The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

After two weeks, lots of passionate arguments, and 27KB of text, I do not see any consensus currently to merge smelly socks here.

Summary of rationales: Supporters of merging cite as reasons "the amount of unreferenced info", "all the info from both can be combined in one article", "consensus ... is that the appropriate term is foot odo[u]r", "foot odor [article] has precedence", "There is just no need for a separate article", "this article was silly and completly unnecessary", "This should not be a stand-alone topic", "[the] very notion of an independent article ... is an affront", "if we let this article stay what ... articles will pop up next?". Opposers of the merge cite as reasons "enough RS coverage on both topics to maintain separate ... articles", "[most] of the information would be lost anyway", "The two articles are related yet distinct", "This claim [that the article title is wrong] is not supported by any evidence", "Smelly socks is better researched and written than many articles ..., most of it would be lost if there was a merger", "the things the articles are about are fundamentally different", "there was no clear consensus [in the AfD] for any particular course of action and in that situation the status quo prevails", "we'd be at risk at loosing the cultural aspects which are unique to smelly socks", "the responsible way to accomplish this would be to go through the sources individually, and reach consensus [for each]", "There is enough unique content to fill its own article". As an editor who's not been privy to the AfD and this discussion prior to stumbling on this page via a link on User talk:I42, it's quite regrettable that the support rationales towards the end of this discussion degenerated to emotional appeals. In comparison the opposers of merging kept their focus on the merits of the article content. In summary I don't find the supporters' rationales sufficiently compelling to change the status quo. Now can we get back to washing our socks or editing other equally important parts of the 'pedia?

