Talk:Baltic amber

Merge

Kaliningrad Amber Combine should be merged into the usage section here, its a stubby fork that is easily covered here.--Kevmin § 19:33, 20 August 2017 (UTC) (copied from Talk:Kaliningrad Amber Combine) @Kevmin:, you suggested merging this article with Baltic amber - this article is about a company in Yantarny, the other is about the amber deposits in the entire Baltic region - do you want to explain why you think they should be merged?--eh bien mon prince (talk) 22:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

They should be merged as the companies sole purpose is to mine Baltic amber, and it is already discussed IN the article here.--Kevmin § 23:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@Kevmin: That's not a valid reason to merge. Kaliningrad Amber Combine is plainly not a fork of this article.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 03:59, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@Underlying lk: Given that the company is NOT notable, its a very valid reason--Kevmin § 11:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@Kevmin: Any evidence of the non-notability of the company? The article has four sources so far, do you have problems with any of them? And could you stop shouting words at random? It's quite annoying.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 15:30, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The four sources are not about the combine, but about Baltic amber. The Aljazeeria article mentions the combine once (article is on the amber not the company) the ABC has one small section on selling to china, same with the Prime artice. that leaves only the Russia beyond the headlines article, which again is about the amber and not the company.--Kevmin § 17:25, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Merge. The company stub is little more than a promotional piece now, if further material is added it can be split if needed. Vsmith (talk) 18:17, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Merge, as per Vsmith and Kevmin: the company is doubtfully notable independently, given the sources. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:26, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

The company clearly meets WP:ORG (signnificant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources), so how is it not notable? I have added more sources that discuss the company more directly - there are literally hundreds of them, if only someone cares to look for them.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 19:42, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

 Disagree, a mine is not the same as the product mined in the mine. Baltic Amber is world famous and its page lists fauna found in the amber, the characteristics and details. Kaliningrad is just a part of the Baltic and this mine is not the same as the amber mined there. There is enough content in either article to keep them separate and no good reason to merge them, so leave them be. That both articles may be up for improvement, sure, but then focus on that, not just merging them. Tisquesusa (talk) 00:12, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

• As it stands now the Kaliningrad Amber Combine article is a decent start article IF its moved to the title History of amber mining in the Kaliningrad Oblast, the MAJORITY of the recent text is not about the combine at all, so it still doesnt function as an article on that company.--Kevmin § 05:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

If you want to move the article you're welcome to try your luck in the appropriate venue. As the merge proposal has been abandoned the tags need to go.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 20:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I did NOT say it was abandoned, STOP inappropriately removing the merge tag until an UNINVOLVED editor closes it one way or another.--Kevmin § 20:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

You just said you'd be fine with the article, if only it had the title of your choosing. That is not a merger debate, and the current tag is misleading.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 20:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Your ignoring the caveats in my post if and still doesnt function as an article on that company. So the merge is still relevant. Its not up to you to close this merge--Kevmin § 20:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Since Kevmin keeps adding back the merge tags, does anyone else still think it should be merged after the expansion? @Vsmith: @Peter coxhead: @Tisquesusa:.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Additional opinions are needed from editors recently active on relevant projects. @FunkMonk: @Animalparty: @Casliber: @Anna Frodesiak: @George Ho: @Ymblanter:

• Oppose Kaliningrad Amber Combine is a place, and Baltic amber is a mineral. Neither is so obscure as to justify merging the pages. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:15, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose: The topic is notable and the article covers it well with a good number of sources. Abyssal (talk) 02:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - keep 'em separate. The company is more than a century old and attracts a number of superlatives ("only official amber mine in Russia", "world's biggest enterprise for the mining and processing of amber"). Seems well worth an article, and has okay sourcing. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 04:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: merging the articles would be like Wikipedia claiming that Baltic amber can be found only in the Kaliningrad region, which obviously isn't true, and marketed only by the Kaliningrad Amber Combine, which obviously also isn't true Striking my first oppose since I seem to have got it wrong, believeing that the merge should go the other way, but still opposing, since the article about the Kaliningrad Amber Combine needs to stand on its own, and prove to be notable enough for a stand alone article; merging the articles would mean that just about any other company selling Baltic amber, but not being notable eenough for a stand alone article, should also be included. And this article should be about Baltic amber as such, not about companies selling it... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 09:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)