Help talk:Merging/Archive 3

Need explanation from proposer
I see a lot of situations where the proposer puts up the appropriate merge tags at the top of the articles, but then does not initiate any discussion on the appropriate Talk page to explain why the merge is needed. Shouldn't some sort of explanation from the proposer be part of the merge process? Johnfos (talk) 20:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I really would be grateful for some discussion on this, please. It just seems to be common sense that the person advocating the merge should explain why it is needed, rather than leave other editors guessing.  Johnfos (talk) 07:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It is always good form to explain why any tag is added. I've deleted any number of tags for merges, splits, disputed and POV after long discussion, simply because no one can figure out why they were added.  However, this is noted on the help page— look for "After proposing the merger, place your reasons on the talk page."  There is more on discussion scattered throughout the page.   If there is reason to think that this should be more prominent, perhaps rounding up the subject of discussion into a separate section would be appropriate.  --—  Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  12:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Need help locating records of a merged page
Suppose that page X was merged into page Y months ago. Where can I find a record of the data on page X before it was merged?

(This is most important when the material on page X is severely truncated (shortened) during the merge and the reader wants to recover the lost information.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Comrade Sephiroth (talk • contribs) 02:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Page X should now be a redirect page. If you don't know the exact name, use "What links here".  When you click on page X, you will be redirected to page Y.  There will be a backlink at the top showing you were redirects—click that and page X will open.  You can then check the page history.  --—  Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  11:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There's no process like with AfD where the outcome is clearly recorded with all the details available. If there has been a merge suggestion for an article in the past, your only hope is to search the talk page and archives. If you want to know if a page has been merged with another, you can only really do the same and look in the page history for 'merge', and look at what links here, though redirects from merges aren't highlighted or anything. The redirected page might be in Category:Redirects from merges, but it might well not be, in which case you'd have to check its page history to be sure. Perhaps we should make more of an effort to record the 'merge history' of articles, especially for major merges (or serious merge discussions). Do we even have a template one could use in such a situation, e.g. 'This page is the result of a merge between X and Y', 'Y was merged into this article on DD/MM/YY' or 'It has been suggested that X be merged with this page, but the consensus was not to merge (link to discussion)'? Richard001 (talk) 05:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion regarding defaults
I would suggest that the mergeto tag by default (if no talk page is specified) direct to the talk page of the same article, rather than that of the article it is suggested to merge into. It seems much more likely that the relevant discussion, if any, will be on the same talk page in that case. PSWG1920 (talk) 20:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I doubt it. The article that it is being merged into will probably be the more 'senior' one, with more people likely to visit the talk page. You would also have to change mergefrom so that it was set to the other page's talk page, which would be similarly strange. Richard001 (talk) 20:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Since the mergefrom page generally becomes a redirect, the mergefrom talkpage essentially becomes orphaned. If the mergeto talk page has the merge discussion, then editors can figure out the merge more readily.  --—  Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  21:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Making the placement of merge templates easier
We need some automated process or bot to help setting up merge templates. This is especially so with multi-merges. A page where you could just fill in the page names and similar details hit enter, letting a bot or such do the rest, would be nice. A bot that makes sure merge proposals are symmetrical would also be good, i.e. one that adds a merge template to one page if the other has one on it. Richard001 (talk) 20:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

How?
How do i request a merge?. Mythdon (talk) 05:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge discussions
What are the policies/guidelines/etc. that cover merge discussions, which occur on the Talk page of one of the affected articles? In particular, I am interested in the proper procedure for closing a merge discussion. I've read Help:Merging and moving pages (vague), as well as Consensus, Talk page guidelines, and Template:Discussion top, but I have not found anything directly helpful.

For XfDs, the closing editor must be uninvolved and may be a non-admin when admin tools are not required to implement the decision. Some merges may require history merges, while others can be done with cut-and-paste. Should an uninvolved editor be requested at WP:EAR, WP:AN, or elsewhere, or should the merge tags and their associated categories be relied on to attract this uninvolved editor?

Is it ever acceptable for an involved editor to close a merge discussion as no consensus following an extended period (1-2 months) with no new discussion, or does this involved closing always constitute a conflict of interest, as it would in the WP:Deletion process? If it may be acceptable, what constitutes a reasonable "extended period"? Flatscan (talk) 17:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Mergers are generally done by someone who has an interest in the topic. Deletion requires distance, but mergers require knowledge of the subject in some manner to have an idea of what needs to be kept. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. I guess I'll cross-post my question once this is archived. Flatscan (talk) 19:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)?


 * I believe the question is not who actually carries out the merger but who determines whether or not there is a consensus when there is no unanimity? I believe that it's been the practice in the past to request on WP:AN that an uninvolved admin determine consensus when it is unclear. Reggie Perrin (talk) 04:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Cross-posted from Help desk/Archives/2008 May 24 to Help talk:Merging and moving pages, Village pump (policy)

I was unable to find guidance or precedent. Is there support for adding a recommendation to request closing by an uninvolved editor at WP:EAR or WP:AN? Alternately, this may be recommended only if the closure is disputed. Flatscan (talk) 01:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Closure of a lengthy move discussion at Talk:New York was done by an uninvolved admin following a request at WP:AN. Flatscan (talk) 02:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I came across a discussion that implies scrutiny of closures by involved editors. I'll add the suggested recommendation if there are no objections. Flatscan (talk) 03:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I added the suggestion. Flatscan (talk) 23:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

What do to with the talk page of the redirected page?
There's no instructions on what to do with the old talk page. Should it be deleted, or just left? ImpIn | (t - c) 00:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I assume that you're referring to an article that has been merged into another. If the Talk page has any useful discussion, I would place archive tags and move it to a subpage of the merged article's Talk. Flatscan (talk) 00:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I came across Template:Merged-from, which is placed on the merged article's Talk and provides links to the redirected article and its Talk, making a move unnecessary. Flatscan (talk) 18:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge policy
Flatscan (talk) 21:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Is AfD appropriate for discussing mergers, controversial or otherwise?
 * 2) Is there need for a formal Mergers for discussion? Would it be sufficiently subscribed?

Mergers at AfD
Filing an AfD for a contested merge was suggested in this archived AN/I thread and its preceding merge discussion. There has been opposition to taking this content dispute to AfD, which is not a listed dispute resolution step. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations‎ was eventually filed. —add AfD Flatscan (talk) 00:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I was recently involved with a disputed split/merge that was eventually nominated at AfD. Although I thought such a nomination was discouraged, Articles for deletion/Taser controversy attracted sufficient outside input and resolved the dispute. Steps preceding the nomination: In my opinion, AfD worked well for this example because the merge was argued on Wikipedia policy, not specific and specialized knowledge. My guess is that lack of specific interest and/or reluctance to enter an existing content dispute hurt the RfC's success.
 * 1) Article tagging and informal merge discussion per Help:Merging and moving pages, but not the optional listing at Proposed mergers
 * 2) Intermittent discussion over a few months
 * 3) RfC per DR, attracting zero outside input
 * 4) Suggestion of refiling RfC or seeking mediation per DR

A way of looking at AfD is that it asks this question: "Does Wikipedia need an article on this subject?" Delete and Merge/redirect both answer "no". Flatscan (talk) 21:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Clarification: I'm not sure if taking merges to AfD should be encouraged, but I think it's a reasonable forum for at least some cases. Flatscan (talk) 22:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Related discussion: Village pump (policy)/Archive 51 —Flatscan (talk) 03:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Another somewhat related discussion (towards end of linked section) —Flatscan (talk) 22:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Mergers for discussion
Proposed mergers already exists, but it is an optional step. My experience is that there is little collected guidelines regarding merge discussions, which may lead to protracted disputes over whether the relevant procedural precedent was followed. Flatscan (talk) 21:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Copied from Village pump (policy)/Archive 50 —Flatscan (talk) 01:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

No guidance for direction of merges
I would think merges should prefer that the page content is merged into the page with the more detailed history, especially when there is a great disparity. Is there any existing guidance on this? There is none on the project page here. As an example, I just tagged a newly created page with just a three edit history for merger to an established page with a detailed history going back two years. This seems the obvious direction and I think most editors under similar circumstances would do likewise, choosing the new (little history) into the old (detailed history). Here's the rub: the newly created article appears to be at the better name. Assuming it is, if I want to do the merge in the history-favored direction, but then move that old article to the new article name, I won't be able to delete the new article to perform that move as that would destroy the history of the merged-from page, and the merge would then no longer comply with the GFDL. I suppose I could do a name swap...; never pretty but it would preserve both pages' histories. Anyway, any thoughts on whether merges should consider richness of page histories as a criterion for direction, or whether that or at least something about the merge direction should be added to the attached project page?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Is there a particular reason against a history merge, such as the short and long edit histories being interleaved? A history merge would obscure what really happened, but the individual revisions would survive – I don't know if that would cause a GFDL problem. I could see history richness as a merge direction consideration, but at a low priority. Flatscan (talk) 00:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Afaik, history merges are for content that used to be on the same page that for whatever reason needs to be added back; cut and paste moves and the like. It doesn't seem logical to me to merge the histories of two pages that started independently because think about what a user scrolling through the history will find: two years in, suddenly an edit summary: "create article"; and if they look at the version they'll see a whole other article; the next edit after that is a stub tagging, and a few edits later, its back to the original article's content. It would be confusing and incongruous. Moreover, if the edits are spread over time, various versions of the two articles will be interleaved. Inspecting this merged history without means of distinguishing between the two overlapping progressions (since nothing in the history would indicate which version belongs to which sequence) invites much more severe confusion. Turning to the second part of your post, why is it a low priority criterion? Or more pertinently, what would be a higher basis to use? Maybe I'm asking the wrong question. The attached page has no guidance on direction at all and I would think that issue a fundamental concern for merges so let's change the inquiry:


