Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gadfium (talk | contribs) at 05:22, 30 August 2004 (→B). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Shortcut

Below is a list of duplicate articles that have been created mostly by mistake. They have to be merged into a single piece of work, and one title has to be redirected to the other (or a completely new page must be created) in accordance with Wikipedia:Naming conventions and Wikipedia:Canonicalization.

Categories that need merging can be listed (together) on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion where one category will be deleted after merging into the other.

If you disagree with a 'merge' indication then change the template from {{Merge}} to {{MergeDisputed}} and discuss it on this page until consensus is reached.

Resources for maintenance
and collaboration
Cleanup
Categories
Create an article
Referencing
Stubs
Deletion
Polishing
Translation into English
Images
Controversy
To-do lists
Disambiguation
More
For a listing of ongoing discussions,
see the dashboard.


Proactive action: avoiding duplicates

The creation of duplicate articles, and the wasted effort this causes, can be avoided by creating lots of redirects. Also, when creating new articles, search for existing articles on the same subject (when search is enabled).

Wikipedia:Orphaned Articles lists articles that aren't linked to, and may have been created when a new article was created without having searched for a previously existing article.

Mark current duplicates

If you find a pair of articles which appear to be duplicates, merge them! If you can't carry out the merge yourself, put the following at top of each:

{{merge}} [[Other article]]

This marks the pages so that future viewers will see that it needs to be merged. If you know which way the merge should go, you can put the following at the top of the article where the merged material should end up:

{{mergefrom}} [[Other article]]

Please note that this list is not generated "automagically," and its entries must be added by hand.

Help with the clean-up

To merge articles, follow the advice on the list below. Usually, an experienced user will suggest that one article be absorbed into another. Read both articles carefully and decide which article has the more appropriate title and content. Merge the content by copying/pasting from one window to another. Be sure not to allow any of the good content to be lost in the transfer. Upon completion, it is critical to place a redirect on the page that the content has been moved from. For example, if you move the content of "John Ronald Doe" into "John Doe" you would put a redirect on "John Ronald Doe". This helps people find the new article title and prevents others from mistakenly recreating the duplicate.

If you copy material from one article to the other, you must explain in your edit comment that you have done so, giving the name of the source article, for example "Merged material from [[John Ronald Doe]] into section "Biography"." This is important so that all contributors to the article can be properly credited, as required by the GFDL.

Alternatively, you could also leave the two pages distinct (without a redirect), but complete the text of one of the pages so that it is no longer a duplicate, incorrect, or a stub. For example, someone might suggest that the "Cinema of India" and "History of Indian Cinema" be merged, as they contain mostly duplicate information. In this case "Cinema of India" should contain an overview of the subject, including a short summary of the history, with a link to "History of Indian Cinema" which should contain the detailed history.

After a pair has been merged, please remove them from the list below. If you want to show off your work, use the Talk Page.

Template:CompactTOCwithnumbers

Articles to be merged

See also: Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Merge and Category:Articles to be merged

0-9

A

  • Aarti and Arathi Andries 18:04, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Ammunition for infantry
    • Some wiki-links but desperately dull. Should it be incorporated into Ammunition? --Phil 10:55, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • I think so- Thus, I added merge and mergefrom tags on both pages, so we'll see what the consensus is. --Rossumcapek 05:48, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Incidents in Aviation should probably be merged into List of years in aviation, as should some of the content on Aviation history.
  • There is great overlap between these two Afghanistan articles - Democratic Republic of Afghanistan and Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Worse, they do not agree with each other! TwoOneTwo 22:27, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Astrobiology was recently split from Exobiology. This was done by an Anonymous user with no real indication of why they did it. The two articles have now diverged and could do with some TLC. CS Miller 13:47, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)
    • Agreed, and I think that Xenobiology should be moved to Astrobiology (which is the more common term) and the current astrobiology content merged into the moved article. Xenobiology only gets about 4,800 hits on Google, but Astrobiology gets 500,000. --Lexor|Talk 14:55, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Do we use the most common term, or the scientificly preferred term? The original article was also redirected from Exobiology, which I'd forgot to mention (assumed it was obvious to anyone who looked at the current redirects). I don't really have the time or the detailed knowledge to make a good job of merging these articles. -- CS Miller 13:48, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)
      • I think the scientifically preferred term should be used (qv heart attack, which is a redirect). -Sean Curtin 14:14, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • AutoVAZ and Lada (a car manufacturer and its brand) contain a lot of overlapping information --Rustam 06:21, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Anticipated bass should be added to syncopation--Fenice 19:59, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

B

C

D

E

F

I think this doesn't qualify, both have "see also" and the patrol boat is listed as "smaller" than the swift boat. --TIB (talk) 23:10, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

G

H

  • Hammer Films and Hammer Horror
    • Both have a right to exist, but someone who knows the subject should work out which information belongs in which article
  • Hawkish into Militarism since Hawk describes a militarist.
    • Nonsense. Hawk and Dove are primarily terms used to describe relative positions, in a particular military decision, within a commander-in-chief's advisers. Militarism's primary meaning is about the role of the military in a society, or about how much effort to give in the long term to military capabilities. In most states with a stable polity, both militarists and pacifists are outside the decision-making, and calling them hawks and doves respectively is just careless metaphorizing. --Jerzy(t) 04:55, 2004 Aug 14 (UTC)
    • QV Dovish, a redirect to Pacifism. Perhaps Hawkish should redirect to a different article? --Rossumcapek 05:07, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • HDCD -> High Definition Compatible Digital per VfD
  • Heat and Heat transfer? They have a bit of overlap.
  • Helical pump should be merged into progressive cavity pump. The pump my father brought home was made of hard metal inside a rubber-lined metal tube, as described. -phma 20:57, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Hemp should be merged into Cannabis
    • Hemp is a plant, Cannabis a drug. Those are two completely different categories of things, and although there is some degree of overlap there is sufficient difference to have separate articles
      • Sorry to correct you but, that is outright wrong. Cannabis is not the drug, it is the scientific name of the plant. The two articles should be merged and a separate article about the drug should be at Tetrahydrocannabinol with redirects from Hashish, Marijuana, etc. Kosebamse
      • It seems appropriate to have one article Hemp on the plant and its use for purposes not related to THC, one article on the chemical aspects of Tetrahydrocannabinol (as it is now), and one article at Cannabis on the variety of drugs that are based on THC and carry various names according to production method, consumption method, and/or community. Unfortunately I lack the technical knowledge on the drugs to shift the respective parts between Hemp and Cannabis. -- Gauss 17:05, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
      • Generally, articles on species, genera, etc. are at the common name, with a redirect from the scientific name. The article should therefore be at hemp with a redirect from Cannabis. -phma 07:01, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • The only troubly with that is that cannabis is just as common as hemp is, at least where I come from. going on the same princble, the THC artical should be at cannabis (chemical effects), and a redircet to the canabis atical from there. probably going to be a case of picking the best name of the artical out of a hat, as both seem o be equily valid, wounder what others do. just another thought, THC should contain the technical details about the drug, hemp about growing hemp / hemp industry and uses other than drug taking, and cannibis abou genral use as an ilegal drug, any better ideas?tooto 01:42, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Home rule should be merged into Devolution
  • Hysteresis (electric) should be merged into Hysteresis

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

R

S

The latter is sufficiently different to merit a separate article (though right now both pages are just lists...) -Sean Curtin 07:57, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The point is, they are NOT different. There is no "Polish mythology", it was just a west-slavic variant of the Slavic mythology. It's just the impression this article gives. Ausir 18:28, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Slogan:Homosexuality is a choice.
    • This article was apparently supposed to be merged somewhere and deleted, but it was deleted without being merged, then undeleted. Should it be merged with Causes of sexual orientation, or should there be a single but separate article on the choice/no-choice debate? An argument against merger: VFD seems to be on the verge of deciding that the advocates of environmental and genetic causes for sexual orientation should have their own articles. In any case, there obviously needs to be choice/no-choice fairness. -- Beland 09:27, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Sonogram with spectrogram.
    • At least in N America, sonogram refers to the film of an ultrasound scan as often as it does sound spectrogram. Perhaps a dismbiguation sentence under sonogram and merge the current content into spectrogram? (I don't know anything about speech sonograms/spectrograms, so that is just a suggestion)
  • Southhold and Southhold, NY into Southold (town), New York (actually, I believe the first article has everything the second does--I didn't make the latter a redir just in case someone thinks it's important to preserve that single entry in the history), then redir from the first two. Niteowlneils 21:55, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • StarCraft needs around 60 pages to be merged INTO it, see Talk:StarCraft for details.
  • Squat and Squatter are slightly different terms but the topic is the same and the articles overlap. Rhobite 03:13, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Survivor (UK version) and Survivor (UK) - I wrote the former, so some other neutral person should probably handle the merging. MK 04:52, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Swift boat (Fast Patrol Craft) and Patrol boat, rigid are, I think, the same thing. 213.206.33.82 06:30, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

T

U

V

W

  • War of Independence of 1857 and Indian Mutiny deal with the same topic. The former was started independently of the latter, which existed already. However, there is an ongoing discussion regarding the title of the article (which can be used to merge the contents of both). Any help in resolving this would be greatly appreciated. Chancemill 08:37, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Witch trial and Burning Times into witch-hunt. -Sean Curtin 05:31, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • hmm... Witch-hunt is used as a verb and still goes on. there needs to be some type of differentiation. maybe with-hunt seperate from the other 2 Williamb 06:39, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • "Witch hunt" is the more common term. For example, Burning Times refers exclusively to "witch hunts", not once to "witch trials". Google hits for "witch trial": 11K; for "witch hunt", 271K; for "witchcraft trial", 2K; for "Burning Times", 26K. Uses of the term "witch-hunt" in reference to modern-day activities should be discussed in the article, not moved to a separate article. -Sean Curtin 00:07, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Browser notes into meta:Browser issues with MediaWiki. --Zigger 12:28, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • there could be a case to leaving them separated, firstoff, the two projects use difrent character encoding, secondly the wiki one seems to be along the lins of, if you have x browere, then you might have x problems, where as the meta one seems like, there are the known issues with meta. although i think that may just bee a diffrence in style.

X

Y

Z

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Proposed_article_mergers&oldid=5543490"