Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Merge

NOTE: To Make a Formal Merge Request; please go to This Page

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Nomination for deletion of Template:Merging from

Template:Merging from has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Felix QW (talk • contribs) 10:52, 4 October 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)

"Bold merges" with no content transfer

I have run into a few occurrences of what has been described in the edit summary as a "Bold merge", where the article (sometimes fairly substantial, complete with references) has been converted into a redirect to a reasonably appropriate target, but none of the content has actually been merged into the target, and the editor responsible may not even have edited the target article in the timespan one would reasonably expect. Sometimes it was already mentioned there in a phrase, or a short sentence, sometimes I have been unable to find any mention at all with a simple search for the term in the target article. I am not referring to duplicated content here.

I consider this a misleading edit summary, and not in any way actual WP:Merging. In effect it is an untagged and undiscussed deletion of the article. I am reasonably familiar with the general procedures of merging, having done a few in my time, but I would be interested to learn if anyone with more experience in general merging and dealing with merge requests considers this process to be acceptable under any policy or guidance, and if so please let me know where. Please ping with reply. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 11:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm a fan of merging in full (almost ...), and then refining in the new location. That's my reading of the of WP:Merging; merging is not equivalent to blank and redirect. The process of merging in full, with later edits to modify, means that attributions for content is clearer - the merge edit is one of moving content, with the person doing the merge having no significant editorial input, whereas later edits to refine the text are new contributions to the text. Klbrain (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Tagging on to Klbrain, it seems such a user is conflating WP:MERGE with WP:BLAR, resulting in an incorrect edit summary. Both are allowed to be done boldly, both result in the parent article becoming a redirect, but of course the latter is the case where no content is copied into the redirect target. I would note that both bold merges and bold BLARs can be reverted if a user disagrees or wants discussion, and it is also possible to take a BLAR (regardless of how it is characterized in the edit summary) and turn it into a merge by going back to the article history and identifying worthwhile content to be copied into the redirect target. The latter would just require an edit summary describing where the copied content came from (as with a normal merge), ideally with Permalink to the version of the page from which content was copied. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:15, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@Pbsouthwood:, This is what we used to call a "deletion by merge". They should not be still happening. (In fact, it's been years since I've come across one.) Feel free to list here if you spot another. These types of merges, unless the result of an AfD discussion, could be reverted and done properly. There is an attribution component to this type of merge as well, so, to play it safe, most of these should be reverted and the user warned. Regards, GenQuest ^"scribble" 03:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

p.s.: You can use this old warning if you want:

<!--Template begin-->

It appears that your edit of //date//, (//edit summary details//) left an incomplete ''Merge and Redirect'' of the [[~article name~]] article and its talk page, [[Talk:~article name~]].  {{optional|I have completed the Merge and Redirect for you.}}  If you need help in the completion of [[Wikipedia:Merge|mergers]] in the future, please feel free to contact me or a member of the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Merge|Merge Project]].  Thank you, ~~~~ 

<!--Template end-->

I've seen articles treated this way. If I WP:DEPROD and suggest a merge as an WP:ATD. A frustrated editor will occasionally WP:BLAR (when pressed, claiming there's no qualifying material to merge). It's all part of the ongoing delete/include battle on WP. ~Kvng (talk) 22:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks all, Much as I expected.

Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 11:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Kvng, That is a good strategy if the article at least has one Reference or Further Reading (or maybe even something gleaned from an External Link section) included in it. But, when there is absolutely nothing referenced, then i's another story. Then a merge is like pulling hens' teeth—there can be no merge, just a redirect. GenQuest ^"scribble" 14:06, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@GenQuest it depends on where you sit on the delete/include spectrum. We're not going to agree on this here. Merges can stay out of this fray if we just carry the material over and then let editors of the destination article decide whether it is worthy of inclusion there. ~Kvng (talk) 03:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Kvng I do a lot of mergers. A lot. I close a lot of merge discussions, Either yeh, nay, or status quo: I like to I consider myself neutral on that scale as my closes are policy based—not ivote counting. I have rescued articles at AfD, but if an article has sat for years with no references (or Further Reading, External Links, something), it's not getting merged, it's probably getting BLAR'd. If an article is relatively new and has no references, it's not getting merged, it's probably getting BLAR'd. That's because whoever writes that stuff can't just dump needed verification on others in the project. It's volunteer work after all.

I have tried many strategies in my 11 years of doing merges as part of this project, some you would probably approve of, others maybe not so much. After all the pushback on some of these (a damned if you do—damned if you don't type situation), I have determined that If it's important enough to be in someone's article, then it should be cited—even if done wrongly. That's quick to fix. I have to assume that if it is not cited, it is either OR, or unimportant to the article, or the subject is totally non-notable. We can only do so much. Regards, GenQuest ^"scribble" 04:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Like I said, we're not going to agree on this here, and more generally it is an ongoing area of tension in the project. What you're talking about in your second paragraph is not about merging, it is about article content. I have dealt with editors that want to remove longstanding unreferenced material from articles and this is about as fun as AfD discussions. Merging doesn't have to be any more complicated than it already is. My suggestion is we can keep it from getting unnecessarily complicated or contentious by addressing combined article content as a separate step. ~Kvng (talk) 15:39, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

That's certainly something to be considered. Thanks and happy editing. GenQuest ^"scribble" 18:05, 9 February 2023 (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

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)