Wikipedia talk:Merging

Short text is not the same as insufficient notability

The description for short text gives an example of a person who is not independently notable, but this seems like a poor example as you could have a notable topics where not much can be said about it, but it could easily be a subtopic of a broader article, and you could potentially write a lot of text about a non-notable person. Should this reason be split into two: Short text and Insufficient notability? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

You're absolutely right; there are two separate point here: Short text and Insufficient notability. I agree that the short text example should include an example where the subject is notable. For example, there's a current proposal to merge a series of cars, the Dallara F308, Dallara F312 and Dallara F317 into one page for the series (short text and context); each might meet notability if independently assessed. So, we could give an examples such as "merging a series of race cars with a shared developmental history into one page for the series".

For the insufficient notability notability criterion, this is already policy through the AfD proposal route, many of which end with an AfD-merge outcome as an alternative to deletion (WP:DISCUSSAFD). We already have many editors using AfD as a surrogate for getting a merge done, and it would be procedurally simpler if they could do this directly through a merge proposal with greater policy support form this project. Klbrain (talk) 08:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. @Klbrain, would you implement it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Texto corto: Se refiere a la longitud del texto. Un texto corto es pequeño, especialmente en cuanto a la longitud, duración o extensión1. No necesariamente implica una falta de contenido o calidad, sino simplemente que es breve.

Notabilidad insuficiente: Esto se refiere a la calidad del contenido y su relevancia. Un contenido con notabilidad insuficiente es aquel que no cumple con los criterios necesarios para ser considerado significativo o relevante dentro de su contexto1. No tiene que ver con la longitud del texto, sino con su importancia o impacto.

Es importante destacar que un texto puede ser corto y aún así tener notabilidad, mientras que un texto largo podría carecer de notabilidad si su contenido no es relevante o significativo. La clave está en el valor del contenido más que en su extensión. 189.216.28.204 (talk) 04:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggested Spanish text that might work in translation. Klbrain (talk) 05:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I've added this as the new 4th criterion, splitting the former 3rd. Klbrain (talk) 06:22, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

AfD-merge to

Template:Afd-merge to states it will be replaced by a bot when the merge is complete. This is not covered in our instructions here, which state to handle all the tags manually. Can this exception be added with its relevant instructions? CMD (talk) 10:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree. Perhaps a subsection explaining this case be added to Wikipedia:Merging#How to merge explaining how the process differs in this case. Klbrain (talk) 06:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I am thinking an addition to bullet 4 saying something like "Do not add a merge template to the destination talkpage if the merger is the result of an WP:AfD discussion, and Template:Afd-merge from has already been placed on the destination talkpage." CMD (talk) 11:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm still a bit confused about this, and I think I've been doing it wrong. Is what @CMD the total answer, we should neither delete the existing {{Afd-merge from}} or {{Afd-merge to}} templates, nor add {{Merged-from}} or {{Merged-to}},and let automated bots handle everything after completing the merger? If so, I can try and add something clarifying, but I want to be sure I'm understanding correctly first, since following the current instructions I think I've been messing up. If someone who understands the process better wants to instead of me, I think it'd be a helpful addition.—penultimate_supper 🚀 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Earlier into later?

When merging, is it a rule that the article created earlier should stand and the later created article be redirected into later? Or it doesn't matter? I'd support the above rule to avoid disputes, but I can't find it anywhere. @Selfstudier:. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

@Vice regent: In Nuseirat case, there are currently two articles, one about the rescue and one about the attendant massacre. Lots of back and forth on that one but no final resolution as yet. If the two articles are about the same thing then yes, later into earlier but they should clearly be about the same thing so that the later is in effect a fork. Selfstudier (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes; see WP:REDUNDANTFORK. BilledMammal (talk) 18:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

@BilledMammal thanks! VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 19:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Best option for merging two articles into a new (third) title?

Hi all, seeking clarification on the best or normal practice for merging two articles into a completely new title. Should we:

1. Create a third article with the new title and copy content from the older two articles into it.
2. Pick one of the existing two articles (e.g. maybe the older or more visited one), merge the other article into it, and then move the merged topic to the new title.

I hope the question is clear. If helpful, the context is this discussion (where neither of the two articles is the primary or more general topic, so there's no obvious direction to merge into and the merged topic would need a new title either way). Thank you for any advice, R Prazeres (talk) 19:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@R Prazeres I would copy content from Emirate of Córdoba into Caliphate of Córdoba, since the latter has significantly more edit history (292 edits dating back to 2006 vs 973 edits dating back to 2004). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Great, thanks! R Prazeres (talk) 19:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Citation errors popping up after merging text

Could I have some help fixing a series of citation errors that are popping up while merging items from the Emirate of Córdoba page onto the Caliphate of Córdoba page? This is the same merging referenced in the discussion above. These have cropt up when I've moved certain sections over. I didn't want to leave all the errors up on the page for later, so I undid the edits. As far as I understand, it's because sources are duplicated or mentioned again. Help:Cite errors/Cite error group refs without references hasn't been too clear to me as to how I can fix this. Though I have a vague idea what I'm supposed to do. If this is not the right page for this question, where should I go? Solitaire Wanderer (talk) 17:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Nevermind, the issue was figured out a while ago. If you see this, ignore this. I shouldn't need any help whatsoever! Solitaire Wanderer (talk) 23:10, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Any rules of thumb?

User:TrueNeutral879's question is in context of WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT and WP:MERGE.

This WP:MERGE article says:

".. Any editor can perform a merge. No permission or discussion is needed if you think the merge is uncontroversial; just do it (but it might get reverted). Otherwise, the merge should be first proposed and discussed, as detailed below. .."

In this WP:Teahouse discussion, TrueNeutral879 asked following question regarding an unsatisfactory status article.

(The unsatisfactory status article context specific inputs have been shared and Teahouse discussion is almost over.)

But seems to have scope for further discussion regarding TrueNeutral879's question : "are there any rules of thumb on what changes I can just make vs. what I should discuss first?"

".. Sticking to the policy questions, rather than the substance - are there any rules of thumb on what changes I can just make (subject to discussing if someone expresses a difference of opinion) vs. what I should discuss first? .."

As stated in the beginning above question is in context of WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT and WP:MERGE.

Bookku (talk) 09:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I think those policies answer my question, and I'm just getting used to the general idea that anyone can just make changes without editorial approval. TrueNeutral879 (talk) 11:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I know, and already I stated above that Teahouse inputs are enough for your given purposes and this discussion does not intend to affect your decisions or activity - which are supposed to follow as per existent guidelines and policies- at this moment over there.

Purpose of initiating this discussion to have inputs from users experienced in merging issues for more clarity in over all outlook and improvement in user guidance in long term future. Bookku (talk) 12:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

clarification

I previously asked the same thing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Merge, but it's pretty quiet over there:

It seems to me, the purpose of {{afd-merged-from}} is licensing-required attribution of merged content. Is that correct? If then, an AFD was closed as a merger decision, but in the end, nothing was actually merged but the page instead merely redirected, is that template still the appropriate one to use? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 14:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Fourthords Oh. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 12:36, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Fourthords I probably need to begin researching about that. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 12:36, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

10-4; I'll keep watching. Thanks! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 13:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)