 * What criteria should be considered for choosing the direction of merges?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I would use minimize amount of work necessary. This would include, in approximate order of priority:
 * Merge into preferred name to avoid name swap.
 * Merge into article with larger scope (e.g. merging a subarticle into a section).
 * Merge in the direction that requires copying less text. This has the desirable side effect of having less text associated with the separate history of the redirected article.
 * If the articles are roughly equal, then history richness could be considered. Flatscan (talk) 02:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Some of your points may have merit independently, but I reject the entire premise that minimizing work is even a consideration, which you use as the underlying basis for all your criteria. We do what is best and correct for the encyclopedia and if it takes more time to do it right, then that's the procedure we adopt.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Point taken. Endorsing laziness was not my intent. Flatscan (talk) 20:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Moving forward on mergers with no votes either way?
I proposed that Kristi Yamaoka be merged with Cheerleading. I got no response aside from a comment that was more of a clarification than a vote, and it's 11 days and counting. I figured it would be controversial and posted it in the proposed section here at the time hoping to get some input, but nothing has happened from that direction either, nor does it look likely to happen. What's the next step here? MSJapan (talk) 21:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't have any good recommendations. Considering the five previous AfDs, renominating to AfD with suggested outcome merge/redirect is an option, but not a good one. I would normally suggest leaving a note "seeing no objections, will proceed with merge", then going ahead per WP:BOLD after another 1-2 weeks of no discussion, but here I would expect an immediate reversion citing consensus established at AfD. Flatscan (talk) 01:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:SILENCE! II  | (t - c) 22:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think of it this way: If it's proposed for merge, the editor who makes the proposition implicitly votes for the merge unless explicitly says otherwise. --coldacid (talk|contrib) 05:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Old merge template; for proposed mergers that result in consensus against (or no consensus)
Mirroring oldafdfull, I've created User:Coldacid/Templates/oldmergefull for when a merge has been proposed, but resulted in a decision to keep the original article, or for when there is no consensus. I don't think it'll be used too much, but for articles where that happens, it's better than making someone scroll down the talk page, head to an archived talk page, or try and figure out what article was suggested for the merge.

Perhaps someone should work out how to work the template into the help article, perhaps after a move into the Template namespace and/or some protection. --coldacid (talk|contrib) 06:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * User:Coldacid/Templates/oldmergefull is now oldmergefull, as after over a year there's been nobody to say it shouldn't be moved over. Protection would be nice.

Can we make it that you can remove proposed merge tags if the proposer doesn't leave any comments on the talk page?
I get sick of people doing this. No explanation, just tag and leave - rst20xx (talk) 00:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sure that people have done it in the past. Still, I'd say only if the proposer doesn't respond to questions about the proposal. Sometimes the case for merging is obvious to the proposer, and he or she thinks (wrongly) it should be obvious to others. A better option would be to send a message to the person who proposed a merge, asking them to comment on the article talk page about the proposal. If they don't bother, then pull the merge tags down if nobody else is discussing it. --coldacid (talk|contrib) 03:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Protocol in mergers, how much is consensus?
OK, here's one for discussion, both on how complete consensus is and how long to leave open a merge for. On September 19th, I proposed a merger here of lycanthrope and werewolf, two articles which could easily reach 50-75 kb at FAC, and which are to all intents synonymous in all definitions I can find apart from D&D, where lycanthrope was used to mean human shapeshifters.


 * So far there are 9 supports, with 4 noting that a condition would be to mention and explain D&D usage and non-wolf shapeshifting material moved to therianthropy or shapeshifting (this is absolutely fine by me).


 * There are two opposes, both on the D&D issue, but neither have returned to clarify whether there are any other issues or whether they'd be satisfied with.

Question is, how long do we leave this open and how many counts as consensus? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Procedurally, it looks fine to close this discussion now:
 * Proper merge tags with precise link to discussion
 * 2 weeks since discussion start
 * 1 week since last non-supporting comment
 * My reading is that the merge is not particularly controversial, but its size requires some work to do properly. If my impression is incorrect and you expect vigorous opposition to implementing the merge, you may wish to consider additional measures:
 * 1 week since last comment, to allow rebuttal
 * Request closure by an uninvolved admin at Administrators' noticeboard
 * Flatscan (talk) 03:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

For future reference, closure was requested at AN, and the merge proceeded without opposition. Flatscan (talk) 22:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge tags on templates
Is there a merge template for use on templates? Eg, someone wants to merge Template:Bits and Template:Reins, and the merge template proposes (inappropriate) merges of the pages on which the template is used. --Una Smith (talk) 23:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Use . --NE2 02:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Merge edit summaries
According to Help:Merging and moving pages, the source article must be recorded in the edit summary: "Save the destination page, with an edit summary noting 'merge content from article name ' (This step is required in order to conform with &sect;4(I) of the GFDL. Do not omit it nor omit the page name.)" If the information is omitted, it may be recorded later using a dummy edit to the article or on the destination article's Talk page.

