Help talk:Merging/Archive 2

message: I've thrown together a template for proposed merger with previous version of the same page (Template:Mergeprevious).  Ignoring for the moment my pitiful graphic design skills, do others think this might be a useful addition to the family of merge templates?  The idea came out of discussions at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review and this or something like it will be necessary there—many featured articles seem to have deteriorated quite substantially since becoming featured, and for them merging with the orginaly featured version seems a good step forward. --jwandersTalk 12:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with previous version 

message: Recently, there was a problem with an editor who appeared to be on a mission to destroy articles though merging and deletion. Not every editor checks articles that they are interested in frequently. At that time I would only check those articles once a month or so. I would like to suggest that a policy be adopted that a merge template must be up for 2 months or so before the merge is done. I would like to see something similar with perhaps 4-6 months notice on article deletion. Is this the best place to discuss this?—Who123 16:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Policy suggestion

message: I think there is the need for such a template, similar to the "proposed merge" template. Mainly to make readers aware etc. (same as with a merge proposition i guess), and to allow further discussion on the talk page to reach a consensus. -- Lee Carré 22:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template for "It has been proposed that this article be moved to ..." 

message: How does one propose a merge of two templates? Template:Infobox UK schools vs. Template:Infobox UKschool, for example. I have no knowledge of schools in the UK, so I don't even know which one is more useful for the purpose. --Geniac 18:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging templates? 

message: Please comment on my proposed new template for merges at Template talk:Merge#Single-template Proposal. Thank you. Timrem 21:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 

message: I'm currently proposing a merger of List of Harvard University people and Notable non-graduate alumni of Harvard. Five days have elapsed with no one objecting (or even commenting for that matter), and according to one sentence in WP:MERGE, I may perform the merger ("After sufficient time has elapsed to generate consensus or silence (at least 5 days), you may perform the merger or request that someone else do so."). However, further down I see this:
"After proposing the merger, place your reasons on the talk page and check back in a couple of weeks for a response. You may be able to invoke a response by contacting some of the major or most-recent contributors via their respective talk-pages. If there is clear agreement after two weeks that the articles should be merged (or no response after four weeks), proceed with the merger."
Which one is it? Five days, or four weeks? (Four weeks seems pretty long to me.) Many thanks. Gzkn 01:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also recently noticed this. I believe the shorter time frame is more appropriate. Khatru2 23:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the page history, the 5-day time limit is older, added on 21 May 2006. The paragraph about giving 2-4 weeks was added on 25 August 2006,  after what appears to be an advisory discussion on WP:HD.  Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on that HD discussion, I am unsure where the four week time limit came from, other than from the user who added it. Every other time period for debate discussions here on Wikipedia range from 5 days (on WP:RM) to 14 days (on WP:PUI). So based on that HD discussion, this discussion, and similar ones on this talk page, it is probably more appropriate to change it to one or two weeks. It would be similar to what some admins do on AFD debates (myself included in the past): If there are no responses on a discussion for 7 days, it would be relisted again for another week. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A contradiction? 

message: A quick 'thanks' to everyone involved in writing this page. The "How to merge pages" guide was very easy to follow! --Culix 07:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks 

message: There used to be a reference to a template for use on talk pages for proposed mergers.  It had a heading and instructions for voting and the like.  It's not on this page anymore under the "how to propose a merge" instructions.  I've seen some very sloppy merge proposals lately.  Does anyone know where it went? 24.85.238.116 23:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk Template 

message: The how-to guide is quite helpful, but it does not include guidance on how to handle talk pages when merging articles. Should the talk page (from the source article) be left as where it is, to be associated with the newly created redirect? Should significant discussion be moved (or copied?) to the target article's talk page. Even if no action is required, it would be useful to say that. Chimpex 01:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article does not say whether/how to merge talk pages 

message: On AfD, I see the !vote "merge and delete" a lot. We can't merge and delete articles; we have to merge and redirect articles if we are merging information. The authors of previous versions must be kept intact, as per the GFDL. We need to make that clear. — Deckiller 14:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like we already mention that on the page. I think the next step is to inform those who do not understand the concept. — Deckiller 03:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirects are necessary 

message: In the sentence
If you know which page should be removed, use ((mergeto|DESTINATION PAGE)) on that page, and ((mergefrom|SOURCE PAGE)) on the page that will remain and will receive the contents of the source page. 
Isn't something backwards? Jeh 19:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "source" vs. "destination" 

