Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Merge/Archive 3

Articles to be merged <10,000

It was great to see the count at 9,999 and heading down! Not that that can be guaranteed to last ...Klbrain (talk) 17:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Now it's at 8,999! --NickPenguin_(contribs) 02:31, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Backlog now down to 3 years. I note that the target aims to reduce the backlog from 3.5 years down "to a point where all merge proposals are dealt with within a reasonable time period" - this does raise the question of what the upper limit of reasonable is. Is there any argument for keeping a merge proposal for longer than 2 years? Klbrain (talk) 15:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Longer then two years? No—I think a reasonable time period would be, at most, six months. Personally, I think we should continue until the backlog is one month long. —MartinZ02 (talk) 15:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

If there is no discussion and I don't know much about the topic, I usually do not remove the merge templates. Rather, I try to find interested editors. I have personally observed 3+ year old proposals in multiple cases and yet the proposals were quite accurate. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Lemongirl942 that there are many 2+ year old proposals (and formerly 3+ year old proposals) that are/were very good proposal, yet had no discussion. This question is whether someone (including us) should "try to find interested editors" at the, say six months mark (MartinZ02's suggestion), year mark, 2 year mark, or whatever? I suppose my position for now is that such a drive can/should occur earlier than 3 years. Klbrain (talk) 09:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, please do not remove merge banners just because there has been no action or discussion. Merge banners are helpful to readers as well as editors. For undiscussed proposals, I evaluate the proposal and boldly merge, remove the banners and give a justification on the proposed merge target talk page or, if I do not have enough knowledge on the topic/proposal, leave it for someone else. ~Kvng (talk) 16:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Definitely leave old merge banners up. When I look for things to merge, I go to the oldest ones first and do them. Sophie means wisdom (talk) 18:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

6999 spotted; I like the direction of travel. Klbrain (talk) 11:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

5997 Klbrain (talk) 13:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

School merges

Just in case you too were surprised by the sudden appearance of a tail of old merge proposal, the discussion at Template talk:Merge school#Can anyone help? will add some context. So, a change on Template:Merge school. Klbrain (talk) 21:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Merging Wrigley Field ivy into Wrigley Field

The consensus agreed to merge Wrigley Field ivy into Wrigley Field. However, I could not perform the merger, so I would like assistance please. Thank you. --George Ho (talk) 23:36, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Help desk question

This question was asked and the response was that a history merge was appropriate. Should that be done?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

The page log for the target article (here) suggests that a history merge had been done on July 2. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:38, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Non-article merge

Can you merge two wikiprojects, namely Wikipedia:WikiProject Anti-Stub and Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub improvement? Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 08:46, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikiproject antistub can be taken to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion since it only has one member, who stopped editing nearly a year ago. Sophie means wisdom (talk) 09:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it used to have more members, do we delete WikiProjects? Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 10:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I've seen wikiprojects merged. I haven't yet seen one deleted - they are usually marked as inactive instead. It looks like a merge would be appropriate here but I think that should be handled by participants in the affected projects not by project merge. ~Kvng (talk) 13:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Assistance needed

Please see Talk:Matt Lauer regarding the AfD close to merge the spin-off article to the appropriate section in the main article per recent AfD close, presuming WP:Proposed_mergers#Requests_for_merge_assistance_and_feedback is the proper guideline to follow, unless there is another appropriate policy. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Revert merging of individual ships articles to Veer-class corvette

Could somebody have a look at the discussion on this article's talk page and advise how best to proceed. A merge was carried out about 10 months ago after tagging the articles and a merge discussion on the target page however relevant projects were not notified and only one other editor commented agreeing with the proposer. When I discovered this a short while ago I asked at WP:SHIPS for comments. Subsequently, including myself 4 editors objected to the merge (one partially) and only the two original editors supported it so we have no consensus for undoing the merge but conversely there would have been no consensus to make the merge initially if projects were notified. Maybe an uninvolved editor with knowledge and experience of merging can resolve our deadlock Lyndaship (talk) 07:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Need more eyes

Hello merge experts. Please have a look at this new thread regarding how to go about with articles in the series:

• Special:PrefixIndex/Water supply and sanitation in...
• Special:PrefixIndex/Water resources management in...
• Special:PrefixIndex/Irrigation in...

The related WikiProjects have limited eyes, hence your input on those is much welcomed. (Your help in posting this in any other relevant place is also appreciated!) Thank you, Rehman 04:26, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Include items to be merged‎ from non article namespace in mergers by month categories

I propose that all new pages outside the article namespace are placed in the normal "Articles to be merged from [month year]" categories instead of the current Category:Items to be merged‎. Many of the items here are finished encyclopedic draft articles that people wanted to move into the article namespace. These drafts really should get the same attention as article mergers since they contain the same type of content as them. Another major type of content in the category are Wikipedia essays and MOS pages to be merged which also should be discussed and not hidden in a rarely visited category.

I do not suggest that we put the articles currently in Category:Items to be merged since this would be a waste of time, but including future articles in the main categories would only serve to cut down the wait time for new non-article mergers which currently has a backlog of around a decade.Trialpears (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to reduce incomplete merge proposals

A lot of the oldest merger proposals in the backlog are there due to no discussion having occured. This can happen under a lot of different circumstances, but one of the most common reasons, in my experience, is improper merge tags and non-exsistant discussion section. By making sure that all articles tagged for mergers have templates at both the destination and origin pages and working discussion section links I believe we could significantly reduce the amount of stale merger proposals.

To deal with these issues I suggest that we request a bot to discover these problems by finding pages where the tag doesn't link to a talk page section or places where only one of the involved pages have a merger tag. These pages would, at least originally, be added to a list that I and other people in the WikiProject could efficently solve the problems. In the future, when the bot has proven it's competency, this process could possibly be fully automated, however I do not have any qualifications to determine if that is feasible.

