Talk:Rump legislature

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Multi-way merge

Wikipedia now has separate articles:

In all these cases the meaning of "rump" is the same. I suggest that this is three or four articles too many. I think the numbers 1 and 6 on the list should probably remain separate articles, but I propose the creation of a new article Rump (politics) to replace all four of the middle ones on the list. Alternatively, the merged article could be moved into Rump Parliament as a new section titled something like Generalized usage of "rump", leaving only two articles altogether.

There is an existing merge proposal to combine the last two articles on the list, but I don't see that as desirable.

This is the place to discuss this proposal. --76.71.6.254 (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as proposed. I am normally a meta:mergist, and I concede that you have a point here. However, the articles serve more like lists or WP:CONCEPTDABs than like regular articles: mostly, they provide a short definition and a list of notable examples. Such organization facilitates wikilinking, which can be evidenced by the number of incoming links for each of them. Indeed, I think lurking readers might be interested in definition of e.g. a rump legislature and the list of similar ones in the history. By merging them together, you don't offer much material to chew the reader of the merged article – I don't think that "Rump X" (where X is a list of rather disparate terms) is a consistent concept worth learning about. No such user (talk) 13:38, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see that merging of Rump state and List of rump states has been already proposed, and I would support that indeed. Rump organization is a dicdef which is useful, but could be better reworked into a dab page, with sentence The word "rump" was first used with such a political meaning in reference to the English Rump Parliament of 1648-53 during the English Civil War. repeated elsewhere. No such user (talk) 13:38, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merging Rump Parliament. This appears to be a specific parliamentary era in British history with a fairly lengthy article and should not be merged into the more generic articles. I don't yet have any opinion on the rest.--Wikimedes (talk) 23:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the merger between articles that concern what is a primarily legislative term, and one that belongs in the realm of political geography. "Rump state" is a reference to a territorial entity, not a political party, and the distinction between those two is needed. --Katangais (talk) 09:02, 25 March 2017 (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.