Talk:John Daye

Merger proposal
This page should be merged with John Day because:
 * It's silly and as I recall against policy to have a disambig page for only two articles, especially when;
 * One of these articles is actually a redirect - John Daye (printer) redirects to John Day (printer), and as such is already listed at John Day 81.154.247.194 (talk) 10:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Separate Merge See new comment below. This page should stay separate from John Day because:
 * I have no issue with eliminating the John Daye page and using hat notes to disambig between the two entries. However, this proposal is suggesting that two different names be merged. Yes, they are synonyms, but are not the same name, just as 'John Smith' and 'John Smyth' are not together just because they sound the same.  The only issue muddying the water is that the printer is referenced in history with both spellings -- so, since there is documentation, he should be listed in both places.
 * MOS:DAB states regarding pages with only two entries, In such cases, the disambiguation page is not strictly necessary, but is harmless. So, the assertion in the first point of the proposal is incorrect unless a different policy is cited.
 * - Gwguffey (talk) 14:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment As there are so few entries, I no longer see any issue with merging these pages as it may benefit the readers looking for the articles. -- Gwguffey (talk) 05:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep separate It is not against MOS:DAB to have a dab with two entries. These would easily get lost in the bigger John Day dab, so this makes it easier to find these two if you type in 'John Daye'. At the very least, this is harmless. Boleyn3 (talk) 12:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)