Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Merge
| This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Merge and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
Archives (index): 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | This project was initiated as the result of the proposal: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Merge |
 | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
NOTE: To Make a formal Merge Request; please go to the Proposed Article Mergers page
Individual article merge discussions SHOULD NOT be started on this page.
 Archives (Index) |
|
This page is archived by ClueBot III.
|
Open tasks
Hi :) I'm going over the open task list and I noticed that on some occasions pepople would merge articles into an article they think would be a better source rather than the one that was agreed upon on AFD or different discussions, is that ok? Happypenguins82 (talk) 01:37, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- Generally not but it is WP:BOLD. Sometimes the editor who does the merge is the first to review the material in detail. It is not unusual, for instance, for opinions in discussions to be overly based on the just the titles. ~Kvng (talk) 14:37, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for the explanation :)
- The reason i'm askink is because it throws the bot off and adds the article to the backlog, into a contradiction with the decisions. So my new question is can i go into the closed discussions and correct the name of the designated article to reconcile the open task table? Providing the article matches the topic and its not a mistake in the first place... Happypenguins82 (talk) 15:22, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
- Not a good idea to edit closed discussions. Going back and adding a note might be acceptable but I suspect that won't make the bot happy. What specifically makes the bot happy? ~Kvng (talk) 23:25, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
- Well maybe its something worth considering and creating a special maintenance tag that would ease the bots mind somehow, im still new here and arent familiar with the process of how to suggest new procedures and developing them. Happypenguins82 (talk) 13:02, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
- Perhaps. I've left a note for the bot operator at User_talk:Merge_bot#Closing_retargeted_merges. ~Kvng (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you, I think itll be very productive and would allow us to reduce the backlog and accomplish all the open tasks. Happypenguins82 (talk) 19:50, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
- I might have identified the wrong bot. If we're talking about the tables in the "Bot-reported errors for manual correction" section, it looks like that is generated by User:AnomieBOT not User:Merge bot. ~Kvng (talk) 14:15, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
- You have indeed identified the wrong bot! FaviFake (talk) 11:24, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
- I might have identified the wrong bot. If we're talking about the tables in the "Bot-reported errors for manual correction" section, it looks like that is generated by User:AnomieBOT not User:Merge bot. ~Kvng (talk) 14:15, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you, I think itll be very productive and would allow us to reduce the backlog and accomplish all the open tasks. Happypenguins82 (talk) 19:50, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
- Perhaps. I've left a note for the bot operator at User_talk:Merge_bot#Closing_retargeted_merges. ~Kvng (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
- Well maybe its something worth considering and creating a special maintenance tag that would ease the bots mind somehow, im still new here and arent familiar with the process of how to suggest new procedures and developing them. Happypenguins82 (talk) 13:02, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
- Not a good idea to edit closed discussions. Going back and adding a note might be acceptable but I suspect that won't make the bot happy. What specifically makes the bot happy? ~Kvng (talk) 23:25, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Guidelines
- Under the "guidelines" section, there are three reasons given for merging, and it seems bare or insufficient notability, listed in the Merging information page, should be included. It would likely not be controversial as #1 instead of #4. -- Otr500 (talk) 14:25, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
- There are five reasons given on the Merging information page and three here. Shouldn't we make the two lists consistent? I assume the merging information page is more authoritative than what we have here. ~Kvng (talk) 15:55, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
Done FaviFake (talk) 12:14, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
- There are five reasons given on the Merging information page and three here. Shouldn't we make the two lists consistent? I assume the merging information page is more authoritative than what we have here. ~Kvng (talk) 15:55, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
Merging
I've found a few pairs of articles which should certainly be merged but where I lack the subject knowledge to do the job well myself. Is there any procedure for requesting that an expert merge them? I don't think AfD is appropriate, as they're an obvious (snow) merge. A typical example is Host Media Processing and Host media processing. Certes (talk) 19:33, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- You have a few options:
- You can nominate them at AfD anyway and pretend you thought they could be controversial. In a week they'll be inserted into the backlog and will remain there until they're merged.
- "Merge" them by pasting the article at the bottom of the other article without actually "merging" anything
- Then you can add a tag like {{expert needed}}
- You can ask here and see if anyone actually wants to merge them.
