Talk:Prayer in the Baháʼí Faith

glad to see it
It's been in my sandbox covered by other projects for a long time. Glad to see Jeff3000 wrote up the article - and nicely done too!--Smkolins (talk) 16:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge
Proposition Both Prayer in the Bahá'í Faith and Obligatory Bahá'í prayers are fine articles, but it seems like if they were merge they would make one very good and comprehensive article - possibly a nominee for good article status. As it stands, either one is very good, but incomplete. What does everyone else think? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I disagree, there's too much detail in the Obligatory Baha'i prayers article, that if included in this one, would swamp the rest of the content in this one, over-stressing some of the finer points. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 14:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Question - does this mean that you feel that it would be a prudent merge if information on Baha'i prayer in general outside of obligatory prayer were expanded?
 * Comment No, there is enough content in the Obligatory Baha'i prayers to be it's own article. The best way to organize it, is as it is now, as per summary style.  If all this content was in the Baha'i prayers article, and the rest of the article expanded, that article would be a mess, and the content would have to be to summarized and moved to it's own articles as per summary style anyways.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 17:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - That seems acceptable to me. Peter Deer (talk) 17:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per reasons cited above Peter Deer (talk) 17:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The proposal is clearly an attempt to improve/streamline the articles, but concur with Jeff3000. MARussellPESE (talk) 20:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - There's enough specialization in the Obligatory section, like history of, that it's not part of prayer in general, but very specific to Obligatory.--Smkolins (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Forget it
Thanks It's pretty clear that everyone wants them to be separate. My preferences haven't changed, but it's irrelevant to consensus. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your efforts nonetheless. Peter Deer (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, no Thank you. It's a small thing, Peter, but seeing a courteous note of acknowledgment makes someone want to continue editing Wikipedia. Anyway, back to the encyclopedia. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)