message: I propose splitting "Merging and moving" into Wikipedia:Merging pages & Wikipedia:Renaming a page. In fact, we already have Help:Moving a page. --Uncle Ed 21:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Splitting this page

message: I propose that we change the main page to mention that a merge proposal should only be made if an article has referenced sources.  I have found while clearing the backlog of merge proposals that often we are caught in circular arguments with editors about which term is correct and everyone is citing their own personal knowledge as the support for their term. Alan.ca 19:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging unreferenced pages 

message: I don't see clear instructions on what to do after a merger vote. When is the vote over? Is there a tag to put at the top of the page announcing that the consensus is to MERGE and that action should be taken? I noticed this "ok-now what?" problem at the article Those We Don't Speak Of/The Village (film) (at least 5 unique votes to merge or delete and one opposition by the article's creator), and to a lesser extent at Skygazing/Amateur astronomy. Part of the problem seems to be the wrong tag being used... these are more specifically cases for deletion because they are not encyclopedic, "Those We Don't Speak Of" has notability problems since its about something that never existed in an unpopular movie, and "Skygazing" is basically a "how-to". At the end of this vote should I be bold and take the further decision to mark them for speedy deletion because there is nothing to merge? Halfblue 14:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If nobody answers here, you should ask again on WP:HD. --Teratornis 14:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

text: What's missing is the "close" of the merge discussion.  Officially closing a discussion usually is accomplished by putting a "top" archival template at the top of the discussion and a "bottom" archival template at the bottom of the discussion. I checked :Category:Archival_templates and did not see any such templates for merge discussions. You might want to create these templates. -- Jreferee 15:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: OK... most editors voted MERGE... now what?

message: I've noticed a lot of combining(unifying) of information into one Page of a Subject... for example P-frame.
For me, and I believe for any other user, it is easier to find the wanted information if not such a huge page has to be "scanned"...
It also is more Suitable for finding considered the bad search facilities provided by Wikipedia... and it encourages people to write their few knowledge on a very thin part of a Subject(ppl. tend to be overwhelmed by a large Text)
also keep in mind there are disabled persons out there who may have dyslexia ... huge articles makes it almost impossible for them to comprehend.                                  
btw. I'm not an ELCH so please don't Troll on that ... only consider this thought on your next "unification raid"
84.183.253.152 10:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consolidation of Articles? HELP REQUEST!

message: The following sections have instructions which appear to contradict each other:
*WP:MM#How to merge pages:
** If you are uncertain of the merger's appropriateness, you should propose it on the affected pages. After sufficient time has elapsed to generate consensus or silence (at least 5 days), you may perform the merger or request that someone else do so.
*WP:MM#Proposing a merger:
** After proposing the merger, place your reasons on the talk page and check back in a couple of weeks for a response. You may be able to invoke a response by contacting some of the major or most-recent contributors via their respective talk-pages. If there is clear agreement after two weeks that the articles should be merged (or no response after four weeks), proceed with the merger.
Someone who understands the "real" merger procedure should edit one or both of those
sections so the instructions correspond. --Teratornis 14:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the related discussion above. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I revised it to read "If there is clear agreement with the proposal by consensus (at least 5 days) or silence (at least 10 days), proceed with the merger." AfD is 5 days and DRV is 7 days and my revision is more in line with these time periods. -- Jreferee 16:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictory instructions on proposing a merger? 

message: I think it should be  instead of the current format. The current one seems quite bulky and, to me, looks like quick and dirty code. {Slash-|-Talk} 01:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple merge from 

message: Instead of cutting and pasting the content of one page to another it's possible to duplicate the content of another page using  where the editor replaces SOURCE PAGE with the name of the article being merged into the current one.  The editor will still have to replace the content of that page with a redirect (or whatever else is appropriate). Sure, it's more technical but it leaves less room for error. Could this be worth a mention on the project page? Jimp 03:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full-content paste merger short cut 