- Which articles are you referring to? FaviFake (talk) 08:49, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for the advice. There should be a better way, but I'll not shoot the messenger! I've resolved most of them as either a merge I can manage or an obvious BLAR for the less good article. I did take a couple to AfD where I had genuine doubts. Aktogay Mine has been merged into Aktogay mine after an expert confirmed that they really are the same hole. Digital Automatic Coupling into Digital automatic coupling is in the merge queue after AfD, where I was politely and correctly reminded that I should have been bold. The background is that I'm halfway through checking pairs of articles whose titles differ only in case. Most are valid or require other action such as mutual hatnotes or moves to qualified titles but I'm expecting more merges to be needed. If editors who monitor this page are willing to do merges, I'll add pairs of titles to this section as I find them. Certes (talk) 10:01, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- I've done the pair you mentioned in the original post; unfortunately, my experience here was still under the old system, so I am not sure how the new system deals with this. Manually adding {{Being merged to}} to articles should still add them to the backlog even where no discussion is considered to be needed, but of course there is the issue that its tag does explicitly mention that consensus has been reached. Felix QW (talk) 10:56, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
Manually adding {{Being merged to}} to articles should still add them to the backlog even where no discussion is considered to be needed, but of course there is the issue that its tag does explicitly mention that consensus has been reached
Do not do that. In a few months, the template will only accept AfD discussions as parameters and will throw an error if you don't provide a discussion or if the discussion points to a talk page.If you want to see how the new process works, see WP:AFD2 and all the sections below until WP:AFD6. FaviFake (talk) 11:28, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
If editors who monitor this page are willing to do merges, I'll add pairs of titles to this section as I find them.
Sure, feel free to put them here. FaviFake (talk) 11:28, 14 July 2026 (UTC)- Olufuko Festival and Olufuko festival overlap. There are two related subtopics – the practice and a festival in Outapi – so each may deserve its own article. However, each article currently describes both, sometimes with contradictory information. One article might be renamed Olufuko and concentrate on the concept, with the other documenting the Outapi event, but having never heard of the practice I'm reluctant to step in and make a mess. Or we could just merge them. Certes (talk) 10:26, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
- I think if you explain all of this at AfD you won't be criticized for nominating it. I'd nominate this one at AfD. FaviFake (talk) 10:29, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
- Olufuko Festival and Olufuko festival overlap. There are two related subtopics – the practice and a festival in Outapi – so each may deserve its own article. However, each article currently describes both, sometimes with contradictory information. One article might be renamed Olufuko and concentrate on the concept, with the other documenting the Outapi event, but having never heard of the practice I'm reluctant to step in and make a mess. Or we could just merge them. Certes (talk) 10:26, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
- St Michael's-on-Sea and St Michael's-on-sea seem to be the same place. Sources suggest that the best title might be St Michael's on Sea. Certes (talk) 10:13, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
Merge completed FaviFake (talk) 11:22, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
- Last one for now, I hope: Yudomski Event and Yudomski event. Certes (talk) 11:44, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
- Done! Felix QW (talk) 14:32, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
- Sadly, there will be more as I've found another way to detect duplicates. The latest pair is Absa Bank (Mauritius) Limited and Absa Bank Mauritius. The former article is older but the latter's title matches the format of similar article titles. Please let me know if you prefer me to post similar cases elsewhere or not at all. Certes (talk) 11:48, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
- Merge completed. This place is great, you should keep doing it! FaviFake (talk) 13:30, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
- Akuaba and Akuaba (Adinkra symbol) seem to describe the same thing. We don't need the qualifier, as there is no other topic of this name. Certes (talk) 19:27, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
- I've done the pair you mentioned in the original post; unfortunately, my experience here was still under the old system, so I am not sure how the new system deals with this. Manually adding {{Being merged to}} to articles should still add them to the backlog even where no discussion is considered to be needed, but of course there is the issue that its tag does explicitly mention that consensus has been reached. Felix QW (talk) 10:56, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for the advice. There should be a better way, but I'll not shoot the messenger! I've resolved most of them as either a merge I can manage or an obvious BLAR for the less good article. I did take a couple to AfD where I had genuine doubts. Aktogay Mine has been merged into Aktogay mine after an expert confirmed that they really are the same hole. Digital Automatic Coupling into Digital automatic coupling is in the merge queue after AfD, where I was politely and correctly reminded that I should have been bold. The background is that I'm halfway through checking pairs of articles whose titles differ only in case. Most are valid or require other action such as mutual hatnotes or moves to qualified titles but I'm expecting more merges to be needed. If editors who monitor this page are willing to do merges, I'll add pairs of titles to this section as I find them. Certes (talk) 10:01, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
End of an era
I've just closed and completed what I believe to be the last of the 'old regime' local-consensus merge proposals. The last one I completed related to Slovak Republic (1939–1945). That is, we've closed formally-proposed local-consensus discussions listed at Category:Articles proposed for merging, although we haven't quite cleared some with consensus (Category:Articles with consensus to merge from March 2026). I understand that @FaviFake: has a strategy for managing templates at this point. Klbrain (talk) 08:47, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
- March 2026 'with consensus to merge' category now cleared too. Klbrain (talk) 16:39, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for the heads up and thank you so much for your work on the merging space! I've notified my collaborator and we'll see what we can do from here! FaviFake (talk) 16:49, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
Content Disclaimer
Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.
- The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
- There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
- It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
- Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
- Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.