Talk:Bell and Wind Environment

Merge

The two are part of the same installation in the same place by same author. --Altenmann >talk 09:55, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support merge per above. MSTL (talk) 12:39, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose: The first inline citation does not even mention "Bell and Wind Environment". The second says the bell "is part of a sound installation by composer Robert Coburn called 'Bell and Wind Environment.' However, there's no evidence the two bells should be covered together, or evidence of Bell and Wind Environment being covered in-depth (I googled and found nothing). I think the two topics should be covered independently, mentioning the connection Bell and Wind Environment. Also, in terms of article history, it seems odd to keep a brand new stub created yesterday at the cost of two articles that have existed for a decade. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:09, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both articles menition "Bell and Wind Environment" and that is the reason I suggested the merge in the first place, and this is a sufficient reason for merge. We do not have separate artiicles for each sculptuure at Mount Rushmore, do we? Second, In terms of article history, I dont really care and one may move one bell article to this one and then merge the second one into it. --Altenmann >talk 15:32, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S. Oh, it turns out you wrote both articles. Then why this weird argument that "Bell and Wind Environment" is not mentioned? Why did you mention it yourself in both pages in the first place? --Altenmann >talk 15:32, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      There's no issue with both articles mentioning Bell and Wind Environment; they should. But there's no evidence of in-depth coverage of Bell and Wind Environment. We may just have to agree to disagree, but I don't see why these two topics should be covered together. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:39, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Together because their contents overlap 75%. --Altenmann >talk 15:50, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Regarding "in-depth", the two Smithsonian articles about bells [1] and [2] metnion that "Bell and Wind Environment" is another tile for both of them, implying it is the same cultural object. --Altenmann >talk 15:55, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I've shared my thoughts and I'm moving on. Thanks, ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:57, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Another Believer. Seems a thing on Wikipedia to jump on newly created pages and bring them to AfD or something like this merge discussion on the day of their creation. Like a fine wine (I don't drink wine) let's let articles breath before inhaling them. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:27, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, if you want this article breath, I can readily expand it myself, directly from sources, without any credits in article hhistory to Another Believer. --Altenmann >talk 15:32, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sounds good. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:55, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Bell at Oregon Convention Center.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]