Talk:MIT World Peace University

Merger with MIT-WPU Faculty of Engineering

I see no rationale for the merger, proposed by another. Starting the discussion anyway. gidonb (talk) 06:31, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi User:Klbrain! In the article's history, it says that you closed the merger for a lack of rationale and discussion, however, I reached it through the merger cats and did see a merge template halfway the article. Are we missing anything at this stage for a proper discussion? gidonb (talk) 19:13, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• Strong support. There is barely substance in this article. It should not have spin-off articles at this early stage and perhaps at any stage. gidonb (talk) 06:31, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@Gidonb: I closed it back in November (for reasons I gave), but two months later User:Authordom added it back in again, as part of a reversion that perhaps inadvertently went too far; see this edit. Having said this, I have no objection to you taking this proposal seriously. Your argument for the merge are sound, policy-consistent and consistent with merges of department elsewhere. Klbrain (talk) 22:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@Klbrain: thank you! gidonb (talk) 01:29, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• You don't seriously mean that this school is radically more important and significant than any of the other 13 schools of MIT - World Peace University? Merging this content would likely produce an unbalanced article giving undue weight to the engineering school. I'm OK with deletion by redirection, but otherwise, keep. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

As I see it the Engineering school can receive a paragraph in the combined article. Other schools can as well. I'm vehemently against keeping sub-articles with such a poor parent article. gidonb (talk) 02:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I've moved over only the referenced content, as a compromise between full merge and deletion by redirection. If other departments are equally important, then relevant content should be added from them. I'm sure that readers will understand that lack of content does not mean lack of importance.   Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 22:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

"MIT Schoo of Business" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect MIT Schoo of Business. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 12#MIT Schoo of Business until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC678 06:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Bangalow, bangalo or bungalow?

@Rishab1989: please explain your revert of my edit to restore the spelling 'bangalow' instead of 'bangalo'. You gave no edit summary to explain your edit, which was unhelpful and discourteous, see WP:REVEXP.

I explained my edit in my edit summary: change spelling to 'bangalo', based on Wikt:bangalo. Wikt:bangalo indicates that this is a type of building similar to a bungalow, so it seemed probable that 'bangalow' was a non-standard spelling of 'bangalo'.

All the sources cited at the end of the paragraph that I can access online use the 'bungalow' spelling.[1][2][3]

The 'bangalow' spelling is not mentioned in Bungalow#India, nor in Wiktionary, except for an alternative form of Wikt:dak bungalow, but that does not fit here. I can't see any other use of this spelling in English Wikipedia except for the Australian town of Bangalow.

Without any explanation from you it seems likely that you are asserting that 'bangalow' is an established spelling in Indian English. Do you have any sources that confirm this, for example the use of this spelling in a reliable source?

We should probably change to 'bungalow', as this is the spelling used in the cited sources. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)