![]() | 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 | Archive 4 |
"The main reason that the merger backlog includes more than ten thousand articles is because the people who support the merger neglect to undertake this final step. Any editor, including you, is permitted to perform mergers in accordance with consensus. Merging pages does not require intervention from an administrator."
No wonder people "neglect" to undertake the final step: actually performing the merger is way too complicated for the average editor. Can't it be simplified for the zillions of technically-impaired editors? Or at the very least, there should be an example of a simple merging using two pages with fictitious names and proceed to merge them lowly and patiently for most of us to understand...--
Lubiesque (
talk) 02:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
So... "A merger is the process of uniting two or more pages into a single page", but I want to propose taking the contents of 1 article ( The Second Trio) and putting it into two articles ( Moon Beams and How My Heart Sings!). This is because the 1st album is a reissue that combined the others, but there's nothing of note about the reissue. I'm tempted just to convert The Second Trio into a redirect (perhaps picking one of the others at random as the target), but thought it might be better to make an official proposal. So... is moving the contents of 1 article into 2 others a merger? If not, what is it? If so, what's the procedure? EddieHugh ( talk) 00:45, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I didn't conceptualise it as a split, as the same information would go to both articles (in reality, it'll be a short sentence simply stating that the compilation was released). I'll do that and redirect to the compilations section of the BE discography, as that has links to the two original albums. EddieHugh ( talk) 12:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
The instructions say "Check for non-free images (or other files)." but I have no idea how to do that. Could someone edit this article to explain how? Or better could there be a bot to do it for us and do step 3. too? Chidgk1 ( talk) 14:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
|Article=
parameter may need changing. (I'll update the article to add this). Typical images are free, so you only need to bother about articles whose topic is something copyrightable and look for small depictions of that topic (like book covers), or logos, because that cover almost all allowed non-free uses. As for the 3. point, the templates {{
merged-from}} and {{
copied}} are almost never there, while if you just copy the WikiProject templates, someone will eventually fix their parameters anyway.
Tokenzero (
talk) 15:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)I'm contemplating different (proposed) options for merging articles that are quite broad in scope. To be specific, I'm seeking advice pertinent to these two merges:
These four topics are all big enough to easily fill an article encylopedic article. In the first case, I think the overlap is about 70/80%. In common parlance the two terms are used as synonyms and I would say that a strong case can be made for merging. In the second case, I think climate change is only about 1/3 of the content of climate system. Both topics have separate books written about them and I wouldn't want to merge. What percentage overlap (in secondary sources preferable) are we typically looking for in such a case? My gut says 75%, but I have no experience in this. Femke Nijsse ( talk) 11:37, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Is there a standard template for proposing a merge on the article's talk page? If not, I think one would be helpful for starting discussions. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 21:50, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
This page doesn't talk about the categories at all. Lets say a non notable company is merged to its notable founder's bio. What happens to the category of the company ? This must be clarified in some way. -- ⋙–DBig Xrayᗙ 21:59, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
It seems obvious that {{Merge to|OtherPage}} (figures out 'from' automatically) is better than {{Mergeto<requires more args>}}. So the documentation here should be about the former, not the latter. Consensus? Improvements? -- 50.201.195.170 ( talk) 17:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
Eggishorn
(talk)
(contrib) 22:04, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
{{mergefrom|SOURCEPAGE|discuss=Talk:DESTINATION PAGE#Merger proposal}}
. You want to shorten that to just {{mergefrom|SOURCEPAGE}}
implying that you think specifying |discuss=Talk:DESTINATION PAGE#Merger proposal
is unnecessary. I don't understand why you think that. It is always better to include a link to the discussion if there is one. There should (ideally) be only one discussion, and the same link to the same discussion should be included in both the {{
merge from}} and {{
merge to}} templates. –
wbm1058 (
talk) 15:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
I have made an edit to bypass redirects. Template:Mergefrom redirects to Template:Merge from and Template:Mergeto redirects to Template:Merge to. These were the old names of the templates from over ten years ago. – wbm1058 ( talk) 11:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
"It seems obvious that {{Merge to|OtherPage}} (figures out 'from' automatically) is better than {{Mergeto<requires more args>}}."