message: While this article already met the definition of guidelines established in WP:POLICY, I have added the guideline tag and category to WP:MERGE here to deal with some obstinate rules-lawyering.  I believe that this just puts the right tag on something everyone is treating this way anyways, but feedback here is welcome.  Georgewilliamherbert 17:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, no. This page describes merges and how to perform them. It does not recommend an action to be taken in a situation. Under your bizarre logic, everything in :Category:Wikipedia how-to would be a guideline. That you would do this to win your argument with me is frighteningly sad. ' 19:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apostrophe is correct; this is a how-to page. I'll fix that up. >Radiant< 10:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: This was a significant refocusing of the page.  However, I agree that predominately this is a how-to page (rather than a guideline page). Although the page includes some clarification of actions to be taken in a situation (e.g., includes some guideline material), there probably is not enought Merging guideline information to create a separate Merging guideline page. If someone thinks there is, then they should create such a guideline proposal. -- Jreferee 16:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guideline vs. How-to page 

message: * 
* 
Are there some merge discussion veterans here who could help out on two articles which don't get much attention?  The situation is this:
One editor with ownership issues apparently wrote most of the content in both articles.
Three others oppose the near-blanking of one of the two articles and favour open discussion, inviting participation from more NPOV editors, of whether or not content should be merged.
The "ownership" editor, who has complained that no reasons were given though the other users' reasons are clear in their posts, reduced Subtlety to a stub five times (1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th - the last also removed the  tag) and removed the  tag from Entremet twice (1st 2nd).  
The situation is in a stall and could use some help.  — Athaenara ✉ 09:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you could check out Mediation, if both parties may be willing for a 3rd party to weigh in, it might be a good candidate for mediation. -wizzard2k (C•T•D) 14:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It doesn't appear its purely a merge issue, as it looks like there's a content dispute as well. This content dispute may well just be a masquerade on a merge opposition, but it should probably be resolved first. It looks as though a third opinion has already been brought in for the merge, and it has also been posted at WP:RFC/HIST. -wizzard2k (C•T•D) 18:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  3O was offered with followup last week after a request.  The editor with ownership issues (who posted the Rfc which has had no results) rejected it.  — Athaenara ✉ 03:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you, I'll look into that.  — Athaenara ✉ 00:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Followup: I posted there.  — Athaenara ✉ 00:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge discussion request

message: Over at Frank West (Dead Rising) there has been a merger notice since March of this year, though other mergers have been placed for 10 months. I removed the latest merger notice because the merge has failed every time. Currently the merge is opposed 2 to 1. However, User:Parjay, continues to add the merge notice even though it has failed repeatedly for 10 months. I am not familiar with procedure and need advice on how to take care of this. - Throw 17:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dead Rising is an action adventure game exclusively for the Xbox 360. The game focuses on the exploits of Frank West, a fictional character and photojournalist from the video game Dead Rising. The image of Frank West comes from real life actor T.J. Rotolo. The article Dead Rising is well referenced.  The only references for the Frank West are to the real life actor T.J. Rotolo. The merger guideline states that "If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic." The noted proposal is to merge Frank West into Dead Rising. This seems to make sense. The Frank West page is very short, and none of its content is verifiable.  Much of the content seems to repeat what already is in Dead Rising. The Frank West article originated on August 15, 2006 and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time since no references have surfaced since that time. Battling over this issue is not the best way to resolve this matter. Wikipedia:Proposed mergers is available to solicit outside feedback regarding mergers (particularly those of a controversial nature). -- Jreferee 15:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the input, Jreferee, I wasn't made aware of this discussion.  I called for editor assistance on this previously, if you wish to read for more information: Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Merge_or_deletion.3F Parjay 15:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion is continued at Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Merge_or_deletion.3F and is considered resolved for Merging and moving pages purposes.  -- Jreferee 15:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: When is it long enough?

message: Like some other users above, I see the need for a special user talk page template that would warn authors of a proposed merger. The similar Template:PRODWarning exists for the PROD process. I've been using my own standard message for mergers like this:
Merger proposal (This is for topic/title field)
Hey, the  article that you once edited is proposed to be merged into the . You are encouraged to express your opinion on the merger. Thanks. -- Futurano 10:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On merger warning again 

