Talk:Fascinus

merge proposal

Fascinum is a stub; fascinus is a more developed and better referenced article. The masculine -us form is used for the personification and sometimes for the object (for instance, fascinus was used by the secondary source cited for the one tended by the Vestals); the neuter form in -um seems to be much more widely used for the objects. In Latin, it can be hard to tell the two apart, if the masculine were used in the accusative and it's the only instance in a given text. So there's not a strong argument between the two terms for what the article should be called, just that fascinum has no content to add to fascinus. If the former were merged into the latter, the title of the article could be reconsidered. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I strongly agree. Thudso (talk) 19:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

No reason not to. Fatidiot1234 (talk) 00:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I also agree. It is the same article. QED. Merge!Markeilz (talk) 05:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree too. Thanks, Cynwolfe, this needs mergerJezza (talk) 17:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Because there is a consensus, but no formal merge template was used, and because the fascinum article contains no content not already covered by fascinus, I'm going to take the course of least resistance and change fascinum to a redirect here (the redirect is needed anyway). Hope this isn't too wrong a way to go about it. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)