Talk:Waterloo Central Railway

This article was nominated for deletion on 19 April 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Trains Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Canada: Ontario Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Ontario portal This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario.

Merge

I just discovered both this article, and the one for Waterloo – St. Jacobs Railway. Seeing as the latter organization is a precursor of this one, and the historical information for both is similar, they really ought to be merged. Echoedmyron (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The way I see it two separate organizations merit two separate articles. There is zero advantage to a merge, and several disadvantages.

Merging articles on separate, yet related topics, in one super-article is bad for the project, as it erodes the usefulness of watchlists. When articles remain distinct people can choose to place one, or the other article on their watchlists. However, following a merge anyone who is interested in just one topic, and not the other, will get too many false positives showing up on their watchlists -- edits to the topic they aren't interested in.

Can you name even one advantage to justify this merge? Remember the wikipedia is not paper. It is easier for a reader to go to the other topic by clicking on the link the other distinct article, than it would be for them to scroll around within a super-omnibus article if we choose to agree to the merge you proposed. Geo Swan (talk) 22:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]