Talk:Munising Group

Merger 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.

To not merge, on the grounds that the approach to merging formations into groups would warrant Project-level or broader discussion, rather than a discussion involving a single group. Klbrain (talk) 16:55, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

---

I propose merging Galesville Sandstone and Ironton Sandstone into this article. 1) These two articles are orphaned and have nearly identical information in both, and this information is vacuous. 2) The reference links are broken/outdated. Neither has any truly professional or periodical references. 3) Having all the members of the Munsing group in one means less page jumping and since this group is dynamic across states it makes it easier to convey the information accurately. Zigismon (talk) 19:41, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

It looks like Kerbel Formation has been added too; it seems reasonable to merge all of them, for the reasons given. Klbrain (talk) 19:57, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I disagree, 1) most formation articles exist in a similar state 2) the same could be said for all formation articles that almost solely rely on fossilworks/palaeodb (often broken or outdated) 3) that same rational could be extended to virtually any formation article. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:50, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that when the bold merges were reverted by me, rather than attempt to discuss, Zigismon half an hour after posting these merge requests attempted to take me to WP:AN. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

It's also hypocritical to merge articles to group level due to broken/outdated or no sourced and yet create an unsourced draft on a formation Draft:Skaneateles Formation in which the same criteria suggested for merging these articles apply. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:08, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

On one hand it seems impractical to keep stubby articles separate when an article exists that the topics fit nicely in. On the other hand, individual Formations subsumed into Group articles often don’t seem to get much individual elaboration. And it can be difficult to untangle information about a formation from a general description of the group. I have often found such group articles to be confusing if I am looking for any of the finer subdivisions. (Note that the formation articles should never be total orphans if they are members of a group because both levels should be linked to each other.) Overall, if we are going to start merging the formations into their groups, that should be a systematic change and needs to be discussed as such. Elriana (talk) 11:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. The formations are quite notable, articles are potentially very easy to expand. Merging definitely will not add more information on formations, chance of expansion is higher for individual articles. Викидим (talk) 11:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

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.