![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Some things I've noticed....
I've decided that WP:MM would be a good shortcut. You have 24 hours to revert my change if you don't like it! Alphax τ ε χ 01:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Is it possible to have the merge template point to the exact section of the talk page here the merge discussion is taking place? If the talk page, for example, has a section "== Merge ==" is there a way to make the notice template link to that section of the talk page (URL for talk page#section)? — [ Unsigned comment added by Calicocat ( talk • contribs) 09:49, 31 July 2005 (UTC).]
Is there a recommended minimum time between proposing a merge (by adding {{ merge}} to both pages) and actually performing the merge? Or should editors just be bold and merge articles (if they are capable) instead of proposing the merge in the first place? -- Scott Davis Talk 04:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
I have just typed the query "define:grammer" into google. This brought up the wikipedia entry for grammar. Surely the practice of redirecting to an article from a misspelling of its title is harmful? It seems conceptually wrong that looking up a topic under a misspelling should (almost) silently redirect to the correct spelling. I believe that the approach taken by google's "did you mean?" feature is superior. The error is conveniently correctable via a click on a hyperlinked suggestion, but does require an acknowledgement from the person who made the error. — [ Unsigned comment added by 80.177.11.190 ( talk • contribs) 23:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC).]
This page seems to contemplate a genuine merger, after which all or virtually all the information that was in the source article is in the merged or target article. Currently, however, there's a proposal to merge Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination into the main bio article for Harriet Miers. (Bush nominated Miers for this position, but, partway through the process, she withdrew as a nominee because of the evident strength of the opposition.) No one is suggesting that the bio should describe this particular incident at the same level of detail as the current Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination article does. Instead, the idea is, as one supporter expressed it: "Most of the information in here could be edited down in length significantly while still leaving the pertinent details, leading to a nice mergeable section." ( Talk:Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination#Merge?)
It seems to me that what's really being proposed here is the deletion of the source article, on the grounds that, because the nomination failed, it doesn't need its own article. In that respect, it's similar to the current suggestion that we don't need a separate article on Fitzmas because it's just one aspect of the Plame affair, and the latter article can handle it. The difference is that Fitzmas is being handled through an AfD entry: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fitzmas. When a proposed merger doesn't involve two different terms for the same thing or the like, and when it instead contemplates deletion of the source article (leaving only a redirect) and the loss of some of the information now in the source article, is a mere "merger" discussion on the article's talk page the proper procedure? I think that something like the Miers proposal should go through AfD. If there's a consensus to that effect, then we can edit this project page accordingly. JamesMLane 19:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi, so far I have initiated and complted merges on about 30 articles or so. However, I've run into minor irritants such as ppl. not taking a look at the talk; not understanding what exactly the tags do and how to proceed with a merger. These people are not clueless newbies - at least one of them is an admin and another has won barnstars. I think a brief note on Wikiquette for merges on this project page shd help. I hv penned most of it already. Shall I be bold and update the project page? -- Gurubrahma 12:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
I wrote FALSE. Then I found that I hadn't looked for the article hard enough beforehand and False programming language already exists.
I think I've correctly determined that FALSE should be the correct article title (see Talk:FALSE). However, I'm not certain about merging, because False programming language has about twenty history, and FALSE has almost none.
Should I not worry about this and go ahead and merge, or is there some other procedure when the target has no particular history? I could merge into False programming language and then do a page move. Would this be better?
I've already written the merge and just need to figure out where to put it now. - Ethan ( talk) 04:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
There is no mention of what happens to pages that have been merged. I assume that when I merge List of Susquehanna River bridges with List of bridges over the Susquehanna River that one article should be deleted, but how should I tag it? Cacophony 04:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Does a redirect affect Talk? When Family crest is merged into Crest (heraldry), does Talk:Family crest remain independent? — Tamfang 19:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
what happens if the merge proposal is only discussed among people on only on the article that is going to remain. and the people who worked on the article that is going to disapear don't get their opinions heard? Isn't that unilateral? The case I'm talking about it's like a large country absorbing a small one without even hearing its oppinion? what can I do?
And even worst, they are trying to merge the small article to then have it sized. the whole purpose of the small one is to give more sourced info about something that, written on the big article would need to be short, but on his own could provide usefull info to people looking to know more details on the matter. Symilar to the "Merger as deletion" Harriet Miers case, just 3 sections above.
