Talk:Traditional upholstery

Proposed merge
I really don't think it should be as traditional upholstery is different than the generic upholstery. Also its very specific in the UK & people will search using traditional upholstery. I had to run a search & then re run using upholstery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vintage57dotcom (talk • contribs) 20:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand exactly what you explain. A redirect (named Traditional upholstery) however, should address your concerns. A redirect as such, can target directly to its own dedicated section on the other page, and will still be recognised by the search tools. My main reason for suggesting the merge, is that both articles are rather small... so combining the two would leave us with one article of greater substance and overall higher quality as a result. -- WikHead (talk) 05:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Additional comment - I haven't used a watchlist in months, so if a discussion spontaneously erupts here, I'd kindly appreciate being alerted on my talk page. Thank you. -- WikHead (talk) 12:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I know it has been almost exactly three years since the last post on this matter, but I do agree that having a redirect on the upholstery page devoted to traditional upholstery would be the right solution. That way, we would have one less stub article, and the upholstery article will be more substantial and we'd get to feel good about ourselves for carrying out this proposal. I'm definitely no expert on criteria for merging articles, but I think you have an excellent idea of putting them together while maintaining a redirect link.

Gigogag (talk) 02:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * strong oppose We might as well merge soccer and football. 8-(   Andy Dingley (talk) 18:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

A little late: you had 39 months to comment on this proposal! Besides most of the comments above (if I understand the poor grammer correctly) are in favor of merging. Anyway, all content is preserved at the target article. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * And you could have given us some fucking warning before you went ahead and did a long-stale and unsupported merge. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:CIVIL! The merge tag is the warning. And like I said, it is supported. You have no reason for a revert, especially since the page histories reveal that you were active on these pages. So you were aware! Being stale is even more reason to act on it! -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The merge tag is three years old and was going nowhere. You have no useful consensus for making this merge. An appropriate action would be to try and re-raise the issue on the talk pages (have you even tried this), but to now start edit-warring (please read WP:BRD) to enforce it is unacceptable. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Last comment was only 3 months ago, so the issue was re-raised after a 3 year wait. And still no further comments, not even from you. Seriously time to close this outstanding issue. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)