Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers

(Redirected from Wikipedia:Proposed mergers)

Prior to being merged into AfD, the Proposed article mergers noticeboard was used to draw attention to active discussions to merge articles. 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 your merge is later contested, another editor can revert and discuss it.

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 initiating formal merge discussions, prior to the merge with AfD.

If the need for a merge is obvious, editors are encouraged to be bold and simply do it themselves. While bold merges may be reverted entirely, the process and the discussion after the revert results in better articles. Young or short articles and stubs that only differ in wording should be merged immediately. Longer articles that have been separate for a long time are usually discussed first, especially if they are about controversial topics. If the merge is difficult to perform or is potentially controversial, you may now open a discussion following the instructions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.

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=May 2026}} at the top of the source page, and {{Merge from|SOURCEPAGE|discuss=Talk:DESTINATIONPAGE#Merge proposal|date=May 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=May 2026}} on both pages.
  • many articles into an existing article: place {{Merge|OTHERSOURCEPAGES|...|target=DESTINATIONPAGE|discuss=Talk:DESTINATIONPAGE#Merge proposal|date=May 2026}} on all source pages, and {{Merge from|SOURCEPAGE1|SOURCEPAGE2|...|discuss=Talk:DESTINATIONPAGE#Merge proposal|date=May 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=May 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 merge proposal from the backlog!
   Jump to a random merge discussion!

January 2026

edit

Summation of Grandi's series ⟶ Grandi's series (Discuss)

Sigemund the Wælsing ⟶ Sigmund (Discuss)

I propose merging into this page Sigemund the Wælsing. This is widely seen as the same figure as Sigmund, just in an English attestation. This page is quite short and can easily incorporate the material from the other page and it'd be useful to discuss them both in the same place. Ingwina (talk) 07:25, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Question Do you have a source that you could cite for that in the merged article? Would you merge it to a section or wholly integrate the source article? ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ingwina, checking in to see if you're still interested in this or if it's an inactive proposal. ScrubbedFalcon has raised some points that also need to be addressed before there's consensus to merge. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:55, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - I missed this. Thanks for the tag.
There are lots of sources that cover this. One is actually already cited on Sigemund the Wælsing - "The Saga of the Volsungs" by Jackson Crawford, which states "Much earlier, the Old English poem Beowulf... mentions two Volsung heroes by name Sigemund Wælsing (= Old Norse Sigmund, the Volsung)".
I would propose this article gets integrated into the section currently entitled "Relation to other Germanic heroes" but I think would make more sense just being "Beowulf", in keeping with "Völsunga saga" above. There really isn't much grounds for considering him a distinct hero just because his name is English (see for example Sigurd and Wayland the Smith where all attestations are on the same page regardless of language). Ingwina (talk) 07:02, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me. I don't think this needs a formal close, you should be ok to go ahead and perform the merge. Sorry, I would have also responded sooner but I only cam back to this patrolling the PAM backlog, somehow missed the reply ping. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just performed the merge. BlaqWiedow (talk) 01:01, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Sorry, I missed the earlier message so didn't do it myself! Ingwina (talk) 06:09, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

February 2026

edit

1933 Texas tropical storm ⟶ 1933 Atlantic hurricane season (Discuss)

1958 Cameroonian constitutional referendum, 1958 Comorian constitutional referendum, 1958 French constitutional referendum in French Togoland, 1958 French Sudan constitutional referendum, 1958 Gabonese constitutional referendum, 1958 Ivorian constitutional referendum, 1958 Mauritanian constitutional referendum, 1958 Moyen-Congo constitutional referendum, 1958 Nigerien constitutional referendum, 1958 Ubangi-Shari constitutional referendum, 1958 Upper Voltan constitutional referendum, 1958 Chadian constitutional referendum, 1958 Dahomeyan constitutional referendum, 1958 French Polynesian constitutional referendum, 1958 French Somaliland constitutional referendum, 1958 Guinean constitutional referendum, 1958 Malagasy constitutional referendum, 1958 New Caledonian constitutional referendum, 1958 Saint Pierre and Miquelon constitutional referendum and 1958 Senegalese constitutional referendum ⟶ 1958 French constitutional referendum (Discuss)

I propose merging all pages under Category:1958 French Union constitutional referendums to

1958 French constitutional referendum, since most of them seem to be consisted of just a lead section that is basically the same for each article and a "Results" section. Additional information in articles such as in 1958 French Somaliland constitutional referendum could be added to 1958 French constitutional referendum's "Results" section. Oakchris1955 (talk) 12:14, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose These referendums are individually notable, because in each case it was an independence referendum for each territory (if they rejected the constitution, the outcome was independence). The most prominent example is 1958 Guinean constitutional referendum, which resulted in Guinea becoming independent and the French government throwing their toys out of the pram. Number 57 14:16, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support. All of these are part of the same subject and there are no size concerns that warrant splitting that subject apart. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:08, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a single subject though. The referendum did not have the same meaning in overseas territories that it did in metropolitan France. In the territories it was an individual independence referendum, each with their own separate campaigns and nuances. IMO it would be absurd to merge the 1958 Guinean constitutional referendum, a vote that resulted in the country becoming independent, into this article. Number 57 03:04, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be open to merging to a separate title like 1958 French Union constitutional referendums that covers all of them. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:18, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I think there is potential for separate articles, although they are not much more than tables of figures at present. The French vote was a very important event, so there is obviously enough matter for a complete article. As for the overseas votes, they are consequential events in each of these countries’ history and path towards independence, so it seems that an article on the local circumstances, political forces etc. can be written. Keriluamox (talk) 11:56, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Biological intelligence ⟶ Animal cognition (Discuss)

Canadian federal election results in Brampton, Mississauga and Oakville ⟷ Canadian federal election results in Southern Durham and York (Discuss)

Reliable secondary sources from the last election typically highlight the difference between the "416" and "905" rather than divisions within those areas. The LocalCBCToronto Star. When splits are brought up within the 905, it is more often between the individual regions (York, Peel, etc.) rather than a combination like with the current articles. National PostCityNews. News coverage from previous elections seems to follow a similar pattern Global NewsThe GuardianBBC

The scope of our articles thus does not match up with the scope primarily used by secondary sources when discussing election results, which makes it more difficult to find secondary sources to write about the area as a whole (something WP:LISTN considers). Thus, the structure of these articles should change. With the sources primarily dividing between Toronto and its suburbs, I think the best option for the GTA is two pages: One for Toronto and one for the suburbs. ~UN6892 tc 17:07, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It might make sense to merge the two Toronto articles together (as the split is somewhat arbitrary), but I'm not as convinced for the 905 region. Should we have an article on how important the 905 is when it comes to Canadian elections? Absolutely. However, the 905 is huge, and each region in the 905 is distinct, and deserves its own article in my opinion. But, the regions as they are currently titled are odd, seemingly arbitrary, and probably need to be re-named with a slight change in focus to reflect the actual subdivisions of the 905 (they were created in 2004, and so their categorization is out of date as the region has a lot more ridings now). Here's what I would recommend:
And the creation of two new articles:
This more closely resembles the regions we used to categorize Results of the 2025 Canadian federal election by riding.-- Earl Andrew - talk 16:14, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need the riding-by-riding results in these articles? I know the 905's size may make a large page a bit unwieldy, but I'm not sure the level of detail in the riding-by-riding results would be necessary in those pages when those already exist for the "Results in X election by riding" articles.
Regarding the distinction of each place, the reliable sources I've linked (as well as the other sources I have read and seen) seem to group the 905 together much more commonly than split into the various regional municipalities in the area. An additional benefit of this categorization would be the ability to have boundaries that change over time, particularly in areas with a large amount of sprawl (such as Toronto's suburbs). Individual regions occasionally have an impact in individual elections, but it is not common enough to likely be notable across many historical elections. ~UN6892 tc 22:43, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need the riding-by-riding results in these articles? Yes, that's the whole point of these articles, pretty much. Of course, I don't think it would be necessary to list the riding by riding results if we have an article for the whole 905, as long as the articles on the individual regions stay (as I am proposing). I think an article on the 905 might be a good idea to outline its importance in Canadian elections, but not necessary to get into the details of individual ridings. -- Earl Andrew - talk 14:52, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I am skeptical is because I don't really see how each individual riding in each individual election is vital to the region's history (across multiple elections) and the "Results of X election by riding" pages exist to show riding-by-riding results. ~UN6892 tc 01:40, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've completed the Toronto merge since neither of us were opposed to it. ~UN6892 tc 20:18, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ctenobethylus goepperti and Ctenobethylus oblongiceps ⟶ Ctenobethylus (Discuss)

FET y de las JONS ⟷ Movimiento Nacional (Discuss)

TLDR: I propose to merge the article with FET y de las JONS, since "Movimiento Nacional" appears to be merely a second name of the Falange, as said in the current version of the lede, and the article itself appears to be redundant and containing little information on its subject.

The main problem of this article has always been that it never really explained what the "National Movement" was. The definition provided in the lede prior to my edits was "the governing institution of Spain". While very unclear, it also turned out to be not based on the source it cited, which described the definitions of the "National Movement" proposed by the Francoists themselves long after the "Movement" has been established and did not contained the definition given in the lede. In January, I read a little, and it the "Movimiento Nacional" appeared to be just a second name for the Falange (perhaps used more often that the original one), so I edited the definition in the lede into what it is now. No one has changed it, so I assume I was right that it was just a second name for the ruling party. This explains the major problems that this article has always had: half of the information, dedicated to the topic of the article, cites no sources at all and does not explain the difference between the Falange and the Movement (since there is none). The other half is the section "Francoist "families"" which is based on source material, but has no mentions of the "National Movement" - this section about the factions within the bureacracy would be more due in the articles on Francoist Spain / Francoism proper and on FET y de las JONS (since all the bureaucracy were nominal members of the Falange, as said in Paul Preston (2003). The Politics of Revenge: Fascism and the Military in 20th-century Spain. Routledge. p. 110. ISBN 1134811136. and F. L. Carsten (1982). The Rise of Fascism, Second Edition. University of California Press. p. 203.).

Since the article appears to be redundant, overlapping with FET y de las JONS and containing little info on its subject, I propose to merge it with FET y de las JONS. Opostylov (talk) 23:37, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. "Movimiento Nacional" is not a "second name of the Falange", and it was you who edited the article to look like in the current version (), so it looks weird to claim "Movimiento Nacional" appears to be merely a second name of the Falange, as said in the current version of the lede, and the article itself appears to be redundant and containing little information on its subject. Well of course: you edited it to look like it appears now.
While the term "Movement" was frequently associated with the FET y de las JONS party, these two were not strictly the same, as the Movement encompassed other aspects and institutions of the Franco regime. There are multiple sources pointing to this differentiation between Falange and Movimiento. To point out a few examples:
One of the main points of confusion is that, because Franco's regime lasted for four decades, the relevance of FET y de las JONS varied over time (it gradually decreased in favour of other factions). From the late 1950s and the 1960s, mentions to the party itself had almost entirely disappeared from the legal scheme of the regime, and the term "Movement" was used to refer to the whole thing (including whatever elements remained from the core party itself). But the scope of the two articles is different, and the two should not be confused into being the same thing, nor should be portrayed as fully overlapping elements. As a result, I not only oppose the proposed merge, but I also oppose Opostylov's edits on 17 January 2026 that significantly altered the article's scope to make it look as fully overlapping with FET y de las JONS (and, ultimately, are being used as an attempt to justify this proposal). Impru20talk 10:24, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While it should not be assumed that both items were the same thing (neither one a strict continuation of the other), the ambiguous, tricky, fuzzy nature of the so-called National Movement, and in practical terms, perhaps also the limited source-based growth potential of the article of the National Movement as some kind of superstructure perhaps suggests that a redirect to a subsection of FET y de las JONS or Francoist Spain titled "National Movement" or "FET y de las JONS and National Movement" dealing with the subtleties could work too. After all, little of the current content is fully about the topic. The bit about the Francoist families could be here as well as it could be in Francoist Spain#Francoism. A recurring overarching problem related to this is that the article Francoist Spain is both a dumping ground for content on the period of Spanish history between 1939 and 1975, for the dictatorship as a political regime itself, and for the sketch of some kind of kind of purported coherent ideology ("Francoism"). Sadly but, needless to say, not unexpectedly, in addition to the topical awkwardness and some degree of poor original synthesis, it falls short in practically all of its aims.--Asqueladd (talk) 11:22, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Great Seal of Lithuania ⟶ Grand Chancellor of Lithuania (Discuss)

I propose merging Great Seal of Lithuania into Grand Chancellor of Lithuania. I am not convinced that Great Seal of Lithuania meets WP:GNG. The seal, issued in the ruler’s name, was closely linked to the office of the chancellor; it was the main instrument and symbol of his authority. In fact, virtually all the content of the article on the seal falls within the scope of the article on the chancellor, and separating them effectively amounts to repeating the same content. Marcelus (talk) 19:21, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's worthwhile to keep them separate, because the seal itself as an object was very valuable historically speaking.--+JMJ+ (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@+JMJ+: I agree that the Great Seal of Lithuania should be a separate article because this object is highly notable and was used from the Middle Ages until 1795, and is described in WP:RS texts as a separate notable object from the officer Grand Chancellor of Lithuania who only possessed this notable object (e.g. see: book The History of Lithuania, p. 76; book Lietuvos Didžioji Kunigaikštija ir jos tradicija, p. 167, search for Lithuanian words "didysis Lietuvos antspaudas"; Universal Lithuanian Encyclopedia's article about the Union of Lublin, search for a Lithuanian word "antspaudas"; catalog of the National Museum in Warsaw where its English name is used; English publication by the State Archive in Warsaw, p. 8, where the Grand Chancellor of Lithuania is not even mentioned; establishment story of the Vilnius University which is presented in the article and is supported by two WP:RS; etc.). The Grand Chancellor of Lithuania also possessed the Lithuanian Metrica and it would be an absurd to merge the article Lithuanian Metrica to the article about the Grand Chancellor of Lithuania because the object Lithuanian Metrica is also highly notable separately from the officer who historically possessed it. There are many articles about other national seals in the category "National seals". Moreover, the article about the Great Seal of Lithuania has potential for further expansion (e.g. analysis of different periods Great Seals of Lithuania, usage, etc.). -- Pofka (talk) 11:11, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Today additional reliable sources were added to the article about the Great Seal of Lithuania. For example, in Wojciech Krawczuk's book Pieczęcie Zygmunta III Wazy (pages 34–35) a detailed analysis of the appearance of two versions of the Great Seal of Lithuania from the reign of Sigismund III Vasa is presented. Articles about other countries similar status seals: Great Seal of Australia, Great Seal of Canada, Great Seal of Scotland, Great Seal of the United States demonstrates how such separate articles about national seals can be developed and article about the Great Seal of Lithuania definitely has the same potential to be expanded, improved as a separate article. The Great Seal of Lithuania is not less notable than these Australian/Canadian/Scottish/American national seals. -- Pofka (talk) 17:02, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Many seals are separately notable. Whether this one is depends on whether the sources in the article about the Seal meet WP:SIGCOV. Do they? If they do, no merge needed. Otherwhise, merge. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:00, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@+JMJ+ @Piotrus: it seems to me that the topic is borderline WP:SIGCOV; I have not encountered any study that would describe this seal as a separate entity. Primarily because there was no single "Great(er) Seal of Lithuania" - after a ruler’s death it was destroyed and a new one was prepared (which sometimes took some time) with different set of CoAs and legend. So in total there were more than a dozen of them. Moreover, the "Lesser Seal of Lithuania", contrary to what the name suggests, was equal in status to the greater seal and had the same legal significance. It would therefore be logical, if they are to be described at all, to cover them together in a single article: Greater and Lesser Seal of Lithuania. Moreover equally notable are also the Crown seals.Marcelus (talk) 14:42, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Lesser Seal of Lithuania does not exist. Maybe the best outcome would be to expand the Greater article with info on Lesser seal and rename it? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:30, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe simply Seals of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania? It would be good to get an input from more people. Marcelus (talk) 10:01, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The Great Seal of Lithuania is highly important in the history of Lithuania and internationally (given the historic territory size of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania), so a separate article Great Seal of Lithuania should be kept. The great and lesser seals of Lithuania have some similarities, however they historically were completely different objects, so one article about great and lesser seals of Lithuania would not be a viable solution and I oppose that.--Ed1974LT (talk) 10:09, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The Grand Chancellor of Lithuania is a political and administrative office. The Great Seal of Lithuania is a physical artifact, a symbol of statehood, and a subject of heraldry and sigillography. While the Chancellor held the seal, merging them conflates the officeholder with the instrument of the office. We do not, for example, merge the Great Seal of the Realm into the Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain, nor the Great Seal of the United States into the United States Secretary of State. There are academic papers and books dedicated specifically to the evolution of Lithuanian state seals, their iconography, the engravers who crafted the matrices, and their legal use on state documents. The fact that the current Wikipedia article might not currently reflect this depth is a reason for expansion, not deletion or merging. Karnemir (talk) 23:46, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Borei Pri HaGafen ⟶ Kiddush (Discuss)

I propose merging Borei Pri HaGafen into Kiddush. AFAIK, the latter is indeed the blessing itself as well as the oneg (small gathering with food). Andre🚐 02:07, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

These are two completely different articles. Kiddush deals with a mitzvah that is practiced on Shabbats and holidays, and Borei Pri HaGafen is a blessing that is said every day. TheRabbi613 (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There is no doubt that both need to be worked on and expanded. But they must not be Merge. TheRabbi613 (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Kiddush is also the term for the prayer not just the ceremony. Andre🚐 23:33, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Marquee (structure) ⟶ Marquee (overhang) (Discuss)

Canadian Union of Students ⟶ National Federation of Canadian University Students (Discuss)

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]

Therian ⟶ Therianthropy (Discuss)

Ponhea To ⟶ Thommo Reachea II (Discuss)

Hatfield Moors ⟶ Thorne and Hatfield Moors (Discuss)

Turkestan Governor-Generalship ⟷ Russian Turkestan (Discuss)

Urban areas in the European Union ⟶ Urban areas in Europe (Discuss)

I noticed that this page already indicates which countries are in the European Union. It seems logical that merging Urban areas in the European Union into this article would make sense. Logoshimpo (talk) 09:37, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
agreed ~2025-36333-31 (talk) 05:21, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Logoshimpo, any thoughts on how this should be merged? The European Union article seems to have more information on each urban area that the Europe article doesn't accommodate. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:09, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Urban areas in the European Union only lists urban areas over 500,000 inhabitants but this list lists all entries. In other words, this list is exhaustive and comprehensive. There is a section of Important notes which might have pertinent material which could be retained. I haven't read all the citations and both articles thoroughly so I don't think if I were to merge the articles that the outcome would be satisfactory. Logoshimpo (talk) 07:21, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say that one of them is more complete than the other. Furthermore, since various definitions of what an urban area is exist, I wonder whether any such list could ever be called "exhaustive and comprehensive". Dżamper (talk) 18:59, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What sort of definitions do you have in mind? I'm aware of functional area and the nordic countries have their own definition of urban area as defined by their statistical bureaus. I think we could merge the articles together if european union is treated as a section. Logoshimpo (talk) 11:46, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Functional areas are areas that are functionally dependent on a city. Urban areas are areas that are connected with a city by a contiguous urban fabric. So, two related but different and parallel concepts. But even for the definition of the urban area alone, there will always exist different delimitation methods of how big that area is. What is the threshold to be considered urban. Are parks, industrial areas, waterbeds "contiguously urban", etc. And actually, there is currently no source provided which would do that comprehensively. The UN list doesn't (has definitions that vary on country-by-country basis due to lack of data), neither does the EU (Eurostat has only functional areas, Copernicus could, yet provides figures only for "(dense) cores (of) urban areas", not the whole urban areas). Demographia is IMO the closest, but is not generally considered a truly reliable source. Dżamper (talk) 17:09, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now - I took a quick look at the articles, I think they use different statistical bases that would be difficult to merge well, also it looks like the data in the EU article is more up to date than proposed destination article, but I'm not sure if more recent data is available for all of the non-EU cities. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 11:05, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Does my reply to Dżamper change your mind? Logoshimpo (talk) 11:47, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You mean having a separate section for the EU data? If that was the proposal then I wouldn't see how the merge would serve readers better than having a separate article. I thought the purpose of the merge in this case was to eliminate WP:OVERLAP, but if the data is different enough that it needs its own section, I think its clearer for readers to just have the separate articles. I agree that there is some overlap in these lists, but I think it needs to be clearer how they would be merged without making the information difficult to parse. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 11:56, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Upiór ⟶ Vampire (Discuss)

I'm proposing Upiór be merged into Vampire for the reasons I've mentioned here above and summarised at Talk:Vampire. These reasons are:
  • Upiór is almost certainly not the common name for the topic of its articles, making that title unsuitable. It's one of two different Polish words for vampire, and I don't even think it's the most common one used in Polish, let alone the word English speakers would most associate with vampires in the context of Slavic and Turkic folklore.
  • Etymologically related Slavic words/synonyms currently redirect to different articles. South Slavic Vampir redirects to Vampire, but East Slavic Upyr redirects to Upiór. The various intermediate forms have to pick one or the other as a target. It would be better if all variants had the same target.
  • The two articles overlap in content and scope, resulting in unhelpful redundancy. The topic of Upiór is vampires in Slavic and Turkic folklore. Its content and scope overlaps with Vampire § Etymology and word distribution and Vampire § Folk beliefs. Why have two articles that go into detail about etymology and folklore regarding vampires?
Solution 1, Merge Upiór to Vampire

These issues could all be resolved by merging Upiór into Vampire. All the terms would point to the same destination, which would be at what is indisputably the common name in English. The best of the material of Upiór would be incorporated into the existing sections at Vampire, remedying any redundancy in content or overlap in scope. However, there's a large difference in quality and length, with Vampire already being a very long featured article. A merge would have to be implemented by experienced editors with great care.

Solution 2, Move Upiór to Vampires in folklore and split Vampire

An alternative solution may be be to move Upiór to Vampires in folklore, forking/splitting content from Vampire and incorporating it into Upiór. If the majority of content about etymology and folklore were transferred over, then all the Slavic and Turkic variants could redirect to Vampires in folklore instead. A hatnote could be added for anyone surprised by being redirected to Vampires in folklore when searching for Vampir instead of Vampire. The new title would be at the English common name, vampire, while being naturally disambiguated from Vampire as an article with a narrower scope. This solution would have the additional benefit of making room at Vampire to expand on other aspects of the topic. However, like the merge it would also have to be implemented with care, since content would be being removed from a featured article and would still have to be integrated with the material now at Upiór.

I don't know which solution I prefer, but I'm leaning toward solution 1 so I've started this process as a proposed merge. I'm open to other suggests for an even better solution if anyone has any. – Scyrme (talk) 02:58, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would oppose merging any of the content from here into the vampire article because this is not an FA and none of the content here is up to FA quality, while the vampire article is an FA. I would also oppose a split because Vampires are entirely in folklore already. It's the largest part of that article. I have no other opinion on whether this article should be deleted/kept, though. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:22, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Vampires are entirely in folklore already
Vampire also covers modern/popular culture (eg. film, TV, video games, etc.), literary vampires (which differ greatly from those of folklore; a subtopic which has its own article at Vampire literature), and the purported scientific/sociological causes of vampire belief. None of that is folklore, though some of it may be inspired by folklore. – Scyrme (talk) 01:42, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Another option (Solution 3) might be to merge it into Vampire folklore by region if merging into Vampire or using material from Upiór and Vampire to make Vampires in folklore is untenable. Comapring the content, this actually seem less straightforward than merging into Vampire as there's less shared material. Merging with Vampire (Solution 1) has the advantage that it duplicates at lot of the content of Upiór already, such as all the material about etymology. Any material which would clearly lower the quality of Vampire could just be left out of the merge. – Scyrme (talk) 01:51, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If "the topic of Upiór is vampires in Slavic and Turkic folklore", I suggest moving Upiór to Vampires in Slavic and Turkic folklore. I oppose merging it into Vampire – the overlaps are already handled by links between the articles; the Vampire article is already long enough; as mentioned above, any material merged in from Upiór would need to be at FA standard to avoid undermining Vampire's FA badge; and finally, on less clear ground, I imagine that bringing all the vampire-related material on Wikipedia together into one article woud just create a mess, so using a desire to do that, as part of a merge argument, sets a risky precedent. --Northernhenge (talk) 10:18, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine that bringing all the vampire-related material on Wikipedia together into one article
@Northernhenge: That's not the point of this. I'm not suggesting merging Vampire literature, Vrykolakas, Vourdalak, Vampire folklore by region, etc. into Vampire. Vampire already duplicates much of Upiór, making the appropriate target of associated redirects unclear. Renaming the article wouldn't help with the redirect situation, namely that redirects that are etymologically related, which form a spectrum of variation, and are synonymous take readers to different locations. Where the content would not affect the quality it can be copied over. Where it would affect the quality, it can be omitted (or, perhaps, merged into Vampire folklore by region instead). The redundant content would not need to be copied over.
If we want to be very cautious about the quality, we could implement the merge in a draft page first then move the changes over once there's consensus that the quality has been maintained. – Scyrme (talk) 16:17, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Way of Horus (Ancient Egypt) ⟶ Via Maris (Discuss)

This should be merged with the newly created Way of Horus (Ancient Egypt) given the WP:Overlap. They are the same route and are not large articles. Would be better to have one article covering the complete history of the route. Aszx5000 (talk) 18:19, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Aszx5000, this has gone unopposed and you should be good to carry out a merge. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:11, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal to merge the articles is not suitable, since they are of a significantly different nature in terms of text, references and, importantly, historical inconsistency. Via Maris is a geographical description of the routes in the period from the era of Alexander the Great [1], Way of Horus is part of the history of Egypt from the Old Kingdom of Egypt to the Twenty-sixth Dynasty of Egypt, but especially in the New Kingdom of Egypt It includes the construction of fortresses and the organization of military and personnel security along the northeastern coast of the Sinai Peninsula to the Egyptian border town of Rafah. So merging both of these articles would create a kind of freakish dagwood Zemanst (talk) 09:27, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Zemanst. While their references and eras are undoubtly different, it does seem like that they are pretty much the same route? Imho, it is always better to have one comprehensive article on a subject than to split over two articles. Less confusion, and you can handle the transitions from one era to another without confusing the reader? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:52, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I prepose an alternative, to revise the article Via Maris, so that it would be respected its historical development and importance in the era of the loss of Egyptian sovereignty after the Persian conquest, the period of the Wars of the Diadochi after the death of Alexander the Great, the rise of the Ptolemies and the events of the Romans. Basically, it is also related to the system of transport routes in the Levant and its historical development. However, I will have to study the relevant sources for this, if possible with an active approach.
However, there are other alternatives available, to combine the articles Via Maris and King's Highway (ancient), which lacks relevant references, and another valuable processing Incense trade route. As you can see, there is a considerable chaotic dispersion in this area of the same subject series.[2]What is your opinion on this? Zemanst (talk) 13:15, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have posted this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ancient Egypt#Merge proposal for Via Maris and Way of Horus to see if we can get any more participation. I do think that it will be less confusing to have one main article rather than create an arbitrary interface, but lets see for a few weeks what the WP AE says? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 14:58, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like one of the most important sources here is Hoffmeier and Moshier 2013. Unfortunately, the online version of it that is linked here omits all the illustrations except the general map that forms Figure 1 in the paper. But if I am reading the text correctly, the Via Maris was distinct from the Ways of Horus for at least part of the route, at least if one thinks of the Ways of Horus as a specific road (some scholars think the term referred to a region instead of a specific route).
The difference seems to be that a geological shift after 1000 BC made the land near the mouth of the Pelusiac branch of the Nile solid enough that Pelusium could be built on it, and formed the barrier islands that enclose Lake Bardawil. So the Via Maris ran from Pelusium east along these barrier islands, in contrast to the Ways of Horus, which started at Tjaru/Tel Habuwa, well inland from Pelusium, and ran along the mainland coast.
Something I wonder is whether the term "Ways of Horus" was still in use in the Egyptian language at the time the Via Maris was in use, and if so, whether the term was applied to the barrier-island route. If it were, then both these articles could be merged under the Ways of Horus title. But it may be best to keep them separate for now. A. Parrot (talk) 00:38, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ↑ Figueras, Pau (2000). From Gaza to Pelusium : materials for the historical geography of north Sinai and southwestern Palestine <332 BCE - 640 CE>. Beer-Sheva: Ben-Gurion University.
  2. ↑ "Ancient Jewish History: Via Maris". Jewish Virtual Library.

March 2026

edit

∆ ⟷ Delta (Discuss)

First session of the 10th National People's Congress ⟶ 10th National People's Congress (Discuss)

The article, First session of the 10th National People's Congress I just came across while doing the current unreferenced articles backlog drive WP:MAR26. I think this article could be merged into this one, while I am sure it is somewhat notable, I don't think it needs to be its own standalone article, especially considering its current state. Mitchsavl (talk) 10:08, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Martha ⟶ 1969 Atlantic hurricane season (Discuss)

Add oil ⟷ Jiayou (cheer) (Discuss)

If both the articles Jiayou (cheer) and Add oil are ultimately about the same Chinese phrase, why couldn't they be merged into a single article? ~2026-11785-17 (talk) 05:49, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good idea. While one is focussed on Hong Kong English culture, and other on (mainland) Chinese culture, the overlap is so heavy that a merge sounds like a good idea for readers. The question, then, in the preferred direction. I suggest we merge to Add oil per WP:ENGLISH as the English sources use this phrase (which has even entered the OED). Klbrain (talk) 08:22, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Englishisation ⟶ Anglicism (Discuss)

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

Current asset ⟶ Asset (Discuss)

I propose merging Current asset into Asset. I think the content in Current asset can easily be explained in the context of this article, and merging them would not cause any article-size or weighting problems.

Current asset was also created in 2003 and is still a stub, and the Current asset section in this article already covers much of the same content. Duncnbiscuit (talk) 04:54, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, although alternately it and fixed asset could be merged to create an article explaining that dichotomy, perhaps under the title fixed and current assets or current and fixed assets. But in any case, the main concept is asset and so that should have coverage of these concepts. Arlo James Barnes 22:21, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Duncnbiscuit as above, but I would also be happy with Arlo James Barnes's alternative approach. BobKilcoyne (talk) 06:04, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree. I would call the new article Asset (financial accounting) Geysirhead (talk) 07:30, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Or better Asset (finance). Actually the Asset (economics) already redirected to that article. Geysirhead (talk) 07:42, 15 April 2026 (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]

Biomining ⟶ Biohydrometallurgy (Discuss)

  • Biohydrometallurgy, bioleaching, and biomining are similar topics: use of microbes to help liberate metals from ores. "Biomining" is kind of a misnomer because the microbes do no mining, they participate is the solubilization or liberation of valued metals. Bioleaching and biomining achieve this goal by solubilizing. The distinction is subtle. Solubilizing ions from ores is the core of conventional hydrometallurgy: (quoting from Wikipedia) "Hydrometallurgy uses solutions to recover metals from ores".
  • Biohydrometallurgy, bioleaching, and biomining were written as homework assignments for undergraduate students.
  • Biohydrometallurgy, bioleaching and biomining are niche (read: rarely economical because microbes nibble away at rocks slowly, and time is money) topics with a thin supporting literature. These topics are somewhat aspirational and lean into save-the-planet concepts.
  • Wikipedia has few or no active editors in this theme, so it is difficult to maintain three flimsy topics vs one less flimsy one. The combined article would be good for readers to appreciate these fields. Even biohydrometallurgy is an esoteric concept.

--Smokefoot (talk) 20:54, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Bloody Sunday (1972) ⟶ Bloody Sunday (1972) (Discuss)

Chernobyl disaster#Long-term effects ⟶ Effects of the Chernobyl disaster (Discuss)

I think Chernobyl disaster § Long-term effects should be merged into § Long-term health effects and in particular Chernobyl disaster § Human impact into § Human health effects studies. They cover the same topic and are therefore duplicates. This page is better suited to explain the long term effects. FaviFake (talk) 19:19, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@FaviFake: I'd call this a WP:SPLIT proposal rather than a merge, given that both article will remain afterwards; you may wish to rework the templates, as the actions required should this have support are best described at WP:PROPERSPLIT. Klbrain (talk) 17:26, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, technically this would be a WP:SECTIONMOVE proposal, but that process's backlog goes back to January 2021 so I opted for a merge tag to attract more attention... which clearly hasn't worked. I'll probably switch to using the section move templates in the future if nobody responds. But since you're here, do you agree with the... whatever it is I am proposing? FaviFake (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Chernobyl disaster#Human impact ⟶ Effects of the Chernobyl disaster (Discuss)

I think Chernobyl disaster § Long-term effects should be merged into § Long-term health effects and in particular Chernobyl disaster § Human impact into § Human health effects studies. They cover the same topic and are therefore duplicates. This page is better suited to explain the long term effects. FaviFake (talk) 19:19, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@FaviFake: I'd call this a WP:SPLIT proposal rather than a merge, given that both article will remain afterwards; you may wish to rework the templates, as the actions required should this have support are best described at WP:PROPERSPLIT. Klbrain (talk) 17:26, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, technically this would be a WP:SECTIONMOVE proposal, but that process's backlog goes back to January 2021 so I opted for a merge tag to attract more attention... which clearly hasn't worked. I'll probably switch to using the section move templates in the future if nobody responds. But since you're here, do you agree with the... whatever it is I am proposing? FaviFake (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Finite lattice representation problem ⟶ Congruence lattice problem (Discuss)

I believe this article has major overlaps with Congruence lattice problem. Maybe one should consider merging the two articles together. Saroad (talk) 19:04, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Diyarbakır Province ⟶ Diyarbakır (Discuss)

Khao kaeng ⟶ Economy rice (Discuss)

Darnley Island (Queensland) ⟶ Erub Island, Queensland (Discuss)

Harold Washington Party ⟶ Timothy C. Evans (Discuss)

I propose merging Harold Washington Party into Timothy C. Evans. It was a minor third party that existed for a single election for Evans' mayoral candidacy, it should be a section in his article, instead of a standalone one. Scuba 03:54, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Spratt (fictional detective) ⟶ Jasper Fforde (Discuss)

Fusarium solani species complex ⟷ Neocosmospora (Discuss)

Private server ⟶ Game server (Discuss)

It would make sense to merge Private server to Game server. The former article is very brief, and the information it contains is mostly covered in this article. P.landry1 (talk) 21:17, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Heavenly Bodies (1960s tag team) ⟷ Heavenly Bodies (1990s tag team) (Discuss)

This article refers several tag teams that use the name Heavenly Bodies with the exception of the original and I don't see what makes that one any less unrelated than the post-Prichard incarnations. Charles Essie (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My initial thought was "Of course not"...until I saw the 1990s article, which seems to take on too much (and spans 1985-2016, so the name doesn't fit). I think the 1960s (Greene/Greene) and the Prichard/Del Ray version might have enough for stand-alone articles, but maybe this topic would be best covered by something in the style of the Blond Bombers article, with these two included but only in summary form with links to stand-alone articles? GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:24, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. Both articles are fairly small and the one for the original team has only one source. Do they really have enough notability (by Wikipedia standards, not wrestling standards) for separate articles? Charles Essie (talk) 15:35, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not for the 1960s one. I think the Prichard/Del Ray pairing could be expanded with more coverage of their WWF run, though. They were around the same time as Well Dunn and higher on the card, with matches on multiple pay-per-views. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:40, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't sound like enough to me to warrant a separate article. That pairing only lasted two years and it wasn't removed enough from the Prichard/Lane team to qualify as a separate tag team. Charles Essie (talk) 22:57, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like we disagree on that. If a Good Article can be written about a team from the same era who had a similar tenure and accomplished far less, there's definitely potential for a stand-alone article about a team that got a significant push (a run of pay-per-view appearances in WWF, a run in ECW, tag team championships in SMW and USWA, and ranked in the top 100 tag teams of the PWI Era). Anyhow, it doesn't seem to be the focus of this discussion. Yes, a merger might be warranted. As I mentioned with the Blond Bombers, it might have a summary of the Prichard/Del Ray pairing, but that wouldn't preclude a stand-alone article about them. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:18, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but in the meantime, I say we go ahead with the merger. The section about the Prichard/Del Ray team currently relies entirely on single source so there's no sense in splitting it yet. By the way, my point still stands that they're not a separate team from the Prichard/Lane pairing. So if there's going to be a separate article, it can't be limited to the Prichard/Del Ray pairing. Charles Essie (talk) 18:43, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That would be like merging two different movies with the same name. It doesn't make sense ~2026-27476-30 (talk) 03:01, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's what this article already is! As are similar ones for the Blond Bombers and Hollywood Blonds. Wrestling stables are not like movies, especially when the independent notability for any of the incarnations has hot been established. Charles Essie (talk) 04:00, 7 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]

HP Slate 7, HP Slate 21 and HP Slate 500 ⟶ HP Slate (Discuss)

Jewish federation ⟶ Jewish Federations of North America (Discuss)

List of Johnson solids ⟶ Johnson solid (Discuss)

Llywelyn (name) ⟶ Llywelyn (Discuss)

I propose merging Llywelyn (name) into Llywelyn. The etymology and history sections in Llywelyn (name) can be easily described in here without any problems. I think this page could use a similar structure as Charles, for example. GilaMonster536 (talk) 02:40, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Metal toxicity ⟶ Heavy metals#Toxicity (Discuss)

We have several articles on very similar topics. They are often written by undergraduate students as required by their (nonparticipating) teachers. These articles are not very strong and their subjects overlap heavily. So the proposal is to convert 3-4 articles into 1 maybe 2 stronger articles that better serve our readership. Even the definition and utility of the term "heavy metal" is dubious or at least debated as discussed at length in that article. Here are the articles up for merging:

*Heavy metal detoxification

Also very relevant, Wikipedia has articles on each metal within the Project:Elements. These articles are very, very good and each discusses toxicity.

--Smokefoot (talk) 12:39, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal omits the key aspect placed in the article: the proposed merge target is Heavy metal#Toxicity.
Heavy metal + Heavy metal toxicity would meet your 2 article goal. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the proposal by Johnjbarton. --Leyo 16:50, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
OK, getting ready to start. Notice that Heavy metal toxicity redirects to Toxic heavy metal. So, I will start with the easy one Heavy metal detoxification will redirect to Toxic heavy metal.--Smokefoot (talk) 18:55, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. I missed this previously: Heavy metal is a disambiguation page. Heavy metals (plural) is the topic here. So the proposed merge target is invalid. To me that changes the score: Heavy metals has three problems:
  1. Overlap with other articles per Smokefoot nomination,
  2. Definitional confusion noted in several sources,
  3. The singular form is taken by the disambiguation page.
How about this proposal:
Heavy metals
  1. Definitions + Origins and use of the term: KEEP (confusion is sadly notable)
  2. Toxicity: Merge to Metal toxicity (correct noun for this topic)
  3. Formation, abundance, occurrence, and extraction/Uses: move to individual elements unless directly about "heavy metals". (avoid the coatrack effect)
Toxic heavy metal -> Metal toxicity
We end up with a much shorter focused Heavy metal and a longer Metal toxicity with a section summarizing "heavy metals". Johnjbarton (talk) 17:50, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Finchley Central (game) ⟶ Mornington Crescent (game) (Discuss)

Merge with Finchley Central (game)? Seems like they're pretty much the same game and Finchley was the basis for Mornington. There are very few individual sources on Finchley Central and I think it could probably be relegated to a section on this article. WikiMacaroonsCinnamon? 00:21, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support – be bold and do it! JacobTheRox(talk | contributions) 10:30, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiMacaroons Supoort. It's the same game, there's no need to deal with it separately just mention it's played as both Timceharris (talk) 17:23, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Naʼvi language ⟷ Naʼvi grammar ⟶ Naʼvi grammar and language (Discuss)

Hello. I believe merging the content of Na'vi grammar into this article, and then moving this article to a new name, such as Na'vi grammar and language makes more sense. I don't believe Na'vi grammar alone is notable, as it relies heavily on primary sources from its creator. This article has WP:OR issues, so a general clean-up is in order as well. This is a WP:PAM and WP:RM proposal in one.

Pinging main contributors of both articles, which is permitted under WP:M1: @GhunwI', @Kwamikagami, @Thumperward.

I will apply the relevant banners to each article after posting this. Thanks! 11WB (talk) 00:44, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No need for a new article name. If it's merged, it should just be merged into this article. — kwami (talk) 02:10, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Kwamikagami in keeping the current article name, for consistency. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 17:07, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this article is what remained after moving the bulk of the text to Wikibooks. If someone started a new grammar article, I'm not sure that it would be notable enough to keep, per the earlier consensus to remove such details. — kwami (talk) 00:28, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge with Naʼvi language as the target article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:03, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Opill ⟶ Norgestrel (Discuss)

Packard Bell ⟷ Packard Bell Corporation (Discuss)

I would like to propose merging Packard Bell Corporation into Packard Bell, since, according to what Packard Bell itself has stated, it is still the same company founded in 1926. Paranoid25 (talk) 09:05, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem to me that the company's promotional material is more reliable than the history of the two companies documented by the existing sources in the articles, which clearly state otherwise. Elestrophe (talk) 05:01, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem to me that there are any sources on the page that clearly indicate that Packard Bell Corporation is different from Packard Bell, but maybe I'm wrong and you can point them out to me. Paranoid25 (talk) 08:48, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
See my source linked below. DigitalIceAge (talk) 03:15, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The Packard Bell active from 1926–1968 and the current Packard Bell brand have nothing to do with each other beyond the name, according to the reliable sources cited in Packard Bell. They have no DNA in common. By Alagem's own admission, he bought out the trademark because it still had brand recognition among Silent Generation people in the mid-1980s who remember their old radios. DigitalIceAge (talk) 03:15, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Both companies have their independent coverage, and should remain separate. ~2026-20962-73 (talk) 10:35, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The trademark history seems to show different corporate owners WhaleFarm (talk) 20:26, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

List of people from Paignton ⟶ Paignton (Discuss)

I propose merging List of people from Paignton into Paignton. List of people from Paignton is currently unsourced and it is not clear that it meets WP:NLIST. Mariamnei (talk) 14:24, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: As I said at User_talk:Ianmacm#Paignton, this is largely a list of people born in Paignton but do not have strong links to the town, creating problems with WP:TRIVIA. It is also largely unsourced, for example Lauren Cuthbertson doesn't even say that she was born in Paignton, let alone source it. This type of list should be properly sourced before adding it. ArbieP seems to enjoy adding this type of random list to articles, but without bothering to provide sources that meet WP:V. I would remove it from this article if it was simply a heap of unsourced material.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:43, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. I've now added (14) refs for the list. I hope you can both now accept the list (back) in the main article. ArbieP (talk) 16:34, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't had time to go through all of this yet, but the Sara Craven source does not mention Paignton at all. Likewise, the Lauren Cuthbertson source does not mention Paignton by name. Also, there are still concerns about WP:NLIST notability, because the sourcing (such as it is), does not discuss why the people are notably linked to Paignton. As NLIST says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources.", eg List of Nobel laureates easily satisfies this guideline. It is ok to have this type of material in a Category if it is reliably sourced, but Wikipedia articles are written in prose and do not include randomly compiled lists just for the sake of it.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:41, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Let's have a look at the sourcing for this list:

It is lazy to compile this type of list without making any effort to source it first. Just because another Wikipedia article says "X was born in Paignton" without sourcing it does not make it true.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:15, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional universe of Avatar ⟶ Pandora (Avatar) (Discuss)

I recently moved Pandora (Avatar) to mainspace, and believe that article serves as a better location for the contents of this article, as the primary and really only location within Avatar. This article is significantly lacking in sources and has MOS:IN-U issues. Whilst I did create the Pandora article, if Wikipedia consensus means an edit history merge is necessary, then I am okay with that as well.

Courtesy pings, which are permitted under WP:M1, to this articles main contributors. @Jontesta and @Erik. 11WB (talk) 09:21, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: Pandora (Avatar) is not yet fully complete. I have several sections I am still working on in userspace, such as for reception (in much greater detail than what is currently present in this article).
11WB (talk) 09:25, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I support merging (or just redirecting) Fictional universe of Avatar, which I agree has too much in-universe content, to Pandora (Avatar), which is more appropriately fleshed out per WP:WAF. This article can be linked to on Pandora's talk page, if anything needs revisiting. The Pandora article looks good, and I look forward to seeing more details added. Having written up RDA (Avatar), I find it very likely that these books have other chapters more focused on Pandora. I recommend using WP:LIBRARY if you haven't already to try to get articles (or even book chapters) that way. Erik (talk | contrib) 16:03, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this! Do you think a WP:HISTMERGE is necessary here? 11WB (talk) 16:28, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think it is. While there is some scoe overlap, there is not much content overlap, and what content is here is not worth keeping within the page history of Pandora (Avatar). It is good enough to just link to it to on the talk page after a merge/redirect. Erik (talk | contrib) 16:33, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Forget to mention this, but you may wish to bold your support for the benefit of the closer. 11WB (talk) 17:17, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand House of Representatives ⟶ New Zealand Parliament (Discuss)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No consensus to merge. Looking at WP:MERGEREASON, there seems to be relatively little overlap in content outside the infobox. Whether to consider the articles as having the same scope and the best way to present context has no obvious answer and is a matter of editorial discretion. Participants are divided, so there's no clear direction to take. The merged version would be longer than is generally recommended by WP:ARTICLESIZE, but they could be combined and then excess material spun off in a different way. But that's not what's being proposed here exactly. The current texts have found a workable division of coverage between high-level discussion of multiple houses vs. detailed discussion of a single house. Maybe it's not optimal, but simply merging doesn't seem to have consensus as being an improvement. -- Beland (talk) 21:03, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to suggest that the content of New Zealand House of Representatives be merged into New Zealand Parliament. It's unusual for unicameral parliaments to have one page for the chamber and a separate one for the Parliament (i.e. Folketing, Althing, Seimas, Saeima, etc.), and I think it's redundant for both to still exist. The infoboxes are practically identical and there is some overlapping content as well. A lot of the content on each page that isn't duplicated across both articles is actually relevant to both articles, such as the HoR page talking about the eligibility criteria to be an MP or the Parliament page's #Term of Parliament section. I don't see any reason why combining the content of the two pages would be an issue, and there are multiple issues with the current situation. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 01:17, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - as the article notes, parliament is not just the HoR, and it was not always unicameral. Seperate articles allow material to be properly seperated, and some of it would simply be out of place on the HoR article.--IdiotSavant (talk) 01:35, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to point out that the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, the Hellenic Parliament, the Folketing, and many more were also previously bicameral, but only one article exists in these instances, because the former lower house more or less became the sole chamber. Also, the article itself points out that "parliament" in New Zealand is often used to refer to solely the HoR (a potential argument that "Parliament" is the WP:COMMONNAME), and the only meaningful difference between the Parliament of New Zealand and the New Zealand House of Representatives is that the former also technically includes the monarch, but it also notes that the monarch doesn't participate in the legislative process in any way except for signing a bill into law, which makes the distinction very slight, and I don't see a reason why that couldn't theoretically be included on the HoR's page. Another point I've noticed is that both articles include a link to the same website as the "official website" for the body (parliament.nz). – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 01:54, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Are you two discussing a merger to New Zealand Parliament or a merger to New Zealand House of Representatives? Nurg (talk) 08:23, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The suggestion was to merge into New Zealand Parliament, but i'm open to going either way, I just figured that NZP is a semanticly broader article name, so it makes more sense to merge the content into there. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 08:26, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support - If the content is merged into the New Zealand Parliament page, I am fully on board with that. For all intents and purposes, the Parliament solely refers to the House, and there is little reason to separate the content to a page for a unicameral chamber that used to not be analogous for the Parliament as a whole. The Legislative Council has its own page, which should be more than enough to document the existence of this formerly bicameral legislature which stopped being so almost a whole lifetime ago. Vereted (talk) 23:44, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as nominator, as Vereted said, there's already a page for the Legislative Council of New Zealand, and common usage of the term "New Zealand Parliament" refers to the House alone, not the combined entity of the unicameral chamber and the monarch. I think it's pretty clear this falls under either WP:DUPLICATE or WP:OVERLAP, as the scope of the two articles is almost identical, I don't understand the argument that because the chamber was previously bicameral that a separate article for the now-unicameral chamber should remain. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 11:43, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. GlowstoneUnknown is right about some content being duplicated in both articles and that this is problematic. This is especially evident with NZHR content in the infobox for New Zealand Parliament. Work needs to be done on this aspect. However, I don't accept the argument that because the parliament is currently unicameral the articles should be merged. It has been unicameral for 75 years and was bicameral for about 96 years. To merge on the basis of its current status seems like a type of recentism to me. Besides, reintroducing a 2nd house is a current topic of discussion, e.g. , . The scope of the two articles is not identical and they are not duplicates. They do have overlap, but there is a degree of overlap in many cases of a higher-level topic and a subsidiary topic. It is true that "Parliament" is used with several different meanings – these include the debating chamber, and the whole Parliament House – but I don't see that as a reason to necessarily merge. The articles are about constitutional matters, and I feel that the constitutional distinction is important enough for there to be two articles, regardless of (or as a corrective to) the ambiguity that often occurs in the popular press. I am open to changing my mind, but I am not persuaded by the arguments presented so far. Nurg (talk) 11:24, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Nurg. There's also enough content to keep them both separate. Furthermore, more tangentially, while Parliament is unicameral, Parliament does not solely comprise of the House of Representatives. It comprises of the House of Representatives and the Governor-General in Parliament. Carolina2k22 • (talk) 03:42, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There is substantial overlap between the articles and readers would be best served by a single article that covers everything. Currently a reader would have to read both pages with their duplication and divergence to actually understand the Parliament and House despite them being effectively identical topics; neither page can really stand on its own and they do not work as main/sub or superior/inferior articles to each other. A single article would still be able to describe the historical and constitutional aspects with the appropriate context without splitting up the content where some parts are redundant and some are different yet still relevant to both. Reywas92Talk 17:44, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody here disagrees that there is too much overlap. That needs to be tidied up. You seem to imply that it won’t be possible to remove the overlap and I wonder how you came to that conclusion? Schwede66 18:09, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure what you mean. Sure the overlap could be removed so the articles have entirely different content, but what would be the point of that? Why require readers to read both pages to understand the topic? The topics themselves intrinsically overlap, so that would just result in two incomplete pages. Reywas92Talk 04:27, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
        Two topics, hence we have two articles. That's standard, isn't it? Schwede66 09:02, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Massless particle ⟶ Particle (Discuss)

Massless particle ⟶ Particle physics (Discuss)

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

PE ⟶ Pe (Discuss)

I propose merging the content of PE into Pe. I don't see much of a reason for these two DAB pages to be split. GilaMonster536 (talk) 04:10, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
They're both pretty long. If we merge them, they'll be an even longer list. The idea of WP:D is to make navigation more efficient, and it's hard to see how lengthening lists would do that.
I think it would more sense if we just removed the acronyms from the "Pe" list, and added a hatnote for "PE" as well as the existing see also entry. That way, anyone who looks up "pe" (which Mediawiki does not distinguish from "Pe") could more quickly get to the all-uppercase version as well, and read a shorter list when there. --Joy (talk) 05:47, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed all the "PE" entries on Pe. Readers wanting an article titled "Pe" would have to read an inconveniently long list with only a few topics titled "Pe", so I oppose the merge. Sign2 (talk) 17:28, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm starting to think that Pe should be merged into PE, considering that the latter is much longer. GilaMonster536 (talk) 21:37, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure about my oppose now, I think this is the only two-letter acronym that has seperate DABs. Sign2 (talk) 21:57, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Okay there's also Wu and WU Sign2 (talk) 22:05, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Using some code I've found the full list of two-letter combinations with separate disambiguation pages:
  1. AK and Ak
  2. JY and Jy
  3. PE and Pe
  4. WU and Wu
  5. XI and Xi
Jy definitely should be redirected to JY. XI is short enough to be merged into Xi. WU, Pe, and Ak are all long enough that I'm not sure about merging them. but not completely opposed to it either. Sign2 (talk) 22:32, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pantomath ⟶ Philomath (Discuss)

In the last discussion about trying to delete Pantomath 20 years ago, some editors wanted to merge. That article's talk page also has an informal proposal from 2 years ago. I think it's worth trying formally - because "Pantomath" seems like a sort of resurrected ancient Greek term that certain writers have been trying to wedge in as a neologism. (Very opinionated: they're trying to sound smart OR they think "lover of knowledge" doesn't accurately describe the subject's want/desire of knowledge strongly enough.) Slightly less opinionated: It has extremely light use in the English language and I don't think we should have articles about every made-up/zombie word/calque that makes it into a publication.

I propose merging Pantomath into Philomath. I think the content in Pantomath can easily be explained in the context of this article, and merging them would not cause any article-size or weighting problems. 🔥Komonzia (message) 17:05, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Komonzia, Support per nom. — Reywas92Talk 17:32, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lindgren oxidation ⟶ Pinnick oxidation (Discuss)

Pleurotomariacea ⟶ Pleurotomarioidea (Discuss)

Cognitive warfare ⟶ Psychological warfare (Discuss)

Institute of Sufi Studies ⟶ Qadri Shattari (Discuss)

Peter Maximoff ⟶ Quicksilver (Marvel Comics) (Discuss)

Ravi Kishan filmography ⟶ Ravi Kishan (Discuss)

CE design category ⟶ Recreational Craft Directive (Discuss)

Recently created CE design category appears to be redundant with this page. Merge content here. Gjs238 (talk) 03:23, 21 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sirvikalender ⟶ Runic calendar (Discuss)

Semiotics of fashion ⟶ Semiotics of dress (Discuss)

Semystra (nymph) ⟶ Semystra (Discuss)

This article was created under the title of Semystra (nymph), as an article separate from Semystra, which was meant to be about the location of her sanctuary on the Golden Horn, created in the mistaken belief that that location was a notable "town" or "city". From all the sources I've seen, it wasn't – Dionysius, the main primary source, only speaks of an altar located there, and that through the altar the nymph had given her name "to the place". There's nothing in the text that points to the existence of a city.

I intend to merge the two articles, which mostly share the same content anyway. Since the "nymph" article is factually the primary one, this will involve some moving around. The "nymph" article needs to move to plain Semystra, while the old placename article must be moved away from there to make place, e.g. to Semystra (location), but then that should be merged-and-redirected back to the plain title. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:11, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If there isn't going to be a separate article about the place, wouldn't it be simpler just to copy the text from here to the undisambiguated title, combine anything that's redundant, and make this a redirect? There's no need to use the move tool at all; just indicate in the edit summaries for each article that you're merging them. That will preserve the article histories and ensure proper attribution of the contents. P Aculeius (talk) 05:58, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I was thinking of keeping the edit history of the better-developed article together, but maybe you're right; it's not that much history anyway, and the main contributors are the same for both articles anyway. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:35, 29 March 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]

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

Evolutionary sociology and biosociology ⟶ Sociocultural evolution (Discuss)

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]
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]

Non-Habitual Resident ⟶ Taxation in Portugal (Discuss)

I propose merging Non-Habitual Resident into Taxation in Portugal because the topic is a specific tax regime within the broader Portuguese tax system and fits naturally within the scope of the target article.

The current article duplicates content that could be more appropriately integrated into a dedicated subsection (e.g., "Non-Habitual Resident (NHR)") within the broader taxation framework.

Proposed structure:

  • Create a subsection (e.g., "Special tax regimes")
  • Integrate key material:
 - history and introduction of the regime
 - eligibility criteria
 - tax benefits and exemptions
 - policy changes and reforms
 - criticisms and economic impact

Outcome:

Ma fraise (talk) 17:39, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Per the rationale above, the proposal is well reasoned and broadly consistent with WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. As a specific tax regime, the NHR scheme could reasonably be covered within the broader taxation article, which would help reduce duplication and avoid unnecessary content splitting per WP:CONTENTFORK, while preserving all relevant sourced material. The proposed structure seems clear and workable. —Lojmze (talk) 01:24, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Digital authoritarianism ⟶ Techno-authoritarianism (Discuss)

Titanomachy ⟶ Titans (Discuss)

Toxic heavy metal ⟶ Heavy metals#Toxicity (Discuss)

We have several articles on very similar topics. They are often written by undergraduate students as required by their (nonparticipating) teachers. These articles are not very strong and their subjects overlap heavily. So the proposal is to convert 3-4 articles into 1 maybe 2 stronger articles that better serve our readership. Even the definition and utility of the term "heavy metal" is dubious or at least debated as discussed at length in that article. Here are the articles up for merging:

*Heavy metal detoxification

Also very relevant, Wikipedia has articles on each metal within the Project:Elements. These articles are very, very good and each discusses toxicity.

--Smokefoot (talk) 12:39, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal omits the key aspect placed in the article: the proposed merge target is Heavy metal#Toxicity.
Heavy metal + Heavy metal toxicity would meet your 2 article goal. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the proposal by Johnjbarton. --Leyo 16:50, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
OK, getting ready to start. Notice that Heavy metal toxicity redirects to Toxic heavy metal. So, I will start with the easy one Heavy metal detoxification will redirect to Toxic heavy metal.--Smokefoot (talk) 18:55, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. I missed this previously: Heavy metal is a disambiguation page. Heavy metals (plural) is the topic here. So the proposed merge target is invalid. To me that changes the score: Heavy metals has three problems:
  1. Overlap with other articles per Smokefoot nomination,
  2. Definitional confusion noted in several sources,
  3. The singular form is taken by the disambiguation page.
How about this proposal:
Heavy metals
  1. Definitions + Origins and use of the term: KEEP (confusion is sadly notable)
  2. Toxicity: Merge to Metal toxicity (correct noun for this topic)
  3. Formation, abundance, occurrence, and extraction/Uses: move to individual elements unless directly about "heavy metals". (avoid the coatrack effect)
Toxic heavy metal -> Metal toxicity
We end up with a much shorter focused Heavy metal and a longer Metal toxicity with a section summarizing "heavy metals". Johnjbarton (talk) 17:50, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Scotts LawnService ⟶ TruGreen (Discuss)

Hannah Natanson FBI raid ⟶ United States v. Aurelio Luis Perez-Lugones (Discuss)

Woolworths Group (Australia) ⟶ Woolworths (Australia) (Discuss)

April 2026

edit

May 2026

edit

Tag (barbershop music) ⟶ Barbershop music (Discuss)

Birthplace of Sukanta Bhattacharya ⟷ [[:Sukanta Bhattacharya#Early life and influences|Sukanta Bhattacharya#Early life and influences]] (Discuss)

Chuchin ⟷ Chuchin (name) (Discuss)

Dhussa ⟶ Dhusha (Discuss)

Duffields station (Baltimore and Ohio Railroad) ⟶ Duffields station (Discuss)

Joint terminal attack controller ⟶ Forward air control (Discuss)

Garabito Empire ⟷ Western Huetar Kingdom (Discuss)

Rheno-Flemish mysticism ⟶ German mysticism (Discuss)

Hell's Paradise season 1 (soundtrack) ⟶ Hell's Paradise season 1 (Discuss)

Higher Education Commission cricket team and Higher Education Commission FC ⟶ Higher Education Commission (Pakistan) (Discuss)

Health of Pope John Paul II ⟶ Pope John Paul II (Discuss)

Kabyle diaspora ⟶ List of Kabyle people (Discuss)

South West Pacific theatre of World War II and Pacific Ocean theater of World War II ⟶ List of Pacific War campaigns (Discuss)

Northampton (civil parish) ⟶ Northampton (Discuss)

A National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence ⟶ Regulation of artificial intelligence in the United States (Discuss)

Hugh Salmon v Lintas Worldwide ⟶ Hugh Salmon (Discuss)

Duffields, West Virginia ⟶ Shenandoah Junction, West Virginia (Discuss)

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 from the active mergers backlog!
   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=1352354550"