What do you think about this? I feel like the backlog problem is not limited to not only a lack of people performing the mergers, but also by too few participants in merger discussions and that this proposal could really help improve discussion participation. Trialpears 12:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

That may work. We would need some tech guys' insights to determine for sure. Also, if there is no opposition indicated to the merge proposals, I will usually just merge the things, IF merging makes sense. If anyone doesn't like it at that point, they can be reverted and a discussion will finally take place. Most BOLD mergers, in my experience, are not reverted. Regards, GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 16:02, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

My Merge bot has taken some steps in this direction. Problem is that I have too many ongoing projects so improvements to that bot have mostly taken the back burner. The bot currently reports some issues to its console, which only I can read, and I only occasionally work through the issues that my bot reports to me. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:02, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Wonderful. I just noticed the page history of Talk:Undefined. Apparently a Twinkle bug is responsible. I noticed this because of this malformed tag that my bot reported to its console. I'm not a WP:Twinkle user, so not familiar with this application, but fixing the bug will help a bit. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:41, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Good news! Apparently this issue was finally reported after the last incident on March 10, and it was quickly fixed! – wbm1058 (talk) 01:42, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

The merge bot idea is a sensible idea: specifically, the proposal to ensure that templates on both pages are present. Sometimes, though, it's the result of the merge template being removed on one page, but not on the other. That is, someone who opposes a merge (sometimes with good reasons) imperfectly closes a proposal. So, I tend to check the history of a page without a template in order to determine whether a template has been present in the past. The edit summary can sometimes contain the case for opposition to the merge, which may help to decide whether to properly close the proposal (rather than replacing the template). That would be difficult for a bot to spot. There is also the case of one template placed, no discussion started and stale proposal; my view is that template would be better deleted (no case made) than creating more work for those having to consider other properly-formed merge proposal.

Regarding being WP:BOLD when there is no discussion at all (that is, no case made and no subsequent discussion); my view is that when the case isn't obvious then the proposal should be closed without merging. This is the policy in Wikipedia:WikiProject Merge#Listing and Delisting. So, if the case is obvious I'll boldly merge; if there could conceivably be an objection, then I'll delist. Klbrain (talk) 07:52, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I personally believe that the language used in that section is way to prescriptive saying that mergers older than 1 year "should be immediately delisted" if they fulfill any of the criteria in the list. All mergers I've seen going through the regular backlog has been made in good faith and almost always been easy to find a sensible reason to propose the merger, dismissing these mergers out of hand would in many cases be inappropriate since the merger could potentially be beneficial to the project. This project, although primarily working with the backlog, do not have as a primary goal to empty the merger category, but to improve the project as a whole. There is no need to hurry and we are already slowly reducing the backlog without removing lots of mergers because of their age or formatting problems. Regarding the bold merger part I would say that it should only be done if you expect it to completly uncontroversial since unmerging also requires significant efforts if edits have happend after the merger. I do however believe merging with very few participants or even with just a rationale could be done if it has been appropriately tagged for a longer time is appropriate.

Getting back on topic: @Wbm1058: this list sounds very promising! What can it currently do? Having an automatically updating list with various problems, primarily only one merge tag being present and discussion field of the template not being filled in manually. Further steps could include automatically putting the corresponding template on the other page for new mergers (where we would know it couldn't have been deleted since it's brand new); informing proposers that don't give any merge reason by putting a template on talk pages of users who didn't edit any of the articles talk pages close to the time they placed a merge tag; and automatically linking to the discussion for pages where a section with the word merge in the name was created the same day as the tag was placed. Do these suggestion seem feasible and appropriate to you as a bot operator or is it too much WP:CONTEXTBOT?Trialpears 17:41, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

What I've done in the past few days:

• I've increased the run frequency of Merge bot so it now runs twice daily (every 12 hours). Previously it ran every 24 hours.
• fixed Epistemics – this was caused by the Twinkle bug discussed above
• Template:Merge-into was added to the alias parade of redirects to Template:Merge to in June 2017. Now there are 16. I updated the bot code to recognize it. I need to update the code every time someone adds another redirect, because the bot doesn't automatically follow redirects.
• I removed "Articles to be merged" categorization from the new Template:Section move from, which was boldly created last September. In November 2018, the new category tree Category:Articles to have a section moved (Category:All articles to have a section moved) was created... this is a sort of hybrid of splitting and merging. I don't want to further complicate Project Merge by adding such processes.
• I resolved two articles which were tagged for merging into themselves (internal merging of some sort): List of religious titles and styles and Armor Alley. There are two of these remaining: Recycling and Byzacena.
• I removed redundant pipes from eight merge tags (example). A couple of these were in conjunction with other issues listed here. My bot flags these with "Pagename not specified" (a syntax error)
• My bot reports merge tags where a page is blank or doesn't exist. I fixed a dozen of these, which have a number of different causes ("users will find a way"):
  • Zero-fuel weight (the target EZFW was deleted)
  • Khomasdal (the target Windhoek North was deleted)
  • Zimbabwean bond notes (fixed the merge parameters; it was suggested that this article be merged with Zimbabwean bond coins to Zimbabwean bond currency.)
  • Grand Pacific Junction (fixed a typo in the target name)
  • None of the above (India) (revert a bad edit – possibly vandalism, or a defacto request for move)
  • Hà Nội B F.C. (content was not removed when the page was redirected)
  • Deathstalker (novel) (target Deathstalker Prelude is a red link, so nothing to merge to; a defacto request for move?)
  • Light (web browser) (bad syntax; fixed the talk parameter)
  • Caspian roach (removed a bad parameter)
  • Chokusen wakashū (fixed a typo in a parameter name)
  • Six Flags Great Escape Theme Park & Lodge (URL-encoded characters don't work here) Storytown, Ghosttown and Jungleland when I was a kid
  • Secretoneurin (I created the redirect Secretogranin II)
• I added a discuss link on Torches of Freedom. This is one that was flagged with "Pagename not specified" because of the double pipes. I need to add code that reports tags with no discussion links, and possibly searches for existing but unlinked discussions. On my to-do list.

