Talk:Korea LIME

Merge from Korea Lime situation
Isn't this the same topic? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge - yes, appears to be the same topic. The later article is better sourced and detailed than the earlier one. Onel 5969  TT me 13:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * to clarify: is your argument, then, to merge to Korea Lime situation (the newer article) as it is better referenced? This is contrary to the initial proposal, so I thought that I would check ... it is also a more neutral title, but suffers from using the weasel word situation. Klbrain (talk) 11:28, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , hi. No, I agree with the original proposal. The editor who created the second article should have simply edited the first article.  Merge the newer article into the already existent article. If the latter article was in worse shape than the original, we could simply redirect, but since there is good information there, it should be merged.  Wouldn't you agree ?  Onel 5969  TT me 13:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , Right, might as well preserve the history attribution in the 'better' article. Btw, Onel,, we might as well discuss whether this needs renaming? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend moving the target article to a neutral title: I note that Korea Lime is free, and it should be too hard to adjust the lede to fit that broader title. Klbrain (talk) 12:22, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think Korea Lime is the most appropriate, neutral title. So we should move the old article there, then merge the newer one into it.  Onel 5969  TT me 12:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Klbrain (talk) 06:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC)