Talk:China University of Petroleum

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education articles

China Low‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles 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.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for merging with Talk:China University of Petroleum (Beijing) on 12 December 2021. The result of the discussion (permanent link) was to merge.

RfC: One or two articles?

Closing per a WP:ANRFC request.
One article (at least for now, any future splits should be discussed before being made). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

In January 2014, user:Narjuko split this article into two new articles (China University of Petroleum (Beijing) and China University of Petroleum (Huadong)) without any explanation. This page was redesigned as disambiguation page. In May 2014, the SPA 108.73.5.158 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) re-merged these article by copy-paste moves, again without any explanation. The question is:

Should there be a single article covering both universities or should there be two separate articles, one for each of university?

Beagel (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

If they have enough notability to be alone, then two articles would be best. If they are very similar and a lot of connections can be made to adequately inform the user of the two universities together, then probably one article would be best. It seems to be though that the one article is working on its own at the moment. --JustBerry (talk) 23:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the article is so short that I don't think it justifies splitting.--Salix alba (talk): 09:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Once there is enough significant content, the split should be made by consensus. – FenixFeather ^(talk)^(Contribs) 21:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Given it is basically the same organization with two similar campuses, keeping it all together is certainly more helpful for the reader (and the writer too). - Nabla (talk) 10:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion

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.

Proposed merge of China University of Petroleum (Beijing) into China University of Petroleum

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.

Result is merge. --Whiteguru (talk) 05:02, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is much overlap between these two articles, with some aspects covered better in each. I see no reason to have separate articles for the different campuses. MB 03:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. It has been split and merged previously and the existing consensus is to have all information in one article. It is questionable why the separate article China University of Petroleum (Beijing) was re-created in the first place. Beagel (talk) 20:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.