articles discuss the same topic (i.e., they describe the same construction.) Is there any reason why we should maintain the two separate articles on the same topic? I believe the details action is to merge the articles on the same topic into a single one unless there is a reason to do so otherwise. By "no case", I mean no reason for non-merger was presented. -- Taku (talk) 22:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I think you did everything right with regard to the close. These are specialist articles with few watchers, so that lack of activity was more likely due to "no awareness" than "no support". For the record, I support the merger--both articles cover essentially the same topic, as the resolution yields the variety. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 10:15, 28 July 2018 (UTC)