Batreeq
1
What is the difference between the two, and if insignificant, should we consider getting rid of NFD|Dup?
To my understanding, a Q&D merge (sometimes just referred to as a straight redirect) is done when the topic is definitely interchangeable and there’s no question about it, while NFD|dup is saved for when it’s a tad bit more iffy or there’s potential for the topic to be edited to no longer be interchangeable. At least, that’s what I tend to stick with
Batreeq
3
I’ve done a little bit of digging and found this: https://forums.wikihow.com/discussion/1542/the-difference-between-merging-and-nfd-dup#latest
Compared to six years ago, the merging process has changed to include quick and dirty merges. I believe NFD|Dup should be scrapped since pretty much all boosters understand what makes titles duplicates. If someone doesn’t exactly know if it’s a duplicate, then they usually just leave it in the Merge category until it’s reviewed by another person, or ask someone with skillful knowledge of the Merge Policy.
Anna
4
I wouldn’t actually say too much has changed compared to what that post explains, @Batreeq
. That post is mostly about the difference between full merging and nfd|dup, which still holds true - and then it also goes over what to do if you find a topic that has the same content but a unique title, and I’d say we still apply that same process a lot of the time (as well as title changes sometimes, instead).
Q&D Merges have always been an option, even back when that forum post was written, and long before; they just don’t happen to be what that post is about. They’re perhaps more common now, as we have more and more folks writing new dups where there isn’t much unique content to move to the established title… but Q&D merges themselves are nothing new
Even if they’re more common now, though, I don’t really see a need to change policy or guidelines just for the sake of that. If you’re in the position to do a Q&D merge, go for it - you might rarely have need for nfd|dup. But other folks, including non-boosters, might be less certain about merge candidates, and in those cases, nfd|dup can occasionally come in handy for getting more input/consensus on the action when they’re not sure. There’s no harm in using nfd|dup (and equally no harm in doing Q&D merging instead) - it’s just another long-established option for this kind of merging scenario, and it’s okay for us to have multiple tools in the toolshed for that, I reckon!