P.S. I'd also like to caution certain editors against characterising others' work as "immature/unnecessary", probably because the topics seem common and mundane to you. It may not be so to people of different cultures, e.g. in this case, people who do not/rarely wear socks. On the other hand, I don't think it's civil to tie the nominator's username to the possible motive for his nomination, as one of the opposers has done. Kimchi.sg (talk) 11:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am proposing that Smelly socks be merged and redirected to Foot odor. "Smelly socks" is clearly not a proper title for an encyclopedic article, and the topic is duplicative to this article. However, there is a small amount of useful, sourced info there. An AfD for Smelly socks ended with no consensus, however there was a strong support for merging the article here. See comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smelly socks. SnottyWong ^communicate 05:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator. SnottyWong ^speak 05:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support articles are redundant especially considering the amount of unreferenced info. Better to make one article stronger than to have them exist in a separate and weak form. Kudos to Snottywong for seeking a compromise. Shooterwalker (talk) 05:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I notified all of the editors who contributed to the AfD for Smelly socks. If I left anyone out, please let me know. SnottyWong ^converse 05:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Not adverse to a merge... but with a caveat Article names are strange things... and Wikipedia contains many articles with titles that while many might consider a title or subject inappropriate, the articles remain to serve the project.... and that's the key... serving the project. Looking at Foot odor I see an article that very clinically discusses the hows and whys of why feet might have an odor. Conversely, with Smelly socks I see a well sourced article that discusses socks and the odors they accumulate. While the subjects are related, they are differnt in their approach and their sourcing. In light of the recent AFD, I might suggest (and with respects to its nominator Snotty Wong) that if merged, such a merge not be done by the individual who wished the article deleted in its entirety in the first place, so that the best of the sourced information is preserved by editors less likely to adjudge something as unneccessary, specially as even those who opined a merge at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smelly socks wished sourced information to remain in a form that serves the project. I might also suggest an additional section of Foot odor for the also-related subject of Smelly shoes. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with your proposal. All we need to do is find someone willing to complete the merge. SnottyWong ^babble 13:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Verbal chat 05:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Feet stink. Socks stink. There's enough RS coverage on both topics to maintain separate, though necessarily interdependent, articles. Jclemens (talk) 05:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - ultimately I think all the info from both can be combined in one article. As an inclusionist I hate losing info and I feel that there is ample space for the whole of both of them (i.e. merge does not mean aggressive cull). I can't imagine people typing in 'smelly socks' as a search term, and think 'foot odo(u)r' is a good location. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The claim that this is "clearly not a proper title for an encyclopedic article" is not clear to me. Is navel lint proper? On the merits, I don't care much where the content goes as long as we don't stealth delete via merger -- keep verifiable content, as long as its organized in a way easy for the reader to access.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 05:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smelly socks is an article about socks with a particular property. As I mentioned in my AfD nomination, where do we draw the line? Should we have articles about Brown socks and Knee socks (<-- blue-linked because it's a redirect) and Crusty socks and Discolored socks, or any other marginally relevant adjective preceding the word "socks"? Foot odor is the root cause of smelly socks. There is no need for two separate articles. Foot odor does not have any article length issues which would preclude a merge. SnottyWong ^confabulate 14:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I can imagine people typing in smelly socks as a search term, but the consensus of the speakers of the English language is that the appropriate term is foot odo[u]r. Also, Foot odor was created in 2004 but Smelly socks was created in 2009, so foot odor has precedence. Abductive (reasoning) 07:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It'd be the same thing is delete, as 90% - 100% of the information would be lost anyway. The article survived AFD, let it be. Dream Focus 10:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I doubt that 90% to 100% of the information will be lost, but if it were to be lost, then it damn well should be lost. The very notion of an independent article on smelly socks is an affront. Abductive (reasoning) 00:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with a caveat, that is, provided that we merge most, if not all sourced information there. DreamFocus concerns are reasonable, and, like Casliber, I would hate as well to see the information lost. I suggest to not be in a rush doing that. --Cyclopia^talk 11:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned above, I am willing to cede the actual merging process to whoever you see fit to carry it out. SnottyWong ^confabulate 14:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - This is a run-around the AfD process and I for one won't stand for it. The two articles are related yet distinct. Let it be. Stop scratching your scab, SnottyWong. Bearian (talk) 12:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, give me a break. During the AfD, there were at least 15 people who mentioned that merging was appropriate. Besides, when you start talking about merging in an AfD, everyone gets all up in arms about how AfD isn't the place to talk about problems that can be taken care of via regular editing processes, like merging. So, here we are, talking about regular editing processes and now you are saying that it's also improper and "you won't stand for it". I have no personal vendetta against the article or its creator, other than the fact that my opinion is the article is unencyclopedic by its very nature. There was overwhelming support for merging at the AfD (so much so that the closing admin could have closed it as Merge), so I think this proposal is perfectly valid, and furthermore I resent your blatant assumption of bad faith. SnottyWong ^express 13:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Bearian's claim is disruptive. Abductive (reasoning) 14:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The proposal supposes that there is something wrong with the title. This claim is not supported by any evidence and we have numerous sources which contradict it. For example, a news item such as Foxes lured out by smelly socks] seems to treat the incident in a matter-of-fact way and feet don't come into it. Publications such as The Scotsman and Daily Telegraph are respectable journals noted for their high-minded tone and long tradition. If they are content to use the phrase without scare quotes or the like then there is clearly no problem with the usage. The proposer himself favours the account name of Snotty Wong which he regularly uses. As this usage seems more vulgar and intended to affront our community, his outrage seems synthetic and hypocritical. Let him please clean up his own language before he attacks that of others.

More generally, there is a lay attitude that latinate words are more scholarly than plain English. Such pretentiousness is usually condemned by authorities on good writing and so we must guard against this here. For example, in our article flatulence, we have "The auditory pitch (sound) of the flatulence outburst can also be affected by the anal embouchure". The language here is so over-dressed that in-line translation is provided for the ordinary English reader. Please see Using English Words which explains that such affectation is a sign of weakness and insecurity. Competent, confident writers and educators are not afraid of plain language and prefer it for its clarity and compactness, reserving Latin and Greek words for cases of genuine need.

Colonel Warden (talk) 12:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your response is surprising and nonsensical. Your assertion is that the article should not be merged because:

1. The phrase is commonly used (without scare quotes), and smelly socks do indeed exist.
2. The proposer's name is vulgar and clearly intended to affront the Wikipedia community as a whole.
3. The proposer is pretentious because he believes that "Smelly socks" is an amateurish and sophomoric title for an encyclopedia article.

