Talk:Veronica Vera

Latest comment: 10 years ago by Armbrust in topic Request for comment
WikiProject iconArticles for creation
WikiProject iconThis article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.
Note icon
This article was accepted on 10 January 2011 by reviewer Gfoley4 (talk · contribs).
WikiProject iconSexology and sexuality Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconWomen writers Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Request for comment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


removed RFC tag - Mark BassettCurrently there exist three brief articles that basically repeat each other with only minor modifications: Veronica Vera, Miss Vera's Finishing School For Boys Who Want to be Girls, and Miss Vera's Finishing School for Boys Who Want to Be Girls (book). I had previously placed merge templates on these articles, but that didn't draw much comment, so I am now opening this RFC to see whether we can arrive at a consensus to merge the three articles here. The only comment on the merge proposal came from Joe Decker (see here). --Randykitty (talk) 11:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

You don't need anyone's permission to merge low traffic articles. Feel free to be WP:BOLD. The worst that could happen is someone reverts you, which is part of the WP:BRD cycle. PraetorianFury (talk) 17:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
In principle you are right. However, if you check the history of the article on the book, I already tried that and was reverted. And as stated above, the merge discussion that I started hardly attracted any participants. The article creator has removed the merge tags, had already done that once before, and also reverted the earlier redirect/merge. Hence I'd prefer to have a clear consensus to merge three articles before proceeding further at this point. --Randykitty (talk) 18:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Merge: Each article is a stub and it doesn't seem that any of them could be much more than that on their own. Also, as noted, much of the information is repeated and they all seem very similar. Not really a question here, they should be merged. Chris1834 (talk) 14:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.