Talk:Girlfriend

Proposed merge of Boyfriend into Girlfriend

The following discussion 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.

---

The articles at Girlfriend and Boyfriend suffer from people trying to say what the word means instead of what the subject is. Boyfriend is worse, but the problem is significant in both. I recommend that we merge them into a single article, perhaps taking over the Romantic partner redirect as the name, and focusing on the encyclopedic subject. That means:

• less about the word
• less about other subjects that are sometimes described with the same words
• less about synonyms
• more about what it means to begin and end these relationships (e.g., is it a rite of passage?)
• more about the social implications (e.g., is it meant to progress towards cohabitation or marriage?)
• more about the demographics (e.g., age at first becoming a boyfriend/girlfriend?)
• more about how the concept of being a romantic partner differs across time and cultures (e.g., in 1950s America, it was acceptable to have multiple girlfriends/boyfriends).

What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. I read both and I don't see this as being a good way of covering this. It's like merging man into woman, boy into girl, or male into female - sure, one could put the merged article under some gender neutral title, but it still would be an awkward combined article. I don't think we can make merge decisions based on content that does not yet exist, and may not exist for many years or ever, while at the same time talking about it being 'less' of the existing content, even though that stuff is still here. Sometimes encyclopedia articles are heavily or exclusively focused on words or phrases; e.g., LGBT. A major concern of mine, also, is that a merged article under "romantic partner" would be a WP:CFORK of Romance (love), which can often lead to fragmented or even contradictory coverage of a subject. All of what you say under "more about" should be covered there. Incidentally, the Romantic partner redirect should probably go to that article, not to Love. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:04, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Crossroads. These are completely different terms, it's not feasible or logical to merge them. We should improve this article instead. Also, this would probably mess up the userboxes that link to these pages. Herbfur (talk) 15:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, per the other two users. I understand what the OP is saying, but their suggestions can be added to the existing article, improving it in that way, rather than merging the two pages together. Also, the terms "boyfriend" and "girlfriend" have significance to the gay and lesbian communities, as they use them, so combining them would undoubtedly lead to more confusion. Historyday01 (talk) 22:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment. This was proposed back in August and every single comment has been in opposition. How (and why) is this discussion still open? Shouldn't an admin or the OP close this? Historyday01 (talk) 19:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, everything doesn't need to be inclusive. Inclusion may lead to confusion as the users above me stated. PyroFloe (talk) 03:31, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, and agree this should be wrapped up.--Surv1v4l1st ^{▌Talk|Contribs▌} 21:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

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.