Wikipedia talk:Proposed article mergers/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

History unmerge needed

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

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?

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)

Richard3120 In that case, most of the mergers can proceed as "no opposition." I used to do many of those myself, before work got so busy. Other outcomes are to propose some for PROD and let the bureaucrats have a crack at it; reverse the direction of merger proposed; or leave for a time and notify one or more of the Projects involved for additional input. I suppose RfC would work too, though I've never gone that route. Mergers can always be reverted if then opposed, which does happen, but rarely. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 07:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

@GenQuest: amazing work over the last few days, I appreciate that it has taken a lot of your time and effort to go through the backlog, and I've learnt a lot about how to tackle requests in the future – thank you. This page really needs somebody to just check in every couple of weeks and go through the new requests so that we are on top of them. Richard3120 (talk) 05:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Unfortunately, I am flying out for two weeks on Monday and don't know how much time I can devote here to help get things caught up until I see how the work project I am on shapes up. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 07:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I've added my merging sub-page here as a Project Sub-page with the copy/paste steps I use in doing the merger page maintenance, as well as the mergers themselves; and discussion closing templates; and a bunch more. Use them, and feel free to adjust as necessary. I think they are pretty idiot-proof, and may help the average editor who deals with mergers practically never, get through at least the initial merger request. See Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Merger banners. It's also linked from the project page instruction section. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 08:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Masters athletics bulk merge proposal

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)

Italian Empire - Kingdom of Italy

Never done or proposed a merger, and I don't know that I have the patience to carry this one out if consensus was reached. But in case someone does, these two articles appear to be about exactly the same subject, and unfortunately, are both fairly well developed. TimothyJosephWood 19:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood, I suspect that you will encounter opposition to this proposal, because I think editors will argue that "Kingdom of Italy" covers the same territory as the current Italian Republic, while "Italian Empire" would expand this definition to include the former colonies of modern-day Libya, Ethiopia, Eritrea, etc. Richard3120 (talk) 20:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Look at British Empire > United Kingdom > Britain > England as a guide. Regards, GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 16:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Seventeen subs to merge or delete

At Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Strategy for seventeen stub articles mirroring main article? there is a discussion initiated on how to process seventeen stubs on various Virginia Conventions mirroring sections in the main article subsections in Virginia Conventions. Thanks in advance for any input. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Totem tennis, Tetherball

The articles Totem tennis and Tetherball are about the same game, though they have significantly distinct content – the former concentrates on history, the latter on a current (but unreferenced) set of rules. Swingball redirects to the former, Swing-ball to the latter. I have no view on what the title of a merged article should be, though I expect that others will have views. Maproom (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposal withdrawn – I've just twigged that in one game you hit the ball with a racket, in the other, the ball is larger and you hit it with your hand. Maproom (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Lion Guard

I opened a discussion at Talk:LionGuard/Possible merge and would welcome other editor inputs as there has not been a lot of traffic at this article with only two editors having made any significant contributions. -O.R.^Comms 17:11, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

You haven't suggested which article you think Lion Guard should be merged to, nor tagged the article for a proposed merger. Richard3120 (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2017 (UTC)