This article is within the scope of WikiProject Libraries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Libraries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LibrariesWikipedia:WikiProject LibrariesTemplate:WikiProject LibrariesLibraries articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belgium, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belgium on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BelgiumWikipedia:WikiProject BelgiumTemplate:WikiProject BelgiumBelgium-related articles
I created this article, not knowing that Boekentoren already existed. Of course, I would have no objection to the merge -- assuming that internal links are created to ensure that no one else will replicate my inadvertent error. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The short article about the Ghent University Library was created after Boekentoren, which already existed. The two articles should be merged, but which one should remain -- A or B?
If there is no objection, the resulting choice will likely become A -- and the Dutch-entitled article will be folded into Ghent University Library at the end of April. Are there any objections? --Tenmei (talk) 14:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its called Boekentoren because its a book tower - its function just happens at present to be as Ghent University Library. Hence, B should be the choice. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 13:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I have no objection to this logical analysis. Trident13's argument is clearly credible; but without more, it seems almost equally credible for us to decide that Boekentoren should focus primarily on the architecture -- the structure itself -- and that Ghent University Library should devote primary attention to the function this building serves within the university.
Trident13's comment suggests that implicit issues are not to be overlooked casually. --Tenmei (talk) 15:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
