Jump to content

Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Awaiting consensus: from discussion setup
Line 73: Line 73:
{{center|<sup>______</sup>}} <!------------------------WAITING LIST follows----------------------->
{{center|<sup>______</sup>}} <!------------------------WAITING LIST follows----------------------->
<!-- ============ Move merge request TO BOTTOM OF THIS SECTION when the discussion has been opened and the articles tagged ================ -->
<!-- ============ Move merge request TO BOTTOM OF THIS SECTION when the discussion has been opened and the articles tagged ================ -->
*'''Merge''' [[Third Oli cabinet]] to [[Second Oli cabinet]]: Second oli cabinet and Third oli cabinet are not different and the only difference is they come under second premiership and third premiership respectively as mentioned above. So a section for third premiership in same article, Second Oli cabinet can address both. Even the national medias term this as cabinet reshuffle. Can you deny this? It can be termed as second term of same cabinet as all the ministers remained same and same ministers took oath. Even their article suggest no Third Oli cabinet! Can you deny this? Fifth Deuba Cabinet, 2021 mentions it's preceded by Second Oli cabinet. Second Oli cabinet says it's succeeded by Fifth Deuba Cabinet, 2021. Isn't it? Except this article, you may not find this awkward topic, Third Oli cabinet any where. [[Special:Contributions/43.245.86.16|43.245.86.16]] ([[User talk:43.245.86.16|talk]]) 07:43, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' [[Third Oli cabinet]] to [[Second Oli cabinet]]
Please find the concensus required and reference in the talk page of both articles. Visit and comment at [[Talk:Second Oli cabinet]].
Please find the concensus required and reference in the talk page of both articles. Visit and comment at [[Talk:Second Oli cabinet]].
[[Special:Contributions/110.44.127.181|110.44.127.181]] ([[User talk:110.44.127.181|talk]]) 20:01, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
[[Special:Contributions/110.44.127.181|110.44.127.181]] ([[User talk:110.44.127.181|talk]]) 20:01, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:31, 20 July 2021

Closing instructions

This page lists proposed article mergers as a supplement to the merge categories; it is an index of ongoing discussions of possible mergers, and does not replace any of the other steps in the merger process. Please add the appropriate merger tag(s) to the articles before listing them here. To see all articles marked for merging, see All articles tagged for merging.

Note

Mergers of CATEGORIES should not be proposed here. Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion.
Mergers of TEMPLATES should not be proposed here. Please see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion.
SPLITTING of ARTICLES should not be proposed here. Please see Wikipedia:Proposed article splits.

When to propose a merger

There are three types of mergers on Wikipedia:

1): Mergers that are so obviously necessary and appropriate that no one is expected to object;
2): Mergers that would benefit from discussion with the other editors at the affected articles' Talk page about whether and/or how to perform the merge; and
3): Mergers that are controversial, potentially difficult to carry out, or where at least one affected article is either rated Class B or higher or is over 100K in size will need assistance from uninvolved editor(s) in determining whether to merge the pages.

If the pages that you would like to merge fall into the type 1 group above, then it is not necessary to propose a merger at all. You should boldly do the merger now, without formally proposing it. (In the event that someone unexpectedly objects, then the merger can be undone easily, and you can formally propose the merger for discussion at that time.)

How to propose a merger

If the merge falls into the type 2 group or type 3 group above, then proposing a merger can be done in three steps (as the proposer, you should still be willing to carry-out a type 2 merge):

  • Step 1: Create a place for discussion. Go to the Talk Page (also known as the discussion page) of the TARGET ARTICLE (the one you want to merge to) and create a section (eg: "Merger proposal") to discuss the merger. If there's already a discussion on the talk page regarding the merger, you can omit this step. Whether the discussion is new or old, make sure the discussion section names all articles involved and links to them. The section name can be anything that includes the word merge (for example ==Merger discussion==).
  • Step 2: Put one of the merger tags at the top of the articles you wish to be merged. The templates {{Merge from}} and {{Merge to}}, or {{merge}} are the most common ones. Remember to make sure that the Discuss link in each tag points to the section you've created in step 1 (this is to prevent having two separate discussions on different talk pages).
  • Step 3: If the proposed merge is type 3 (above) follow the directions under #Requests for merge assistance and feedback to add it to the list.

See: Copy and Paste easy merge templates for easy to follow shortcuts of the above procedure.

Requests for merge assistance and feedback

If you need outside feedback regarding mergers that are either tricky or of a controversial nature, please do the following:

  • Tag the article as shown above
  • Create a discussion as shown above
  • Notify the talk page of the appropriate Wikiproject to get knowledgeable people to comment on it. (To find out which Wikiproject the page is associated with, check the associated talk page. It should be tagged with a template, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey.)
  • If there is consensus to merge, but the merge is difficult, request help at Merge Talk for assistance.

For other topics:

  • If you need help with renaming or moving, consult Wikipedia:Moving a page.
  • Cut-and-paste move fixes: If you have moved an article by this deprecated method, then you need to request page histories to be merged; list them at requests for history merge. Please DO NOT perform further moves by cut and paste.

NOTE: Please do not re-list old merge proposals that are already tagged and in the "to Merge" queue (including requests made up to two years ago), as these will be handled as we get to them. -Project Merge

If you need assistance with proposing a merge, list it below and someone will make sure it's properly listed. Note that this will not get the merge completed, as there is a large merge backlog. After a merge is listed properly, move it to the "Answered requests" or "Awaiting consensus" sections below as appropriate.

Merge requests

New requests

Please list new requests at the bottom of this section. Use the edit summary and list at least a link to the article to be redirected. Please legitimize your request by signing each listing or comment by typing four tildes (~~~~). Unsigned requests may not be honored.

______

I propose to merge Grigori i Durrësit into Gregory of Durrës as both of them are on the same person. There is one scholar that thinks they might be two different people, but that opinion should be clearly stated inside the article. Anna Comnena (talk) 07:38, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

______

Awaiting consensus

After all involved articles are tagged for merger discussion, the request should be added at (or moved to) the bottom of this section. This section can also be used if a proposal needs further discussion due to age or disagreement. All merger comments and discussions should be directed to the Discussion subsection of the targeted articles' talk page, not here. We will also attempt to get more people to comment on proposals.

______
  • Merge Third Oli cabinet to Second Oli cabinet: Second oli cabinet and Third oli cabinet are not different and the only difference is they come under second premiership and third premiership respectively as mentioned above. So a section for third premiership in same article, Second Oli cabinet can address both. Even the national medias term this as cabinet reshuffle. Can you deny this? It can be termed as second term of same cabinet as all the ministers remained same and same ministers took oath. Even their article suggest no Third Oli cabinet! Can you deny this? Fifth Deuba Cabinet, 2021 mentions it's preceded by Second Oli cabinet. Second Oli cabinet says it's succeeded by Fifth Deuba Cabinet, 2021. Isn't it? Except this article, you may not find this awkward topic, Third Oli cabinet any where. 43.245.86.16 (talk) 07:43, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please find the concensus required and reference in the talk page of both articles. Visit and comment at Talk:Second Oli cabinet. 110.44.127.181 (talk) 20:01, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

______

Answered requests

After discussion concludes, completed requests should be moved below (to the top of this list). Please mark as {{Done}} (or {{merge done}} if merge has actually occured), {{Not done}}, or {{Working}} when consensus has been reached.

______
 Done: Closed as "merge." GenQuest "scribble" 16:18, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
______

Archives

Current Year Archives
Requests answered in June 2021
Requests answered in May 2021
 Done GenQuest "scribble" 06:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Requests answered in April 2021
  • Merging Púca and Puck (mythology) now Puck (folklore)
    • I was going to work on the Púca page (well, the french version, but not the point). Problem, starting my work by looking at what exist in english, I noticed that there is already a Puck (mythology) page that refers to the same creature! Yes, there are pages in English for BOTH terms, pages translated in both cases in many languages ​​... BUT the Puck (mythology) page uses Puck or Púca indifferently for these creatures, ditto for the Púca page, the two terms are entirely synonymous and describe the same creature, there are just variations in the writing according to the regions, indicated on both pages (Pooka, Phouka, Pwca, etc.) and a common Celtic origin, both pages giving more or less the same information, just formulated differently, as well as most of the same examples in popular culture (a true tomayto-tomahto case). If some other creatures (I mean those with a common ancestry) have evolved into different creatures or at least with enough specificities to be considered as such (Poulpiquet, Pixie, Bucca), a bit like different "species" or "subspecies", this is not the case between Puck and Púca, treated as identical. The two should be merged and a redirect link put on Púca. Oh, Shakespeare's Puck, inspired (as said on BOTH pages) by the creature, has its own page (justified, as he is a specific Puck / Púca, I just wanted to clarify that none of the pages are about him -or when they are, they are equally so). --Zeynel (talk) 23:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Articles are tagged and are awaiting a merger discussion. Ongoing discussion is >>>HERE<<<. GenQuest "scribble" 12:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: There is resistance to this being expressed at the talk-page discussion, possibly due to the original, ill-formed request. Discussion area has been re-factored and we are now awaiting any further imput. GenQuest "scribble" 15:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
       Not done closed: No Merge. GenQuest "scribble" 21:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Requests answered in March 2021
 Done Closed as: "Proceed" with partial merge and redirect. GenQuest "scribble" 15:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  checkY Merger complete. GenQuest "scribble" 15:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done: Closed as "Merge." No interest shown in opposing this merge. Proposer, SMcCandlish, or other interested editor, can proceed with a standard merge. GenQuest "scribble" 12:35, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Closed as "Merge." Proposer, Hemiauchenia or other interested editor should do the work. GenQuest "scribble" 12:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done This has been worked out locally and can be closed as "Merge"; proposar, Historyday01 should follow his proposed plan and proceed with the merge(s) as described in the discussion. Good luck, GenQuest "scribble" 12:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, GenQuest, I wasn't aware the discussion was closed yet... I didn't think there was a consensus for merge yet, but that was just my thoughts. Historyday01 (talk) 15:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  checkY Merger complete. by interested editor. GenQuest "scribble" 12:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to do the merge as soon as I can... Sorry for dragging my feet for this long. --Historyday01 (talk) 13:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Requests answered in February 2021
  • Merge: I propose that the Sandnes (city) page should be merged into the Sandnes page. Anything related to the city should instead be a part of the article about the municipality. This is how the article about Stavanger is structured, and I don't know why these neighboring municipalities are structured in a different way. In addition, the wiki page about Oslo is also structured similar to the page about Stavanger. Most people will only read the page about the municipality, and because of that — the city article will become outdated. The article about the municipality is what appears when searching for Sandnes on Google and Google Maps. A similar thing should also be done on the Norwegian Wikipedia, and the page about the munincipality should be written to resemble the Stavanger page. Additionally, two pages for one historical place might be confusing for readers. Makkkkus
Requests answered in January 2021
Older archives

Starting with new proposals received after December 2015, the proposal is filed by month when finally answered.

All articles tagged for merging

Additional articles to be merged lists

See also