Wikipedia talk:Proposed article mergers/Archive 2

Does this page have an archive for completed requests?
Is this a good idea? Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mergers for discussion
Mergers for discussion was recently created in hopes of assisting tricky merging situations. But now that I look closer, I see that project and this project have significant overlap. While they are similar, they do seem to have very different time frames, and different methods to accomplish the same goals.

I would like to see Merges for discussion resolve things in a matter of days rather than in years. In that sense, I think that the backlog of this project could be absorbed into that process, and a quicker more streamlined way of generating merge feedback can be created. I would appreciate if any interested editors could join discussion on the talk page of that project. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 03:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The two processes should be merged (haha, something ironic about mentioning that) but I think the biggest problem is lack of traffic. This might be solved by a link at the top of the WP:AFD page. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In what way? Please explain your idea further. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 04:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Heck it is there already. But anyway, in essence all the mergers suffer from a severe lack of traffic, which is why they remain open so long with only a few comments. There needs to be linkage highlights. I just noticed now that proposed mergers is actually linked on the top of the AfD page (but I hadn't seen it in 2.5 years). The other place is at the top navbox of WP:AN. template:editabuselinks Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hilarious. Ok. So we need to think of another way to attract attention that is not pointy. CENT? -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 04:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sigh - I know. The whole topic is such a vexed one....Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Marked as failed proposal May 2009

The done fairy went through this page
I added a whole bunch of Done tags to anything that was redirecting to one of the two articles suggested to be merged. I'll leave it like this for a few days, then I'm going to remove all the finished merges. Hopefully it will clean this page up a bit and make it look a little more managed. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 20:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your work. Flatscan (talk) 23:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Preferred format
OK, as we have two pages covering the same process (that is, merging articles), this would be a good time to discuss which format people prefer, and then conform the existing page to that format.

Current format (Proposed mergers)
Essentially a list of mergers only, all discussion takes place on the destination article's talk page.


 * By simply linking to the Talk page discussion, PM is consistent with other steps, allowing one discussion to be used throughout the process. Flatscan (talk) 05:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Talk page section
 * Merge templates on articles
 * Proposed mergers
 * Requesting outside input as described by dispute resolution, such as WP:3O, WikiProjects, and WP:RFC

Newer format (Wikipedia:Mergers for discussion)
For discussion of mergers actually on the page. The setup is inspired by AfD: each discussion has its own subpage that is transcluded to a log. A time limit was proposed but not implemented.

Discussion

 * Previous discussions
 * WT:Mergers for discussion, a few sections
 * WP:Village pump (policy)/Archive 63


 * Backlog

I think that the backlog has a substantial contribution from the delay in implementing mergers after consensus has been determined, which would be substantially identical between the two discussion processes. There are over 100 transclusions of, which is placed when an AfD is closed as merge and removed when the article is redirected. Flatscan (talk) 04:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

