Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Merge/Archive 4

{{Pror}}

FYI, Template:Pror (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been proposed to be replaced by {{merge}} -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 02:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Confusing text in "Listing and Delisting"

I am glad that we seem to have got the stale proposal section straightened out, or at least improved (see above), but now I am realizing the section above it is confusing as well. The first half makes sense, but I do not follow the following text:

Local consensus should determine a merge with redirect if discussion is underway for even a very old merge proposal, however, content may still be boldy added to the target page if it is not already present, has context and has references. If content can be saved by taking the extra time to copy edit for original prose, references, formatting, etc. an editor is encouraged to do so.

If an article is original and has sufficient differences from the target article it can be retained and not be redirected or merged and delisted. A merge tag represents the efforts of an editor to gain consensus. If no other discussion is made it is an individual judgement call, whether or not to carry out a "Merge with redirect" from a proposal. If a MWR is reverted by another editor after being carried out by a project participant (or other editor) with no discussion we can assume opposition to the merge and delist as "no consensus".

What is a "Merge with redirect"? How is it different from a regular merge? I have completed a lot of merge discussions and merges and am pretty familiar with WP:MERGE, but I have no idea what situation(s) the above text is trying to address. If someone can explain it, great, otherwise I think it should either be deleted or clarified by someone who knows what its purpose is. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

There has been no discussion. The text in question seems to be some remnant of an old version of HELP:Merge that no longer makes much sense in the realm of what is described at WP:MERGE. Anyway, I am going to go ahead and remove the text. Feel free to revert and discuss here if there are concerns. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:19, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Merge being discussed

Template:Merge being discussed has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. 65.92.246.142 (talk) 02:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Expand scope of Move review?

Wikiproject participants might be interested in the discussion that's been opened at Wikipedia talk:Move review#Expand scope to include merge proposal closure review? No such user (talk) 09:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:Proposed article splits

Since according to the talk page there we are apparently also responsible for the Proposed article splits, I would like to point out the dire state of that page. It seems not to have received any volunteer attention for over a year, and the instructions are rather unhelpful compared to those at WP:Proposed article mergers. For instance, the alternatives pointed out there for getting more attention are WP:RfC and WP:AfC. The former directly contradicts WP:RFCNOT, and the AfC process does not lead to a discussion or even notification of the editors at the parent article at all, but merely to an assessment primarily of notability by a single AfC reviewer. In fact, as an AfC reviewer myself, I would certainly feel uncomfortable accepting what is effectively a proposed split but would instead direct the submitter to the splitting process. Felix QW (talk) 20:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Wow, yeah, RfC and AfC are not the places to help with splits, and I support removing those links. More concerning, in my view, is the nearly complete lack of interaction between WP:SPLIT and WP:Proposed article splits. Both pages purport to be about proposing article splits and give procedures for doing so. Do they complement each other, or are they an unhelpful/confusing duplication? It's even worse than WP:MERGE vs. WP:Proposed article mergers (and then also WP:WPMERGE). I honestly have never been able to wrap my head around how the two complement each other rather than confusingly overlap with each other. In past discussions I have wondered about making proposed mergers akin to WP:RM, to serve as a centralized place for automatically listing merge discussions, with discussions still occurring on article talk pages, which seems like what it's trying to be, but it remains sort of this nebulous optional, manual thing? I never go there or use it to propose or perform mergers. It's like WP:MERGE and WP:SPLIT are for experienced users, where the "proposed" pages are for less experienced users? And then there is WP:SECTIONMOVE, but templates allow for proposing merging of sections, so should we consider section moves a kind of merge rather than a separate thing? Certainly the users worried about WP:CREEP would love it if we (no pun intended) merged some of these venues together so procedures are easier to understand and maintain. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm currently trying to work through the Proposed splits backlog (any support greatly appreciated!), and again I find the instructions on the page rather unhelpful. In particular, unlike on Proposed mergers, there is no explicit instruction to give a reason for the split proposal. This makes it impossible to open a sensible discussion on the talk page of the article. I would advocate a rewrite of the lead of Proposed splits, based on Proposed mergers as a model. Felix QW (talk) 18:47, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Merge reform

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Merge reform. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:59, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Congratulations all

With the number of pages waiting to be merged now down under 2000! I remember the heady days of 5-digit backlogs ... Klbrain (talk) 14:32, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Whooohoooo!!!! Joyous! | Talk 22:09, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Potential merge

