Talk:Lotus 907

Issues
I edited this article and realized that there are a couple of problems.
 * 1)- The title is not descriptive enough. This article is about an engine so it would seem only logical that the title reflect this possibly as Lotus 907 engine. However;
 * 2)- There is an article Lotus 900 series (the word "engine" added in the lead but still not descriptive enough) that includes the 907 so this article is effectively a duplicate, can be merged there, and I will merge or seek a merge request. Otr500 (talk) 08:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal


I propose that Lotus 907 be merged into Lotus 900 series; specifically Lotus 900 series. I think that most of the content in the Lotus 907 article already exists in the engine family article. Some of what is not covered under the 907 subheading is covered elsewhere in the `series' article or could be added. The Lotus 907 article is brief enough that it can be included without unduly increasing the size of the 900 series article, and the merger gives readers the option of getting information on the preceding and succeeding Lotus engines of which the 907 is just one. Kumboloi (talk) 14:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose as one of the major production variants, the 907 easily passes notability. There's also plenty of scope for development. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment Andy Dingley. The 907 is certainly well known; it was the only 900 series variant that I was aware of until recently. To me the 907 has two notable claims; 1) First 900 series in volume production and 2) first multi-valve engine in volume production available for sale to the public. Based on that view I feel that its notability is limited to somewhat narrow scopes, as there were prior 900 series engines in limited production and prior multi-valve engine available in small numbers. I also genuinely believe that the 907 would be better served being linked to an article that includes the development prior to the 907 and the improvements in the models that follow.

I am terminating this Merger proposal early without taking any action. There are two reasons I am doing this:

1) The Merger proposal was not posted in the correct article's talk page.

2) With only two votes on the merger I do not believe that there is enough feedback even at this early date to say that a consensus was reached.

