Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers

(Redirected from Wikipedia:PM)

Prior to being merged into AfD, the Proposed article mergers process was used to create and close new merge proposals. To begin new merge discussion, editors followed the now-historical instructions at § Historical merge proposal procedure. If a merge is unlikely to be contested, you can still be bold and complete it without initiating a discussion. If you have reason to believe that merging an article could be controversial, nominate it for merging at AfD. If you want to nominate more than one article for merging, you can do so in the same nomination.

Historical merge proposal process

edit

On 24 March 2026, there was consensus to merge the proposed article mergers (PAM) process into AfD. What follows is the historical process for creating and conducting formal merge discussions, prior to the merge with AfD. As some pages are still using the old process, steps 3-5 are still relevant to the process.

Step 1: Create a discussion

edit

This is usually done on the proposed destination page's talk page. For example, if suggesting that Source page be merged into Destination page, create a proposal in a new section at Talk:Destination page. If the destination does not exist, do not create its talk page.

Create a new topic and include the list of the affected pages and a merge rationale. For example:

== Merge proposal ==
I propose merging [[SOURCEPAGES]] into [[DESTINATIONPAGE]]. I think the content in SOURCEPAGE can easily be explained in the context of this article, and merging them would not cause any article-size or [[WP:UNDUE|weighting]] problems. ~~~~

If a merge proposal has been incorrectly created on the source's talk page and the proposed destination is unambiguous and exists, any editor can move the discussion to the talk page of the destination page, to increase its visibility. Use the {{Moved to}} and {{Moved from}} templates.

Optionally, you can notify contributors to the pages involved. One way is to ping them in a comment on the merge proposal, such as {{ping|User1|User2|User3|...}} Notifying contributors to the articles. ~~~~. Alternatively, create a new topic on those users' talk pages with {{subst:Mergenote|PAGENAME|Talk:PAGENAME#Merge proposal}}. Respect neutrality when making invitations to participate in the discussion; selectively notifying editors is not allowed.

Step 2: Tag the relevant pages

edit

To propose merging:

  • two articles together: place {{Merge to|DESTINATIONPAGE|discuss=Talk:DESTINATIONPAGE#Merge proposal|date=July 2026}} at the top of the source page, and {{Merge from|SOURCEPAGE|discuss=Talk:DESTINATIONPAGE#Merge proposal|date=July 2026}} at the top of the proposed destination article or section.
    • If you don't already know which article should be merged and which should remain, place {{Merge|OTHERPAGE|discuss=Talk:PAGE#Merge proposal|date=July 2026}} on both pages.
  • many articles into an existing article: place {{Merge|OTHERSOURCEPAGES|...|target=DESTINATIONPAGE|discuss=Talk:DESTINATIONPAGE#Merge proposal|date=July 2026}} on all source pages, and {{Merge from|SOURCEPAGE1|SOURCEPAGE2|...|discuss=Talk:DESTINATIONPAGE#Merge proposal|date=July 2026}} at the top of the proposed destination article or section.
  • many articles into a page that doesn't exist yet: place {{Merge|target=DESTINATIONPAGE|SOURCEPAGE1|SOURCEPAGE2|...|discuss=Talk:SOURCEPAGE#Merge proposal|date=July 2026}} on each source page.

Always use the |discuss= parameter to link to the same discussion on all pages; otherwise, two separate discussions could take place.[a]

Step 3: Discuss the merge

edit

Make sure to follow standard talk page guidelines and be clear and concise. Usually, a hybrid discussion/straw poll is used, but remember that polling is not a substitute for discussion. Example:

* '''Merge''' – The scope of the articles is the same.  ~~~~
* '''Don't merge''' – The resulting article would be too long. ~~~~

During the course of the discussion, editors may suggest merging pages that were not part of the original proposal. When this happens, add the merge templates to those additional pages and ensure that adequate time is provided for editors to comment before the discussion is closed.

Step 4: Close the discussion

edit

During discussion, a rough consensus may emerge to proceed with the merge. Any user, including the user who first proposed the merge, may close the discussion and move forward with the merge if enough time has elapsed (normally 7 days or more) and the consensus is clear or there has been no discussion. Closing of merge discussions differs from closing of requested move discussions in that closings of uncontroversial merge discussions by involved users are allowed.

In more unclear, controversial cases, the determination that a consensus to merge has or has not been achieved should be made by an editor who is neutral and not directly involved in the merge proposal or the discussion. The discussion can be listed at the Proposed article mergers noticeboard to attract the attention of more editors. If necessary, you can request that an uninvolved editor close the discussion at the Closure requests noticeboard. If a consensus is formed against the merge shortly after it was performed, it can easily be reversed.

To close a merge discussion, use the {{Discussion top}} and {{Discussion bottom}} templates.[b] Then:

  • If the discussion is closed with consensus to merge, change the {{Merge to}} tag to {{Being merged to}} in the source page, and change {{Merge from}} to {{Being merged from}} in the destination page. They should remain tagged until the merge is fully performed, so that they are listed on the relevant backlog.
  • If the discussion is closed with consensus against merging or no consensus, remove all the {{Merge}} templates from the destination and source pages, linking to the discussion in your edit summary. Optionally, you can also place {{Old merge}} on the corresponding talk pages.[c]

Step 5: Perform the merge

edit

Following the merge of PAM into AfD, the detailed procedure for carrying out merges is now described at Wikipedia:Merging § Procedure.

Articles proposed for merging

edit

This list is updated automatically twice per day by Merge bot.

Jump to a random open merge discussion!
   Jump to a random merge discussion!

