Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MeltBanana (talk | contribs) at 12:46, 30 September 2004 (→‎A). 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

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.

Although this page does not automatically update as does Category:Articles to be merged, this page has nevertheless been kept because unlike the category page, this page allows editors to make comments about the articles to be merged.

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.


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

B

C

D

E

F

G

  • Geneseo, New York and Geneseo (village), New York need to be both merged and separated in various ways. (also added to PNA) --♬ bdesham
  • Global protests against war on Iraq and Global protests against war on Iraq (pre-war)
    • I'll do this, but I don't know how to credit all the editors of the article that is "eaten". Anyone? Anyone? -- Jeandré, 2004-04-11t14:43z
      • Easiest way to do it is to keep the "eaten" article as a redirect to the main article. The credits will then still be listed under the redirect for anyone who wants to see them. MK 17:14, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        • That may not be a good way to do it on a permanent basis since it violates the spirit of GFDL. Davodd
      • Send a note to me (or any other admin) on my talk page after you've finished the merge. Admins can easily merge histories.Davodd
  • genderfuck and genderqueer - isn't "genderfuck" simply the same thing as Genderqueer, just with obsanity tacked on for shock value? Arcuras 21:03, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • Not really the same thing, imo. genderqueer is generally about self identity, genderfuck is about using gender to mess with people's heads. The problem with many of these terms is that they're highly politicised and it's difficult to get two people to agree on definitions; I do think they're sufficiently different though. Rho 23:08, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Googolgon into googol per VfD
    • This is because I always thought that the consensus was to merge with googol, but for some reason, the article was simply kept even though it was not the consensus. About the same number of votes were to delete as to merge, but fewer were to keep separate. 66.245.123.24 22:40, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Giovanni Antonio, count Capo d'Istria needs to be merged with John Capodistria. Adam Bishop 01:12, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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)
  • 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)
  • Home rule should be merged into Devolution

I

J

  • Jose de Diego and José de Diego need to be merged. I tried to do this but unfortunately the facts are contradictory so I had to give up hopefully someone here will know actually when he died etc. MeltBanana 12:27, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

K

L

M

N

O

  • Osteology is a very sorry looking substub. Before adding information I was wondering whether to merge/take information from/redirect with Bone? CheekyMonkey 16:58, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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)

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)
According to the vote, Indian rebellion of 1857 seems to be the place where it should finnaly rest. 22:45, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC) Any help with the merger would be vastly apprsiated
  • 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