Wikipedia talk:Proposed mergers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Merge
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Merge, an attempt to reduce the articles to be merged backlog and improve the merging process. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Bishop (Aliens)[edit]

I tried to remove a stale merge tag but was reverted at Bishop (Aliens); as the merge discussion was many years old, and went stale without merger, it should be justified to delete the merge tag. Aside from that, the article is almost completely about something that the target article Aliens (film) is not about (ie. other films, Alien 3, Alien vs Predator, etc) (talk) 05:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Clearing it out[edit]

I'm reviewing everything on the merges list and tagging the articles if not already tagged and removing from the list if already tagged. This is not helping anybody and needs to be phased out. It just makes the huge backlog more different to have to watch two different places. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I've cleared them. The section is now repurposed as a place to get assistance in listing merges in the first place. It's now explicit that people listing there shouldn't expect that to get the merge completed. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposals without discussion[edit]

What should we make of articles tagged for merging when the proposer doesn't actually create a discussion section? Occasionally the tag itself is self-evident, but often the proposer's rationale is unclear. And while someone can start a discussion with their support or opposition just based on the template, that seems unlikely. I'd like to start a policy of removing stale tags—I think removing them a week after tagging is plenty generous. Or do we purposely allow such proposals without rationale for some reason? --BDD (talk) 23:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, this page specifically is for users seeking assistance with the process. Everyone who has proposed something on this page since I reset it has provided a reason for the merge. Creating the tags and talk sections is just doing the bureaucratic/technical legwork for them. On this page, I have been deleting tags and archiving the proposal if the original proposer doesn't perform the merge promptly. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Ok, so the only stale tags I should find on articles are months old, and you're monitoring current ones? Just wanted to make sure I understood that right. If so, do you follow a specific timetable before archiving? --BDD (talk) 14:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
To clarify, I'm only monitoring this page, not the entire merge backlog (which is impossible to monitor). But here, if no one has commented after about two weeks, I send a talk page message to the proposer telling them to go ahead and merge - if they don't do that after two weeks, I archive as stale. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 00:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Help with a page...[edit]

Note that I have moved this post to the main page Ego White Tray (talk) 17:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia "Merge" like WP:RM or WP:AFD[edit]

See the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Wikipedia "Merge" like WP:RM or WP:AFD -- PBS (talk) 21:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

That discussion has been archived with a large consensus in favour of change. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Merge/Archive 2#Automation of merge proposals for a discussion on how to implement the change. -- PBS (talk) 10:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Geometric Shapes[edit]

I'm not going to read anything about the procedure I should use, but just ignore all rules and report it here: Geometric Shapes and Geometric Shapes (Unicode block) are duplicates, it would be nice if somebody who read about the way to merge to articles could merge them. Thank you. --Schnark (talk) 09:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Putting this on the notice board page. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 02:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Inactive Noticeboard?[edit]

It looks like the last activity to actually merge pages happened in July 2013. Are there still Admins actively working on these cases? Or can any Editor take it on? I'm not sure if it's a matter of combining information or page history data. Liz Read! Talk! 13:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Liz, anyone can work the merger request board. The nominator is encouraged to complete the task if they are able too. I had been working the mergers, but since May of this year, I have been working 60-80 hour weeks at my real job. Thankfully, after this week, that situation will be resolving itself. However, if you would like to jump in and do some merging, I encourage you to do so, and I can answer your questions on procedure if necessary. There is also a backlog on AfD results "to merge" that we've been steadily working to reduce, and need a lot of help there. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 23:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

List of Viz comic strips[edit]

I have merged the following articles to List of Viz comic strips.

Their merger was proposed since November 2013.Most of the above have been made redirects after their important content was copied to the corresponding sections of the target List of Viz comic strips article.Skr15081997 (talk) 12:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Great job! I was looking at those ones myself, and I was planning it as one of my rainy day projects. Thanks. --NickPenguin(contribs) 17:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for helping out, Skr15081997. Much appreciated. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 20:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

History unmerge needed[edit]

An editor made a "bold" merger of Dothraki language and Valyrian language into Languages of A Song of Ice and Fire, and unfortunately merged the page histories as well. The article merger has been rejected, but even if it had been appropriate, the history merger was not: when you go through the history, you flip back and forth between one article and the other. I've asked the editor to unmerge them, but no luck. The talk page history might also need to be unmerged, depending on whether both had substantial comment, and it's possible that the history of the article that was deleted to prepare for the merger might should be restored as well, if it had substantial content. For the time being, I've copy-pasted the content back into the original articles, stranding the page histories.

I know this is a pain in the ass, but the editor responsible is not interesting in cleaning up his mess. I don't think I have the power to make the necessary edits. Is anyone here willing? — kwami (talk) 02:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

UCSB College of Engineering[edit]

Currently has its own article at UCSB College of Engineering, but I've noticed that three of the five departments within the college have their own articles:

Thoughts on merging these Department articles into the main College of Engineering article? As far as I'm aware, most universities don't have stand-alone departmental articles. There is a stand-alone UCSB Physics Department article for a separate College at UCSB, but as one of the top departments in the world boasting numerous Nobel Prize winners on faculty, it seems to have more of a leg to stand on. Would appreciate your input as I don't normally deal with merges. –GauchoDude (talk) 21:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Is this page dead?[edit]

I see a whole bunch of requests from May 2014 with no apparent action. Is anyone still going thru this? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Not entirely dead, but it certainly needs far more editors working on it. I went through some of the backlog and merged some of the uncontroversial proposals (e.g. duplicate articles) but I don't have too much time to work on more until January. Richard3120 (talk) 01:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I was working on it for well over a year, but the merge requests keep coming in, and not many people to help out, and my work load has picked up tremendously for the last year and a half. I pretty much had to drop merging as too time consuming. Any suggestions? GenQuest "Talk to Me" 05:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm kind wondering if this page does more harm than good. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
In what way? Richard3120 (talk) 02:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • By suggesting to unknowing editors that this stuff will be taken care of, when it's clearly not. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
It states that they should be willing to do the merge themselves, but in practice few do. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 05:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
GenQuest, I think the problem is that quite often nobody apart from the editor who proposed the merger takes part in the discussion, and therefore no consensus is reached and nothing is done. For example, there is a proposal to merge Health technology into Biomedical engineering – nobody has responded to the proposer's request, and I don't know enough about the subject to say whether the two should be merged or if there are enough differences to be kept as two separate articles. We should probably ping Trim02 for opinions as he/she seems to be the only other editor taking an active interest in this project. Richard3120 (talk) 13:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Masters athletics bulk merge proposal[edit]

We have this from project page:

  • Merge Masters athletics and all the subarticles listed in the category Category:Masters athletics world_record progressions. Alternatively, merge subarticles with their main activity (i.e. Master athletics shot put merged into Shot put). There are 240 or so separate articles in the category that are orphans devoid of context as they are broken down by activity, gender and age. Even the Olympics don't have such narrow focus. The information is salvageable, otherwise they would all be A1 speedy. They seem to be the the creation of a single editor Trackinfo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). --DHeyward (talk) 05:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
    Needless to say, I oppose this merger request. I'm not familiar with this page, so I do not know where the full discussion should take place. I'm going to take it to (DHeyward's talk page) to try to talk some sense into him in hopes he will remove this request. Trackinfo (talk) 06:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Other commenters from prior discussion: @DHeyward: @Trackinfo: @Nczempin: @Weia: @Orangemike: were pinged.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

=> Need some additional guidance here. The more input the better. Perhaps some administrative input? Thanks. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 07:58, 26 November 2015 (UTC)