Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers

I propose merging Dahomean religion into West African Vodún. The two articles are basically covering exactly the same topic (i.e. the African traditional religion of the Fon peoples), but the Dahomean religion article is just a stub with only a single citation. It makes sense to merge them. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:04, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• Merge - as per my original comments. Dahomean religion is basically covering the same topic as West African Vodun, albeit with a slightly more restricted geographical and chronological focus. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:09, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
• Merge - Same topic, different titles. Oramfe (talk) 08:15, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose West African Vodún (WAV) is not just about the Fon religion, neither is Dahomean religion just about the Fon. The Fon is just a part of WAV and Dahomean religion, because the Fon people were not the only inhabitants of historical Dahomey/West Africa. To lump them together would be great generalisation, and shows lack of knowledge of African spiritual beliefs, diverse peoples, cultures, and traditions. Either we rename the Dahomean religion to Fon religion - which would be my preferred solution if we are to even touch that stub, as all 3 (Fon religion, Dahomean religion, and West African Vodún) are independent of each other and equally notable, or we leave them as is. To make it as simple as I possibly can, the Fon religion (the traditional religious beliefs of the Fon people) is just a part of Dahomean religion which is a part of West African Vodún - which is a part of African traditional religions. Just like Catholicism is a part of Christianity with is a part of the Abrahamic religions. There are differences in Catholicism and other Christian denominations and other Abrahamic religions, and you can't and won't lump them all together. The same for African belief systems. We can't lump them all together. Vodún Priestess (talk) 13:58, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

I've posted this discussion to the talkpages of WikiProject Benin, Benin, and African traditional religion. Vodún Priestess (talk) 14:16, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Midnightblueowl & Oramfe: Do either of you have thoughts on Vodún Priestess's opposition and whether it might justify separate articles? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:37, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I feel as though List of Fano militia factions should be merged into this page due to new info (Amhara factions have unified into the AFNM as of January 2026) and because all the information on that page could easily be incorporated into this article. IdioticAnarchist (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Support merger, no size reasons for the same topic to have two separate articles. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:50, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Oppose The article Fano (militia) itself is oversized and significantly expanded due to largely paragraphs and update information. The faction list is another standalone because that produces a lot of paramilitary and military factions potentially and it fits to this article. AsteriodX (talk) 19:07, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

The Fano (militia) article is currently 1,785 words long. An article isn't considered "oversized" until it's closer to 10,000 words. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:53, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

We normally do not consult on moving article titles, but this one is a little different because it entails a merger as well.

1) Heterogeneous gold catalysis remains a quietly active area with few or no applications. One hint that there might be a slump is the long theory section vs a lively app section mentioning scale of operations and new technologies. The topic is ranked "low importance". 2) Homogeneous gold catalysis remains a mildly active area with few or no applications. The topic is sort of an appendage to Organogold chemistry. The long homogeneous section crowds out or ignores more basic info on organogold chem to some small extent.

So in my view, we have two slightly sputtering areas. My solution is to move the homogeneous catalysis section from Organogold chemistry into a newly renamed article on gold catalysis. The downside of my proposal is that the heterogeneous and homogeneous topics have little overlaps aside from using carbon-based substrates and using Au as the catalyst.

Some reviews in Chemical Reviews and Chemical Society Reviews since 2011:

• Witzel, Sina; Hashmi, A. Stephen K.; Xie, Jin (2021). "Light in Gold Catalysis". Chemical Reviews. 121 (14): 8868–8925. doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.0c00841. PMID 33492123.
• Hendrich, Christoph M.; Sekine, Kohei; Koshikawa, Takumi; Tanaka, Ken; Hashmi, A. Stephen K. (2021). "Homogeneous and Heterogeneous Gold Catalysis for Materials Science". Chemical Reviews. 121 (14): 9113–9163. doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.0c00824. PMID 33315377.
• Reyes, Ronald L.; Iwai, Tomohiro; Sawamura, Masaya (2021). "Construction of Medium-Sized Rings by Gold Catalysis". Chemical Reviews. 121 (14): 8926–8947. doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.0c00793. PMID 33021782.
• Chintawar, Chetan C.; Yadav, Amit K.; Kumar, Anil; Sancheti, Shashank P.; Patil, Nitin T. (2021). "Divergent Gold Catalysis: Unlocking Molecular Diversity through Catalyst Control". Chemical Reviews. 121 (14): 8478–8558. doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.0c00903. PMID 33555193.
• Zhang, Yan; Cui, Xinjiang; Shi, Feng; Deng, Youquan (2012). "Nano-Gold Catalysis in Fine Chemical Synthesis". Chemical Reviews. 112 (4): 2467–2505. doi:10.1021/cr200260m. PMID 22112240.
• Li, Deyao; Zang, Wenqing; Bird, Melissa J.; Hyland, Christopher J. T.; Shi, Min (2021). "Gold-Catalyzed Conversion of Highly Strained Compounds". Chemical Reviews. 121 (14): 8685–8755. doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.0c00624. PMID 33180474. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |DUPLICATE_doi= ignored (help)
• Campeau, Dominic; León Rayo, David F.; Mansour, Ali; Muratov, Karim; Gagosz, Fabien (2021). "Gold-Catalyzed Reactions of Specially Activated Alkynes, Allenes, and Alkenes". Chemical Reviews. 121 (14): 8756–8867. doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.0c00788. PMID 33226774.
• Mato, Mauro; Franchino, Allegra; Garcı́a-Morales, Cristina; Echavarren, Antonio M. (2021). "Gold-Catalyzed Synthesis of Small Rings". Chemical Reviews. 121 (14): 8613–8684. doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.0c00697. PMC 8363095. PMID 33136374.
• Bhoyare, Vivek W.; Tathe, Akash G.; Das, Avishek; Chintawar, Chetan C.; Patil, Nitin T. (2021). "The interplay of carbophilic activation and Au(i)/Au(III) catalysis: An emerging technique for 1,2-difunctionalization of C–C multiple bonds". Chemical Society Reviews. 50 (18): 10422–10450. doi:10.1039/D0CS00700E. PMID 34323240.
• Zi, Weiwei; Dean Toste, F. (2016). "Recent advances in enantioselective gold catalysis". Chemical Society Reviews. 45 (16): 4567–4589. doi:10.1039/C5CS00929D. PMID 26890605.
• Wang, Wenliang; Ji, Cheng-Long; Liu, Kai; Zhao, Chuan-Gang; Li, Weipeng; Xie, Jin (2021). "Dinuclear gold catalysis". Chemical Society Reviews. 50 (3): 1874–1912. doi:10.1039/D0CS00254B. PMID 33315028.
• Chen, Kewei; Yao, Minghan; Xu, Xinfang (2026). "Advances in gold-catalyzed asymmetric alkyne functionalization". Chemical Society Reviews. 55 (2): 869–909. doi:10.1039/D5CS00739A. PMID 41363033.
• Zheng, Zhitong; Wang, Zhixun; Wang, Youliang; Zhang, Liming (2016). "Au-Catalysed oxidative cyclisation". Chemical Society Reviews. 45 (16): 4448–4458. doi:10.1039/C5CS00887E. PMID 26781300.
• Hu, Yan-Cheng; Zhao, Yingying; Wan, Boshun; Chen, Qing-An (2021). "Reactivity of ynamides in catalytic intermolecular annulations". Chemical Society Reviews. 50 (4): 2582–2625. doi:10.1039/D0CS00283F. PMID 33367365.
• Pflästerer, Daniel; Hashmi, A. Stephen K. (2016). "Gold catalysis in total synthesis – recent achievements". Chemical Society Reviews. 45 (5): 1331–1367. doi:10.1039/C5CS00721F. PMID 26673389.
• Asiri, Abdullah M.; Hashmi, A. Stephen K. (2016). "Gold-catalysed reactions of diynes". Chemical Society Reviews. 45 (16): 4471–4503. doi:10.1039/C6CS00023A. PMID 27385433.
• Pina, Cristina Della; Falletta, Ermelinda; Rossi, Michele (2012). "Update on selective oxidation using gold". Chem. Soc. Rev. 41 (1): 350–369. doi:10.1039/C1CS15089H. PMID 21727977.
• Qian, Deyun; Zhang, Junliang (2015). "Gold-catalyzed cyclopropanation reactions using a carbenoid precursor toolbox". Chemical Society Reviews. 44 (3): 677–698. doi:10.1039/C4CS00304G. PMID 25522173.
• Liu, Le-Ping; Hammond, Gerald B. (2012). "Recent advances in the isolation and reactivity of organogold complexes". Chemical Society Reviews. 41 (8): 3129–3139. doi:10.1039/C2CS15318A. PMID 22262401.

