Talk:Wall framing

Merger
I oppose the merger because the other article has no inline citations, while the article I created has many. --Paracit 23:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Mergers aren't generally stoppped just because one article is better than the other, only if they truly represent different topics. The merged article would contain all the references from both articles, and it's not like we would convert inline citations to a worse format.  &mdash;dgies tc 00:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not implying that your article is in any way inferior; it's just that they are two different-titled articles on the same subject. Everyone will benefit if the information is combined.  This article has better citations; the other article has illustrations, and the information provided in both is complementary.  After the merger, one of the titles will become a redirect to the other, and all the text will be in one place.  Your valuable contribution will still be there. Freederick 13:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest Framing (construction) as the title of the merged article (now a disambiguation page). The reason: Light-frame construction is counterintuitive—few people would think to search for that; Wall framing on the other hand is not quite correct, since the technique includes floor and roof framing as well. I further recommend that both Platform framing and Balloon framing be merged into the resulting article as sections, since most of their contents is a rehashing of the same material; but this will have to wait until the core articles are merged first. Freederick 13:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge: Per Freedrick, the other articles should probably be merged too, this will lend the main article to summary style if need be in the future. IvoShandor 13:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Note also that, if we merge the 5 separate framing articles (and smooth over the joints with a thick layer of stucco), we could have a passable good article candidate here. None of the articles, taken separately, qualify: see points 3 and 6, in particular. Freederick 13:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep. Sounds good, I review over there a lot. IvoShandor 07:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I have added more stuff to the article. --Paracit 07:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * So let's do it. I review over there a lot, and haven't contributed but for the cleanup here, so I think I could review it and see if it passes the criteria, perhaps put it up for peer review first? IvoShandor 10:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The first thing that I noticed is that the other three articles lack inline cites, and need more refs, that shouldn't be too hard though. I can tag them appropriately. (I may be giving up my review status here but I think I can help, I have taken three articles to GA by myself (so far)). It is always easier to find reliable sources for information that is already written than it is writing it and finding sources. : )IvoShandor 10:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I merged those articles, I hope I did it right. Now there is some major cleanup work to be done. Check it at Framing (construction).IvoShandor 10:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)