The articles is what it always was: a set of content forks and an opportunity for original research, owned by a gang of individuals from quite dysfunctional and almost moribund "projects". It deserves a third AFD nomination, hopefully drawing on a wider, less one-eyed group of people. McOoee (talk) 05:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. I am tired of dealing with this mess of POV.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK but some groundwork needs to be done first. Nobody wants to lose any referenced material and it is best to involve as many people as possible in the fate of this article, so my thinking at the moment is as follows:

Oh...I think I can help with this.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• 1. Most of the referenced material should be transferred to linking articles where it would be more relevant and useful (or it can simply be deleted if it is already in other articles).

A good portion of this can go to Neoclassicism.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• 2. Edit summaries should detail each transfer e.g. "Transferring this to The Warren Cup"

Any merging of content must have a linkback in the edit summary to the article content originates from when placing in the new article! This is a minimum requirement. Please do not merge content on the Warren Cup. I dispute this information. Almost all of it. I have detailed my concerns in the history but the article was returned to this version out of frustration. It clearly has only silent consenus for this version, no different than the other version before it.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• 3, Anything that remains after that process will be suited for inclusion in Pederasty in ancient Greece (Greek love deals with reception of ancient Greek pederasty and it could occupy as much as a third of that article, I estimate).

Agreed, as long as the material didn't already originate from that article. A few editors had been doing cross over work on those and a few other articles.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• 4. I'll nominate this article for deletion once it is ready for tranfer to Pederasty in ancient Greece.

You need not do this. Merging of content does not require a consensus or a deletion but a simple redirect. It can be done with a bold edit or a merge proposal can be made for a more solid consensus to keep it redirected. It's already been moved but moved back for more discussion.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• 5. There is no need to rush into this: the longer this takes, the more people can be engaged.

By giving notice to the projects, especiall Classical greece and rome, you should get a reaction.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know here what you think of these proposals. I'd appreciate your help with it. That's up to you. Thanks. McOoee (talk) 06:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overall I would be cautious about what you merge. this article has so much POV that it could seriously upset some editors to introduce this content. I would suggest an explanation after and merging of content. I also highly recommend you familiarize yourself with the merging process at WP:WPMERGE.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good advice. The transfer process could be very slow and tedious. Another option is to transfer material to article talk pages and let contributors there decide how best to use it. I'll try to transfer something every day, either to articles or talk pages. McOoee (talk) 07:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re tag about merging English Romanticism section with Romanticism article: No I don't agree with that. The section as it is now is well suited to inclusion in Pederasty in ancient Greece as part of a larger reception section for that article. McOoee (talk) 22:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC) However, there is no reason why you shouldn't leave a note on the talk page for Romanticism letting contributors know that this material is here and that you are considering this merge. McOoee (talk) 22:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC) Oh, I'm not at all concerned with those specifics really. Feel free to make that what you feel is appropriate!--Amadscientist (talk) 00:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also disagree with your proposal to merge the Renaissance section with other articles. It's well-balanced and well fitted to Pederasty in ancient Greece#Reception: Greek love, where this whole article properly belongs. That is how I am editing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by McOoee (talk • contribs) 01:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merging with Romanticism is a very bad idea. No historian of Romanticism gives one tenth that much attention to Byron & this topic. Rjensen (talk) 07:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose all these mergers, which have not been posted properly, including the target articles. Agree witrh comments above. What is going on here? Vast chunks have been removed without discussion at the target article, or consensus here. If there are felt to be problems with the text, shunting it off to another article is no solution. Even if it is merged, why is it then removed here, where it is clearly most relevant? Would a rename to cultural impact of Classical Greek homoeroticism help with the unhappiness some editors evidently feel with the article? If you want to merge, both History of homosexuality and LGBT history are fairly weak. Johnbod (talk) 12:12, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm...yes to the last part. I agree with the change to Cultural impact of Classical Greek homoeroticism.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support future merging of the current edit with Pederasty in ancient Greece – 'Greek love' concerns the reception of ancient Greek pederasty and it should therefore be the end section of the other article. However the other article is now in worse shape than this one and I don't think there is a general willingness to improve it. So any attempt to merge seems premature for the moment. Oh and I was User:McOoee previously. Now I am Sir Gawain McGarson (talk) 11:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]