--Smokefoot (talk) 00:59, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

• Support as I think a single comprehensive article, with summaries left at Organogold chemistry, serves readers better. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the advice. Now that I have collected reviews from the Chemical Society Reviews (Royal Society of Chemistry journal), I have some misgivings. I'm hoping that we hear from others.--Smokefoot (talk) 20:55, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

    Smokefoot & Mdewman6, you might wish to advertise this discussion (perhaps on relevant WikiProject talk pages) if you haven't already. It's been pending for a while now. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:05, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I propose merging into this page Sigemund the Wælsing. This is widely seen as the same figure as Sigmund, just in an English attestation. This page is quite short and can easily incorporate the material from the other page and it'd be useful to discuss them both in the same place. Ingwina (talk) 07:25, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Question Do you have a source that you could cite for that in the merged article? Would you merge it to a section or wholly integrate the source article? ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Ingwina, checking in to see if you're still interested in this or if it's an inactive proposal. ScrubbedFalcon has raised some points that also need to be addressed before there's consensus to merge. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:55, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Sorry - I missed this. Thanks for the tag.

There are lots of sources that cover this. One is actually already cited on Sigemund the Wælsing - "The Saga of the Volsungs" by Jackson Crawford, which states "Much earlier, the Old English poem Beowulf... mentions two Volsung heroes by name Sigemund Wælsing (= Old Norse Sigmund, the Volsung)".

I would propose this article gets integrated into the section currently entitled "Relation to other Germanic heroes" but I think would make more sense just being "Beowulf", in keeping with "Völsunga saga" above. There really isn't much grounds for considering him a distinct hero just because his name is English (see for example Sigurd and Wayland the Smith where all attestations are on the same page regardless of language). Ingwina (talk) 07:02, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

That works for me. I don't think this needs a formal close, you should be ok to go ahead and perform the merge. Sorry, I would have also responded sooner but I only cam back to this patrolling the PAM backlog, somehow missed the reply ping. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

I propose merging all pages under Category:1958 French Union constitutional referendums to

1958 French constitutional referendum, since most of them seem to be consisted of just a lead section that is basically the same for each article and a "Results" section. Additional information in articles such as in 1958 French Somaliland constitutional referendum could be added to 1958 French constitutional referendum's "Results" section. Oakchris1955 (talk) 12:14, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Oppose These referendums are individually notable, because in each case it was an independence referendum for each territory (if they rejected the constitution, the outcome was independence). The most prominent example is 1958 Guinean constitutional referendum, which resulted in Guinea becoming independent and the French government throwing their toys out of the pram. Number 57 14:16, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Support. All of these are part of the same subject and there are no size concerns that warrant splitting that subject apart. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:08, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

This is not a single subject though. The referendum did not have the same meaning in overseas territories that it did in metropolitan France. In the territories it was an individual independence referendum, each with their own separate campaigns and nuances. IMO it would be absurd to merge the 1958 Guinean constitutional referendum, a vote that resulted in the country becoming independent, into this article. Number 57 03:04, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I'd be open to merging to a separate title like 1958 French Union constitutional referendums that covers all of them. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:18, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose: I think there is potential for separate articles, although they are not much more than tables of figures at present. The French vote was a very important event, so there is obviously enough matter for a complete article. As for the overseas votes, they are consequential events in each of these countries’ history and path towards independence, so it seems that an article on the local circumstances, political forces etc. can be written. Keriluamox (talk) 11:56, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

I propose that we merge central tendency into average. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 20:52, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Merge - Both these pages discuss the various alternatives to arithmetic mean that migh be meant by average or central tendency. There is a tremendous amount of overlap between the two. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 20:52, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  Merge:

  Makes sense to me. There's a lot of overlap with mean too, and merges with both have been proposed in the past. This would also be a good opportunity to clean up and reorganize some things.

  What do you think of the following phrasing and structure?

  This page is about the summary statistic for location. For the graph theory metric, see centrality. For other uses of the word "center", see center. For the Canadian artist, see Joe Average. For the trait of being cruel, see meanness. For other uses of the word "mean", see mean (disambiguation).

  For the similar concepts in geometry, graph theory, and politics, see centre (geometry), graph center, and centrism.

  For the primary specific meaning of the words "mean" and "average", see arithmetic mean.

  In mathematics, particularly statistics, a central value, a mean, or an average of a collection or a probability distribution is an actual or hypothetical member in the middle of it that summarizes it by representing its overall position. (The word "average" is also used outside of mathematics to mean common, typical, or normal.) A "(measure of) central tendency" may refer either to a central value, or to how close the data is to that central value (i.e. statistical dispersion).

  The phrases "the average" and "the mean" almost always refer specifically to the arithmetic mean (or for a probability distribution, expected value), though other meanings are occasionally used depending on the context. For example, in education, "average" sometimes refers to "the three Ms" of (arithmetic) mean, median, and mode; additionally, the harmonic mean is implied in many situations involving rates or ratios.

  In statistics, the sample (arithmetic) mean is denoted using an overline (e.g. ${\displaystyle {\bar {x}}}$, pronounced "x bar", equals ${\displaystyle {\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}x_{i}}$), and the population mean is denoted with the Greek letter mu (${\displaystyle \mu }$, pronounced /'mjuː/).

  Properties ... (with content from Average § General properties)

  Types ... (with content from Average §§ Statistical location, Summary of types, and Miscellaneous types; Central tendency §§ Measures​ and Solutions to variational problems; Mean §§ Types of means​ and Other means)

  Arithmetic mean ... (with content from Mean §§ Mean of a probability distribution​ and Mean of a function)

  Quasi-arithmetic means ... [table with columns "Name", "${\displaystyle f}$", "${\displaystyle f^{-1}}$", "Formula", "Optimization problem"] (with content from Average § Pythagorean means; Mean §§ Pythagorean means, Generalized means, Mean of angles and cyclical quantities, and Fréchet mean)

  Other central values [table with columns "Name", "Formula or description", "Optimization problem"]

  Variants (these are listed separately because they can be applied to any kind of mean)

  Weighted mean ... (with content from Mean § Weighted arithmetic mean)

  Winsorized mean ...

  Truncated mean ... (with content from Mean §§ Truncated mean​ and Interquartile mean)

  Moving average ... (with content from Average § Moving average)

  Relationships ... (with content from Average § Pythagorean means; Central tendency § Relationships between the mean, median and mode; Mean § Relationship between AM, GM, and HM)

  Applications ... (with content from Average §§ Definitions​ and Average percentage return and CAGR; Mean §§ Statistical location, Mean of angles and cyclical quantities, and Swanson's rule)

  History ... (with content from Average § History; lead of Central tendency)

  Limitations ... (with content from Average § Averages as a rhetorical tool)

  Standard footer sections: "See also", "Notes", "References", "Further reading", "External links"

  Solomon Ucko (talk) 00:27, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

AlyInWikiWonderland added a tag indicating there is an active merge proposal between Bufotenidine and Cinobufotenine, but I could not find one so I am opening it here for discussion. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:37, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, this is confusing. I might add Bufotenin into the mix too. Discussing all 3 in one place seems like a good idea to me, the question being what that place should be! Looking at Google ngram I suggest Bufotenin, where any differences between the terms can be discussed. Klbrain (talk) 15:50, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Thebiguglyalien, I forgot to create the merge proposal after putting the tag. @Klbrain: I disagree re: including bufotenin in the merge proposal. It's a different structure than these two compounds, which instead correspond to N-methylbufotenin. Thanks. – AlyInWikiWonderland (talk, contribs) 01:34, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

My bad; withdrawing the Bufotenin request; agree. Klbrain (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Reliable secondary sources from the last election typically highlight the difference between the "416" and "905" rather than divisions within those areas. The LocalCBCToronto Star. When splits are brought up within the 905, it is more often between the individual regions (York, Peel, etc.) rather than a combination like with the current articles. National PostCityNews. News coverage from previous elections seems to follow a similar pattern Global NewsThe GuardianBBC

The scope of our articles thus does not match up with the scope primarily used by secondary sources when discussing election results, which makes it more difficult to find secondary sources to write about the area as a whole (something WP:LISTN considers). Thus, the structure of these articles should change. With the sources primarily dividing between Toronto and its suburbs, I think the best option for the GTA is two pages: One for Toronto and one for the suburbs. ~UN6892 ^t_c 17:07, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