— Sorry, no, I still do not understand what you are saying here. –
wbm1058 (
talk) 11:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
As an unregistered user you cannot change Wikipedia:Merging – hence the edit request here – but you should be able to read the source code of the page. Please open the page in read-only mode, then copy the portion(s) you want to change and paste them below. First paste the current source, then below that paste it again and edit the second copy to make the changes you propose so I can (hopefully) understand what you are saying. – wbm1058 ( talk) 11:28, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
{{Merge to|OtherPage}} (figures out 'from' automatically)."
{{Mergeto<requires more args>}}."
I don't follow how "obvious" point 1 connects to the different point 2. – wbm1058 ( talk) 11:16, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
"It seems obvious that
—
{{Merge to|OtherPage}} (figures out 'from' automatically)black is better than {{Mergeto<requires more args>}}white."
Seeing as many approved page mergers don't get completed, explicitly incorporating the {{ Merging}} tag into the process would signal to other users that they can help merge the articles. Where in the process should this step be added? In my opinion, editors should immediately slap {{ Merging}} onto a page in step 4 unless they plan to finish the merger themselves. Qzekrom ( talk) 16:14, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
I've found that when I've proposed articles to be merged, there's not a flurry of people wanting to join in on the discussion. I'm not super happy saying "well there's no discussion so that's consensus by default". So instead I've started promoting the discussion on related project pages. I've started work on a short template for this: {{
merge being discussed}}
. Do you think that promoting the merge discussion (not just to project pages, but to creator's user pages etc) should be a recommended part of the merge process? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Paul Carpenter (
talk •
contribs) 13:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Wkipedia:Merge. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 15#Wkipedia:Merge until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
It's been a while since I've done this, so looking for advice on how to tag articles that are subject to a merge discussion where the proposed destination is a page that does not yet exist. (In this case, a possible merger of Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig into Detention of Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig or similar. Any help is appreciated. TheBlueCanoe 23:27, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Should there be procedures for proposing potentially controversial blank and redirects that are analogous to those for proposing page merges? Mdewman6 ( talk) 18:24, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
The merging policy outlined here offers a thoroughly described and logical procedure for proposing to merge a page's content into another page, allowing editors to tag the pages to notify others involved with the affected pages (via templates) of their intentions and ensure consensus before the discussion is closed and the pages are merged, often by the same editor. However, in many cases, little content is actually merged into the target page, usually because the content of the source page is either already present in the target page ( content fork) or does not fit into the target page; thus in these cases the merge is really a blank and redirect. Nevertheless, there are no analogous procedures for proposing to blank and redirect a page to ensure consensus to do so; the only choices are to be bold, attempt an informal discussion on the talk page without the benefit of tagging the page via an appropriate template to notify other editors, or propose the article for deletion. Given this, many merger proposal discussions are conducted under the merge policy even though the ultimate intention is a blank and redirect, and such edits and resulting redirects are tagged as being the result of a merge, according to the procedures described here, even though little to no content was actually merged.
Therefore, I propose that procedures for proposals to blank and redirect pages be developed analogous to those for merging, including the development of templates for tagging the affected pages (analogous to Template:merge to) and a new redirect template for redirect pages that used to have article content and no content was merged into the redirect target (to use in contrast to Template:R from merge; it's possible that the existing Template:R with history would be appropriate for this purpose). These procedures could be described both here and in an expanded section at WP:BLAR with appropriate links between the two. Of course, the consensus of a blank and redirect discussion might be that some content should actually be merged, and likewise, the outcome of a merger proposal might be to blank and redirect the page. But analogous procedures for blanking and redirecting would better allow editors to describe their proposal, reach consensus, and document what was actually done in the edit history. Mdewman6 ( talk) 22:40, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
{{
rfc}}
tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for
Legobot (
talk ·
contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The RfC may also not be publicised through
WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 13:32, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
I am closing this discussion as recommended above and starting a new discussion below. Mdewman6 ( talk) 22:37, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
The instructions say this should be done but is there not a bot to do it? If not is there an easy way to check which could be explained in the instructions? Chidgk1 ( talk) 18:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
What if the talk pages of two pages need to be merged, for example to centralize discussion, but not the subject pages? What if one or both talk pages have archives? JsfasdF252 ( talk) 00:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
I have found two examples of talk pages for biography articles which need to be merged (two talk pages for one article). In both cases, it looks like the articles had different titles between the time they were created and now.