More to come... wbm1058 (talk) 16:26, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

• My bot also reports pages when the article proposed merge redirects to the same page, indicating that the merge was likely completed without removing the merge template. Template removal for these cases might be automated, but best there should be followup as in some cases additional edits need to be made, and maybe even the page moved (as in the case of Ksenia Tikhonenko). I did 14 of these:
  • Fidel Amado Pérez
  • Osarenoma Igbinovia
  • Balligavi
  • COSAFA Cup
  • Shekaripuram
  • Porphy no Nagai Tabi
  • Swainson Akroyd
  • Ksenia Tikhonenko
  • 456th Bombardment Squadron
  • 860th Bombardment Squadron
  • Granville (band)
  • Most Haunted
  • FindBugs
  • Reston virus

More to come... wbm1058 (talk) 20:35, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

• I have decided to manually look for these issues in all new merger proposals in the coming month and document them to quantify the size of the problem. I have also made the template {{Uw-mergerationale}} to notify users who didn't leave a merge rationale. Trialpears (talk) 19:48, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

  You probably shouldn't spend too much time manually doing something a bot could do ;) I could start a "malformed merge proposals" report that updates each time the bot runs, and shares this information with others besides myself. wbm1058 (talk) 20:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

That would be great! Thanks for all the fixes you have already done and developing this great bot! Trialpears (talk) 20:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Continued in the next section... wbm1058 (talk) 21:36, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Pages with multiple proposal dates

My bot also reports when two merge tags are on the same page. Sometimes competing proposals. This is something that the RMCD bot doesn't support; there can only be one active RM discussion at a time. If you want to request a move of A to C, you need to wait for the request to move A to B to close first, or suggest it as an alternative in the existing discussion. I'm not sure how gracefully my bot handles these.

   [0] => Debt levels and flows
   [1] => Fault tolerance
   [2] => Stevie Ray Vaughan discography
   [3] => Customer attrition
   [4] => Customer retention
   [5] => Barbara Hoyt
   [6] => Steroidogenic acute regulatory protein
   [7] => Kaecilius
   [8] => Historical orders, decorations, and medals of France
   [9] => Orders, decorations, and medals of France
   [10] => Rotating savings and credit association
   [11] => Yeshivish
   [12] => Czarnica
   [13] => Męciny

Isn't THAT cute? About time we caught it! wbm1058 (talk) 22:08, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Pages where reasons are given in the template

Something else I've noticed. There are currently 18 pages where a rationale is given as (an unsupported) parameter in the merge template. Maybe we should start supporting this parameter? As a rationale for a "speedy merge" when the need is obvious, as more convenient than taking the time to open a discussion section on the talk page. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:41, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

   [0] => Chinsurah …… Same topic, was originally a redirect, turned into an article by a now-blocked user
   [1] => Hugli-Chuchura …… Chinsurah is about the same topic, was originally a redirect, turned into an article by a now-blocked user
   [2] => Live from Baghdad …… Unless this article grows immensely, the film and book can be covered on the same page. As this is the page without disambiguation, the content should be merged here, despite the other article being more extensive
   [3] => Double Dare (UK game show) …… Not notable enough for its own article, it goes unmentioned on inspiration's page
   [4] => Fairchild Dornier 328JET …… the 428JET is a 328JET stretch, not a new type
   [5] => MLA Handbook …… The MLA Handbook is just an abridged version of the MLA Style Manual, for students.
   [6] => MLA Style Manual …… The MLA Handbook is just an abridged version of the MLA Style Manual, for students.
   [7] => We …… much of this section is not found in "main"
   [8] => Milagro (votive) …… comment=This is simply a local name for an ex-voto
   [9] => Tama (votive) …… comment=Just the local name for an ex-voto
   [10] => Creolistics …… duplication
   [11] => Afghan Hound …… WP:CONTENTFORK.
   [12] => Business aircraft …… Business jets are a subset of Business aircraft
   [13] => Beechcraft Premier I …… undeveloped Premier I variant
   [14] => Pagination …… the lead of page numbering indicated these are the same topic: "process of applying a sequence of numbers (or letters, or roman numerals) to the pages of a book or other document"
   [15] => Rupnarainpur …… Same topic
   [16] => Rupnarayanpur …… Rupnarainpur is about the same topic
   [17] => Uttara Kosala …… Both articles seem to cover the exact same topic

YES!!! GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 15:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Assessment categories nominated for deletion

Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 May 17#Category:Merge articles by quality. – Fayenatic London 08:41, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Automation question

Would it be a good thing to make the whole process more automated, as is done with move proposals? In moves proposals, a user adds Template:Requested move to the talk page, and bots handle the tagging of the relevant pages. To me, this would eliminate a lot of the issues discussed in the previous section. - BilCat (talk) 20:05, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

This has been suggested before and failed, for example at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Merge/Archive 2#Automation of merge proposals. I am personally in favor of it and if enough people want it I would be all for a new discussion, this time it could also be advertised through WP:RfC to increase participation. Trialpears (talk) 20:23, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I haven't been following this page for very long, but I participate in many merge discussions, so I'm familiar with how it works, and doesn't. :) - BilCat (talk) 20:26, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

There have been several requests to make merge discussions "more like requested moves" over the years. See User talk:wbm1058#Wikipedia "Merge" like WP:RM or WP:AFD. Activity at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers seems to have picked up recently. At WP:RM the automated process evolved by automating the existing manual process. Indeed, when the previous bot operator abandoned the project, editors were able to manually keep the existing RM process going for over a month, which bought me time to learn enough PHP and figure out everything else I needed to do to get my replacement bot up and running. The mergers process evolved in a significantly different manner, so automating it to be "more like RM" would potentially disruptively make some more radical changes in procedures. As I've enhanced the Merge bot, I've noticed the backlog steadily decreasing, so I think I'm on the right track with making more incremental enhancements. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the explanation. - BilCat (talk) 21:17, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Merge templates on talk pages