Do the bolded sentences carry the force of policy? It appears that these instructions are frequently ignored. Wikipedia talk:Copyrights may be the proper place for this discussion. Flatscan (talk) 04:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The first mention of edit summaries was added 23 May 2005. The bold text was added 7 June 2007 by Uncle G. Flatscan (talk) 04:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) You are once again basing all that you say on a text about authors. It does't apply to editors. It has nothing to do with the notion of significance either. Since I am apparently unable to make you see the light, I suggest that you ask someone you trust to know about this stuff. Regards, Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 18:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's fair to say that this is so widely-ignored that it's not going to be settled on a help page's talk. I'd certainly support making this notice more prominent, but even better would be to have a technical solution - such as a bot - which would be able to identify when a redirect had been created following a merge and to flag both the article and the redir such as to comply with our licensing obligations. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought of a bot after I logged off. It seems like the classification logic would be simple, even for a high degree of confidence. Flatscan (talk) 04:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A bot is probably the best solution. Enforcing this as we would other policies will be onerous and painful in practice. Protonk (talk) 20:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC
 * It is frequently ignored because people have little or no knowledge of the GFDL, but that is not a good reason not to enforce it. The GFDL (or the upcoming CC license) are a core policy and should be upheld no matter what. I say we should point to Merge and delete and Help:Merging and moving pages more often to make people aware. Make a signpost article if we have to. - Mgm|(talk) 20:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you mean to put that in the thread immediately above this one? Protonk (talk) 20:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Since editors are not authors, and it stays within the same project, the GFDL doesn't play here at all (unless the source article's history contains an older, non-project source that is still relevant to the current article content). It is nonetheless good policy to mention the revision ID, because that is very helpful to all editors and shows respect to the contributors. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 22:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Moved comments from below. Protonk (talk) 23:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Editors are authors when they add significant content. Our articles don't write themselves and the essential point is that contributions are recognised and not copied without attribution. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a common misunderstanding. No, Wikipedia editors are not authors, no matter how significant their contributions (who is to judge, anyway). They are collaborators. The author rights belong to the project as a whole. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 14:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You may wish to review WP:C, which notes (in part) "The Wikimedia Foundation does not own copyright on Wikipedia article texts and illustrations....For permission to use it outside these [GFDL] terms, one must contact all the volunteer authors of the text or illustration in question." The reason one must contact them is because they own the copyright and have only licensed it under GFDL. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The policy is correct. What you are missing is that it is about authors, not Wikipedia editors (but note that they may be the same person). Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 15:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how this is consistent with "Wikipedia editors are not authors, no matter how significant their contributions (who is to judge, anyway). They are collaborators. The author rights belong to the project as a whole." The policy says that the project does not own the copyright; the authors do. As Colonel Warden indicates above you, "Editors are authors when they add significant content." How is that a misunderstanding, if the policy is correct? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Because that's not in the policy. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 16:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Then who are these mysterious "volunteer authors" who own the copyright to this text, if not "editors [who]...add significant content"? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly what it says, they are the authors, nothing mysterious about it. If you write a poem, you (usually) have the author rights to that poem, and if you volunteer it for placement in Wikipedia, you keep those rights and should receive attribution. The editor that puts your poem in an article, however, gains no such rights, nor does the editor that corrects a spelling error made by that first editor, nor the editor that adds a reference to the original publication of that poem, nor the editor that writes down all notable comments on your poem, nor the editor that makes a list of poems on the same topic, etc. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 17:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the misunderstanding here is in the phrase "significant content"? Spelling corrections are not significant content. Significant content is creative text such that copyright laws apply. Take the article Ship Ahoy (album). I am completely the author of that article to this point, at which time no other contributors had added to it. As per the notice at the bottom of the page, I irrevocably agreed to license my contributions under the terms of GFDL. This is not the same, however, as relinquishing copyright. I did not place the text into public domain. As a volunteer author, I still have the right to attribution of my work, no matter who uses it or how. This is spelled out at WP:C in the following sentence, "Wikipedia content can be copied, modified, and redistributed so long as the new version grants the same freedoms to others and acknowledges the authors of the Wikipedia article used (a direct link back to the article is generally thought to satisfy the attribution requirement)." Wikipedia makes no claims to copyright ownership of my material and explicitly disclaims it: "The Wikimedia Foundation does not own copyright on Wikipedia article texts and illustrations." If somebody wants to use that text in any other way than under the GFDL licensing, they have to ask my permission: "For permission to use it outside these terms, one must contact all the volunteer authors of the text or illustration in question." If they don't, and they don't respond to a standard takedown request, it's up to me to handle it, as "You can only file a lawsuit (or file a DMCA take down notice) if you hold a significant copyright interest in one or more articles" as Standard GFDL violation letter notes. Wikipedia contributors who add substantial content to Wikipedia own the content they place here. Neither Wikipedia nor anyone else can use it without following the terms of GFDL, which requires attribution as specified in Text of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See also: About: "Contributions remain the property of their creators, while the GFDL license ensures the content is freely distributable and reproducible." Note how this mirrors the language of the edit window release: "You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the terms of the GFDL.") --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there some reason that you prefer to keep reiterating your basic premise without explaining it? Do you assert that you do have the right to copy material I authored in that article elsewhere without giving me credit? If so, how can you account for that under the specific text I've quoted from policies? You say " The author rights belong to the project as a whole", but this is demonstrably contradicted by policy at a number of points. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I don't have the right to copy material that you authored without giving you credits. I'm talking about material that you supplied as an editor, and the absence of a need to credit editors. If you put your friend's poem in an article, I'm not going to credit you for that, I'm going to credit your friend. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 18:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Then granted that you do not have the right to copy material that I have authored, no other Wikipedian does either. Hence, no Wikipedian may copy my contributions to that article into any other space—on Wikipedia or off—without noting my authorship in accordance with GFDL. Since I have only licensed my text in accordance with GFDL, utilizing it in any other way is a violation of my copyright and against US law. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What you forget is that you won't have authored most of what you enter. It does not become 'your text' by entering it into Wikipedia. If it wasn't already your or someone else's text before you entered it, it becomes Wikipedia's text. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 18:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I authored every word (except those marked as quotations). It was mine the moment it moved from my brain to fixed medium, according to United States copyright law: "Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work.". Wikipedia is based in Florida and is bound by that law; as written, our policy clearly reflects that. I have quoted policy where Wikipedia makes explicit that it is not Wikipedia's text. I'll repeat what was said to you at village pump: perhaps you should contact the Foundation or our legal council to have this further explained to you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My dear, I check things before I say something, not afterwards. Now, that pdf file is not the law, it is merely a not entirely accurate summary of the basics of the law. Nonetheless, if you would read only a bit further, you would find that there are different rules for works made for hire. Even though you don't get paid, Wikipedia counts as such a work. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 20:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Though evidently you don't find publications of the US government as accurate as your own understanding of US law, I'll still link to this in noting that as we are not employees of Wikipedia, you would have to be referring to "a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work...if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire." (Emphasis added). (17 U.S.C. sec 101) (Employees are identified by such factors as whether the "employer" controls the work ("determine how the work is done, has the work done at the employer’s location, and provides equipment or other means to create work"), controls the employee ("e.g., the employer controls the employee’s schedule in creating work, has the right to have the employee perform other assignments, determines the method of payment, and/ or has the right to hire the employee’s assistants") and whether or not the employer meets status/conduct test ("e.g., the employer is in business to produce such works, provides the employee with benefits, and/or withholds tax from the employee’s payment"). The US Government notes, "All or most of these factors characterize a regular, salaried employment relationship, and it is clear that a work created within the scope of such employment is a work made for hire." I have yet to receive my paycheck. I hope I'm not the only person here being stiffed.) There is no written instrument between me and Wikipedia expressly agreeing that this is a work for hire. On the contrary, there is a written agreement that I am licensing my work for reuse under certain specific conditions. And Wikipedia specifically disclaims ownership of this material, in spite of your opinions otherwise. I'm about to hit "save page" and irrevocably agree to said license for this text, too. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't blindly assume any text to be accurate, government or otherwise. Surely, as a Wikipedia editor, you can understand this. Now, the key is that the Supreme Court doesn't say that all three criteria must be satisfied. (Also, benefits can take other forms than salary, but that is less relevant.) The first two are satisfied, and that is sufficient here. There is no significant difference beteen paid work and volunteer work in this respect. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 22:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Uh, is there any point to this hair-splitting between "author" & "editor"? Beyond this issue of the right -- or at least the common courtesy -- of giving credit to the person(s) who wrote the text? Because I don't see one. -- llywrch (talk) 18:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for bogging down in minutia. I was trying to understand why this specific contributor does not seem to comprehend what looks to be explicit policy. :) You're quite right to remind that the issue here is credit. Two bits on that: GFDL violations are copyright infringement. That's why our contributors are advised how to send a DMCA takedown to external sites that utilize their text without authorization. Authorship credit is necessary to satisfy the terms of GFDL, which is (as we know) the license we agree to release our work under when we type in the edit window. If we copy another Wikipedian's words without credit, we're violating their legal rights. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, MRG, my question was directed more to Guido den Broeder than you; he seems to be the one hung up on labelling Wikipedians as "editors" & not "authors". If he is worried that anyone who does as little as fix a typo or change a single word is entitled to credit for an article &mdash; which is the only reason I can conceive for his repeated assertion &mdash; I doubt that anyone seriously believes that. But if he believes that someone who contributes significant text to an article &mdash; or even writes the entire article by her/himself &mdash; is no more than an editor, & which I assume you have in mind, then I emphatically disagree with him. Whether or not I expect an external user to identify me as the creator of the content in question. (Personally, I'm satisfied if that person only acknowledges Wikipedia as the source of that content.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, even if you are the only editor of an article, that still doesn't give you the author rights. It does not matter that you disagree with me, we as Wikipedians can't change the law, nor can we ignore it. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 21:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Reading this, I'm still confused. I think we all agree that if I copy something from somewhere else to Wikipedia we aren't authors.  But if I, for example, write a poem and post it here, I am the author.  The same goes for anything else we write (not copy, but write).  Even if the work involves citing sources and quoting from them, it is still authorship, just as a news article has an author even if it largely consists of quoting others.  Hobit (talk) 22:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this conversation is part of |"Wikipedia, the social experiment". --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hobit, based on GdB's response you have nothing to be confused about. He apparently believes that if he asserts an opinion enough times in a given period of time, then it must be true. So far he has failed to explain why he is right, & we are best served by ignoring his unhelpful opinion. -- llywrch (talk) 22:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to believe otherwise, as the issue will probably never come up for you (but it has for me). Let's say we agree to disagree, or otherwise, ask someone that you trust more. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 23:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with both Moonriddengirl and Guido (I think). When a Wikipedian editor creates significant content – such as writing an encyclopedia article with a new collection of facts and/or interesting turns of phrases, etc. – then that Wikipedian editor is the author of that material in toto (though not the author of any bits that may happen to be quotes), and holds the copyright for it.  But if a Wikipedian makes a small change to an article such as correcting a spelling mistake or adding a category, there is no copyright for that. However, I'm not sure that "the whole project" can own a copyright; I don't think it's a legal entity. Also, it may be unclear where the line is drawn; and there's no harm in giving people credit for their work, as a courtesy, even if it's not legally required to do so. ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 01:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikimedia Foundation is a legal entity, as are its various chapters. (Cf Local chapter FAQ.) But the whole project not only does not (as noted above), but cannot own copyright of this content&mdash;not of material that's already been contributed to it, anyway. Wikipedia's contributors are required to license their content under GFDL, not to surrender copyright, and Wikipedia would not be able to retroactively claim copyright on material it has only been licensed to modify & distribute. In terms of legal requirements, WP:C notes that "The English text of the GFDL is the only legally binding document between authors and users of Wikipedia content." Material on Wikipedia can be reused according to the terms of GFDL, which (as we know) allows modification. GFDL is somewhat vague on the attribution required for simple reproduction, but not at all vague on the attribution required for modification: Section 4 points out that to modify a document licensed under GFDL, we must "B. List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities responsible for authorship of the modifications in the Modified Version, together with at least five of the principal authors of the Document (all of its principal authors, if it has fewer than five), unless they release you from this requirement". Material copied from one Wikipedia article to another needs attribution for modification, if nothing else. The essay Verbatim copying discusses some of the complications of straightforward copying, without modification. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * After walking away from this thread overnight & now returning, I realize that another part of "authorship" is involved here: responsibility for content especially in the case of libel. If I add information that is harmful to a person or organization, that party will come after me, not the WMF, per my understanding of the law. If we are all merely "editors", then this responsibility vanishes, reflected off of each contributor similar to light or images in a hall of mirrors. An interesting, although off-topic, question here -- & one I have not seen raised -- is if I add malicious content to an article, & several people make changes to that article before someone else removes it, then are those people also responsible for that malicious content even if all they do is make minor changes (fix typos, misspelling or update templates)? -- llywrch (talk) 17:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * ← I, for one, find Moonriddengirl's explanations to be compelling. In any case, it looks like everyone agrees that informative edit summaries are at least a good idea. Mgm's proposal of raising awareness is a good start. I have concerns that this page's Help: namespace has and will lead to it being dismissed as "just a how-to page", but I don't know if a separate Wikipedia: policy or essay is the right answer. Flatscan (talk) 04:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Certainly, I fully agree with the need for informative edit summaries. A permalink should be included. @Moonriddengirl: attribution is not handled by the GFDL because this is already regulated by law; the GFDL doesn't change anything there, and in fact no license can. You are indeed not asked to give up any author rights that you have; you just don't gain any either by editing. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 13:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've not said you gain author rights by editing. You simply retain them, as governed by US copyright law. These sentences are mine. I've licensed others to use and modify them, but I have not surrendered my right to credit. The project does not own my words. They merely have my permission to distribute them in given circumstances. That's what licensing is all about. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You can't retain what you did not have in the first place. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 20:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah! Guido den Broeder is working under the misapprehension that the contributions made by Wikipedia's editors are works for hire, and that Wikipedia (or, properly, the Wikimedia Foundation) automatically holds the copyrights to editors' contributions. Since that's plainly incorrect, we can all stop arguing with him. I've referred him once to Foundation counsel User:MGodwin. Unless and until Mr. Den Broeder takes that very simple and straightforward step to confirm his position (which contradicts years of Wikipedia policy, Foundation statements, and assorted laws), there's no more need to waste time in this thread. What a relief! I urge everyone else to get on with productive business, and Guido is welcome to whatever last word he wishes. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Naturally, now that you so clearly point out that it is so plain, I will immediately ignore all the existing law, court rulings, literature, the unanimous opinions of all kinds of experts and my own experience of over 35 years in this area, and immediately fall in line. (Right. Have a nice day, folks.) Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 23:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, as far as I can tell, you never explained why exactly you believe what you believe on this issue. I understand you have a lot of knowledge of the area (I have a fair bit having had to teach a bit on the subject, but I'm certainly a layman in the area).   Could you provide the legal explanation for your assertions?  Thanks, Hobit (talk) 14:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia sets rules for its editors and for editing; hence, editors count as employees, not as independent contractors, and author rights default to Wikipedia. While it could easily have gone another way, it's what we chose to be the law and its interpretation - not just in the USA, but in most of the world.
 * You can, however, circumvent this, by publishing your contributions elsewhere first, where you get the author rights, before you enter them here. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 17:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hobit, of potential interest here is Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730, which see: "Reid was an independent contractor rather than a 101(1) "employee" since, although CCNV members directed enough of the work to ensure that the statue met their specifications, all other relevant circumstances weigh heavily against finding an employment relationship. Reid engages in a skilled occupation; supplied his own tools; worked in Baltimore without daily supervision from Washington; was retained for a relatively short period of time; had absolute freedom to decide when and how long to work in order to meet his deadline; and had total discretion in hiring and paying assistants. Moreover, CCNV had no right to assign additional projects to Reid; paid him in a manner in which independent contractors are often compensated; did not engage regularly in the business of creating sculpture or, in fact, in any business; and did not pay payroll or Social Security taxes, provide any employee benefits, or contribute to unemployment insurance or workers' compensation funds. Furthermore, as petitioners concede, the work in question does not satisfy the terms of 101(2). Pp. 751-753." Wikipedia's contributors, of course, supply their own tools, work without supervision, have absolute freedom to decide when and how long to work, have total discretion in hiring and paying (or not) assistants; Wikipedia has no right to assign us additional projects, does not provide payroll or Social Security taxes, employee benefits or contribute to unemployment insurance or workers' comp. Cf the following texts: 372 et seq, 73 et seq. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I'd want to read the whole thing.  It does seem he was paid, which might make a difference here.  Thanks to both of you. Hobit (talk) 14:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Including revision ID
I prefer to include the explicit revision ID in the edit summary, e.g., copy Taser subsections, Taser section, revision 228248230, per Talk:Taser (diff). The resulting permanent link is robust against page moves and will work as long as the specific revision is not deleted. Is there support for adding this as a suggestion? Flatscan (talk) 04:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems fine to me. I do that if I'm not redirecting the page (or at least I did it the 1-2 times I merged content without redirecting). Protonk (talk) 20:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Merge edit summaries (2)
Since the previous section of the same name was badly derailed by one editor's stubborn insistence on his own particular understanding of copyright as it applies to Wikipedia, I'm opening a new section for discussion.

