Wikipedia talk:Mergers for discussion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts

Why not both options in one discussion[edit]

I still don't see why this needs separate consideration from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, other than the fact that certain parties are breaking the option for a Merge outcome in AfD. If a subject is considered not worth a standalone article, it seems practical for consensus to choose from more than one possible remedy (Merge/Delete/Redirect), and certainly bureaucratic to require potentially two separate nominations for an article.

I have a vague memory of AFD once being called "Articles for discussion". Now it's come to this. Whatta pain. Would it be acceptable for Delete to be a possible outcome for articles nominated here? / edg ☺ ☭ 16:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my primary motivation for creating this page is that the inclutionist/deletionist culture at AfD has become grossly polarized. So much, in fact, that everyone seems to think that those are the only two options. I'd like to believe that somehow that process could be changed to make merging a more acceptable solution, but I just don't see that possible in the near future. How many times has one seen a misguided "merge and delete", followed by seven people telling them why that's not acceptable? How many articles are closed as no concensus, when the split between keep, delete and merge is almost even? Everyone can see that AfD is broken, in some ways more than others. The goal behind this process is to eliminate some of the messed up parts of AfD, by recreating them here with a different tone. If only it was still articles for discussion
Furthermore, I think things could be deleted from here, if the process were somehow to require that action. For example, if there was a snowball type situation where no one thinks content is suitable for merging, then a CSD could be added, or maybe an accelerated AfD process. However I find that unlikely, because only certain types of articles could be discussed here (like, ones that actually have suitable merge targets) while other articles would be better discussed at AfD. That said, I only see three realistic results: keep, merge/redirect and inappropriate nomination. --NickPenguin(contribs) 19:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The biggest advantage of a page like this would be a place for discussion of, say, entire seasons of episodes proposed to be merged into a list. Or, multiple minor characters being proposed to merged into a list. I see this as an avenue for discussion where editors come forward saying something like "how do we deal with this collection of content, and is there a better way to present it to an interested reader? Which content is most suitable for merging, and which content should stay in separate articles" --NickPenguin(contribs) 19:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome idea. With the colossal failure that was our attempt to alter Articles for Deletion into Articles for Discussion, maybe a separate but equal process is the way to go. This would work just like AFD in a lot of ways, I imagine; you nominate an article(s) for merge that you feel are inappropriate for standalone articles (usually when you have attempted a merge or a talk page discussion and failed) and suggest an appropriate target; people say Keep as article, if it can be improved or if wrongly nominated, Merge to the suggested target article, or to another one, Redirect if there is no mergeworthy content, or Delete if there is no appropriate merge target and/or it meets some kind of CSD criteria. Agreed that this takes a lot of the inclusionist/deletionist focus off, as the inclusionists don't have to worry about loss of content, and deletionists can have a lot of success getting non-notable standalone articles merged or redirected elsewhere; i.e., fostering an environment of compromise. BOZ (talk) 23:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still think this is WP:BURO. I'm watchlisting this page, but I really don't think I want to use this process. I don't think this solves a problem. I think if it takes off, then the !voters who broke Merge in AfD will find an way to break it here, plus articles not worthy of standalone articles will now potentially require two separate discussion, potentially with obstructionists saying in each forum the other process should be used. Resulting ultimately in twice the no consensus.. / edg ☺ ☭ 03:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Articles for deletion has never been known as articles for discussion. It's previous name was votes for deletion. There has never been a consensus to rename it to articles for discussion, hence this page. Hiding T 09:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer a common forum for dealing with content not considered ready for standalone articles. What that would be named is a tempest in a political teapot, but matters not in the slightest to me as long as we have this functionality. Requiring different forums for different potential outcomes to the same situation seems entirely foolish to me. I think I know how we got here—I just want us to get out. / edg ☺ ☭ 03:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Count me among the folks who think AfD should handle both mergers and deletions. We already have Wikipedia:Proposed mergers, which gets almost no attention. Renaming it won't solve that problem. Instead, we should focus on fixing AfD and then merging (wording intended) the two processes.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love for that to happen. But first you're going to have to get everyone to stop calling it Articles for Deletion, which I think has been tried and failed several times. Then, you're going to have to completely rewrite the unwritten rules of how AfD functions, and convince several thousand active editors to work in that direction. I see this as an easier and equally functional solution. --NickPenguin(contribs) 14:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I understand the thinking behind this proposal, but as others are saying above, the proper (though tougher to achieve) solution is to ensure that AfD includes the option to discuss contested merges. We already include Merge as an accepted viable option alongside Keep and Delete, and people do give Merge as an outcome option without any problems. However, process questions are asked when people bring an article to AfD for the express purpose of deciding if an article should be kept or merged (not offered for deletion).
As there doesn't appear to be consensus for this proposal after 3 weeks discussion, and we already have Wikipedia:Proposed mergers, I suggest that we tag this as {{Failed}}, and look to have a discussion formalising the ability to bring contested merges to AfD. At present the advice is "For a potentially controversial merger, consider listing it at proposed mergers." - and that would be the wording that needs addressing. SilkTork *YES! 09:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're reading different debates, I don't see a lack of consensus. Most of the objections seem to be that they don't want a separate process for merging, which misses the point that one already exists. I think those objections can be ignored on that basis. I think all that's happening here is that the current process of mergers for discussion is becoming better formalised, which is a good idea since there is a huge backlog with the current process, indicating it isn't working as currently established. Hiding T 09:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your sentiments, both of you. So the question is now, in what way would it be best to change how things work? I mean, what currently established processes should be focus on in order to generate change? While there is a healthy amount of support for something like this, I think it may be a better idea to look towards something else and try to affect change there instead. --NickPenguin(contribs) 14:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't we have this already?[edit]

How is this in any way different from Wikipedia:Proposed mergers? Or if this is somehow different, can changes be made to WP:PM to have it address what is being sought here?--Father Goose (talk) 19:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I never knew such a thing existed until someone added it to this page. And I see it as both good and bad that it exists. Good, because it means that people interested in such a process created it. Bad, because people like me have never heard of it. And like everything that has to reach people, I think it has to do with the way it is named.
However, the difference between the goals I see between that page and this one has to do with the time scale. Like, that page has items on it from two years ago. Concensus on a merge does not take two years, I can't see it taking more than several days, when interested editors know about the issue. The difference I see between a process like this and that page, is this is designed to suppliment AfD, while that seems more geared to suppliment Category:Articles to be merged. This place I think could be a better forum for discussion larger scale merged, rather than just "History of ArticleX" into "ArticleX". --NickPenguin(contribs) 19:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, awesome idea creating this page... I've actually been thinking about it for awhile, but never actually did anything. Secondly, on this specific point, WP:Proposed mergers has a massive backlog and no timeframe. Here, you'll have ~7 days to discuss the merge, and then it will be done or not depending on the result. In my experience, proposed mergers just get lost in the shuffle at Category:Articles to be merged, and there's maybe one comment on each merge a month, if its a somewhat popular page. This should be a great help with fixing this issue, and I'll do what I can to help get it set up. –Drilnoth (T • C) 22:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move?[edit]

I think that "Mergers for discussion" would be a better name than "Articles for merge", because it's more in line with other "discussion" pages. Thoughts? –Drilnoth (T • C) 22:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. BOZ (talk) 23:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thirded.--Father Goose (talk) 01:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MfD? Any other suggestions? : ) - jc37 03:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As jc37 points out, there's a shortcut collision with WP:Miscellany for deletion. MeFD or MFDi aren't very appealing. Articles for merging and Articles for merger have been suggested in previous discussions. Flatscan (talk) 04:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a shortcut collision, but I was thinking WP:MRFD or WP:MRD would work well. Certainly either the -ing or the -er would be better than the current name, if Mergers for Discussion doesn't work. –Drilnoth (T • C) 14:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have a similar problem with WP:RFA and WP:RFAR. It's not a show-stopper.--Father Goose (talk) 09:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I think that a shortcut conflict is not something to really worry ourselves over. –Drilnoth (T • C) 13:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, that name rolls off the tongue nicely. It's all groovy gravy, shortcut conflict and all. --NickPenguin(contribs) 00:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then; I'll move it shortly and create the shortcuts. If there's any other opposition it can be discussed here. –Drilnoth (T • C) 02:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions[edit]

A formalized merge process – more like AfD than Proposed mergers – has been suggested before. Most of these discussions are focused on mergers at AfD, but a fully separate process often comes up.

This is a large amount of discussion that may inform the development of this process. Flatscan (talk) 04:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC) Updated. Flatscan (talk) 05:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; having some previous discussions to check out is definitely helpful. BOZ (talk) 12:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BOLD mergers[edit]

I'm hoping that if this is accepted as a new process, users can still make BOLD mergers without discusion in the same cases as they do now, only bringing discussion here if it seems controversial, if the user isn't sure, or if the merge is contested. Is this correct? –Drilnoth (T • C) 14:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much like AFD is often used for contested speedies and PRODs? Yeah, I'd think so. :) BOZ (talk) 15:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point... that makes sense. –Drilnoth (T • C) 15:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is this meant to be a mandatory process if the BOLD merger is opposed (like PROD→AFD)? The current text indicates that it should be used more sparingly, after Talk page discussion. A hierarchy/list or some examples of reasonable escalation would help. Flatscan (talk) 04:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just wrote whatever popped into my mind first about this proposed process, and I wrote that bit about raising it on the talk page first because I recently added a merge tag to an article, and another editor told me I should discuss it on the talk page first. The reason I think it should be discussed on the talk page first is because you're more likely to find interested readers there than anywhere else. That said, if this gets set up like AfD, with a fancy template and everything, then editors will be more likely to show up here, and then this would probably be the best place to discuss things. --NickPenguin(contribs) 00:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Proposing a merger is done by placing tags and starting a discussion at the same time. I've left a more detailed note on that specific instance at your User talk. Flatscan (talk) 01:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this redundant to WP:Proposed mergers[edit]

Why do we need both this and WP:Proposed mergers? It is my understanding that centralized discussion forums are really only needed where administrator intervention is required. Merges do not require administrative intervention. If the problem is that PM is not visible enough, then we need to raise its visibility. If the problem is that PM is not formatted like AfD, I'd say the same about RFC, which is another accepted process for getting outside opinion. If RFC is inadequate for the same reasons that PM is inadequate, perhaps there should be a single solution to address both. If the problem is a lack of a specific time limit in PM, we could simply say that if a merge proposal is listed at PM for 7 days with no opposition, the discussion can be closed and the merge can take place, and should not be reverted without further discussion. If there is no consensus, then discussion should continue until there is consensus, we shouldn't need arbitrary time limits to force a decision. DHowell (talk) 04:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something I think everyone's been overlooking so far is that a merger isn't just a decision, it's a task. WP:PM's "chronic backlog" may be a simple and unavoidable reflection of that fact. Some mergers are extremely tricky to carry out well, so this process might end up doing nothing more than proclaiming that a lot of cats need belling.
What troubles me even more is that I've seen a lot of mergers that are the equivalent of "merge and delete", where large amounts of content have been jettisoned. That's a result those who !vote "merge" might not have agreed to, but a "merge" outcome via this process might be used to try to coerce an aggressive amount of content reduction.
I still have some pretty strong reservations about this proposed process.--Father Goose (talk) 09:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reservations are ok, it means you like the idea but don't think it's perfect. Yes, mergers are a task, I think that's why the AfD culture is so resistant towards it; having a true merge option means that a vote might actually have consequences other than hitting or not hitting the obliterate button.
While I'd agree that some mergers are complicated, sometimes it only involves creating a new section, or integrating a few sentences. Merges only get complicated if the page is kinda long, like two screen sizes or something like that. But if you look at a lot of the pages in any of the Category:Articles to be merged, most of them are actually pretty short. And like I said, I see the purpose of a process like this for complicated or controversial merges, where discussion might actually be needed. Most things merges can be performed by any rogue editor with fifteen minutes to burn. --NickPenguin(contribs) 00:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "this will be too difficult so let's not try it" is a valid excuse. I say we try it, and if it fails then it fails, but at least we made sure that it wasn't going to work instead of not trying. I imagine this process will attract certain kinds of editors in much the same way AFD does, so you might be surprised after awhile how painless the whole thing winds up being; that is, I suspect editors who don't mind doing a decent job at merging articles would gravitate towards MRD in ways that maybe they don't attend to Proposed Mergers. BOZ (talk) 02:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying "it's too difficult", I'm just identifying potential problem areas. I'm still not sure what's going to be different about this compared to WP:PM besides greater initial publicity.--Father Goose (talk) 03:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If its purpose ends up being "discussion of how a merge might be performed" or "if a merge is needed at all", then it's probably benevolent, although I don't see how its scope is in any way different from WP:PM. Therein lies the dilemma: if the two processes end up needing to be merged, do we discuss it here, or propose it there?--Father Goose (talk) 03:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rules to merge by[edit]