It might make sense to merge the two Toronto articles together (as the split is somewhat arbitrary), but I'm not as convinced for the 905 region. Should we have an article on how important the 905 is when it comes to Canadian elections? Absolutely. However, the 905 is huge, and each region in the 905 is distinct, and deserves its own article in my opinion. But, the regions as they are currently titled are odd, seemingly arbitrary, and probably need to be re-named with a slight change in focus to reflect the actual subdivisions of the 905 (they were created in 2004, and so their categorization is out of date as the region has a lot more ridings now). Here's what I would recommend:

• Canadian federal election results in Brampton, Mississauga and Oakville rename to Canadian federal election results in Peel Region
• Canadian federal election results in Southern Durham and York rename to Canadian federal election results in York Region
• Canadian federal election results in Hamilton, Burlington and Niagara rename to Canadian federal election results in Hamilton and Niagara (or possibly even split Hamilton and Niagara)

And the creation of two new articles:

• Canadian federal election results in Durham Region (now has 5 ridings)
• Canadian federal election results in Halton Region (now has 5 ridings)

This more closely resembles the regions we used to categorize Results of the 2025 Canadian federal election by riding.-- Earl Andrew - talk 16:14, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Do we need the riding-by-riding results in these articles? I know the 905's size may make a large page a bit unwieldy, but I'm not sure the level of detail in the riding-by-riding results would be necessary in those pages when those already exist for the "Results in X election by riding" articles.

Regarding the distinction of each place, the reliable sources I've linked (as well as the other sources I have read and seen) seem to group the 905 together much more commonly than split into the various regional municipalities in the area. An additional benefit of this categorization would be the ability to have boundaries that change over time, particularly in areas with a large amount of sprawl (such as Toronto's suburbs). Individual regions occasionally have an impact in individual elections, but it is not common enough to likely be notable across many historical elections. ~UN6892 ^t_c 22:43, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Do we need the riding-by-riding results in these articles? Yes, that's the whole point of these articles, pretty much. Of course, I don't think it would be necessary to list the riding by riding results if we have an article for the whole 905, as long as the articles on the individual regions stay (as I am proposing). I think an article on the 905 might be a good idea to outline its importance in Canadian elections, but not necessary to get into the details of individual ridings. -- Earl Andrew - talk 14:52, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

The reason I am skeptical is because I don't really see how each individual riding in each individual election is vital to the region's history (across multiple elections) and the "Results of X election by riding" pages exist to show riding-by-riding results. ~UN6892 ^t_c 01:40, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I've completed the Toronto merge since neither of us were opposed to it. ~UN6892 ^t_c 20:18, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Currently, both Chinese Garden and Japanese Garden have separate articles, and Lakeside Garden has no article. Considering how these 3 gardens are considered 1 park ("Jurong Lake Gardens") officially (see link https://juronglakegardens.nparks.gov.sg/our-gardens/), and how these 3 de-facto function together (e.g. the only links to Japanese Garden are via Lakeside Garden and Chinese Garden), a new article (called "Jurong Lake Gardens") should be created to cover all 3 sections. AT-RexEatingAnAirplane (talk) 07:49, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Oppose: Both gardens very clearly separately pass the GNG and they both have enough written about them separately to keep the articles separate. That Lakeside Garden doesn't currently have an article is irrelevant. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 04:34, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

• Support Many of the sources treat these together – they are sections of the same park. Reywas92^Talk 15:38, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

TLDR: I propose to merge the article with FET y de las JONS, since "Movimiento Nacional" appears to be merely a second name of the Falange, as said in the current version of the lede, and the article itself appears to be redundant and containing little information on its subject.

The main problem of this article has always been that it never really explained what the "National Movement" was. The definition provided in the lede prior to my edits was "the governing institution of Spain". While very unclear, it also turned out to be not based on the source it cited, which described the definitions of the "National Movement" proposed by the Francoists themselves long after the "Movement" has been established and did not contained the definition given in the lede. In January, I read a little, and it the "Movimiento Nacional" appeared to be just a second name for the Falange (perhaps used more often that the original one), so I edited the definition in the lede into what it is now. No one has changed it, so I assume I was right that it was just a second name for the ruling party. This explains the major problems that this article has always had: half of the information, dedicated to the topic of the article, cites no sources at all and does not explain the difference between the Falange and the Movement (since there is none). The other half is the section "Francoist "families"" which is based on source material, but has no mentions of the "National Movement" - this section about the factions within the bureacracy would be more due in the articles on Francoist Spain / Francoism proper and on FET y de las JONS (since all the bureaucracy were nominal members of the Falange, as said in Paul Preston (2003). The Politics of Revenge: Fascism and the Military in 20th-century Spain. Routledge. p. 110. ISBN 1134811136. and F. L. Carsten (1982). The Rise of Fascism, Second Edition. University of California Press. p. 203.).

Since the article appears to be redundant, overlapping with FET y de las JONS and containing little info on its subject, I propose to merge it with FET y de las JONS. Opostylov (talk) 23:37, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Movimiento Nacional" is not a "second name of the Falange", and it was you who edited the article to look like in the current version (), so it looks weird to claim "Movimiento Nacional" appears to be merely a second name of the Falange, as said in the current version of the lede, and the article itself appears to be redundant and containing little information on its subject. Well of course: you edited it to look like it appears now.

While the term "Movement" was frequently associated with the FET y de las JONS party, these two were not strictly the same, as the Movement encompassed other aspects and institutions of the Franco regime. There are multiple sources pointing to this differentiation between Falange and Movimiento. To point out a few examples:

• "Area Handbook for Spain, volume 179 (Eugene K. Keefe):
  • p. 233: "The National Movement is a coalition of the political families that actively supported the National cause during the civil war. These component parts have tended to keep distinct identities within the National Movement: Falangists, conservative Catholic groups, and monarchists. (...) Although the military establishment and the church were hostile to the Falange, both to some extent have had members active in the National Movement. All remain under its umbrella as pressure groups."
  • p. 234: "The Falange, reshaped by Franco during the civil war, was for some time the dominant element within the National Movement, but no one group has been allowed to monopolize access to power—that is, to Franco—nor has the movement's elite necessarily identified with the Falange.
  • p. 234-235: "Before it was subsumed into the National Movement—a gradual process—the Falange, had already become a catchall for Franco's political supporters outside the army (...) Franco did not join the Falange.
• "The Franco Regime, 1936–1975" (Stanley G. Payne):
  • p. 178: "(...) development of the FET had to be conducted in balance with the various factions behind the National Movement—the several "ideological families" of the new regime, as they would later be termed by commentators."
  • p. 179: "(...) it should not be forgotten that the official party, like the National Movement itself, was a conglomerate of forces."
• "Fighting For Franco. International Volunteers in Nationalist Spain During the Spanish Civil War" (Judith Keene):
  • p. 26: "The last strand within the National Movement, and with some different aspirations from all of the above, were the Falangists."
• "Franco’s Spain, 1939–75" (Encyclopedia Britannica):
  • Britannica: "Ultimately, the Falange lost power in the National Movement, the sole legal political organization; its attempts to create a Falangist one-party state were defeated in 1956, though tensions between the Falange and the conservative elements persisted."
• "La Asociación Católica Nacional de Propagandistas durante la fase central del régimen de Franco" (in Spanish) (Antonio Martín Puerta):
  • p. 307: "De hecho Falange nunca tuvo control sobre los ministerios esenciales, Ejército, Hacienda, o Gobernación, salvado para este último caso la presencia de Serrano Súñer desde 1938 hasta octubre de 1940. Incluso para muchos falangistas, llamar «nacionalsindicalismo» a un sistema en el que no había sino uno o dos ministros falangistas, salvo el titular de la Secretaría General del Movimiento –que ni siquiera controlaba más que una de las cuatro fuerzas originarias del Movimiento–, aparecía como absurdo";