1) Talk:Diana Pullein-Thompson and Talk:Diana Pullein-Thompson (writer); if you click on the article link attached to the talk page for the one with the writer qualifier, it redirects to the article title without the qualifier; yet there are still two talk pages.
2) Talk:Augustus Lord Soule and Talk:Augustus Soule; similar situation, though in this case, one talk page uses a fuller form of the person's name.
Also, I have a list of talk pages which redirect to different people (usually two different people) and likely need separate talk pages. If anyone can help me with those, I can send that list separately.
Any help to solve these would be appreciated. Is there a documented procedure on how to fix these talk pages? Thank you.-- FeanorStar7 ( talk) 08:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Should there be procedures for proposing potentially controversial blank and redirects that are analogous to those for proposing page merges? Mdewman6 ( talk) 23:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
The merging policy outlined here offers a thoroughly described and logical procedure for proposing to merge a page's content into another page, allowing editors to tag the pages to notify others involved with the affected pages (via templates) of their intentions and ensure consensus before the discussion is closed and the pages are merged, often by the same editor. However, in many cases, little content is actually merged into the target page, usually because the content of the source page is either already present in the target page ( content fork) or does not neatly fit into the target page without substantial editing; thus in these cases the merge is really a blank and redirect. Nevertheless, there are no analogous procedures for proposing to blank and redirect a page to ensure consensus to do so; the only choices are to be bold, attempt an informal discussion on the talk page without the benefit of tagging the page via an appropriate template to notify other editors, propose the article for deletion, or follow the procedures here as if it were a true merge. Given this, many merger proposal discussions are conducted under the merge policy even though the ultimate intention is a blank and redirect, and such edits and resulting redirects are tagged as being the result of a merge, according to the procedures described here, even though little to no content was actually merged. While a blank and redirect is in one respect less substantial of an action than a merge because only one page is affected, in another respect, it is more substantial of an action because the result is that some content will no longer exist anywhere in the encyclopedia.
Therefore, I propose that procedures for proposals to blank and redirect pages be developed analogous to those for merging, including the development of templates for tagging the affected pages (analogous to Template:merge to and Template:merge from) and a new redirect template for redirect pages that used to have article content and no content was merged into the redirect target (to use in contrast to Template:R from merge; it's probable that the existing Template:R with history would be appropriate for this purpose). Tagging the proposed redirect target should occur because that article likely contains internal links and other content about the page to be blanked that would require editing (e.g., to remove self-redirects) and the editors of the target page are likely to have an interest in the discussion. Like a merge discussion, the outcome does not prejudice against further discussion in other appropriate venues, such as WP:AFD or WP:RFD, and the blanked page is not to be considered deleted for the purposes of any policy. (However, it should be clarified where appropriate that a combination of a blank and redirect followed by a RfD discussion is not an appropriate substitute to a discussion at AfD.) Again as with merges, blank and redirects could still occur on a bold basis, subject to reversion on a usual bold-revert-discuss cycle. These procedures could be described both here and in an expanded section at WP:BLAR with appropriate links between the two. Of course, the consensus of a blank and redirect discussion might be that some content should actually be merged, and likewise, the outcome of a merger proposal might be to blank and redirect the page. But analogous procedures for blanking and redirecting would better allow editors to describe their proposal, reach consensus, and document what was actually done in the edit history. Mdewman6 ( talk) 23:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
If a redirection is controversial, however, AfD may be an appropriate venue for discussing the change in addition to the article's talk page.) -- Eddie891 Talk Work 15:45, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Feel free to add to, comment on, add problems you've observed, suggest solutions, or whatever:
The merge backlog has been growing shorter since 2012. It is now less than half (approximately 12+/- months) than it was in 2012 (regularly over 2 1/2 years). This is a big accomplishment, although it seems very slow in the actualization. The problem is man-power. What can we do to get more actors?
These are the major concerns I see at the moment. Suggestions are welcome. GenQuest "scribble" 16:14, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
{{
merge}}
, {{
merge from}}
and {{
merge to}}
together with categories like
Category:Articles to be merged from June 2021 and
Category:All articles to be merged. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 19:18, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
I propose changing the second paragraph to something like the following:
Any editor can perform a merger. No permission or discussion is needed if you think the merge is uncontroversial; just be bold and do it (but it might get reverted). If you think the merger would be controversial consider starting a discussion first as detailed below. Even if a merger is potential controversial it is allowed and often faster to implement the merger first and discuss it on the talk page if anyone objects to or reverts the merger.
This emphasizes that users are free to be bold and implement mergers without prior discussion as long as they are willing to discus if objections are raised.
Current version for reference.
Any editor can perform a merger. No permission or discussion is needed if you think the merge is uncontroversial; just do it (but it might get reverted). Otherwise, the merge should be first proposed and discussed, as detailed below.
Thoughts? -- Trialpears ( talk) 17:59, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
If the need for a merge is obvious, editors can be bold and simply do it, which I think covers the barn-door cases. Klbrain ( talk) 11:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Given comments by Chidgk1, I'll share my recommendation for easy-merge as a helpful script for semi-automated merging; I'm a regular user ... Klbrain ( talk) 11:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
The suggested wording for starting a merger discussion is itself a bit wordy:
I propose to merge [[Foo]] into [[Bar]]. I think that the content in the Foo article can easily be explained in the context of Bar, and the Bar article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Foo will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned.
I would suggest:
I propose merging [[Foo]] into [[Bar]]. I think the content in Foo can easily be explained in the context of Bar, and a merger would not cause any article-size problems in Bar.
Shenrichs ( talk) 21:44, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
@ Crouch, Swale: I reverted your edit on process, where you added a step requiring Wikidata editing as part of the merge process. I can see that this would be helpful, but we have trouble enough getting editors to complete steps 1-7, and so adding an 8th step (and a rather complicated one) is undue. My specific concerns are that:
Klbrain ( talk) 07:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
I propose there be one Wikipedia Info page and this be merged into it. Ilovehugging ( talk) 23:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
I proposed a merger of Differential (infinitesimal) into Differential (mathematics) and created User:Chatul/Sandbox/Differential (Mathematics) as a talking point, with the intention of copying it after making suggested changes. Was that appropriate and how do I solicit comments on the merged version. If that was not appropriate, what is the best way to maintain usability of the to article will doing an extended series of updates? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 00:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
What is the appropriate time to remove the {{ Old merge full}} template from the source talk page? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 15:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
I want to merge Quimbaya artifacts with Quimbaya, but what do I do with Talk:Quimbaya artifacts which I should presumably merge with Talk:Quimbaya? I don't find the explanation clear enough to implement. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 14:47, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
|class=
(or remove it entirely), most WikiProject banners will autodetect it as a redirect. The only one that won't do this is {{
WikiProject Military history}}
which requires an explicit |class=redirect
- even the commonly-used contraction |class=redir
won't work. The advantage to using the autodetect feature is that should the subject page ever be altered from a redirect to an actual content page, the WikiProject banners will spot this and change to Unassessed automatically. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 23:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC) You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Merge reform. {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk 16:58, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Should I redirect Talk:2022 Minnesota’s 1st congressional district special election to Talk:2022 Minnesota's 1st congressional district special election (difference in apostrophe), as the prior article was a duplicate of the latter article, and has been merged? This page isn't very clear about what to do with talk pages of duplicate articles that have been merged. --- CX Zoom(he/him) ( let's talk| contribs) 07:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
![]() | The contents of the Wikipedia:Merging/Archive 3 page were merged into Jimmy Wales on July 2, 2100. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
Regards, GenQuest "scribble" 22:44, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
There is a merge request at Talk:London#Merger proposal which you might want to check. Right now, there doesn't seem to be consensus for the move, but I am hoping with more participants that might change. The discussion only started two days ago. One thing that might help attract more participation is adding a merge notice at London. I added it, but it was repeatedly removed. Should the merge notice be added back since the discussion is still ongoing? Thanks. Vpab15 ( talk) 22:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
There are two sets of articles about the same village: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2453151 and https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q20858800 How can one merge them? -- Bero231 ( talk) 17:24, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
I suggest adding Wikipedia:Semi-duplicate as one of the reasons at WP:MERGEREASON. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 20:31, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Is there such a thing as a tool that can identify identical or substantially similar references? I am merging two articles that were content forked 10 years ago and they both use very similar source material, but my human brain can't spot the redundant sources among the 113 footnotes. Schierbecker ( talk) 02:38, 10 January 2023 (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 | Archive 4 |
"The main reason that the merger backlog includes more than ten thousand articles is because the people who support the merger neglect to undertake this final step. Any editor, including you, is permitted to perform mergers in accordance with consensus. Merging pages does not require intervention from an administrator."
