Wikipedia:Proposed mergers

All you want to know about Wikipedia:Proposed mergers

This page is about proposed mergers. For proposed moves, see Wikipedia:Requested moves. For page history mergers, see Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen.

This page is an incomplete list of proposed mergers. Anyone may list any article merger proposal here. This is optional, and it does not replace any of the other steps in the merger process. Please add the appropriate merger tag(s) to the articles before listing them here. See Category:Merge by month for all pages needing to be merged.

Contents

Guidelines

In general, this page should be used primarily to solicit outside feedback regarding mergers (particularly those of a controversial nature), or assistance with difficult or complicated mergers. Brief replies may be posted here, but lengthy discussions should be confined to the talk pages of the articles involved. After articles are merged (or a consensus that the articles should not be merged is reached), please remove them from the list below.

Cut and paste move fixes: To request page histories to be merged, list them at cut and paste move repairs.

Current listings

Please list new proposals at the top of this month's section. Sign each listing or comment by typing: ~~~~

2008

October 2008

September 2008

Merge completed, 1 October 2008. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Merge completed on October 10, 2008 momoricks talk 08:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Merge completed on September 13, 2008 --*momoricks* (talk) 08:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Merge completed on September 15, 2008 *momoricks* (talk) 09:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

August 2008

July 2008

----& Cf.: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madelyn Dunham (result: Keep).  \sim Justmeherenow (  ) 23:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)  \sim Justmeherenow (  ) 17:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Umm, where were the discussions setup for these proposed merges? It doesn't appear many (if any) of the steps in WP:MERGE have been followed to produce a reasonable discussion. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 21:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Each merge tag features a link to the pertinent discussion.  \sim Justmeherenow (  ) 23:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I see that it does now, good. The links were missing when you first put the notice here. It might be helpful if you link the discussion sections directly from this list as is often down down below. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 23:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I will. Thanks!  \sim Justmeherenow (  ) 23:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
But there is no explanation at the discussion points that explains what the proposals are and what your reasons for the proposed merges are. You have pointed to old, different merge discussions, or to pages with no section set up for discussion with your rationale. As it is now, I don't see how people will understand what you are proposing or be able to discuss it, so unless more is added I don't anticipate there will be discussion. A situation where there is no discussion likely doesn't mean there is consensus for or against the proposal - it means they need more information to be able to discuss. Tvoz/talk 00:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Re merges involving Dunhams or Soetoros: what's being proposed basically is for these less-notable Dunham–Soetoro family members to be listed together in a new, single article. This can start as a list of the two families' members with each member covered in a sub-section. This would simply involve transferring each article to the new compound article. The article could be left this way, along with a short introduction for the whole article added; or at some point somebody could write a comprehensive introductory narrative that weaves in the histories of all the constituent members, concluding with a final section where all members, spouses and children are grouped together in a list.  \sim Justmeherenow (  ) 10:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
On second thought, such a "Wikimacropedic" venture ("organizing stuff according to topic"----as opposed to the more "Wikimicropedic" one of the status quo of there being all bite-size pieces that are alphabetically organized), when applied to an electronic encyclopedia, is maybe as pointless or as cosmetic of a change as rearranging deck chairs on an ocean liner.  \sim Justmeherenow (  ) 17:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)  \sim Justmeherenow (  ) 17:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

----& Cf.: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Onyango Obama (result: Keep).  \sim Justmeherenow (  ) 20:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)  \sim Justmeherenow (  ) 17:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Same comment as above - needs a clear statement of what you are proposing and what your reasons are, at the place where you are requesting discussion. Tvoz/talk 00:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Re Kenyan Obama merges: what's being proposed is to merge the articles for Barack Obama, Sr., Sarah Obama, and Malik Abongo Obama into a single article. It would be similar to the one I've proposed just above for the Dunham-Soetoro families members.  \sim Justmeherenow (  ) 10:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge Al-Qaeda in Iraq and Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad. The latter article states that it "gradually became popularly known as al-Qaeda in Iraq", and both articles assert that their subjects are led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi; i.e. they are the same organization.-Samuel Tan 07:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

All of these pages have been challenged over notability and defended, albeit at times, I would say, unpleasently and abusively by obviously partisan editors, possibly sockpuppeteers. The pages seem to be linked via the edits of one Nick Mallory.They also appear to 'spin off' from Stangroom, Benson and Baggini's magazine, the Philosopher's Magazine, of which its own notability (although greater) is also questionable. The links for Stangroom's and Benson's site are uncheckable - I suggest that an unfollowable link should not be used to justify a page's existence as on the Butterflies and Wheels page. The link was also misdescribed as being to the Independent (daily newspaper in London) whereas apparently it was to a student advertsing supplement published by the Independent group. There are serious weaknesses in the sources being used on the Ophelia Benson page. That TLS review does not exist online, and there must therefore be doubts that is it ever was as described. Publishing books should not be a sufficient criterion for 'notability' as claimed during the Benson 'notability' review. In the UK alone, there are over 100 000 new books a year! It is true that there are 'some public references' of some sort for the books and so on, and hence I suggest a more sensible compromise would be to lump all the pages under one heading. I don't say what it should be but the obvious choice is to use the existing Philosopher's Magazine page as the start, and then detail both Benson and Stangroom's work under it - and perhaps at this point it would make good logical sense to add Julian Baggini's existing page in too. However, as I see the page is protected at the moment, I willnot try to make it part of this more modest proposal! The aim is to make better sense of the presently rather scattered contributions of the editors, while protecting the integrity of the Encyclopedia . Wikisquirrels (talk) 11:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

June 2008

*Merge Hartford & New Haven Railroad Depot into Windsor, Connecticut (Amtrak station) or vice-versa. Evidence at this link suggests both locations are one in the same. ----DanTD (talk) 04:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE: Merger Completed. ----DanTD (talk) 16:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Agree. Merged.RaLo18 22:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge Homebrewing beer into Homebrewing. That latter should subsume the former. In fact, the latter is nearly entirely about homebrewing beer anyway. Llamabr (talk) 18:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

May 2008

April 2008

March 2008