One of the main points of confusion is that, because Franco's regime lasted for four decades, the relevance of FET y de las JONS varied over time (it gradually decreased in favour of other factions). From the late 1950s and the 1960s, mentions to the party itself had almost entirely disappeared from the legal scheme of the regime, and the term "Movement" was used to refer to the whole thing (including whatever elements remained from the core party itself). But the scope of the two articles is different, and the two should not be confused into being the same thing, nor should be portrayed as fully overlapping elements. As a result, I not only oppose the proposed merge, but I also oppose Opostylov's edits on 17 January 2026 that significantly altered the article's scope to make it look as fully overlapping with FET y de las JONS (and, ultimately, are being used as an attempt to justify this proposal). Impru20^talk 10:24, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Comment: While it should not be assumed that both items were the same thing (neither one a strict continuation of the other), the ambiguous, tricky, fuzzy nature of the so-called National Movement, and in practical terms, perhaps also the limited source-based growth potential of the article of the National Movement as some kind of superstructure perhaps suggests that a redirect to a subsection of FET y de las JONS or Francoist Spain titled "National Movement" or "FET y de las JONS and National Movement" dealing with the subtleties could work too. After all, little of the current content is fully about the topic. The bit about the Francoist families could be here as well as it could be in Francoist Spain#Francoism. A recurring overarching problem related to this is that the article Francoist Spain is both a dumping ground for content on the period of Spanish history between 1939 and 1975, for the dictatorship as a political regime itself, and for the sketch of some kind of kind of purported coherent ideology ("Francoism"). Sadly but, needless to say, not unexpectedly, in addition to the topical awkwardness and some degree of poor original synthesis, it falls short in practically all of its aims.--Asqueladd (talk) 11:22, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

I do not see a reason why there are two separate pages: Fogo Island (Newfoundland and Labrador) and Fogo Island, Newfoundland and Labrador. Fogo Island is an island, and that island is also a town. They are one and the same. In my opinion, this is like having a separate article about the Azores archipelago and the Azores region, or about the Island of Nauru and the Country of Nauru. Those don't exist because they are both exactly the same thing.

Now we have one page where the reader finds information about the history, toponymy and tourism of Fogo Island, and a wholly separate page where the reader finds information about the population, government, climate and culture of Fogo Island. It is just logical that someone who wants to read about Fogo Island finds it all in one place instead of having to put pieces of a puzzle together like this.

That's why I would like to propose to merge both into one single page. Ycleymans (talk) 10:44, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

The island and the town do indeed appear to occupy the same geography. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:24, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

If there is a merge, we should merge into Fogo Island, Newfoundland and Labrador instead of the other way around. Hwy43 (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Could you please give your reasoning? Thank you. Ycleymans (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

WP:CANPLACE. Hwy43 (talk) 02:26, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

As of today, some 40 days after the original proposal, I would say the general proposal has one person being against and three being in favor and/or having no general objection.

Concerning Hwy43's point of changing the direction in which the merge would go: it's fine by me to merge into Fogo Island, Newfoundland and Labrador (other way around). So I will change the proposal's 'merging direction' if no one comments any remarks against this in the coming days. Ycleymans (talk) 15:51, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose – The above comparisons to the Azores and Nauru would only make sense if the Town of Fogo Island encompassed the entirety of Fogo Island, which it does not. For example, Stag Harbour is a designated place on Fogo Island, but it is not part of the Town of Fogo Island. Yue🌙 (talk) 03:22, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

  Stag Harbour is part of the town of Fogo Island, even though it is a DPL. Statistics Canada sometimes lets places amalgamated into municipalities retain their DPL status, in order to ensure statistical continuity with past censuses.

  Here you can find the law which officialy created the Town of Fogo Island. Under Article 5 of said law, it is stipulated that the "boundaries of the Town of Fogo Island are inclusive of the island of Fogo", meaning the town equals the entire island.

  See here as well on page 20, section 8N. All communities on the island have their census data still separately gathered, even though they all fall under the town. Ycleymans (talk) 15:30, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

  Ycleymans is correct. Designated places are sub-municipal areas. They are not municipalities. Hwy43 (talk) 04:01, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

• Support The Stag Harbour article should also be merged. Presenting this closely related content together would be best. Reywas92^Talk 15:43, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
• Merge direction turned around – as per above discussion and comments, the direction of the merge has been turned around. As of today, based on the above, I state that one person has currently spoken out against the merger and four (including myself) have stated that they are in favor or at least express no opposition. I am keeping the discussion open for a little while longer due to the change of direction. Ycleymans (talk) 21:07, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

I propose merging Great Seal of Lithuania into Grand Chancellor of Lithuania. I am not convinced that Great Seal of Lithuania meets WP:GNG. The seal, issued in the ruler’s name, was closely linked to the office of the chancellor; it was the main instrument and symbol of his authority. In fact, virtually all the content of the article on the seal falls within the scope of the article on the chancellor, and separating them effectively amounts to repeating the same content. Marcelus (talk) 19:21, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I think it's worthwhile to keep them separate, because the seal itself as an object was very valuable historically speaking.--+JMJ+ (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

@+JMJ+: I agree that the Great Seal of Lithuania should be a separate article because this object is highly notable and was used from the Middle Ages until 1795, and is described in WP:RS texts as a separate notable object from the officer Grand Chancellor of Lithuania who only possessed this notable object (e.g. see: book The History of Lithuania, p. 76; book Lietuvos Didžioji Kunigaikštija ir jos tradicija, p. 167, search for Lithuanian words "didysis Lietuvos antspaudas"; Universal Lithuanian Encyclopedia's article about the Union of Lublin, search for a Lithuanian word "antspaudas"; catalog of the National Museum in Warsaw where its English name is used; English publication by the State Archive in Warsaw, p. 8, where the Grand Chancellor of Lithuania is not even mentioned; establishment story of the Vilnius University which is presented in the article and is supported by two WP:RS; etc.). The Grand Chancellor of Lithuania also possessed the Lithuanian Metrica and it would be an absurd to merge the article Lithuanian Metrica to the article about the Grand Chancellor of Lithuania because the object Lithuanian Metrica is also highly notable separately from the officer who historically possessed it. There are many articles about other national seals in the category "National seals". Moreover, the article about the Great Seal of Lithuania has potential for further expansion (e.g. analysis of different periods Great Seals of Lithuania, usage, etc.). -- Pofka (talk) 11:11, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Today additional reliable sources were added to the article about the Great Seal of Lithuania. For example, in Wojciech Krawczuk's book Pieczęcie Zygmunta III Wazy (pages 34–35) a detailed analysis of the appearance of two versions of the Great Seal of Lithuania from the reign of Sigismund III Vasa is presented. Articles about other countries similar status seals: Great Seal of Australia, Great Seal of Canada, Great Seal of Scotland, Great Seal of the United States demonstrates how such separate articles about national seals can be developed and article about the Great Seal of Lithuania definitely has the same potential to be expanded, improved as a separate article. The Great Seal of Lithuania is not less notable than these Australian/Canadian/Scottish/American national seals. -- Pofka (talk) 17:02, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Many seals are separately notable. Whether this one is depends on whether the sources in the article about the Seal meet WP:SIGCOV. Do they? If they do, no merge needed. Otherwhise, merge. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:00, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

@+JMJ+ @Piotrus: it seems to me that the topic is borderline WP:SIGCOV; I have not encountered any study that would describe this seal as a separate entity. Primarily because there was no single "Great(er) Seal of Lithuania" - after a ruler’s death it was destroyed and a new one was prepared (which sometimes took some time) with different set of CoAs and legend. So in total there were more than a dozen of them. Moreover, the "Lesser Seal of Lithuania", contrary to what the name suggests, was equal in status to the greater seal and had the same legal significance. It would therefore be logical, if they are to be described at all, to cover them together in a single article: Greater and Lesser Seal of Lithuania. Moreover equally notable are also the Crown seals.Marcelus (talk) 14:42, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Lesser Seal of Lithuania does not exist. Maybe the best outcome would be to expand the Greater article with info on Lesser seal and rename it? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:30, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Or maybe simply Seals of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania? It would be good to get an input from more people. Marcelus (talk) 10:01, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

The Great Seal of Lithuania is highly important in the history of Lithuania and internationally (given the historic territory size of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania), so a separate article Great Seal of Lithuania should be kept. The great and lesser seals of Lithuania have some similarities, however they historically were completely different objects, so one article about great and lesser seals of Lithuania would not be a viable solution and I oppose that.--Ed1974LT (talk) 10:09, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

The Grand Chancellor of Lithuania is a political and administrative office. The Great Seal of Lithuania is a physical artifact, a symbol of statehood, and a subject of heraldry and sigillography. While the Chancellor held the seal, merging them conflates the officeholder with the instrument of the office. We do not, for example, merge the Great Seal of the Realm into the Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain, nor the Great Seal of the United States into the United States Secretary of State. There are academic papers and books dedicated specifically to the evolution of Lithuanian state seals, their iconography, the engravers who crafted the matrices, and their legal use on state documents. The fact that the current Wikipedia article might not currently reflect this depth is a reason for expansion, not deletion or merging. Karnemir (talk) 23:46, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

