Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Merge/Archive 1

Right, so how are we going to run this thing?

Any Ideas? We could take some inspiration from Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons, which successfully reduced a bigger backlog to practically zero. When that was active, they had a big red button where you could reference a random BLP (not sure if this could work in this context). There was a separate subpage for each monthly category, and there was a general drive to get month X clear by a certain time. We could award barnstars to anyone who signs up. What do you guys think? Quasihuman | Talk 22:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

We will start these things as soon as this project stablizes. It is very new, so just wait for a few more days, in which we can build the project enough to start off. And I am taking a look at the Unreferenced BLP project, something I found good to inspiration from as well. e^xtra999 (talk) 08:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

As far as randoms are concerned, please take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Merge/RandomArticle. Any comments can we have it on the project. e^xtra999 (talk) 13:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

A few tasks..

I am going to take a few minutes to do few tasks. If anything I do is objected to, please revert it at any point. Just a few things like make a short cut and few other page building tasks.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I've thrown together a userbox at Template:User WikiProject Merge it probably needs refining, but I'm not so good at that sort of thing, so I'll leave others to do that. Quasihuman | Talk 23:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

That's nice.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I am going to contribute for a good time to the project page. And check out: {{WikiProject Merge}}. --e^xtra999 (talk) 08:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Re the guidelines section, some of the advice from WP:MERGE is targeted at the proposer of the merge. For example, if only the proposer has commented, I would tend not to close that as consensus to merge, because it's more like a no quorum from an AfD than an actual consensus. I might decide to do the merge if I think it is obvious or uncontroversial, but more discretion is needed with these rather than discussions where several people have commented. What to people think of coming up with a kind of informal how-to guide about patrolling the backlog, in addition to the formal stuff? It could cover issues not in the WP:Merging and Help:Merging pages, like what to do when it seems no discussion has been started, etc. Quasihuman | Talk 10:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Please add to, take away or change at will.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Lots of spurious tags

Here's a sample of what I've seen...

1. Mannus : removed 16 month old merge tag with no discussion. I see no points of similarity as to why these two were proposed to be merged in the first place.
2. Major Wheel of Time characters : Already done, as Morgase Trakand as an article already redirects to Minor Wheel of Time characters.
3. Macross 7 : Basara Nekki remove merge tag: 2.5 years and no discussion by the original tagger. Can't tag as merge without a reason.
4. Macspeech : Merged selectively into MacSpeech.
5. Patrick Mächler : no discussion and no need to merge, article can stand on its own.
6. Madness (Elton John song) : decline merge: besides a lack of a rationale, this is an article about a song, not a movie filmed over 20 years later.

So we have (in order): no need to merge, already merged (but tag not removed), no rationale to merge, valid merge, invalid reason to merge (politics?) and sensless merge request. Has anyone noticed that there are a lot of spurious or outdated tags? Best, Markvs88 (talk) 12:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, most of the old tags are spurious, mainly because of drive by tagging without starting a discussion. Hidden within the category for each month are a minority of cases where action is needed, but was not done at the time. I thought of an idea to have a bot assess whether a discussion was started (by checking the talk pages & their archives for synomyms of the word merge and links to the other articles, and somehow mark the merge as such. Not sure how hard this would be to implement, but it could help sort between articles needing no other action than removing the tags, and those needing more attention. Quasihuman | Talk 13:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's another one: [[1]]. An article with quite literally no content. If not for the obvious redirect, it could have been speedied. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 13:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Stale merges

A couple ideas on policy for stale merges:

Stale merges

Stale merges refer to merge proposals older than one year.

Tags should be immediately removed if:

• The merge has been completed already.
• Either the target or destination article has been deleted.
• Either the target or destination article is a redirect to a different topic. (This does not include redirects for capitalization, spelling or formatting)
• The merge discussion doesn't name both articles to be merged. (Close the discussion as void due to confusion about what articles are involved)
• The tags propose a merge from a very narrow topic to a very wide topic, or vice versa (Example - merging Killdeer, North Dakota to United States)
• The tags propose merging a biography to another biography without justification. This almost never makes sense, and there is a strong burden of proof on the proposer.
• Neither you nor anyone at WP:Merge can figure out how the merger could ever possibly work.

I'd like to see a stale merge section in the Guidelines section on the main page. Any other guidelines for stale merges should be added there, too.

I think, however, that we may need to go much further. Once we have a better merge system, I think it might even make sense to have a bot delete every merge tag more than a year old. The bot could leave a note at the talk page telling editors that they can renew the merge discussion under the new procedure. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 13:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you proposing that a "stale merge" may represent a possible reasoning to simply remove the articles from merge listings and even automate a function to do that?--Amadscientist (talk) 21:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Once there is a better process in place, then yes. Those interested can then restart discussion using the new process, but not a second before. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 21:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Well,I like the term for lack of better phrasing as it represents a good reason to manually de-list. If it's an article that you think is original or different enough to not be redirected and there has been no discussion generated then the merge proposal is stale. A merge tag represents the efforts of an editor to edit to gain consensus. If no other discussion is made it is an individual judgement call at the moment as to whether or not carry out a "Merge with redirect". If a MWR is reverted with no discussion we can see that as opposition to the merge (even after 3 years) and simply call that stale and delist. Now...these are within current guidelines and policy. I am not yet sure where this could be altered to streamline and a bot would not be able to do but one task and that is delete or am I incorrect about that.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Adding some similar lanuage to guidelines.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with all of those guidelines as written up to the last one... we have a 16,000 article backlog. I don't think we're going to miss much if we allow the individual that can't figure out how a merge might work to close the merge. After all, the most likely way this would happen is if there was no rationale on the discussion page. It can always be re-requested if it's really an issue anyway. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 06:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not that you personally can't figure it out it's that no one can figure it out. I should clarify that if you don't understand how the merge would work, post it at this talk page and if no one else can figure it out, the tag is gone. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Uncontroversial merges

