Wikipedia:Mergers for discussion/Log/2009 March

The following is an archived discussion of the proposed merge of the articles below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the articles' talk pages). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was bold redirect. There doesn't seem to be any sourced content about the singer that isn't found in articles directly about Stabilo. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 13:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Dryfhout[edit]

To be merged

Target

Reason

The article does not contain enough material to support a separate entry. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect In this case there is no content to be merged that is not already in the Stabilo article, and I see no google results indicating the singer is notable independent of the band. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 15:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the articles' talk pages). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of the proposed merge of the articles below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the articles' talk pages). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge. I have merged some content from two available articles into Master of Reality#Release and reception, and I'm waiting to hear back about Solitude to see if I can merge content from that article too. Discussing articles here that involved AfDs should probably be avoided, just so nobody gets all huffy puffy about stuff, y'know? --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 18:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black Sabbath song stubs[edit]

:(View merge discussion)

To be merged: Killing Yourself to Live (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (AfD); After Forever (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views); Solitude (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Merge target: Master of Reality

Nominated on the grounds that one good album article beats 8 song stubs, and maintenance (such as sourcing, much needed) will be easier. As the nominator I volunteer to perform this merge, as was done for Black Sabbath, Vol 4 and Nursery Cryme (AfD). A restore of the deleted Lord of This World article would also be helpful for such a merge, even if only so I can confirm it has no salvageable information. I think Master of Reality, at 9,855 bytes, could benefit from this treatment. Looking at the song stubs, a liberal {{Cn}}-tagging might be needed. / edg ☺ ☭ 03:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, as the individual songs don't appear to be notable enough for their own articles. –Drilnoth (T • C) 13:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - should we be using this new procedure to compete with articles currently up at AFD? Maybe yes, maybe no? But, keeping that in consideration,
Merge ~~anything mentioned above which does not result in a keep after the AFD.~~ ALL. BOZ (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like Black Kite deleted all of the songs in that AFD, then created redirects in their place, so since everything was not a Keep, I change my response to Merge all, after an edit history restore for GDFL purposes. BOZ (talk) 19:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was wondering that about the AFD thing also, but its worth a shot. If the article(s) are deleted there, we can search for a good trial candidate or three to test out which are not at AFD. –Drilnoth (T • C) 02:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- BOZ: I'm restating to see if I understand. You're saying:
  1. If Keep in the AfD, then Merge.
  2. If Delete in the AfD, then discard (do not recover to consider for potential merge)
    I'm guessing you are trying to avoid conflict with the AfD in progress. Is this correct? / edg ☺ ☭ 14:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Incorrect. If Keep in the AFD, then Keep. If anything other than Keep, then Merge. BOZ (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if result of debate !=delete Enigma^msg 20:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- {{#ifeq:{{{AFD|}}}|Delete|Delete|Merge}}? –Drilnoth (T • C) 20:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That would be another way of saying it, yes. :) Enigma^msg 20:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, the result of the debate was delete, ergo... BOZ (talk) 03:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, a few good articles are better than many poor ones, in this case. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the redirects, nothing else left... --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 06:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit histories can be restored for a merge - I've seen it done many times. :) BOZ (talk) 15:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. –Drilnoth (T • C) 16:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment so, if we have a consensus, what's next? :) BOZ (talk) 15:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this case it looks like there are two problems. The first is that since the song articles have been deleted, an administrator must be involved with the process to either undelete or userfy the information so it can be merged. Then, someone actually has to sit down and complete the merge. I have no problem with the second part, I like merges, merges are fun. But I'd still need someone to dump the content into somewhere to make it accessable, then I think this one can be closed as "complete". --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 03:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A word of caution: restoring and merging these articles after the delete outcome may be considered editing against consensus. Edgarde suggested merge somewhere in the middle of the AfD, but only J04n mentioned merge also. I think that NickPenguin's going to the WP:Proposed mergers backlog will produce less sensitive test cases. Flatscan (talk) 05:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just go ask the deleting admin like someone else did at User_talk:MBisanz#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FKilling_Yourself_to_Live. I'd do it myself but frankly I find myself demotivated to assist. Hiding T 09:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get in touch with the deleting admin. And I wouldn't let my opinions of unrelated matters stand in the way of your willingness to help. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 14:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I were an admin, this would be the exact sort of thing I'd want to help with. :) You know, if that ever were to happen. ;) BOZ (talk) 16:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the articles' talk pages). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of the proposed merge of the articles below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the articles' talk pages). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Being MRFD was failed, this was speedy closed by me. The Junk Police (reports|works) 00:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chimarrão and Mate[edit]

:(View merge discussion)

To be merged: Chimarrão (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views); Mate (beverage) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Merge target: To be discussed

Nominated after having left unresolved on Wikipedia:Proposed mergers for over two years. The drinks are very similar, being made from the same ingredients. The name differences seems to come from two different languages, but appear to refer to the same basic drink. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 04:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Chimarrão becoming a redirect to Mate (beverage). Only English WP has two articles about this, other languages mostly have only Mate, with an explanation that in some countries it's called Chimarrão. --Algernon Moncrieff (talk) 11:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the articles' talk pages). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of the proposed merge of the articles below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the articles' talk pages). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Talk page discussion revealed that while all nebula are interstellar clouds, not all interstellar clouds are nebula, and thus a merge would be incorrect. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 15:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interstellar cloud and Nebula[edit]

:(View merge discussion)

To be merged: Interstellar cloud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views); Nebula (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Merge target: To be discussed

The two articles seem to discuss the same basic phenomenon, although this merge may be difficult since some but not necessarily all interstellar clouds are nebula. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 04:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the articles' talk pages). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of the proposed merge of the articles below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the articles' talk pages). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was don't merge. Although there seems to be a little bit of talk page support for this merge, with the discovery of another article List of German Imperial Navy ships, it seems to me that due to length constraints, these articles should be kept divided by time periods. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 13:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of German Federal Navy ships and List of German Navy ships[edit]

:(View merge discussion)

To be merged: List of German Federal Navy ships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views); List of German Navy ships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Merge target: List of German Navy ships

These two articles don't necessarily duplicate content so much as they duplicate topic. Although Germany was not unified between the end of WW2 and the fall of the Berlin wall, it is up for debate as to whether it makes sense to have distinctive articles for navy vessels from these two different time periods. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 04:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the articles' talk pages). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of the proposed merge of the articles below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the articles' talk pages). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no concensus After reviewing talk page discussion, there was no concensus that the Union Flag and the Flag of the United Kingdom were the same thing. While one overlaps the other, since they are not identical they should be kept as separate articles. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 13:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Union Flag and Flag of the United Kingdom[edit]

:(View merge discussion)

To be merged: Union Flag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views); Flag of the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Merge target: To be discussed

There is some controversy about whether these two articles should be kept seperate, but they are essentially dealing with the same topic. Although the Union flag may be more general than the Flag of the United Kingdom, they seem to be one and the same. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 04:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the articles' talk pages). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of the proposed merge of the articles below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the articles' talk pages). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge and redirect John Cura into Tele-snaps. Appropriate content from the John Cura article should be retrieved from the article history and merged into the History section of Tele-snaps. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 15:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Cura and Tele-snaps[edit]

:(View merge discussion)

To be merged: John Cura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views); Tele-snaps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Merge target: To be discussed

John Cura seems to have been famous only for his invention of the Tele-snap, which raises the question is he should be covered with his own article, or if he is only significant within the context of the topic of Tele-snaps. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 04:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Cura into Tele-snaps, per nom. –Drilnoth (T • C) 20:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the articles' talk pages). No further edits should be made to this page.