Talk:History of John Smith's

Overlap with John Smith's Brewery
There is a very large degree of overlap between this and the parent article, presumably via a cut-and-paste operation. Since the parent article is not specially long (30k: there are plenty of articles of 100k or more), and has a GA, and has not been noticeably shortened, the rationale for a subsidiary article (and its submission to GA itself) is not entirely clear. The simplest action would simply be to redirect the child back to the parent, unless there is some definite reason for its existence. If so, the parent article's history should be shortened to a paragraph or two: but it isn't easy to see why that would be the right solution here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Chiswick Chap, I intend to continue to expand the History of John Smith's article. Tom (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * So the implied rationale is that the future length of the history article would be undue for the parent article, I suppose, but the dray cart is definitely before the horse; the right course of action is to edit and improve the (parent) article, and if a part proves too long then to discuss and agree to split it off. Since the parent article is essentially entirely historical - the company no longer being in existence (other than as a ghost, its brand name), it isn't easy to see why such a history topic needs two articles. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)