Thanks beforehand -- T for Trouble-maker 08:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
hey!!!!!!! throw me a bone here! anyone? -- T for Trouble-maker 08:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Angle Township, Minnesota - this covers the same exact geographical area as Northwest Angle. -- SPUI ( talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 22:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Could someone explain how the procedure for merging does not delete the page history.
If I do this it surely makes it hard to find the page history as one whole chunk will have appeared from one user? Rex the first 22:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
It seems my "account is too new" for me to move an article. Exactly how long do I have to wait? If there is a specific interval, can this number be posted somewhere? — [ Unsigned comment added by Lenoxus ( talk • contribs) 15:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC).] - anon
What should I do with Sanguinarian and Vampire lifestyle? The pages have similar content and a few people have sniping back and forth over it. I'd like to call it a draw and simply remove the tag, but I sense that this will only cause more problems. I've proposed a whole new page, but I doubt that will go over well? Is there a good way to break this stalemate? --K erowyn 02:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I think the information and link about the Proposed Mergers page could be more prominent.-- Larrybob 02:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
"It has been suggested that this article or section", but all of the explanatory text is specific to merging whole pages, not sections. It's unclear what the procedure is to merge just a section. I did see something about a specific 'section merge' template once, but danged if I can find it now. Is there a different page for this? -- Kickstart70· Talk 01:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
When should a merge request be removed from a page when there has been little input or only negative input? Is it the responsibility of the requesting party to monitor the article or can anyone remove the request after a certain length of time? Ande B 01:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I think these two images should be switched. The 'mergeto' image has an arrow which points towards the the diamond, the diamond being closer to the center of the page than the arrow, which implies in a glance that another article is being merged into the aforementioned page. The 'mergefrom' image has the same problem the other way around. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Noohgodno ( talk • contribs) 04:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC).
Wouldn't doing a copy and paste merge erase the edit history of the article being merged, and therefore violate the GFDL? What distinguishes that from a copy and paste move? TheProject 15:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I added a subsection on moving pages between namespaces. Basically, I said that moving a page inadvertently placed in the wrong namespace was fine, but that other than that, such moves should be discussed. Furthermore, I said that it's "strongly recommended" that moving a page from the article space to elsewhere be done through the deletion process (preferably AfD) as such a move, once done, will effectively allow the page to be deleted. Mango juice talk 19:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
There are two pages which I wish to merge and I have as such proposed it on both pages. However, it just so happens that both pages are quite deserted. That is, very few people visit it. So, is it still neccessary for me to propose the merger or just perform the merger anyway?-- Ariedartin 04:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
In 2001 there was a cut-and paste move of Last Supper to The Last Supper where the discussion page was not moved. Today, article history was restored from the cut-and paste and the article was moved back to its original location at Last Supper. However, there are two discussion pages ( [2] from 2001 and [3] from 2006). There always used to be two discussion pages but now it became a problem because after the move the old one is associated with the article. It seems the discussion pages need to be merged because they are concerning the same article, but I don't know the procedure here, so some help would be appreciated. S Sepp 01:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
What do you do when you propose a move and only one person contributes to the discussion, opposing it? You then pose a counter-argument, but noone else votes. There is no official consensus since there is one supporting and one opposing, but it seems very clear that there should be merge. This has happened to my proposal to merge Evening Out With Your Girlfriend into Fall Out Boy's Evening Out with Your Girlfriend ( discussion). I've put a bunch of work into defending my point (including constructing the merge in my sandbox) and I don't want the merge to fall through because of a lack of interest. I've even let the discussion run for over a week. Should I just go through with the merge, contact the opposing voter, what? — Akrabbim talk 21:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the articles Netscape Communications Corporation and Netscape (web browser) should be merged into the Netscape article, which will result in an article focusing on the ex-corporation and the browsers it used to make.
Both articles contain a wealth of useful, well-organized information and the merged article would probably pass on references. After the merger takes place, I will Peer Review the merged article hoping to make it a Good Article. I have already sent Netscape for Peer Review, but I was told to wait until the merger took place.
I have posted on the article's talk page, but so far no one is discussing the proposed merger, and no action seems to be taking place. Therefore, I am posting here hoping that someone can discuss the proposed merger and help me with the proccess of merging the article and sending it for Peer Review to make it a Good Article.
Thanks for reading. -- J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
In trying to revert a page-move vandal I made a typo and moved it here by accident. Once the speedy goes through, please move back to Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages Dbinder ( talk) 22:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Some things I've noticed....
