Talk:Mud season

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Vermont portal This article is supported by WikiProject Vermont.

Text and/or other creative content from Rasputitsa was copied or moved into Mud season. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Untitled

This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class because it uses the [[Category:Vermont stub]] on the article page.

If you agree with this assessment, please remove this message.
If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WikiProject United States|class=stub|importance=|VT=yes|VT-importance=}} above to the appropriate class and removing the stub template from the article.

Merge proposal

Rasputitsa should be merged into Mud season. These articles have two different names used in different contexts (with still other names mentioned), but the subject is identical and significant content overlaps. Merging into this article because its history is four months longer, and it carries the English-language name. —Michael Z. 20:03, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rheinguld and Olegwiki: discussed the idea previously at Talk:Rasputitsa#Should Be Merged With Mud Season. —Michael Z. 20:09, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fine to me. This is the English-language wikipedia so it's reasonable that the English term gets precedence. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:35, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hard disagree for the same reason that we don't just merge every hurricane, typhoon or earthquake into one article for each type of weather. Rasputitsa has a specific meaning & impact more than just "mud season" and has citations specific to it. Macktheknifeau (talk) 09:53, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What meaning and impact, specifically? Which paragraphs in that article could not be included in the other?

One third of the copy in “Mud season” is about Rasputitsa. Rasputitsa’s definition is the same as mud season’s. The only significant difference is the synonym used in the respective title. —Michael Z. 17:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reason that Kamikaze_(typhoon) exists alongside Typhoon. Because they have a distinct cultural entomology that is reflected in the sources. I understand there is a movement to remove Russian culture from the internet, but this isn't the place for it. So again I confirm, hard oppose. Macktheknifeau (talk) 09:37, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down - this isn't some cultural conspiracy it's a legitimate wikipedia debate of the sort that happens all the time when there are overlapping articles. Remember Wikipedia:Assume good faith - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:37, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How is that a parallel? The Kamikaze are two specific historical typhoons, and the article about them has specific info that is not about typhoons in general. But rasputitsa is a foreign word for mud season, and in English, is actually applied to a phenomenon in the territory of Belarus, Ukraine, a minor part of European Russia, as well as Sweden and Finland apparently.

The article has nothing to do with Russian culture: in fact it’s an artifact of Western historiography of Eastern Europe, but its subject is just seasonal mud.

How does having this separate article possibly serve encyclopedic knowledge about “Russian culture”? And what makes it so special that we need to keep “Rasputitsa” but omit articles on Bezdorizhzhia, Menföre, or Kelirikko? All of these etymologies should be in the same article so readers can find them. —Michael Z. 22:18, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who says I'm "not calm". Please refrain from throwing bad faith accusations at other editors please. As for "what makes it so special..." and "How is that a parallel": The reliable sources that confirm it as a notable article are the parallel. WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a reason to approve or deny the existent of another page. If you think Bezdorizhzhia, Menföre, or Kelirikko deserve articles then find sources and create it. On the last point, weather in a country or place is very much part of the cultural heritage. Fremantle Doctor and Southerly Buster are clear examples of that, as they relate to a wikipedia article. I think it's very obvious there is no consensus and very little desire to make this change, I suggest the "merge topic" templates be removed. Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:11, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see anything about Russian culture and heritage in the article, except for the Russian translation of mud season. Scanning the list of sources, I don’t see any indication there’s a Russian culture subject that meets WP:notability. Can you offer some evidence? —Michael Z. 02:28, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's leave the "merge" template up longer, see if anybody else cares. It appears to just be three of us. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:01, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep separate. Rasputitsa has very specific local connotations. I see several instances where linking to Rasputitsa is appropriate but linking to mud season is not. Regarding the content, of course there is overlap, but quite some content is appropriate in one of the topics only.--KlausFoehl (talk) 20:27, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These broad exhortations aren’t making a case. Which specific local connotations cannot be mentioned in a merged article? Which instances of linking? Which content? —Michael Z. 00:01, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]