Forum icon  ForumsTen Forward → Whale articles (replywatch)
This forum discussion has been archived
This forum discussion has been archived and should not be added to. Please visit the Forums to begin a new topic in the relevant location.

I'm wondering if there is a need for the following articles on different whale species which were only seen in the background: Fin whale, Sei whale, Bowhead whale, and Gray whale, and which all say essentially the same thing. It might be better for the information if they were all merged with Whale. 31dot (talk) 23:58, October 1, 2013 (UTC)

Given that these names were actually somewhat legibly seen, I'd personally definitely say they deserve articles on their own. Details of their range and pictures of them can also still be put in, I think once that happens the articles will feel a lot more well-rounded. -- Capricorn (talk) 22:00, October 3, 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the merge suggestion. Having several articles with the same tiny amount of information looks like artificial bloat to me. Having one article instead, referencing the various types of whale mentioned (and, if needs be, using the remaining redirects for categorization purposes), sounds like a better idea. --Cid Highwind (talk) 22:06, October 3, 2013 (UTC)
I don't count the number of articles I create. It's not important to me. I am more interested in creating articles that meet the standards of the wiki. I may fail now and then; however, for me, it's always a learning process. Now about the whales. Do we extend this to some of the whales seen in the Klingon displays? Throwback (talk) 23:33, October 3, 2013 (UTC)
...or even to the Denebian whale? I actually think this touches on a pretty fundamental issue, what we find important enough to have their own article or not. I always felt it self-evident that every canon subject that was a distinct thing would have its own article. It seems like it doesn't matter how much information there's on a page when we deal with once-mentioned planets, and to be honest I just can't seem to understand whatever kind of coherent logic there's supposed to be behind these kinds of merge suggestions for other kinds of articles, most of the time. -- Capricorn (talk) 01:07, October 4, 2013 (UTC)
I don't think that is the right way of looking at this. It can't be our goal to simply create as many articles as would be theoretically possible, otherwise we might also want to split each of our species articles in "male X" and "female X", or start writing articles about each and every individual room on the Enterprise, or do something else crazy. Instead, what should be our goal is to present all information, yes, but do it in the form that is best for a reader trying to pick up all that information. Assume there's a reader interested in getting all information about whales. Do you really think it would be better to make him click through half a dozen articles all containing the same trivial bit of information than to make him read one article about all types of whale mentioned and only present a "sub-article" if there is really something more to say about some specific type? --Cid Highwind (talk) 07:15, October 4, 2013 (UTC)
Cid, you're creating a false dichotomy with your examples, since you can't compare splitting up an article about a single species to having different articles for different species of whales. The only crazy thing suggested here is your assurtion that building the web shouldn't be our goal. "Only Human arrogance would assume [the guideline for building the web must only] be meant for man." If these were different humanoid species listed without any visual, we would have seperate articles for them without question. Here we have different species with at least the possibility of an image for each one. I say keep'em as is, since there is more than enough info for separate articles, and merging them would actually make the presentation worse, albeit with fewer page loads involved. - Archduk3 07:54, October 4, 2013 (UTC)
You are grasping at straws. By all means, follow me around and blindly oppose me in anything I do or say if that is what floats your boat nowadays. But, please, don't take other users hostage and don't try to use policy pages that clearly don't apply in your holy quest. "Building the web" means that, if a page exists, it should he linked to others - not that any specific page needs to be created in the first place just to have something that others can link to. --Cid Highwind (talk) 08:08, October 4, 2013 (UTC)
If this was about you Cid, I be asking the community to address the clear abuse of your sysop powers over at MA/mu, and call for your removal as an admin, but it's not. Do you have anything on topic to say, or are you just interested in attacking me? After all, when did disagreeing with you and your interpretations of the "right way to look at things" become a sin? - Archduk3 08:21, October 4, 2013 (UTC)
I'd really rather not get involved in whatever it is you two are having, but I guess I must a bit because I don't think Archduk3 was grasping at straws at all. The building the web thing might be slightly of the mark, but otherwise he made an excellent argument which I agree with 100%. On the other hand the muddling the issue with hypotheticals like having different articles for different sexes of species is just... patently absurd. Just use common sense; we're supposed to be a Star Trek encyclopedia, which means having articles on anything that can be considered distinct Star Trek-related subjects is just what we do. And a whole frelling species certainly ought to qualify. Where exactly is the line supposed to be between information we represent in articles and information we represent in some kind of disguised glossary format? -- Capricorn (talk) 12:12, October 4, 2013 (UTC)