So, continuing my reporting that I started in the last section. Probably the most commonly-occuring issue is with editors misplacing merge templates on talk pages. Sometimes these are redundant to the tags on the articles, sometimes not. Many of these I move from the talk page to the article. I've been hesitant to update the templates to make this a "hard {{error}}". I read this as the editors telling us something. So, evolving in the direction of requested moves is something I haven't ruled out, and still thinking about how to do that. In the meantime I keep periodically cleaning these up. I recently finished working through these:

   [0] => Talk:Bridge (exercise)
   [1] => Talk:Bridge (grappling)
   [2] => Talk:Jonathan Freedland
   [3] => Talk:Binary plan
   [4] => Talk:Burghead
   [5] => Talk:Burning of the Clavie
   [6] => Talk:Public space protection order
   [7] => Talk:Tambov Rebellion
   [8] => Talk:Union of Working Peasants
   [9] => Talk:The Loud House/Archive 1
   [10] => Talk:2018 German government crisis
   [11] => Talk:Fourth Merkel cabinet
   [12] => Talk:Minsk II
   [13] => Talk:Minsk Protocol
   [14] => Talk:Ring name
   [15] => Talk:Stage name
   [16] => Talk:Free body diagram
   [17] => Talk:Kinetic diagram
   [18] => Talk:Lotuko language
   [19] => Talk:Lotuko mythology
   [20] => Talk:Magic (Radio)
   [21] => Talk:Otuho people
   [22] => Talk:Modern architecture
   [23] => Talk:Cold-fX
   [24] => Talk:Delhi Mumbai Expressway
   [25] => Talk:Equisetidae
   [26] => Talk:Equisetopsida
   [27] => Talk:Flag of Palestine
   [28] => Talk:Flag of the Ba'ath Party
   [29] => Talk:John R. Rodman Arboretum
   [30] => Talk:Local Court of the Northern Territory
   [31] => Talk:Lycopodiidae
   [32] => Talk:Lycopodiophyta
   [33] => Talk:Lycopodiopsida
   [34] => Talk:Magistrates court (Northern Territory)
   [35] => Talk:Monster Mash & Battleship
   [36] => Talk:Mumbai Vadodara Expressway
   [37] => Talk:Ophioglossidae
   [38] => Talk:Pitzer College
   [39] => Talk:Psilotopsida
   [40] => Talk:Solent
   [41] => Talk:South Hampshire
   [42] => Talk:5G Evolution
   [43] => Talk:Business aircraft
   [44] => Talk:Fisker Inc.
   [45] => Talk:Bill Price
   [46] => Talk:Walcot, Oxfordshire
   [47] => Talk:William Price
   [48] => Talk:Belgium
   [49] => Talk:Chancellor of Germany
   [50] => Talk:Chancellor of Germany (German Empire)
   [51] => Talk:Chancellor of Germany (Weimar Republic)
   [52] => Talk:Czech Republic/Archive 7
   [53] => Talk:Czechia
   [54] => Talk:Denmark/Archive 4
   [55] => Talk:DIY ethic
   [56] => Talk:Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
   [57] => Talk:Kingdom of Belgium
   [58] => Talk:Kingdom of Denmark
   [59] => Talk:Kingdom of Norway
   [60] => Talk:Norway/Archive 9
   [61] => Talk:Pigmented villonodular synovitis
   [62] => Talk:Serbia and Montenegro/Archive 3
   [63] => Talk:Swiss Confederation
   [64] => Talk:Switzerland
   [65] => Talk:V774104

Some of them seem to have been trolling (proposals to merge talk pages, not articles, which is out-of-scope), but most of these edits were made in good faith. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:36, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Weird, I recently removed all talk pages in Category:Items to be merged. Why wasn't these included there? My suggestion on how to deal with them is moving them and making a template to notify users accidentally doing this. Trialpears (talk) 21:49, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

So, looking at the first item on this list, it was populating the Hidden categories: Articles to be merged from April 2018 and All articles to be merged, but not Category:Items to be merged... populated by {{merge}} – wbm1058 (talk) 22:23, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

It's probably just as well that it works this way, because I don't think my bot would notice the problem and report it if these only populated Category:Items to be merged. My bot currently pretty much ignores that category. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:28, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I think it might as well be removed, especially if it's only populated by one of the templates. It should be possible to reduce it to about 25 items in the coming month and then edit the template to stop populating the category, fixing the last few items manually. This would also attract more attention to Wikipedia namespace mergers. Trialpears (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

There was a Template:Merge discussion, which was deleted in 2012 (discussion). Perhaps the lack of a template designed for use on talk pages causes some editors to sometimes misplace the article tags on talk. This is what the template looked like (look familiar?) It had code obviously copied from the RM template, including the that isn't used on Project Merge:

Edit request to merge templates

I have made an edit request to the merge templates to add a nocat options, which would enable more convenient clean up of Category:Items to be merged. There has been a request to gather consensus for this change and I encourage you to comment on this proposal. Trialpears (talk) 16:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Process for merging WikProjects themselves?

