The topic of this article is completely separate from that of "Ice man." – The preceding unsigned comment was added by188.8.131.52 (talk).
OK. And....? 31dot (talk) 02:13, April 9, 2014 (UTC)
There's a merge notice on the page so I think he's trying to say the two articles (Iceman and Ice man) shouldn't be merged. --| TrekFanOpen a channel 09:36, April 9, 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I see now, thanks. The merge tag was added by Professor Tofty who posted in the edit summary: "Merge -- all of the references in this article also appear in "Ice man"". If the two are that separate, then the note on the other article could be removed and replaced with a See Also link. 31dot (talk) 09:49, April 9, 2014 (UTC)
I would oppose a merge as they are both distinct topics. Though a disambig notice at the top of each article should be added. --| TrekFanOpen a channel 18:20, April 10, 2014 (UTC)
Makes sense. Based on that, as the original nominator, I'll go ahead and withdraw the merge suggestion. However, we still need to decide what goes where-- which references belong at "iceman" and which at "ice man". ProfessorTofty (talk) 13:37, April 11, 2014 (UTC)
Guess that could work. I was thinking more in terms of whether the scripts referred to "ice man" or "iceman," but as far as the actual meanings go, that works for me. That, and I guess remove the background note from "iceman", which is no longer needed, and take care of the appropriate disambigs. I'll go ahead and get it taken care of now. P.S.: I see that "iceman" also has an article on the Italian version of Memory Alpha, but not knowing Italian, I unfortunately can't do anything about that. Of course, if there's anyone that does who wants to take a crack at that... ProfessorTofty (talk) 18:17, April 11, 2014 (UTC)