No wonder people "neglect" to undertake the final step: actually performing the merger is way too complicated for the average editor. Can't it be simplified for the zillions of technically-impaired editors? Or at the very least, there should be an example of a simple merging using two pages with fictitious names and proceed to merge them lowly and patiently for most of us to understand...--
Lubiesque (
talk) 02:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
So... "A merger is the process of uniting two or more pages into a single page", but I want to propose taking the contents of 1 article ( The Second Trio) and putting it into two articles ( Moon Beams and How My Heart Sings!). This is because the 1st album is a reissue that combined the others, but there's nothing of note about the reissue. I'm tempted just to convert The Second Trio into a redirect (perhaps picking one of the others at random as the target), but thought it might be better to make an official proposal. So... is moving the contents of 1 article into 2 others a merger? If not, what is it? If so, what's the procedure? EddieHugh ( talk) 00:45, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I didn't conceptualise it as a split, as the same information would go to both articles (in reality, it'll be a short sentence simply stating that the compilation was released). I'll do that and redirect to the compilations section of the BE discography, as that has links to the two original albums. EddieHugh ( talk) 12:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
The instructions say "Check for non-free images (or other files)." but I have no idea how to do that. Could someone edit this article to explain how? Or better could there be a bot to do it for us and do step 3. too? Chidgk1 ( talk) 14:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
|Article=
parameter may need changing. (I'll update the article to add this). Typical images are free, so you only need to bother about articles whose topic is something copyrightable and look for small depictions of that topic (like book covers), or logos, because that cover almost all allowed non-free uses. As for the 3. point, the templates {{
merged-from}} and {{
copied}} are almost never there, while if you just copy the WikiProject templates, someone will eventually fix their parameters anyway.
Tokenzero (
talk) 15:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)I'm contemplating different (proposed) options for merging articles that are quite broad in scope. To be specific, I'm seeking advice pertinent to these two merges:
These four topics are all big enough to easily fill an article encylopedic article. In the first case, I think the overlap is about 70/80%. In common parlance the two terms are used as synonyms and I would say that a strong case can be made for merging. In the second case, I think climate change is only about 1/3 of the content of climate system. Both topics have separate books written about them and I wouldn't want to merge. What percentage overlap (in secondary sources preferable) are we typically looking for in such a case? My gut says 75%, but I have no experience in this. Femke Nijsse ( talk) 11:37, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Is there a standard template for proposing a merge on the article's talk page? If not, I think one would be helpful for starting discussions. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 21:50, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
This page doesn't talk about the categories at all. Lets say a non notable company is merged to its notable founder's bio. What happens to the category of the company ? This must be clarified in some way. -- ⋙–DBig Xrayᗙ 21:59, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
It seems obvious that {{Merge to|OtherPage}} (figures out 'from' automatically) is better than {{Mergeto<requires more args>}}. So the documentation here should be about the former, not the latter. Consensus? Improvements? -- 50.201.195.170 ( talk) 17:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
Eggishorn
(talk)
(contrib) 22:04, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
{{mergefrom|SOURCEPAGE|discuss=Talk:DESTINATION PAGE#Merger proposal}}
. You want to shorten that to just {{mergefrom|SOURCEPAGE}}
implying that you think specifying |discuss=Talk:DESTINATION PAGE#Merger proposal
is unnecessary. I don't understand why you think that. It is always better to include a link to the discussion if there is one. There should (ideally) be only one discussion, and the same link to the same discussion should be included in both the {{
merge from}} and {{
merge to}} templates. –
wbm1058 (
talk) 15:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
I have made an edit to bypass redirects. Template:Mergefrom redirects to Template:Merge from and Template:Mergeto redirects to Template:Merge to. These were the old names of the templates from over ten years ago. – wbm1058 ( talk) 11:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
"It seems obvious that {{Merge to|OtherPage}} (figures out 'from' automatically) is better than {{Mergeto<requires more args>}}."
