Jump to content

Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Aecis (talk | contribs) at 18:21, 13 August 2005 (→U: Uppsala). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 should be listed (together) on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion, if one category will be empty after merging into the other. (Please do not use merge tags for categories.)

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 you can remove it, or change the template from {{merge|Article Name}} to {{MergeDisputed|Article Name}} 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.

Actively avoiding duplicates

You can help prevent the creation of duplicate articles (and the resulting wasted effort) by:

  • Searching for existing articles on the same subject before creating any new articles.
  • Creating redirects for every term that is synonymous with the article's name, provided that it doesn't have to be disambiguated.
  • Using the correct existing capitalization of an article name when linking to it.
  • Instead of contributing to an article - check first that an article on essentially the same subject does not already exist. If it does, put merge notices on the two articles and then contribute to the correct one.

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 that appear to be duplicates, merge them! If you can't carry out the merger yourself, it is suggested that you put the following at the top of each:

{{merge|Other article}}

This informs future visitors to the pages of your request that they be merged.


If you know which way the merger should go, you can put the following at the top of the article where the merged material should end up:

{{mergefrom|Other article}}

...and the following at the top of the article that contains material to be merged with the other article:

{{mergeto|Other article}}


Please note that the list at the bottom of this page is not generated automatically; its entries must be added manually (unlike Category:Articles to be merged).

Many Wikipedia users prefer to avoid having tags at the tops of articles, particularly if they aren't relevant to readers. Consider using these tags sparingly, and use the talk pages to discuss how to merge articles where it's not obvious whether or how the articles should be merged.

How articles should be merged

Before you begin with the process of merging the articles, it is recommended that you take these bits of advice into consideration:

  • Usually, an experienced user will suggest that one article (the source) be absorbed into another (the target).
  • 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.
  • The articles don't necessarily have to be merged at once. You can let others collaborate with the merging process, by placing the {{merging|Target article name}} template on the page that you will merge from (the source page). In this way, confusion will also be avoided, as others will know that the source page is outdated, and that all further contributions should only be included in the target page.
  • 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 replace the content of the former with "#REDIRECT [[John 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 it from the list below (both the source and target pages). If you want to show off your work, use the Talk Page.

Template:CompactTOC2

Articles to be merged

See also

Note

It has been suggested that editors use merge tags exclusively without also listing mergers here.
You can discuss this proposal on the talk page, or follow the suggestion if you agree.

0-9

A

B

  • Battle of the Planets to Kagaku ninja tai Gatchaman - If Battle of the Planets had been a faithful adaptation of Gatchaman this merge would make clear sense. However, Battle is so heavily edited from Gatchaman that it's perhaps fairer to describe it as "made with footage from Gatchaman" than as an English version that doesn't warrant a separate article. The two articles need cleanup to separate what is BotP-specific from what is Gatchaman-specific, but IMHO they do not need a merge. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:09, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is also the question of where to put material relating the G-Force and Eagle Riders - two other translations of Gatchaman. My inclination would be to use Battle of the Planets for all English-language versions, and Kagaku ninja tai Gatchaman for all Japanese language versions, with cross-linking as appropriate. Bluap 10:24, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Eagle Riders was actually a translation of the two sequel series. G-Force was an accurate enough translation of the show that my inclination is to put it, along with Eagle Riders, at the Gatchaman article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:08, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think Feldspar has hit it on the head. BOTP needs to be separated, unless the BOTP article cannot be brought up to standard, then perhaps delete it (but That's another issue).Osprey
    • I'd rather see them all merged into one, of course with sections for each version. If we merge all material, this would make one good article instead of several stubish ones we have now. Consider for example Master of Orion or Railroad Tycoon games, or Crest of the Stars anime - all of them discuss several series in one article, thus giving the reader a fairly long and interesting article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:07, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Pro-merge. I disagree that BOtP is different enough from Gatchaman to warrant a different entry. There should be a single Gatchaman article with sections describing each iteration. Basically, BOtP cut out some violence and added voice-overs to suggest that the action was taking place in outer space. While these edits are not trivial, they did not fundamentally change the plot or characters. Having a separate entry for BOtP would be like having separate entries for cover versions of the same song.The Hokkaido Crow 11:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Anti-merge. They are totally different series with different plots. It's like suggesting some of the later Inspector Clouseau films be merged with the earlier ones because they were made from deleted scenes and offcuts of them. David File:Arms-westminster-lb.jpg | Talk 14:57, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • This is not like Inspector Clouseau films at all. A strong majority of footage in BOTP is identical in sequence and content to Gatchaman. As for minimizing violence, these were voiceovers suggesting that battles were happening in outer space, and that enemy goons were merely knocked out instead of killed. The plot is the same, the characters are the same... it is a heavily edited adaptation, but they are not completely different shows. The Hokkaido Crow 07:07, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anti-merge. BoTP has developed a life of its own in western culture and deserves an (expanded) article of its own. -maclean25 05:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Definitively should merge. There are lines that are word for word the same. All the same subjects are covered in both articles. Anyways since after 2 months there is still no consensus, if there ever is you can look at the history of both pages to my last edit if the vote is to merge. Elfguy 20:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Boast of Cassiopeia shares the mythology, constellations, trivia, and even interwiki links with Andromeda. --Puzzlet Chung 02:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

C

D

F

G

  • The article German orthography is not about German orthography at all. (See Orthography.) It discusses phonology as related to or discernable from the spelling of a word. It might therefore make a good addition to the German phonology page, and should be merged with it.

H

  • Highness is a somewhat lengthy and EB1911 article. An article on the style "Highness" already exists at His Highness, and the information at Highness should probably be merged into that article, but I'm not too sure how to start (I get a headache just trying to read the EB1911 article). 青い(Aoi) 10:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • HavenCo is an almost identical reiteration of content already included in Sealand, (and which belongs there IMO) with a few additional links. I propose that the links should be merged with the Havenco section of Sealand, and HavenCo then deleted.

I

J

  • Jury trial and jury: a lot of material in jury is about the trial process, and should be moved accordingly. US-specific and non-US specific aspects should be sorted out. Jury should keep jury selection, indemnification etc.

K

L

  • Live Sessions EP should be merged into Live Sessions EP (Bonobo album), as the former is not standardised to the other Bonobo albums. It could potentially be changed to a disambig page instead, were other records of the same title to turn up, but I've seen no evidence of this yet.

M

N

  • Neopets and Powerpets need to be merged, preferably by a senior Wikipedian who knows what she/he is doing. Use your own discretion as to which article is better written and therefore more apt for it's information to be kept. Thank you and God bless you! -- Antonio I rarely use UTC time Martin 00:46 21 Jul, 2005 (UTC)
    • They should not be merged. They are not the same site. User:Keziah

O

P

Q

R

  • Rug making should be merged with Carpet, then there is Category:Rugs that is in the wilderness... it could be renamed Carpet making. If there is good cause to maintain Rugs separately from Carpets, then make that clear and institute it as a disambiguation page or prominent cross linking. Rug making & Carpets and particularly how they refer to each other is a bit sloppy, confusing and redundant. Also, rug redirects to "rug making" while rugs redirects to "carpet". --RoyBoy 03:48, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

S

  • Shell_(computing) and Operating system shell are primarily redundant information. While there is context for using the computing term shell to mean something other then an interface to the OS this is nonstandard and is at most a footnote. Falerin 15:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although I agree that the term shell is primarily used for OS GUI / text interfaces I do not believe this term to be non-standard and simply a footnote. With the proliferation of shells on Unix/Linux especially and a few years now of replacement shells for Windows (e.g. LiteStep) I think this is justified in having its own article. cjoprey 08:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Steven Lynch into Stephen Lynch. The first article is a stub, the second has more information. Furthermore, the second is the name he goes by.
  • Supercoil and Superhelix have significant overlap, but my knowledge of the subject is not enough to judge how the merging would be done better. -- Rune Welsh 15:53, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

T

  • I think toxicity, toxin should be merged. Perhaps also poison, so that the subtle difference between a "toxin" and a "poison" can be explained on the merged page, rather than duplicated on both pages. (toxic already redirects to toxin). --DavidCary 19:24, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • It seems to me that the merge needed is more between poison and toxin as the distinction is subtle and toxins being a subset of poisons. Toxicity is a discussion of how potent poisons and toxins are and could be a section on that page but seems also fine as its own page.
  • Tuberculin should be merged into Mantoux test. The articles have duplication of content, with the majority of the tuberculin article already being in the Mantoux test. On e possibility is to merge tuberculin into mantoux test, since the mantoux test incorporates tuberculin, and then discuss what tuberculin is. Another possibility is to keep the articles separate, delete the redundant content, and let the tuberculin article discuss what tuberculin is, its history, etc., and then put all the information about the test itself under Mantoux test. —Brim 07:58, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Tokyo Rose needs all its info about Iva Toguri D'Aquino moved into her own page, and should become an article about the term itself and the various women who served as propaganda broadcasters for the Japanese who were collectively so nicknamed. —Morven 19:32, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

U

V

Viet Cong and National Front for the Liberation of Vietnam. They are the same thing. Descendall 04:18, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

W

  • 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[sic] character encoding[;] secondly the wiki one seems to be along the lins of, if you have x browere[sic], 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 be a diffrence[sic] in style.
    • They should be merged. Any "problems" that may be had using Wikipedia with a browser are bugs, and should be fixed. Some of the content on this page should also be merged into Wikipedia:Tools. JesseW 05:52, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

X

Y

Z

Template:CompactTOC2

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Proposed_article_mergers&oldid=20937349"