It's nice to have different articles about subjects when there is something different to say about each of them. There is also a difference between different species from different planets (and even just different planets) than one category of species on one planet. (i.e. I don't think the aforementioned Denebian whale should be merged.) I also think it would be better for the information to have it one location. People might not know to look for the barely mentioned individual whale species to read the article, but they will know to look for just whales themselves. While we must consider building the web, we must also consider accessibility of information. 31dot (talk) 12:27, October 4, 2013 (UTC)

@31dot: Exactly; @Capricorn: Regarding the question on where to draw a line: I think the only sensible answer to that can be that it depends on the individual amount of information as well as the existence of "related" articles. If there is a considerable amount of information, or if there is no "related enough" other article (this is the case with individual, named planets in my opinion), then we of course have to keep a separate article. On the other hand, if there is only little information and there is a "very related" article, we might as well merge. I believe this to be the case here. --Cid Highwind (talk) 12:48, October 4, 2013 (UTC)
Ultimatly the thing that bothers me is that if we do this it becomes very, very subjective what deserves an article or not. As someone who who often creates articles on very minor subjects, I would really like to known beforehand if I ought to create an article or not.
Plus the range of existing articles that might to be merged by this reasoning is huge. Should all pages on sectors we only know the name of be merged into sector? Throwback's been creating articles on specific cars seen recently, should these be merged into car? I've created pages on certain San Francisco landmarks, should those be merged in San Francisco? Most books we have articles on were only seen, not discussed, which means that there's hardly any information except the title and in what context it was seen. Should they be merged into book? Ditto for a whole bunch of films. And I can even think of a arguably "related enough" page to merge certain planets into: the page for their system or sector.
All that being said; I actually did find Cid's answer on where to draw the line very well-reasoned (albeit not good enough to assuage my worries). If we do go the way of merging, I think it ought to be a very good basis for a guideline.
@31Dot, I don't know what other people do, but I for one do know to look for those articles, for the same reason I look for more extensive articles; because I saw them in the movie. And I'm not sure what accessibility worries you have, since all whale species are conveniently listed in whale. -- Capricorn (talk) 16:46, October 4, 2013 (UTC)

I have two concerns.

First Concern//Content of Articles

From Contribute What You Know or Are Willing To Learn About

A useful rule of thumb is the two-sentence minimum. Whenever you create a new article that you don't know too much about (or aren't interested in writing), include at least two sentences before you press the "Save page" button. Two sentences is about the minimum necessary to provide good content that is at least minimally informative.

Most articles that I have written have met this standard. If there is a change in the standard, I think that needs to be brought up in a discussion where everyone can express their views. I think this piece meal approach is not helpful to the wiki. Like Capricorn stated, it’s subjective. There needs to be an objective approach.

Second Concern//Length of References (tl;dr blocks)

There is another area that I think needs to be discussed. I am not blameless in this. There are episodes and films where we have literally blocks of reference data. I think the references need to be categorized, like they do at Memory Beta. I would be happy to begin this process, but before I do so, I would need to know if it meets the approval of the community.Throwback (talk) 22:03, October 4, 2013 (UTC)

If I may make a suggestion, maybe it would be better to start a new forum topic for your second concern. It's altogether a different topic, and also people might be more inclined to chime in if they don't have to wade through this large and unfortunately sometimes ugly discussion. -- Capricorn (talk) 23:26, October 4, 2013 (UTC)
edit conflict... @Throwback: That "rule of thumb" doesn't state that two sentences are a good "standard" for an article, though. What it defines is an absolute minimum for a newly created article to not become an article for immediate deletion based on being an uninformative sub-stub. Basically something along the lines of "if you can't even be bothered to write two full sentences about it, just let it go...". That rule doesn't mean that we need to keep all two-sentence-articles forever. Regarding your second concern, I'm not sure what that has to do with what we're discussing here - so please explain or create a separate discussion page for it. --Cid Highwind (talk) 23:33, October 4, 2013 (UTC)
I have done that. Now, what is a relevant article? How do we as a community define that? And, when we have defined that, do we amend the FAQs to include that new definition so that this doesn't become an issue in the future? (I am not opposed to a revision of the mission statement of this Encyclopedia, but I do believe that we need clarity on this issue. There are at least two members of this board who are uncertain on what you and the others define as a relevant article. And, as the rule in customer service, where one person will complain and nine will not, there are probably other people who have the same uncertainity.)Throwback (talk) 23:39, October 4, 2013 (UTC)
The point I have been trying to make is that any "too strict" definition won't work. Try it - suggest any definitive number of sentences that makes a "good enough article", and I can probably find either a shorter article that we need to keep, or a longer article that has already been merged in the past (or would be merged if someone created it now). This is why the term "relevant article" hasn't even been used in this discussion up until now - and I still think it isn't the thing we should be worried most about. We should strive to have as much content as possible, not as many individual articles as possible. --Cid Highwind (talk) 23:58, October 4, 2013 (UTC)