— Sorry, no, I still do not understand what you are saying here. –
wbm1058 (
talk) 11:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
As an unregistered user you cannot change Wikipedia:Merging – hence the edit request here – but you should be able to read the source code of the page. Please open the page in read-only mode, then copy the portion(s) you want to change and paste them below. First paste the current source, then below that paste it again and edit the second copy to make the changes you propose so I can (hopefully) understand what you are saying. – wbm1058 ( talk) 11:28, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
{{Merge to|OtherPage}} (figures out 'from' automatically)."
{{Mergeto<requires more args>}}."
I don't follow how "obvious" point 1 connects to the different point 2. – wbm1058 ( talk) 11:16, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
"It seems obvious that
—
{{Merge to|OtherPage}} (figures out 'from' automatically)black is better than {{Mergeto<requires more args>}}white."
Seeing as many approved page mergers don't get completed, explicitly incorporating the {{ Merging}} tag into the process would signal to other users that they can help merge the articles. Where in the process should this step be added? In my opinion, editors should immediately slap {{ Merging}} onto a page in step 4 unless they plan to finish the merger themselves. Qzekrom ( talk) 16:14, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
I've found that when I've proposed articles to be merged, there's not a flurry of people wanting to join in on the discussion. I'm not super happy saying "well there's no discussion so that's consensus by default". So instead I've started promoting the discussion on related project pages. I've started work on a short template for this: {{
merge being discussed}}
. Do you think that promoting the merge discussion (not just to project pages, but to creator's user pages etc) should be a recommended part of the merge process? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Paul Carpenter (
talk •
contribs) 13:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Wkipedia:Merge. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 15#Wkipedia:Merge until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
It's been a while since I've done this, so looking for advice on how to tag articles that are subject to a merge discussion where the proposed destination is a page that does not yet exist. (In this case, a possible merger of Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig into Detention of Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig or similar. Any help is appreciated. TheBlueCanoe 23:27, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Should there be procedures for proposing potentially controversial blank and redirects that are analogous to those for proposing page merges? Mdewman6 ( talk) 18:24, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
The merging policy outlined here offers a thoroughly described and logical procedure for proposing to merge a page's content into another page, allowing editors to tag the pages to notify others involved with the affected pages (via templates) of their intentions and ensure consensus before the discussion is closed and the pages are merged, often by the same editor. However, in many cases, little content is actually merged into the target page, usually because the content of the source page is either already present in the target page ( content fork) or does not fit into the target page; thus in these cases the merge is really a blank and redirect. Nevertheless, there are no analogous procedures for proposing to blank and redirect a page to ensure consensus to do so; the only choices are to be bold, attempt an informal discussion on the talk page without the benefit of tagging the page via an appropriate template to notify other editors, or propose the article for deletion. Given this, many merger proposal discussions are conducted under the merge policy even though the ultimate intention is a blank and redirect, and such edits and resulting redirects are tagged as being the result of a merge, according to the procedures described here, even though little to no content was actually merged.
Therefore, I propose that procedures for proposals to blank and redirect pages be developed analogous to those for merging, including the development of templates for tagging the affected pages (analogous to Template:merge to) and a new redirect template for redirect pages that used to have article content and no content was merged into the redirect target (to use in contrast to Template:R from merge; it's possible that the existing Template:R with history would be appropriate for this purpose). These procedures could be described both here and in an expanded section at WP:BLAR with appropriate links between the two. Of course, the consensus of a blank and redirect discussion might be that some content should actually be merged, and likewise, the outcome of a merger proposal might be to blank and redirect the page. But analogous procedures for blanking and redirecting would better allow editors to describe their proposal, reach consensus, and document what was actually done in the edit history. Mdewman6 ( talk) 22:40, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
{{
rfc}}
tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for
Legobot (
talk ·
contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The RfC may also not be publicised through
WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 13:32, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
I am closing this discussion as recommended above and starting a new discussion below. Mdewman6 ( talk) 22:37, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
The instructions say this should be done but is there not a bot to do it? If not is there an easy way to check which could be explained in the instructions? Chidgk1 ( talk) 18:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
What if the talk pages of two pages need to be merged, for example to centralize discussion, but not the subject pages? What if one or both talk pages have archives? JsfasdF252 ( talk) 00:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
I have found two examples of talk pages for biography articles which need to be merged (two talk pages for one article). In both cases, it looks like the articles had different titles between the time they were created and now.