I propose merging Borei Pri HaGafen into Kiddush. AFAIK, the latter is indeed the blessing itself as well as the oneg (small gathering with food). Andre🚐 02:07, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

These are two completely different articles. Kiddush deals with a mitzvah that is practiced on Shabbats and holidays, and Borei Pri HaGafen is a blessing that is said every day. TheRabbi613 (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

There is no doubt that both need to be worked on and expanded. But they must not be Merge. TheRabbi613 (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I believe Kiddush is also the term for the prayer not just the ceremony. Andre🚐 23:33, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

• Support. There is no need for a standalone page per WP:NOPAGE. Longhornsg (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Nasi' may lack notability other than for removal from the Islamic Calendar. In that case, the content from that article should be merged into the section of this article about prohibiting Nasi. ~2026-78748-7 (talk) 03:21, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

It can be merged instead into Calendars in pre-Islamic Arabia Pogenplain (talk) 02:07, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

It shouldn't be merged because other encyclopedias have articles devoted to Nasi' (e.g., EI2). The concept also has an attested usage (as postponement) beyond the calendar topic. Wiqi⁵⁵ 03:57, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Simple. Since this article covers the original Railjet trains (which is mentioned in this article). I propose to merge the Siemens Viaggio Comfort article into this article. Tententenny (talk) 17:10, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I concur Yuezhi Huang (talk) 03:32, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

The RJ1 (or Viaggio Comfort) is based upon old SGP-Bodywork

The ComfortJet (Vecturo) is apart from the cab car ideantical to the RJ1

The RJ2 (Viaggio Next Level) on the other hand: It is a almost a complete new construction method including Low Floor and High Floor parts. That doesn't fit the Viaggio Comfort Family which is High-Floor Only. DerKaiserschmarren (talk) 11:17, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I put this onto a healthy merger discussuon because for some reason the Railjet 1 (the Viaggio Comfort) is included in this article even tho they are part of a different product range. Although both of those NMU's are highly identical to one another. I do know feel like there is an overlap, It did not help by the fact the article of Viaggio Next Level no longer exist and it instead redirects to this article. Although i open a healthy debate here if the merger would be approved or not. Tententenny (talk) 11:29, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

In the german article we actually, just seperated all into their individual Articles with only one short that is combined. Multiple people liked it this way, so probably it is a good Idea to take a look at it. It is Called "Railjet (Zuggattung)"

But I won't stop you from merging them. It just could be more work to seperate them again later on in the long run. ;) DerKaiserschmarren (talk) 11:41, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Tbh the Railjet article in the English Wikipedia is very outdated by now ever since ÖBB announced they ordered Stadler KISS and the questionable order for Siemens Mireo EMU's and also route changes. I suggest the Railjet article should emphasize on the train service and not the rolling stock. The rolling stock that Railjet uses especially the Viaggio ones instead be put into here. Tententenny (talk) 11:46, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Yep using the "Railjet" Article for the service instead of the rolling stock would be ideal.

It can then have links to the main Articles of each type.

• Railjet 1
• Railjet 2
• Railjet 3 (Class 4706)
• Railjet M (Class 4864)

(ComfortJet could be added)

Actually I did a big part of that rework in the German Wiki, so if needed I could probably help. DerKaiserschmarren (talk) 12:04, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I noticed that this page already indicates which countries are in the European Union. It seems logical that merging Urban areas in the European Union into this article would make sense. Logoshimpo (talk) 09:37, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

agreed ~2025-36333-31 (talk) 05:21, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Logoshimpo, any thoughts on how this should be merged? The European Union article seems to have more information on each urban area that the Europe article doesn't accommodate. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:09, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Urban areas in the European Union only lists urban areas over 500,000 inhabitants but this list lists all entries. In other words, this list is exhaustive and comprehensive. There is a section of Important notes which might have pertinent material which could be retained. I haven't read all the citations and both articles thoroughly so I don't think if I were to merge the articles that the outcome would be satisfactory. Logoshimpo (talk) 07:21, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Urban areas in the European Union lists urban areas over 500,000 inhabitants in EU only, and features 70 entries.
• This article (Urban areas in Europe) lists urban areas over 1 million in Europe (EU and non-EU), and features 69 entries.

I wouldn't say that one of them is more complete than the other. Furthermore, since various definitions of what an urban area is exist, I wonder whether any such list could ever be called "exhaustive and comprehensive". Dżamper (talk) 18:59, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

What sort of definitions do you have in mind? I'm aware of functional area and the nordic countries have their own definition of urban area as defined by their statistical bureaus. I think we could merge the articles together if european union is treated as a section. Logoshimpo (talk) 11:46, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Functional areas are areas that are functionally dependent on a city. Urban areas are areas that are connected with a city by a contiguous urban fabric. So, two related but different and parallel concepts. But even for the definition of the urban area alone, there will always exist different delimitation methods of how big that area is. What is the threshold to be considered urban. Are parks, industrial areas, waterbeds "contiguously urban", etc. And actually, there is currently no source provided which would do that comprehensively. The UN list doesn't (has definitions that vary on country-by-country basis due to lack of data), neither does the EU (Eurostat has only functional areas, Copernicus could, yet provides figures only for "(dense) cores (of) urban areas", not the whole urban areas). Demographia is IMO the closest, but is not generally considered a truly reliable source. Dżamper (talk) 17:09, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose for now - I took a quick look at the articles, I think they use different statistical bases that would be difficult to merge well, also it looks like the data in the EU article is more up to date than proposed destination article, but I'm not sure if more recent data is available for all of the non-EU cities. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 11:05, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Does my reply to Dżamper change your mind? Logoshimpo (talk) 11:47, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

You mean having a separate section for the EU data? If that was the proposal then I wouldn't see how the merge would serve readers better than having a separate article. I thought the purpose of the merge in this case was to eliminate WP:OVERLAP, but if the data is different enough that it needs its own section, I think its clearer for readers to just have the separate articles. I agree that there is some overlap in these lists, but I think it needs to be clearer how they would be merged without making the information difficult to parse. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 11:56, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm proposing Upiór be merged into Vampire for the reasons I've mentioned here above and summarised at Talk:Vampire. These reasons are:

• Upiór is almost certainly not the common name for the topic of its articles, making that title unsuitable. It's one of two different Polish words for vampire, and I don't even think it's the most common one used in Polish, let alone the word English speakers would most associate with vampires in the context of Slavic and Turkic folklore.
• Etymologically related Slavic words/synonyms currently redirect to different articles. South Slavic Vampir redirects to Vampire, but East Slavic Upyr redirects to Upiór. The various intermediate forms have to pick one or the other as a target. It would be better if all variants had the same target.
• The two articles overlap in content and scope, resulting in unhelpful redundancy. The topic of Upiór is vampires in Slavic and Turkic folklore. Its content and scope overlaps with Vampire § Etymology and word distribution and Vampire § Folk beliefs. Why have two articles that go into detail about etymology and folklore regarding vampires?

Solution 1, Merge Upiór to Vampire

These issues could all be resolved by merging Upiór into Vampire. All the terms would point to the same destination, which would be at what is indisputably the common name in English. The best of the material of Upiór would be incorporated into the existing sections at Vampire, remedying any redundancy in content or overlap in scope. However, there's a large difference in quality and length, with Vampire already being a very long featured article. A merge would have to be implemented by experienced editors with great care.

Solution 2, Move Upiór to Vampires in folklore and split Vampire

An alternative solution may be be to move Upiór to Vampires in folklore, forking/splitting content from Vampire and incorporating it into Upiór. If the majority of content about etymology and folklore were transferred over, then all the Slavic and Turkic variants could redirect to Vampires in folklore instead. A hatnote could be added for anyone surprised by being redirected to Vampires in folklore when searching for Vampir instead of Vampire. The new title would be at the English common name, vampire, while being naturally disambiguated from Vampire as an article with a narrower scope. This solution would have the additional benefit of making room at Vampire to expand on other aspects of the topic. However, like the merge it would also have to be implemented with care, since content would be being removed from a featured article and would still have to be integrated with the material now at Upiór.