Hello editors! I'm here as part of my work with Beutler Ink on behalf of our client Cloud Software Group. With Citrix Systems and TIBCO Software now merged into one company under the Cloud Software Group (CSG), and the names of the two former companies becoming business units of CSG, I wanted to raise the possibility of merging the Citrix Systems and TIBCO Software articles into a new Cloud Software Group article. Because Citrix and TIBCO are no longer independent entities, I think this would be appropriate, and felt this group would be interested in weighing in on whether that's possible before I submit an official merge request. A couple of considerations I've thought of:

• Citrix has a more extensive history than TIBCO. If the articles are merged, should we consider forking off a separate History of Citrix Systems article?
• NetScaler is also now a business unit of Cloud Software Group, and should potentially be merged in as well. However for simplicity, perhaps it would be better to start with the Citrix and TIBCO articles.

Because of my COI, I do not edit articles related to Cloud Software Group directly and will defer to what the community thinks is most appropriate. My goal is to work with editors to improve coverage and simplify content. All thoughts and feedback are welcome. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose merge. Citrix and TIBCO still operate as separate business units under CSG (per the FAQ). Propose creating an article for Cloud Software Group instead and listing the various business units there. Ptrnext (talk) 23:57, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ptrnext That could work, too. If I draft an entry on CSG, would you be willing to take a look? Inkian Jason (talk) 16:28, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

@Inkian Jason: I don't think there's enough coverage in reliable sources to create an article for CSG just yet. There's coverage about its creation, recent layoff, etc., which alone would not suffice – but, if you do find independent sources covering CSG in-depth, I'd be willing to look at your draft. Best, Ptrnext (talk) 05:00, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mike_Craver

What do you do in situations like this one? The AfD was closed as a "merge," but there's no reliably-sourced info to move to the target article. I don't want to BLAR but...what else to do? Joyous! | Talk 19:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this happen more often than it should - we have a whole essay dedicated to the phenomenon of "just merge" votes at AfD. I usually just blank and redirect and make a section on the talk page of the target, referencing the redirected article and explaining the situation. If local editors are interested, they can look for sourcing and insert the material themselves. Felix QW (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. This sounds reasonable. Joyous! | Talk 20:26, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Contesting bold splits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

While it is clear how to undo a bold merge, it is less clear how to undo a bold split when contested. For instance, List of window functions was boldly split from Window functions. An editor restored the content to the original article and has now PRODded the spun off article for duplication. Technically, the PROD is surely not uncontroversial since one editor at least found it worth splitting off. Should it be de-PRODded and both editors referred to the talk page? Or should it be allowed to expire if the splitter does not remove it themselves? Felix QW (talk) 10:09, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Felix QW, if relatively new, use this rarely seen Speedy template on the new article instead of the PROD: #A10

{{Db-a10|article=[Split-off article title] }} 

Just be sure to revert the original article back to pre-split status first. If the split-off article is not so new, and/or it has had significant content added to it, then send it to AfD. Hope that helps. Regards – GenQuest ^"scribble" 13:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out! Doesn't this does not include split pages make this inapplicable though? Felix QW (talk) 15:38, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I think that refers to permanently split pages that have unique content, which a reverted split should not have. I've challenged that wording at the deletion page #A10 directions, and will let you know what they say. GenQuest ^"scribble" 16:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

If someone thinks splitting an article is a good idea, there's a good chance that the title has value as a redirect even if the new article isn't retained. For example, if someone splits off the 1995 Fooville Barriers season from the Fooville Barriers article and is subsequently reverted, the new page could simply become a redirect to Fooville Barriers#Seasons. Likewise, List of window functions could become a redirect to Window function#A list of window functions. - Eureka Lott 17:21, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

That, of course, is the obvious solution I wasn't thinking of. Felix QW (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

In a case such as this, that would be incumbant on the deleting admin to do, don't you think, Eureka Lott? GenQuest ^"scribble" 17:42, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

If we're talking about a WP:BRD cycle, I don't see a reason why an admin has be involved. When there's disagreement about a split, an article can be WP:BLARed without the need for deletion. - Eureka Lott 17:50, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I can't see any justification for amending the A10 speedy deletion criterion, which does (by my reading) exclude this situation. In almost all cases the new title will be a plausible search term and so it should remain as a redirect. In almost all cases where the title is not a plausible search term then the split will be vandalism (covered by G3). In the few remaining cases, use WP:RFD. Thryduulf (talk) 22:34, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

=>Thanks, Thryduulf and EurekaLott. So, Felix QW, we'll just keep it in-house and revert the original back to the pre-split state, and BLAR the split-off article. The simplest answer is always the best. Thanks all. GenQuest ^"scribble" 23:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dasam Granth

