 | This article was nominated for deletion on 8 December 2022. The result of the discussion was merge. |
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
Wow........never heard of such a hobby. There are only 250? doesn;t shock me...67.176.14.100 16:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Food and drink Tagging
editThis article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and carefull attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 18:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Content to merge
editI'm new to AfD discussions but common sense suggests that with a merge result we discuss what content to merge and what to leave out. However, unsure whether discussion takes place here or in a separate merger discussion page.
My suggestion is, so long as the sourcing is satisfactory:
Lead - omit, retain Sucrologist definition in the sugar packet article
Type of sugar packets - omit, already noted in the sugar packet article
Acquisition - omit, places where packets found already noted in the sugar packet article and the rest seems obvious
Clubs - trim, just mention London club and Italian event in a single sentence
Themes - retain, that seems an important part of the hobby
Storage - omit, seems overly detailed
Guiness World Record - retain
No need for any subheadings. Rupples (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Rupples I'd add an important qualification: don't merge anything that doesn't have a reference, per WP:V/WP:OR. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:59, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Piotrus. Jeez. While looking for a source for the "themes" part of this article I came across a kind of blog which shows photographs of a booklet on Sucrology. There's pictures of all the booklet's pages and the wording is the same as in this article. There's no author's name or date on the publication. I can share with you the link but wasn't sure that I should due to copyright issues. Rupples (talk) 17:07, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Rupples You could share the link, that's ok. But without a date of publication we can't be certain who committed a copyvio. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:24, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Piotrus Here's a link. [1]. Suppose it's possible (may even be probable, due to the niche subject) that the author of the booklet was the person who copied the text on to the sucrology article. Rupples (talk) 14:04, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Possible. Reading some comments there leaves me with an impression that this is some new artsy project, not an old work, which makes it more likely Wikipedia content was copied into it. Hard to be 100% sure without contacting the author. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Piotrus Here's a link. [1]. Suppose it's possible (may even be probable, due to the niche subject) that the author of the booklet was the person who copied the text on to the sucrology article. Rupples (talk) 14:04, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Rupples You could share the link, that's ok. But without a date of publication we can't be certain who committed a copyvio. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:24, 17 December 2022 (UTC)