Talk:Pigeon drop

Merge of Pigeon drop in popular culture

The articles should not be merged. The fictional references far overshadowed the actual coverage of the encyclopedic subject. Mintrick (talk) 02:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

A separate article "Pigeon drop in popular culture" is silly: merge it or delete it. If the examples section is too long, drop some of them or expand the main content. —Tamfang (talk) 05:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no reasonable criterion to decide which ones would stay or get dropped. There is no reason to put them in this article; that is silly. If you want to delete it, go ahead, but people really do add to those lists. Mintrick (talk) 14:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

These articles, taken together, do not fill an A4 page. Is there any rationale for requiring people to read two stubs separately? A split is really only justified when the section is too big to be put into the main article. This is clearly not the case here... --- Arancaytar - avá artanhé (reply) 02:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Or if the articles are substantially different, as is the case, here. Mintrick (talk) 02:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge with Nigerian scam

The article should definitely be merged with Nigerian scam. It is a variant thereof, and this article is nothing more than a definition. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. If there is enough substantial information for an article, then ok, but this is merely a definition, and does not warrant an article. It should also be noted that per this article's history, it hasn't even been edited more than 20 times in the last two years. This is an indication that there really isn't anything more to say about the subject, and as such, it is best summarized and included in another article.

Doesn't Wikipedia have enough useless cruft? WTF? (talk) 17:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Nigerian scam is not an adequate redirection target for a street criminality article. Variants exits under different names, so literature in various languages likely exists but is hard to find, hence patience is indicated. Best, --Erzbischof (talk) 19:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

It already has been merged with the Nigerian Scam page -- when I typed "Pigeon d" in the search box, there was both "Pigeon Drop" (redirects to the Nigerian page) and "Pigeon drop" which came here. (I decided to check both in case one wasn't a scam.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.29.183.191 (talk) 02:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

fixed k kisses 17:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

These articles have gone in somewhat separate directions. But both are variations on the Advance-fee scam but in different contexts. I have added a See also section, instead, as I don't believe merging the articles now would be constructive. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 23:43, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

On the leaner "In popular culture"

In case anyone is frustrated by the much-trimmed "In popular culture" section, I went through and removed anything I couldn't find a significant secondary source for, and for those I could, I rewrote the section sticking closely to what we could say based on the source. This fits the typical standard for anything on Wikipedia, pop-culture-related or not, although WP:IPCV has some information about how this shakes out with "In popular culture" sections specifically (and cites a relevant 2015 RfC if you have any doubts—I was honestly being generous by the standards of that RfC). If you just want to write about a pigeon drop you personally noticed in a piece of media, I would suggest that a fan wiki or a website like TV Tropes would likely be a more suitable venue—or your own blog! You can always start a cool blog. 🍉◜◞🄜e𝚜𝚘𝚌𝚊r🅟🜜🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 10:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)