I would urge anyone who wants to insist that they do not hold copyright over their contributions to Wikipedia to add their comments to the previous section. This discussion will stipulate for the sake of argument that Wikipedia editors do own the copyrights to their writing, and that there are GFDL considerations to moving material between articles. We're trying to have a productive discussion, and I welcome any constructive remarks. I'd say that the issues we're considering probably fall into three categories.


 * 1) Going forward. What should our best practices be for giving credit following a merger?  Where (and in what form) should the merger be noted in edit summaries?  Is there anywhere else that the merger (and previous authors) ought to be acknowledged?  What happens if an article is deleted?  What (if anything) needs be done during a rename of the source or target?
 * 2) Looking back. What is the minimum standard we'll accept?  While it's unlikely that all article mergers in the past will comply precisely with whatever standard shakes out of this discussion, what level of good-faith acknowledgement effort is acceptable?
 * 3) Cleaning up after ourselves. Some mergers will have been done badly in the past, and some will continue to be done poorly in the future.  What do we do?  Are null edits with the merger info sufficient?  How do we handle more complex cases?

If there's anything else, shout out. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:GFDL says that the History page has to list all the previous authors. We kind of smear the Title and History pages around between oldid's (previous titles), history and talk, but it is mostly in the edit history of the article. This means that the history should be preserved in all its excruciating glory.
 * Credit should be in the edit summary and on the target talk page. The source (in-merged) article history has all the previous author details. Renames can be accomodated by also noting the oldid/id of the source article, since otherwise there could be a problem with A merged to B; A(redirect) renamed to C; D created; D renamed to A; link in B now points effectively to D.
 * More problematic is when the source article gets deleted - but this really should never happen, should it? Presumably the source article will get reduced to a redirect. However, adopting as best practice naming the oldid/articleid of the source will at least ensure that admins can provide the entire Title and History page(s) if necessary.
 * Looking back / cleaning up - edit summary and talk page note again should be sufficient (again, oldid/articleid would be best practice). The essence is that any merge of text provides sufficient wiki-clues to trace back the exact provenance of every word. That's not required by GFDL, but given the MediaWiki diff facilities and requirement to preserve previous titles, that's really what should be possible. If we can't get a diff to every word using reasonable effort, something has gone wrong.
 * Summary: going forward, I'd say best practice is to note any merge on article talk, including either oldid or article id, and note that a merge has occurred in the edit summary; null edit summaries accompanied by talk page notes are fine for cleanups - if oldid's are noted, it should handle complex cases too. Franamax (talk) 04:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * These comments are a great start.
 * Keyword "merge", current article name, and oldid cover everything for me. and any similar templates need to be modified to support the additional parameters. Do any ids change on delete/undelete? I think I read that undeleted articles receive a new articleid.
 * These practices should generally apply to any copying or moving content between articles, not just full merges. I think even small copies should be noted on the Talk page, but there should be a better representation than one template per discrete copy.
 * The source article should never be deleted (unless the target has been deleted), but it can be moved out of article space per Merge and delete. It might be a good idea to note in the source's history, to make the GFDL burden clearer. A dummy edit is required if the redirection edit does not mention the merge.
 * Dummy edits that conform with the standards, plus date and oldid of the actual merge, should be fine for history recording. Ordinary editing takes care of Talk page recording. A bot should be able to bring most merges done by a single editor into line. We may have problems when one editor redirects and another merges.
 * Relating to Franamax's mention of attributing each word, I prefer to copy/paste the source with minimal editing (only deletions of whole paragraphs), integrating in separate edits similar to Help:Merging and moving pages.
 * Flatscan (talk) 06:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Moving forward with productive conversation as wisely advised, perhaps the Merged-to would also be helpful at the talk of the source article, to help reduce the risk of inadvertent deletion? If R from merge is used, that ordinarily shouldn't happen, but if somebody overwrites that with new material, it's possible that a single note of a merge in edit summary would be overlooked by a deleting administrator. With respect to partial mergers, Coppertwig has created a template recently for splitfrom: Splitfrom. To standardize, perhaps it should be renamed split-to, with another created for destination article renamed split-from? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * On the technical side, I checked articleid's on my localwiki. If I delete the article and restore it, it keeps the original articleid in the page table; if I delete, re-create with new content, then restore the original, the original history is restored to the new article (histmerge) and the page table has the new articleid. Don't know if that helps at all. A selective restore could still omit some of the history but presumably this will be rare. Franamax (talk) 19:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * According to Archive table, delete saves oldid (ar_rev_id) as of MW 1.5 and articleid (ar_page_id) as of 1.11. The information at Old table covers 1.4 and earlier. Flatscan (talk) 04:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:Mergenote
I have created a template, mergenote, which is similar to AFDWarning and AFDNote but is used to notify the major contributors of an article on their talk page that there is a merge discussion taking place. Two parameters can be defined: the article name and the location of the merge discussion:



The major contributors of an article can be found using this tool by aka. Outside input on the mergenote template would be appreciated. I hope to include a mention of mergenote in this article. --Pixelface (talk) 19:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge templates
They are clearly broken. These templates need to seriously be simplified. (I, unfortunately, am not a rocket scientist, but a Wikipedian who wishes to propose a simple merge of several articles into one.) I am tempted to AFD every single article I am willing to open to a merge in this case, since that is easier to do than go through the merge-to-multiple-with-bullshit process. MuZemike 07:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'm not a rocket scientist, either; in fact, I'm a bit of a duffer when it comes to technology. Which means that I'll try to help, but I may fail. :D I tried on an article, and it seemed to work in preview. All of the articles showed up, and "discuss" opened Talk:Benji. It worked for me when I added a fourth article and when I reduced it to two. It didn't work when I tried it in my userspace, since it wanted all the other articles to be in userspace, too (we have no User:Dolly Parton).  worked for me in preview, too. Is the problem with one of these templates or a different one? Is it technical, or do you think the instructions are too confusing? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

If AFD consensus was merge, what happens if an editor refuses to allow any new info to be merged?
The consensus was to merge the article Akane-chan Overdrive with that that of its creator. Alas, no information has been added to that page at all. An editor has stated that the only information belonging on a biography page was the name of their creation and the year it was published, stubbornly arguing against the addition of even a brief summary of the series created by that author. If people voted for a merge, then is she required to honor that, and allow some information to be merged? Dream Focus (talk) 08:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Please read Dispute resolution. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  11:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Also read WP:FORUMSHOP. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 18:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't a forum shop. This is the area to talk about the Merge guideline, I reading what the article saying, and asking a question about it.  Because it seems as we have a different definition of what the word merge means. Dream Focus (talk) 00:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * When you've posted about the same thing on 3-4 different pages because you aren't getting the responses you want, yes it is. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 00:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I posted on the appropriate talk page before this. Stop making personal attacks against me, and distorting things.  Since dispute resolution was suggested, I went and started a discussion there. Dream Focus (talk) 00:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * First forum, Second forum, Third forum. That's clearly WP:FORUMSHOPping --Farix (Talk) 01:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The second is a page I went to before all of this, which has nothing to do with the issue at hand. And the wikiquette page I went to after the editor on this page suggested it was a better place to discuss that, not here.  That isn't forum shopping. Dream Focus (talk) 02:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I skimmed the AfD, noting that while the specifics of the merge were mentioned, they were omitted from the closing statement. Since mergers are content issues implemented by ordinary editor tools, their specifics are generally overlooked, save in cases where consensus is exceptionally clear. The proper place to discuss this content dispute is the Talk page of the merge target. Flatscan (talk) 04:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

How long to leave a merge tag?
I have left merge tags that have generated absolutely no comment. Is there any guideline on how long we should wait before performing the actual merge. Is a week too soon to allow interested parties to spot the tag? MortimerCat (talk) 11:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Generally I used to recommend a minimum two weeks for what should be a fairly uncontentious merge, with one month generally being good for some (particularly in the fictional area). -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 17:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Proposed in October, 2009, comment against in April 2010, and my own comment against yesterday, so I am well within the time suggested to go ahead and remove the mergeto template today. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Rewriting merge instructions
I propose rewriting the merge instructions to increase clarity. I have two main changes: I will start soon if there are no objections. Flatscan (talk) 23:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Proposing a merger: Move the discussion creation step first, so it's ready to link when placing templates.
 * Performing the merger: Merge the detailed paste merge instructions together, there's a lot of redundancy.

Template saying "merge was proposed and rejected"?
For AfD, there's a template you can put on the talk page that says "someone tried to AfD this article and failed". Is there a similar template that says "someone tried to merge this, and consensus was against it"? I'd like to avoid having the same argument the next time someone has the same non-bright idea. --Alvestrand (talk) 07:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know of one. It may be possible to use, but its parameter validation may prevent that. Flatscan (talk) 03:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You would have to have it updated. Looks like ther is a draft version at User:Coldacid/Templates/oldmergefull. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 13:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't you just modify the template to say Do not merge rather than Merge? Jubilee♫ clipman  15:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Update: Modify to Keep Jubilee♫ clipman 15:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Merge imposed with no discussion
Consider the following scenario:
 * 1 Article History of Widgetry in Fooland is AfDed
 * 2 No-one has much to say for the retention of History of Widgetry in Fooland
 * 3 Someone points out on the AfD discussion the existence of History of Widgetry, which already has an appropriately proportioned section dealing with Fooland.
 * 4 The idea of merger snowballs at the AfD, and this is the closing decision.
 * 5 None of this has been mentioned at Talk:History of Widgetry, until the fait accompli of a is posted by the admin closing the AfD.
 * 6 The lack of enthusiasm of the regular users of History of Widgetry for such a disproportionate section is illustrated by the fact that no-one enacts the merge for a month.
 * 7 The merge is eventually made.

On what grounds does a discussion, the parties to which have never contributed to the target page, that is not mentioned on the target page, have jurisdiction to make a decision which greatly changes the balance of the target page, claim to have the authority of a consensus decision behind it. Why should that merger not just be reverted and the merger decision, which never even sought the consent of the target article's maintainers, ignored. Kevin McE (talk) 08:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Notifying the editors of the target article was suggested in a recent discussion, with a merge tag and/or talk page section. An AfD consensus to merge – an ordinary content decision – can be overturned by additional discussion: I recently came across an AfD merger that was reversed in this way.
 * I suggest reposting this at WT:Articles for deletion, where you'll probably get more replies. Flatscan (talk) 05:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I found the article: Talk:Christianity and Judaism. Flatscan (talk) 04:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Lane splitting, filtering forward, and Overlap
There has been a proposed merge of lane splitting and filtering forward on seemingly (at first glance anyway) solid ground:


 * Overlap - There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. For example, "Flammable" and "Non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on Flammability.

My objection to this particular merger is that despite the considerable overlap, there is an important distinction between these two concepts, akin to the distinction between mean and median, and that such a merger will blur the distinction.

Filtering forward means using available space to pass slow or stopped traffic, while lane splitting means riding a two wheeler between lines of traffic. While the purpose of lane splitting is often to filter forward, that is not always the case (a slow motorcyclist or bicyclist might lane split to allow faster traffic on both sides to pass him or her), and there are ways to filter forward without lane splitting (like when an emergency vehicle or bicycle uses the shoulder to pass slow or stopped traffic). So I'm unclear as to what exactly the topic and even the name of the merged article would be. But my main objection is that the distinction between the meanings of the two terms will be blurred by such a merger.

