Jump to content

Talk:Cross keys

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merge Proposal

[edit]

It seems to me that Cross Keys and Crossed keys naturally belong together, there seems to be a fair deal of overlap but the combined list won't be too overbearing. At the very least, there should be cross references between the two pages. YBG (talk) 05:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose A simple 'see also' on both pages (i.e. standard practice) will suffice. S a g a C i t y (talk) 06:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a 'see also' to each page and moved items to one page or the other depending on whether the the item uses "Cross" or "Crossed". I think this is what Saga City has suggested. YBG (talk) 06:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have implemented the above non-merger proposal, but I still think it would be better to merge the two pages. Any other thoughts? YBG (talk) 06:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm generally trying improve things with Saga City's simple 'see also' suggestion before taking the more WP:bold measure of merging the pages ... this allows time for others to chime in and gives actually improves the chance of convincing others (and myself!) that my suggestion is not necessary. I've looked at the redirects that point to one of these two pages and they seem a big confusing to me.
It seems that redirects are based on whether the second word is capitalized or not (Keys/keys). This seems confusing to me. But then I increased the confusion when I reorganized the division of items between the two pages, basing it on what the first word is(Cross/Crossed). If the consensus is to maintain two different pages, then the distribution of items and the redirect pages should be based on the same distinction. But which one? On the other hand, if a consensus develops to merge the pages, this whole issue completely disappears. While I was wavering a bit and tending to come around to Sagacity's 'see also' suggestion, I am now back to my original position to support merging. But I could be convinced otherwise if someone makes case that one of the two distinctions is much more significant, either Cross/Crossed or Keys/keys. YBG (talk) 21:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've revised my previous post to better acknowledge that it my edits actually increased the confusion. YBG (talk) 00:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) BD2412(t) has boldly merged the pages into Cross keys, which is now the target of five redirects:

It seems to me that this merge discussion (and its history) should be moved to the talk page of merge destination, its original location replaced with a redirect to the talk page. But I'm not sure what the standard procedure is in cases like this, and even if I was, I'm not sure I'm up to having this be my first effort at moving a page. Can someone more skilled than I please move this talk page and its history to the new location? YBG (talk) 07:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I engineered the proposed merge because there are no actual titles on the page including the phrase "Crossed Keys". The title of the article on the religious symbol is Keys of Heaven, which does not contain the word "Cross" or "Crossed". In fact, the only article I could find that contains the phrase is that was not even on this page, Crossed Keys Tavern (which, as the article indicates, is also known as the "Cross Keys Tavern". bd2412 T 13:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cross_keys&oldid=1252759749"