Board Thread:The Panopticon/@comment-45314928-20200727170605/@comment-6032121-20200727215845

Being thorough is surely no crime, and it is incumbent upon other posters to reread the conversation before they post. Maybe threads wouldn't become so dashed long if they did. All the same, the main unanswered questions are:
 * On what new evidence are you reopening this debate relative to the decisions taken in the old FP threads?
 * Why do you believe merging or splitting pages should correspond to the number of copyrights at play, rather than to in-universe identity between two names (whether they are different copyrights or not) as established ina valid source?
 * Why should being a fan of something prevent one from making a policy proposal, especially one that was objectively accepted by admins?