Hello, There's talk about possibly merging WP:MCB + WP:GEN + WP:BIOP + WP:COMBIO → WWP:GMCB. I've a few questions about how to best go about doing so that I asked over at T:ikiProject_Council before I'd come across this page. Any ideas appreciated! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 11:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Sea Merger Proposal

I'm not sure where to go to relist a merger proposal, so I'm coming here. I'd like to see some more eyes on the proposal to merge World Ocean to Sea, given that the latter is a FA and level 2 vital article. - Sdkb (talk) 07:10, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

The best yield for subject experts is usually by posting on the relevant Wikiproject talk page, at least where those are active ... It looks like there are 3 relevant projects there. Klbrain (talk) 08:51, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try that. - Sdkb (talk) 04:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Seeking Comment on Merged Company

I invite editors to participate in a request for comment on Talk:Burson-Marsteller. I am looking to get a feel for how Wikipedia editors think the merger between Burson-Marsteller and Cohn & Wolfe should be addressed. As an employee of BCW (Burson Cohn & Wolfe), I have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Thank you. BCW Editor (talk) 19:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Looks like User:GenQuest has been fast and efficient. Klbrain (talk) 21:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Resolved

Thanks for helping! BCW Editor (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Merge proposal Venezuela independence day/Caracas parade

Discuss here.--MaoGo (talk) 17:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Article alerts

I have started a proposal to add mergers and splits to article alerts. Please see Wikipedia talk:Article alerts/Feature requests#Mergers and Splits (2019) for the discussion. Trialpears (talk) 21:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Infobox at BCW (Burson Cohn & Wolfe) following merger

Hi, WikiProject Merge members. In May, GenQuest merged the Burson-Marsteller and Cohn & Wolfe articles and moved the combined article to Burson Cohn & Wolfe. If time allows, can editors consider my request to add a new infobox for the combined company to the article? As an employee of BCW, I have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, which is why I'm requesting assistance from others. Thank you. BCW Editor (talk) 20:26, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Holding cell?

I have recently been working on template mergers and was wondering if there would be any use implementing a holding cell where articles with consensus to merge are listed until the merger is actually performed. I believe this would help mergers get done as our current category for mergers with pre-exsisting consensus, Category:Articles to be merged after an Articles for deletion discussion, is significantly less backlogged then the rest of the merge system and ocassionally even empty. I think the system works really well for templates, but would like some input before implementing it. --Trialpears (talk) 17:56, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I suppose that that might work, mirroring the AfD to merge process. I wonder whether the problem really about the nature of the process, or simply the number of eyes watching the merge pages? Is it simply that more people follow the AfD pages, and then carry through to complete the merge? Nevertheless, on balance, I support the move, breaking the task into two stages which could be completed independently. Klbrain (talk) 19:46, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

The main problem is of course too few eyes at too many articles, but making it a two step process would at least reduce the time it takes looking for articles to merge for the few of us who do look. It would also be a first step towards a RM-style merge system which probably would the optimal structure in the (very) long term. --Trialpears (talk) 20:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I second this. I am here to look for articles which merge discussion has been completed, but are not actioned on for one reason or another. The current process is making me wade through discussions which I cannot contribute, mostly due to lack of background or proposal. robertsky (talk) 02:34, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Good idea. I don't participate much, but a category for requests where consensus has been evaluated would make contributing a lot easier. It would also help split the workload. Some people like closing discussions, others like performing merges. The new category means people good at evaluating consensus can do so without the expectation they carry out the merge, and those who are good at merging can perform them without having to be experts at evaluating consensus. Wug·a·po·des​ 20:59, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I've made a holding cell at WP:PMHC, added a mention of it at Help:Merging, repurposed {{being merged}} for articles, created Category:Articles currently being merged and used it on one page, 2019 Peterborough recall petition. I've probably missed something but it should be up and running. --Trialpears (talk) 22:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Looks like a great solution. I note that you've only tagged the page to be merged from, but not the destination page. On balance, I think that this is a good idea as it doesn't interfere with the development of the ultimate destination. I wonder whether the instructions for use on the template should be clearer on this point. The template text could then replace "merge this article with" to "merge this article to", and perhaps event change the double-headed merge icon to a unidirectional merge to icon. Klbrain (talk) 06:45, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Done. --Trialpears (talk) 10:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Should the template point to the section/page which the merge discussion was held as well? At the very least, it would help editors to navigate to the right location for the discussion immediately rather than needing to search through all possible Talk pages. robertsky (talk) 07:24, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

The template already does this; the second parameter is Discussion page; you can add the section on the discussion page parameter. The section link on the 2019 Peterborough recall petition example didn't initially have the correct section link, but I think that this is fixed now. Klbrain (talk) 09:01, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Right... didn't notice that. Sorry! Looks good to me. robertsky (talk) 09:27, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Proposed article splits listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Wikipedia:Proposed article splits to be moved to Wikipedia:Proposed splits. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Script request: Script for Merging articles easily.

Just wanted to inform you all of this script request at Wikipedia:User scripts/Requests#Script for Merging articles easily. --Trialpears (talk) 21:45, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

A script has been created! - User:SD0001/easy-merge ~Kvng (talk) 13:44, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Help needed for closing merger

Hello. There was a discussion following a proposed merger (Talk:ITS launch vehicle#Merger proposal) if merged, it would be: ITS into the BFR (rocket) article).
The discussion ran its course, as well as the waiting time period. I am requesting that an experienced and uninvolved editor makes the final call. Thank you. Rowan Forest (talk) 17:54, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Such requests are usually made at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Other types of closing requests, where I've found the speed of response to be quite good. Klbrain (talk) 18:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@Klbrain: Thank you. I'll do that. Rowan Forest (talk) 14:46, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Proposed mergers listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Wikipedia:Proposed mergers to be moved to Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 12:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Structure at BCW Article Following Merger

Hello. I am still looking to clean up the Burson Cohn & Wolfe article following the merger of the Burson-Marsteller and Cohn & Wolfe articles. Can an editor interested in merging articles review my request to restructure a portion of the article for clarification? Specifically, you might want to review a draft that shows exactly how my proposed changes would change the article. As an employee of BCW, I have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, which is why I'm requesting assistance from others. Thank you. BCW Editor (talk) 14:59, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Confirming that I've looked at this (as had some other editors earlier) and implemented the changes requested, which were widespread but modest (and very carefully and clearly signposted). I've add a comment regarding the impact of the key structural change, but on balance this was reasonable. Klbrain (talk) 20:45, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Resolved

Final request

Hello! I want to thank everyone for all your help in merging and cleaning up Burson Cohn & Wolfe. I have one more request for editors to consider following the merge of the Burson-Marsteller and Cohn & Wolfe articles. Following this request, the article should be much more clear. Thanks again to everyone for assisting! As an employee of BCW, I have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, which is why I'm requesting assistance here. BCW Editor (talk) 16:12, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Include items to be merged from non article namespace in mergers by month categories

I propose that all new pages outside the article namespace are placed in the normal "Articles to be merged from [month year]" categories instead of the current Category:Items to be merged. Many of the items here are finished encyclopedic draft articles that people wanted to move into the article namespace. These drafts really should get the same attention as article mergers since they contain the same type of content as them. Another major type of content in the category are Wikipedia essays and MOS pages to be merged which also should be discussed and not hidden in a rarely visited category.

I do not suggest that we put the articles currently in Category:Items to be merged since this would be a waste of time, but including future articles in the main categories would only serve to cut down the wait time for new non-article mergers which currently has a backlog of around a decade.Trialpears (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Support, drafts and projectspace pages count for mergers too. PrussianOwl (talk) 08:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Support but be aware that declined drafts are subject to deletion after 6 months of inactivity. These may be deleted before they get through the backlog here at WPMERGE. ~Kvng (talk) 16:08, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Question: what is meant here by non article namespace? GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 12:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I prefer to focus just on the main namespace for now. The merging process for articles is complicated enough; adding support for other namespaces just further complicates processes, while we still don't really have a robust implementation of mainspace procedures yet. People really shouldn't be creating forks in draft space; rather they should just be working to improve existing articles. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

100% Agree. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 18:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I also think we shouldn't prioritize draft space mergers now even though last April me seems to think it's a good idea. The other part here is help and Wikipedia pages which often times should be dealt with, but I don't merging them with the articles is a good idea anymore. How about removing categorization for drafts giving an error message explaining that users should be bold and merge verifiable content with a neutral point of view to the main space article. Then only 50 pages would remain in the category and it would be small enough to be added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Merge#Open tasks hopefully making it more visible with out inappropriate additions to the article categories? ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Seeking Help to Finalize Merged Article

Hello! I am still seeking help to finalize the merge of the Burson-Marsteller and Cohn & Wolfe articles into Burson Cohn & Wolfe. The work is almost done. Can editors here please review my final request?

Essentially, I am asking for editors to replace the duplicative standalone "Services" section with a new section called Operations, and add one additional article to See also.

Following this request, the article should be much more clear. The request is explained in more detail on the article Talk page. Thanks again to everyone for assisting. As an employee of BCW, I have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, which is why I'm being extra cautious and not finishing up these edits myself. I have focused on this WikiProject because my requests have fallen within its purview. However, if WikiProject members know of any other places that might be interested in pursuing this request, I welcome any advice. BCW Editor (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Help trimming redundant content between 2 DISH articles

Hi, I'm Caroline, an employee of Dish Network (as disclosed on my profile page as well as the article's talk page). I've been working with editors at Talk:Dish Network to suggest updates and other changes to the company's Wikipedia entry. In my most recent request, I've identified significant redundancy between Dish_Network#Criticisms_and_controversies and Criticism of Dish Network. Much of this text was added by a banned editor who "abusively used multiple accounts". Since I can't engage in a discussion with this editor regarding possible changes to either article, I was hoping some editors here at WikiProject Merge might be willing to assist by trimming down redundant text and/or providing feedback on the talk page. Another editor, User:Kvng, has generally agreed that the current redundancies are problematic, but does not have time to fix the issue at this time. Thanks in advance for any help. CK-DISH (talk) 21:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@BDD and Klbrain: Hello! I am still looking for assistance with trimming duplicate content between these two articles. I've reduced my initial request to something much more specific here: Talk:Dish_Network#Telemarketing_violations_and_fees. I've looked at the participants list for this project and see you're both active editors. Might you be able to review this request? CK-DISH (talk) 20:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Tools to help with merging?

The process for nominating articles for merging has always struck me as extremely cumbersome, especially compared to processes like deletion noms which can be accomplished within clicks via Twinkle. Are there any tools available, or would anyone be willing to create them? Sdkb (talk) 23:57, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Can I suggest that you look at easy-merge, a script created last year by SD0001 which I've been using and have found very helpful. The description of and link to that script should probably also be added to the project page, if people other than me have also found it helpful. Klbrain (talk) 17:36, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: You can nominate articles for merging using Twinkle - in the Tag menu, look for the {{Merge}}, {{Merge from}}, {{Merge to}} tags. TW automatically tags the other article and creates a discussion section on the talk page. On the other hand, easy-merge is useful for completing the merger process. SD0001 (talk) 08:45, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@SD0001: Ah, I didn't know that existed! It would be nice if it wasn't hidden in the tag menu, but not sure where the Twinkle developers are to ask them to make that change. Sdkb (talk) 07:51, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@SD0001: I haven't been doing many merges lately, but when I do, I use easy-merge! ~Kvng (talk) 13:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Reasons for merging now included in the bot-generated lists

After getting pinged over at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 80#Adding reciprocal merge templates, I'm back to working on further incremental improvements to the bot.

Following up on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Merge/Archive 3#Pages where reasons are given in the template, I have added rationales (when specified) to the reports.

