Talk:Beek

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Netherlands (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Dutch municipalities (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject Cities (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Merger proposal[edit]

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.
The articles will be merged, to bring it in line with the 99% majority of Dutch municipality articles. CRwikiCA (talk) 13:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I propose that Beek (municipality) be merged into Beek. I do not think there should be seperate articles for both, especially seeing that that one is really short and that most other municipalities named after their main town have only one article, or that the main article is the municipality article. I think combining these would stick with the normal usage on the English wikipedia. Please note that I made a similar proposal for Heerenveen and that the argument there, both for and against would hold here too. CRwikiCA (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.