Talk:TARDIS key: Difference between revisions
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
===Oppose merge=== | ===Oppose merge=== | ||
If you look at normal wikipedia, there is a seperate article for the TARDIS key which is very comprehensive and lengthy. Including such information with the general TARDIS article would overload it, it would be more proffesional and user friendly to have a seperate article about the key with mutual links to and from the main TARDIS page. | If you look at normal wikipedia, there is a seperate article for the TARDIS key which is very comprehensive and lengthy. Including such information with the general TARDIS article would overload it, it would be more proffesional and user friendly to have a seperate article about the key with mutual links to and from the main TARDIS page. 09/05/09 | ||
===Support merge=== | ===Support merge=== | ||
Revision as of 15:14, 9 May 2009
Proposed Deletion
Well, not deletion, exactly: merger. Unfortunately, we don't have a "proposed merge" template. but Article should be deleted. It's unnecessary, as the information is properly in The Doctor's TARDIS article already. The pictures in this article are highly suspect as original fan art. The prose is almost entirely factually wrong. (The assertion that Jon Pertwee developed the "original" TARDIS key is funny, though!) As the key and the TARDIS are fairly indivisible things, it's not really worth the effort at this point to rewrite this article from scratch. Propose redirection of TARDIS key to The Doctor's TARDIS#Key. 13:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Oppose merge
If you look at normal wikipedia, there is a seperate article for the TARDIS key which is very comprehensive and lengthy. Including such information with the general TARDIS article would overload it, it would be more proffesional and user friendly to have a seperate article about the key with mutual links to and from the main TARDIS page. 09/05/09
Support merge
- CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 13:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC), per above.
- --Tangerineduel 14:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC) - Though I'm not sure what there is to merge as the article is pretty much totally lacking in references to supports its clams.
- Well, I suppose I mean "redirect the name of the article to the section in the Doctor's TARDIS article" — not an actual merge. I don't even think the pics are genuine production art. Seems awfully fannish to me. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 20:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
