Talk:West Kimberley

Australia: Western Australia Low‑importance

	Australia portal West Kimberley is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Western Australia (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Western Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Protected areas Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Protected areas, a WikiProject related to national parks and other protected natural or ecological areas worldwide.Protected areasWikipedia:WikiProject Protected areasTemplate:WikiProject Protected areasProtected areas articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was created or improved during WikiProject Oceania's "10,000 Challenge", which started in November 2016 and is still continuing. You can help!

Article & talk page history merge?

I found this via the draft talk page having an importance rating, but no actual article. The history of it appears to be that User:Gnangarra moved a long and detailed, but in his opinion inaccurate article to draftspace in 2018 due to it having too many issues, then re-created a simple article which effectively remains here today. In 2019 User:JJMC89 redirected the draft page to back to the mainpage, with the cross-space redirect surviving all this time. Pinging User:Mitch Ames too who has also had a fair bit of input over the years. My question is: should the history from the draft page (original version of this page) be merged back into the history of this page? I think that as a minimum the talk page should be merged here. The-Pope (talk) 15:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest merge the article history, and merge the talk page contents - ie keep both, in the same namespace, for historical and archival reasons. (Having done that, we could archive the older talk page posts, via the normal process.) Merging article history and talk page contents keeps it simple to refer to later if necessary. Having old talk page contents in non-draft but old article contents in draft space will just lead to confusion.

If the consensus is to delete the draft and its history completely, then I recommend deleting the draft talk page and content completely as well. Keeping talk page content that refers to a deleted history won't help anybody, it will just cause confusion. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article was a dump of https://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/ahdb/search.pl?mode=place_detail;place_id=106063 which was imported through a government relicensing project without appropriate review or verification effectively despite it was a single source with significant issues. The area it related to had excluded mining areas and carried many inaccuracies over the Indigenous content. I contacted the person and asked them to address the problems, the response was they were working on something else at the time and would look at it. Rather than holding such a bad article as fact I put it in draft space(as it had just been created) to await it being fixed because it was the lesser of many choices which included deletion. That has never happened but it seams pointless to bring focus back an inaccurate article. Gnan garra 12:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]