The most uncontroversial merge is the AFD consensus merge. Are these separated by listing? Do they have a time limit and/or is there a backlog?--Amadscientist (talk) 22:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

These are in Category:Articles to be merged after an Articles for deletion discussion they are also in the monthly categories. I've merged articles in that cat recently from February 2009, so I assume the backlog is the same as the general category. Quasihuman | Talk 22:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

You've done some great work! Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

merge proposals under AfD

When an article is facing deletion, the merge should be on hold. A page should never be merge while a deletion discussion is in progress. A vote for keep is a vote against merging. A vote for delete is also a vote against merging. If the AfD ends in either keep or delete, the wiki community has clearly voted against merging and any merge tags should be removed. Only a result of merge or a no consensus would allow the merge to proceed. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 13:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I disagree. A vote for keep is keep not, "don't use that content". The content may freely be used. The target page is not in AFD. If we were talking about an edit war I might agree but the information about a Vice president's wife was not included on his page. The AFD was about the Hannah page and whether it could be a standing article. A selected merge of content only added to an article not in dispute. The article with the information was being suggested to be merged and redirected. Lets say it is kept....so it harms the AFD in progress now how? It's information about a man and the wife of his eight kids who outlived him. It has context and relevance to the Daniel D. Tompkins article. We are trying to streamline not add additional road blocks. One article was delisted as stale and the other began an afd and no further merger steps were taken there.--Amadscientist (talk) 14:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I would be wary of a definite rule, but I certainly agree that an AfD happening after a merge tagging should be taken into account. The actual closing statement matters, sometimes administrators close an AfD with strong merge arguments as keep because the issues involved with the merge are too complex to be dealt with in an AfD. As an example, see this AfD. If a merge was discussed in the AfD, and consensus was against it, I would remove the tags. Also, consensus can change, and if a subsequent merge discussion had consensus to merge, the previous AfD would have a lesser impact on my closing decision, especially if merging wasn't discussed in the AfD. I don't think this should be a 'quick fail' case, like I think no discussion at all can be. Quasihuman | Talk 16:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

In all "Article for deletion discussions" there are those that make suggestions to the consensus. Some even give suggestions to such things as which direction to go on the article and how much space should be devoted to certain sections, but they are not binding but simple peer suggestions. The AFD is a discussion with which the single binding closing decision is keep or delete. If the admin feels that the consensus is to delete they almost always allow a merge of material unless it is under dispute as innaccurate or false. AFD does not control the merge process and should be handled the same as any other edit in this regard. On the AFD article if we tried to say that no additonal information sould be included while an AFD was in progress that would be adding a road block not established by the encyclopedia. While my actions seemed to stir a reaction from Donde, I am not sure if we should suddenly stop using the Wikipedidia guidelines. They have been established with a good deal of trial and error. Merge pages have come and gone and we need to be aware of what the community has truly shot down before we start comming down to hard on others for their efforts. Other pages proposed but shot down include Wikipedia:Articles for merging and Wikipedia:Mergers for discussion. As well as another mentioned below. We are doing some interesting work here and there is a lot of research involved. Let's be sure we are not using too much opinion unless we kmow for sure there is standing for something. At this time there is no prohibition against moving an article while an AfD discussion is in progress, editors considering doing so should realize such a move can confuse the discussion greatly, can preempt a closing decision, and can make the discussion difficult to track. So, along this same line mergers can as well take place during an AFD, but may only cause confusion. So let's be clear on the tlak page about such and let us research all the guidelines and policies in regards to the traget page. I am firm on one thing. We will NOT add more roadblocks to editng freely on Wikipedia and we shall not add more unwritten rules. We should simply make it clear what can and cannot be done and why. Merge tags are not removed...ONLY if the is a merge dispute. However if the merge proposal was carried out in an incomplete or incorrect manner and done in a way that might possible make editors believe they cannot edit a page or carry out a task when they actualy can, then we are being counter productiove and that would be a real shame.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Quasihuman that the full closing statement matters more than whatever word is bolded. Clearly, "keep, discuss merging on talk page" should not short-circuit an existing merge discussion. Flatscan (talk) 05:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Regardless, it's still a good idea to put merges on hold during a deletion discussion. It's only seven days, it's not gonna significantly affect our ability to clear the backlog. (In fact, waiting for a potential delete will let us clear something else off the backlog while the original problem disappears) D O N D E groovily Talk to me 20:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I support that, merging during the AfD would be a bad idea anyway, while an article is up for AfD, it shouldn't be blanked or redirected. Quasihuman | Talk 23:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

