Wikipedia talk:Proposed article mergers

A discussion at the village pump in 2013 overwhelmingly concluded the current proposed mergers system (the process & templates) to be inadequate. A consequent discussion on implementation of an automated system similar to requested moves was archived after 2 months of inactivity. The latter discussion had 6 participants; no conclusion was reached.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Proposed article mergers page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4

Log pages

Using the log subpages to locate merge discussion backlog, I noticed that the pages have not been renamed with the parent page, i. e. they are still at WP:Proposed mergers/Log. Since they are populated by a bot, there might be a reason for keeping them there, but it seems odd to have subpages of a redirect containing the merger logs. (In fact, I find the location as subpages of a procedural page that was never used to propose their mergers a bit strange in the first place). Felix QW (talk) 10:21, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's neat. GenQuest ^"scribble" 18:14, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Time period

Shouldn't merge discussions be open atleast 7 days (and some listed here have lasted much more than that), like other processes on Wikipedia (WP:RM, WP:XFD) ? I've noticed a few mergers lately that were closed without WP:SNOW-justification-mentioned in less than 3 days, even with a no-consensus closure. -- 65.92.244.114 (talk) 22:19, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and rename at the same time?

I don't see a section where one would want to merge and rename the article to reflect the merger.

Example: Dramatic structure and Narrative structure are under different articles, but I think the name should be changed to Story Structure when merged. Wikipedia policy to merge to move to new article is not clear.--KimYunmi (talk) 14:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@KimYunmi: You can suggest a new name when you propose the merger. Richard3120 (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KimYunmi I will take the best developed article and rename (move) it to the desired article name, then merge the other(s) into it. Or merge the two and then rename the resultant article, as Richard says above. GenQuest ^"scribble" 20:51, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. No one babysits either article that much, so I doubt there will be much resistance. I posted the request. But I also think it would be useful to add such an item to this article? Is that sort of item not supposed to be in this article? KimYunmi (talk) 00:02, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Closure requests#Talk:Invincible ignorance (Catholic theology)#Proposed merge of Invincible error into Invincible ignorance (Catholic theology)

Moved to Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers § Awaiting Consensus

– by GenQuest in Special:Diff/1144452360. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 22:52, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and hope you're well! Just letting anyone watching this talk that proposer has requested closure of a merge discussion at Wikipedia:Closure requests#Talk:Invincible ignorance (Catholic theology)#Proposed merge of Invincible error into Invincible ignorance (Catholic theology). The merge discussion has not been unanimous, so I and others involved prefer someone uninvolved do the closing. That way, we can move onto the next steps for the articles. I understand that there's a backlog for merges, so I would appreciate any help provided. Thank you, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 20:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Simpler organization

Would there be a simpler way to organize these? I.e., use article alerts to compile all active merge requests and then just have a section to help list the requests that haven't been picked up by the bot? I imagine that would be easier to maintain. czar 21:40, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Merge/Article alerts should be populating shortly czar 22:05, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, GenQuest ^"scribble"

Proposed merger of incels.is into incel

Hello, per point 3 of WP:PM, I am notifying this project of the merge discussion at Talk:Incel. This is based on a just recently closed AfD (see page of incels.is). The AfD closed with a consensus to merge, but since that consensus, I have increased the incels.is article a lot in sourcing and content though, so a merge may now not be necessary. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:48EA:35CE:A536:B342 (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the wrong page for that notice. I will copy to the noticeboard talk page. Regards, GenQuest ^"scribble" 18:15, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done Resolved by interested parties. GenQuest ^"scribble"

Any volunteer(s)?

Non-article mergers

Is it really the best option to limit this page to article (mainspace) mergers? It seems to me that something like a merge of sections between policies and guidelines would be of more interest to more editors than merges between two articles on related military units, or a school page into a school district one. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:09, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional category for clarity?

Hey there, I was wondering about adding an intermediate category on the page for articles where a merger has been approved after closure of the discussion, but the merge has not been performed yet. Like this we could move pages from "awaiting consensus", then have them sit in this category while they're being merged (that could be named "Merger approved and pending" or something else), and then move them to "answered requests" once the pages have been merged. Would that make sense? I know personally I would find the page easier to navigate this way. Choucas Bleu (T·C) 12:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, while I'm at it, I notice that among the new requests there are quite a lot of them that seem to be "type 1" (uncontroversial and obviously necessary), often from IPs (but not always). What should we do with those? Is it really worth it setting up discussions, putting up the banners, and moving them to "awaiting consensus"? Should we just move them to "answered requests" (or the new proposed category) and flag the pages to be merged? Should we flag the pages but just delete the request? Choucas Bleu (T·C) 14:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Choucas Bleu See MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers/Holding cell. rootsmusic (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers/Holding cell

Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers/Holding cell, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers/Holding cell and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers/Holding cell during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Nickps (talk) 12:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

protocol for simultaneously proposed page handling of an article

Since I can't find Wikipedia's protocol for proposed actions, I'm asking about how simultaneously proposed page handling are handled. (But the Talk page, where I'm asking, has been dead quiet since 2020.) rootsmusic (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New requests section getting clogged up

The list of new merger requests is getting clogged up, with the backlog dating back to this past January. Something should definitely be done to speed up the process. 100.7.34.111 (talk) 20:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Completed request

The request "Merge Red (slur) into Red (disambiguation)" was done on Sep 20. I can't find any instructions for how to handle entries on this list. Can someone either direct me to the instructions or handle this? Thanks, Dan Bloch (talk) 18:07, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]