Talk:Afon Dyfrdwy (River Dee) SSSI

This article was nominated for merging with River Dee, Wales on 26 September 2021. The result of the discussion was merge.

Merge with River Dee page?

Should this page be merged with the already existing page on the River Dee? --SongOfMyShelf (talk) 00:45, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of River Dee, Wales with Afon Dyfrdwy (River Dee) SSSI

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.

The result of the discussion was merge. This also has the benefit of the redirects Afon Dyfrdwy (River Dee) and Afon Dyfrdwy pointing to the same unambiguous target. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two editors mentioned a merge being possibly viable, one on the talk page and one in the edit history. The title, Afon Dyfrdwy is the native name for the river. We are currently reporting 575 pageviews over 30 days for this article, possibly due to confusion over the title. This appears to refer to the entire river, and not a specific location, so a merge seems appropriate. ASUKITE 18:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Agree: The article mainly contains information from article River Dee except the first sentence. Welsh River SSSIs such as the River Teifi#SSSI, River Wye#Conservation, and River Conwy#SSSI are in the river articles, and those in England with an article such as River Wensum SSSI minimally have more information or a broader area. (Articles such as Aber Afon Seiont, Aber Taf, and Cwm Twrch have a slightly stricter definition, covering only a section of the river.) The Afon Dyfrdwy SSSI spans large portions, if not all, of the river therefore would be more appropriate to be in the main article (alongside details of the River Dee SSSI in England). Unless it becomes sufficiently detailed in the future, in its current state it should be merged, but I wouldn't be opposed to the article remaining separate as long as SSSI is in the title to provide clarification. — Dank · Jay (talk) 16:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I will also support not merging the article as long as it retains "SSSI" in the title, and significant edits are made to separate the article from the River Dee article. - Dank · Jay (talk) 01:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Soft disagree: The river itself has two SSSIs, with the SSSI covering the part in Wales called Afon Dyfrdwy, and the one covering the English part called River Dee (England) SSSI, plus there's also a River Dee and Bala Lake/Afon Dyfrdwy a Llyn Tegid Special Area of Conservation. AFIK there are no articles for these two areas. I agree that this article is more about the river itself than the SSSI (changing the infobox from a river one to an SSSI one would be a start), but I think with (at least) three separate designations for parts of the river, all with unique info like date established, managing body, area size covered, species/geo features, then that warrants individual articles, even if relatively short ones.--Rhyswynne (talk) 12:02, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support: there is no reason for an article for an SSSI distinct from the place itself (as the SSSI itself is not notable - the river is!). Also, there is no need for two names in different languages for the same river. Note that Wikidata links the Welsh Wikipedia article (cy:Afon Dyfrdwy) to River Dee, Wales here. Klbrain (talk) 01:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hi, just to note that the SSSI (in Wales) is officially named bilingually by Natural Resources Wales. However for a long time the article was confusingly just named Afon Dyfrdwy (River Dee), a confusing title, likely confused for the river article. – Dank Jae 02:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.