2008
Should we archive the 2008 requests? VoltageX (talk) 13:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been going through them over the past few months, and there's only a few left. The ones still here are a little tricky, but all of them should actually be merged. I would rather see the work completed rather than brushed under the wikicarpet. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 20:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm against archiving them. If the discussions are inactive or if there's a decision reached, close them. If they're active, contribute to them. As with any backlog, it's the oldest ones that need the most attention. Archiving is not a solution for this. Jafeluv (talk) 20:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * All gone. Problem solved ;) Jafeluv (talk) 21:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Nuce. I think this page has gotten more attention in the last 4 months than it ever has. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 23:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Format
I added a section describing how to propose a merger, and made a little template,, to help in listing the articles. Let me know what you think. Jafeluv (talk) 13:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I've moved the section into a subpage so that people can say their opinion first. Jafeluv (talk) 16:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I support including this how-to somewhere. It's significantly better than the mess (that I had a hand in writing) at Help:Merging. Flatscan (talk) 04:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I boldly added it back. The template wasn't really necessary, I guess. Feel free to tweak the wording. Jafeluv (talk) 13:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Bot?
Could a bot be created to list all proposed mergers here automatically (similar to the one used at RM)? It could also be used to add missing merger tags when only one page involved in the merger has been tagged. -- G W … 09:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's certainly possible, but considering the amount of traffic this page gets it's not really that big an inconvenience to update it manually, I think. Jafeluv (talk) 11:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I hadn't realized that WP:Requested moves/current was populated by a bot. After cleaning up a few merge tags and merging duplicated discussions (created on both pages), I think it would be nice to have a bot to fix those. Flatscan (talk) 03:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey guys, why didn't you alert me on my talk page or something? I would love to automate another Wikipedia process; just let me know what I need to keep in mind. @harej 03:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would love to involve some automation in this process too, but I'm not sure how. How do they use a bot over at Requested moves? How do other processes use bots to populate lists? -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 06:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The point of the bot was to take over parts humans already did. The procedure as outlined at WP:RM required that not only was there a template on the talk page where the discussion was taking place, but then it would also have to be listed on the main list. The bot was (and still is) responsible for putting it on the main list so people only have to put the requested move template on the article talk page. Likewise, for automating WP:PM lists, people would only have to put mergefrom, mergeto, etc. on articles. The bot would handle interpreting these templates and generating the list appropriately. @harej 06:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds promising. It might generate some sizable lists. August has 1400 proposed merges, and that works out to about 700ish entries, or roughly 24 a day. If lists could be generated by day and transcluded onto pages per month, it would be an easier way to browse than the category. It differs from the current use of this page tho, right now this is like a user selected list from a sea of merges. I'm not sure the effects of this change would be. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 07:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am reminded of the instance my bot got to work generating the WP:RM list &mdash; the size of the list immediately exploded due to the wide discrepancies between the main list and where the templates were being put. People weren't adding to the list, and it showed. I am thinking that this would be an extreme example of that. Perhaps, then, a style of creating day pages like at WP:DRV is in order? @harej 07:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Bot function
Agreed. Could the bot also look for requests where only one page has been tagged, and automatically tag the other associated pages? -- G W … 08:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I would probably standardize the page with mergefrom as the place where the discussion goes on, to keep it all in one place. I would expect no less of my RFC bot to fill in holes where appropriate, just as it does with requested moves (see for example). As I usually operate my bots, entries are removed as they fulfilled. Does this mean that once a backlog is emptied, it would get deleted? @harej 09:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe not deleted, but we could certainly change the format. I like the idea of having both: lists generated for each day, and a user selected list of merges needing special/specific/urgent attention. I like the mergefrom discussion standardization, and the bot adding of missing tags. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 16:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you mean by "change the format". @harej 18:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it wouldn't really change the format, it would just change the structure of this page. Instead of just being a select list, it would be a select list and a complete master list by day. It would just increase the usefulness of this page ten fold. I am all for it. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 20:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Do you think that the "select list" should be more selective, now that there will be a more comprehensive log of proposed mergers? @harej 20:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well as it stands right now it's supposed to be used for complex or controvertial merges, but it's basically used for anything people decide to add. If the description of this page was just rewritten so that everyone who uses it understands that all merges are being tracked and that only difficult cases should be added to the short list, then I would consider that selective enough. People using this page should be able to decide if it's just a regular merge or if it involves an extra level of complexity. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 21:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that organization or filtering by priority is an important feature. Flatscan (talk) 04:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What would we do with merge tags (ie. ones where no direction is specified)? -- G W … 16:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I will figure something out for them. By the way, as a product of WP:RM automation, I changed around a lot of the templates (i.e. made some of them take on new purposes and made other ones obsolete). I just may do something similar when it comes time to automating WP:PM. I also approve of the idea of keeping around a separate, manually-updated list on this page, but it should be restricted for more urgent/tricky cases. @harej 18:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is a Republican-themed example of what the list would look like. Also, a list for each day would not be possible, since the template only goes by month and year. The smallest a list could be is by the month, but such a list would get large. To prevent it from getting too large, I think that it should be limited to 100 entries, with entries being added onto the list as fulfilled requests are cleared. @harej 04:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Too many templates
Before I can even dream of automating the process, I need to point out that the several merge templates currently deployed on Wikipedia. According to Template:Merge, we have eleven merge templates. This is too diffuse to keep track of in a reasonable matter; therefore, I would like to merge it down to three templates: merge, mergeto, and mergefrom, using parameters in lieu of having separate templates for each condition. This will make the process much easier to use by people, and definitely easier to automate. @harej 23:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's sounds like a great idea. I find the only other template I come across is mergefrom-multiple, but if this can be handled through template parameters, then I think the others can safely be redirected. There's only a handful of actual articles that use them anyways. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 05:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is a detailed list of the victims:
 * merge ← merge-multiple, merge-multiple-to
 * mergefrom ← mergefrom-multiple, mergefrom-category, mergesection, mergesections, multiplemergefrom
 * mergeto ← mergeto-multiple, mergetomultiple-with, mergelist, mergeto2, NorthAmMergeto, portalmerge
 * This is one of the most disorganized messes I have ever seen on Wikipedia. Unless there are more that should be added to the list, I am going to get to work. By the way, there were several merge templates that were associated with WikiProjects or something. I'm not going to touch those. @harej 06:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like a great solution. I'm stoked about where you're taking this. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 13:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Too many templates at the moment, I'm fairly sure some of them fail CSD T3. As for the project specific templates, might it be worth sending a few of them to TFD? -- G W … 22:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * They could be. Anyways, as of this time, merge-multiple is no more (merged with merge), and mergeto-multiple and mergefrom-multiple are similarly on the way out. @harej 22:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am useless at templates but I fully support streamlining and keeping the more useful ones - ones that direct to a subheading on a talk page are good. We need as few steps as possible for editors to find these damn pages which are so under-trafficked as it is. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

All the necessary merges (and in a few cases, deletions) have been performed. Now there is the task of updating the documentation. It should not be a problem, now that there are fewer templates to worry about. @harej 06:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Awesome job. Help:Merging is the main page that needs updating. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 06:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the page I was working on while you were telling me to update Help:Merging. :D In any case, I did a massive revamp of Help:Merging and not only should the directions be up-to-date, it should be in well-written English prose, too. Well, I did the best I could with writing, anyway. I am pretty tired from all this template stuff. @harej 07:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't trying to tell you what to do, I was more hoping that someone would take up the torch while the rest of us got some sleep. Nice job tho. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 18:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The onus was still on me to update the documentation, since I knew the most about the templates. @harej 19:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * has just updated all the transclusions to point to where the deprecated templates redirected to. I've removed their mention from Help:Merging and Template:Template messages. I think we're now done with these. They're not really in the way, but I guess they could also just be deleted. --Swift (talk) 00:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am very content to hear this. Here's to a streamlined Wikipedia! @harej 01:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed mergers *and splits*?
The documentation for the merge templates also makes note of the split templates. Since splitting is merging in the opposite direction, would it be a good idea for the bot to note proposed article splits as well? If so, should we rename the page Proposed mergers and splits? We can steal the shortcut WP:PMS from an inactive project. @harej 23:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * These editing actions are definitely related, but I'm not sure that splits need listings. My impression is that splits are more easily done BOLDly due to the creation of the split article, which has no active editors or content to incorporate. I think that more discussion should precede splits to avoid forking and attribution issues created by repeated splitting/merging, but I doubt there is consensus for it. Flatscan (talk) 04:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If others agreed, then there would be a consensus. @harej 06:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I dunno, I'm not sure I see a good reason to keep the two seperate, and perhaps expanding the scope of this page slightly would attract more attention. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 13:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that there are common considerations. My concern is that we will form a local consensus here supporting combined listings, then face WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY pushback after rolling it out. Flatscan (talk) 04:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see what this has to do with bureaucracy. We're expanding the scope of a page so we can do more things on it, without introducing middlemen or procedures. @harej 10:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I realized that my point is mooted by the bot: since it handles all the listing work, no one is likely to oppose over extra effort involved. Flatscan (talk) 05:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that splits and merges are a lot alike. Both involve concerns about article scope and size, both require moving existing content over articles and preserving the link to the source article. However, I think we should see how the merging thing works out with the bot first, and then think about what else to include. In my opinion, AfD merges could be included on this page as well (see pages that transclude afd-mergeto). Currently, when an AfD is closed as "merge", the article is only tagged with the template by the closing admin, and will stay as is until the heat death of the universe unless someone comes and actually performs the merger. It would be great to have a subsection for listing those mergers - they're pretty straightforward since there's already a consensus to perform them, but people just need to know that they exist. Jafeluv (talk) 11:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds reasonable. The AfD merges should get a special list, because those are a little more important than regular merges in terms of community necessity. AfD discussions should be carried through as quick as they can. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 18:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I can make a separate list for them, or make them stand out somehow. @harej 18:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Should AfD mergers be considered differently from other mergers where consensus has been determined? I think 1 list for mergers where consensus has been determined, with some sort of highlight for AfDs. There are a few comments on completed discussions at below. Flatscan (talk) 04:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's the yield of the first test:
Yeah, I don't know what happened either. @harej 01:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks like it worked for the most part, but there are some glitches that are just nuts. Obviously, this is just the first version of the bot. @harej 01:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I like the format. Looks like all the merge targets are trying to be listed in the Wikipedia namespace. Some of the categories are a little hilarious. But yeah, not really that bad. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 01:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That has to do with the pagelist template I'm using. Anyways, I will probably end up rewriting most of it, because it takes like an hour to run (because it has to load 15,000+ pages over the API). @harej 04:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I've re-wrote major parts (takes a lot less time now) and I've deleted most of the glitch pages. Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log/ continues to be the best reference for the current proposed mergers, and is technically a usable list. For reference, here are the glitch pages that have since been deleted:


 * Proposed mergers/Log/date this was posted
 * Proposed mergers/Log/January 1984
 * Proposed mergers/Log/august 2009
 * Proposed mergers/Log/July 27 2009
 * Proposed mergers/Log/January 1337
 * Proposed mergers/Log/may 2008
 * Proposed mergers/Log/Date=September 2009
 * Proposed mergers/Log/2 April 2009
 * Proposed mergers/Log/2009
 * Proposed mergers/Log/February $3
 * Proposed mergers/Log/Sept 2009

Proposed mergers/Log/January 2008 is opposed by a large majority is being kept around because its title is just too awesome. In any case, the lists are being restricted to article space mergers (for many reasons). While the lists might like good, here's what I still plan on doing before this goes live:
 * Prevent the "other half" of a merge request from getting listed (e.g. if X-with-Y is listed, don't list Y-with-X)
 * Figure out how to not have merge-to get in on the lists (I tried doing that, but that did not work out). It's one or the other, and merge-from is superior.
 * Incorporate proposed splits
 * Bold the page names
 * Bring back two newlines between entries
 * Have the bot generate a list of month logs.

What else is on my plate? @harej 11:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds like it about sums it up. The only ones that need to be listsed are merge and mergefrom, but adding in splits would nicely round things out in three. The other factors are minor, the only thing I see would be in integrate this into the proposed mergers page and let things run. How many requests are being listsed on each month page? Perhaps a notice should be left at the top of each month page saying this this is a random auto generated list of X number. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 19:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The log pages are limited to 100 entries per month. I would not say they are randomly selected, but rather, 100 in a given month is where the bot is cut off from loading more pages. @harej 22:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, so it loads the first 100 alphabetically? Is there any way that it could load a different set of articles? Or maybe when the bot refreshes the list, it takes the last entry in the current list, and then displays the next one hundred items following that entry in the category? My worry is that these lists will basically display the same articles until the month category is cleared. Also, is it possible to eliminate duplicate entries? For example, in Proposed_mergers/Log/April_2008, there's a request for merging CLEC1B with CLEC2B, and below it, CLEC2B with CLEC1B. There's another example in that log, with Casualty 1906 and Casualty 1907. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 06:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It loads the first one hundred something; if it looks alphabetically-sorted, we can do with that. I don't know if I can make it load different articles (I don't even know if the articles that get loaded will be consistent from run to run), but I could make the lists longer if you did not mind. Removing duplicate entries is possible but I have not found the best way to do it yet. @harej 12:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

When to remove tags?
The intro on the project page says:

"After articles are merged (or a consensus that the articles should not be merged is reached), please remove them from the list below." And I assume that the time to remove the tags at the top of the page is similar. At Communist genocide there has been a proposal to merge with Genocides in history for almost a month, and it is clear from the discussion page that there will never be consensus to merge (but you couldn't say that there is a consensus not to merge).

There was a request for deletion that had a similar result (no consensus) about 6 weeks ago. The editing is rather passionate and POV - one side wants to deny that there is such a thing as a "Communist genocide" and the other has presented evidence and citations that there is (although sometimes it is called "Soviet genocide" or "Red terror")

If the rule is "Don't remove the merge tags until a consensus has been reached" the tags will stay there forever. When should the tags be removed? Smallbones (talk) 14:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No-consensus-not-to-move does not exactly matter. The onus is on the challengers of the status quo to demonstrate the need for change and to attain a consensus. If they fail to do so, the status quo is maintained. @harej 14:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I can see that being the case with some merges, but there are others, like say Animal language and Animal communication, which have been tagged for almost two years, and almost certainly should be merged. Having a time limit of removing merge tags can be tricky, because there are cases where a merge should be completed, but because it is complicated it just hasn't been done yet. Other times, when there is a significant amount of controversy involved, the merge tag shouldn't remain for even a month, such as a recently proposed merge between China and People's Republic of China. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 19:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A thread was started by another editor at WP:ANI and I've requested there that an uninvolved administrator close the discussion. I'd guess that ANI is the best place to continue the discussion on when to close.  Smallbones (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think if there's a clear consensus to merge, the proposal could be moved to another section to await merging, and the bot-updated list would only contain proposals where the discussion is still ongoing. If the merge discussion has been going on for over a month without a consensus, it's probably best to just remove the merge tags and remove the request from the list. Jafeluv (talk) 14:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * How does one distinguish between a merge for which there is consensus and one for which there isn't, and how do you factor in consensus by silence? @harej 15:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, judging consensus could be done the same way it's done over at RM: after a specified amount of time (say, a month), someone uninvolved comes over and closes the discussion if there's enough participance to determine the preferred course of action. Proposals that lack participants could be left open until someone comes over and either decides to perform the merger, or argues against it. The problem with the current system is that merge tags are added to the articles, a discussion goes on for a week or two, and then the article stays in the same state for six months because there's no uninvolved party determining what the result was. Or sometimes everyone agrees that the articles should be merged, but nobody wants to be the one who does it (for an extreme example, see this proposal). Jafeluv (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There is something to be said about making the merge process more like WP:RM, which is one of the most efficient Wikipedia bureaucracies in my opinion. However, a merge isn't like a page-move; it is a lot more intricate than hitting the move button. @harej 00:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, a merger requires actually reading the text and understanding it, which is why it would be best that regular contributors to the articles were the ones that performed the merger (as they often are). However, if none of the regular contributors wants to take a shot at it, it's up to the few PM regulars to look whether there's consensus and perform the merger if appropriate. Someone is going to have to decide what the result was in a reasonable amount of time if none of the participants are willing to act on it. Jafeluv (talk) 05:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Relevant discussion
There's a discussion about deletion and merge processes here: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. Fences &amp;  Windows  22:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The section was renamed to WT:Articles for deletion. Flatscan (talk) 05:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Has since been archived to WT:Articles for deletion/Archive_58. -- &oelig; &trade; 18:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ongoing Discussion on implementing the move from Articles for Deletion to Articles for Discussion is occurring. Further input there would be appreciated. — V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 02:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for merging
A new page, Articles for merging, might interest editors at this page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Merge WKZO and WYZO Kalamazoo pages
In Kalamazoo, WKZO-AM began simulcasting on WYZO-FM. It already looks like someone copy and pasted information on WYZO and began an entirely new section entitled "History Of FM Side" on the WKZO-AM page, while the entire WYZO page remains untouched. Can someone merge these two pages....I have no clue how too. Thanks. Joemama993 (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

