Talk:Palace Theater (Crossville, Tennessee)
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Doncram in topic Merge proposal
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Merge proposal
editPalace Theater (Crossville, Tennessee) and Palace Theatre, Crossville are clearly the same building. I moved a couple of external links over, but as there had not been any discussion prior to my visiting here today, I don't think the merge should be done for at least a few days. PKT(alk) 15:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hi PKT, nice catch. Thank you for noticing the duplication, and opening this. The two articles obviously should be merged. And the proper name for the article consistent with other Wikipedia usage for U.S. places is the "P T (C, T)" format name (see Palace Theatre disambiguation page for other examples). It seems I started the "P T (C, T)" article in 2012, and neither I nor anyone else noticed the "P T, C" article created in 2007. What I do in cases like this is merge the material to the older article, to be fair to its editors who identified the validity of the topic and put in some effort, so that the edit history with the article is theirs. A new creation should not usurp the older one. In this case, the older one should be moved to the "P T (C, T)" name. The newer one created by me is in the way, and should become a redirect to the other, so I guess the newer one should be moved to "P T, C", they should just be switched I guess. Implementing the switch is not difficult. You or I could put in a routine request at WP:RM#TR for a noncontroversial technical move of the the two articles.
- Neither article is very far developed. But since 2012 the NRHP nomination document has become available, and here is a reference formed for it to be added to the article.[1]
References
- ^ Lauren E. Batte and Carroll Van West (May 12, 1993). "National Register of Historic Places Registration: Palace Theater". National Park Service. Retrieved 2016-06-23. with 12 photos
- If we agree about this plan, then it would be fine if you would just go ahead and implement the merge of material and you or I could put in the technical move request. No one should object, esp. as the author of the newer article (me) is agreeing to lose the status of being "creator" of the article. --doncram 16:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)