Talk:Teakettle Junction, California
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Reywas92 in topic No merge
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Teakettle Junction, California article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This page was proposed for deletion by Reywas92 (talk · contribs) on 30 March 2020. |
| This article was nominated for deletion on 30 March 2020. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Title
editName should be capitalized. "junction" should be "Junction".
Not sure how to rename pages or if a delete / recreate process will be needed. James Lednik 06:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Moved it. Michaelbusch 06:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Name origin?
editSurely there's a story. 150.243.14.39 (talk) 17:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
No merge
editWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teakettle Junction, California and Wikipedia:Consensus thru editing demonstrate a consensus to not merge this article.Djflem (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- There was a consensus not to delete the article and a closure does not forbid further changes. Obvious merge target was not known during the AFD. This is a place of interest in Death Valley and should obviously be included in the Places of interest in the Death Valley area article so this was inappropriate. Per WP:NOPAGE there should not be a WP:REDUNDANT WP:DUPLICATE page, and the content is WP:ATD WP:PRESERVED there. Reywas92Talk 20:05, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- And the Wikipedia:Consensus thru editing demonstrated on this page in which that change was rejected? Djflem (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- Per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE you should not just leave a {main} tag and nothing else. It's hard to summarize when four sentences is all the content in the first place. Passing GNG does not mandate a separate article, most everything in Places of interest in the Death Valley area passes GNG but guidelines support coverage there unless a split is warranted. Reywas92Talk 20:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- Adjusted Places of interest in the Death Valley area and added see also here.Djflem (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- The page should remain as agreed at the recent discussion. Moving the content elsewhere is unproductive, adds no value and will tend to disrupt both editing and reading by muddling up the content with other places and so making it more difficult to present details like coordinates. The Wikipedia app uses the coordinates to show nearby locations that have pages and the pages have to be distinct locations for that to work properly. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- "Muddling up the content" So AFD the places list or go away, nothing is muddled up here by putting this and other places of interest in the Death Valley area in the article about places of interest in the Death Valley area. It adds no value to have a separate and redundant article for a signpost. Ah because use of Special:Nearby in the middle of nowhere where there's not even cell phone coverage totally mandates separate articles for any place in the world. Reywas92Talk 23:27, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- I'm a bit mixed on this one, if leaning towards reversing the merge. The AfD was closed as "Keep" and that consensus should be the outcome. Reywas92 was wrong to merge the content to another article. However, as far as I can tell, there is very little content from reliable sources other than what has already been written in WP so it seems a merge would be inevitable eventually. I am leaning though to reversing the merge as we need to follow a process and respect consensus in an AfD. Oakshade (talk) 15:24, 23 April 2020 (UTC)