By your logic, we should have an article on Cold water separate from Ice cube, because the phrase "cold water" is commonly used in millions of sources, without scare quotes. Or, as First Light describes below, perhaps we should have articles on Smelly underwear or Smelly armpits. The point is that smelly socks are caused by foot odor. It's logical that cause and effect are described in the same article. I suppose you could argue (and I wouldn't be surprised if you tried) that you could rub a sock on a skunk's ass and produce a smelly sock by some means other than foot odor. However, you'd be hard pressed to find sources which describe smelly socks outside of the context of foot odor.

As for your assumptions on the implicit vulgarity of my username, I would love to hear what you think my name actually means, why it represents an affront to Wikipedia, and why all of my future arguments should be automatically dismissed as synthetic and hypocritical as a result.

I truly don't understand the point of your Flatulence exercise above, but I think your overall point is that those who think "Smelly socks" is a bad title are pretentious. It actually has nothing to do with that. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. By definition, it is an academic endeavor. There are some people who strive to keep it academic and as high quality as possible (and clearly there are some for whom that is not a priority). That is all we're trying to do here (and there's no reason to accuse editors of egotistical behavior), and you are apparently sputtering mad about it, and for what? To prevent another entry from being deleted at User:Colonel Warden/creations? I think that is the only egotistical behavior that I detect in this discussion. SnottyWong ^{spill the beans} 14:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, an article on cold water seems reasonable: there are several books that explore aspects of the very subject: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] are the first I can find. --Cyclopia^talk 17:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't give him any ideas.  ;) SnottyWong ^confer 17:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should we redirect WP:COLDWATER to WP:BEANS? But I was not kidding. I am tempted to write it myself! --Cyclopia^talk 17:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have numerous articles upon the qualities and phases of water such as Brackish water, Hard water, Heavy water, Ice XII, Raw water, Rotten ice, Water ice, &c. Cold water is commonly distinguished from hot water in domestic plumbing and the differences between them are quite notable and important. The idea that we should not write upon such subjects is absurd. It is our policy that Wikipedia is not paper and it is our goal to summarise all the world's knowledge. We have over 3 million articles and add about a thousand each day. Editors who cannot stand to work upon this scale should please find another project which is more limited in scope. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTPAPER is not a license to create silly and terrible articles, as is apparently your tradition. Editors who cannot stand to have their work criticized and who get hyper-defensive when someone starts a merge discussion on an article which they believe they own should find another project with lower quality standards. Perhaps Cold water wasn't an ideal example, but I still haven't seen a response to Smelly underwear and Smelly armpits, which are arguably more relevant. SnottyWong ^speak 14:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