1) Talk:Diana Pullein-Thompson and Talk:Diana Pullein-Thompson (writer); if you click on the article link attached to the talk page for the one with the writer qualifier, it redirects to the article title without the qualifier; yet there are still two talk pages.
2) Talk:Augustus Lord Soule and Talk:Augustus Soule; similar situation, though in this case, one talk page uses a fuller form of the person's name.
Also, I have a list of talk pages which redirect to different people (usually two different people) and likely need separate talk pages. If anyone can help me with those, I can send that list separately.
Any help to solve these would be appreciated. Is there a documented procedure on how to fix these talk pages? Thank you.-- FeanorStar7 ( talk) 08:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Should there be procedures for proposing potentially controversial blank and redirects that are analogous to those for proposing page merges? Mdewman6 ( talk) 23:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
The merging policy outlined here offers a thoroughly described and logical procedure for proposing to merge a page's content into another page, allowing editors to tag the pages to notify others involved with the affected pages (via templates) of their intentions and ensure consensus before the discussion is closed and the pages are merged, often by the same editor. However, in many cases, little content is actually merged into the target page, usually because the content of the source page is either already present in the target page ( content fork) or does not neatly fit into the target page without substantial editing; thus in these cases the merge is really a blank and redirect. Nevertheless, there are no analogous procedures for proposing to blank and redirect a page to ensure consensus to do so; the only choices are to be bold, attempt an informal discussion on the talk page without the benefit of tagging the page via an appropriate template to notify other editors, propose the article for deletion, or follow the procedures here as if it were a true merge. Given this, many merger proposal discussions are conducted under the merge policy even though the ultimate intention is a blank and redirect, and such edits and resulting redirects are tagged as being the result of a merge, according to the procedures described here, even though little to no content was actually merged. While a blank and redirect is in one respect less substantial of an action than a merge because only one page is affected, in another respect, it is more substantial of an action because the result is that some content will no longer exist anywhere in the encyclopedia.
Therefore, I propose that procedures for proposals to blank and redirect pages be developed analogous to those for merging, including the development of templates for tagging the affected pages (analogous to Template:merge to and Template:merge from) and a new redirect template for redirect pages that used to have article content and no content was merged into the redirect target (to use in contrast to Template:R from merge; it's probable that the existing Template:R with history would be appropriate for this purpose). Tagging the proposed redirect target should occur because that article likely contains internal links and other content about the page to be blanked that would require editing (e.g., to remove self-redirects) and the editors of the target page are likely to have an interest in the discussion. Like a merge discussion, the outcome does not prejudice against further discussion in other appropriate venues, such as WP:AFD or WP:RFD, and the blanked page is not to be considered deleted for the purposes of any policy. (However, it should be clarified where appropriate that a combination of a blank and redirect followed by a RfD discussion is not an appropriate substitute to a discussion at AfD.) Again as with merges, blank and redirects could still occur on a bold basis, subject to reversion on a usual bold-revert-discuss cycle. These procedures could be described both here and in an expanded section at WP:BLAR with appropriate links between the two. Of course, the consensus of a blank and redirect discussion might be that some content should actually be merged, and likewise, the outcome of a merger proposal might be to blank and redirect the page. But analogous procedures for blanking and redirecting would better allow editors to describe their proposal, reach consensus, and document what was actually done in the edit history. Mdewman6 ( talk) 23:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
If a redirection is controversial, however, AfD may be an appropriate venue for discussing the change in addition to the article's talk page.) -- Eddie891 Talk Work 15:45, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Feel free to add to, comment on, add problems you've observed, suggest solutions, or whatever:
The merge backlog has been growing shorter since 2012. It is now less than half (approximately 12+/- months) than it was in 2012 (regularly over 2 1/2 years). This is a big accomplishment, although it seems very slow in the actualization. The problem is man-power. What can we do to get more actors?
These are the major concerns I see at the moment. Suggestions are welcome. GenQuest "scribble" 16:14, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
{{
merge}}
, {{
merge from}}
and {{
merge to}}
together with categories like
Category:Articles to be merged from June 2021 and
Category:All articles to be merged. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 19:18, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
I propose changing the second paragraph to something like the following:
Any editor can perform a merger. No permission or discussion is needed if you think the merge is uncontroversial; just be bold and do it (but it might get reverted). If you think the merger would be controversial consider starting a discussion first as detailed below. Even if a merger is potential controversial it is allowed and often faster to implement the merger first and discuss it on the talk page if anyone objects to or reverts the merger.