I did some research on the difference between content and article.

If I understand those articles above, I should write articles that are only relevant to a Star Trek audience. So, an article about whales, San Francisco skyscrapers, or books wouldn't qualify, as they are not directly relevant to Star Trek. Is that your point, Cid Highwind? Throwback (talk) 00:27, October 5, 2013 (UTC)

I would like to clarify that I too am interested in increasing the content rather then the article count. I couldn't give a fig about article count in fact. It just so happens that I believe seperate articles are the best and most logical way to go for this particular kind of content. -- Capricorn (talk) 01:20, October 5, 2013 (UTC)
In case it was missed before: I still believe "...merging [these articles] would actually make the presentation worse...", so I don't think anybody here has been suggesting that a high article count should be more important than the quality of the content of the articles. To address Throwback's question, MA:RESOURCE states anything seen or heard in Star Trek is directly relevant to the project, including whales, skyscrapers, and books. - Archduk3 03:34, October 5, 2013 (UTC)
No, Throwback, that has not been my point - interpreting ones answer using a random Google search result isn't really helpful, I think. --Cid Highwind (talk) 07:55, October 5, 2013 (UTC)
You throw at me terms like "content" and "article", then you say there is a "difference" between the two. What do you think I should do? Not investigate what you are saying, and then not report what I find to confirm or not confirm what you are saying. Frankly, I didn't understand what you were writing, so I attempted to elucidate meaning by investigating.Throwback (talk) 08:12, October 5, 2013 (UTC)
You could simply have asked for an explanation of any terms that are unclear to you. I think that, with a "content policy" in place and "articles" being the basic building blocks of a wiki, it is a little strange that exactly these terms are unclear, but here it goes anyway: "content", as defined in the mentioned policy, is all the information we want this wiki to contain. "Article" is a form of presentation of content (having said content on its own page), and there are other forms (combining with other content, for example). "Article" and "content" are not synonyms. --Cid Highwind (talk) 08:44, October 5, 2013 (UTC)
I just had a new user suggest that the building articles that I and Capricorn have created be merged. With the whales and, now the buildings, I think I need some clarification on what is a relevant article for this site. The user believes that only those buildings that were mentioned in a source should have an article. I had a bad week, and my patience with this issue is wearing thin. I need examples of what is a relevant article and what is a relevant content. Apparently, I am utterly clueless on what articles I should write. I am becoming frustrated by this issue, and I don't want my frustration to get me thrown off this site.Throwback (talk) 05:22, October 6, 2013 (UTC)
Just two days ago, my comparison with potential individual "room articles" was shot down as "crazy" - and now we're here, discussing individual buildings of a city, which articles contain about as much information as I could find about any random Enterprise room. I agree with what the user wrote on your talk page (and, by the way, it doesn't matter whether that user is "new"). If a building was just seen in a fly-by without having any relevance to the plot specifically, then, yes, it would be better to mention it somewhere without giving it is own article.
Apart of that: you will have to accept that merge suggestion are a very standard process of this wiki. If dealing with that, or discussing your edits in general, stresses you that much because of any personal situation, it might be best to stay away from the wiki for a while. --Cid Highwind (talk) 07:52, October 6, 2013 (UTC)

If some sort of significant event happened at the building, that's another matter, but if it's just "this is a building that was seen", those should be merged. 31dot (talk) 08:40, October 6, 2013 (UTC)

