Is there any reason this needed to be redirected to the basic lands page? It has tons more information, and indeed more forests on it. I ask because, as an act of supreme geekery, we name all our servers after MTG forests, and this page is a valuable, nay, business critical resource for us. Would it be better, for example, to move the old content to Forests? Hotwoofy (talk) 21:00, 16 November 2012 (EST)
- Sign your comments (by inserting four tildes [~~~~]) after your comments or I will be forced to block you.
- If you could be clearer too, that'd be great. All of the content remains, albeit at the Basic lands page, under the Forest section. I'm not sure what the problem is.
- And no, it wouldn't be better if this merging was reversed, either by moving content back to the Forest page or a Forests page. Each basic land page fails to assert exactly why it necessitates an entire page.
- Sorry to sound horrible. If I tell you why I might be so, it might be TMI. --Magic Mage (talk!) 11:48, 16 November 2012 (EST)
- Apologies for not signing, didn't know how. The content is demonstrably not on the basic lands page. Not sure what 'benefit' you're after, other than a page about Magic's forests having a list of Magic's forests on it. I can see this is going nowhere though, so don't worry, I'll just download the old version and delete the bookmark to this site. Thanks for being so stereotypically wiki.Hotwoofy (talk) 21:00, 16 November 2012 (EST)
- I've signed your comment with the "Unsigned" template.
- Not that I'm unsure but, likewise, I don't know what benefit you're after. If you don't know what benefits there are to merging, there's perhaps no purpose in explaining.
- Download the old version? Well, if you actually open up the editor for the section Forests, you'll see that all of it's there but it's not all formatted. It's in the <!-- ... -->, as hidden text. You could edit this to fix it up and have it appear; but, nope, you've chosen not to and that's perfectly fine by you and everyone else.