This is an old revision of this page, as edited by R. S. Shaw (talk | contribs) at 20:59, 9 June 2006 (→Merge with Red alga: merged). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 20:59, 9 June 2006 by R. S. Shaw (talk | contribs) (→Merge with Red alga: merged)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Merge with Red alga
Rather than use the "move" tab at the top of the article, a month or two ago someone copied the text of Red alga and pasted it into Red algae. Since then various edits have been done to both of these now-separate articles. They need to be merged back together (finding and moving the changes of one into the other, then redirecting one).
Which title should survive seems a bit contentious. My vote would be for the "algae" form because it is the commonly used name. I think that overrides the fact that it is plural rather than singular. -R. S. Shaw 03:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for making sense of this. I agree that a move to Red algae would be in order (there is currently a redirect from Red Algae to Red alga), so Red algae would be the article and Red alga the redirect. As to the use of the plural form, I'm not a biologist, but as an editor, the plural form makes more sense since most of the statements in the article are about algae in the aggregate. Sunray 18:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Since your proposal has been there for a week and all those who have commented agree, we might as well proceed. Do you want to do the honors? Sunray 06:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- Or I can do it if you like. Sunray 20:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- I've done it. Not much change, actually. I noticed the current article doesn't mention the singular form, alga. Maybe it should. -R. S. Shaw 20:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)