February 2026

edit

Siemens Viaggio Comfort ⟶ Siemens Vectouro (Discuss)

Simple. Since this article covers the original Railjet trains (which is mentioned in this article). I propose to merge the Siemens Viaggio Comfort article into this article. Tententenny (talk) 17:10, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I concur Yuezhi Huang (talk) 03:32, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The RJ1 (or Viaggio Comfort) is based upon old SGP-Bodywork
The ComfortJet (Vecturo) is apart from the cab car ideantical to the RJ1
The RJ2 (Viaggio Next Level) on the other hand: It is a almost a complete new construction method including Low Floor and High Floor parts. That doesn't fit the Viaggio Comfort Family which is High-Floor Only. DerKaiserschmarren (talk) 11:17, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I put this onto a healthy merger discussuon because for some reason the Railjet 1 (the Viaggio Comfort) is included in this article even tho they are part of a different product range. Although both of those NMU's are highly identical to one another. I do know feel like there is an overlap, It did not help by the fact the article of Viaggio Next Level no longer exist and it instead redirects to this article. Although i open a healthy debate here if the merger would be approved or not. Tententenny (talk) 11:29, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In the german article we actually, just seperated all into their individual Articles with only one short that is combined. Multiple people liked it this way, so probably it is a good Idea to take a look at it. It is Called "Railjet (Zuggattung)"
But I won't stop you from merging them. It just could be more work to seperate them again later on in the long run. ;) DerKaiserschmarren (talk) 11:41, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Tbh the Railjet article in the English Wikipedia is very outdated by now ever since ÖBB announced they ordered Stadler KISS and the questionable order for Siemens Mireo EMU's and also route changes. I suggest the Railjet article should emphasize on the train service and not the rolling stock. The rolling stock that Railjet uses especially the Viaggio ones instead be put into here. Tententenny (talk) 11:46, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yep using the "Railjet" Article for the service instead of the rolling stock would be ideal.
It can then have links to the main Articles of each type.
  • Railjet 1
  • Railjet 2
  • Railjet 3 (Class 4706)
  • Railjet M (Class 4864)
(ComfortJet could be added)
Actually I did a big part of that rework in the German Wiki, so if needed I could probably help. DerKaiserschmarren (talk) 12:04, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I do think merging is a good idea as Siemens stopped using the Viaggio names a year back and started referring them all as Vectouro in the advertising materials. As the Vectouro term getting more referred in the future it is natural to merge the two articles into one under the latest brand name.
These two generations of product are strongly connected as low-floor and high-floor is just an modular option for the latest Vectouro products (ČD Comfortjet contains only high-floor sections) thus no strong proof for separate them as two individual products. Yuezhi Huang (talk) 20:16, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tententenny (talk) 08:47, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:FUTURE, "As the Vectouro term getting more referred in the future" is not relevant. It is all speculation. —Sladen (talk) 19:48, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not speculation, the Viaggio brand name doesn’t appear in marketing materials anymore. Yuezhi Huang (talk) 20:00, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Viaggio is the Siemens (marketing) named used on carriages Siemens has delivered, which is what Wikipedia is writing about on, based on existing WP:RS reliable sources. —Sladen (talk) 00:06, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
When the manufacturer cannot figure out what their product is called; the solution is usually WP:COMMONNAME—follow from the WP:RS, because that is probably what the readership are also going to search for and wish to read about. All the obscure (brand) names can then be relegated to some disambiguation/redirect page. i.e.: The solution here is probably sensible length articles about actually delivered orders, verses overly-long and confusing abominations attempting to cover everything. —Sladen (talk) 05:52, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

March 2026

edit

The Animals (British album) ⟷ The Animals (American album) ⟶ The Animals (album) (Discuss)

The Animals (U.S. album) and The Animals (UK album) have very little content and both are stubs. I think that they could be included in this one. For an example, please see The Clash (album). They have been released in the UK in 1977 and in the U.S. in 1979, their track listings are totally different, the UK version was their debut album while the U.S. version was their 2nd studio album. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only the UK one is a stub, the US one isn't. If this was the only outlier, maybe it would make sense to merge them. But the whole Animals album sequence is different between the UK and the US, with sometimes the same name used for different albums, sometimes slightly different names used for different albums, etc ... it's a confusing mess to those not familiar with 1960s British pop music practices, and I think in this case it's best served by keeping the articles separate. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AK-257 ⟶ AZP S-60 (Discuss)

I would like to discuss if it would be beneficial to merge AK-257 into AZP S-60. I have some reasons for suggesting so and a few concerns as well.

On pages such as S-300 missile system or S-125 Neva/Pechora, naval variants of the original system are explained in that article, and not separately, and so this seems it would be inconsistent to have a separate article for the naval variant (AK-725*) of the original (S-60). I also have not seen separate articles for variants unless it is something notably different, and I do not believe that is the case here. *Also, the talk page for AK-257 has an entry from many years ago about the name, and from my brief searching it seems AK-257 is not a proper designation. I had thought about trying to fix it over there but I figure perhaps this issue could be solved in the process of merging, should that ever happen.