As this remains an undocumented parameter, only a few merge templates have reasons given. Here are the 10 pages where reasons are given in the template:

   [0] => Pagination …… the lead of page numbering indicated these are the same topic: "process of applying a sequence of numbers (or letters, or roman numerals) to the pages of a book or other document"
   [1] => Rupnarainpur …… Same topic
   [2] => Rupnarayanpur …… Rupnarainpur is about the same topic
   [3] => Glåmdal …… The name Glommadal is not in use in Norwegian, and anything that is said here can also be said about Glåmdal.
   [4] => Kosala Kingdom …… Both articles seem to cover the exact same topic
   [5] => No Pants Day …… Appears to be closely related; both topics can be covered in one article
   [6] => Alhambra Decree …… Identical topics.
   [7] => Expulsion of Jews from Spain …… Identical topics.
   [8] => Turnkey supplier …… appears to describe exactly the same thing
   [9] => 2019 Qatar T10 League …… This is only the first seasons. Year article should be created and split from the League years down the road

These merge proposals can be found in the lists:

• Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log/March 2019 (Pagination and Rupnarainpur/Rupnarayanpur)
• Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log/April 2019 (Glåmdal and Kosala Kingdom)
• Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log/May 2019 (No Pants Day)
• Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log/August 2019 (Alhambra Decree and Expulsion of Jews from Spain)
• Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log/November 2019 (Turnkey supplier)
• Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log/December 2019 (2019 Qatar T10 League)

— wbm1058 (talk) 14:29, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing that list and for returning to work on merging! I've been through those 9, set up a discussion on the talk page, and in some cases also added the reciprocal merge templates (which were missing). 9 out of a few thousand suggests that most proposers are getting this right. Klbrain (talk) 16:56, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Franz_Liszt#Requested_merge

It seems to me that there is consensus to merge but as I am a contributor I don't wish to close the discussion (which has been silent for over a month). Would anyone care to take a look at it and close it? Thanks - --Smerus (talk) 11:11, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

A merge effort going sideways

Dear WikiProject Merge:

I hope that an administrator here could give us some guidance and provide some remedial action to get us wiki-fencing editors back on track procedurally. At Talk:Anglo-French War (1778-1783)#Merge proposal there is an initiative that is amiss procedurally. It should have initiated at the target article, "France in the American Revolutionary War".

It is initiated by editors appealing to the precedent in an earlier merger of "Anglo-Spanish War (1779-1783)" into "Spain in the American Revolutionary War". Over the past two months or so, after reading into three dozens of their sources using extended passages (or entire out-of-print books) available online, I am disagreed with both efforts to conflate the “European war 1778-1783” (their Simms, my Morris) with the "American Revolutionary War 1775-1783" among British subjects in North America & North Atlantic (Encyclopedia Britannica, Routledge Dictionary of War).

A summary of my understanding of procedure and article titles can be found there at "NOTES ON PROCEDURE", "Wikipedia article titles", and "Merging by edit". - Sincerely - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Being merged

Template:Being merged has been nominated for merging with Template:Merging. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. JsfasdF252 (talk) 05:19, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Backlog landmark

Articles to be merge backlog (Articles to be merged) finally hits 1 year ... I wonder when that was last the case! Klbrain (talk) 12:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

That's amazing! In light of this achievement, should we discuss project goals? I've made it a goal to address merges I'm involved in within a year. On quieter articles, trying to achieve or assess consensus in a shorter time period can sometimes be difficult. Out of millions of articles, we now have merge proposals numbering in the hundreds per month. This seems structurally reasonable.

Here are our current goals and my comments:

• Reduce the 1-year backlog at Category:Articles to be merged to a point where all merge proposals are dealt with within a reasonable time period.

I think 1 year is a reasonable time period. If there is consensus about that, this goal is achieved.

• Reduce the Wikipedia:Proposed mergers backlog.

This currently appears to be under control.

• Begin community process to address issues that have lead to such a big backlog.

The backlog does not appear to be big and I don't think any changes in processes are needed.

• Provide a noticeboard where problems with individual mergers and proposed changes to processes can be raised.

It seems like this talk page is performing that function.

• Keep notice of the related information pages and articles needing to be merged.

This goal is not clear to me.

In summary, I think the goals can be simplified to two points

• Maintain the backlog at Category:Articles to be merged to deal with all merge proposals on their 1-year anniversary.
• Provide a noticeboard where problems with individual mergers and proposed changes to processes can be raised.

~Kvng (talk) 14:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor view requested Post-vaccination embolic and thrombotic events

I would be grateful if an uninvolved editor could look at the proposed merge of Post-vaccination embolic and thrombotic events into Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine (to state the obvious I'm involved). Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:38, 15 April 2021 (UTC) It's been closed.  Done. Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Merge help request: Immaculate Conception (churches)

I've added the to/from templates, but don't have the spoons to do all the notifications etc (especially on mobile). I'd appreciate if someone could finish the gnoming. Sai ¿?✍ 12:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Further gnoming isn't required, but it would be helpful if you made a case for the merge; I propose isn't a justification. Klbrain (talk) 14:53, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Merging § Be bold

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Merging § Be bold. --Trialpears (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Ed banners

When merging talk pages, should the wiki ed banners be copied to the destination page? I can't find any guidance on it (which is fair, honestly). My feeling is, because the material that was part of those courses has been replicated at the destination, the courses should be attributed there too. But that depends on why those banners are still included on any talk pages after the assignment is completed, and I can't actually find the reasoning behind it. --Xurizuri (talk) 01:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Easy merge script

I know there is a script to add attribution and do other cleanup on completion of a merge. I think it is called easy merge. Can someone help me find it? ~Kvng (talk) 14:19, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response here. Were you thinking of User:SD0001/easy-merge? That's the one you mentioned back in 2019 (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Merge/Archive 3#Script request: Script for Merging articles easily., and is the one I still regularly use. Klbrain (talk) 23:23, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Criteria for delisting stale proposals less than 1 year old

I have some major concerns about the criteria for delisting merge proposals less than 1 year old. While I totally understand the need to cleanup old (> 6 months with no activity) discussions, the current wording suggests that young proposals may be delisted if any of the criteria apply, including:

• The proposal has not been closed after no less than two weeks with no discussion or two weeks from last edit with no consensus reached.

which suggests that any proposal with no discussion after 2 weeks should be closed as not merged due to lack of consensus, when the directions under "Closing merge discussion" just a bit further down state:

"...if there is silence, after the debate has been open for at least two weeks, proceed with the merger."