On many reference blocks, I have seen and read articles that were based off what a person saw in an episode or film. Many of these articles were about things that played no significant role in the plot. Where do we draw the line? And, that is what I have been asking for. For, it seems to me, that, for years, that there was a leniency in what writers could write, as long as it was lifted directly from canon and wasn't apocryphal or fanon. Within a few months, I have seen that leniency being replaced by a drive to have articles that are "relevant" to the plot of a film or episode and greater talk of a merger. If there is a drive to reform this site, please be honest about it. If there is a concern about the number of articles on this wiki, please be honest about it. My problem is with a lack of clearity and transperency. I work best in a structured environment and I need to know boundaries. Right now, I don't know what articles I can write and what articles I can't write.Throwback (talk) 18:03, October 6, 2013 (UTC)
@31Dot. Setting aside for a moment the discussion about what should be merged and what not, I'm still curious as to the reasons you feel the merging approach is superior in any case. You talked accesebility earlier on the page, and I asked for clarification, but you must have missed that and I'm genuinly curious, because I can't think of a reason but I might be overlooking something.
On the buildings: I think the building thing (which, despite what Throwback said, isn't just something of just the two of us) started with the Golden Gate Bridge and the Transamerica Pyramid, two structures that have appeared in nearly every shot of San Francisco ever, the same way the Eiffel Tower is seen in every movie set in Paris. And that seems to be the reason those articles were created too. To me creating articles on other buildings is just a logical extension of that; our policy is very clear that we try to be as complete as possible, and regardless of how we might do this in the future, the way things are currently done creating an article is the way to represent that information. But to reiterate an earlier point, if that's not ok, then we really need a clear line. That for me is what it is all about, clear rules about this kind of thing. I guess Golden Gate Bridge could be kept by 31dot's proposed criteria, because it was driven over in voyage home, but do you really want to merge Transamerica Pyramid so it is lost in a long list of buildings people will much less often be looking for? And does this rule for buildings extend to establishments which were only referenced as labeled buildings, things like Floyd's Barber Shop?
Despite what you might think from my posts here, I do have worries about where to draw the line exactly. As a practical matter I've only created articles on things that were clearly, unambigiously, and recognisably seen, but in a shot of a cityscape one could with the help of map also theoretically identify hundreds of regular houses to which maybe a few pixels can be assigned. I don't think that that should be done, but I can't give an exact reason. On the other hand, I also can't give a satisfying reason why Golden Gate Bridge should have an article of its own but not the Embarcadero Center (seen in three different productions!) the San Francisco Ferry Building which was extremely prominent in the last film. I can't say I've perfectly figured out that question, but I've tried to be pragmatic and I stand by the stuff I've added.
Let me say this one more time for perfect clarity; I would still rather not merge these articles, but that's not the important thing for me. My real big concern is that if we start merging this kind of stuff it really needs to be perfectly clear which content ought to have an article and which not. The various common-sense-ish views I've read here are very subjective in practice, or would lead to an extremely broad groups of articles getting merged if applied consistently. We really need something better than that.
And finally, Cid, concerning the last two sentences of your post. While merging is a standard part of the wiki, Throwback feeling clueless about what articles he should write is not because he misunderstood our policies, but because what you are suggesting is very different from the way we have been doing things for years. You can't expect him to read your mind to know your views on things. And in any case, at this point I think we're all getting frustrated. I don't know how Throwback is doing, but your suggestion that maybe he should remove himself from the discussion reads to me like a very underhanded bit of manipulation. I really don't know if that was intentional or not , but even if it was not, that is really not ok. (@Throwback, by that I don't mean you shouldn't remove yourself if that's what you feel in necesary. Just that you shouldn't feel pressured to do so) -- Capricorn (talk) 18:59, October 6, 2013 (UTC)
As far I knew, Capricorn and I were the only ones to write articles on buildings. I was wrong, and I apologize to those who I didn't give credit to. Thank you, Capricorn, for your comments. I suffer from Asperger's Syndrome, which means that I have difficulty in communicating with people, either vocally or in writing. There are times when I have to call upon my mother to help me. This is why I need structure; as a person who suffers from this syndrome, uncertainity is disastrous. I feel trapped in a corner, not knowing what to do. I feel frustration, then panic. Give me a structured pathway that I can follow, please.Throwback (talk) 20:01, October 6, 2013 (UTC)

I was not really out to establish a general policy here, nor was I out to address any area other than whales, which are essentially one category of lifeforms from one planet (again, leaving out the Denebian whale, from another planet.) where we now have several articles which simply state (to paraphrase) "X is a type of whale and it was seen at Y location" where Y is all the same location. It's more accessible to have such information in one article because relatively few people will notice these specific whale species only seen in the background to know to look for them, but more people are likely to look for whales in general and therefore learn what types of whales appeared in Star Trek, more so than if they were spread out on different pages. Further, if someone actually did look up the specific types of whales under discussion here, they would only learn what they already know- that they appeared in the background. 31dot (talk) 20:16, October 6, 2013 (UTC)

[edit conflict] - I certainly think there's a distinction between a skyscraper that is part of a city skyline and unreadable dots on a map, so we should have information on those buildings somewhere. It should be noted that merging isn't deletion though, and no one is suggesting that as far as I know, just that something like Earth spacedocks might be a good idea for San Francisco locations. That said, whale species and buildings are apples and oranges. - Archduk3 20:54, October 6, 2013 (UTC)

@Capricorn: If being frustrated and offended is the new topic now, I could just start being offended by how you are asserting that I tried to either "intentionally manipulate" or "unintentionally manipulate" Throwback, if that sentence was just meant to be a good advice and no form of manipulation at all. I'm not offended, but will just assume that this assertion wasn't your intention. Clarification: If someone mentions having had "a bad week" (off-site, I assume) and then mentions how some random internet discussion leads to additional frustration and "patience wearing thin", that is a warning sign. The best advice here is to leave the on-line discussion (at least for a while, not necessarily forever) if the other option is to become frustrated (and eventually take that anger out from here to "real-life"). I think it might be best to leave all that aside, and, as 31dot already suggested, concentrate on just the topic.
Regarding that topic, I think it is wrong to state that this merge suggestion is way outside of other merge suggestions we had throughout the past years. We're are often merging content to other pages, as well as splitting content from other pages, this is just a standard process. Also, regarding an "objective" rule for merging and splitting, I've stated several times already that I don't believe that a very "strict" definition is possible, at least not based on article length (the mentioned "two-sentence minimum) or simply on "being mentioned" (we do have a great many things that were "mentioned" but do not have their own article). If you think that some good "strict definition" exists, why don't you suggest it here yourself? -- Cid Highwind (talk) 20:59, October 6, 2013 (UTC)
@Cid. I didn't mean to say you were "unintentionally manipulating" Throwback, just that your statement was extremely unfortunate no matter why it was made. How about assuming Throwback is still the best person to decide what's best for himself? Passive agressive helpfull advice is not helpful at all.
Ok, back to topic, and gladly so. This merge is fundamentally different from our usual merge process in that usually things that are merged are essentially the same thing, and the decision to merge can therefore be made based on policy rather then how worthy we feel these topics are of having their own article. That can quite simply not be said about the whales, or the buildings. Even the original proposal didn't claim that. (on a sidenote, I admit there have been a handfull exceptions to that, space shuttle and Dixon Hill series come to mind. I don't think those are very relevant, but if you want to make some kind of case out of that, I guess that's fair)
I can't offer offer a strict definition since I can't think of one, at least as of now. Believe me, I've tried. (your comment of 12:48, October 4, 2013 is actually the best concrete idea at that I've read) I don't know it's possible to find one. All I know that non-strict definitions won't work at either. I'm inclined to take the fact that you haven't made any attempt to counter my concerns that massive amounts of all kinds of articles might be merged as further proof for that.
@31dot, I did understand that you didn't exactly ask for this when you created this discussion, and I appologise that this ended up here. But it just happens that I very strongly believe that there need to be clear guidelines for when and when not to merge, for consistency's sake. I've come to believe that even more with the reactions here, and and then suddenly building articles getting questioned too. Clearly there's a current on this wiki that would be in favor of merging large amounts of articles, and such a thing just shouldn't suddenly happen without discussion.
Now concerning what you said about accessibility. These articles are still incomplete. Information about their habitats (in map form) was also be seen. Plus they can be described, and in some cases the model included a calf. And maybe this is less important differentiation-wise, but pictures should also still be added. Doesn't "X was a small type of whale native to Earths Arctic Circle, reconcilable by its dark colour with small white spots. A model an adult with calf of this whale was seen at Y location" sound a lot better?. As for the problem with what people are likely to look for, I just don't get it to be honest. There's a fully linked list of whale species on whale. Either they're not interested in details on the specific species and they can stay there, or they can easily click through. -- Capricorn (talk) 23:18, October 6, 2013 (UTC)
(new post) 31dot, I've reread your last comment, and realized that maybe you meant to say that you didn't really want to be in this discussion, and you were only making further posts because you've been "trapped" in it by starting it, and I kept asking you questions. I dunno if that's the case, but if it is I'm sorry, and obviously I'm ok if you don't further discuss this. -- Capricorn (talk) 23:41, October 6, 2013 (UTC)
Just to be clear on the building thing, that would have to be a separate discussion, since those buildings are unnamed in canon, while the whale species are named. It's conceivable that addresses and street names, as well as the building names themselves, could change over time, but we know these species were addressed by name. Generally, the main reason we have merged things into one list before is that they are unnamed or there were other policy or guideline related points. The Dixon Hill series merge, there was only one if I'm remembering correctly, was because there was no distinction made in most of the references what novel was being used, so the page for the holonovel program was more about the series than any individual one book or program. I'm also remembering the shuttle merges having to do with dubious references as well, so while I don't doubt the length had something to do with it, I don't think it was the only factor.
To address the size of the articles in question, or any small articles for that matter, according to the guideline the rule of thumb is the minimum for a article is two sentences. Cid correctly pointed out that content is more important than the number of articles, and the crux of the argument for merging these seems to be that there is only a little information on them, of which none is unique, and that it could be presented in one place, since I can't imagine that one click is really an accessibility problem if someone is interested. So if there is unique information for these, as Capricorn already mentioned above, and I tend to include images in that due to my hatred of galleries since wikia made them ugly and huge, the only reasoning left would be the little information part. That, I believe, is also covered at stub guideline as well as Memory Alpha:Contribute what you know or are willing to learn about, namely: "Not all short articles are stub articles. Sometimes, there's only a little bit of information available on a subject and it only warrants two or three sentences. Short articles that cover their subject entirely should not be marked with a stub message." I'm of the opinion that this, including the two sentence minimum, does effectively mean that articles with at least two sentences can stand on their own. - Archduk3 00:53, October 7, 2013 (UTC)

I only meant that I did not intend to start a large discussion; I am more than willing to participate when I have something to add to it. 31dot (talk) 01:05, October 7, 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure someone will come along in a bit to disagree, but as far as I'm concerned, Archduk3's succinct analysis pretty much settles the question whether the whale articles ought to be merged, and, amazingly, offers the workable guidelines on which pages to merge and which not which I've been yearning for. -- Capricorn (talk) 01:40, October 7, 2013 (UTC)
Whether I disagree or not, I think it is not OK to claim that this discussion is "only about the whale articles" while one party brings other examples, but then merrily try to define guidelines for all articles. Either/Or, but we can't have it both ways. So, regarding the whale articles, there's two people in favor of merging (31dot, me) vs. three people against merging (Capricorn, Throwback, Archduk). That's a slight majority, but far from a clear consensus, and as long as the people involved don't change their opinion and the people not yet involved don't start to care, it will probably stay that way. That, however, mustn't mean that this slight majority can now be used to determine other things - especially if it already has been hinted at that a two-sentence minimum might not be enough in case of the building articles because other factors do play a role. Bottom line: before taking home from this discussion that each and every two-sentence article can be created and will definitely survive, please start a proper discussion about that limit. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 09:05, October 7, 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand what you feel I've done wrong, Cid. I wasn't trying to unilaterally declare this discussion over, if that's what you mean. Regarding the claim that someone is saying it's only about the whale article, I'm not even sure what you are reffering to. All I was saying is that 1- I think Archduk3's post is a pretty hard to ignore argument rooted in our policies for not merging the whale articles, which I think ought to settle that particular sub-issue. And 2- That I personally think his argument for what to merge and what not is excelent. The question about the buildings is in any case still outstanding. I guess you don't agree then, and it's true there's no clear consensus yet, but you're not exactly helping that along, since I've heard very little constructive criticism of the other side from you yet, just broad refutals. Here we had an excelent post offering well-reasoned and concrete ideas, and instead of addressing its points you just start talking about this not meaning there's consensus. If you truly want to move to a consensus then tell me, what exactly do you think of Archduk3's argument? -- Capricorn (talk) 10:30, October 7, 2013 (UTC)
I actually think that Archduk3 is correct in pointing out that "if there is unique information" and if that information was added to the article, it would have a much better standing in regards to not merging it. After all, right from the start one of the major points has been that there is no unique content in the articles. I see Archduk's statement as an implicit request to actually do add that information instead of just talking about it. Wouldn't it be much better if we could decide on the fate of an article based on what actually is there instead of what could potentially be there if only someone wrote it?
Also, I think it is a little harsh to state that I've not been constructive and have not been addressing points, as I feel the opposite is true. For example, I've asked you for a suggestion regarding what you think would be a good objective measure for "non-mergeable" articles at least twice, and I've received none of that yet. Please be constructive yourself before criticizing others for not being constructive. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 10:56, October 7, 2013 (UTC)
I am in favor of merging the minor whale articles, as they are essentially copy and paste with slight modification. I think of the building articles that one shouldn't be touched. This is the Transamerica Pyramid. This building is as iconic as the Golden Gate Bridge.Throwback (talk) 12:10, October 7, 2013 (UTC)
I'm currently rather occupied by something real-life, but I'll work on adding that extra information as soon as I can (should be today) -- Capricorn (talk) 18:01, October 7, 2013 (UTC)
I've edited Gray whale, Fin whale and Sei whale and added images (from dvd unfortunately, don't have tvh on bluray). I also pretty much ended up rewriting the pages quite a bit. Note that I've not touched the fourth merge candidate, Bowhead whale. It's a bit embarrassing, but I can't seem to indentify it on-screen. That may very well be just me though, I've had a very long day.
In any case, I think pretty much all information gleamed is now incorporated. (save for the unreadable descriptions on the plaques maybe one day surfacing :D) - And I think these articles are now as different from each other as can typically be expected from short articles on similar topics. -- Capricorn (talk) 23:07, October 7, 2013 (UTC)
There is the minke whale article as well that needs a touch up. I am able to read most of the large plaque to the right of the displays, a little of the baleen whale plaque (the one describing the group), and all of the toothed whales plaque. As for the individual whales, I was able to read all, save for one, names. The one I couldn't I was to identify by other means, and that is the minke whales. Now, as for the toothed whales, I was able to identify those on the left. I attempted to identity the ones on the right of the display by using a book on whales, and couldn't.Throwback (talk) 02:56, October 8, 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad the changes were made to the article. I still feel that they would be better in a single article, especially since we aren't talking about actual whales that were seen(just models) but I'm willing to drop the issue. 31dot (talk) 12:03, October 8, 2013 (UTC)

