Wikipedia:Proposed mergers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut:
WP:PM

This page is an incomplete list of proposed mergers. Anyone may list any article merger proposal here. This is optional, and it does not replace any of the other steps in the merger process. Please add the appropriate merger tag(s) to the articles before listing them here. See Category:Merge by month for all pages needing to be merged.

Contents

[edit] Guidelines

In general, this page should be used primarily to solicit outside feedback regarding mergers (particularly those of a controversial nature), or assistance with difficult or complicated mergers. Brief replies may be posted here, but lengthy discussions should be confined to the talk pages of the articles involved. After articles are merged (or a consensus that the articles should not be merged is reached), please remove them from the list below.

Cut and paste move fixes: To request page histories to be merged, list them at cut and paste move repairs.

[edit] Current listings

Please list new proposals at the top of this month's section. Sign each listing or comment by typing: ~~~~

[edit] 2009

[edit] January 2009

[edit] 2008

[edit] December 2008

The Origins of the satyr play section into Satyr play (discuss); and
The Euripides' Cyclops and the structure of the satyr play section et seq into Cyclops (play) (discuss).
Bongomatic 12:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] November 2008

Merge completed on December 25, 2008 BillyTFried (talk) 21:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Merge completed on December 2, 2008 BillyTFried (talk) 03:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Merge completed on December 1, 2008 --Aepoutre (talk) 06:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Merge completed on December 13, 2008.— Rod talk 20:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge Art object into Work of art Still not solved need a independent view. From October 2008. I feel it should not be merged as they are most definitely two different concepts.Research Method (talk) 01:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Merge completed on November 13, 2008 -- HDow (talk) 02:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Merge completed on November 13, 2008 --Flewis(talk) 11:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] October 2008

[edit] September 2008

Merge completed, 1 October 2008. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 19:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Merge completed on October 10, 2008 momoricks talk 08:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Merge completed on September 13, 2008 --*momoricks* (talk) 08:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Merge completed on September 15, 2008 *momoricks* (talk) 09:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] August 2008

[edit] July 2008

----& Cf.: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madelyn Dunham (result: Keep).  ˜ Justmeherenow (  ) 23:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)  ˜ Justmeherenow (  ) 17:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Umm, where were the discussions setup for these proposed merges? It doesn't appear many (if any) of the steps in WP:MERGE have been followed to produce a reasonable discussion. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 21:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Each merge tag features a link to the pertinent discussion.  ˜ Justmeherenow (  ) 23:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I see that it does now, good. The links were missing when you first put the notice here. It might be helpful if you link the discussion sections directly from this list as is often down down below. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 23:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I will. Thanks!  ˜ Justmeherenow (  ) 23:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
But there is no explanation at the discussion points that explains what the proposals are and what your reasons for the proposed merges are. You have pointed to old, different merge discussions, or to pages with no section set up for discussion with your rationale. As it is now, I don't see how people will understand what you are proposing or be able to discuss it, so unless more is added I don't anticipate there will be discussion. A situation where there is no discussion likely doesn't mean there is consensus for or against the proposal - it means they need more information to be able to discuss. Tvoz/talk 00:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Re merges involving Dunhams or Soetoros: what's being proposed basically is for these less-notable Dunham–Soetoro family members to be listed together in a new, single article. This can start as a list of the two families' members with each member covered in a sub-section. This would simply involve transferring each article to the new compound article. The article could be left this way, along with a short introduction for the whole article added; or at some point somebody could write a comprehensive introductory narrative that weaves in the histories of all the constituent members, concluding with a final section where all members, spouses and children are grouped together in a list.