A couple of things. Neither of the two comments addresses the two separate article issue and niether addresses the content issue. Also there is the cross article warring issue and the right of the encyclopedia and editors to edit freely within the manual of style and guidelines. The issue for the project should be to establish basic structure for the continued work, not acknowledge the old "social" taboos that are not exactly policy but simply unwritten etiquette. I may actually be wrong on some things and am not trying to work through community consensus, but with it. But AFD's are keep or delete discussions. Many editors have opinions within the discussion and if a merge is a part of that discussion that doesn't mean the material from the article is frozen and off limits to other editors. That really goes against the spirit of working freely and collaboratively. We're not discussing a merge proposal from 3 months ago, but from 3 years ago. That may not play into much with an AFD in progress on one article, but a 3 year stale merge proposal on the target article does not mean the article that does not have an AFD cannot be edited and some of or all of the information can't be used on her husbands article. Look. This was supposed to be an honest good faith attempt to use the information of a notable woman in an article that had direct context to her. If there is a specific policy and guideline we should be using then lets address it and get conensus on it so we can make if part of the project guidelines.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Mad scientist, the consensus has evolved from "don't do it", to "wait for discussion to close then maybe do it". There's nothing wrong with waiting for the deletion discussion to finish first. If it ends in a delete or redirect, the consensus is that the content doesn't belong anywhere on wikipedia, so if you merged during the discussion, you violated consensus and policy and also wasted your time (the merge tag will disappear when the page is deleted, no effort required). So, you should wait to see if wikipedia editors feel the content is worth keeping before spending time merging. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 22:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Donde...don't get ahead of yourself. There is no consensus as yet for anything. This is a discussion. For there to be consensus firt there need to be an issue that is controled by such. My working withing the current policy and guidelines outside this page is not a local consensus. You can't contro what other editors do just because you don't like it or think it's right. Yopu have to show that it's wrong and noone has even attempted that yet. Yes, a Merge with redirect" should not be carried out in the middle of an ANI, but only as a project decision for our project out or respect for the process. I am not sure that admin would revert such an edit were it to be carried out, however as ANI does not put an article on hold. Ani is strictly a discussion about deletion. A merge with redirect does not delete information. It still exists in the article history and can be retrieved merely by reversing the redirect. That can be done at anytime by anyone and as well should be addressed by the project but remember we are not creating new policy we are interpreting existing policy. We have not taken any steps yet to propse anything new. The project thus far is simple organizing current policy and guidelines to streamline the process and make it easier to find the sources and references from wikipedia to accomplish a merge successfully and with repsect to the work of others.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I asked about this at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion, so we'll see what they say about it. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

(Coming her from WT:AFD) On the issue of not causing roadblocks, a big problem with merging articles while an AfD is ongoing is copyright. If you merge an article you must provide attribution. (As a side issue, I hope the project page itself will emphasize this crucial requirement and not just leave it read in the links to how to perform a merger.) The problem with merging an article at AfD is that the attribution you provide on a merger is to show very clearly where the content you merged came from so that anyone can find the original placement and its authors in the merged-from-article's page history. If an article from which content was merged is deleted as a result of an AfD, the attribution, even if properly done on the merge, will then be broken because the page history of the article that the attribution is tied to is gone. I don't see any way around this. In sum: any time you merge an article that is at AfD and the later result is delete, your merger 'leaves a copyright violation/problem in its wake. You may say, "wait a second, how is this any different from the situation where an article at AfD had content merged into another in its past and the result of the AfD is delete?" That situation is indeed a problem, and when it's discovered the delete needs to be modified for copyright purposes by undeleting, redirecting and salting the redirect so that the spirit of deletion is preserved while copyright attribution is not violated. This is necessary but far from ideal. It would be much better if the issue was not present. And often the merge is not discovered, leaving an undiscovered copyright mess. For these reasons, it is a very bad idea to merge content while an AfD is ongoing. As discussed above, if you are not here to cause more problems or roadblocks, don't do merges while AfDs are pending.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

This is something that came to my mind last night and is a legitimate concern...however as this isn't policy or guideline that is the very thing the project was created for. To find areas that need to be addressed. I find the last statement to be rather incivil and boarderline "assuming bad faith". If you actually believe I am here to cause problems than I suggest you make an ANI. You point out a problem that is being uncovered and your only suggestion is "if you are not here to cause more problems or roadblocks, don't do merges while AfDs are pending". Thanks. How about addressing the guideline policy gap and how this can be improved, because you have only stated a problem that exists and not that there is any policy or guideline to cover it. Simply put...if there is no policy or guideline in place to stop editors from editong a page under AFD than we either address that as a problem or we admit we cannot stop editors from doing such regardless of percieved problems it creates. Edit freely is not something you accuse another editor of doing to cause disruption and if an editor states outright they are not trying to create propblems then an Administrator, of all people, should not be throwing it back as an insult. Thanks and happy editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, this is a wide open gap in policy needing to be addressed. Admin should NOT be suggesting a merg with deletion of an article. Sounds far fetched but simply put, under the explanation given above, all articles that are deleted for any reason, even if done by consensus that may have had content merged...even some small amount would be a copyright violation. I would assume that article history would be somehow merged by admin. If this is not possible how can any delete be merged. There is no attribution unless the article history is merged and I think this is how it is done. So either we porpose a new policy to actually prohibit merging of content during a deletion discussion or we make it clear what is required should the article be deleted. This seems pretty simple to me.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I was pretty excited about this project. I really thought we were going to do something really important here, but it seems that too many editor simply do not have an understanding of "Assuming good faith" along with some vital policy and guidelines. That makes things far more cumbersome. The above discussion is a pretty good example of people making assumptions without much time spent looking into the subject. Point blank: There is no policy or guideline that stops an editor from editing a page under AFD. If this is an issue..propose a change. HOWEVER...first be sure thare is not already policy in place to deal with such.

Merging during AFD is allowed. Moving the article while AFD is underway is allowed. If done correctly there is no mess. But it takes an editor that understands these policies. That is what the projects aims at. Helping to clarify current policy and make proposals for new policy as needed. So far I have yet to find a policy or guideline that doesn't state what to do. In the above discussion it was brought up that deleting an article removes the attribution. Sorry, but that is simply NOT out of our hands. You can't stop deletions or mergers. AFD policy is clear, editors may still edit the article freely. There are guidelines in place to keep the tag on the page if the AFD is about a merger dispute. In fact this is mentioned in the formal policy here [2]. The suggestion made at the essay page is here [3]. This seems to be a potential problem with deleting articles...not merging them. In other words, it is not the merge that creats the problem...it is the deletion. To say one should not be merging during an AFD because of this issue isn't exactly true. In fact it is during the AFD that such merging SHOULD be done as an Administrator will then know the issue is there and know to merge the history. This isn't an argument around the admin aboves statement, just that this is about the only time that the knowledge of the merger will be seen and the correct actions taken. You can't merge AFTER a delete. There is nothing to stop merging of articles that exist even if they have the potential to be deleted. To me the answer is kinda simple and this is exactly what this project was created for. Target and proposal project template tags after a merge on the talk pages to remain permanently. The target article gets a tag stating that content from "Proposed article" has been merged to "this" article (we have that already of course) and another on the article that the content was taken from. This may not be needed and may be why there is no such tag that I can find (maybe there is), The article that has had content merged correctly will place a permanet tag on the target article that is the attribution....BUT if the article that the information was taken from is NOT deleted (sometimes there is just more information on another article) then a tag MUST be placed on that talk page as a warning to admin that should a deletion be carried out the history needs to be merged to the "target" article. We may already have this in place but have yet to find it. If this is not in place this is what needs to be addressed. By the way, if the project wants specific wording to simply warn editors that merging during AFD causes confusion in the same language it staes for "move' I have no problem with that, It should be done. The problem I would have is attempting to word our guidelines in a manner NOT consistant with Wikipedia policy without first proposing a policy change if one is needed. If it isn't needed then just calrifying the current guidelines should be enough.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

That is so frustrating. I was recapitulating your own language! Read your own prior post; what you said you were not here to do. Instead of making this about discussing the issue, your response is to attack me about the way I said something that you of anyone in this discussion should have understood was an affirmation of your own statement. I don't need the aggravation further discussion with you would bring given the misinterpretation and surly attitude seen here. Goodbye.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is frustrating. Perhaps you should consider what you throw back at an editor and how it is phrased, because your comment sounded very much like you questioned my reasons for editing. Insulted? My apologies for that. But nevertheless you still haven't even addressed what I proposed as an answer to the issue you brought up. As editors we don't want to add extra burden to admin and I would hope admin wouldn't want to add a burden to editors. We have policy and guidelines and where they are bereft I would hope we would want to work together instead of just throwing in the towel the minute we don't like each other's attitude.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is the current Wikipedia policy on this issue:"Merging during deletion discussions"

The Guide to deletion recommends:

You should exercise extreme caution before merging any part of the article. If you are bold but the community ultimately decides to delete the content, all your mergers must be undone. (This is necessary in order to remain compliant with the requirements of Wikipedia's licensing). It is far better to wait until the discussion period is complete unless there is a strong case for merge under the deletion policy. This is not an issue, however, if the merged content is not merely copied and pasted, but instead completely rewritten so that only uncopyrightable facts are transferred, not copyrightable expression.

This issue was mentioned in the Wikipedia Signpost in August 2009.

This was copied from WP:AfD and mergers, which is an essay, not policy. It was written in September 2009 to highlight the section in WP:Guide to deletion. That section was rewritten in December 2009 (AfD and mergers was never updated), following WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 58#Merging during live AfD. Flatscan (talk) 05:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Therefore I am making the following proposals:

Proposals for guidelines

We cannot overide the current policy and guidelines. For now I believe the following wording should be placed in the project guidelines:

Proposal 1:

• Editors should not merge content during an AFD. AfD participants should not work "around" consensus by beginning a merge process unilaterally, before discussion. Preservation is a good consideration, copying may be contentious, create additional steps and administrative work if undoing any copying is necessary, causes an attribution dependency breakage between articles that may require the merging of article history that would be lost. AFD participants may offer proposals and negotiate with the other participants, while waiting for the discussions closing. If needed, editors may ask the closing admin how to rescue the content or additional steps that need to be taken. However, if the merging content is not merely copy paste, but is added as original prose it need not be attributed. One should exercise extreme caution BEFORE undertaking such a controversial move. While it is not strictly prohibited, Wikipedia:WikiProject Merge recommends that editors outside of the AFD refrain from such tasks in the spirit of collaboration. Unless there is a strong case for the merger specified by deletion policy it is prefered that editors wait until the discussion period is complete.

Any editor may add contents and references if completely rewritten. In this manner the merged content is not merely copied and pasted but all original content makes use of the available references."

Proposal 2:

• It is also proposed that a separate and permanent tag be made to be placed on the proposed article talk page that has had content merged (by copy paste) but the article is not in immediate danger of deletion. This warns editors and admin on the originating article of the content copied at the "target" page (or the page that had the content merged)) so that should the article be deleted, it's history can be merged to the "target" article for licensing. The copied attribution is used for both cases of article. This just needs to heavily discussed in the guide as direction to use in each specific case. This is also basically administrative-history merge warning.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion says that one should not redirect an article while an article is at AfD. This would mean that a full merge as defined in the lead of WP:MERGE should not happen while the source article is at AfD, there is no such problem if the destination article is at AfD as far as I know. Quasihuman | Talk 21:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Reply While this should should be added to our guidelines let us note the difference in the wording between "Should not" and "must not". Also this is repeating the other mention but with a caveat: This would mean that a full merge as defined in the lead of WP:MERGE should not happen while the source article is at AfD". This doesn't address a selective merge with no redirect, and even then is not saying it must not happen, but should not happen. A difference in that it is not actually stating this guideline must be adherred to. THAT may be something we want to discuss on that page and propose a change as I see this as having strong support, but we absolutely cannot, as a project, attempt to set a brightline policy or guideline that does not exist. We need to be specific as to not be overstating something. If this is very important (which it likely is) then we need to propose this change on that policy page to have more strict language.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Some additions to the proposed guideline as mentioned by Quasi.

I also note that the policy refers ONLY to AFD participants....so....--Amadscientist (talk) 21:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• This seems redundant to WP:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion. That section was rewritten as the outcome of WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 58#Merging during live AfD, which lasted from August to December 2009 and included a Request for comment. Flatscan (talk) 05:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Much of this is redundant, but that is what happens when trying to reference all existing policy in a single place to cover a merge in order to creat a start to finish guideline that project members can follow.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Why have such detailed instructions instead of a summary and a {{Main}} link to the existing page? Flatscan (talk) 05:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• I support proposal 1. As for proposal 2, are you talking about cases where content has been copy-pasted and the source not redirected? We have {{R from merge}} on redirects from merges which tells admins not to delete the redirect. Quasihuman | Talk 23:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Overthinking a specific case type and we have the "copied" tag for this as it is both attribution and admin warning for history merge we just need to stress it's use in both a redirect and non redirect case.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

what's wrong with the section edit links?

What's wrong with the section edit links in the main project page? See the participants section for example, this, of all sections, needs to be easily edited by people, but the edit links are not showing up, and when I edit the full page, I find that that section has been moved to a template and transcluded. Is there something wrong the transclusion that makes the edit links not show up? Unless this can be quickly fixed, can I suggest that we move the list to the main page. Quasihuman | Talk 17:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Quasihuman | Talk 14:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Merge Portal

Needs work of course, but it linked.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Portal, "The idea of a portal is to help readers and/or editors navigate their way through Wikipedia topic areas through pages similar to the Main Page. In essence, portals are useful entry-points to Wikipedia content." How will Portal:Merge fit with this? It looks as if it's going to be a WikiProject or Help page. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

It should work the same way as the rest. The project will begin building it as it is within our scope. The entire merge process is in front of us. We are just picking up what is there and building on it in the same manner as the rest of the encyclopedia. We also need an assement page. There is a Merge Class.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Standard class types
FA	FL	FM	A
{{Class|FA}}	{{Class|FL}}	{{Class|FM}}	{{Class|A}}
GA	B	C	Start
{{Class|GA}}	{{Class|B}}	{{Class|C}}	{{Class|Start}}
Stub	List	NA	???
{{Class|Stub}}	{{Class|List}}	{{Class|NA}}	{{Class|Unassessed}}
Non-standard class types
Future	SIA	AL
{{Class|Future}}	{{Class|SIA}}	{{Class|AL}}
BL	CL	Category
{{Class|BL}}	{{Class|CL}}	{{Class|Category}}
Disambig	Draft	File
{{Class|Disambig}}	{{Class|Draft}}	{{Class|File}}
Needed	Portal	Project	Redirect
{{Class|Needed}}	{{Class|Portal}}	{{Class|Project}}	{{Class|Redirect}}
Template	User
{{Class|Template}}	{{Class|User}}
Importance types
Top	High	Mid	Low
{{Importance|Top}}	{{Importance|High}}	{{Importance|Mid}}	{{Importance|Low}}
Bottom	NA	???
{{Importance|Bottom}}	{{Importance|NA}}	{{Importance|Unknown}}

Class

• {{Article classification}}
• {{Grading scheme}}
• {{Assessment Class Summary}}
• {{Category class}}
• {{Articles by Quality}}
• {{Class}}

Importance

• {{Article importance}}
• {{Importance scheme}}
• {{Assessment Importance Summary}}
• {{Category importance}}
• {{Articles by Importance}}
• {{Importance}}
• {{Importance/colour}}
• {{Importance/icon}}

Hybrid

• {{Articles by Quality and Importance}}
• {{Article by Quality and Importance}}

Others

• {{Articles by Quality Pie Graph}}
• {{Articles by Importance Pie Graph}}
• {{Progression rainbow}}
• {{WikiProject assessment progression}}

• This doesn't seem like an appropriate use of a portal. Portals are done by topic (such as chemistry, Islam or Botswana) rather than article status. Portals are a service to Wikipedia readers, not editors, so it seems entirely inappropriate for a pure maintenance category like merges. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 20:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that a maintenance WP like this needs to get involved in assessment, but you feel that it's necessary, go ahead. I have no opinion on the portal, I don't know much about them, never used or edited them. Quasihuman | Talk 23:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Or there any examples of an article maintenance portal out there? D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• I posted this question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree here with Groovily, seriously merge portal should not exsist, as I know no other class has its own portal, if we really want to make it, we have to at Wikipedia:WikiProject Merge/Portal, and if so I'm willing to help, 'portals are for readers'. e^xtra999 (talk) 14:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

We do not have to use another project to create a portal anymore than an editor needs to use this project to undertake a merge. Come on you guys, suggesting that a portal should not exist because you don't think it benefits the reader? Really? Well, if we were strictly a reader encyclopedia that might make sense. The portals project itself has a portal for portals.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the editor meant Wikipedia:Portal/Proposals but that section is archived as it was rejected by the community. It is inactive but retained for historical interest. Per admin "Since the portal proposals page was held to be not proper, You are now welcome to create as many portals as You wish without pre-approval".[4]--Amadscientist (talk) 03:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

This discussion is now continuing at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Merge. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Transclusions on project page

Whoever made the project page transclusions, could you please move them to be subpages of the project page rather than templates? These pages are not likely to be transcluded anywhere but here, so no need for a template. Also, having them a subpages means that if you wind up on one, you get a link up top going back to the main Wikiproject Merge page. You don't get that when you use a template. Thanks D O N D E groovily Talk to me 20:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

An idea

Clearing the merge backlog is a big, seemingly endless task, and is not very appetizing to the general editor population. We are making progress here, the backlog is reducing by a bit every day, but we need lots of new members to make eliminating the backlog achievable in the medium term. My idea is to have a drive to eliminate the Articles to be merged after an Articles for deletion discussion backlog. This is definitely achievable, I reckon we could do it within a month, if we do this simultaneously with a drive for new members, we have a better chance of getting lots more people in. One of our goals is to eventually deal with each merge within a reasonable period of time, by eliminating that backlog, we can do that for AfD merges at least. Any thoughts on this? Quasihuman | Talk 23:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Awesome idea. The unreferenced BLP drive reduced numbers from 20,000 to about 1000 now. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I've created a page for the proposed drive, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Merge/AfD merge backlog elimination drive. Quasihuman | Talk 14:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone mind if I go ahead and transclude this on the main page? Quasihuman | Talk 17:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Clarification needed, what is a "merge"?

This should really be addressed. There are some misconceptions about the merge process and the results from a "merge with redirect" as well as the differences between MWR and a deletion of an article. First, a merge is only a transfer of content. Second, a redirect is only a blanking of content and a direct to another page. Article history is still intact and the article can be returned by any editor. In and of itself, it may well be considered a bold edit, depending on circumstances but is not considered a process off limits to an average editor and this may be why so may are apprehensive about undertaking such an action. But a merge is similar to a move in that it can be reversed by anyone.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

expand to cover splits?

Can this be expanded to cover splits? (Splits never had a notice board, unlike mergers (WP:PM), and some of them have been hanging around for years...) 70.24.251.71 (talk) 05:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - At this time we have our hands full with just this single subject.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Merging and splitting are entirely different processes. Peacock28 (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose for now - This is a good idea for whenever the backlog gets low, but should be its own project. With all the work this project has, it should focus on merges only. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 11:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose The backlog for splits is very low. Could be included once this project's purpose is completed. e^xtra999 (talk) 12:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Request for Assistance list at Proposed Mergers

There is a request for assistance merge list at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. I'm working to clear it out, placing tags if articles don't have them, otherwise simply deleting. This list is of zero benefit and just makes things harder for us. Please leave comments at Wikipedia talk:Proposed mergers D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Deletion discussion relevant to this project

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log/July 2008 D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Good luck and a word about attribution requirements

Hi. :) I just wanted to wish you luck with your new project - certainly a worthy and necessary task, and I wish had more time to help but we haven't been able to conquer the backlog at WP:CP for weeks!

I did clarify some of your instructions, such as [5], to make sure that the essential step of adding a direct link to the source article in the edit summary is not overlooked. This keeps the history of the article intact in compliance with our licenses.

If you happen to notice particularly newer members to your project who are not merging correctly, please do try to reinforce that requirement. It's a real pain to try to track it down later. :)

Thanks! And, again, good luck! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the good wishes, I try to keep an eye on that. Quasihuman | Talk 13:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Seconded e^xtra999 (talk) 14:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Old merge needing comment

Folks, I've got a request for some comment about merging List of animal names and List of animal names. Please comment at Talk:List of animal names#Merge with List of animal sounds. I'm not certain if this one makes sense, by the way, but don't have a strong opinion. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I assume that should say "merging List of animal names with List of animal sounds. Peacock28 (talk) 19:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

D'OH!! D O N D E groovily Talk to me 00:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Question

I'd like to get involved in this project, so I've been trying to get to grips with the merge procedure. I was merging African Space Research Program into Uganda space program, but it turned out there was quite a lot of info in the sources, and I felt I should expand on the subject a bit. I ended up completely rewriting it, so pretty much none of the content from the source article survived, except the sources. I'm not sure whether that makes it a simple redirect, and if so, did I still need to place the {{Copied}} tag in the talk pages? Any advice would be appreciated. DoctorKubla (talk) 11:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow response, but if none of the original content remains, then you didn't copy anything and you therefore do not need to tag the articles. Copying a reference is not the same as copying content. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 20:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Sources fall under WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Where attribution is not needed, "Bare references". If you completely rewrote the text so that none of the original WP article was used, attribution is not required. I personally err on the side of caution, so that credit – and blame – can be traced back to the original contributor. Flatscan (talk) 04:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Best wishes

Allow me to applaud the creation of this WikiProject. I've frequently found that merging articles improves the structure and increases the accessibility of the information in there. I wish you all best of luck in this endeavour. >Radiant< 14:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for those words, you may also consider joining the project. Anyways thanks, e^xtra999 (talk) 09:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Template Merge School

There is a merge template, Template:Merge school, that isn't putting pages in the monthly category, but instead into its own category separated from the regular articles to be merged. If someone knows how to deal with templates, could they fix it please? Thanks, D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Query regarding mergers of several stubs with main article

Dear Wiki Project Merge users/experts, Im sorry to bother you but I am not entirely sure about some procedures and am still rather unfamiliar with the technical aspects of merging, so thought it might be best to get your feedback and guidance. I am mostly working on WP Pakistan and/or WP India (old/pre-1947) articles/topics and I have been for some time noting that there are many stub articles, generally repetitious, on the various Nawabs/rulers of Amb (princely state) and these dont seem to have any real 'stand alone value' since some details of all of these rulers in this dynasty have already been covered more or less in the main Amb article. At the same time, Im not sure if it would be beter to (a) merge these with the main article or (b) just propose deletion of the stubs/smaller and repetitious ones? Im also wary of starting off a dispute/controversy as people here feel very strongly about tribe, clan etc and dont want a 'furore'. I have, however, put the mrge template (for discussion) on all of these articles separately and given my reasons on all their talk pages. I would be v v grateful indeed if a more experienced and objective/neutral editor could kindly also take a look at these and help out. Thanks. Khani100 (talk) 15:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)Khani100|Khani100

You can feel free to propose a merge, but at the end of the day it will be consensus of eds who are interested in those articles that will rule the day. Per a quick look, it looks as if those fellows are notable enough to merit their own article. I would suggest placing a merge-from template at the top of the Amb (princely state) article, and redirecting all of the discussions to a single place in the Amb (princely state) article (you'll need to change the discussion= link I think, check the template instructions). But per wiki policy, this may be a losing battle.--KarlB (talk) 01:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Participants

Up to 18 members. User:Quasihuman had a great concept here with starting Project Merge. A lot of work went into this by User:Dondegroovily as well and it looks like it is slowly paying of! Woohoo! Congratulations guys!--Amadscientist (talk) 18:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

And don't forget your name. The three heroes of this project. e^xtra999 (talk) 03:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, ahh shucks, gee whiz, thanks. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Well then there are 4 heroes as I know you put in a lot of work as well Extra, sorry I forgot ya!--Amadscientist (talk) 08:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh thanks, but the main efforts was pumped by you three. e^xtra999 (talk) 09:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

WikiThanks

A thanks to all the WP:PMG participants and in particular 3 greats, Quasihuman, Dondegoovily and Amadscientist. e^xtra999 (talk) 09:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Merge tags on templates

Some guy placed a merge tag on the template {{technical}} which added 1600 pages to the merge categories. I deleted the tag, but it will take a while for the servers to update. Is it possible to modify these templates so that they don't categorize when placed on templates? D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I saw this problem, and was astonished when the undated articles suddenly rise, which took our progress percentage to -7%. You did the right thing by taking it to the TfD, thanks for that. e^xtra999 (talk) 06:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Library of Congress Classification Old Merge

This discussion, Talk:Library_of_Congress_Classification#Deleting_subpages starting in August 2009 is suggesting the merge of pages at Category:Library of Congress Classification. From my perspective this will result in a big mess. Would appreciate some fresh eyes on it to see whether to forgo trying to merge any of it at all. --DarkCrow^Caw 20:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Pam see also documentation

For proposed article mergers (PAM), I created Template:Pam see also documentation based the one for Template:Afd see also documentation. I also added templates to Category:Merge templates. Feel free to improve Template:Pam see also documentation. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Merge tag persistence

How long should merge tags remain? I'm seeing merge tags being deleted after 2 or 3 days claiming that an outcome has occurred after opinions lodged by three editors (nom + 2 others). 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

That's too quick. It should be there for about 7 days, I'd say, and the nom ideally should post a message to the relevant Wikiproject notifying of the discussion. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 21:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree with above point, with the additional point that - if the talk discussion is still active, the tags should remain. --DarkCrow^Caw 16:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Merging from closed AFDs

Ok, I've checked on several articles in the backlog, and there are some where it doesn't really look like there's much content to be merged, that just a redirect is the appropriate treatment. Can we safely make that judgment call, or do we need to pick through the articles to find a few tidbits to merge into the parents articles? --BDD (talk) 00:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Find the person who was most strongly in favor of merging during the AfD and ask them to do it. I'm only partly joking. If they don't, I think it's fine to redirect. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merge tag

Could some of you guys put Wikipedia:Proposed mergers and help out there for a while? I need to take a break on that. Thanks, D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I have been away from the project for some time. Let me get my ducks in a row and i might be able to help out eventually.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Post-merge templates

Hi fellow mergers. Are {{Merged-to}} and {{Merged-from}} not redundant to {{copied}}? The former pair seems natural for use after a merge, but all our instructions say to use the latter. --BDD (talk) 21:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Our instructions should not tell people to use {{copied}} as it's way too hard to use so people won't bother. {{Merged-to}} and {{merged-from}} are a million times easier, since you don't need to provide diffs and history links, which is nearly impossible for new users to figure out, and even experienced users like me struggle with it. Also, merged-to and merged-from are very specific about how and where content was copied, while copied is not as specific. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done Feel free to check my work, as I've probably missed something. --BDD (talk) 17:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

If the diff field(s) are populated, {{Copied}} links to the diff, which is more precise than the {{Merged-*}} templates. Flatscan (talk) 04:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. I always use {{copied}}. It's not that hard; I don't bother with most of the parameters, just from/to/diff. I think providing the diff is always helpful, and merged-to and merged-from don't actually explain that the former article provides attribution and shouldn't be deleted, which is kind of the point of these templates. Also, you can just copy-paste the same template onto both articles, rather than having to use two different templates that say the same thing. So yeah, I like {{copied}} better, and I'm probably not alone in that. Our instructions shouldn't tell people to use one template over the other. One of them probably is redundant, but so long as they both exist, we should offer them both and let editors decide for themselves. DoctorKubla (talk) 20:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

A change in our guidelines in this manner and with this subject require a discussion and a formed consensus. As the editor that placed that guideline, I should note that it underwent a long discussion with contributions from outside editors to insure Copied was instructed in a particular manner. I will look into this current change and see if it can be salvaged along with what was there. No reason both cannot be mentioned but copied is not exactly an option and the other template may not have the needed fields to insureall information is included.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

This was too confusing an addition, so I have removed it. A little bit of intruction creep in my opinion, but more important, it didn't really clarify anything. WP:FMERGE states that the use of these templates is an option and only when the minumum action of linking the source page in the edit summary when merging is NOT done.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Merge proposal for Nakoula Basseley Nakoula

A discussion has begun here to decide if the article Nakoula Basseley Nakoula should be merged to Innocence of Muslims. An AFD was recently closed as "Keep" with the suggestion that the article could be proposed for merger. As this could be a controversial merge proposal, I have notifyed the projects involved and am leaving this heads up here in case this should need any assistance from Wikipedia WikProject Merge members. Thank you!--Amadscientist (talk) 19:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed changes to Merge discussion

The behavior of {{Merge discussion}} seems at variance with its purpose:

1. The policy for proposing a merge recommends creating a discussion on the destination page, yet this template is designed to go on the source page (see also Template:Pam_see_also_documentation).
2. It reminds contributors to base arguments on article title policy, but I cannot see anything in that policy that is relevant to merger discussions.