Herein lies the inconsistency, if WP:SILENCE can be taken as consensus to proceed with a merge as proposed after 2 weeks, a discussion cannot and should not be closed without a merge taking place after the same amount of time. I and others open merge discussions to check for any objections and often leave them open for months before coming back around and proceeding with the merge. Such merge discussions should not be closed unless the closer wishes to proceed with the merge. Otherwise, they could choose to join the discussion and support or oppose the merge, and then the discussion would no longer be stale.

It seems like this criterion (being open for at least two weeks without discussion) must be met for a stale close, but by itself is not a sufficient reason for a close. This must be clarified.

The other criteria for closing a young proposal make little sense either on their own. If someone believes that "neither article would benefit from a straight merge with redirect" or there is an "unreasonable merge to destination/target" then they should say so in the discussion with an oppose vote. They should not unilaterally decide that because they think the merge is ill-advised, that their opinion matters more than the nominator's and the discussion should be closed. Instead, the user's opposition should be stated, and then if there is no further discussion, someone else (possibly the original nominator) should close the discussion as no consensus, which defaults to no merge.

Lastly, the statement "as well as additional standards for newer proposals" needs to be defined. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:41, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

My reading of "as well as additional standards for newer proposals:" (in Wikipedia:WikiProject Merge#Stale merge proposals less than a year old) is that it means "as well as one of the following additional standards for newer proposals:". That is, that the 2 weeks with no consensus is not, by itself, sufficient for a close, but that is an additional requirement on top of one of the primary criteria listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Merge#Stale merge proposals. Those primary criteria cover specific cases where a merge might immediately be closed (were the proposal more than one year old), so two weeks stale is never enough by itself for standard proposals. Might adding that phrase one of the following be sufficient?

I absolute agree that if a proposer makes a properly formed proposal that does breach any of the obviously poor criteria, then a close after 2 weeks, in the presence of no opposing views, would be inappropriate. I don't think that the current rules allow such a close, and I agree that any editor with a view in opposition to the proposal should oppose the case being made in the discussion (assuming that such a discussion has been started).

Note that the criteria being discussed here are about when to remove the templates (in cases with particularly poor proposal); most of the criteria for when to close a discussion are covered elsewhere in WP:MERGECLOSE, and we should be careful not to create too many additional criteria in parallel with the protocols for closing discussions. Klbrain (talk) 10:01, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Klbrain, I now see the source of confusion. After your reply and a fresh, careful read of the section today, I see that the intended meaning is that a proposal less than 1 year old may be closed if any of the reasons listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Merge#Stale merge proposals are true AND if and only if ALL of the criteria listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Merge#Stale merge proposals less than a year old are true. However, if this is true, I find it highly unlikely there would be a case where all of these additional criteria would be true to allow for a close of a proposal less than a year old. I know others are misunderstanding it too because what precipitated my original comment was that someone closed a properly arranged and reasonable merge discussion I had started solely on the basis of it being more than two weeks old without any discussion and pointed to "Stale merge proposals less than a year old" as rationale.

I propose that we delete this section because it is unlikely all listed additional criteria will apply to most stale proposals and it being a demonstrated source of confusion, moving "No AFDs/ANI or Dispute resolution is in process" to the above section, since these should apply to stale proposals regardless of age, and change the definition of a stale proposal to one having no discussion after 6 months rather than one having no discussion after 1 year. I think any proposal without discussion for 6 months can safely be closed, especially if any of the criteria listed apply. Otherwise, as we have noted, any potential closer should either see WP:SILENCE as consensus to proceed with the merge as proposed or may comment in the discussion if they feel the merge should not proceed.

I also find it interesting that WP:MERGE is barely featured/linked on the project page. We need to be careful that any directions summarized here are consistent with those at the merge information page, which in my opinion should be considered the primary protocol to follow and refer others to.

If there are no objections, I will make these changes to the text, and we can reevaluate/discuss further from there as needed. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:20, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I see your point that not all of the additional criteria must be true, but at least one of them (in addition to one of the base criteria). But, the "No AFDs/ANI or Dispute resolution" is a prerequisite that should be true in all cases, and not some additional standard that would make a younger proposal qualify. And, the speedy deletion criterion is already listed in the primary criteria and need not be repeated. So, I think merging (no pun intended) relevant criteria for younger proposals in with the primary criteria and clarifying the time frames there is the way to avoid future confusion. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps we should move the information about stale proposals off the project page entirely, moving it over the WP:MERGE page. Perhaps this could be done best by someone writing/drafting some simpler guidelines for WP:MERGE, and once they're agreed over there, then material here can be deleted? Klbrain (talk) 11:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I think these criteria for stale proposals would be a distraction at WP:MERGE, where the goal is to show users how to propose and complete merges. I think the project page, where one of the goals is for users already familiar with the merge process to cleanup old/bad proposals adding to the backlog, is the proper place to layout what should be done with old proposals. I just think that binning stale proposals into two different time periods with different but overlapping criteria is confusing. I'll take a crack at a revision soon, and of course anyone is free to improve or revert and discuss further. Mdewman6 (talk) 06:28, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

@Mdewman6: Fair enough; happy to support keeping it here but making it clearer. Klbrain (talk) 00:25, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I have made changes to the project page (well, to the transcluded template) according to the discussion here, revising the definition of a stale proposal and better integrating those criteria with the rest of the instructions. Hopefully this will result in less confusion going forward. Feel free to improve or comment here. Cheers, Mdewman6 (talk) 00:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)