My concern for this is that in this page for the S-60, as I have seen with plenty of other articles, different variants are presented in list form, and not individual subsections like the two examples I cited prior. And so perhaps the need for a significant rewrite to include all the information from the merged article would be a reason not to merge. animeweebman ^^ (talk) 16:19, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support the merge proposal on the basis that the naval variant (whatever it's actually called) is not particularly notable and appears to essentially the same gun as the S-60. Similar guns like the Bofors L/60 do not have separate articles for their innumerable variants. StSeanSpicer (talk) 02:17, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

History of China–India relations ⟷ Relationship of the Cholas with the Chinese (Discuss)

{{Merge|History of China–India relations | date = March 2026 }}

ScrubbedSoap (talk) 12:25, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ScrubbedSoap: Could you add a reason for the merge here? (see WP:MERGEPROP) Also note that merge templates go on the article page (I've added it), and should be tagged on both of the involved pages (I've added it on the other one too). Klbrain (talk) 18:10, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish federation ⟶ Jewish Federations of North America (Discuss)

I propose merging Jewish federation into this article or vice versa, as the two articles generally discuss the same topic from different perspectives. I believe that the national group overseeing Jewish federations can be more simply discussed in the same article as that describing its member federations. 42-BRT (talk) 14:48, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is page is inaccurate as JFED is not an acronym used by Jewish Federations of North America, nor is it an existing organization. There are 141 local Federations across North America that fall under thew JFNA umbrella. Unclejoesboat (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support merging JFNA into Jewish federation. Agree that per WP:NOPAGE, including the umbrella organization on the page covering the broader concept is more coherent, even though JFNA more than meets WP:NORG. I have no idea what @Unclejoesboat's comment means. Longhornsg (talk) 05:37, 12 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

List of Johnson solids ⟶ Johnson solid (Discuss)

Propose to merge List of Johnson solids to here. While I am proposing for Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Johnson solids/archive1, I also suggest merging, per the last two talks above from here. By merging, tables may have a small adjustment, by removing the data of their surface area and volume, and replacing them with nets. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:50, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, of course, that we have a lot of duplication at this point.
I'm tending towards the following solution:
  • Main article: prune the tables, leave only the big image. The previous version had some text below the list talking a bit about the families and their construction, maybe we add something like that back in to accompany the image.
  • List: leave it alone, it has a lot of extra data which I do consider valuable, like volume and area, but which would clutter up the main article.
  • Nav boxes: Gone from both.
Introscopia (talk) 03:58, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge per above. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:21, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
well, whatever the decision ends up being, I went ahead and removed the navboxes. I think we all agree those were unnecessary. Introscopia (talk) 00:52, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Introscopia. Then adding some vertex configurations and categorize whether each solid is composite or elementary? Some just asked for adding a 3-connected planar graph, but this is too much. Equally, all articles must have such a description. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 05:08, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, friend, once again I can't really tell what you mean.
And while I'm here: I'm going to revert the edits to that info box with the three shapes, ok? I feel you reduced the clarity and readability, with no obvious upside. Introscopia (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Introscopia. I think applying directly is much more understandable than saying here. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:44, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

KK Partizan in Europe and KK Partizan in EuroLeague ⟶ KK Partizan in international competitions (Discuss)

I propose merging KK Partizan in Europe and KK Partizan in EuroLeague into KK Partizan in international competitions. Similar articles about other former Yugoslav clubs already use the “in international competitions” title, such as KK Split in international competitions and KK Crvena zvezda in international competitions. Using the same format here would make the naming more consistent. Also, since the EuroLeague is part of European/international competitions, having a separate article for it seems unnecessary and leads to overlap between the pages. Zdremon (talk) 00:36, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pleurotomariacea ⟶ Pleurotomarioidea (Discuss)

Cognitive warfare ⟶ Psychological warfare (Discuss)

Merger with Psychological warfare

I struggle to see the difference between these, and to the extent there is a difference, it seems this article could be a section of the other article rather than a separate one, as it is now, because they cover very similar concepts, with a lot of overlapping information. Yet, for how similar the two articles are, there is very little cross-linking between them. Blippy1998 (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

searching cw in open-and-closed inverted commas on google scholar yields 3000+ results.
Does the superiority of merging into a section to leaving as two separate articles hinge on the absence of defined, distinctive use of the term "CW"?
eg https://smallwarsjournal.com/2025/11/14/assessing-cognitive-warfare/ "For du Cluzel, psychological warfare attempts to change what the target audience thinks,
but Cognitive Warfare aims at shaping how they reason and their resultant behavior."
eg https://www.jstor.org/stable/48873423 "Psychological warfare focuses on the perceptions, thoughts, and feelings of human agents
… Cognitive warfare is a concept that has evolved a step beyond psychological warfare, …"
Eg the study, 'A Comparative Study on the Development of the CCP's "Psychological Warfare" and "Cognitive Domain Warfare."', in the wikipedia article.
Even if there's overlapping information, they needn't be merged: CW and PW are not equivalent. FatalSubjectivities (talk) 07:45, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Overlaps can be removed without merger FatalSubjectivities (talk) 07:46, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not merge - however, the article could mention - if there are any wiki-notable pundits that have claimed that "Cognitive warfare is not a thing", or "Cognitive warfare is hardly anything else than another name for Psycological warfare", or similar claims. ~2026-33847-40 (talk) 13:12, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It's fundamentally the same concept, and should be merged; this is just another think-tank buzzword variation on the exact same concept. The definitions are not actually different. "shaping how they reason and their resultant behavior" is literally the same thing as the lead sentence definition for psychological operations ("Psychological operations (PSYOPs) are military operations to convey selected information and indicators to audiences to influence their motives and objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of governments, organizations, groups, and large foreign powers.") It's the exact same thing. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 14:32, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, anyone should consider changing "Psychological warfare" article immediately, so that it says something like
"A similar concept, Cognitive warfare has been defined as shaping how they reason and their resultant behavior ... influence their motives and objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior", blah blah.
Be sure to add wiki-notable reference.
When that largely is done (as outlined in this post), then i will most definitely consider changing my "vote" (from "Not merge" to "Merge"). ~2026-33847-40 (talk) 03:23, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That would be done post-merge. There's no need to do it ahead of the merge discussion closing. And, as a reminder this is not a vote, it's a discussion. It sounds like you're in favor of a merge with the post-merge content in place. Great. The closer should take that into account. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 04:26, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad we're finally getting some people in here to discuss. To be clear, when I said "could be a section of the other article", this is indeed exactly what I meant. I don't want to delete this page or the info on it; just deduplicate to the extent that is appropriate and add what is missing, but ultimately consolidate the pages. Obviously I'm in favor of merging but I don't think we should go ahead until we get more discussion on the subject here, ideally from some more folks. To that end, if anyone wants to tag people who've contributed to these articles in the past (if that is appropriate by Wikipedia guidelines), go ahead. Blippy1998 (talk) 04:34, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
yeah? do i accept? Alty of Steel (talk) 23:13, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge; these are clearly distinct topics; readers are best served by having these discussed separately, and each of the articles is sufficiently well-developed that a merge isn't warranted for 'short text'. Klbrain (talk) 10:43, 19 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
in my proposal, i wrote that i struggle to see the difference between them; that is, they are not "clearly distinct topics". could you explain please? also, even if they are meaningfully distinct, it's possible that "they cover very similar concepts", as i wrote. (edited to add this underlined section.) Blippy1998 (talk) 22:22, 19 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
you're talking to me or klbrain? I read often ut it might get too problematic anyways Alty of Steel (talk) 04:07, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
i was responding to klbrain Blippy1998 (talk) 04:08, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
ahh okay okay got confused, new to here (wikipedians) Alty of Steel (talk) 04:11, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Annoying Anonymous8999 np; welcome! Blippy1998 (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sirvikalender ⟶ Runic calendar (Discuss)

