Brickipedia:Proposed Mergers

Articles for Deletion - Proposed Mergers - Proposed Splits - Proposed Name Changes

Overview

Proposed Mergers lists articles that are proposed to be merged into other articles.

To propose an article merger, put {{Mergeto}} on the top the respective page and, then click here and replace Page 1 and Page 2 with the names of the two articles that you want to be merged together, and replace Page 3 with the name of the article you want them merged into. Please note that Page 2 and Page 3 can be the same article, if applicable. Briefly explain why you want the articles to be merged directly under the header, and then sign (~~~~) directly under the ;Support section. If you object, please supply concrete reasons for doing so.

A list of past proposals is available here.

NOTE: Nominations for duplicate articles (articles that are about the same set with the same set number) do not need to be placed here, as they are technically the same page. Add a {{Delete}} tag with the reason to the duplicate article instead.

Nominations

Necromancer of Dol Guldur merge to Sauron

Merge

1. Because they're the same and don't really have any sort of personality differences? NovaHawk 13:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
2. Merge. It's not like Bruce Wayne, where merging him with Batman's page would create a behemoth of an article. I think it's safe enough to merge these two. BrickfilmNut (talk) 15:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
3. The way we split characters might be able to use some sort of examination, but I think this is a safe merge to make. The only thing that would bother me is that having the Necromancer's picture in the infobox would be sort of like having one of Batman's specialty suits in there; it's not representative of the "normal" character. Berrybrick (talk) 17:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Don't merge

1. We have different pages for Bruce Wayne and Batman. Soupperson1 ^{Friends are Forever! <3}

   Because they're two different identities and very different looking minifigures- in this case it's an evil black sorcerer and an evil black sorcerer :P NovaHawk 22:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

   But they're the same character, these figures aren't similar either. Soupperson1 ^{Friends are Forever! <3}

Comments

The LEGO Group and LEGO merge to The LEGO Group

Not really sure how to explain, but aren't they basically the same thing? "The LEGO Group" is the official name of the company, so we could have LEGO redirect to that page.

Discussion

Merge

1. Merge, as nominator. SamanthaNguyen (talk) 17:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
2. Obviously merge, but I'd prefer calling the resulting page "LEGO" as it's shorter and definitely the more common name. For a different although nevertheless valid example from Wikipedia, consider Lady Gaga: the article starts with her real name, but the page is titled "Lady Gaga" instead of "Stefani Germanotta", because Lady Gaga — not Stefani Germanotta — is one of the best-selling musicians of all time. Confusing? Yeah, but I hope you can see what I mean.
   But on a more practical note, the current The LEGO Group article is pretty much like a shorter version of the company history, which can be found on the LEGO page with lots more detail, hence why I support the merger. --Jack Phoenix (talk) 17:14, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Keep

1. Keep. I wouldn't exactly say that TLG and LEGO are exactly the same entity, as LEGO is the brand and TLG is the parent company. Perhaps instead of merging the articles, we could make distinctions between the two. The TLG article could have more company history-related information, while the LEGO article could have more about the brand's history. I'll admit that it seems like a difficult line to draw but I'm sure it can be accomplished. LCF ^(talk!) 19:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
2. We should have one for the company and one for the toy shouldn't we? If people are going to search for LEGO, they're going to expect a page about, well, LEGO (not company that makes LEGO). NovaHawk 00:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
   • Thinking about this right now, since each one sounds equally good and logical! If we do end up keeping it though, should we rename it so LEGO is LEGO (toyline), The LEGO Group redirects to LEGO (company), with LEGO being converted into a disambiguation? (as in maybe the parentheses would help clarify the difference? SamanthaNguyen (talk) 01:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
     • Well, the name of the company is The LEGO Group, and the name of the toy is LEGO, so I don't why we wouldn't leave the names as they are NovaHawk 04:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
3. Keep, per Nova. Vasko (talk) 10:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
4. I like Ed and Nova's thinking here. Berrybrick (talk) 14:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
5. The word LEGO does get thrown around a lot, but most commonly the toy and not the company. Soupperson1 ^{Friends are Forever! <3}

Flying Monkey and Winged Monkey merge to Flying Monkey

These two pages represent the same characters, though The LEGO Batman Movie variant was given its own page, thus dividing them for no apparent reason.

Discussion

• Merge, as nominator. Latenightguy (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
• Merge SamanthaNguyen (talk) 17:11, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
• I think the distinction is that the Winged Monkey is called "Winged" and not "Flying" because it doesn't actually fly in the game. That aside, I'm not really sure the Winged Monkey needs to have a page (and I didn't realize it had one when I edited Flying Monkey earlier today, adding the note about the brick-built model), but do what you want. Merging makes sense if it needs to be covered on a character article instead of the Fun Pack set page. I personally don't think it has to, since we don't usually do that for Dimensions vehicles and such, but I don't see any harm in merging. Berrybrick (talk) 00:55, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
• "for no apparent reason" - the very good reason was because I mustn't have known the page existed :P They're exactly the same thing as far as I know, merge. NovaHawk 06:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)