Talk:Names inscribed on the equestrian statue of Frederick the Great

Merger proposal

I see that Chariotsacha added a tag here proposing to merge this article into Equestrian statue of Frederick the Great, so I'm creating this discussion header. I'm guessing that Auntieruth55 thought it made sense to separate this (very long and detailed) list from the main article about the statue for the sake of summary style, and I'd feel kind of bad about merging an article she's taken through an A-class review. That said, I, also, think it might make more sense to have one long, excellent article about the whole statue complex with all its names and figures, rather than two. What do other involved editors think? Wtfiv? Yngvadottir? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes I was about to open this discussion as well, thanks for starting it! I just think that its odd to have an article dedicated to details and inscriptions when the main article itself is shorter. Both are notable enough, but making them seperate articles seems incredibly off. Both articles have been inactive for quite some time so I feel if we can settle this now to merge or not both will be stable. If we can't merge, I think a section in the main article menitoning the inscriptions briefly while linking to this article would be a good compromise. I still believe though it is best to merge. Chariotsacha (talk) 15:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• Merge, but I don't have strong feelings on the issue. I see this article was started almost 2 years after I created the article on the statue, and I don't remember whether I knew about it at the time. I see it started as just a list and now also documents what's on all the panels on the plinth, as well as having a section with three photos of the statue in situ (of which the middle one, labelled as the oldest known, is actually from the statue's dedication). I know opinions vary on how long and detailed articles should be and on when subtopics should be split off, but it does make sense to me to roll all but that section into the article on the work, and there's at least one photo at the statue article that would then become redundant, so it wouldn't be that hard to fit it logically on the page. But since I don't do processes of asking for review to get articles I create or expand labelled as a particular standard, if Auntieruth55 has strong objections on principles of article length/focus, I would have to defer to those. I'd rather not see the statue article padded out with more material on, for example, political analysis of the statue as a reflection of the hegemonic Prussian state just to balance the size of the explication of the reliefs and the name lists. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Merge I'd think this would be a great challenge, but I'd advocate for brevity. Losing as little of the relevant material as possible but keeping it down to a paragraph or two. I think we may be able to find the source for the quote and tuck that into a footnote. I just want to make sure that we're strategic. I appreciated buidhe's size management for Frederick, but I felt like the review required me to add some extra weight into Frederick to pass muster already. Merging would definitely work, but we do need to be careful not to create Frederick "the obese" Wtfiv (talk) 23:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Happy to Merge .....But per Wtfiv I originally thought it made the article cumbersome. And one is an article about an art object and the other is an article (almost a list, really) of the names inscribed on a military statue. I have no strong feelings either way, but I do think merging them would make the former very long. auntieruth (talk) 15:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)