Wikipedia talk:Proposed article mergers/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Catholic War Veterans Triangle into Catholic War Veterans

Why was my merge proposal for those articles rejected by User:GenQuest without a reason? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.118.33.239 (talk) 01:05, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I want to change EXOs profile pic on Wikipedia page but its protected I don't know how to take a permission to change it

Help please By EXO fan (talk) 14:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

This request is not relevant to this WikiProject – see reply on Talk:Exo (band). Richard3120 (talk) 16:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Contradiction between Wikipedia:Merging and Wikipedia:Proposed mergers

Currently, Wikipedia:Merging says 

   If you are unable to merge the pages, or you believe that the merger may be controversial, you might want to add a listing to Wikipedia:Proposed mergers.

whereas Wikipedia:Proposed mergers says 

   NOTE: Do not post here if you are not willing to do the merge yourself. We will provide you assistance in how to complete the merge if you are unsure how to do it.

This contradiction should be resolved.  Done GenQuest "Talk to Me"

Joriki (talk) 06:51, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty goofy. Lots of merges need to happen, and we shouldn't put off discussing them and resolving that they need to happen, just because of a lack of a volunteer to do it right this minute. Sometimes, WP:PM entirely aside, merges are proposed, and consensus reached to do them, no one volunteers for 6 months or a year, then someone eventually does, and it gets done. WP:THEREISNODEADLINE.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:52, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Yep, a lot of the time the whole reason that people post on this page is because they have no idea how to do the merge themselves, so it's a bit daft to then tell them not to post here unless they're going to carry out the merge themselves. Richard3120 (talk) 16:42, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Why are there two merging articles? Can these be...merged? Finding it very confusing which to follow. Plantduets (talk) 16:40, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposed splits

@Richard3120: There's never been an obvious WP:PM- and WP:RM-like place to centrally list split discussions. Weirdly, WP:Proposed splits redirected to this page! So, I created a section for this and more narrowly targeted that redirect (and WP:Split requests) to that section. Added boilerplate to it, adapted from the material for the Merge requests sections. And added a split proposal. I haven't gone trawling for more of them, because I'm involved in a bunch of pending edits in something like 10 windows and need to finish all that stuff (hopefully before my browser crashes!).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:35, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

PS: I gather that at least one bot does something with the main WP:PM stuff, and wouldn't be doing anything (yet) to manage the WP:SPLITREQ materials, but there are probably a manageable number of split requests (once they're tracked down and added) even without any bot help. And of course bots can be upgraded to do more. Anyway, I endeavored to not do anything likely to mess with the extant bot(s). The SPLITREQ material is all in its own section with subsections. I also gave the subsections slightly different names from their merge counterparts, to work around the Chrome/Chromium bug where the browser always jumps to the first occurrence of a section name after you save an edit to a second or later section with the same name. Really annoying. (It's kind of a lost cause on some pages like WP:AE, where you might have a "Statement by [your username here]" section in 4 concurrent threads, but at least it's avoidable here.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:56, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: I am iffy about this. The lead and links to the article are specifically for merging. Adding a requested split section would take focus away from the merging. What if we were to create a new page to house splitting requests? Requested moves has a page, why not splitting? AmericanAir88 (talk) 02:28, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

@AmericanAir88: I'd be perfectly happy with that! I just didn't want to WP:PROCESSFORK on a whim. I wouldn't've even gone this far, except for the fact that WP:Proposed splits appears to have redirected here since 2010, and I have actually seen splits get inserted into the merge list before.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:56, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: It won't process fork as long as we advertise it and make it prominent. I just think that this page should be for merging only as the Wikiproject and several redirects for merging lead here. The lede of this page also is all about merging. Merging has a much bigger backlog than splitting also. I would rather not have splitting and merging on the same page as they are basically polar opposites. @GenQuest: AmericanAir88 (talk) 18:32, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Works for me. Did you want to do this, or should I just put on my BOLDer jumpsuit?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:32, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree with AmericanAir88, it seems better to me to keep the two pages separate. I don't have time to do the work myself, SMcCandlish, as I'm on holiday at the moment. But I'm not an admin anyway, I just keep an eye on this page because I think Wikipedia needs a lot of cleaning up. ;-) Probably a good idea to ping GenQuest as the only other person who regularly works on this page, he may want to give his opinion. Richard3120 (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
I would agree that keeping these two separate would be best.GenQuest "Talk to Me" 21:17, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: and @GenQuest:. Should we remove the split section?

Not yet. I'll figure something out. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 15:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
              • This has been  Completed. I created a sub-page and proper links from this page to it. I also re-targeted the Wiki-shortcut that made sense. Let me know if there are any questions or concerns. Regards, GenQuest "Talk to Me" 01:57, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: GenQuest "Talk to Me"

There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:Requested moves which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Oblivion, Nebraska and Oblivion, Nebraska (film)

Okay I did put the merge template on these 2 old pages I found Oblivion, Nebraska and Oblivion, Nebraska (film) so do I add them to the page also? (Been a while since I asked for a merger so I couldn't remember.) Wgolf (talk) 20:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Wgolf: I've fixed the tags so they point to a merger discussion on the former article's talk page, no need to add them to the list here now. Richard3120 (talk) 23:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! Wgolf (talk) 23:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Moved request to noticeboard. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 05:04, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_article_mergers/Archive_4&oldid=935600688"