Jump to content

Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers/Archive 2012

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 2012

 Done non-contentious; went ahead and merged. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 04:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


November 2012

  • Yes, please can an admin history merge the sandbox into the article? We took a copy into the sandbox and edited it there with the intent to dump it back at the end, but in the end multiple editors were involved in the sandbox editing. By the way, well done finding this page MoonSwan999! --99of9 (talk) 03:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 Done technically the wrong venue use {{histmerge}} --Salix (talk): 09:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that's why I thought I'd better explain it. But finding this is not bad for a beginner. Thanks. --99of9 (talk) 09:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


October 2012

Complete concesus reached on talk page. Thanks for all the input. -- :- ) Don 16:12, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 Not done

September 2012

August 2012

July 2012

• I need help moving the Controversy section of the Joan Juliet Buck into either the Asma al-Assad article and/or the Criticism section of Vogue. It overwhelms the profile. Buck seems to have been commissioned for the piece by Vogue, al-Assad's husband is responsible for many atrocities in his own county, and these points that are lost by keeping it in under Joan Juliet Buck.--Aichikawa (talk) 18:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Essentially, what we are trying to do here is create a new master page, or super-categorisation, for all two cylinder engines leading to sub- or child pages for individual configurations.

The intention here is to resolve a problem that has arisen relating to the three main groups of 'non-V' or 'non-flat' twins, i.e. transverse or parallel twins, inline or longitudinal twins, and tandem twins. At present three configurations are being shoehorned into a single article called "Straight-two engine", which arguably is a far more obscure and minor terminology for some engine configurations and not used widely by manufacturers. The previously unreferenced topic being started by a non-native English speaker, sometime ago and the preponderance of references suggesting this does not meet Wikipedia naming conventions, as per WP:NAME; Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness, Consistency, English language use etc.
The idea is as sufficient content arises, new child page can be developed off the new parent. --Bridge Boy (talk) 19:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Please note that Bridge Boy has been blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing, etc. It is generally held by involved editors that this merger proposal was an element of his disruptiveness (is that a word?). I suggest that these merger talks be closed with the decision not to merge. Thank you. Ebikeguy (talk) 22:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 Not done Proposed by blocked user in violation of block. Ego White Tray (talk) 01:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

June 2012

May 2012

April 2012

March 2012