Talk:Sepiolite

Meerschaum merge to Sepiolite proposal

 * In 1911, Britannica used Meerschaum for the title, and a copy of that was the basis for our Meerschaum article.
 * However, the current
 * Also, see de:Meerschaum
 * Alternatively, move Meerschaum to Meerschaum pipe, and make that a sub-article of Sepiolite. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge to Meerschaum, the longer article and the better known term. Johnbod (talk) 14:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted the wrong way merge - sorry I didn't see this previously. The mineral is sepiolite per the refs. The usage as Meerschaum for making pipes is a use of the mineral - or of similar clays to make pipes and other stuff. Meerschaum was an early name and is widely used for the pipes, but the mineral is sepiolite. The longer meerschaum article is poorly sourced and much of that longer is the pop culture trivia stuff. Either leave them separate and work to improve the meershaum article, rename it as meerschaum pipe (as suggested above) or merge the other way with the pipe usage under a uses section w/out the pop cruft. Vsmith (talk) 01:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Sigh. Are you going to put in the work for this? If not, I'll be reverting this shortly. The current situation is worse than merging to an allegedly "wrong" title. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Why the sigh? the work - assume you mean a merge the other way - simply giving time for further input. What's the rush? Vsmith (talk) 22:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems the suggestion above to rename the Meerschaum article as Meerschaum pipe would be a better solution as the pipes are what it is known for. Leave the technical mineralogical details to the sepiolite article. Vsmith (talk) 00:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm closing out the merge request for lack of consensus and the lack of further productive conversation -- Yellowdesk (talk) 22:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)