Wikipedia talk:Merging

Talk page of duplicate article

See also: Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers/Merger banners

Should I redirect Talk:2022 Minnesota’s 1st congressional district special election to Talk:2022 Minnesota's 1st congressional district special election (difference in apostrophe), as the prior article was a duplicate of the latter article, and has been merged? This page isn't very clear about what to do with talk pages of duplicate articles that have been merged. ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 07:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I believe generally talk pages are not redirected following a merge, the talk page of the source page is kept as the talk page of the redirect. This is to preserve the history of that talk page. However, any categories/wikiprojects, etc.. that would apply to the target page should be added to the talk page of the target page, and deleted from the talk page of the redirect if they no longer apply. I agree we should probably say something about this in the merge procedures. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:58, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

CX Zoom, This is discussed in the above see also link. Talk-pages that have never been used for discussion are redirected to the target article Talk-page; A talk-page that has discussion content, should have the following template placed on the first line (without removing the old discussions, but replacing all other templates—including most project assessment templates (some projects want to keep these; they will correct as necessary). The exception is any Archive Index:

{{merged-to|~destination page name~|date= }} ~~~~ That renders as (sample):

Regards, GenQuest ^"scribble" 22:44, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you GenQuest, thank you Mdewman6. This was very helpful. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 23:36, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Merge reform

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Merge reform. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:58, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

London merge

There is a merge request at Talk:London#Merger proposal which you might want to check. Right now, there doesn't seem to be consensus for the move, but I am hoping with more participants that might change. The discussion only started two days ago. One thing that might help attract more participation is adding a merge notice at London. I added it, but it was repeatedly removed. Should the merge notice be added back since the discussion is still ongoing? Thanks. Vpab15 (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Closed, no merge ~Kvng (talk) 13:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-duplicates

I suggest adding Wikipedia:Semi-duplicate as one of the reasons at WP:MERGEREASON. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:31, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

• I have the same objection David Eppstein did. This looks like an essay roughly describing content forks. Protonk (talk) 22:20, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

  Its quite different in that a semi-duplicate may not be a content fork due to information specifically about it not largely duplicating the other page on the other hand you may have 2 very distinct topics but information is duplicated but this should be resolved by removing the content for the other topic instead of merging. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

  If what distinguishes it is the resolution being editing and not merging, why are you proposing it be added to a reason to merge? Protonk (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

  Because its useful in the sense of pages that shouldn't be separate regardless of the quality of the articles in question and giving examples of topics that are generally combined. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:36, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Protonk: Wikipedia:Semi-duplicate#Difference between semi-duplicates and other problems provides more explanation on this. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:00, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for adding some color on that. I was hoping that someone else other than you or me would pop by and have some comment. I don't know that we need to add it to the page, and if we do I'd rather we add it somewhere other than an explicit reason to merge. However, I am not an active enough maintainer of this page to feel like my objection is dispositive. So if you want maybe you could add it to the page and see if that brings anyone out to object who might otherwise not notice the talk page discussion. Protonk (talk) 16:37, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Protonk: I've added it as suggested to see if there is any other comments/objections. Maybe it could instead be covered in the "Overlap" part but I'd suggest it can have its own part. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:14, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose: I think that overlap is sufficient, and that semi-duplication is an unnecessary, ah, duplication. Klbrain (talk) 11:40, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Would it be better to combine it with "Overlap"? Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:15, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose: as Klbrain says above. GenQuest ^"scribble" 02:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale: combining semi-duplication with overlap, using the long-standing overlap as the key concept would be fine, although given the arguments made above I don't think that it's necessary. However, if you wanted to link your essay to in the overlap point I'd have no objection. Klbrain (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@Klbrain: How about I just add "Just like topics with the same or similar name that would normally be expected to be covered in a single article for example Greenland deals with both the country and island (which have similar boundaries) thus a Greenland (island) can be merged with the "Greenland" country article, see Wikipedia:Semi-duplicate." Would that work as it avoids potential redundancy but I think the essay is helpful and it includes references to islands which also references User:Seav/Islands and administrative units created by another uses back in 2014. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@Klbrain, GenQuest, and Protonk: I've merged the "Semi-duplicate" entry into the "Overlap" one. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Pîrlița, Ungheni duplicate Wikidata

There are two sets of articles about the same village: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2453151 and https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q20858800 How can one merge them? --Bero231 (talk) 17:24, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Pinging: @Trialpears:, @Paine Ellsworth:, @Klbrain: and/or @Wbm1058:. GenQuest ^"scribble" 18:37, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

See wikidata:Help:Merge. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:57, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Alternative to deletion

Merging is a recognized alternative to deletion (WP:ATD-M), and yet this doesn't form part of the set of merge reasons here. While it is quite possible to call an AfD first (resulting in a merge), if the nominator thinks that a merge would be the best outcome, then it seems best to discuss this as a merge proposal. In practice, this is what often happens, but I have on several occasions come against the argument that notability is not relevant to a merge discussion. However, notability is relevant to deletion, and so is a warranted consideration as part of a merge discussion; that is, an article not reaching WP:GNG can be proposed for a merge. So, I therefore propose that we add to WP:MERGEREASON a 6th point: General notability guidelines not met (linking to WP:ATD-M). Of course, this would not prevent notable topics being merged for one of the other 5 very good reasons. Klbrain (talk) 11:36, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Support but I expect we're going to see some pushback from verification extremists claiming that if something isn't notable enough for a standalone article, it shouldn't be included in any article. Do we want to invite that discussion? ~Kvng (talk) 15:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Comments

This is often seen as an AfD aftermath. These discussions take place regarding unsourced or under-sourced articles, and AfD participants can't quite pull the trigger and delete the thing, so they dump it on us. The result: we merge the unsourced material to the designated target, and it is quickly challenged and deleted — A lot of work with no payback. I have merged hundreds of these, careful to merge only that which is sourced (even if with a bad source), and then am questioned on why the majority of the [unsourced] content was not moved over. This has even involved administrators a time or two (people who should know better). It's a failing of the AfD process, but we get burdened with the cleanup. I'm all for keeping anything that is well sourced, however, if an article can't pass GNG, then that content is likely to dilute the merge target and/or be removed entirely from it after the merge takes place. Instead of adding lack of notability to MERGEREASON, I think we need to address this at the AfD project-end of the process. In other words, If an article can't pass GNG, it can't be "Merge and Redirected", only: "Deleted" entirely, or simply "Redirected." Perhaps specific instructions to that end need to be added to the directions at AfD through an RfC. I really hate doing work twice on these articles. Regards, GenQuest ^"scribble" 18:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Merging only sourced material is one school of thought. I beleive longstanding unsourced material that has been seen by a lot of readers and editors over time is valuable. We don't delete stuff just because it is unsourced, we delete stuff that has been challenged and can't be verified. I don't expect we will all agree on how to handle this material (other than, "it depends") so I don't think we can apply the same process to all of it for everybody all the time. Just expect WP:BRD and ongoing rehash of these arguments :( ~Kvng (talk) 14:16, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Removing the unsourced material IS challenging it, long-term or not. To add it back, you'll need to take the time to add sources, something not all volunteers here have the time or inclination to do. This is all policy. I've found long-term vandalism in tens if not hundreds of articles, some read by thousands of people in the meantime. Have you never come across hoax entries here? I have. Both of those only last long in the encyclopedia when we become complacent about holding wiki-voiced statements to a high level of scrutiny. It's a win-win for the article. Merging unsourced material is a time waster. If the article is being watched, that content is going to be removed, sometimes immediately following the merge. There's no point to it. GenQuest ^"scribble" 16:02, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I think there should be more to a challenge than this is uncited therefore I challenge - What specifically looks off about the material? Have you searched for sources? Why doesn't WP:BLUE apply? I also think it is better to start with {{cn}}, {{hoax}} or some such for questionable material than boldly deleting it. These principles work well for existing article content and so I suggest they be applied to materiel involved in a merge. ~Kvng (talk) 15:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Your quote: "...I think there should be more to a challenge than "this is uncited therefore I challenge...": –You would need a general RfC for that. The rest are editing issues that any competent editor would take into consideration for each of their edits, whether in a merge or just general editing. As a volunteer project, it is incumbent upon the person who wishes to add statements of fact to verify and cite their additions. It is not, however, incumbent upon an editor who challenges that statement to do anything other than protect the "Wikipedia voice" of our articles, and quickly remove such content. See Bicholim Conflict for starters. GenQuest ^"scribble" 00:41, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I started the sentence with I think... because I realize that different editors have different positions on these questions and policy is broad enough to contain most of them. You've made assertions in the above reply that I disagree with and I doubt there is policy support for. In summary, we disagree and there isn't going to be someone riding in here credibly telling either of us that we are wrong. ~Kvng (talk) 22:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Tool that can detect duplicate sources?

Is there such a thing as a tool that can identify identical or substantially similar references? I am merging two articles that were content forked 10 years ago and they both use very similar source material, but my human brain can't spot the redundant sources among the 113 footnotes. Schierbecker (talk) 02:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Leave it for a WP:GNOME? It takes a village. ~Kvng (talk) 14:17, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

refill will consolidate duplicates that are identical, but not those that are 'similar'. Klbrain (talk) 11:06, 27 February 2023 (UTC)