message: I suppose most mergers are too obvious to need any discussion, especially when a merge would superficially seem to confirm the wrong and evil assumption among many editors that hold a merge to be equivalent to a plain redirect. Apparently such a practice would justify the positioning of the merger template on the article header, just to be all of us aware and prepared to the bad merging of occasional merging pirates, that without proper guidance or discussion would inevitably lead to the destruction of information. However, the template being basically intended to boost a discussion, why shouldn't such merging proposals be moved and confined to the Talk page only? I think inserting such templates on top of an article would easily be misunderstood as imperative without-(much)-discussion-needed, even in case some very basic arguments are forwarded on Talk. However, much to often even such kick-off arguments are missing on one or two of the pages involved. I propose this merger template should be invalid without frowarding a proper explanation on all article's Talk pages first, and to avoid the suggestion of authority to a merging proposal all together by not allowing the use of this template on top of the articles, and only allow the template at Talk. Rokus01 20:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean, a merger of two articles that need discussion implies some existing controversy that might not be properly addressed by putting a tag on the main article header. A hostile take-over could be involved to push a certain view conveyed on one article only, intending to abuse the context of the other article. Different scopes on same subjects, being either political, linguistic, ethnic, historic or otherwise, may be hard to merge into a balanced single comprehensive article without thorough discussion and agreement. I figured the possible imperative character implied by just putting this tag could also be diminished by tightening the recommended criteria to merge, as exposed in this article, just a littlebit. Rokus01 19:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger template to discuss merge better on Talk only?

message: Should 'page movements' be discussed first, before actually moving a page. Particularly, if it involves 'diacritics' and/or 'foreign letters' (example - Poland to Polska). Just wondering. GoodDay 17:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It all depends on how important and popular the page in question is. Generally, it is a good idea to discuss about moving the page before actually doing it. --Siva1979Talk to me 06:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Page Movemements

message: This page is getting a bit long. Users with slow internet connections are having to wait a long time to load the entire page. I feel that it is a good time to archive this page? Any comments about this are welcomed. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I only have one comment - Well Done! Cheers, Paxse 15:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive? 

message: On the pages which have a proposal to merge, how would one know whether the proposal was approved when there is only one or two comments on the talk page? I'd like to start to do some, but I'd rather not if it just annoys people.-- Matthew Edwards 03:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you feel it isn't controversial, just go ahead and merge it. I often merge without getting any input at all, especially in cases where I know I will be unlikely to get any comments for a month or more. In such cases you can basically either wait for more comments, search out wider input, or be bold and merge it yourself. I think the latter two options are better than having merge templates lying around for months, and I think we need to try to streamline the whole process so as to get merges over with quicker and get wider input, hence my section below. Richard001 04:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  When to do a merge? 

message: I am picking up several edits a day where someone has misread < and is putting subst:Sept 2007, subst: 10:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Instruction  clarity

message: I think we need a more efficient system for managing merges. How would I find, for example, a list of biology articles with merge template on them? I think we need the equivalent of a stub sorting project. Working with WikiProjects on the matter would be good, but some areas don't have WikiProjects. Richard001 04:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Managing merges

message: There has been a GFDL discussion at :Template talk:R from merge resulting in template changes and change-reversions.  We who work with that template have referred User:Geni, who has advocated changes, to here so that arguments can be received by people who are better equipped to address concerns.  (See permalink for Template talk:R from merge for state of discussion at the time this note was posted.) --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GFDL discussion at R-from-merge 

message: I have done a couple of merges without problems. There is also an emerging consensus at AfD that vaguely- or non-notable characters should be merged into one major Charactors of XYZ article. So I've started merging several fictional character article stubs into such Character lists, but I wonder what to to do with the character's categories. For example, I have merged Brother Justin Crowe into Characters of Carnivàle#Brother Justin Crowe (I don't know if it's time to de-merge him soon, but that's beside the point). Now, what about his :Category:Fictional Christians, :Category:Fictional avatars, :Category:Fictional rapists, :Category:Fictional telepaths and :Category:Fictional religious workers? Obviously, I can't import them to the Characters article. Losing them is also a little drastic, so I left them in the original BJC page that is now a redirect. Is this the right procedure? I'd prefer some input before I merge any other nn character articles. – sgeureka t•c 16:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Categorizing the redirect makes sense to me. --DocumentN (talk) 01:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happens to categories after a merge? 

message: I need some advice here. If there are several articles that cover the same material, how would you start the process of sorting it out? This tends to happen with semi-obscure technical subjects. For example, the position of George Lakoff is described in embodied psychology, embodied cognitive science, embodiment, embodied philosophy and embodied cognitive science. In all of these articles, there are really only two or maybe three different subjects being covered. How would you tag them? It's difficult to centralize the discussion, or even get the attention of other editors. ---- CharlesGillingham 13:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple merges