Talk:Signatories of the European Constitution

message: First and foremost, this article is a duplicate of the pre-existing article Signatories to the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe. Unfortunately the creator of this page didn't check to see if it already existed, and so a duplicate was created. The proper thing to do in such a situation is to make sure there is no additional information in the duplicate article that could be incorporated, then redirect. This page has rather less information than the pre-existing article. There is no introductory paragraph to give it a bit of context. This page is also badly formatted with an ugly table, links that don't point to the right place etc, etc. The original page has quite a lot more information, and I believe it's also more accurate. For example, this page says that Croatia signed as an observer. Are we looking at different treaties here because I don't see any Croatian signatures on the Final Act? If, as you said in your edit summary, there are inaccuracies in the original article, I'd appreciate it if you'd point them out instead of insisting on having two rival articles. Also, why does this page have a whole string of interwiki links to European Union categories in other language Wikipedias? I can't imagine what they are doing here. I could go on about why this article needs cleaning up, but I don't need to because a proper version already exists, and it existed at the time this page was created. It's a simple case of redirecting a duplicate article. — Trilobite (Talk) 21:30, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see you have now made three reverts, the last one after choosing to ignore the note I left above to explain my actions. I've changed it back to the redirect again. If you don't like it and revert again I may well report you, because I'm afraid you are just in the wrong on this. We cannot have two articles on the exact same subject. There was never any need for this petty edit war. Nothing was aimed personally at you - it was a simple cleanup exercise on my part. Now please give up. — Trilobite (Talk) 04:55, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't agree with your analysis.  This isn't even my article.  So I have no idea why you think this is a personal issue.  You are the one that is not following Wikipedia procedure for handling a dispute and I have never said that we should have two separate articles on the same subject.  Parmaestro 07:16, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been following Wikipedia procedure, by trying to engage you in discussion on the talk page. And I don't think it's a personal issue either, which is precisely why I said it wasn't. However, your insistence on reverting my entirely justified redirect made it seem like you considered this to be 'your' article. Anyway, I'm glad you saw sense and reverted your own fourth revert. As for the table I am not "dead set" against it, but I do think it would be a bad idea. This kind of information lends itself to a list format - we don't have a set of data where we need to express a tabular relationship. I dislike covering Wikipedia with elaborate and distracting tables when a straightforward list will suffice. Look for example at the American equivalent, which functions perfectly well as a list (although an HTML table has been employed to produce two columns). Are you going to change that into a table as well? And all the other lists on Wikipedia? This argument is a waste of time. I came across a duplicate article and redirected it, and totally unexpectedly found myself in a revert war. — Trilobite (Talk) 12:16, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

text:  It's simply not true that you tried to engage me in a discussion on the talk page.  You only made comments on the talk page after you made 2 or 3 reverts.  You should have done that earlier.  I actually got the impression that you considered the other one your article from the way you were behaving.  It's perfectly suitable for a table because there are mutliple columns.  I agree with you that it is not necessary for the American constitution list.  I said from the get go that I was not opposed to having one article.  You prefered just doing what you want rather than being open to any other possibilities.  Parmaestro 13:25, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Why this should be a redirect