Reversion of the unjustified merger with "Kilroy was here". edit

I have reverted the merger with the Kilroy was here article. Firstly, I don't find it at all acceptable that this merger was made without any proposal and discussion. Secondly, the aFoo rticle is part of the Australian Wikipedia project - and, thirdly, it is believed in Australia that "Foo was here" originates before "Kilroy was here" and is not, therefore, a so-called "variation" of it but that "Kilroy was here" derives from "Foo".. Therefore the whole basis of the merger is false. How would an American like it if I merged "Kilroy was here" with the "Foo" article? Not very much I suspect.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Afterwriting (talkcontribs)

Merge discussion is here. Fences&Windows 19:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Assessment comment edit

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Foo was here/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

My understanding of this may not be correct, but I will add it so that others can judge it.

I was told that it was the practice of an american naval inspector in the ship yards to write "foo" in the various bulheads and cavities of ships being built that he inspected during WW2. The discovery of this name, in weird and awkward places in ships started talk amongst the sailors, and thus the ledgend grew. I don't htink the figure looking over the fence was in the story in the begining though.

Like I said - this is only a memory from 50 or so years ago, so treat it as such.

dave lees

Last edited at 22:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 15:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)