I'll work on minke whale later (I'm still very busy and won't have much time for as this in the near future), I was planning to go through all the whale articles to see what can be added from that display anyway. By the way, looking at those displays for my edits I'm guessing there ought to be a few more whale species articles that can be created. In fact, I've got the impression that that display covers every cetacean species, so I guess if you'd identify them by appearance alone, not by what you can see on the plaque, you could even ad a whole lot more articles. I'm probably not doing my position any favors by bringing this up while the whale discussion is getting in calmer waters again, but there's data there that under our quest for completeness will have to be added in some form eventually.
Two comments specifically for Throwback; first of all, if you can read those plaques I would advise adding whatever more information can be added to whale. I believe you when you say you're not just out to create many new articles, but if you're going through that part of the movie in such detail anyway, it would be very useful not to just focus on discovering new things to write short articles about, but also work on improving existing articles as much as you can.
Secondly, we're still discussion the buildings here. I see you've put them up for deletion, but suddenly making that move and not even mentioning it here doesn't seem productive. And in any case, I've no clue how you've suddenly gone from some kind of merge to outright deletion. Could you maybe elaborate on the change in stance stance that is behind these actions? (on a sidenote; I'm going to separately comment on some of those deletion discussions too) -- Capricorn (talk) 17:03, October 8, 2013 (UTC)
update, I've overlooked that the discussion on buildings had been moved to a sepperate discussion, disregard second comment. -- Capricorn (talk) 17:03, October 8, 2013 (UTC)