There have only been a few people who have weighed in on this, many of whom seem to have decided I'm just a disagreeable chap (see this RfC) and might not be giving my argument serious consideration because of that, so I thought some outside views from "policy wonk" folks who could take a fresh look at both articles, might be helpful. Thanks. The proposal is here. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries, best practice

 * Previous discussions:, 

I propose that detailed instructions for edit summaries be added to the help page. They would be recommendations, but hopefully they would enter wide use.
 * 1) "merged" or some form of the keyword "merge", to aid searching
 * 2) Direction of merger, "from" or "to"
 * 3) Wikilink to other article
 * 4) Relevant revision ID, for formation of permanent link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid= revisionid

Examples:
 * Paste of merged content: Help:Dummy edit: content merged from Shitennou (Sailor Moon), revision 295034987
 * (diff; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=295034987) bolding, separate line for clarity Flatscan (talk) 04:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirection: , merged to Dark Kingdom, revision 298007056
 * (diff; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=298007056)

Adding revision ID provides these benefits:
 * Helps comply with attribution required by CC-BY-SA and GFDL
 * Makes the merger robust against page moves, including moves out of article space such as WP:Merge and delete
 * Facilitates retrieval of historical content or refs by marking a specific revision to reference

I have applied a number of these edit summaries, usually using dummy edits on existing mergers, so I am aware of the extra work involved. Is it reasonable or too onerous? Flatscan (talk) 05:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * A good idea. Is it already included in the merge instructions? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Part of it is. The edit summaries are required at the destination article in the current instructions and at the source article if the merge does not result in a redirect (merges resulting from redirects should be tagged R from merge. The current recommended language is "merge content from article name" I wonder if instead of adding a diff to the edit summary, we might keep that more or less intact and in addition encourage the use of templates on the talk page? We already have Template:Merged-to and Template:Merged-from, which require full-content mergers, and Template:Split-to and Template:Splitfrom, which don't. I think that templates on the talk page stand a better chance of preventing inadvertent deletion, since I know myself that we don't always look at the entire history if an article is up for deletion for some reason. I'm not entirely happy with any of the templates being used, actually. I wonder if we could make a more "user friendly" template and call it something obvious like "wiki-copy" (or something else. Just, you know, obvious. :)) I've whipped up an example template in my user space as User:Moonriddengirl/License credit. It renders the following in action:


 * What do you guys think about something like that? (code: ) I like the idea of one box with the same parameters at both source & destination, whether text is "split" or "merged" or copied what have you. But if we do decide to go with a single box, we want to name it carefully and choose very user friendly parameters. The problem I have with the existing templates is that they are not standardized and they are needless complex (not to mention multiple!). KISS, and all that. There's only three parameters in this template: the original article, the destination article & a permanent URL (diff would also work) when the content was pasted. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It has to be simple or editors will not do it. Adding a revision number and diff link to the edit summary may be beyond the ability of many editors. Then adding a template as Moonriddengirl suggests is more complex again. Could a bot check for possible merges and automatically fix or add edit summaries, add the templates? That would give much more consistent results. The bot would not have to figure out that a merge had been done, just that it might have been done. So when A has been turned into a redirect to B, the bot would add edit summaries like "some of this content may have been merged to target article ..." and "some content may have been copied from source article revision nnn ...". (The much more drastic merge-and-delete, which has been recommended for some of the bilateral relations articles, is presumably very rare and requires an experienced editor, perhaps an admin. I would not want to confuse the standard merge instructions, designed for the typical editor, with instructions on how to handle merge-and-delete.) Aymatth2 (talk) 13:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that I'm not suggesting the template in addition to a diff in the edit summary, but instead of. There are already templates, as I noted above. My hope is to simplify these templates into one, easily usable template that can go in both articles. I don't know if a bot can be programmed to do what you suggest or not. I believe Corensearchbot does look for in-Wiki duplication, but I don't know how it functions. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Understood - no need to do both edit summary and talk page. I prefer the talk page template because it can be previewed, but suppose it can also be deleted by accident. A bot checking articles turned into redirects could do either. A problem I see no solution to at all is when an editor working on one article copies a sentence of two from a related article without realizing that this is a partial merge. I am sure this happens all the time. I have certainly done it in the past before I learned about the attribution issue. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I did, too. I wouldn't support deprecating the practice of noting in edit summaries, because this is often simplest and best, especially if there is only a brief taking. However, I also like the templates for more extensive copying. I don't necessarily agree that doing both is too difficult when extensive copying has occurred. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thinking on, I see several related questions:
 * Is Wikipedia liable for copyright infringement if a contribution is published without attribution as a result of being copied from another article with no record of the copying, despite the fact that Wikipedia has instructed editors on how to avoid this issue? My guess is the answer is "Yes".
 * Is there a risk of significant legal costs and damages from contributors bringing suits against Wikipedia related to such copyright infringements? My guess is "No".
 * What is the most effective way to minimize the risk of the issue arising?
 * I like the idea of establishing a simple template like the one you have created and encouraging its use in the talk page, but suspect that in the case of minor partial merges many editors will fail to add it. I also like the idea of a bot to check and automatically generate talk page template entries for full merges. Where do we go to submit the idea of getting a bot developed? Aymatth2 (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for commenting, everyone. Some thoughts:
 * I like edit summaries because they are pretty much permanent. They can be lost on an actively-edited page, but cannot be removed. A template is much more visible, so I would support using both.
 * The idea of a unified "copied content" template is appealing. I have a limited amount of experience with templates, but very little with text boxes. I'll look into it.
 * A bot is a great idea. From what I know, it should be fairly easy to write a bot to write a correct edit summary or place the template, given the other, which halves (not quite) the required manual work. I think that making a bot smart enough to fix partial descriptions would be difficult, but getting one to make reasonable guesses and dump to a list for manual review could be doable. Flatscan (talk) 04:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Template:Copied
FWIW, I have moved my template to template space, Copied, and am adding it to some of the instruction pages. This seems supported here and at the recent AN discussion, here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I support its use. Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Copied shows a few transclusions already. I have some thoughts (maintenance category, additional parameters) that I'll raise here or at its talk page. Flatscan (talk) 05:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I started a list at Template talk:Copied. Flatscan (talk) 04:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Bot
Features sorted by increasing difficulty:
 * 1) Convert edit summary ↔
 * 2) Populate list of templates requiring manual review
 * 3) * incomplete, missing parameters
 * 4) * incorrect, e.g. oldid invalid or wrong article (accounting for moves); possibly complex logic
 * 5) Populate list of suspected copies, e.g. "merge" edit summaries

Once some ideas are fleshed out, a request can be filed at WP:Bot requests. Flatscan (talk) 03:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Article’s entire content deleted during merge
An administrator recently decided to merge the article Race and crime into Anthropological criminology, although it wasn’t clear that there was consensus to do this. After the merge took place, however, none of the original article’s content appeared in the article it was allegedly being merged into. Race and crime was simply made to redirect to Anthropological criminology; there are apparently no other changes that were made to the latter article as a result of the merge. This has been pointed out numerous times on the article's discussion page.

The administrator who performed this “merge” considers it actual merge, rather than a deletion, so it might not be appropriate to file a request for deletion review about this. But if this was intended to be a merge, it seems fairly clear that it was performed incorrectly, since the purpose of a merge is to combine two articles' content into one, rather than removing one article's content entirely. What is the proper way of dealing with a problem like this? --Captain Occam (talk) 20:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There has been no deletion, and you have already taken this to the NPOV forum where you were answered, and on my talk. If you want to propose adding more material (new or from the old page), please do it on the Anthropological criminology talk page. Consensus was established for the merge and the page had multiple NPOV and RS issues. Much material was already in both articles and the redirect was sensible. Verbal chat  22:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There's a second issue here that I think also needs to be addressed, and this noticeboard is the most appropriate place for it. Your opinion is that "consensus was established for the merge", but the discussion on the article's  talk page does not appear to meet Wikipedia's standards for consensus.  There were six users who weighed in on this; three (including you) were for merging and three were against it.  Those who were against it raised points which weren't addressed, nor did you reply to the two users who raised objections to your own opinion about this.


 * If you had a problem with the objections that other users were raising to your arguments for merging, you should have discussed it with them further, rather than going ahead and enacting the merge without further discussion. Objectively speaking, as it stood when you decided to merge the articles, no consensus had been reached.  And I think the other people who comment on this noticeboard will agree with me about this.


 * I would like to get others' opinions on whether the discussion on the linked talk page there can be considered to have reached "consensus". --Captain Occam (talk) 02:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you look into it you'll see it wasn't me that decided consensus, some users against the merge were problematic and SPAs, and I'm not an admin. Consensus and the protection was enacted by a third party, neutral admin. Please tell us on the article talk what extra material you want copied across. Verbal chat  07:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * At your suggestion, I've brought this up on the Anthropological criminology discussion page.  I would appreciate advice from any users who can offer it about how this information could be included. --Captain Occam (talk) 14:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

unmerging assistance needed
I am trying to figure out how to (or if I have the ability to) unmerge the Scion xB or Toyota bB and can't find a more relevant place to ask this question. If someone could contact me an assist me with this I would appreciate it. Improbcat (talk) 15:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