I propose that this template have the same syntax as {{Merge from}}:

{{Merge discussion|OtherPage |date=April 2024}}

In addition, it should direct editors to Reasons for merger instead of article title policy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RockMagnetist (talk • contribs) 18:14, 15 September 2012

After thinking for a bit, I don't see why we need this at all. Just more WP:BURO in adding and removing an extra template for each merge discussion. What's wrong with plain text in a talk page section? Clearly the article-space templates need to boxed to stand aside from the actual article (and point to the discussion), but I don't see what's to be gained by an extra box on the talk page. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps if this box put the discussion in the WP:RfC system, I might be convinced. I'm not sure that adding every merge discussion to the RfC system is useful though. Perhaps only the most protracted ones... Tijfo098 (talk) 06:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Merge discussion

Template:Merge discussion has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. RockMagnetist (talk) 06:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Advice on a merge

Anyone who could offer help with the merger discussion at Talk:Write-off would be very welcome. I don't want to close it because i am involved and so would like to request either more outside opinions or just advice. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 11:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

VP discussion notification

There's a proposal at the village pump that might be of interest – see WP:VP/PR#Wikipedia "Merge" like WP:RM or WP:AFD. The idea is to create some kind of "mergers for discussion" process, I think. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Aircorn

Hi all. Every so often I get the urging to do some merging. Apart from Donde who I have run into before I didn't know of anyone else who did this, so I was pleasently surprised when BDD pointed me here after I messed up a merge. I have had a read of this page and have a few comments if you are interested.

• Firstly I found the delisting stuff a bit confusing. It may be because I spend most of my time at WP:GA. I gathered it simply means removing the merge tag, but it might be better to make that clearer.
• I also don't use the copied template. I did the first few times, but it takes so long to fill out I now just link the merged article in the edit summary. I hope this is okay, because I doubt I will do mergings if I have to fill that out each time.
• I don't bother with the {{R from merge}} either, although that is beacuse I do not know the value of it. It won't be much of a burdon to do, but if its importance could be explained that would be nice.
• As to the stale merge proposal guidelines, I don't agree with or understand the "immediate delisting" (removing the merge tag?) of the last six bulletpoints. I would think any merges over a year old should just be taken on a case-for-case basis with considerable leeway given to the merger. Basically if you come across an old merge tag with no discussion (which is most of them) you would be justified in either removing the tag yourself or merging the article depending on what you thought was best. Hell, if it has had a tag on it for over a year then it is most likely because nobody cares. On the odd occasion I have obviously pinged someones talk page and they have either merged or unmerged my decision, but no one has ever complained about my making the decision. I don't think a list of immediate delistings is very useful, maybe it would be better with a "may delist". If that list is consensus, ten why not get a bot to check for each of those and remove the tag, it would save a lot of work.
• I very seldom merge material that is unreferenced. Even if the target article is unreferenced.
• I almost never will merge poor content into an article which has good content. I know this can be subjective, but for example I am very wary about merging content into a featured article. I would much rather just redirect and leave a note at the targets talk page linking to the redirected article pre-redirect.

That is just my personal take on this and I hope it is acceptable as I have done quite a few mergings like this. I have done a few recently, so if someone is willing to look at my contributions and comment on them I would aprreciate the feedback. Cheers AIRcorn (talk) 12:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The {{copied}} template is important for attribution. Wikipedia's guidelines (see WP:Copying within Wikipedia) require that the contents of any page can be traced back to their origin. This means that once one article has been merged into another, the former article can't be deleted. The template serves as a warning not to delete the page, and also as a convenient way to track significant changes to an article without having to wade through the revision history. That said, most of the parameters are unnecessary; I find that "from= |to= |diff=" is sufficient, which doesn't take too long to fill out (and can be copy-pasted into each article's talk page).

As for {{R from merge}}, I don't know... it's one of many redirect templates, and I've always just assumed that they serve some kind of purpose. The relevant guideline is WP:Categorizing redirects, but that doesn't really explain anything except that the templates are "helpful in keeping track of redirects". Perhaps the folks at WP:WikiProject Redirect could tell you more? DoctorKubla (talk) 15:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Please use some sort of talk page tag: {{Copied}}, {{Merged-from}} and {{Merged-to}}, or {{Copying within Wikipedia}}. They're important for tracking. Flatscan (talk) 05:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I will use the copied tag from now on. The copied, merged-from and merged-to templates seem to all cover the same situation. Perhaps the merged to/from ones should be merged into the copied one. The Copying within Wikipedia one looks like it serves a different purpose to the others. It seems like a reactive template for articles that have already undergone a merge. There is some conflicting advice on the main page in the "current collaboration" and "guidelines". One seems to just "recommend" using the copied template, while the other seems to say that it is "required". One also says that the oldid needs to be completed (in quite strong wording) so that would suggest that using just "from= |to= |diff=" is not sufficient. I find the oldids the biggest nuisance to find. It may be an idea to streamline the addition of talk page templates so a bot can do it. Maybe the talk pages of each page with a merge template and the target pages can be tagged with a generic template and all the mergerer has to do is update a field (to say "done") or remove the tag when they evaluate the merge proposal. As well as making it much easier to do, it may also be possible to automate it in such a way that it will still be completed by editors not familiar with these rules. AIRcorn (talk) 00:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Many users find the {{Merged-*}} templates to be easier and more convenient. A bit of trivia: {{Copied multi/Copied}} has an added afd parameter that changes "Copied" to "Merged", but I was unable to incorporate it into the main template. Flatscan (talk) 05:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Looking at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia it seems that the hyperlink is the bare minimum, but using copied is highly recommended. The recommendations here should reflect that. AIRcorn (talk) 00:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Who can close a Split discussion?

I posted this question:

• Wikipedia_talk:Splitting#Closing_a_split_discussion

--David Tornheim (talk) 09:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Note the question has been answered on at that site. Klbrain (talk) 12:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Resolved

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)

"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)