Wikipedia talk:Merging/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Alternative to deletion

Merging is a recognized alternative to deletion (WP:ATD-M), and yet this doesn't form part of the set of merge reasons here. While it is quite possible to call an AfD first (resulting in a merge), if the nominator thinks that a merge would be the best outcome, then it seems best to discuss this as a merge proposal. In practice, this is what often happens, but I have on several occasions come against the argument that notability is not relevant to a merge discussion. However, notability is relevant to deletion, and so is a warranted consideration as part of a merge discussion; that is, an article not reaching WP:GNG can be proposed for a merge. So, I therefore propose that we add to WP:MERGEREASON a 6th point: General notability guidelines not met (linking to WP:ATD-M). Of course, this would not prevent notable topics being merged for one of the other 5 very good reasons. Klbrain (talk) 11:36, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Support but I expect we're going to see some pushback from verification extremists claiming that if something isn't notable enough for a standalone article, it shouldn't be included in any article. Do we want to invite that discussion? ~Kvng (talk) 15:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Comments

This is often seen as an AfD aftermath. These discussions take place regarding unsourced or under-sourced articles, and AfD participants can't quite pull the trigger and delete the thing, so they dump it on us. The result: we merge the unsourced material to the designated target, and it is quickly challenged and deleted — A lot of work with no payback. I have merged hundreds of these, careful to merge only that which is sourced (even if with a bad source), and then am questioned on why the majority of the [unsourced] content was not moved over. This has even involved administrators a time or two (people who should know better). It's a failing of the AfD process, but we get burdened with the cleanup. I'm all for keeping anything that is well sourced, however, if an article can't pass GNG, then that content is likely to dilute the merge target and/or be removed entirely from it after the merge takes place. Instead of adding lack of notability to MERGEREASON, I think we need to address this at the AfD project-end of the process. In other words, If an article can't pass GNG, it can't be "Merge and Redirected", only: "Deleted" entirely, or simply "Redirected." Perhaps specific instructions to that end need to be added to the directions at AfD through an RfC. I really hate doing work twice on these articles. Regards, GenQuest ^"scribble" 18:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Merging only sourced material is one school of thought. I beleive longstanding unsourced material that has been seen by a lot of readers and editors over time is valuable. We don't delete stuff just because it is unsourced, we delete stuff that has been challenged and can't be verified. I don't expect we will all agree on how to handle this material (other than, "it depends") so I don't think we can apply the same process to all of it for everybody all the time. Just expect WP:BRD and ongoing rehash of these arguments :( ~Kvng (talk) 14:16, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Removing the unsourced material IS challenging it, long-term or not. To add it back, you'll need to take the time to add sources, something not all volunteers here have the time or inclination to do. This is all policy. I've found long-term vandalism in tens if not hundreds of articles, some read by thousands of people in the meantime. Have you never come across hoax entries here? I have. Both of those only last long in the encyclopedia when we become complacent about holding wiki-voiced statements to a high level of scrutiny. It's a win-win for the article. Merging unsourced material is a time waster. If the article is being watched, that content is going to be removed, sometimes immediately following the merge. There's no point to it. GenQuest ^"scribble" 16:02, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I think there should be more to a challenge than this is uncited therefore I challenge - What specifically looks off about the material? Have you searched for sources? Why doesn't WP:BLUE apply? I also think it is better to start with {{cn}}, {{hoax}} or some such for questionable material than boldly deleting it. These principles work well for existing article content and so I suggest they be applied to materiel involved in a merge. ~Kvng (talk) 15:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Your quote: "...I think there should be more to a challenge than "this is uncited therefore I challenge...": –You would need a general RfC for that. The rest are editing issues that any competent editor would take into consideration for each of their edits, whether in a merge or just general editing. As a volunteer project, it is incumbent upon the person who wishes to add statements of fact to verify and cite their additions. It is not, however, incumbent upon an editor who challenges that statement to do anything other than protect the "Wikipedia voice" of our articles, and quickly remove such content. See Bicholim Conflict for starters. GenQuest ^"scribble" 00:41, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I started the sentence with I think... because I realize that different editors have different positions on these questions and policy is broad enough to contain most of them. You've made assertions in the above reply that I disagree with and I doubt there is policy support for. In summary, we disagree and there isn't going to be someone riding in here credibly telling either of us that we are wrong. ~Kvng (talk) 22:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Hoping a bot or gnome might fix language links

I just merged into REDD and REDD+ but there are no drop down language links yet. Only Spanish and Norwegian have 2 articles. I cannot find anything in these instructions so hoping I don’t have to do anything Chidgk1 (talk) 13:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)