Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Merge

NOTE: To Make a formal Merge Request; please go to the Proposed Article Mergers page
Individual article merge discussions SHOULD NOT be started on this page.

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Going about two articles on the same topic.

I was going through the 2022 deaths category. Discovered that Dan Robinson (American football) and Dan Robinson (politician) are of the same person, just focused on two different aspects of his career. Wasn't sure where to go about this, figured I'd bring it up here as ultimately one will need to be merged with the other. Rusted AutoParts 02:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

"Merge review"

Is there any kind of formal way to query a closure of a merge discussion, similar to Wikipedia:Move review or Wikipedia:Deletion review? Taking it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard seems a tad extreme! But I certainly feel the closure of Talk:Australian Grand Prix#Merge proposal is not in line with concensus (at best there would be no concensus), with the closer even telling me the reason for the close was the 3-2 majority, therefore completely ignoring that the issues the two opposers (me being one) had not been adressed. A7V2 (talk) 00:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

At present, there is no dedicated avenue for reviewing merge discussion closures. WP:Closing discussions recommends:

For other procedures, whether formal RfCs or less formal ones such as merging or splitting, contact the editor who performed the closure and try to resolve the issue through discussion. If you are unable to resolve the issue through discussion with the closer, you may request review at the Administrators' Noticeboard. Before requesting review, understand that review should not be used as an opportunity to re-argue the underlying dispute, and is only intended for use when there is a problem with the close itself.

I would say that discussing with the closer is always good practice, and afterwards, I would not consider WP:AN to be an extreme route to take at all. It is simply the catch-all procedure for issues that do not have dedicated channels. Felix QW (talk) 08:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. I will keep it in mind should something like this happen again. In this instance, further discussion with the closer would most likely not have been fruitful, but an uninvolved editor reverted the closure so for the moment this particular issue seems to be resolved. A7V2 (talk) 06:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers/Holding cell

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)

The MFD closed in favour of marking holding cell as historical, so I removed links to Holding cell from existing page instructions and categories.

The pages I unlinked Holding cell from were - Category:Templates currently being merged, Category:Project pages currently being merged, Category:Pages currently being merged, Category:Articles currently being merged, Wikipedia:Merging, Template:Being merged.

Some of those, we could edit existing instructions to point to a more relevant category instead of Holding cell. Probably something autogenerated when you put a merge closed/being merged template. Soni (talk) 00:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

"Being" templates is missing a template

{{being merged}} and {{being split}} is missing an associated template {{being transferred}}. The destination of a split/merge where content is split from one page and moved into another, can use {{being split}} from the source page, but the destination page cannot use {{being merged}} as that template explains the source article would be converted to redirect to it. This wouldn't be the case with a split/merge, where the source page would continue to exist. A relevant target template to explain that a portion of the source page is being merged into the target (template's article subject page, where the transclusion is). -- 64.229.90.32 (talk) 03:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)