A semi-automated process for merging
I just messed up a merger, and this has inspired me to suggest a semi-automated process for merging. I think a huggle-/twinkle-like button would be great. In my opinion, it should be something you should be able to opt in/out of. This is so you have to know at least a little bit of what you're doing to find it, and if you don't want it, you can simply not have it. --I dream of horses (T) @ 18:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I definitely think we need to figure out some way to get merging instructions "out there" better and/or find a way to make the process easier (as suggested by I dream of horses). In my experience, even most experienced users don't know that there are instructions that must be followed when performing merges. I don't have any concrete ideas at the moment, but I'm all ears if anyone else does. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The distilled instructions you gave I dream of horses were good. Would you mind helping with rewriting the instructions? I think a slimmed down set would be good at WP:Merging and/or a Bare essentials section here. Flatscan (talk) 05:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a great idea. An integrated tool should be able to implement even the more detailed edit summaries and placement discussed above in . I think that it's possible to implement as a user script, but I do not currently have the knowledge to write it myself. Flatscan (talk) 05:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Can they force a merge against consensus?
I'm told that even though the overwhelming majority of people have stated they are against a merge, that their opinions don't matter, because two editors believe a guideline has not been met. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Ultima_characters Do the opinions of people matter at all, or can they just do what they want? AFD are not a vote, but I thought mergers were, everyone's opinions equal, so whatever most people agreed upon got done. I read the merge page, and it says to form a consensus, but that word isn't defined here. Can I have a specific definition please?  D r e a m Focus  16:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not write the original wording, but I have watched this page for a while, and I think that "consensus" is intentionally unspecified to fall back to the site-wide Consensus policy. As far as I know, there is no special definition for mergers. Flatscan (talk) 04:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as I know "consensus" is defined by the weight of arguments for or against rather that the number of people for or against. Eg, a single person might make a completely logical and irrefutable argument for merger while 5,000 people might be against the merger, but the ultimate "consensus" is with the single person. Merger then takes place.  Correct?  Jubilee♫ clipman  15:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That would in fact be the complete opposite of what the actual word consensus means. But given how often "consensus" is claimed on Wikipedia in the form of fiat, your confusion is understandable.--Father Goose (talk) 18:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Help text needs adjusting?
Having just looked at the documentation for and  it would appear that they can now accept up to 20 article names. This Help document still claims that the special should be used for greater than one name. Is this a recent upgrade to the templates (presumably in a move towards further rationalisation)? Regardless, if I am not mistaken, the help text will need adjusting to match the templates. -- EdJogg (talk) 23:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

(Sorry, it's late and I'm tired, and editing under these conditions is not a good idea! I'm not watching the page, but you can reach me through my talk page if needed.)
 * The changes are the result of a live discussion at WT:Proposed mergers. This page should be updated eventually, once the changes are finalized. Flatscan (talk) 04:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

How to merge articles A and B into C?
See e.g. Talk:Warcraft_II:_Tides_of_Darkness. --Philcha (talk) 21:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if this is what you're asking, but I suggest moving whichever has a greater article size or number of edits, then merging the other. Flatscan (talk) 04:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Refining the definition of "merger"
The first sentence of this page is: "A merger is a non-automated process by which two similar or redundant pages are united on one page." I think that this definition fails to fully capture the circumstances in which merging takes place—for instance, when related but non-redundant pages are merged (e.g., merging an article about a minor character in a work of fiction to a List of characters...). For this reason, and because merging involves an integration of content, rather than an actual integration of pages (the page from which content is moved becomes a redirect to the page to which the content was moved), I propose a change to: "A merger is a non-automated process by which the content of two pages is united on one page." Comments? -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Notification at Wikipedia talk:Merging (diff). -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree. It is a better, more encompassing definition. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That seems fine. On a related note, I think that the lead should have a sentence or two about possible motivations (e.g. similar or redundant articles, individual articles to a list). Flatscan (talk) 05:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Motivations are covered at Merging, but I agree that a brief note (or a link to that section?) could be useful. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, just a taste. The leads of both (WP and Help) pages are pretty thin. Flatscan (talk) 05:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This discussion has been open for quite a while, so I went ahead changed the wording of the first sentence as proposed. On the matter of motivations, how about:
 * "Reasons to merge a page include: unnecessary duplication of content, significant overlap with the topic of another page, and minimal content that could be covered in or requires the context of a page on a broader topic."
 * The wording is imperfect, I realize, but I tried to keep it applicable to pages in all namespaces, and not just articles. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That looks fine. Flatscan (talk) 04:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Added. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Timeframe
How much time should generally pass between the addition of merge proposal tags and the actual merging? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It is achieving a consensus rather than a timeframe that is important. There is a huge backlog of proposed mergers and on occasion I remove some of the older ones that have had no discussion and seem unneeded. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My personal opinion is between one week and one month, also see above. A lengthy wait can help deal with objections, either by discussing them or by invoking WP:Silence and consensus. However, if a merger has been implemented more quickly, an objection should be based on the merits, not on procedure. Flatscan (talk) 05:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Dealing with out of process mergers
What is the preferred way to deal with out of process mergers? Should they be reverted, or handled by proposing a split on the destination page? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you have any examples? I would depend on whether a consensus agrees witht the merger. Some editors may be bold and do a merger without discussion. That would be fine if it would be a clear cut case of agreement with the resulting merger. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I prefer discussion to reversion. A split tag could be used to attract attention, but it should be made clear that the merger occurred recently. Flatscan (talk) 05:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for merging
A new page, Articles for merging, might interest editors at this page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Error in Selective paste merger instructions?
I believe step 5, adding the #REDIRECT tag, is an error and only applies to the Full-content paste merger (where it is the same as step 4.) Am I correct, or is the intent supposed to be to cause a redirect of a section link? JustinTime55 (talk) 20:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A merger, as defined by this page, means that the source page is blanked and made a redirect. A selective paste means that some content is moved and some is removed outright. I agree that the jargon is unclear. Flatscan (talk) 04:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The current instructions seem redundant and confusing to me.Currently full-content paste merger is just a special case of selective paste merger and is not really needed.
 * Also, is there any specific instructions for merging only one part of an article into another one? -- Dalba 27 Mordad 1392/ 05:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Ludolph Küster or Ludolf Küster
In Englisch literature "Ludolph Küster" is used by authors like Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman. Scrivener used even Ludolph Kuster. Ludolf Küster is in German. I had created Ludolph Küster one year ago, User:Fordmadoxfraud created article Ludolf Küster one month ago. Who can decide about merging? I think authors of the articles should not decide because of conflict of interest. Unfortunatelly User:Fordmadoxfraud merged these articles without any discussion, he also did not inform me about his very arbitrary decision.

Of course the article of User:Fordmadoxfraud is written in better English, but is it enough to merge article of other user with his own article? My article is older

There is another problem, in this edit this user used my own work with only explanation - Edit summary - "interwiki linking"! It was added to the article not according to the wikipedia standard.

What I should do in that situation? I think these problems should be solved in another way. I do not like edit wars. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 15:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

New draft for WP:MERGE
New draft of WP:MERGE which I have written. Basically, I'm trying to make the procedures less vague than what we normally have as well as a little bit more clear. Comments/questions/suggestions are welcome. –MuZemike 00:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks good enough to apply immediately, then edit in place. I especially like the consolidation of Performing the merger. Some portions seem to have been taken from Help:Merging, please remember to attribute them if this is the case. Flatscan (talk) 05:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Problem with: "Text – If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic." If its valid on its own, then no reason to merge just because its short.  Also, there is no time limit for Wikipedia articles.  Reasonable amount of time is rather vague as well.  D r e a m Focus  12:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That part is unchanged from what is currently in there, which I did not edit. –MuZemike 21:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Isn't the merge definition a bit restrictive?
Yes, I know that they are mostly guidelines than rules or definitions, yet so far I've got the idea that a merge  shall be mostly cut-paste based. Is this truly the case? If a proposed to be merged page is going to disappear by say 75% because of redundant content, with the other 25% being a summary rather than a cut-paste, does this still qualify as merge?

I ask because it seems that the merge notion requires some "discrete" parts to save. As it's currently written, it seems that the statement

A merger is a non-automated process by which the content of two pages is united on one page. Uses the word content by meaning of statements more than notions. Am I just being a bit too restricted? Would you elaborate?  MaxDZ8 talk  09:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A merge can be anywhere from 0–100% of the original content. A merge that incorporates only part of the source content is sometimes called a "selective merge" or "smerge". The instructions focus on cut-paste because that makes it easier to trace the content back to its source, but the text can be rewritten and summarized during the merge or immediately thereafter. Let me know if that doesn't answer your question. Flatscan (talk) 05:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A merge that has 0% isn't a merge, its just a redirect. Call it what it is.  D r e a m Focus  21:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's an important point: when no content is copied or adapted, it should not be labeled as a merge. A redirect can result from a merge discussion. Flatscan (talk) 04:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, I believe my notion of merge were a bit too restrictive. WRT the instructions, I wonder if it is appropriate to replace the current cut-n-paste method with a description dealing more with the "content" rather than the text but I see this would probably make this hard to understand... Thank you again.  MaxDZ8 talk  14:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Since this is a Help: page, the detailed directions are most important. Something might work in WP:Merging, which was recently rewritten. Flatscan (talk) 05:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Deprecating merged-from and merged-to
merged-from and merged-to were removed from Help:Merging. I didn't notice when merged-from was deprecated several months ago.

I think that these templates should be kept around: Flatscan (talk) 05:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Copied takes a few oldid parameters that can be intimidating.
 * 2) The merged templates state that an article was merged and redirected, which is a little more information.


