 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Merge proposal
edit- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- To improve from German wiki rather than merge, at least for now. Klbrain (talk) 09:10, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
@WIKI1Q2W3E4R, Cote d'Azur, Brshipley, Tom.Reding, and Marcocapelle: All 3 of these articles, (Barbara Baths, Trier Imperial Baths, Forum Baths, Trier), are stubs and contain similar information. While the German Language pages will be helpful for expanding them, I feel merging the 3 articles into one article titled Roman Baths of Trier similar to the Baths_at_Ostia page would be a better use of the space and be more meaningful to a person reading about the baths. RJHSLatinteacher (talk) 17:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Wikipedia does not have a space limit, and each individual subject seems to be notable. I don't see any compelling reason for a merge. The stubs can simply be expanded by anyone who has an interest. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- I do have an interest in expanding them, I just see them being more useful as a joint article, but a lot of my graduate work was in topographic understanding of sites and how they are interconnected. I also wondering how notable each are alone since all (except the Forum Baths) are joined in one UNESCO World Heritage Site. RJHSLatinteacher (talk) 17:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- Undecided. As they currently stand in English they would benefit from a merger; all three combined would still be a short article. But each has an extensive article in German, indicating the potential to stand on their own. However, is anybody likely to expand them based on the corresponding German articles in the near future? If there seems to be a reasonable chance of that happening, then keeping them separate would be reasonable. If there's little prospect of it, then they can be merged now, and split again if and when someone has the time and energy to expand them. P Aculeius (talk) 14:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- I am hoping to expand upon them, although a lot of the English sources say similar things and my German is limited, but even that will only add so much. I will say this I am also approaching this topic from a topography stand point and find the connection of them more important than them being stand alone articles. I also feel like joining them together is not unlike the UNESCO world heritage treating the sites as a unit. RJHSLatinteacher (talk) 17:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- Google Translate does a fairly credible job translating German to English; just make sure that you actually rewrite the contents in your own words, rather than cutting and pasting the results (not that I'm saying you would do that, but it could be tempting, although a potential copyright violation). I agree that merging them wouldn't necessarily be out of the question, but the three German articles would become one fairly long article about three separate, if related sites, so I don't think it's necessary. Perhaps expand each of them, then ask the community (probably WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome) whether they would benefit from merging; my suspicion is not, but you'll get more input if you ask the whole project to weigh in, and they'll be able to give a better opinion if the articles are expanded before you ask; otherwise members might give opinions based on the currently skimpy contents, not realizing how substantial they'll be when you're done with them. And that probably will make a difference for at least some of us! P Aculeius (talk) 01:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- That is a great suggestion about finishing expanding them first and then see if they make sense to be merged into one. I am still going to leave the Merge notice on there but finish adding from my texts and what I can glean from Google Translate. RJHSLatinteacher (talk) 15:52, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- Use https://www.deepl.com/translator
- I also think that perhaps you should start by creating a stand alone article for Augusta Treverorum, from which it would be easier to list all the remaining Roman buildings in Trier. T8612 (talk) 09:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- That is a great suggestion about finishing expanding them first and then see if they make sense to be merged into one. I am still going to leave the Merge notice on there but finish adding from my texts and what I can glean from Google Translate. RJHSLatinteacher (talk) 15:52, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- Google Translate does a fairly credible job translating German to English; just make sure that you actually rewrite the contents in your own words, rather than cutting and pasting the results (not that I'm saying you would do that, but it could be tempting, although a potential copyright violation). I agree that merging them wouldn't necessarily be out of the question, but the three German articles would become one fairly long article about three separate, if related sites, so I don't think it's necessary. Perhaps expand each of them, then ask the community (probably WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome) whether they would benefit from merging; my suspicion is not, but you'll get more input if you ask the whole project to weigh in, and they'll be able to give a better opinion if the articles are expanded before you ask; otherwise members might give opinions based on the currently skimpy contents, not realizing how substantial they'll be when you're done with them. And that probably will make a difference for at least some of us! P Aculeius (talk) 01:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- I am hoping to expand upon them, although a lot of the English sources say similar things and my German is limited, but even that will only add so much. I will say this I am also approaching this topic from a topography stand point and find the connection of them more important than them being stand alone articles. I also feel like joining them together is not unlike the UNESCO world heritage treating the sites as a unit. RJHSLatinteacher (talk) 17:43, 20 January 2023 (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.