User subpages
Should it be noted on this page or elsewhere that this process does not apply to user subpages? See this proposed merge: User:TimBayliss/Homicide: The Movie as an example. Ciricula (talk) 04:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Bishop (Aliens)
I tried to remove a stale merge tag but was reverted at Bishop (Aliens); as the merge discussion was many years old, and went stale without merger, it should be justified to delete the merge tag. Aside from that, the article is almost completely about something that the target article Aliens (film) is not about (ie. other films, Alien 3, Alien vs Predator, etc) 184.144.160.156 (talk) 05:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Clearing it out
I'm reviewing everything on the merges list and tagging the articles if not already tagged and removing from the list if already tagged. This is not helping anybody and needs to be phased out. It just makes the huge backlog more different to have to watch two different places. D O N D E groovily  Talk to me  04:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I've cleared them. The section is now repurposed as a place to get assistance in listing merges in the first place. It's now explicit that people listing there shouldn't expect that to get the merge completed. D O N D E groovily  Talk to me  04:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposals without discussion
What should we make of articles tagged for merging when the proposer doesn't actually create a discussion section? Occasionally the tag itself is self-evident, but often the proposer's rationale is unclear. And while someone can start a discussion with their support or opposition just based on the template, that seems unlikely. I'd like to start a policy of removing stale tags—I think removing them a week after tagging is plenty generous. Or do we purposely allow such proposals without rationale for some reason? --BDD (talk) 23:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, this page specifically is for users seeking assistance with the process. Everyone who has proposed something on this page since I reset it has provided a reason for the merge. Creating the tags and talk sections is just doing the bureaucratic/technical legwork for them. On this page, I have been deleting tags and archiving the proposal if the original proposer doesn't perform the merge promptly. D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  03:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, so the only stale tags I should find on articles are months old, and you're monitoring current ones? Just wanted to make sure I understood that right. If so, do you follow a specific timetable before archiving? --BDD (talk) 14:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I'm only monitoring this page, not the entire merge backlog (which is impossible to monitor). But here, if no one has commented after about two weeks, I send a talk page message to the proposer telling them to go ahead and merge - if they don't do that after two weeks, I archive as stale. D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  00:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Help with a page...
Note that I have moved this post to the main page Ego White Tray (talk) 17:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia "Merge" like WP:RM or WP:AFD
See the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Wikipedia "Merge" like WP:RM or WP:AFD -- PBS (talk) 21:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * That discussion has been archived with a large consensus in favour of change. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Merge/Archive 2 for a discussion on how to implement the change. -- PBS (talk) 10:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Geometric Shapes
I'm not going to read anything about the procedure I should use, but just ignore all rules and report it here: Geometric Shapes and Geometric Shapes (Unicode block) are duplicates, it would be nice if somebody who read about the way to merge to articles could merge them. Thank you. --Schnark (talk) 09:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Putting this on the notice board page. GenQuest  "Talk to Me" 02:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Inactive Noticeboard?
It looks like the last activity to actually merge pages happened in July 2013. Are there still Admins actively working on these cases? Or can any Editor take it on? I'm not sure if it's a matter of combining information or page history data. Liz Read! Talk! 13:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Liz, anyone can work the merger request board. The nominator is encouraged to complete the task if they are able too.  I had been working the mergers, but since May of this year, I have been working 60-80 hour weeks at my real job.  Thankfully, after this week, that situation will be resolving itself.  However, if you would like to jump in and do some merging, I encourage you to do so, and I can answer your questions on procedure if necessary.  There is also a  backlog on AfD results "to merge" that we've been steadily working to reduce, and need a lot of help there.   GenQuest  "Talk to Me" 23:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

List of Viz comic strips
I have merged the following articles to List of Viz comic strips. • : Black Bag

• : Captain Morgan and his Hammond Organ

• : Cockney Wanker

• : Desert Island Teacher

• : Felix and his Amazing Underpants

• : Johnny Fartpants

• : Major Misunderstanding

• : Mickey's Monkey Spunk Moped

• : Millie Tant

• : Paul Whicker

• : Student Grant

• : Suicidal Syd

• : Tasha Slappa

• : Terry Fuckwitt

• : Roger Irrelevant

• : Rat Boy

• : Postman Plod

• : Mrs Brady the Old Lady

• : Finbarr Saunders

• : The Critics

• : Big Vern Their merger was proposed since November 2013.Most of the above have been made redirects after their important content was copied to the corresponding sections of the target List of Viz comic strips article.Skr15081997 (talk) 12:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Great job! I was looking at those ones myself, and I was planning it as one of my rainy day projects. Thanks. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 17:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for helping out, Skr15081997. Much appreciated.   GenQuest  "Talk to Me" 20:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)