Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Merge

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Merge and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This project was initiated as the result of the proposal: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Merge

	This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Merge This page is within the scope of WikiProject Merge, an attempt to reduce the articles to be merged backlog and improve the merging process. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MergeWikipedia:WikiProject MergeTemplate:WikiProject MergeMerge

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Someone has merged the Scottie McClue Colin Lamont pages they have been separated for years very confusing for fans 😳 2A00:23C8:1EA1:A601:983A:C2FF:FE8A:4FFA (talk) 01:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to refer to Colin Lamont. Visit Talk:Colin_Lamont#One_article/two_articles, read it, keep scrolling down and read some more. You could add comments on that page, if you think they haven't been covered enough already. Commander Keane (talk) 05:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that someone ('twas me!) merged them, back in 2019 ... it looks like fans haven't been that concerned over the last 5 years. The merge was back in 2019 following a 2017 merge discussion. Klbrain (talk) 09:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to the discussion here, there is consensus that the Action of 1 February 1625 and the Battle off Hormuz (1625) are in fact about the same naval battle. Some editors are in favour of a blank-and-redirect instead of a merge. What is the right approach and how should the discussion be closed? Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 00:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I closed the discussion; the difference is simply the retention of a specific section, which can be resolved in later discussion if someone really does object. Felix QW (talk) 12:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the proposed merger section explanation, but I'm still confused about how it should be done. I wish to propose that the following article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRINK be merged into https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_of_Upheaval. I would be grateful for any help. Thank you. Mrodowicz (talk) 13:47, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like TwinBoo has competently created a proposal. Visit Talk:Axis_of_Upheaval#Merge_proposal to weigh in on it. Let us know if it is still not clear how this is done. ~Kvng (talk) 15:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Appreciate you letting me know. Mrodowicz (talk) 10:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Step 4 of the merging process states: "Any user, including the user who first proposed the merge, may close the discussion and move forward with the merge if enough time (normally one week or more) has elapsed and there has been no discussion or if there is unanimous consent to merge." This edit claims consensus, I'm wondering: is this really considered consensus? KatVanHuis (talk) 09:31, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@KatVanHuis Yes, see WP:SILENTCONSENSUS. FaviFake (talk) 16:00, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello FaviFake, thank you for your reply. However, I clearly voiced my opposition, so "silent consensus" doesn't apply here. KatVanHuis (talk) 16:26, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't notice. I assumed there was no opposition. You can read more about it in WP:NAC and judge the case based on that policy. If you find it was violated, see WP:BADNAC for next steps. You can challenge the closure at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE FaviFake (talk) 16:43, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again FaviFake for your reply. I will have to delf into that. Seems the only way is to go WP:AN... Any of the many options that you could recommend there? KatVanHuis (talk) 10:41, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kinda new here, and I've never witnessed a closure challenge. You can attract an admin to your talk page by placing the {{Admin help}} template and linking to the discussion and explaining the situation. There are also other options, like a list of most active admis so you can contact them directly. I don't know how long the wait time is for the template. FaviFake (talk) 20:38, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely closed prematurely and not good form to non-administratively close a contested proposal that one started. The discussion should be reopened and the merge reverted. I would start with a WP:BRD-type discussion. Have you tried bringing this up directly with Akpqegoj? ~Kvng (talk) 13:47, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]