If this process is going to get off the ground, then we need to come up with some rules of thumb by which pages that show up here can get merged properly. I don't like to see good content get lost in a page history, so what are somethings editors can use to help make merging quick and painless?

One thing that always bugs me about a previous merge is a bad redirect target. Like, don't merge History of X to ArticleX, and make the redirect to ArticleX. The redirect should point to ArticleX#History. Same thing with characters, don't redirect CharacterY to List of characters in ShowQ, it should be List of characters in ShowQ#CharacterY. --NickPenguin(contribs) 00:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly redirects to sections are important, if there is a section created from the merger. As for getting other content merged properly, here's an idea: Interested users can merge the content that can be done fairly easily. Then, a talk page template is added with links to the oldid of the merged from before the merger. Any user more familiar with the article topic can then easily access other material that might not have been merged (because of complexity, like in large articles, or if there is contradictory information) and merge it in before removing the talk page template. Thoughts? –Drilnoth (T • C) 02:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These suggestions are relevant to the general merge process, Help:Merging and moving pages. I support including oldid as generally useful (Help talk:Merging and moving pages#Merge edit summaries (2)). Flatscan (talk) 01:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects to sections are not always a good idea, and should not be the norm. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First WP:Mergers for discussion article discussion[edit]

Song stubs are to music articles what in-universe fictional character fanpages are to fiction articles: unencyclopedic (usually per WP:NOTE and WP:OR) micro-spinoffs unwaveringly Keep-!voted by fans of the parent topic. Discounting Keep !votes (which would normally be unfair, but please read on), the discussion consensus break down like this:

Is anyone surprised? Is any of this helpful?

I could have picked an article not up for AfD (song stubs certainly abound), but I think the problem of separate venues for non-freestanding article subjects is demonstrated here. / edg ☺ ☭ 13:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added {{Mergeto}} tags leading to this discussion ([1] [2] [3]) in hopes of drawing some of that AfD's Keep voters here—I'm wondering if they will consider Merge an acceptable option, or just vote Keep here as well. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be cool to try it on the articles at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. I was going to do one, but I don't want to use that little old merge template we have. I'm thinking we need a template that shows we mean business (even if its unclear at this point if we do mean business or not). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Templates[edit]

If this project is going to move forward, then I think we need to work out what kind of templates will be necessary to accomplish our goals. Similar to AfD, I think there needs to be a "This is nominated, see the discussion" template, and then I guess something like a "The discussion is complete and the result was merge, so someone please merge this" template. Any skilled templaters out there know how to whip up something pretty? --NickPenguin(contribs) 03:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that I could make some up. My internet access it kind of weird right now, though, so it could take some time. If someone else wants to make them first, I wouldn't mind. –Drilnoth (T • C) 14:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any particular reason why the existing templates (lists at Help:Merging and moving pages#List of merge templates and Category:Merge templates) are insufficient? Edgarde used their specifiable Discussion links when setting up WP:Mergers for discussion/Killing Yourself to Live. Flatscan (talk) 04:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there's specific templates for this kind of discussion, I worry that discussion might get fragmented if editors just click on the talk page instead of clicking on the discussion link. I sometimes see merge conversations on both the mergeto and the mergefrom articles, and I think that might be the reason why. --NickPenguin(contribs) 23:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I checked {{mergefrom}} and {{mergeto}}: they default to the Talk page of the merge target. I came across a new double-posted merge discussion recently, so I think the how-to can definitely be improved. See Help talk:Merging and moving pages#Rewriting merge instructions. Flatscan (talk) 23:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm sorry but I don't think that I'll be able to do the templates... I've been working on a lot of different things lately on-wiki, and really don't have the time to handle all of them. My apologies, but please feel free to let me know if you need help. –Drilnoth (T • C) 18:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After trying to fool around with some automation, I just made this basic template for now. People will still need to manually create the discussion page here, but it'll make things a little more streamlined. --NickPenguin(contribs) 04:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And it occurs to me that when you add this template to one of the two merge articles, it'll work fine, but then the link on the other merge article won't follow through, because the link will always point to Mergers for discussion/PAGENAME. Anyone know how to make it so you can specify the target, can't quite figure it out right now. --NickPenguin(contribs) 04:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done; you can now specify the |page= parameter to choose the subpagename of where the discussion is taking place. –Drilnoth (T • C) 12:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update[edit]

Can someone update the project page so April 2009 appears? Also I tried to get Wikipedia:Mergers for discussion/Non-stick pan to appear on the front page but it didn't work. --DFS454 (talk) 17:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion for broadening the proposal's scope[edit]

First of all, I think that this is an excellent idea, and support its implementation. However, I have one suggestion: could it be changed into something along the lines of "Mergers and redirections for discussion"? At the moment, there is no venue for a centralized discussion on whether or not a page should be redirected to another page without actually merging them, should Talk page discussion not lead to an adequate consensus. Since the two actions are so similar, I think that this proposed process could fill that gap as well. Thoughts?--Unscented (talk) 13:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

good idea.DGG (talk) 20:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion[edit]

Here at Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_mergers#Preferred_format Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Mark as failed[edit]

I propose that we tag this process with {{Failed}} and fall back on WP:Proposed mergers. Despite initial enthusiasm, a {{Cent}}-advertised VPP discussion, and a fair amount of advertising there seem to be residual CENT links in there at individual AfDs and elsewhere, this proposal has neither sufficient support nor continuing momentum. Flatscan (talk) 04:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. This is going nowhere. Restating myself a bit, I propose that allowing Merge as an outcome for AfD would meet the need this process was intended to address. Multiple processes for articles considered debatably not worthy of freestanding articles is unnecessary bureaucracy. / edg ☺ ☭ 21:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think this page can pretty well close up shop. It's too bad that it failed, and I think it failed for a variety of reasons, but mostly because it's the right kind of idea presented in the wrong way at the wrong time. It did raise awareness to the huge problem of merging, and in that way it served it's purpose well, and I'm thankful for that. Energies should be focused on affecting change elsewhere. --NickPenguin(contribs) 06:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Per my recent experience here. I added a request below regarding non-stick pan. I removed the tag to the discussion here, on the article myself, because here is so lame. -Shootbamboo (talk) 03:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Close please[edit]

Don't want to appear as a POV pusher, but can someone please close Wikipedia:Mergers for discussion/Non-stick pan thanks. – Shootbamboo (talk) 01:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Mergers_for_discussion&oldid=1091552541"