Proposed merge of Sirvikalender into Runic calendar

"sirvikalender" should be mentioned and redirected to main article Estopedist1 (talk) 06:52, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Estopedist1. Thank you for sharing your thoughts and for the time you have spent reviewing this article. Your perspective and extensive experience is appreciated!
I was wondering if you might suggest some benefits you feel a redirect might offer that would outweigh maintaining this as a standalone entry? I am concerned that a redirect might result in a loss of nuance as the Estonian versions are quite distinct.
The article Sirvikalender has received a favourable peer review, and I am committed to continue to work on the article to try to raise it to GA status. Your advice on any areas where you feel the article could be refined to better support its status if it were to stand as a specialised entry would be very helpful. Mustleib (talk) 13:01, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Mustleib: I don't know the topic in deep, but currently both articles are not long. Etwiki even haven't standalone article for et:ruunikalender. And I am not sure that every minor nuance of Estonian sirvikalender should be added to enwiki article Estopedist1 (talk) 14:25, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reply @Estopedist1. I agree with you that including this level of detail about the types of sirvikalender might not fit the parent Runic calendar page, which is why I suggested a separate entry. I am happy to update and expand the parent and child article alongside other notable examples like the primstav and clog calendars. I suggest that using child articles for details on specific calendars might be a more effective way to maintain a neutral point of view in the main entry while still allowing for the specific cultural nuances important to regional traditions and folklore. Currently the explanation of runes on the parent page is not true for some runic calendars. As the sirvikalender page has already been reviewed and granted a B-class rating, I hope it can stand as a specialised entry rather than being condensed. I actually joined Wikipedia through the Women in Red project and first encountered some of the references on sirvikalender while researching a biography on Estonian woman, Kongla Ann, so I am quite keen to see these specific cultural histories preserved. I would appreciate the chance to work on these further, though I respect your judgement on the best path forward. Mustleib (talk) 05:49, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Mustleib: could you solve the mess at etwiki, see et:Arutelu:Sirvikalender? Currently several Estonian dictionaries says that we are dealing with synonyms (see https://sonaveeb.ee/search/unif/dlall/dsall/ruunikalender/1/est). If concepts in etwiki are clear, I would be more inclined for two standalone articles in enwiki Estopedist1 (talk) 10:58, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Estopedist1 apologies for my slow reply here. I took a look at et-wiki and you are right, there are a number of different pages there. Since I am a newer user, I am happy to help out, but defer to you on what might be the best path forward there as well. Mustleib (talk) 13:14, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Mustleib: I checked "Eesti rahvakultuuri leksikon" (2007). It says "Eesti ruunikalender oli enamasti kantud väikestele kimpu seotud lauakestele (sirvikalender)". So, fron now on, I am quite sure that "runic calendar" should be primary topic and sirvikalender to be redirected there Estopedist1 (talk) 16:09, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, @Estopedist1! Thanks for checking. Mustleib (talk) 16:20, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Semiotics of fashion ⟶ Semiotics of dress (Discuss)

Merge proposal with Semiotics of dress

I propose that this article be merged with Semiotics of dress, as a WP:REDUNDANTFORK; the statement pre-empting this proposal in "Semiotics of dress"' lede, Clothing and fashion are not the same. While clothing is defined as "any covering of the human body",[2] fashion is defined as the style of dress accepted by members of a society as being appropriate for specific times and occasions.[2], is just blatant recognition of a WP:POVFORK to boot. This distinction could be mentioned in a merged article, but it does not justify the fork. chickenpox4dinner (talk · contribs · email) 21:37, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thse certainly seem like the same general topic. — Reywas92Talk 17:51, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support this (as a design researcher, albeit not working on fashion). Semiotics of dress does not seem used. This book uses fashion semiotics https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-032-02540-1. It also seems that semiotics of clothing is used quite commonly, alongside or instead of semiotics of fashion: https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110874099.605/html E mln e (talk) 09:01, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. The scope and sources substantially overlap, and maintaining separate articles risks redundant coverage and conceptual fragmentation. Any nuanced distinction between “dress” and “fashion” can be addressed within a unified article structure, consistent with WP:REDUNDANTFORK and WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. —Lojmze (talk) 01:32, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with the merge. Perhaps the article could be named "fashion" as I would expect that to be a more common term than "dress". And agree that nuance could be tackled within the merged article. Momonowa (talk) 16:59, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dixmier trace ⟶ Singular trace (Discuss)

I think we should merge Dixmier trace into Singular trace. The Dixmier trace is a type of singular trace, and the Dixmier trace page is very short so shouldn't make the singular trace article too long. There is a lot of overlap between the two pages, I think it makes sense to have the Dixmier trace construction in the Singular trace page and redirect Dixmier trace to Singular trace. Exosystem (talk) 05:46, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Slovak Republic (1939–1945) ⟷ Slovakia during World War II (Discuss)

Shouldn't this be merged with Slovak Republic (1939–1945), since the both cover the same thing? – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 20:12, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that these articles should be merged because they cover the exact same historical entity and time period. Having two separate pages creates unnecessary redundancy and splits valuable information across different locations. The "Slovak Republic (1939–1945)" article is the more appropriate primary title as it identifies the specific political state that existed during the war. Dasomm (talk) 10:13, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, merge to Slovak Republic (1939–1945). ThecentreCZ (talk) 04:02, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it'd be redundant to have 2 pages that cover the same thing although you'd have to trim it down a bit if the article size is too big. KreamoNoBrainos/Kreamy/Fat Man (talk) 18:13, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't the Slovak Republic predate WW2 by six months, though? HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 02:54, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
yes, mainly because the Slovak Republic was made close to WW2, plus a prelude could fix the issue. KreamoNoBrainos/Kreamy/Fat Man (talk) 14:01, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, merge into Slovak Republic (1939–1945). Otapka (talk) 12:10, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - No, this article covers specifically Slovakia during World War II, the Slovak Republic article is about the state itself and its history. And the republic predates World War II on its own. Not to mention that the article covers the aftermath and the deportation of Jews. Most of the replies in this discussion seem to be low quality, not providing long reasoning except 'yes do it because this'. Although this article could be more expanded upon, i oppose. JJUPLOADS22 (talk) 21:06, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

R-U-Dead-Yet ⟶ Slowloris (cyber attack) (Discuss)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-U-Dead-Yet is essentially the same kind of attack, only it uses a POST-form; I think we can count Slowloris as the general term for the class of attacks and mention R-U-Dead-Yet in this article. ~2026-18963-56 (talk) 09:54, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't R-U-Dead-Yet a different and distinct tool? Smallangryplanet (talk) 17:33, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
POST is not an actual distinction as slowloris.pl also uses POST if running in "HTTP Ready" mode. See the source code in https://web.archive.org/web/20150429015628/http://ha.ckers.org/slowloris/slowloris.pl. If there is no other distinction I am in favor of merging. --Artoria2e5 🌉 07:38, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Spinosaurus mirabilis ⟶ Spinosaurus (Discuss)

In light of the newly named species and considering the current length of the article (more than 13,000 words), I propose to split off the "Discovery and naming" section of the Spinosaurus article to the new article "Taxonomy of Spinosaurus". As previously discussed in WT:PALEO for the Taxonomy of Allosaurus last year, articles with over 8,000-9,000 words can be divided according to Wikipedia:Article size, and the "Discovery and naming" section and its subsections contain more than 6,000 words in total (close to half of the entire article), so I believe it does warrant a split off.

If anyone agrees with this proposal, are there any opinions for how the new article will be structured and how the current section should be trimmed? I especially want to ask Augustios Paleo who recently worked most on this section, as I'm not entirely knowledgeable on the "Discovery and naming" section's content. In case there is a disagreement, are there any alternatives that could be suggested? Thank you. Junsik1223 (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, if the new article "Taxonomy of Spinosaurus" were to be created, it can expand probably more on Spinosaurus maroccanus and other indeterminate materials in proper paragraphs rather than bullet points. Some sections of the Sigilmassasaurus article can be incorporated to that new article as well; I'm not entirely sure if the "consensus" is that both Sigilmassasaurus and Spinosaurus are synonymous, so I'm not suggesting a merge. I also think Spinosaurus mirabilis does not need to be merged, since that article will most likely be expanded further in the future, but I'd also like to see if there are any alternative ideas for that. Junsik1223 (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I generally agree with this but I don't think it's good to say "it will be expanded in the future so it should stay in its own page" since that's something that can be said about any fossil species. I feel like the new species could be merged until that new information is actually published rather than relying on hypothetical papers. SeismicShrimp (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I see, maybe I can take your stance as well until new information comes of this species. Also I think it would be fair to tag @SlvrHwk who created the article for Spinosaurus mirabilis. Junsik1223 (talk) 23:20, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely agree. We can merge the species articles into the Spinosaurus page and create a Taxonomy of Spinosaurus page. This would also tackle the existing problem of the bloated specimens section, which is too detailed for the average reader but could benefit from being in a Taxonomy article. AFH (talk) 22:46, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment(s): I certainly see the value in a "Taxonomy of Spinosaurus" page, but it should not be used as the primary home for content on S. mirabilis. (I also don't think a dedicated S. aegyptiacus page is necessary.) As it stands, and understandably so, the Spinosaurus (genus) page primarily covers the type species. I don't currently see a way to adequately discuss S. mirabilis in sufficient depth at the genus page without making it seem disjointed and overcrowded. A separate page to discuss the various aspects (discovery/geological/anatomical context) of the new species seems appropriate. There's definitely enough to say just about S. mirabilis to fill a reasonably-sized page, just based on the single new paper (incorporating paleoecology, environment, anatomy, etc...). And to be clear, I think Spinosaurus is a special exception, given its popularity and the sheer volume of published work on it. Most other "second species" (or third, fourth, etc.) of non-avian dinosaur genera can be sufficiently addressed on their genus page without special accommodations. -SlvrHwk (talk) 06:07, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It seems very arbitrary to have an article for one species when the genus has two. Also, there is so little info about this new species that it could easily be covered in a trimmed genus article and a taxonomy article. A species article would just duplicate info found there for no useful reason. FunkMonk (talk) 13:03, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think an S. aegyptiacus article is essentially impossible due to how many disagreements there are about what even represents that species. The species level and genus level info are impossible to pull apart from one another. In regards to only giving one species a separate article, I don't think it's necessarily a bad format. I've proposed something similar in the past for Tyrannosaurus mcraeensis (though we'll see how necessary that seems after a Taxonomy article happens). When these famous genera get a second species, I think it's just hard to incorporate. There's so much written about the main species that any coequal focus on the new species feels like undue weight, and the minor species is just lost in all the info (V. osmolskae suffers from this too). So you can split off the new species to just avoid the problem entirely. The reason you don't then also split the famous species is that it would split the information people are looking for (that about the type species) between two articles. People typing in "Tyrannosaurus" really mean "T. rex" but we're putting them on a page that's giving a less detailed overview about both species. So I think no species articles is negotiable, and one for the less notable species is negotiable, but not splitting info on the "main topic" (S. aegyptiacus) between two articles in a way that would confuse lay readers. For what it's worth in this case I am negotiable to seeing someone show me that S. mirabilis would fit in a trimmed down article if we dump a lot of existing Spinosaurus info into a Taxonomy article... but until that work happens I think it needs to stay separate. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 16:11, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it a problem that the more published on species has more weight in the genus article? Seems pretty normal. In any case, splitting the new species doesn't solve anything, as essentially all the same info would still need to be present in the genus article in summarised form. And when so little is published on the new species, it will be basically the same info in the genus article as in the species article. So again, little to gain, just more articles to update and keep track of. FunkMonk (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a problem for the genus article itself per se, but if someone comes to it looking for information on S. mirabilis they're going to have a harder time than if it just has its own article they can navigate to. It's so lost in all the info on S. aegyptiacus that the reader is inconvenienced. If it were me I'd jsut ctrl+f it, but a less internet literate reader or app user may go away unable to effectively learn about S. mirabilis. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 21:41, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
But again, most of the S. mirabilis info has to be at the genus article as well in any case. Splitting off an article doesn't mean all the info is removed from the parent article, only that it should be summarised shorter there. But with a species known from so little and with so little published on it, there is very little to cut down, and you will essentially just end up with two articles with the same info. And I don't buy that info is "lost" in an article, that's what tables of content are for, and that a sub-taxon with little published on it simply has less to say about it isn't unusual. FunkMonk (talk) 14:44, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't have a strong opinion whether we should merge S. mirabilis to "Taxonomy of Spinosaurus" (given that the article is later created), in case the majority opinion favors the merge approach, I think one solution I can suggest is adapting the structure of the current Quetzalcoatlus article for the main article and the Taxonomy article (regarding multiple species coverage, to be specific). That article has relevant coverage of both species in various sections since early 2025, despite the second species Q. lawsoni having been named in December 2021.
While I do think more opinions are needed, at the very least all the current participants seem to agree that splitting part of the article regarding its taxonomy/species is warranted (with most agreeing that the Taxonomy article split has its value), though how that will be done seems to be where the disagreement occurs. Junsik1223 (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This makes the most sense to me. The Quetzalcoatlus article meaningfully covers two species with vastly different morphs while maintaining a single article for the genus. A separate article regarding the taxonomy of Spinosaurus, to expound upon issues with potential synonymy with Oxalaia and Sigilmassasaurus or whether or not the material actually belongs to S. aegyptiacus in the first place, could have merit, but I don't think it should serve as the replacement for a dedicated S. mirabilis article. Apc12345 (talk) 01:04, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It will probably come as no surprise to anyone here that I am strongly in favor of keeping S. mirabilis as a separate article. As it currently stands, Spinosaurus has over 9,000 words of prose, making it long enough that it is recommended to trim or split the article per WP:SIZERULE, so it's clearly inappropriate to merge anything into the article in its current state. I would also be in favor of creating a separate article for S. aegyptiacus. LittleLazyLass does have a fair point that it might be difficult to disentangle S. aegyptiacus from the genus as a whole due to the dispute over what material properly belongs in the species, so I'm less committed to the idea of a S. aegyptiacus article being necessary, although as FunkMonk pointed out, it would be inconsistent to have a separate article for one species but not the other and I think having a separate article would allow some of the nitty-gritty details specific to S. aegyptiacus to be trimmed from the genus article to get it down to a more manageable length. I am opposed to creating a "Taxonomy of Spinosaurus" article; I think having separate articles for S. mirabilis and S. aegyptiacus is vastly preferable as a way to split the article. All of the objections to creating separate species articles also apply to splitting the taxonomy section off into its own article, and surely the taxonomy of Spinosaurus is less WP:NOTABLE as a topic in its own right than the valid, distinct species S. aegyptiacus and S. mirabilis. Ornithopsis (talk) 16:27, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Truth be told, I'm more concerned with how to deal with the excessive information regarding many of the North African spinosaurid specimens that have significant controversy in terms of which truly represents Spinosaurus. That is more of the reason why I suggested creating a Taxonomy article, rather than just to make a primary home for the Spinosaurus mirabilis content, and probably the reason why other participants who oppose the merge approach seems to be fine with creating the Taxonomy article given that it's written fairly (as you can see I don't strongly agree or disagree with whether merging the S. mirabilis article approach is the best option). I see your point in that we can't merge anything more significant into this article, but regardless of whether the majority consensus favors the merging S. mirabilis approach or not, I believe this this issue might be much easier to solve than what we might think; splitting off this section and incorporating many of the background information from the Classification section would reduce the word count significantly, since the first two paragraphs (especially the second) on the Classification section are mostly about the outer systematics (i.e. family Spinosauridae) rather than Spinosaurus itself and the phylogeny section can be reduced in addition to this (which would mean that the Classification section also needs an overhaul, which can be done if the Taxonomy article is appropriately written in my opinion). Junsik1223 (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retooling the classification section to be more about Spinosaurus proper should not be an issue, especially with the volume of content published post-2014. I think the broader family-level content should be reduced heavily, and have made a start by removing the 'Evolution' section in its entirety, this was a 1:1 copy of said section on Spinosauridae. The Morrison Man (talk) 23:38, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As the person who wrote the Specimens section on the article, I believe that a Taxonomy section is beneficial as it will be able to properly cover both schools of thought on Spinosaurus (that being there are 2/2+ species of North African spinosaurid or that there is just S. aegyptiacus). AFH (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I only see a Spinosaurus genus article and a Taxonomy article as being useful. There's no need for S. mirabilis to have its own article in my opinion, it can be reasonably covered in the genus article and have taxonomy info in the taxonomy. Additionally, a Taxonomy of Spinosaurus article could also incorporate bloated information present on the Oxalaia and Sigilmassasaurus pages. AFH (talk) 14:39, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with incorporating information present on Oxalaia and Sigilmassasaurus pages. Now as you and LittleLazyLass pointed out, there seems to be a significant controversy in terms of what specific North African specimens truly represent Spinosaurus. I can see multiple subsections that highlight this aspect. So if the Taxonomy article does get created, do you think we could assemble some subsections of the Discovery and naming section into more coherent sections of that new article? Taxonomy of Allosaurus article seems to be a good basis to reference in terms of structure, so I'd suggest following it would be appropriate. Junsik1223 (talk) 22:54, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The section "Specimens" in this article could probably do with being entirely removed and pasted into a Taxonomy of Spinosaurus page instead. There would be more than enough content there to be able to form a coherent narrative what remains we have and the discussions surrounding the referrals, plus a discussion of species/genera referred to Spinosaurus (aegyptiacus) semi-regularly, with the most prominent there probably being S. maroccanus, Sigilmassasaurus and Oxalaia. The Morrison Man (talk) 22:02, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I believe that sorting the specimens into sections, similar to what I did on the current page, would be beneficial for the taxonomy article. I have them sorted by how they were classified in recent literature on them, for example MSNM rostrum is Spinosaurinae indet based on Smyth et al (2020). However, as mentioned elsewhere on this page, there are many different ideas on how many spinosaurids are present in North Africa. I think that the current Discovery and naming section should include the current history section + S. mirabilis, while the specimens and synonyms sections should be put in the Taxonomy article. AFH (talk) 16:44, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, this page should be kept separate from the main Spinosaurus article, as the main page is so long and it is quite difficult to find specific information. Furthermore, this new discovery deserves its own page due to its anatomical and geological context. -Historianengineer (talk) 14:52, 19 March 2026 (UTC)-[reply]
Reiterating what I said above: "I'm more concerned with how to deal with the excessive information regarding many of the North African spinosaurid specimens that have significant controversy in terms of which truly represents Spinosaurus. That is more of the reason why I suggested creating a Taxonomy article, rather than just to make a primary home for the Spinosaurus mirabilis content, and probably the reason why other participants who oppose the merge approach seems to be fine with creating the Taxonomy article given that it's written fairly (as you can see I don't strongly agree or disagree with whether merging the S. mirabilis article approach is the best option)." Junsik1223 (talk) 13:17, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am also inclined to favor keeping the species' page separate. The main article is, as has been noted, already very long and crowded, the page for S. mirabilis seems perfectly substantial in its own right, and people looking for information on mirabilis would likely struggle to find what they're looking for in either the currently existing genus article or in a broad-sweep taxonomy page, given how complex the topic is in this case. A general taxonomy article might be also useful, but I favor keeping the other species in its own page. -Theriocephalus (talk) 06:30, 20 March 2026 (UTC)-[reply]
Reiterating what I said above: "I'm more concerned with how to deal with the excessive information regarding many of the North African spinosaurid specimens that have significant controversy in terms of which truly represents Spinosaurus. That is more of the reason why I suggested creating a Taxonomy article, rather than just to make a primary home for the Spinosaurus mirabilis content, and probably the reason why other participants who oppose the merge approach seems to be fine with creating the Taxonomy article given that it's written fairly (as you can see I don't strongly agree or disagree with whether merging the S. mirabilis article approach is the best option)." It's good to know that at least you think a general taxonomy article can be useful. Junsik1223 (talk) 13:18, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If the most significant concern is that there is excessive information on specimens of Spinosaurus, it seems to me that a more appropriate page to spin off would be "Specimens of Spinosaurus", as has been done for Tyrannosaurus and Archaeopteryx. I don't think the taxonomy of Spinosaurus is convoluted enough to warrant a page in its own right, and in fact it's probably a less taxonomically complicated genus than either Tyrannosaurus or Archaeopteryx, neither of which have a separate taxonomy page. Ornithopsis (talk) 15:13, 21 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have thought of that option, but A Cynical Idealist did brought up their opinion in last year's WT:PALEO discussion about creating a "Specimens of" article which makes me feel conflicted about it (reiterating what A Cynical Idealist stated there): ""Specimens of" articles are better off avoided except in extremely specific cases where individual specimens have cultural or scientific relevance independently of their anatomical descriptions. Also the specimen list articles which do exist are focused primarily on the specimens themselves, rather than detailed discussions of the taxonomic controversies they imply." Junsik1223 (talk) 00:22, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
i agree AFH (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The specimens themselves of Spinosaurus often have lots of info depending on which one. For example, Spinosaurus B has lots of detailed info, controversy, etc on it that I believe would be better covered in a "Specimens of" article. Its anatomy especially wouldn't be properly covered in the main article. AFH (talk) 23:04, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the format should be based on the Allosaurus articles because it has more species than Spinosaurus and it still has only 1 page. Also, there's either too much detail in the Spinosaurus mirablis article or the Allosaurus article needs to be split. Paleorganizer (talk) 13:54, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree AFH (talk) 23:02, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think that it should be merged because through Convergent evolution we can think that the Northern crested Newt evolve a crest on the head so Mirabilis could just be an abnormal specimen of Aegypticus and the fossils of Mirabilis are also very much Fragmentary so it could be plausible but we have to merge it, in such a way that it would look neutral and don't merge the entire article, leave some space between them and also start with "Spinosaurus Mirabilis is a dubious member of the genus Spinosaurus and its debatable whether its another species or just or just another different individual"(also sorry for the commas and more because I don't really use them). Mendakapur (talk) 10:13, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend reading the description paper and WP:OR. -SlvrHwk (talk) 16:38, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wanted to reformulate my position slightly. I'm still in favor of keeping the S. mirabilis page; I think that there is valid reason to keep distinct pages for notable dinosaur species, like how the Edmontosaurus and Camarasaurus species are currently split. If it is to be re-merged, then as a second-best option I would strongly favor using the model currently on Quetzalcoatlus, where Q. lawsoni has a distinct subsection within the larger page. Unrelatedly to the mirabilis issue, a "specimens/taxonomy of" article as a primary location for potential synonymy issues and specimens of debated/unclear species or genus also seems like it might be useful, but my opinions there aren't as strong. -Theriocephalus (talk) 03:39, 29 Apr 2026 (UTC)-

I do see two problems with the current setup:

  • First, we have an article for Spinosaurus mirabilis but not for Spinosaurus aegyptiacus, which I think is not consistent. I can't think of any other genus where one species has an article but the type species is not supposed to have one. However, having articles for both species, which both follow the same sectioning with many redundancies, might not the ideal solution.
  • Second, the Spinosaurus article only mentions S. mirabilis in the lead and the cladogram. Of course, it still has to discuss S. mirabilis in proportion to the rest of the article (per WP:SPINOFF). Consequently, a separate S. mirabilis article actually does not give us that much additional space.

Regarding a possible Taxonomy of Spinosaurus, that article would obviously on taxonomy only, and there are actually not many species to discuss. I think it helps a bit to shorten the main article (it could cover the species with their autapomorphies, and the neotype discussion). But at the moment, we are a bit above 8,000 words of prose, which would increase a little when S. mirabilis is merged back. There is certainly still potential to save quite some space by formulating more concisely. I therefore think that, at the moment, we might be ok with just one article, but that a "Taxonomy of" spinoff might be warranted when the article grows further.

I see the above argument that a separate S. aegyptiacus article might allow us to shorten the main article by moving out some details specific for this species. However, the species article would mostly have to cover the very same ground as the genus article (per WP:DUE), the details that the species article has but the genus article has not will be hard to find, given that both articles would be mostly redundant. I just don't think that's helpful to a reader. The advantage of the Taxonomy spinoff would be that it does not have to cover things like paleobiology. It would still come with some redundancy, but the info is presented in a different format and with a different focus and therefore would, I think, be a more useful addition than a species article (S. aegyptiacus) that's mostly a copy paste from the main article. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:16, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There's actually tons to cover when it comes to species, as there is S. aegyptiacus and S. mirabilis already on top of Sigilmassasaurus, Oxalaia, S. moroccanus, "Spinosaurus B", and many indeterminate forms that are relevant (ex: MSNM rostrum, NHMUK rostrum and mandibles, different quadrate forms). In my opinion, the "Taxonomy of" article is the best choice. We can include the specimens of uncertain status in the article. Additionally, Kellerman and colleagues are currently writing a new paper that will cover the taxonomy of the genus. This means that the taxonomy of the genus is about to be in flux, so rather than have a rapidly shifting and bloated main page, we can concisely cover new info on a Taxonomy page. AFH (talk) 17:17, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's a good idea to create a draft for Taxonomy of Spinosaurus, to show the intended sectioning and notes (bullet-point format) stating what information should appear in each section? That would give us something much more palpable to discuss. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:37, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually a pretty good idea. Maybe the discussion can be continued after that then. Junsik1223 (talk) 23:38, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would be open to working on the article. Furthermore, I already wrote a bunch of information that could be used in the "Specimens" section that is now absent from the page. AFH (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

June 2026

edit

Articles with consensus to merge

edit

If a merge discussion has been closed with consensus to merge, you can optionally list it at Wikipedia talk:Merging or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Merge to attract editors interested in carrying out the merge. Any editor can perform these merges by following the merging instructions!

Jump to a random article with consensus to merge!
   Merge a random article!

Notes

edit
  1. ↑ If the parameter is not specified, the notices lead to the top of each article's talk page. In {{Merge to}} and {{Merge from}}, it always leads to the destination talk page, but it is still preferable to link to a specific section of the talk page. When proposing a cross-namespace merge, these templates won't work correctly.
  2. ↑ This is an example usage:
    == Merge proposal ==
{{Discussion top|result=The result of this discussion was... . ~~~~}}

I propose merging ...
: Rest of the discussion...

{{Discussion bottom}}
  3. ↑ To add {{Old merge}}, use this format:
    {{Old merge
| otherpage = DESTINATIONPAGE
| result = '''not merged'''
| talk = Talk:DESTINATIONPAGE#Merge proposal
| date = {{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}
}}

See also

edit
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Proposed_article_mergers&oldid=1363681109"