I've decided that WP:MM would be a good shortcut. You have 24 hours to revert my change if you don't like it! Alphax τ ε χ 01:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Is it possible to have the merge template point to the exact section of the talk page here the merge discussion is taking place? If the talk page, for example, has a section "== Merge ==" is there a way to make the notice template link to that section of the talk page (URL for talk page#section)? — [ Unsigned comment added by Calicocat ( talk • contribs) 09:49, 31 July 2005 (UTC).]
Is there a recommended minimum time between proposing a merge (by adding {{ merge}} to both pages) and actually performing the merge? Or should editors just be bold and merge articles (if they are capable) instead of proposing the merge in the first place? -- Scott Davis Talk 04:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
I have just typed the query "define:grammer" into google. This brought up the wikipedia entry for grammar. Surely the practice of redirecting to an article from a misspelling of its title is harmful? It seems conceptually wrong that looking up a topic under a misspelling should (almost) silently redirect to the correct spelling. I believe that the approach taken by google's "did you mean?" feature is superior. The error is conveniently correctable via a click on a hyperlinked suggestion, but does require an acknowledgement from the person who made the error. — [ Unsigned comment added by 80.177.11.190 ( talk • contribs) 23:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC).]
This page seems to contemplate a genuine merger, after which all or virtually all the information that was in the source article is in the merged or target article. Currently, however, there's a proposal to merge Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination into the main bio article for Harriet Miers. (Bush nominated Miers for this position, but, partway through the process, she withdrew as a nominee because of the evident strength of the opposition.) No one is suggesting that the bio should describe this particular incident at the same level of detail as the current Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination article does. Instead, the idea is, as one supporter expressed it: "Most of the information in here could be edited down in length significantly while still leaving the pertinent details, leading to a nice mergeable section." ( Talk:Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination#Merge?)
It seems to me that what's really being proposed here is the deletion of the source article, on the grounds that, because the nomination failed, it doesn't need its own article. In that respect, it's similar to the current suggestion that we don't need a separate article on Fitzmas because it's just one aspect of the Plame affair, and the latter article can handle it. The difference is that Fitzmas is being handled through an AfD entry: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fitzmas. When a proposed merger doesn't involve two different terms for the same thing or the like, and when it instead contemplates deletion of the source article (leaving only a redirect) and the loss of some of the information now in the source article, is a mere "merger" discussion on the article's talk page the proper procedure? I think that something like the Miers proposal should go through AfD. If there's a consensus to that effect, then we can edit this project page accordingly. JamesMLane 19:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi, so far I have initiated and complted merges on about 30 articles or so. However, I've run into minor irritants such as ppl. not taking a look at the talk; not understanding what exactly the tags do and how to proceed with a merger. These people are not clueless newbies - at least one of them is an admin and another has won barnstars. I think a brief note on Wikiquette for merges on this project page shd help. I hv penned most of it already. Shall I be bold and update the project page? -- Gurubrahma 12:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
I wrote FALSE. Then I found that I hadn't looked for the article hard enough beforehand and False programming language already exists.
I think I've correctly determined that FALSE should be the correct article title (see Talk:FALSE). However, I'm not certain about merging, because False programming language has about twenty history, and FALSE has almost none.
Should I not worry about this and go ahead and merge, or is there some other procedure when the target has no particular history? I could merge into False programming language and then do a page move. Would this be better?
I've already written the merge and just need to figure out where to put it now. - Ethan ( talk) 04:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
There is no mention of what happens to pages that have been merged. I assume that when I merge List of Susquehanna River bridges with List of bridges over the Susquehanna River that one article should be deleted, but how should I tag it? Cacophony 04:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Does a redirect affect Talk? When Family crest is merged into Crest (heraldry), does Talk:Family crest remain independent? — Tamfang 19:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
what happens if the merge proposal is only discussed among people on only on the article that is going to remain. and the people who worked on the article that is going to disapear don't get their opinions heard? Isn't that unilateral? The case I'm talking about it's like a large country absorbing a small one without even hearing its oppinion? what can I do?
And even worst, they are trying to merge the small article to then have it sized. the whole purpose of the small one is to give more sourced info about something that, written on the big article would need to be short, but on his own could provide usefull info to people looking to know more details on the matter. Symilar to the "Merger as deletion" Harriet Miers case, just 3 sections above.
