Talk:TsIV

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology 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.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

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.

No consensus to merge. 188.125.155.35 (talk) 22:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

I propose that TsIV be merged into Tityustoxin as per WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Both pages contain useful content pertaining to one topic, toxins found in the venom of scorpions from the Tinyinae subfamily. Iaritmioawp (talk) 06:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There is no point in merging the above mentioned pages, since the page about Tityustoxin contains general information about the toxins produced by all Tityus scorpions (e.g. Tityus Serrulatus, Tityus Buthidae, Tityus Bahiensis, Tityus stigmurus etc.) and the page about TsIV contains valuable information about a specific toxin produced by the Tityus Serrulatus scorpion. Different toxins from different scorpions have very diversified targets and working mechanisms and not even all toxins produced by the same scorpion have comparable modes of action. In conclusion: the page about TsIV contains specialized information that can not simply be merged with the Tityustoxin page. Ranjitluijten (talk) 15:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. I noticed the TsIV article had been speedily deleted twice in the recent past with A10 (topic duplication) given as the rationale, and so I proposed the merger to prevent another such deletion. With your above comment in place, I don't suppose we need to worry about that any more. I think the best course of action right now would be to rename TsIV to Tityustoxin IV as per WP:COMMONNAME, and to then give some attention to the lede of the Tityustoxin article which in its current form seems to suggest that the article's about one toxin rather than a group of toxins. Once that's done, the {{merge}} tags can safely be deleted. I think it would be best if you handled the writing as you're clearly more knowledgeable about toxicology than I am. Iaritmioawp (talk) 17:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COMMONNAME certainly can not apply but WP:REDUNDANTFORK does. Both articles include the same toxins from the same species of scorpion. If there is any information and sources contained in the recently created article which are new they should be used to improve the already existing article. A merge to improve the already existing article is the way to go. Ochiwar (talk) 19:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COMMONNAME mandates that the subject's most recognizable name be used when naming an article. Tityustoxin IV is much more readily recognizable than TsIV which is merely a handy abbreviation used for brevity when its meaning is clear from the context. If it is decided that the TsIV article is not to undergo a merger, its name will most likely need to be adjusted as per WP:COMMONNAME which very much can and will apply. The argument that "both articles include the same toxins" and thus should be merged is fallacious as explained by Ranjitluijten in his above comment; in short, the Tityustoxin article describes a group of toxins whereas the TsIV article focuses solely on one toxin from that group. Articles that describe one item from a larger set are perfectly acceptable as long as the item satisfies the general notability guideline; think of Greek mythology and Zeus, or of virus and retrovirus for example. Iaritmioawp (talk) 21:22, 15 October 2014 (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.