This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Merge
editCorreio-Mor Palace An article on the exact topic has already existed for >5 yrs. This article is better than that one, however, after checking the version history of that article it's plain that the issue of naming has already been discussed at length. In addition, the Portuguese article is already linked to the other one, so I think the text of this article should be placed over there, then this article be made to redirect there.
--- Ultracobalt (talk) 11:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- I appreciate your interest into these two articles, but I am regretted to say that the two articles are of two different palaces. The other Correiro-Mor Palace article is on the palace in Loures and this article is on the palace in Lisbon. While they are similarly named, and were owned by the same family of High-Couriers, they are seperate palaces and thus articles. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 16:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Per our colleagues request to merge this Correio-Mor Palace article into the Palace of the Counts of Penafiel, it should be rejected, as there are three Correrio-Mor Palaces in Portugal. In fact, this article created by User:Cristiano Tomás refers to the Correio-Mor Palace in Madalena (the referred to Palace of the Counts of Penafiel), while the article Correio-Mor Palace is located in the municipality of Loures (two different animals altogether). Alternately, there is the third Correio-Mor Palace inSanta Maria de Belém. I refer to the Portuguese SIPA Architectural Database to specify and explain these differences located:[1]. Consequently, I do not support the intention to merge these articles. ruben jcZEORYMER (talk) 22:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- I agree and withdraw my request. However, it would be useful if the author could put in coordinates and the correct inline references to avoid confusion. I see you did put in a link to the other one in "see also" - that helps. With 3 of these, a disambiguation page is probably needed also. Thanks. Ultracobalt (talk) 23:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Well confusion wouldn't occur if one just read the first lines of each article and saw that they were in different cities. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 00:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)