Jump to content

Talk:Federal Correctional Institution, Coleman

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

Comment

[edit]

I am proposing that this site and FCI Coleman Medium be merged. I will include details from both articles in the new article which will be simply named "Federal Correctional Institution, Coleman." MDEVER802 (talk) 02:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC) Support I don't think we need the finer distinction. These FCI's are proliferating on Wikipedia, and I've just made many edits to the "current" and "former" notable inmate lists. If these are properly maintained, it would require considerable checking, as transfers in the Bureau of Prisons facilities are common. Activist (talk) 09:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Should this article be split?

[edit]
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.
Withdrawing and closing RfC by nominator. I think it is safe to say that this proposal has failed and I will not waste anybody's time by pursuing it further. Non-admin close. Safiel (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question Should this article be split into Federal Correctional Institution, Coleman (disambiguation only), Federal Correctional Institution, Coleman Low and Federal Correctional Institution, Coleman Medium? Safiel (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
  • Oppose. Pure silliness IMO. The article is short. The fact that there are technically two institutions is beside the point. We follow the reliable sources, not the legal technicalities. This isn't just a general rule but it's also built into our article naming guidelines. The reliable sources don't distinguish between Low and Medium. Some call it "Federal Correctional Institute Coleman," some call it "Coleman Federal Correctional Institute, and some call it the "Coleman prison." We should have a single article with one of those names. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:44, 6 February 2018 (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.

Forking side discussion out of closed RfC

[edit]
  • @Activist and DrFleischman: Comment I have rewritten the lead of the current article and tweaked the infobox to eliminate the inaccuracies of the previous version and make it clear that the article discusses two separate and distinct facilities. Even if the article is not split, this at least will make the article more factually accurate. Safiel (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]