I almost feel that there should be a whole category called "Pages that should merge with Dasam Granth." Joking...but not... Joyous! | Talk 00:28, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Merge from an article in draft space

Are there any differences in procedure if a draft article is being merged into an established one in article space, such as the proposal at Thai_Sang_Thai_Party? Joyous! Noise! 19:23, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

This was discussed about two years ago, although nothing formal. The consensus was to handle as any other merge request. GenQuest ^"scribble" 04:41, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Agree; same as other; I also add R from draft, although perhaps there is also a bot to do this. Klbrain (talk) 09:37, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

That's new... GenQuest ^"scribble" 15:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Idea Lab discussion involving merge backlog

There's a discussion at The Village Pump Idea Lab that you might be interested in. Joyous! Noise! 20:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Now it looks like the discussion has moved to The Village Pump Proposals. Joyous! Noise! 23:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Splitting in progress

Currently once again working on the splitting backlog. As splitting can create new pages, which need to satisfy all the requirements for stand-alone Wikipedia articles, there is often some time between closing a split discussion and actually finalising the split. However, there seems to be no equivalent to {{merging}} for article splits, and no holding cell for such articles either. Any input on whether it would make sense to change that? Felix QW (talk) 13:01, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Proposed merger of incels.is into incel

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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)

This is probably the wrong page for that notice. I will copy to the noticeboard talk page and close this. Regards, GenQuest ^"scribble" 18:28, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Proposed article mergers

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Assistance with merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is my first merge proposal. It seems pretty evident, but I will need assistance as to how to merge an article and the correct procedure. The article is: Such Good Friends (musical) with a proposed merger to Noel Katz with given reasoning: Not enough coverage or notable content for stand alone article. Duplicate content at Noel Katz BLP article. Alternative to AfD: proposed merge. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 18:38, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@Maineartists: I see you tagged the source page at Such Good Friends (musical), which is part of the initial steps to proposing a merge. I've gone ahead and added the other tag to the proposed destination page. The next step is to start a discussion at Noel Katz with what you've described here, which I will start, and you are free to add to. As for the merge itself, you should wait the usual 7 days to see if there are any objections or other comments, then you can proceed with the merge. The merge looks pretty straightforward, I would be happy to do it if you ping me once the 7 days are up. All of these steps are laid out at WP:MERGE. Cheers, Mdewman6 (talk) 18:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@Mdewman6: Hey, thanks! This is all really helpful! I appreciate your taking the time and lending a helping hand. I'm learning quite a lot. Maineartists (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

This is the wrong page for requests, so I entered a merge request for you at the noticeboard and closed this. Regards, GenQuest ^"scribble" 18:34, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Proposed article mergers

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merge, ideas on determining which way?

The following pages are both on Wikipedia differing the capitalization of the A in against.

• Traditional and Modern Health Practitioners Together against AIDS
• Traditional and Modern Health Practitioners Together Against AIDS

The website for the organization doesn't show which way (refering to it as THETA). They were both made by the same user, apparently for a class and don't appear to be active and the hits for the organization on google don't appear to be consistent. Could I get help here from the Project?Naraht (talk) 15:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me that perhaps capitalised Against is mildly better supported, being used by both the WHO and the WIPO. However, I agree that the search hits are inconsistent, so it is probably not all that important as long as they end up merged. Felix QW (talk) 16:35, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Merge request for a pair of video game articles

I propose merging Casino Mogul into Casino Tycoon (video game). I don't feel strongly as to which article title should remain, although Casino Tycoon has more content and is therefore the article that should probably survive.

The games were released around the same time, have the same publisher, similar developers, and Casino Mogul lists "Casino Tycoon" as an alias of Casino Mogul. The MobyGames database has them as one game as well (see the covers section): https://www.mobygames.com/game/6094/casino-mogul/

You'll also note in the covers that they use the same art of a slot machine with green crowns. Best as I can tell, these are almost certainly the same game, just with different titles/covers in different regions.

I'm mostly a Wikidata editor, so I'm not too familiar with the specifics of the procedure. If anyone could help me, that'd be greatly appreciated. The articles are from 2005/2006, so I don't want to just blank either page without a discussion.

Thanks! Nicereddy (talk) 21:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I also just noticed that the three screenshots on the back cover on MobyGames are the same for both the North America and Germany versions. So it's definitely the same game. Nicereddy (talk) 21:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC)