Talk:Kate Gordon Moore

Discussion
Hey, I was assigned a Kate Gordon article for my class that supposedly didn't already have an article on Wikipedia but when I was done with it and moved it to main space I found out that there was already an article. I was wondering if we should combine this information on Kate Gordon (psychologist) or if I should add my additional information to this one. Let me know. TreyDumler (talk) 00:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * They need to be combined into a single article, and the article which is chosen for the chop redirected to the one to be kept. You should not have been put in this position, I think, and I'm sorry about that. So, there's some more work to be done. Nominate the one to keep, work out if there are facts in the one to be redirected that are not in the one to be kept. Great shame: both very good articles - much better than I could produce as a newbie. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:02, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * As to which title is kept - I don't think it matters. I don't have my head around where the Moore part comes in. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually, I suggest we keep this one - married name - mainly because I prefer your style of referencing. So. Is there anything in the other article which is not in this article? If so, copy it across with its references. When you have everything, blank the other article and put #redirect Kate Gordon Moore on it, and we're done. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:08, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * A lot of her work was done before she got married so I had decided to keep her last name out of my article because a lot of people do not know her as Kate Gordon Moore. She got married when she was around 65 but I'll add more to the career section on this article and include my publications and awards section. I also personally thought that the referencing did not follow the Wikipedia format because there are a lot of individual sentences without references, would this not show up as not having a reference? TreyDumler (talk) 01:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Every sentence does not need a reference; important claims do ... but in many instances it is good enough to have a single reference for a paragraph, for example. What I do not in this article is that the URL for the first reference is broken, and the format of the references and sources is less good than it might be. Here - Canfeda Hatun - is an example of an article using sfn for references, and properly cited sources, so that each reference forms a URL pointing to the source. It's a bit esoteric, but an excellent standard to aim for. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Well if it is ok then I am going to start editing directly on the page without notifying each time. I will not delete information, only add information plus references. TreyDumler (talk) 01:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's absolutely okay; okay to delete, too, where you think it is necessary to do so. You don't need permission; you're doing a good & necessary thing. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thinking about taking out the first paragraph of the career section and replacing it with the one on the Kate Gordon (psychologist) article. The one on this article appears more detailed and in chronological order. TreyDumler (talk) 02:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I recommend WP:BOLD, which is to say, do what you think best. If you do grab text from article 2 to put in article 1, it is worth noting in the edit summary the name of the article from which the text has been taken, eg. "replace career section with text from Kate Gordon (psychologist) - see that article for edit history". See also WP:BRD, which says, be bold and if someone has a problem, they can revert it and discuss. NO-one is going to fault you for the decisions you take; or if they do, they're wrong to :) --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)