Wikipedia talk:Proposed article mergers

message: Using the log subpages to locate merge discussion backlog, I noticed that the pages have not been renamed with the parent page, i. e. they are still at WP:Proposed mergers/Log.
Since they are populated by a bot, there might be a reason for keeping them there, but it seems odd to have subpages of a redirect containing the merger logs. (In fact, I find the location as subpages of a procedural page that was never used to propose their mergers a bit strange in the first place). Felix QW (talk) 10:21, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That's neat. GenQuest "scribble" 18:14, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Log pages 

message: Shouldn't merge discussions be open atleast 7 days (and some listed here have lasted much more than that), like other processes on Wikipedia (WP:RM, WP:XFD) ? I've noticed a few mergers lately that were closed without WP:SNOW-justification-mentioned in less than 3 days, even with a no-consensus closure. -- 65.92.244.114 (talk) 22:19, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time period 

message: I don't see a section where one would want to merge and rename the article to reflect the merger.
Example: Dramatic structure and Narrative structure are under different articles, but I think the name should be changed to Story Structure when merged. Wikipedia policy to merge to move to new article is not clear.--KimYunmi (talk) 14:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You can suggest a new name when you propose the merger. Richard3120 (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I will take the best developed article and rename (move) it to the desired article name, then merge the other(s) into it. Or merge the two and then rename the resultant article, as Richard says above. GenQuest "scribble" 20:51, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. No one babysits either article that much, so I doubt there will be much resistance. I posted the request. But I also think it would be useful to add such an item to this article? Is that sort of item not supposed to be in this article? KimYunmi (talk) 00:02, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge and rename at the same time?

message: Hi, and hope you're well! Just letting anyone watching this talk that proposer has requested closure of a merge discussion at Wikipedia:Closure requests#Talk:Invincible ignorance (Catholic theology)#Proposed merge of Invincible error into Invincible ignorance (Catholic theology). The merge discussion has not been unanimous, so I and others involved prefer someone uninvolved do the closing. That way, we can move onto the next steps for the articles. I understand that there's a backlog for merges, so I would appreciate any help provided. Thank you, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 20:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Closure requests#Talk:Invincible ignorance (Catholic theology)#Proposed merge of Invincible error into Invincible ignorance (Catholic theology)]] 

message: Merge help needed:  into  (See noticeboard for details.)  Participants agree to merge, but seem stuck on the execution.  Thanks, GenQuest "scribble" 18:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Any volunteer(s)?

message: Is it really the best option to limit this page to article (mainspace) mergers? It seems to me that something like a merge of sections between policies and guidelines would be of more interest to more editors than merges between two articles on related military units, or a school page into a school district one.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:09, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-article mergers 

message: Hey there, I was wondering about adding an intermediate category on the page for articles where a merger has been approved after closure of the discussion, but the merge has not been performed yet. Like this we could move pages from "awaiting consensus", then have them sit in this category while they're being merged (that could be named "Merger approved and pending" or something else), and then move them to "answered requests" once the pages have been merged. Would that make sense? I know personally I would find the page easier to navigate this way. Choucas Bleu (T·C) 12:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, while I'm at it, I notice that among the new requests there are quite a lot of them that seem to be "type 1" (uncontroversial and obviously necessary), often from IPs (but not always). What should we do with those? Is it really worth it setting up discussions, putting up the banners, and moving them to "awaiting consensus"? Should we just move them to "answered requests" (or the new proposed category) and flag the pages to be merged? Should we flag the pages but just delete the request? Choucas Bleu (T·C) 14:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

text: @Choucas Bleu See MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers/Holding cell. rootsmusic (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional category for clarity? 

message: :Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers/Holding cell, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers/Holding cell and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of :Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers/Holding cell during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Nickps (talk) 12:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: MfD nomination of [[:Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers/Holding cell]]

message: Since I can't find Wikipedia's protocol for proposed actions, I'm asking about how simultaneously proposed page handling are handled.  (But the Talk page, where I'm asking, has been dead quiet since 2020.) rootsmusic (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  protocol for simultaneously proposed page handling of an article