Talk:Smoke-free law (England)

Proposed merger
AllyD has proposed merging the older Smoking ban in England page into this one. I follow AllyD's rationale, but suggest not going ahead with a merger just yet, for pragmatic reasons. 'Smoke-free law' is a more neutral term, and in the case of England's law in particular absolutely the correct term, but there is a reasonable argument that 'smoking ban' has some relevance as a common name, and previous attempts to move content fully to a smoke-free law page and replace a 'ban' page have led to edit wars. My advice would be to give this some time to settle in, then perhaps consider a merger if it becomes clear that there are no thought-through objections to doing so.Hypocaustic (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC) Thanks for responding Ally. I think I can see where you're coming from, and there may be a fair bit we can do to improve the picture, particularly through attending to links as you suggest. Because issues relating to tobacco do seem to have potential for malign controversy in Wikipedia, I really do think it's best to keep both pages for a while then review. If it becomes clear that, as I've already suggested, there are no reasoned objections to such a merger across, or indeed that that the 'smoking ban in England' page simply doesn't get any viewers any more, then what you have proposed is presumably the right move. I'm not objecting to the substance of your proposal really, just recommending some pause before making a call on it for the purposes of avoiding fruitless discord. I'm happy to keep an eye on this with you.Hypocaustic (talk) 08:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I proposed the merger direction on grounds of the extent of content in the respective articles. However the other consideration is the number of already-existing links, which makes me think I had the direction the wrong way around. But one way or the other, I feel it is best for Wikipedia to have one consolidated article, with a redirect on the other term as necessary. AllyD (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree with Ally to have one article and a redirect, and Ally is correct that the content should be at the other page, which is where it started. User:Hypocaustic has made several attempts recently to copy content to new pages just because he failed to get the pages moved at Requested moves. I have reported him for his most recent conduct. Cross porpoises (talk) 17:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I've recommended a pause for other contributors to comment precisely in order to ensure that activists with a particular point of view to promote are less likely to get into edit-warring. Unfortunately Cross Porpoises is behaving in a way which is ultimately less than helpful, although hopefully from benign motives on his or her part ('not sure why it has been assumed that I'm male, incidentally, but we'll let that past).  I would prefer not to have to report this user myself, so input from other contributors would be welcome.Hypocaustic (talk) 10:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)