Wikipedia talk:Proposed article mergers/Archive 1

= General comments and ideas =

Capitalization scanning wanted!
I've noted some examples where 'Some Article' and 'Some article' both exist and are different. Is there a way to automatically scan for things like this? Also, for instance, 'Phantom islands' is different from 'Category:Phantom islands'. Probably requires merging?


 * The above statement was probably written a long time ago. I like the idea! What do others think? &mdash; Sebastian 07:59, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)

Naming criteria (kinda unclear)
For merged articles, I prefer the most international and general name possible. I.e. Islands of the North Atlantic better British Isles. Perhaps a redirection from Islands of the North Atlantic to British Isles Mac 12:02 Mar 9, 2003 (UTC)

Bot idea
Removal of accomplished mergers could be automated with the following pseudocode:

For (each element of a list)
 * 1) Make a stack of each link in the list element
 * 2) Remove any links in the User: or User talk: namespaces from the stack
 * 3) Check to see if they all redirect to the same article
 * 4) If so, delete the list element from the page

If this has consensus I'll copy it over to WP:Bot requests Alba 16:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)#
 * That would've been a great idea. This list is really messy, I'm going to clean it up manually for now, but a bot that could remove at least some of those already-completed mergers would be very useful.  --Leviel 09:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Is there a bot managed list of proposed mergers? (by scanning articles with merge tags) 70.55.84.42 (talk) 03:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment on the preceding, and this process in general
There needs to be a standard format for listing these requests. That would facilitate using a bot as above.

There also should be links from this page to the discussions of the mergers, as you can see many people try to discuss on this page.

Basically I think (controversial) mergers are the same kind of thing as (controversial) moves, and should be treated similarly. The way, the truth, and the light 23:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

history merge
WP:SPLICE should be included in the instructions. 70.55.84.42 (talk) 03:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

= Specific Cases =

Non-violence
For pacifism and Non-violent resistance and Non-violence, I prefer Non-violence because it´s the most general. From there links to pacifism and Non-violent resistance, if the articles have enough content, specially, indicating the differences between they both. More than duplicated (in this case triplicated) articles, we can talk about non-jerarquiced articles or structured article sequence Mac 12:06 Mar 9, 2003 (UTC) Mac 12:06 Mar 9, 2003 (UTC)

Gaia Theory
Taku added:


 * Gaia Theory and Gaia theory - I think both are talking about the same thing.

Gaia Theory says in the first line "Gaia Theory of Lynn Margulis and others is one among other Gaia theories" ("Gaia theories" links to Gaia theory). Likewise, the capitalised article is linked to in the lower case article. Possibly there is a better way to distinguish between these two articles, but they clearly are not talking about the same thing. --Camembert

Sorry my comment was not good enough. I meant I don't think many people distinguish them well. We really shouldn't differenciate articles by upper or lower cases. Yes, they are not identical theories but they are apparently closely related. I think it is a better idea to merge them to one article and discuss the difference between Gaia Theory and Gaia theory. -- Taku 02:44 Apr 27, 2003 (UTC)


 * OK, it's been added back - I won't remove it again right away, though I don't think it belongs on this page. This page is to alert people to articles which need to be merged into one, and it looks to me that that would be inappropriate in this case. The "theory" and the "Theory" are not the same thing - one is a subset of the other (just as the Gaia hypothesis is a subset of Gaia theory, and pop music is a subset of music). As I say, I won't remove them again immediately, but it seems to me that they shouldn't be merged into one page. --Camembert

I am sorry. I don't mean Gaia theory, Gaia Theory and Gaia hypothesis are some stuff. But I really don't think we need a separate article for each closely related topic. Maybe it is my preference but I think one article should discuss Gaia theory like Gaia hypothesis. See for example, call-by-something. Yes, there is not thing called "call by something'' but it seems appreciate that one article discusses call by name, call by reference and call by name. Remeber we need an article that makes sense not make an article for each topic. Articles that are not talking about the same thing but closely related should be placed in one place for the sake of contributers and readers. -- Taku 02:50 Apr 27, 2003 (UTC)


 * You may have a point, but looking at the length of those articles, it seems that enough can be written on each to warrant separate articles. But in any case, this is a matter for the talk pages of the relevant articles, rather than here. --Camembert

True. I think we can agree with the current comment. -- Taku 03:04 Apr 27, 2003 (UTC)


 * Yep - looks good to me. --Camembert

Blood-Chemistry Crises

 * diabetic coma, diabetic ketoacidosis, and hyperglycemic osmotic coma (!)
 * These are three different things, not duplicates. Diabetic coma is ususally taken to mean hypoglycemic coma, ketoacidosis need not involve coma at all, and the last need not be connected to DKA either. DKA can cause coma in diabetics, but they are not synonyms. -- Someone else 04:12, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC) added comments here by ww 23:36, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Southern Denmark (?)
Discussion on merging South Jutland and Northern Schleswig deleted. Can be found in the history, if someone is curious. :-)

Qualifications on "World"
See: Talk:World, which maybe is the appropriate place to discuss New World, Old World, First World, Second World, Third World,

Crime and Punishment (not the novel)

 * criminal law and penal law
 * Criminal law is about the law of crime and punishment. Penal law may have at one time been no more than that, but is now mostly about English and Irish history and the laws that were enacted to punish Roman Catholics and non-conformists.  -- IHCOYC 19:14, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Wayne, New Jersey and Wayne Township, New Jersey

 * Wayne, New Jersey and Wayne Township, New Jersey apparently the same content. (also other places in Passaic County, New Jersey are duplicated, and also Salem County, New Jersey and who knows how many other counties?)
 * I'll be looking into these in the future since I am the one who made them! One will probably just need to be redirected.  If someone from New Jersey knows how these work, that would be helpful. -- RM
 * In NJ many townships have the name of the town that is at the center of the township structure; Princeton/Princeton Township, Freehold/Freehold Township, Jackson/Jackson Township. In some places there are small villages inside the township that are not the same as the township, but still part of it; an example in Jackson NJ. If you use this web site: and put in Jackson as the municipality (Ocean County) you get the following results (the State Forest is repeated in the original list, which is why only 29 names are listed here): Archers Corner, Bennetts Mills, Burksville, Butterfly Bridge, Cassville, Colliers Mills, DeBow Corner,   Francis Mills,   Grayville,   Harmony,   Holmansville,   Hyson,   Jackson Mills,      Jackson Township, Jackson Twp. State Forest,   Kapps Corner,   Leesville,   Legler,   Maryland,   Midwood,   New Prospect,   Pleasant Grove,   Ridgeway,   Success,   The Alligator,   Vanhiseville,   Webbsville,   Whitesbridge,   Whitesville. In Princeton Township' there is the town proper of Princeton (borough), and also Cedar Grove. In some places there have been divisions, Freehold Township was one of the original three townships in Monmonth County, one town that I know was granted its own township was Manalapan in the 1848. There are actually 23 place names within Upper Freehold Township: Cooleys Corner,  Coxs Corner,  Cream Ridge,  Davis,  Ellisdale,  Fillmore,  Hayti,  Holmes Mills,  Hornerstown,  Imlaystown,  Kirbys Mills,  Nelsonville,  New Canton,  New Sharon,  Polhemustown,  Prospertown,  Pullentown,  Red Valley,  Robinsville,  Sharon,  Shrewsbury,  Walnford,  Wrightsville. For Wayne Township you get the following names: beside (Wayne and Wayne Township): ﻿Barbours Mills, Barbours Pond, Camp Christmas Seal, Hope Dell, Lower Preakness, Mountain View, Packanack Lake, Pines Lake, Point View, Pompton Falls, Preakness, Preakness Valley Park, Two Bridges. I think before merges are done someone needs to confirm if a place name is different than a township, borough or other type of municipality in New Jersey. The history of municipal government in New Jersey is very complicated . Alex756 07:38, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * As a New Jerseyan, I feel your pain. In the specific instance of Wayne, since there's no other Wayne in the state, I vote for keeping Wayne and deleting Wayne Township.  If anyone wants to tell me to turn the latter into a redirect, I'll gladly do it. Better yet, someone else take me up on it if that's the consensus. CharlieZeb 22:50, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Pi discussion

 * A simple proof that 22/7 exceeds pi should be merged into pi. Neutrality 23:14, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Neutrality: The merge tag is intended for duplicate articles, in order to eliminate redundency. These articles are not duplicates, and contain no redundent material. So I think the merge tag should be removed. If what you mean is that the article about the proof, should be incorporated into the article pi, perhaps discussing this on the talk pages for the two articles would be best? Paul August 20:13, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * I cannot agree that the article should be incorporated into pi. One should not have to read everything about pi in order to read something like this.  There can and should be lots of articles about various aspects of pi. Michael Hardy 22:09, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * ... note added later: There are lots of articles about different aspects of π; see in particular list of topics related to pi. To put these all into one article would be absurd. Michael Hardy 23:35, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree with Michael Hardy and Paul August. These two articles should not be merged. Rossumcapek 16:35, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * In my view A simple proof ... is a legitimately separate article and should not be merged into pi. Gandalf61 16:05, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

After over a month: Three votes against, one for, one neutral. --Rossumcapek 19:05, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Macclesfield
I just merged Macclesfield (borough) into Macclesfield. Please could someone check my sanity? Did I do something sensible, if so I will continue in the same vein. Diz 07:31, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Digital audio
Digital Audio Broadcast and digital audio broadcasting don't seem like the same thing. Digital Audio Broadcast refers to a specific protocol of digital audio broadcasting, which is a broader topic. However I believe it should be merged with EUREKA 147. JoaoRicardo 18:11, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Connecticut River, etc.
Following discussion moved here from the main page, since it looks like no merging will take place. RussBlau 20:14, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Connecticut River Valley, Pioneer Valley, Connecticut River overlap significantly. I suggest we merge all three into Connecticut River, but at a minimum the first two should be merged into Connecticut River Valley (and "Valley" lowercased). -- Rbellin 22:18, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Weakly agree re: Pioneer Valley into Connecticut River Valley, but disagree strongly about merging anything into Connecticut River. The river article is about the river, the valley article is more or less separate. We should also consider Western Massachusetts in this merge, somewhere. Rhobite 22:28, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * Actually I change my mind. Since the Pioneer Valley is a region of Massachusetts and is part of the template, it really can't merge into Connecticut River Valley, which encompasses areas outside of Mass. Western Mass is also larger than just the Valley, so none of these merges are justified. Rhobite 22:46, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

Portuguese language and related pages
This isn't entirely a request for pages to be merged, but also a request for material at Portuguese language that duplicates material on a related page to be deleted. I tried removing all but the first paragraph of Portuguese language on the grounds that it was entirely duplicated at History of the Portuguese language. PedroPVZ reverted, calling it "inadvertent vandalism" (isn't that a contradiction in terms?) and saying "this is an article, not a portal". I re-removed it, pointing out on the talk page that duplication of articles is undesirable and that the main page should just have a brief summary of the contents of the more specific page. He re-reverted, disagreeing with my reasoning. I don't want to start an edit war over this, so I haven't removed it a third time, but I'm hoping some other users can help build up a consensus that (1) Portuguese language is way too long (it's currently 64 kb!), and (2) Wikipedia policy is not to have the same material on two different pages, and that therefore (3) Portuguese language should be reduced to a single short paragraph, since everything else is at History of the Portuguese language. There are similar problems with Portuguese language, which unnecessarily duplicates material at Portuguese dialects, and Portuguese language, which seems to have been written separately from Portuguese phonology, but is certainly way too long considering the existence of the latter. I would like to see Portuguese language merged with Portuguese phonology and a brief summary left in its place. Similarly Portuguese language could be merged with Portuguese grammar: there's not much direct duplication, but the topic should be discussed all the more specific page, which is still rather short. Portuguese language duplicates much material at Portuguese vocabulary and much content could be merged there. Some of Portuguese language could probably be profitably merged with Portuguese alphabet too. I'd be bold and do it all alone, but I'm afraid of all my work being reverted if I act without consensus. --Angr/undefined 20:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

= Procedure =

When done
The page says "After a pair has been merged leave it on the list with a remark DONE." Why is that? What is the argument against just removing pairs from the list after they have been done? Andre Engels 10:14 Sep 27, 2002 (UTC)


 * None that I can see! I'm all for changing that guideline -- Tarquin


 * I would be in favor of making a list of fixed issues at the bottom of the article. Good for follow-up purposes. If the list grows too long, it can be moved to an archives page. olivier 12:23 Nov 9, 2002 (UTC)

Ordering
Wouldn't it be nice to have a new duplicates section ? --User:Docu


 * Actually I liked the previous order, time-based order. What happened?? -- Taku

Changing opening.
In general, what's the etiquette for changing policy pages?

More specifically, in the opening couple of paragraphs, I think we should distinguish another valid fix for duplicate pages: leaving the two pages as distinct, but rewriting the pages so they no longer duplicate information.

-- Walt Pohl 16:33, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Policy Edit
I took a leap, since I couldn't find any info on the etiquette of changing policy headings/pages, and went ahead and did a rewrite. I hope this doesn't ruffle any feathers. Basically, I just felt that a new wording would be clearer for newbies -- and since there seems to be some evidence that the Wikipedia community likes having newbies test out their skills on these kinds of tasks, it's only logical that these types of pages be as user-friendly as possible.

I also wanted to make clear the agreed-upon policy of having folks remove their "Fixed!" taglines. As previously stated, this is superfluous, so it should be clear in the introduction to Duplicates that we want people to remove the information once the task has been accomplished.

Finally, I incorporated the suggestion of the user above that Duplicates can be edited so that both reflect appropriate content.

--Wolf530 02:03, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Special pages table
Wolf530 added a table for special pages, which I removed today. While I can understand his intention, I don't think it is such a good idea. If you frequence those pages, then you should use the bookmarks or just create some shortcut at your user page as many people do. Since people would prefer a different list of shortcut links, it is impossible to have a table everyone likes. -- Taku 08:59, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)


 * I really see no justification for removing it, to be honest. It doesn't "harm" the page at all. And, in turn, it allows new folks to see what other pages need help. I know when I first started helping with problem articles the table was useful as it allowed me to see all of the pages of the same type that needed to be worked on. In short: there's no reason NOT to have it. --Wolf530 17:00, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)

It, in my view, clutters the page. I understand that such sortcuts are useful and helpful to some people. But my point is that it is irrelevant. Only those who are interested in information about where are duplicate articles and how to clean up them. There is already enough page that navigates newbies. And again you can always have a list of shortcuts customized in the way you like. -- Taku 02:55, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how I see how it "cluttering" the page matters? It's not one of the encyclopedia articles -- it's a maintenance page! --Wolf530 04:11, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * The same reasons still hold. It is better to have a short compact maintenance page than long one. -- Taku 15:31, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I just don't think your argument holds any water. The Specialpagelist neither clutters the page nor makes it any longer. It also makes little difference whether or not a maintenance page is "pretty" or not -- its purpose is utilitarian, and not aesthetic. It is better to have the pagelist there, so that new folks can easily find maintenence areas, than to not have it there and have those areas not get attention. We should all be concerned with ensuring that these pages find people to work on them. I am returning the table to the page. --Wolf530 18:23, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)


 * I think this is the same argument you seen in software engineering. Having more functionalities doesn't hurt anything. I don't doubt those links might help someone as some obscure functionalities in software might be helpful someday to somebody. But we are talking about the user interface--the consistency, cleanness. The clean interface is preferrable for utilitarianist reasons. A mouse for macs has only one button because having one more does hurt the user experience.


 * Anyway, you might guess we cannot go anywhere in discussing user interfaces. The preference varies. So I've just added a post at request for comments and possiblily we can go to votes. I am not reverting the table again though I still disagree. No need for wars. -- Taku 18:46, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)

I guess it's time for voting.

Support Wolf530's table
 * 1) Well... it's not MY table, but yeah, I support THE table. --Wolf530 03:23, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Taku 00:42, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Ryan_Cable 03:26, 2004 Apr 1 (UTC)
 * 3) It's not very intuitive, it doesn't list 'duplicate articles' anyway, and if I wanted I'd put the list on my user page Elektron 12:06, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Don't Care
 * 1) anthony (this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice) 01:00, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

listing new candidates
After inserting the merge tags in each article, do we need to add them to the list on the project page, or are they automagically added? In other words, how is the list updated? --Cfailde 13:58, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)
 * Articles need to be added to this page manually. -Sean Curtin 02:18, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this should be noted in the "Mark current duplicates" section --Cfailde 17:12, 2004 Aug 26 (UTC)

Do we need to mearge Duplicate articles
on the page Duplicate articles there are links to Category:Articles to be merged and the template page what links here. my question is, is there any need to retain the duplicate article page, as it goes out of date quicker than the category page.

-- The above was posted by User:Tooto? yes, by me at 17:31:46 (UTC)

Keep. The Category page does not allow us to post comments regarding proposed merger. -- PFHLai 23:48, 2004 Sep 9 (UTC)
 * actually, i realized that to be a need as i was typing the above comment, shame for the overlap through.

Merge tags being overused?
I'm a bit concerned at the number of tags, including merge tags, that are in articles now. It's a long standing general principle on Wikipedia that comments about articles ("we need more information on xxx" or "this is badly worded") belong on the talk page rather than the article space, and I think the same principle should apply to tags.

I have no problem with using tags where they are genuinely helpful to the reader - for example where we have two articles on the same person, which should clearly be merged. But in many cases, tags are being used where it's not obvious that the pages should be merged at all, and if so what information belongs where. In these cases I think discussion and comments about whether and how to merge articles belongs on the talk page.

Also, duplicate information is not always and everywhere a bad thing - there are many cases in which it is appropriate to describe the same thing differently, for example, with a simple and an advanced presentation of the same topic, or articles aimed at different audiences.

I've edited the article to make it clearer that including tags is a guideline, not a hard-and-fast rule, and that it is OK to remove a tag if you judge that it shouldn't be there.

Comments welcome. Enchanter 11:20, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC).
 * I agree with Enchanter. Robin Patterson 00:25, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think those tags are useful to the reader, because they direct him to another page that has content similar to that on the page he's on. If he stumbles upon the weaker article of the pair, he gets to see the better one easily. Actually, we could maybe update the tags with a message to readers like "Go there for more info" in addition to the message directed at editors. Jules.LT 22:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Merging
How long does it take before a pair that gets mentioned on this article can actually be merged?? Feel free to include what it can depend on. 66.245.64.202 19:52, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * It can be merged anytime. It only depends on who is willing to put the effort to merge the articles involved, and that can take time.--Logariasmo 01:01, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

=Unsorted=

Rococo vs. Rococo furniture style
if anyone comes across it there are two articles with the name rococo in them. the one that says Rococo furniture style ought to be merged with Rococo.

Merged Adbusters Media Foundation with Adbusters
This is my first attempt with working on Wikipedia. I merged Adbusters Media Foundation with Adbusters. Please let me know if I made an error. Thanks.

--pgeoff 00:12, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

Merged Chewing with Mastication
Mergest these to articles with each other, into one mastication article, figured the better name would be the correct biology name.--Djanvk 04:00, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Pacioli
There was a merge request for Fra Luca Bartolomeo de Pacioli and Luca Pacioli. These articles were almost exactly the same except slight capitalization differences. I redirected Fra Luca to Luca, since AFAIK Luca Pacioli is the more commonly used name.

I merged
Simon Amman with Simon Ammann, anyone can see if it's ok? cos its my first merge

partialmerge
Any template of this kind around? Useful imho, Phlebas 23:13, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Correct Article
The article claims you should make additions to the correct article. What is that supposed to mean? Superm401 | Talk 15:21, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

This page has been double-pasted.
Hi,

It looks as though all the additions to this talk page have been made twice. I assume there has been a mistake with the  operation that should be fixed (it isn't a play on the idea of "duplication", surely). Wragge 19:03, 2005 May 31 (UTC)

Crablogger
I don't think that the merge article Crablogger on Community_Portal should be there (or anywhere).

Crablogger has too much detail to be merged into the Thunderbirds (TV series) overview, which is already quite long.

The crablogger article could simply be criticized on the grounds of triviality, or on grounds of brevity. However;
 * If this article is too trivial why are the thousands of fictional spacecraft specifications not merged into the Star Wars article?
 * If it is too short why are all stub articles not also under sentence of merger with their main pages?

Anyway, since there is no duplicate information on these two pages (Crablogger, and Thunderbirds (TV series)) I strongly suggest Crablogger be removed from the Community_Portal page, especially because the "merge-to" page doesn't follow policy and carry a tag.

Wragge 19:03, 2005 May 31 (UTC)

Bases as places
Any views on merging Warren AFB, Wyoming with F.E. Warren AFB and Laughlin AFB, Texas with Laughlin Air Force Base one is the census designation of the area the other the actual bas. There are probably others should they be merged or not? MeltBanana 4 July 2005 00:35 (UTC)
 * See WikiProject Cities. The Rambot might be able to update these articles more easily in the future if they are not merged, but you'd have to ask Ram Man. -- Beland 01:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Depreciating listings on this page
There are over 2,300 articles to be merged, the vast, vast majority of which are not listed here. Template:mergefrom and Template:mergeto and Template:merge point editors to a specific talk page for commenting on the proposal. I don't think there's any need to list articles to be merged on this page any more. It just creates additional work, because editors have to check to see which articles have already been merged. It also splits the discussion between the talk page and the listing here, and potentially creates some duplication in effort and coordination failures as a result. I suggest just using these tags and Category:Articles to be merged instead of putting listings on this page. -- Beland 20:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. --Scott Davis Talk 04:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. Why do by hand what computers can do for us? &mdash; ciphergoth 13:15, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Disagree. I greatly prefer this page. Yes, it requires people to manually list the articles, but in doing so they identify both and provide reasons/comments. I can scan the list and quickly pick out a few which I should be able to update. On the other page I go to an article and find that the merge is disputed or the other page doesn't seem completely related. The automated list is fine, but for me this is MUCH easier to work with. --CBDunkerson 15:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. Reasoning can be put on the article's talk page. --Pamri • Talk • [ Reply] 08:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The way it's used now, it's really a Merge requests page, which can live without being "complete". Why not just rename it accordingly? Jules.LT 22:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Merged Regents (Examinations) with New York State Department of Education
Made the most sense to me, seeing as Regents are taken specifically in NYS. --D-Day 23:16, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

-Please note that due to the fact that the New York State Department of Education page is so poorly constructed, Regents (Examinations) now has its own page containing the data cut-and-pasted from the NYSDE page and arranged in a more readable and comprehensive manner. 71.246.77.104 19:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

The barcid family - a merge?
I don´t know if this the right place to propose a "merge", but here it goes: I propose a merge of all the scatterred articles of the Barcid family into the Barcid Family article with the exception of Hannibal who certainly deserves a single article. All the single articles are scatterred and simply too small. If the single enties expand considerably we could make single articles.

List cleanup
I've been going through the list & cleaning out stale entries, or doing merges myself. I've also been reclassifying merge-requests that  have been approved, but need work, as well as requests that are in limbo or dispute. A few requests seem to also be in states of edit war: pulled those entries as well. Cwolfsheep 19:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

List cleanup
I'll be removing all entries which have been struck out. Hope thats ok by all the editors watching this page. xCentaur | talk  12:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. There are many red links left though. Several entries don't exist anymore. Will get to that next, when I can. xCentaur | ☎  12:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Probably not very many people watching this at all. I mostly came here to say that this is one the most useless project pages I've seen, and not worth the trouble of keeping it updated. If you want a complete list of pages that maybe should be merged, we have categories for that. If you are looking for articles that have already been merged we have templates for that as well. If a merge is contested, articles have talk pages to argue about that. If in doubt, or if users don't agree, then it's probably best not to merge it. If you know what you're doing and nobody else cares, the only venue you need is the "edit this page" button. BE BOLD. — CharlotteWebb 05:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, people seem to completely misunderstand this list. In fact, I've been using it to find easy, UNcontroversial merges to do.  A lot of people only post the names of the articles here, without even adding  -templates to the articles themselves.  Something really needs to be done about it - I'm going to start off by manually adding templates to all the pages, so that we can delete this page if the time ever comes.  Will post progress here. --Leviel 09:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I edited out the discussion on Assisted living as per discussion at User_talk:CliffC. Bearian 00:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I've weeded out all the completed ones from before October 2007 and removed much which show consensus against merges from that era. Now I'll be bold and remove any proposals with no discussion and/or action over the past 9 months and eliminate the redundant "no consensus" section. I won't remove the and  tags from any articles with "stale" proposals (time limitations). If a person has not followed up on a late 2006 or early 2007 posting, it was unlikely to be that big a deal in the first place. B.Wind (talk) 03:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:SPLICE
something should be mentioned on history mergers at WP:SPLICE 70.51.9.124 (talk) 15:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

template
A template like Template:RMlink should be created for a default merger request, to standardize entries. 70.51.9.124 (talk) 15:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Requested assistance with split
Hey, I've requested assistance with adding a split. I've tried following the instructions of doing it myself, but as it's a template, I'm not sure how to do it, as when I add template:split and link the name, it leads to an article and not the proposed template page (even-though I wrote it as "Template: "). Thanks to anyone who can help me out. --Gonnym (talk) 14:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry reply is so late. Try Wikipedia Talk:Templates for discussion,   GenQuest  "Talk to Me" 04:50, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Holding cell proposal
There's a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Merge/Archive 3 which is related to this page. --Trialpears (talk) 18:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 6 November 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

Wikipedia:Proposed mergers → Proposed article mergers – The proposed name ("Proposed article mergers") is more precise and would be consistent with Proposed article splits. A couple of weeks ago, I unsuccessfully requested to move Proposed article splits to Proposed splits (see ), and one of the commenters suggested this new move for consistency. —  Newslinger  talk   12:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Support, obviously, as per WP:CONSISTENCY (and, I would argue, as per WP:PRECISE as well). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments: Would this not exclude things such as essays? These are not considered "articles" since being in the Wikipedia namespace. Otr500 (talk) 07:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Neutral: either is fine with me. GenQuest  "Talk to Me" 13:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * LMAO: You've got to be kidding me. Moving a page about moving and merging articles, what is this nonsense? Is this an actual, serious proposal or what? ωικιωαrrιor ᑫᑫ1ᑫ 16:48, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * What's nonsensical about it? It's a perfectly reasonable request. Richard3120 (talk) 18:56, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a serious proposal. Project pages are eligible for requested moves. —  Newslinger  talk   05:22, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Still, the idea is meta and just a little bit ridiculous. ωικιωαrrιor ᑫᑫ1ᑫ 13:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm neutral about it as well, although I agree that to be consistent both the "merger" and "split" pages should have similar titles, so like GenQuest one title should be changed to reflect the other. But I note that the proposed title can be read to mean "mergers of proposed articles"... Richard3120 (talk) 18:56, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose: While arguing for consistency and being precise is noble it just doesn't make sense. "Proposed mergers" includes articles, as well as other "pages", so adding "article" ignores that these pages can be deleted or merged. It would seem "Proposed article mergers" would exclude these pages. I don't know if namespace pages have been "split" in the past but if so it would likely be rare. The non-admin closing was about as strange as I have seen. It likely did not receive enough attention for community consensus but there sure appears to be two !votes for the proposal and one against. It was not contested so we just try something different? Unless we are going to start new categories and guidelines for merging and splitting namespace pages then why change the name to clearly exclude them? Considering my concerns I think the original "Proposed splits" would have been far more "precise" and accurate. Otr500 (talk) 00:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If there is no consensus here, I suppose the next step would be a requested move with both of the titles in the nomination. The main issue here is that the titles for Proposed mergers and Proposed article splits are inconsistent. —  Newslinger  talk   05:22, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I am giving no argument on inconsistency. Had I seen the closing I would have contested it. If there is deemed a need to make a change then "Proposed splits" would be far better than this suggestion. As I stated, considering namespace pages are not considered articles, moving "Wikipedia:Proposed mergers" to "Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers" definitely excludes all things not articles. That just seems to make too much sense. Otr500 (talk) 21:19, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Both could be moved to Wikipedia:Proposed page mergers and Wikipedia:Proposed page splits, or something, instead, but I really think that is a distinction without much of a difference. But I strongly believe that Wikipedia:Proposed mergers and Wikipedia:Proposed splits is not nearly WP:PRECISE enough and is too "inside baseball" for non-expert editors. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:59, 20 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge with WP:AFM and WP:MRD: I am neutral on the proposal above, other than the fact that this area needs some tidying up. The pages WP:AFM and WP:MRD need archiving and their titles should redirect here. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Humor
Why is this in the category "Wikipedia Humor?" I thought these were all serious proposals. Vorbee (talk) 10:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * not every proposal... Richard3120 (talk) 17:51, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That was an April Fools' Day one-off. Archived now.  GenQuest  "Talk to Me" 17:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Request for closure
Don't know if this is the right place to bring an uninvolved editor to Merger discussion for merging newly created ATK Mohun Bagan FC to Mohun Bagan Athletic Club. A consensus has been reached and was actually merged here with proper note but was reverted by another editor demanding closure by uninvolved editor. After that no new discussion was done, repetition of same thing again and again. If someone can please complete the closure otherwise the discussion is disrupted several times and the discussion templates has been removed several times from the concerning articles. Thank you. Drat8sub (talk) 12:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * May take a bit. That's alot of words...  Regards,  GenQuest  "Talk to Me" 18:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)


 * , yes I know..tonnes of words. Take you time and can ask anything regarding these. Thank you for taking this pressurised load. Drat8sub (talk) 22:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Cross-space mergers?
Are cross-wikispace mergers allowed? I'm specifically talking about merging Draft articles into Live Wikipedia articles.
 * 1) ...are they even allowed?
 * 2) Is such a move of content from Draft to Live considered a merge?
 * 3) if not, is there a work-around?

Please let me know your thoughts on this. Thanks, GenQuest  "scribble" 07:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * My view - Yes, it's allowed, yes it's a merge. That said, I'll send a post to Articles for Creation Oiyarbepsy (talk) 07:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't make any sense for it not to be allowed. It is obviously possible to move a draft to mainspace, and thereafter to merge the content into another mainspace article. Merging from a draft merely skips this extra step. I would also note that I have seen numerous instances where content from a draft is copied into mainspace without attribution, and merging the edit history of the draft into that of the mainspace copy is the most appropriate means to insure correct attribution. BD2412  T 17:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are allowed. No, they are not necessary. As BD2412 states, there are often instances where a draft is copied directly into the article space, BUT if the creator of the page is the only significant editor (I'm not counting the addition of WP:AFC templates or comments) then there is not an attribution issue and a histmerge is not required. However, if there are multiple editors, or the copy/paster is not the same as the article creator, then a histmerge will be necessary. Primefac (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , : Thanks for the input. I am in fact talking about situations requiring attribution.  I wasn't sure the above would be compatible with MOS:DRAFTNOLINK, as in a merge/redirect, a link to the source article (the Draft article in this case) is usually left behind in the edit summary of the target article.  Should these drafts, perhaps, first be moved to main article space and then merged as SOP? – or does the histmerge cover all that?   GenQuest  "scribble" 16:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * DRAFTNOLINK is saying that in the article Foo there shouldn't be a link to Draft:Bar; edit summaries are the perfect place to put such attribution, and if it is given then there is no histmerge required. Primefac (talk) 22:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)


 * There is consensus that redirects from Draft space to article space not only are okay, but are a good thing, so without a history merge, leave the draftspace redirect behind and place the standard merge tags. If there is a history merge, the merge tags aren't required since the draft history will be part of the article's history. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 17:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Draftspace to Mainspace mergers.
 * 1) ...are they even allowed?

Of course, yes.
 * 2) Is such a move of content from Draft to Live considered a merge?

Don't do it.
 * 3) if not, is there a work-around?

If there is a draft that can be merged into an article, first move the draft to mainspace, and second do the merge and redirect. This is preferable because it is better to keep the attribution history in mainspace. Draftspace might be entirely deleted one day. Downstream uses of Wikipedia may not keep draftspace in their package.

I further think that draftspace to article merging *should* be done, than article spinouts in draft space *should not* be allowed, *unless* there is consensus (or at least mention) on the article talk page to draft the spinout. Draftspace is a lonely hidden place, and if the talk page doesn't point to it, then mainspace-only editors will never find it. However, better, do article spinouts by writing directly into a new article. I think it is a common mistake for a new user to put new material into a draft, when it could have been put into an article, and their draft fails UNDUE and notability, and then gets declined and lost. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . That addresses my main concern, re: redirected Drafts disappearing down the line, thus losing attribution.  All this is very helpful, folks.  Thanks.  BTW: Is this already codified anywhere?  Or are we deciding SOP here and now?   GenQuest  "scribble" 07:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Deciding the SOP here and now? I think yes!  And that’s the best way to get an SOP written, or at least, started.  Where would be be written? Would anyone find it there?  Can it be shortened down to “preserve attribution”?  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I added instructions based on the above to WP:Merging, see WP:MERGEDRAFT. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 19:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Object to SOP: taking an action based on a speculation that draft space may disappear in the future is applying a CRYSTAL BALL, and the current protocol creates more problems than it solves. Moving a substandard draft to article space, even if only briefly, creates inappropriate content in article space, and breaches the idea of when it is appropriate to move content from draft to article space.
 * The current SOP also doesn't allow for the (common) case where the draft article is created with a title that matches the title in article space. For example, in a current merge I completed, Draft:Igor Danchenko had been created when Igor Danchenko already existed. To apply the current SOP would mean that an arbitrary new title in article space would need to be created, which would then have to the redirected to the main article. So, my counterproposal is to keep the process simple and just allow a merge from the draft space to article space, on the grounds that the move then merge protocol is administratively cumbersome and unnecessary. Klbrain (talk) 09:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Disagree with Klbrain. Keeping attribution in mainspace is very sensible, and speculating that draftspace, which is not the encyclopedia-proper, may not exist always and in downstream products, is NOT NOTCRYSTAL. Klbrain’s problem is a failure of commonsense, and results in the SOP simple instructions being prevented, which is a good thing. Klbrain, do you realise that if you merge from someone else’s draft, an attribution search from the mainspace title may well never find the authors, because also quite plausibly one would start and stop searching incoming links with mainspace. Also, reverting due to a special case not catered for is not moving forwards.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Personal feedback received, SmokeyJoe. However, I contend that properly placed Merged from templates in the mainspace talk pages, which are placed with merges in the mainspace, preserve attribution, so there is no attribution problem. I also note that moving a substandard draft to article space breaches WP:DRAFTIFY. I also believe that the entire process is wrong, not just the special case of identical titles. Please don't be offended by WP:BRD; you proposed and implemented a significant change over the course of 24 hours, which is a perfectly reasonable bold action as long as you tolerate discussion.
 * So, to be clear, my view is that we should maintain the status quo of allowing merges from draft space to article space without the additional step of a move. Klbrain (talk) 13:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I would not have “disallowed” merging from draftspace. I had not considered the draftspace title matching the mainspace title, but have previously suggested a technical block to creating a draft under the same title as an article. I still think a fair attempt at a draft that is better merged is worth moving to mainspace before the merge, assuming the redirect is a good idea. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Merger Proposal Destination Page Berry Pomeroy
Hello, as far as we discussed I propose to merge St Mary's Church, Berry Pomeroy into Berry Pomeroy. I think that the content in the St. Mary's Church-article can easily be explained in the context of Berry Pomeroy. The destination-article is of a reasonable size, so that the merging of St. Mary'Church, which is a stub, will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. Furthermore the qualitiy of the chapter about this church in the Berry Pomeroy-article could be improved by adding the informations as found in the stubb.--Bockpeterteuto (talk) 09:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey! Thanks for visiting.  Feel free to add that proposal >>>Here<<<.  Happy editing!  GenQuest  "scribble" 13:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, thanks for posting this. As per the user above's comment, I suggest you add the proposal >>>Here<<< to proceed. Thanks, and let me know if you need any more help! J850NK (talk) 20:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, just for information: according to your kind recommendation I added the proposal to the Merge requests and hope, that this was done correctly. As far as I understand you, I do not need to add something on top of the articles for I saw your insertions? Thanks very much for your help!--Bockpeterteuto (talk) 21:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

A merge effort going sideways
At Talk:Anglo-French War (1778-1783) there is an initiative that is amiss procedurally. It should have initiated at the target article, "France in the American Revolutionary War". We need some guidance and perhaps remedial action to get us wiki-fencing editors back on track procedurally.

The merger is initiated by editors appealing to the precedent in an earlier merger of "Anglo-Spanish War (1779-1783)" into "Spain in the American Revolutionary War". I am disagreed with these two efforts to conflate (1) the “European war 1778-1783” of Great Powers over empire (their Simms, my Morris) with (2) the "American Revolutionary War 1775-1783": a conflict among British subjects in North America & North Atlantic over independence (Britannica “American Revolution: United States History” by Willard M. Wallace; and (2) Routledge Dictionary of War “American Revolution (1775-83)” by George Childs Kohn (1999)).

This issue is apart from (a) elaborating the Euro-RS “War of the American Revolution” (WoAR) encompassing all European-related activity 1775-1783 among merchants, financiers, and especially government war and diplomacy – an article non-existent at Wikipedia, lost in a redirect to “American Revolutionary War”; or (b) expanding the article Second Hundred Years' War. The issue is (c) Whether Wikipedia is to have an “ARW-America”, or wp:original research “ARW-Global”.

PROCEDURE posts on the Merge : "NOTES ON PROCEDURE", "Wikipedia article titles", "Merging by edit".

SUBSTANCE posts on the American Revolution : "English usage for "occur in"", "Unsourced wp:Original research", "Historiography of the American Revolutionary War". Sincerely, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:37, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Question about closing merger discussion lacking consensus
Question: If I proposed a merger months ago that dragged on with no consensus and has now been inactive for 3 months, can I close it myself and indicate that no action is taken? Or should I still request a non-involved editor to close it?

Context: I proposed this merger in October and it turned into a rather entangled mess. During discussion the article that I proposed to merge was moved and transformed by another editor into a more precise topic; as a result, I don't think the merger is very relevant any more and I doubt that any potential new participants will have an easy time understanding what happened or what's going on. The discussion has been inactive for about 3 months, and currently it has no consensus (1 support, 1 oppose, not counting me).

I hope this is the right place to ask. Thanks for any advice, R Prazeres (talk) 20:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * yes, you can. Follow the instructions at WP:MERGECLOSE, which essentially involves adding a "top" and "bottom" template to the discussion, and state at the top that the proposal is now invalid as another topic has been created that includes the article originally proposed for merging. Richard3120 (talk) 22:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Great. Thanks for the feedback! R Prazeres (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)