Talk:Korea LIME

Korea Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Finance & Investment Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merge from Korea Lime situation

Isn't this the same topic? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - yes, appears to be the same topic. The later article is better sourced and detailed than the earlier one.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969: to clarify: is your argument, then, to merge to Korea Lime situation (the newer article) as it is better referenced? This is contrary to the initial proposal, so I thought that I would check ... it is also a more neutral title, but suffers from using the weasel word situation. Klbrain (talk) 11:28, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Klbrain, hi. No, I agree with the original proposal. The editor who created the second article should have simply edited the first article. Merge the newer article into the already existent article. If the latter article was in worse shape than the original, we could simply redirect, but since there is good information there, it should be merged. Wouldn't you agree Piotrus? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Onel5969, Right, might as well preserve the history attribution in the 'better' article. Btw, Onel, Klbrain, we might as well discuss whether this needs renaming? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend moving the target article to a neutral title: I note that Korea Lime is free, and it should be too hard to adjust the lede to fit that broader title. Klbrain (talk) 12:22, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think Korea Lime is the most appropriate, neutral title. So we should move the old article there, then merge the newer one into it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 06:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]