Talk:Cut square (philately)

This is the talk page of a redirect that targets the page:
• Cut-out (philately)
Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at:
• Talk:Cut-out (philately)

Merger proposal

Cut-out (philately) and Cut to shape ought to be merged into Cut square (philately). "Cut-out" is a synonym of "cut square", and "cut to shape" is a kind of "cut square". Plus, "cut-out" is essentially a stub (although not marked as such), and all three articles are, overall, small, so nothing would be lost with having them all in one article. Faunas (talk) 15:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Faunas: I disagree with your proposal though some consolidation is worth considering. Cut-out (philately) should be the main article especially when Cut to shape and Cut square (philately) are just different types of cut-out. You could hardly call this 4 anna Indian indicia (shown on the right) a cut square. So let's merge everything into Cut-out (philately) and make the others redirects. Cut-square is rather a misnomer because many such stamps are not actually square; of the 7 items shown 3 are not square.ww2censor (talk) 13:33, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge seems like a good idea, although in my experience "cut-out" is the least-used phrase, despite being a broader term. Not the first time the awkward one got to be the article title, ha ha. Stan (talk) 17:00, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stan Shebs: Well Stan, we have not seen you around much lately. At least this merge will keep the rest of the terms as redirect, so effectively don't lose anything. ww2censor (talk) 17:17, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Y Merger complete. ww2censor (talk) 21:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]