This emphasizes that users are free to be bold and implement mergers without prior discussion as long as they are willing to discus if objections are raised.
Current version for reference.
Any editor can perform a merger. No permission or discussion is needed if you think the merge is uncontroversial; just do it (but it might get reverted). Otherwise, the merge should be first proposed and discussed, as detailed below.
Thoughts? -- Trialpears ( talk) 17:59, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
If the need for a merge is obvious, editors can be bold and simply do it, which I think covers the barn-door cases. Klbrain ( talk) 11:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Given comments by Chidgk1, I'll share my recommendation for easy-merge as a helpful script for semi-automated merging; I'm a regular user ... Klbrain ( talk) 11:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
The suggested wording for starting a merger discussion is itself a bit wordy:
I propose to merge [[Foo]] into [[Bar]]. I think that the content in the Foo article can easily be explained in the context of Bar, and the Bar article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Foo will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned.
I would suggest:
I propose merging [[Foo]] into [[Bar]]. I think the content in Foo can easily be explained in the context of Bar, and a merger would not cause any article-size problems in Bar.
Shenrichs ( talk) 21:44, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
@ Crouch, Swale: I reverted your edit on process, where you added a step requiring Wikidata editing as part of the merge process. I can see that this would be helpful, but we have trouble enough getting editors to complete steps 1-7, and so adding an 8th step (and a rather complicated one) is undue. My specific concerns are that:
Klbrain ( talk) 07:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
I propose there be one Wikipedia Info page and this be merged into it. Ilovehugging ( talk) 23:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
I proposed a merger of Differential (infinitesimal) into Differential (mathematics) and created User:Chatul/Sandbox/Differential (Mathematics) as a talking point, with the intention of copying it after making suggested changes. Was that appropriate and how do I solicit comments on the merged version. If that was not appropriate, what is the best way to maintain usability of the to article will doing an extended series of updates? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 00:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
What is the appropriate time to remove the {{ Old merge full}} template from the source talk page? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 15:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
I want to merge Quimbaya artifacts with Quimbaya, but what do I do with Talk:Quimbaya artifacts which I should presumably merge with Talk:Quimbaya? I don't find the explanation clear enough to implement. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 14:47, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
|class=
(or remove it entirely), most WikiProject banners will autodetect it as a redirect. The only one that won't do this is {{
WikiProject Military history}}
which requires an explicit |class=redirect
- even the commonly-used contraction |class=redir
won't work. The advantage to using the autodetect feature is that should the subject page ever be altered from a redirect to an actual content page, the WikiProject banners will spot this and change to Unassessed automatically. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 23:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC) You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Merge reform. {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk 16:58, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Should I redirect Talk:2022 Minnesota’s 1st congressional district special election to Talk:2022 Minnesota's 1st congressional district special election (difference in apostrophe), as the prior article was a duplicate of the latter article, and has been merged? This page isn't very clear about what to do with talk pages of duplicate articles that have been merged. --- CX Zoom(he/him) ( let's talk| contribs) 07:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
![]() | The contents of the Wikipedia:Merging/Archive 3 page were merged into Jimmy Wales on July 2, 2100. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
Regards, GenQuest "scribble" 22:44, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
There is a merge request at Talk:London#Merger proposal which you might want to check. Right now, there doesn't seem to be consensus for the move, but I am hoping with more participants that might change. The discussion only started two days ago. One thing that might help attract more participation is adding a merge notice at London. I added it, but it was repeatedly removed. Should the merge notice be added back since the discussion is still ongoing? Thanks. Vpab15 ( talk) 22:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
There are two sets of articles about the same village: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2453151 and https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q20858800 How can one merge them? -- Bero231 ( talk) 17:24, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
I suggest adding Wikipedia:Semi-duplicate as one of the reasons at WP:MERGEREASON. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 20:31, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Is there such a thing as a tool that can identify identical or substantially similar references? I am merging two articles that were content forked 10 years ago and they both use very similar source material, but my human brain can't spot the redundant sources among the 113 footnotes. Schierbecker ( talk) 02:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC)