Talk:Globish

Merge discussion

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.

There was no consensus regarding the merger of these articles. Further discussion can take place at either Talk:Globish (Nerriere) or Talk:Globish (Gogate). Cnilep (talk) 01:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has been suggested that Globish (Gogate) and Globish (Nerriere) be merged into the single article Globish. Please give your opinion below. Inniverse (talk) 22:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly agree I see no need for two articles on the same essential language. Smokey TheCat 16:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They both have the same name (which is a thoroughly superficial similarity), and they're both simplifications of English. Unless there's more to it than that, though, it's not immediately obvious to me why the coincidence of the same name would lead to merging just these particular two simplifications of English. There seem to be separate articles already on a number of such. A quick look comes up with Basic English, E-Prime, Plain English, Simplified English, Special English, and of course NewSpeak. --Pi zero (talk) 14:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree. Having two 'Globishes' makes it difficult for people coming to the article from outside Wikipedia, so I would support the move to have only one Globish entry. Liddyn (talk) 09:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, though actually the Globish (Gogate) article is a strong candidate for deletion anyway - it's not notable. If it were deleted, the other could stand as the sole Globish article.asnac (talk) 15:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, pages should be merged.--Aa2-2004 (talk) 11:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Originally there was only a page for Nerrière's trademark, and I added in a section on the history of the term and its usage. Some editors were unhappy with that, hence it was split off.

Personally, I think it's important that we retain some kind of history of the term, because even now, it is being used as a generic term while the trademark is still protected by Nerrière (despite not being his original coinage). Prof Wrong (talk) 21:36, 6 September 2011 (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.