silly and terrible articles: Thank you for your WP:IDONTLIKEIT statement, Snottywong. Now, about your "Smelly X" examples, it is all related to the existence of sources, nothing more, nothing less. --Cyclopia^talk 14:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just because we can find sources for "smelly socks" doesn't automatically mean a separate article needs to be devoted to it. Smelly socks is a content fork of Foot odor and/or Sock. So, with these wonderful sources you have found, we can add sourced information to the appropriate articles, rather than creating new ones. (Oh, but that wouldn't boost our article creation counts, I forgot...) Anyway, currently there is a majority (not necessarily a consensus) of !votes to support merging, so it's clear that this proposal to merge has a lot of merit and support from the community. Those of you who are attempting above to disparage or invalidate this nomination are clearly in the minority. SnottyWong ^chatter 15:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I support merging myself, it is for sure better to put the things together. But it has little to do with your statements above. --Cyclopia^talk 15:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the state of the Smelly socks article and it it looks immature, not a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT Snottywong raised some good points here I thought the article should have been deleted so that we could all wash our hands of this mess, but it seems some users want to undermine the aim of wikipedia and add silly articles constantly to the wikipedia foundation--Lerdthenerd (talk) 15:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support merge to Foot odor or alternately to Socks. Nothing wrong with the title, by the way, or with other titles like Smelly underwear or Smelly armpits. There is just no need for a separate article for each of those subjects since they are simply part of the topics foot odor, socks, underwear, and armpit. First Light (talk) 13:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose of the merge proposal. Smelly socks is better researched and written than many articles on modern and contemporary art, most of it would be lost if there was a merger, and that would be a shame especially as it survived AfD. Also the things the articles are about are fundamentally different: one concerns an object emitting a smell, the other concerns an object that has absorbed a smell (which, in its migration, may have changed). I might be okay with merging Toe jam into foot odor, though. RomaC ^TALK 18:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. I favoured delete at the AfD but the closing admin was right - there was no clear consensus for any particular course of action and in that situation the status quo prevails; maybe it can be considered afresh in a few months. Meanwhile, nominator, my advice is to let it go. I42 (talk) 12:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support. i voted for this to be deleted, but I'll settle for merge, this article was silly and completly unnecessary--Lerdthenerd (talk) 12:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose Nice compromise idea but we'd be at risk at loosing the cultural aspects which are unique to smelly socks, maybe you'd have to have grown up in 80's Britian to understand this. Smelly socks used to be a really popular motif in childrens enternatinment, advertising for washing powder, etc. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose they really are different things and I don't see a problem with the name. Hobit (talk) 02:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no they are not i'm afraid, smelly socks belongs in foot odour as a section rather than as a crufty article, if we let this article stay what sock related articles will pop up next? red socks, blue socks? i've seen enough of Colonel Wardens erm work and these immature/unnecessary articles need to stop--Lerdthenerd (talk) 07:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lerdthenerd seems to be arguing for deletion of this material. But this is not a deletion discussion and so the arguments are not relevant. Moreover, the arguments seem to be the weak stuff which was inadequate at AFD - name-calling and straw men. The reality of this article is that it documents notable aspects of smelly socks, including the part that they are playing in the fight against malaria - a disease which kills about a million people each year. Has User:Lerdthenerd added material of this quality and importance to Wikipedia? Please can we have details of his contributions so that we may understand the basis of his complaints and learn from his work. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Err Colonel you might want to count the amount of merge votes against you, pretty much everyone including me and Snottywong want this article gone, the merge is a comprimise over deletion since most people were against it, and yes I haven't wrote as much articles as you as i'm busy cleaning up articles from vandalism and cruft, which is what Smelly socks appears to be, its unproffesionaly sectioned, and its just silly, nonsense articles have no place here on wikipedia. Oh and most your other articles are non notable lists which go against WP:NOT! come on! you have some good contributions on your creations page (David Nutt made it to did you know), why the silly articles?--Lerdthenerd (talk) 16:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A merge is the same as deletion in this case. You want an article gone, you take it to the AFD, which you did, and you failed to get it deleted through that method. Stop trying to get around the system. Some of those who say "merge" are actually stating their reasoning because they don't like the subject matter, and simply want the article gone, that is deleted. Dream Focus 19:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• So far its 9 say merge, two of those saying with a caveat, and eight people are opposed. No consensus exist to merge. And as I have said, some of those saying merge, just want to delete it. Merge means you believe it has something in common with another article, so best to put them together, not you simply want to have an excuse to get rid of something you don't like, calling it cruft, or whatnot. Dream Focus 19:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dream focus we are not trying to get around the system we are settling for a merge which will combine the smelly socks article within foot odour not deleting, and yes i voted delete last time but thats not gonna happen thats why this discussion is taking place, and don't blame me, Snottywong started the merge discussion, although I'm supporting him.--Lerdthenerd (talk) 07:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Down with ideology! A merge of the two articles might be best in the end. However, the responsible way to accomplish this would be to go through the sources individually, and reach consensus on whether each one is truly specific to socks or really about foot odor in general. Until this work is done, it is impossible for the community to make an informed decision. And after this work is done, a decision will no longer be necessary, because a result will already have been achieved. Melchoir (talk) 22:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This should not be a stand-alone topic. While Melchoir's point is taken, I suspect that any attempt to merge individual items would be reverted by one or more editors who claim a lack of consensus. This is really one of the more tragic examples of the examples of competing ideologies run wild. Horologium (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is enough unique content to fill its own article. There is nothing that needs to be merged over to this article. There was no consensus to delete the article, which is what would be done, it replaced with a redirect. Anyway, there is no consensus to merge, and isn't going to be one. No new comments in two weeks. I'm removing the tags. Dream Focus 22:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is to merge. Would you like me to do it? I'll retain all sourced content. Abductive (reasoning) 01:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are kidding, right? There is no consensus here at all. I42 (talk) 05:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed. If you have to debate whether you have consensus or not, then you don't have it. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.