I don't know which solution I prefer, but I'm leaning toward solution 1 so I've started this process as a proposed merge. I'm open to other suggests for an even better solution if anyone has any. – Scyrme (talk) 02:58, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

I would oppose merging any of the content from here into the vampire article because this is not an FA and none of the content here is up to FA quality, while the vampire article is an FA. I would also oppose a split because Vampires are entirely in folklore already. It's the largest part of that article. I have no other opinion on whether this article should be deleted/kept, though. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:22, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Vampires are entirely in folklore already

Vampire also covers modern/popular culture (eg. film, TV, video games, etc.), literary vampires (which differ greatly from those of folklore; a subtopic which has its own article at Vampire literature), and the purported scientific/sociological causes of vampire belief. None of that is folklore, though some of it may be inspired by folklore. – Scyrme (talk) 01:42, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Another option (Solution 3) might be to merge it into Vampire folklore by region if merging into Vampire or using material from Upiór and Vampire to make Vampires in folklore is untenable. Comapring the content, this actually seem less straightforward than merging into Vampire as there's less shared material. Merging with Vampire (Solution 1) has the advantage that it duplicates at lot of the content of Upiór already, such as all the material about etymology. Any material which would clearly lower the quality of Vampire could just be left out of the merge. – Scyrme (talk) 01:51, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

If "the topic of Upiór is vampires in Slavic and Turkic folklore", I suggest moving Upiór to Vampires in Slavic and Turkic folklore. I oppose merging it into Vampire – the overlaps are already handled by links between the articles; the Vampire article is already long enough; as mentioned above, any material merged in from Upiór would need to be at FA standard to avoid undermining Vampire's FA badge; and finally, on less clear ground, I imagine that bringing all the vampire-related material on Wikipedia together into one article woud just create a mess, so using a desire to do that, as part of a merge argument, sets a risky precedent. --Northernhenge (talk) 10:18, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I imagine that bringing all the vampire-related material on Wikipedia together into one article

@Northernhenge: That's not the point of this. I'm not suggesting merging Vampire literature, Vrykolakas, Vourdalak, Vampire folklore by region, etc. into Vampire. Vampire already duplicates much of Upiór, making the appropriate target of associated redirects unclear. Renaming the article wouldn't help with the redirect situation, namely that redirects that are etymologically related, which form a spectrum of variation, and are synonymous take readers to different locations. Where the content would not affect the quality it can be copied over. Where it would affect the quality, it can be omitted (or, perhaps, merged into Vampire folklore by region instead). The redundant content would not need to be copied over.

If we want to be very cautious about the quality, we could implement the merge in a draft page first then move the changes over once there's consensus that the quality has been maintained. – Scyrme (talk) 16:17, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose I do not find there to be a benefit to merge more specific folklore creatures into a generalized article.★Trekker (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

  @StarTrekker: Do you have an alternative suggestion for what to do about the problems I've highlighted? I am open to other solutions (and have already proposed two others, which you've not commented on). – Scyrme (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

  ( peanut gallery comment) Weak oppose Merging the page is deleting the entire content itself. At least that's what I thought. ~2026-21336-90 (talk) 04:11, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

This should be merged with the newly created Way of Horus (Ancient Egypt) given the WP:Overlap. They are the same route and are not large articles. Would be better to have one article covering the complete history of the route. Aszx5000 (talk) 18:19, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Aszx5000, this has gone unopposed and you should be good to carry out a merge. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:11, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

The proposal to merge the articles is not suitable, since they are of a significantly different nature in terms of text, references and, importantly, historical inconsistency. Via Maris is a geographical description of the routes in the period from the era of Alexander the Great ^[1], Way of Horus is part of the history of Egypt from the Old Kingdom of Egypt to the Twenty-sixth Dynasty of Egypt, but especially in the New Kingdom of Egypt It includes the construction of fortresses and the organization of military and personnel security along the northeastern coast of the Sinai Peninsula to the Egyptian border town of Rafah. So merging both of these articles would create a kind of freakish dagwood Zemanst (talk) 09:27, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Zemanst. While their references and eras are undoubtly different, it does seem like that they are pretty much the same route? Imho, it is always better to have one comprehensive article on a subject than to split over two articles. Less confusion, and you can handle the transitions from one era to another without confusing the reader? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:52, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

I prepose an alternative, to revise the article Via Maris, so that it would be respected its historical development and importance in the era of the loss of Egyptian sovereignty after the Persian conquest, the period of the Wars of the Diadochi after the death of Alexander the Great, the rise of the Ptolemies and the events of the Romans. Basically, it is also related to the system of transport routes in the Levant and its historical development. However, I will have to study the relevant sources for this, if possible with an active approach.

However, there are other alternatives available, to combine the articles Via Maris and King's Highway (ancient), which lacks relevant references, and another valuable processing Incense trade route. As you can see, there is a considerable chaotic dispersion in this area of the same subject series.^[2]What is your opinion on this? Zemanst (talk) 13:15, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

I have posted this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ancient Egypt#Merge proposal for Via Maris and Way of Horus to see if we can get any more participation. I do think that it will be less confusing to have one main article rather than create an arbitrary interface, but lets see for a few weeks what the WP AE says? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 14:58, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

It looks like one of the most important sources here is Hoffmeier and Moshier 2013. Unfortunately, the online version of it that is linked here omits all the illustrations except the general map that forms Figure 1 in the paper. But if I am reading the text correctly, the Via Maris was distinct from the Ways of Horus for at least part of the route, at least if one thinks of the Ways of Horus as a specific road (some scholars think the term referred to a region instead of a specific route).

The difference seems to be that a geological shift after 1000 BC made the land near the mouth of the Pelusiac branch of the Nile solid enough that Pelusium could be built on it, and formed the barrier islands that enclose Lake Bardawil. So the Via Maris ran from Pelusium east along these barrier islands, in contrast to the Ways of Horus, which started at Tjaru/Tel Habuwa, well inland from Pelusium, and ran along the mainland coast.

Something I wonder is whether the term "Ways of Horus" was still in use in the Egyptian language at the time the Via Maris was in use, and if so, whether the term was applied to the barrier-island route. If it were, then both these articles could be merged under the Ways of Horus title. But it may be best to keep them separate for now. A. Parrot (talk) 00:38, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

If both the articles Jiayou (cheer) and Add oil are ultimately about the same Chinese phrase, why couldn't they be merged into a single article? ~2026-11785-17 (talk) 05:49, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I propose merging Current asset into Asset. I think the content in Current asset can easily be explained in the context of this article, and merging them would not cause any article-size or weighting problems.

Current asset was also created in 2003 and is still a stub, and the Current asset section in this article already covers much of the same content. Duncnbiscuit (talk) 04:54, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Agree, although alternately it and fixed asset could be merged to create an article explaining that dichotomy, perhaps under the title fixed and current assets or current and fixed assets. But in any case, the main concept is asset and so that should have coverage of these concepts. Arlo James Barnes 22:21, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Duncnbiscuit as above, but I would also be happy with Arlo James Barnes's alternative approach. BobKilcoyne (talk) 06:04, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

I also agree. I would call the new article Asset (financial accounting) Geysirhead (talk) 07:30, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Or better Asset (finance). Actually the Asset (economics) already redirected to that article. Geysirhead (talk) 07:42, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

I would like to discuss if it would be beneficial to merge AK-257 into AZP S-60. I have some reasons for suggesting so and a few concerns as well.

On pages such as S-300 missile system or S-125 Neva/Pechora, naval variants of the original system are explained in that article, and not separately, and so this seems it would be inconsistent to have a separate article for the naval variant (AK-725*) of the original (S-60). I also have not seen separate articles for variants unless it is something notably different, and I do not believe that is the case here. *Also, the talk page for AK-257 has an entry from many years ago about the name, and from my brief searching it seems AK-257 is not a proper designation. I had thought about trying to fix it over there but I figure perhaps this issue could be solved in the process of merging, should that ever happen.

My concern for this is that in this page for the S-60, as I have seen with plenty of other articles, different variants are presented in list form, and not individual subsections like the two examples I cited prior. And so perhaps the need for a significant rewrite to include all the information from the merged article would be a reason not to merge. animeweebman ^^ (talk) 16:19, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

• Biohydrometallurgy, bioleaching, and biomining are similar topics: use of microbes to help liberate metals from ores. "Biomining" is kind of a misnomer because the microbes do no mining, they participate is the solubilization or liberation of valued metals. Bioleaching and biomining achieve this goal by solubilizing. The distinction is subtle. Solubilizing ions from ores is the core of conventional hydrometallurgy: (quoting from Wikipedia) "Hydrometallurgy uses solutions to recover metals from ores".
• Biohydrometallurgy, bioleaching, and biomining were written as homework assignments for undergraduate students.
• Biohydrometallurgy, bioleaching and biomining are niche (read: rarely economical because microbes nibble away at rocks slowly, and time is money) topics with a thin supporting literature. These topics are somewhat aspirational and lean into save-the-planet concepts.
• Wikipedia has few or no active editors in this theme, so it is difficult to maintain three flimsy topics vs one less flimsy one. The combined article would be good for readers to appreciate these fields. Even biohydrometallurgy is an esoteric concept.

--Smokefoot (talk) 20:54, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Biomagnification is the target. Bioaccumulation and Bioconcentration are closely related topics. The proposal aims to create one pretty good article that is more easily curated (monitored, tended to, etc) instead of three not so great articles. All comments welcome.

--Smokefoot (talk) 12:50, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose: Although related, these are different concepts. The articles would merit some work, but merging wouldn't be an improvement in any sense.
  In any case, biomagnification would be a really bad choice as a target, because it is too specific (increase in concentration across trophic levels in a food chain). Bioaccumulation is the broadest of the three terms, while bioconcentration would also be too specific (uptake from water). --Leyo 16:02, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose: There is little overlap, so I don't see how this would help maintenance as proposed. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:43, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

This concept overlap and Blanchard's transsexualism typology already describes many or all concepts formally coined by Blanchard. For instance, HsTs was merged already, and other articles as well. This concept also conflates fetishes and paraphilias as if they were all adjacent to objectophilia.

Last discussion wasn't specific about this article. Abesca (talk) 00:23, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. Blanchards typology aside, ETLE is still a hypothesis that could explain things like auto-pedophilia. Merging doesn't seem sensible. Zenomonoz (talk) 00:55, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

  Autopedophilia is about to be deleted anyways. Abesca (talk) 01:16, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, and it would make sense to redirect it here. Merging all ETLE subtypes into transsexualism typology is illogical. Zenomonoz (talk) 21:24, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, WikiProject Psychology, WikiProject Gender studies, WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, and WikiProject Medicine/Psychiatry task force have been notified of this discussion. Abesca (talk) 05:28, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I think Chernobyl disaster § Long-term effects should be merged into § Long-term health effects and in particular Chernobyl disaster § Human impact into § Human health effects studies. They cover the same topic and are therefore duplicates. This page is better suited to explain the long term effects. FaviFake (talk) 19:19, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I think Chernobyl disaster § Long-term effects should be merged into § Long-term health effects and in particular Chernobyl disaster § Human impact into § Human health effects studies. They cover the same topic and are therefore duplicates. This page is better suited to explain the long term effects. FaviFake (talk) 19:19, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I believe this article has major overlaps with Congruence lattice problem. Maybe one should consider merging the two articles together. Saroad (talk) 19:04, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I propose merging Coinduction into Corecursion, further in a way that removes almost all content from Coinduction. I have recently worked significantly on the latter page (rewriting almost all its contents), and added a section that explains what coinduction is. My reasons for merging are as follows:

1. The explanation of coinduction in that page is (in my opinion) not great and has attracted numerous complaints on its talk page over the years. Of course, I think the explanation I wrote in Corecursion is better, not least because it at least explains what coinduction is.
2. Coinduction is impossible to understand without first understanding corecursion, and furthermore corecursion is very difficult to reason about without using coinduction. These two concepts are very very intimiately linked and I’m not sure why it needs two pages (after all, structural induction and structural recursion don’t have two separate pages).

The proposal would end up removing all content on the Coinduction page apart from the paragraph about its use in logic programming, and some references from the further reading section. The rest of the information on the page is either about Pierce’s explanation, which many find confusing, or is duplicated by Corecursion already. Kestrer (talk) 07:27, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Now that we have split all rolling stock articles into their own, individual ones, this article will be massively cut. Now, since this article will no longer contain as much information, I propose a merge to Docklands Light Railway#Rolling stock. This will make the article consistent with articles like London Overground#Rolling stock, Elizabeth line#Rolling stock, and Chiltern Railways#Rolling stock.

I have already re-ordered the rolling stock section of Docklands Light Railway to be on its own, with a list of current, former, future trains. All that is missing is adding information about DLR maintenance vehicles (non-passenger rolling stock), problems with wheel geometry, and an overview and history. Fortek67 (talk) 20:37, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

• Support, as I've explained previously I think merging this with the section in the DLR article is the natural next step after creating the individual articles for each rolling stock. Pretzel Quetzal (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
• Support this article is now redundant following the creation of individual articles. Turini2 (talk) 22:05, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose This article can provide a general overview and the information is well referenced. It can function as a separate list article. It is not a train company as the other examples given. If you want an example of another system with its own article, see London Underground rolling stock. Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 14:25, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

  So perhaps cut down to a list like this? List of Singapore MRT and LRT rolling stock Turini2 (talk) 14:35, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

  I have already seen examples of such pages including London Underground rolling stock. I disagree with what you said because the DLR has had four generations of rolling stock, which is much more less than what the London Underground has used. In my opinion, they have a lot less history and significance compared to London Underground rolling stock. LU has had steam trains, carriages pulled by electric locomotives, and much more. If the DLR was a network of separate lines (like the London Overground), then I believe it would deserve its own rolling stock page, but even London Overground doesn't have its own. And eventually, the whole of the DLR stock will be replaced by the B23 stock. LU mostly has has different trains across different lines.

  And with cutting down the article to a list what @Turini2 said, this list would be very short. See the list I made Docklands Light Railway#Rolling stock. Fortek67 (talk) 19:53, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

• Support (or better, Redirect) per Turini2. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 16:36, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

  A redirect will be created after the merge. Is that what you mean? Fortek67 (talk) 21:19, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

So I have cut down to a list article - do we want to go further than this and just have a redirect? I would be supportive of a redirect, but you'd lose the maintenance vehicles (I don't think they should be in the main DLR article, perhaps in the Beckton/Poplar depot article). Turini2 (talk) 09:06, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

We can include the maintenance vehicles inside the DLR article, under the Depots and maintenance section or the rolling stock one. After that, this article can become just a redirect. Fortek67 (talk) 09:11, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

I have added the final section. We can now turn this page into a redirect. Fortek67 (talk) 10:10, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Support and Redirect, I think any content that could be in this article is succinct enough to be in the main DLR article, especially after splitting the individual rolling stock pages. Kreuner (talk) 09:04, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

should we include a section for the propulsion of the trains? eg. Chopper, IGBT-VVVF, GTO-VVVF... A1B1C301 (talk) 13:53, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

@A1B1C301 If you can find information with citations, please include it in the relevant article (e.g. Docklands Light Railway B07 Stock) rather than here. Turini2 (talk) 14:53, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

I propose merging the articles seven-segment display, eight-segment display, nine-segment display, fourteen-segment display, and sixteen-segment display into a single article to be located at segment display or segmented display (both of which currently redirect to this article, Display device). All are different configurations of the same technology (which is described in the most detail in the seven-segment display article); the only difference is the visual layout of the segments themselves. The current articles (with some modifications) could and should just be sections in one article on the technology as a whole. -Literally Satan (talk) 18:26, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Go for it! Only on Wikipedia does every size of stove bolt get its own article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea but it is probably ok to call the article "seven-segment display" due to that being a the best-known name for this type of display. Spitzak (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

NO - stop this sillyness! Come back to considering this right after you successfully merge all iPhone articles into one article. iPhones are all are different configurations of the same technology... why does every size of stove bolt get its own article. Well heck, why don't you just delete all iPhone articles because Smartphone should be good enough. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 02:31, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't think that's a good analogy. Each new version of a iPhone (or whatever else) has new features and often very significant changes from previous editions, whereas the only thing that is different between the different segmented displays is the number of segments. A better analogy would be if the article on split-flap displays were split into one article on displays with each individual letter having its own flap, and a second article on displays with each word having its own flap. It's the same concept. There simply isn't enough of a difference to justify separate articles for every possible arrangement. -Literally Satan (talk) 07:16, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Migrating and stripping down the useful Seven-segment display article into a new article doesn't make sense, nor does it sound very useful either. Too many times I've seen useful articles turn into useless cr#p after they are merged, and the number one reason I'm against this. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 21:51, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

I still feel this is a pretty good idea, but again the base article should be seven segment display since that is the best-known term. It also should be restricted to the set that kind of look like a seven-segment display and can display an '8' (ie displays that show arrows or symbols are excluded). The count of segments is not really that important, in many cases the device has a decimal point and thus 8 seqments but is still called a "seven segment display". In addition all the enhancements to display stuff other than digits is pretty much obsolete as soon as bitmap displays because possible and affordable. In addition the set of patterns is not 1:1 mapping from a count of segments, see the "8 segment display" page which shows a number of patterns and then only talks about a Sharp display that does not match the others at all. Spitzak (talk) 18:08, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree. It may arguably be the "best known" but it's inaccurate, as it only refers to one possible configuration. Honestly I don't think it's even the best known term; rather, the seven-segment display is the most common form of this display type. (I doubt most people off the street could even name it without looking it up.) We don't have Netherlands redirect to Holland; even though the latter is a common name for the country, it's inaccurate so we don't use it as the title of the page. -Literally Satan (talk) 07:56, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Support but leave the title as seven segment display and add the other numbers as a "Variations" section or something similar. FMRadio_{(talk | edits | she/her)} 19:06, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Support, segmented displays are all mostly the same, and all none-seven segment display articles are short enough to be stub-adjacent. Tryoxiss (talk) 18:08, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

I propose merging Harold Washington Party into Timothy C. Evans. It was a minor third party that existed for a single election for Evans' mayoral candidacy, it should be a section in his article, instead of a standalone one. Scuba 03:54, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Unless Main Street Sports Group does some other notable business activity after FanDuel Sports Network folds later this year, I do not see justifications for keeping separate articles in the long run. All Main Street (formerly Diamond) really did was just be a holding company for the network, and the article currently just seems like a detailed history fork of the network with a bunch of proselines and tables. The fact that it also held minority ownership in the YES Network can still be listed in a single line in a section (as it does now), and does not really need a whole separate article either. Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I support the merge.—Bde1982 (talk) 15:53, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

• Support Effectively a company that was a 'one-year wonder' whose history is easily merged into the main article. Nathannah • 📮 05:30, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

I support this as well. Definitely could be put into its own spot. Boots the Blackfoot Ferret 19:20, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

It would make sense to merge Private server to Game server. The former article is very brief, and the information it contains is mostly covered in this article. P.landry1 (talk) 21:17, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

After the article got recreated yet again (And the AfD closed as no consensus, somehow, despite no one voting hard keep) we currently have the Bill Cipher stub up again. It was previously merged as shown in the previous talk page discussion per consensus, and the current stub has so little that very little needs to be merged over that wasn't already last time. This stub should be merged over, especially in light of the fact we have no new sources that would warrant an overturning of the prior consensus. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:56, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Pinging @Daranios @Laterthanyouthink @Rtkat3 who were involved in the AfD. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:59, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Taking the old consensus into account, I support a merge of what little there is in addition to the target at this time, but not simply a redirect. Daranios (talk) 07:10, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

@Daranios I think Bill should have his own page. Honda Civic (UK 9th gen, 2013) (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

@Honda Civic (UK 9th gen, 2013): The problem I see is that currently the suggested redirect target List of Gravity Falls characters#Bill Cypher has more content than the article here, so guiding readers here in stead of there is a disservice at this time. And as this is a WP:VOLUNTEER project, we don't know if or when things here well be better than there - except if you would plan to significantly expand the article yourself in the near future. So if that's the case I would change my stance. Otherwise I would stay by my merge opinion, and ideally someone interested would work on this in draft space. And when the content there exceeds that in List of Gravity Falls characters, this can be restored as a stand-alone article. Daranios (talk) 11:05, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

I've rethought this: Ideally editors seeing more on the subject then present in List of Gravity Falls characters will expand the section there until the point comes that WP:SPLITTING out as a separate article is warranted. That way, the question of notability would be automatically solved, too. Daranios (talk) 16:05, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Agree with this logic. It is pointless having an article that contains less info than a section. Either expand the article and reduce the size of the section, or convert it to a redirect until such time as someone creates an article that justifies its existence (and satisfies notability). Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:13, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

"Hotelbeds" still exists as a brand, but the company itself has been renamed to "HBX Group". This page doesn't reflect that, and HBX Group has been created as a separate, orphaned, article.

I think "HBX Group" is the appropriate name for an article on the current company, and "Hotelbeds" can be mentioned as a major brand, and a former name of the company. - IMSoP (talk) 14:52, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I should probably also disclose a Conflict of Interest here: I am a current employee of HBX Group, part of an acquired business which has never been under the "Hotelbeds" brand. - IMSoP (talk) 12:41, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

This article refers several tag teams that use the name Heavenly Bodies with the exception of the original and I don't see what makes that one any less unrelated than the post-Prichard incarnations. Charles Essie (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

My initial thought was "Of course not"...until I saw the 1990s article, which seems to take on too much (and spans 1985-2016, so the name doesn't fit). I think the 1960s (Greene/Greene) and the Prichard/Del Ray version might have enough for stand-alone articles, but maybe this topic would be best covered by something in the style of the Blond Bombers article, with these two included but only in summary form with links to stand-alone articles? GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:24, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't know. Both articles are fairly small and the one for the original team has only one source. Do they really have enough notability (by Wikipedia standards, not wrestling standards) for separate articles? Charles Essie (talk) 15:35, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Maybe not for the 1960s one. I think the Prichard/Del Ray pairing could be expanded with more coverage of their WWF run, though. They were around the same as Well Dunn and higher on the card, with matches on multiple pay-per-views. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:40, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

That doesn't sound like enough to me to warrant a separate article. That pairing only lasted two years and it wasn't removed enough from the Prichard/Lane team to qualify as a separate tag team. Charles Essie (talk) 22:57, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

{{Merge|History of China–India relations | date = March 2026 }}

ScrubbedSoap (talk) 12:25, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

@ScrubbedSoap: Could you add a reason for the merge here? (see WP:MERGEPROP) Also not that merge templates go on the article page (I've added it), and should be tagged on both of the involved pages (I've added it on the other one too). Klbrain (talk) 18:10, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

I propose merging Jacksonville Expressway Authority into this article, as its standalone article is rather short, and with its current level of detail would be more appropriately discussed as a part of the history of JTA in the JTA's article. 42-BRT (talk) 04:09, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Support - As is that article is just few lines and a list and could always be spun back out again later if needed (unlikely). Packerfan386beer here 14:31, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Support - Agree with User:Packerfan386 for the same reasons. DMarkFL (talk) 12:27, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

I propose to merge List of defunct airlines of Venezuela here. Both lists are short, defunct one is extremely poorly sourced. This article contains an "Active" header, but no "Defunct" counterpart. Combining them will make maintenance easier, layout more logical, sourcing better (as review-type sources, like Iriarte 1971, deal with both active and defunct airlines). Викидим (talk) 20:38, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I do respect your opinion but I do feel like there is too many defunct airlines in Venezuela for it to be one page as the defunct airlines one has 42 items. Youravreageavaitor (talk) 01:06, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Support, these are both short lists and all of the information can be adequately covered in one place. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:00, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I propose merging Llywelyn (name) into Llywelyn. The etymology and history sections in Llywelyn (name) can be easily described in here without any problems. I think this page could use a similar structure as Charles, for example. GilaMonster536 (talk) 02:40, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

The company has rebranded/renamed to simply Logos again, so should this article be merged into the main software page? Gravada (talk) 15:28, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

The Refinitiv brand only existed from 2018 to 2023, the acquisition by LSEG was announced in 2019, completed in 2021, and the branding was retired by 2023. There is overlap to the point that the first sentence of the Refinitiv article is "LSEG Data & Analytics, formerly Refinitiv…"

I propose moving the information about the acquisition and some basic information from this article into a new "Acquisition of Refinitiv" section on the LSEG article and deleting the rest to avoid WP:UNDUE.

I am paid by LSEG to make suggestions on Wikipedia, and have a conflict of interest, and I am happy to make the content moves necessary if I get the go-ahead with no objections, but will otherwise not make direct content changes. Adjjure (talk) 11:19, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• Support. The brand was very short-lived. Dormskirk (talk) 09:28, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Hyju has tagged Malba Tahan to indicate there's an active merge proposal, but I was unable to find one so I'm opening it here. I'm personally inclined to support such a merge. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:28, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

We have several articles on very similar topics. They are often written by undergraduate students as required by their (nonparticipating) teachers. These articles are not very strong and their subjects overlap heavily. So the proposal is to convert 3-4 articles into 1 maybe 2 stronger articles that better serve our readership. Even the definition and utility of the term "heavy metal" is dubious or at least debated as discussed at length in that article. Here are the articles up for merging:

• Toxic heavy metal 43000 bytes
• Metal toxicity 29000 bytes
• Heavy metals#Toxicity, perhaps 10,000 bytes

*Heavy metal detoxification

• Heavy metal toxicity redirects to Toxic heavy metal

Also very relevant, Wikipedia has articles on each metal within the Project:