Talk:History of Rotherham United F.C.

Merge
Its better to have two areas so the history on the main rotherham united page can be more of a summery —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.121.96 (talk • contribs) 10:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The information has just been split out from the main article because of concerns over Recentism so I do not think that a merger is appropriate. Keith D (talk) 11:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

STRONG MERGE It seems a bit ridiculous to have a separate page just for the history of some football club. We can't have a 'history of...' page for everything. Why not put it as a section in the original article? Claireislovely (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This is an encyclopedia, its the whole point of what we do here! 92.234.175.205 (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

STRONG MERGE I think if the information was compiled onto the main club article, then it would increase depth into the page and give it more chance of being a featured article. It is also easier to see the information as I didn't even know this page existed until editing the history section on the main page. Everything kept together. Rocky miller 97 (talk) 02:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The brief history is more than enough for the main page. Quantity wont make it a featured article, quality does.92.234.175.205 (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * KeepThere is a precedent for having separate articles to have a more detailed history with a brief one on the main page. Strong Keep IMO. 92.234.175.205 (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)