 * I came here to ask EXACTLY the same thing. Why were they deprecated?? I don't see any problems with them, in fact I prefer them over the more cumbersome {tl|copied}} and have been using them quite frequently. If there was a discussion somewhere about this I'd like it if someone could point me towards it. I've invited both User:Odie5533 and User:Adrignola back here to comment. -- &oelig; &trade; 08:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I've no idea if a discussion took place. I don't spend much time here and am not involved in the Help WikiProject.  Basically my edit was to bring the help documentation in line with the documentation on the template's documentation page (linked above), which I noticed did not match up, as I was bringing in help documentation from here to Wikibooks.  That sort of points the finger at Odie5533, but there you go.  Personally, I feel the copied template is a superior choice.  If you're doing merges you should not be intimidated by template syntax.  Copied provides additional technical information, such as the exact state of the page content was pulled from and the exact edit where content was merged, thus removing ambiguity about where and when the merge occurred or provoking a hunt through page history.  With the merge-* templates, there is no guarantee the source page will remain a redirect and so the page could be recreated and then you have ambiguity arise about when the merge occurred and therefore who in the page history is to be credited for the content.  This is for license compliance through attribution and so should not be done in a less thorough manner with the merged-* templates. Adrignola (talk) 17:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You raise some good points. I'd also like to hear what User:Odie5533 has to say.. -- &oelig; &trade; 02:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, >  /  > incorrect template > no template . I agree that mergers should be done by experienced editors using , but there should be an easy template to keep editors from simply skipping that step. Flatscan (talk) 05:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree too. will be preferred but Mergedfrom/to should not be totally deprecated and may still be used in certain situations where the target is likely to remain a redirect indefinately. --  &oelig; &trade; 13:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Merging two articles on Charcot-bouchard aneurysm
When I searched for "Charcot-bouchard aneurysm" two entries came up and differed only in the capitalization of one letter. One entry is longer than the other but they both basically say the same thing. There's no reason for there to be two entries for the same thing. They should be merged or one should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.82.14 (talk) 21:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Merger performed as requested. Isheden (talk) 18:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Merging "free content" from external sites
I presume that merging as described here is about merging Wiki articles only. If so, I think that the page should be explicit and say that this type of merging only applies to merging Wiki articles. It is possible to merge material (or add) text from external websites using a similar method, and a number of "free content" external website sources are being merged into Wikipedia articles in this way which bypasses WP:EL (especially WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT). In other words the sources provided in the Wiki are the original sources used to make the external website without reference in the in-line ref to the actual source viewed by the Wiki editor. It has become important to consider this in depth, because of collaborations between the Wiki and museums (and other holders of information) are adding information to some well developed articles as well as creating articles and enhancing Stubs. The ARKive project are discussing these issues at [[Wikipedia_talk:GLAM/ARKive]], and contributions to advance the discussion at welcome their. Snowman (talk) 15:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Have I missed something? Are there guidelines for merging free content from external source into Wiki articles somewhere else on the Wiki? Snowman (talk) 14:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Your first sentence is correct: this page covers mergers among Wikipedia articles only, with main page WP:Copying within Wikipedia. WP:Copy-paste is a primer on copying in general, including external sources. See also WP:FAQ/Copyright. Interested readers should see the ongoing discussion at WT:GLAM/ARKive. Flatscan (talk) 04:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Some advice
I hope this is the right place. I placed a merge template on Formative evaluation to merge with Formative assessment. This was probably unnecessary, as on reflection, I'm now 100% sure that the former is actually the same thing as the latter. Given that the talkpages have been dead on both for a couple of years, would it be against procedure just to go ahead and boldly merge? There's been three days of no response.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no formal duration, but I personally recommend 1-2 weeks to reduce the chance of objections and reverting after the fact. Flatscan (talk) 04:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Merging multiple articles into one
I had a quick question about merging. I plan to propose merging several articles into a single article, but the proposed article has not been created yet. How do I go about proposing this? Wild Wolf (talk) 15:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * As far as I know there is no established process (apart from Proposed mergers but that page doesn't look very well patrolled). Just be bold and create the new article, then redirect the other ones to it leaving a mergedto on their talk pages. Also note on the newly created article's talk page that you did all this. BTW, in the future, the Help desk would be a better place to ask this kind of question, where you're much more likely to get a quick response. -- &oelig; &trade; 08:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject
Please note that WikiProject Merge has been created. You are invited to participate in the project, thanks. extra 999 ( talk )  14:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

RFC: When to close a silent proposal
Help:Merging and Merging are contradictory as to the amount of time that should elapse before a request can be closed if no one has commented on it.

Merging says, "Close the merger discussion and determine consensus: After a period of time when discussion has ceased, a rough consensus may or may not emerge, move forward with the merger. In discussions where enough time has passed (normally 1 week or more), and there has been no discussion or where there is unanimous consent to merge, any user may close the discussion to merge and move forward with the merger."

But in a footnote, Help:Merging says, "The debate should be open for at least two weeks."

In my experience, a lot of these proposals don't attract much attention, so I'd prefer a shorter time frame that encourages WP:BOLDness. But I'd like clarification even better. So what'll it be: one week or two? --BDD (talk) 04:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that some the merge tags don't get much attention. I suggest this wording: "The discussion should generally be open for at least a week." I am loath to have a hard and fast minimum time because occasionally (not often thankfully) there is a drive-by merge tag thrown up on an article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that one week is the better general minimum limit for the reasons BDD gives (and the word "generally" for the reasons Alan gives). One addition: I'd think that for a short article with very few contributors, the editor proposing a merger should be encouraged to put a note on the contributors' talk pages.  Btw -- any proposals to merge Help:Merging and Wikipedia:Merging? There seems to be too much overlap and cross-reference and further differences like this are bound to arise.  -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 21:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I suppose it's appropriate that two weeks would elapse with little comment on the issue. Given what appears to be a unanimous, if small, consensus, I'll edit Help:Merging to read "at least a week." I agree with Alan Liefting's perspective. --BDD (talk) 17:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Merging Carminative and Antiflatulent
I don't know how to deal with setting up a merging suggestion (and I don't have the time at the moment), but these two articles (Carminative and Antiflatulent) need to be merged, as the terms are often synonymous/interchangeable, and their slight difference should be addressed in the resulting article. Peace and Passion ☮ ("I'm listening....") 00:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, so I'll set this up. I don't know if you had an idea which way you wanted to merge, but I'll suggest they go into antiflatulent, which seems more readily comprehensible. --BDD (talk) 15:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

More help needed on how to use the Copied template
I was flumoxed for a little while by the diff field in the template: which we are advised to use. I think that something along the lines of: "To find what to add to the diff field, go to the history of the destination article, and click on 'prev' next to the edit where you did the merge. Then copy the URL of the resulting page into the diff field of the template replacing the words 'permanant diff'." It probably can be cleaned up a lot but I hope you get my point.

I got there in the end with my merge but not without some naughty words being spoken. Less obstinate users might have given up.--NHSavage (talk) 18:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your feedback. Template:Copied/doc has a link to Help:Diff. Did you have trouble getting any diff or getting the correct, relevant diff? Flatscan (talk) 04:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Discrepancy concerning whether editors should fix double-redirects?
Full-content paste merger reads (emphasis mine): Check "What links here" on the source page for double-redirects.

&bull; Double-redirects will fail to link, and must be renamed to redirect to the current page name.

Yet what about Double_redirects? It reads ("): "Double redirects are easily fixed automatically by bots, [sic] and most are fixed within a couple days of creation. Because of this, human editors would be best off putting their time on other tasks that can't be automated [as of August 2012]."

I'm guessing that this manual hasn't been updated, but, then again, I'm really new here so I have no idea if I'm missing something.

In the meantime, flagged with an inlined "update needed" (though I noticed it didn't auto-place that into a category such as "Cat:Help pages that need updating" or anything...)

meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 07:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Dean Wells Guitarist of Progressive Metal band TERAMAZE
Dean wells is an Ernie Ball Music Man Endorsee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.216.170.69 (talk) 16:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * All right. Sounds pretty cool, but why post that here? meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 22:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

History unmerge needed
An editor made a "bold" merger of the constructed Dothraki language and Valyrian language, into what is now Languages of A Song of Ice and Fire, because they were created by the same person for the same TV series. Two of us have rejected the merger, and copy-pasted their content back into the original articles, stranding the page histories. The editor merged the page histories, so that when you go through the history, you flip back and forth between one grammar and the other. That should not have been done even if the merger had been appropriate. We've asked him to unmerge them, but no luck. The talk page history might also need to be unmerged, depending on whether both had substantial comment, and it's possible that the history of the article that was deleted to prepare for the merger might should be restored as well, if it had substantial content.

Copying from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Merge. Sorry if this isn't the proper location for the request. I haven't come across this problem for years, since I screwed up an article this way.

Thanks — kwami (talk) 16:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Automating the perform
I started a thread here: Wikipedia talk:Merging. Please comment there if you can. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)