Talk:Harriet Morgan

Proposed merge with Helena Scott

The lives and notability of these sisters are largely identical. Their most notable contributions were in the same books and they are almost always discussed as a pair, e.g. Harriet & Helena Scott Harriet & Helena Scott, Harriet & Helena Scott, Harriet & Helena Scott, and Harriet & Helena: The Scott sisters. A joint biography makes more sense then two largely redundant, significantly overlapping articles per WP:MERGEREASON. Compare to similar joint biographies such as Frank and John Craighead, Tom and Ray Magliozzi, the (other) Scott sisters, and other sibling duos. Combining the two biographies into one when warranted doesn't diminish the value of either subject, rather makes for a more refined, professional quality encyclopedia. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that each of these women deserve their own wikipedia page. Although they did collaborate on some of the same books, they also undertook work individually, certainly they each produced their own artworks for those books. They also individually collected specimens that are now found in museums and herberia in Australia. Also both women had been largely forgotten until the 2011 exhibition on them and I believe it is likely that research and academic writing on and about them as individuals or perhaps contrasting them is likely to be continue to be undertaken as more of their work, correspondence and specimens come to light.Ambrosia10 (talk) 03:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

So, assuming each sister's article reached the length and detail of a Featured article, what would the meat of both articles entail? Their notable father, their Ash Island upbringing, collaboration with each other and their father, both creating cards and illustrations, etc. The exhibition project coordinator of the Australian Museum even remarked: "Equally talented, it is difficult to tell one sister’s work from the other. However, their combined approach makes the Lepidoptera paintings exceptional." Yeah they were different people, but relatively non-noteworthy differences like who they married, their birth and death dates, and other basic biographical info are not what gets them (jointly) into books and encyclopedias, and pale compared to their noteworthy, predominantly shared biography (the Dictionary of Sydney entry ably covers both sisters, giving due coverage to individual accomplishments). Two articles differing in or emphasizing minor details are not worth keeping separate: such would constitute undue weight. In my opinion, we could have one really good comprehensive, article, or two sub-par, redundant, largely overlapping articles. And we should not base decisions on hypothetical future research, per WP:CRYSTALBALL. I'm a lumper, not a splitter, and think article quality and context should trump all. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

do not merge "Two articles differing in or emphasizing minor details are not worth keeping separate" is not the policy; you might want to confine your argument to notability and GNG, if you wanted to convince anyone. Brock-brac (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:GNG is not "the policy" either, it's a guideline, as are most of Wikipedia rules. When 99% of these women's careers are identical, and even specialists have trouble telling their work apart, I think a joint biography is warranted. But it's becoming clear my view is in the minority, and I yield. As nominator, I have retracted the merge proposal. My hope is that in the absence of one decent article, we have two really good articles that warrant separation. Happy editing, everybody --Animalparty! (talk)