Thanks beforehand -- T for Trouble-maker 08:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
hey!!!!!!! throw me a bone here! anyone? -- T for Trouble-maker 08:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Angle Township, Minnesota - this covers the same exact geographical area as Northwest Angle. -- SPUI ( talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 22:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Could someone explain how the procedure for merging does not delete the page history.
If I do this it surely makes it hard to find the page history as one whole chunk will have appeared from one user? Rex the first 22:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
It seems my "account is too new" for me to move an article. Exactly how long do I have to wait? If there is a specific interval, can this number be posted somewhere? — [ Unsigned comment added by Lenoxus ( talk • contribs) 15:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC).] - anon
What should I do with Sanguinarian and Vampire lifestyle? The pages have similar content and a few people have sniping back and forth over it. I'd like to call it a draw and simply remove the tag, but I sense that this will only cause more problems. I've proposed a whole new page, but I doubt that will go over well? Is there a good way to break this stalemate? --K erowyn 02:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I think the information and link about the Proposed Mergers page could be more prominent.-- Larrybob 02:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
"It has been suggested that this article or section", but all of the explanatory text is specific to merging whole pages, not sections. It's unclear what the procedure is to merge just a section. I did see something about a specific 'section merge' template once, but danged if I can find it now. Is there a different page for this? -- Kickstart70· Talk 01:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
When should a merge request be removed from a page when there has been little input or only negative input? Is it the responsibility of the requesting party to monitor the article or can anyone remove the request after a certain length of time? Ande B 01:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I think these two images should be switched. The 'mergeto' image has an arrow which points towards the the diamond, the diamond being closer to the center of the page than the arrow, which implies in a glance that another article is being merged into the aforementioned page. The 'mergefrom' image has the same problem the other way around. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Noohgodno ( talk • contribs) 04:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC).
Wouldn't doing a copy and paste merge erase the edit history of the article being merged, and therefore violate the GFDL? What distinguishes that from a copy and paste move? TheProject 15:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I added a subsection on moving pages between namespaces. Basically, I said that moving a page inadvertently placed in the wrong namespace was fine, but that other than that, such moves should be discussed. Furthermore, I said that it's "strongly recommended" that moving a page from the article space to elsewhere be done through the deletion process (preferably AfD) as such a move, once done, will effectively allow the page to be deleted. Mango juice talk 19:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
There are two pages which I wish to merge and I have as such proposed it on both pages. However, it just so happens that both pages are quite deserted. That is, very few people visit it. So, is it still neccessary for me to propose the merger or just perform the merger anyway?-- Ariedartin 04:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
In 2001 there was a cut-and paste move of Last Supper to The Last Supper where the discussion page was not moved. Today, article history was restored from the cut-and paste and the article was moved back to its original location at Last Supper. However, there are two discussion pages ( [2] from 2001 and [3] from 2006). There always used to be two discussion pages but now it became a problem because after the move the old one is associated with the article. It seems the discussion pages need to be merged because they are concerning the same article, but I don't know the procedure here, so some help would be appreciated. S Sepp 01:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
What do you do when you propose a move and only one person contributes to the discussion, opposing it? You then pose a counter-argument, but noone else votes. There is no official consensus since there is one supporting and one opposing, but it seems very clear that there should be merge. This has happened to my proposal to merge Evening Out With Your Girlfriend into Fall Out Boy's Evening Out with Your Girlfriend ( discussion). I've put a bunch of work into defending my point (including constructing the merge in my sandbox) and I don't want the merge to fall through because of a lack of interest. I've even let the discussion run for over a week. Should I just go through with the merge, contact the opposing voter, what? — Akrabbim talk 21:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the articles Netscape Communications Corporation and Netscape (web browser) should be merged into the Netscape article, which will result in an article focusing on the ex-corporation and the browsers it used to make.
Both articles contain a wealth of useful, well-organized information and the merged article would probably pass on references. After the merger takes place, I will Peer Review the merged article hoping to make it a Good Article. I have already sent Netscape for Peer Review, but I was told to wait until the merger took place.
I have posted on the article's talk page, but so far no one is discussing the proposed merger, and no action seems to be taking place. Therefore, I am posting here hoping that someone can discuss the proposed merger and help me with the proccess of merging the article and sending it for Peer Review to make it a Good Article.
Thanks for reading. -- J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
In trying to revert a page-move vandal I made a typo and moved it here by accident. Once the speedy goes through, please move back to Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages Dbinder ( talk) 22:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)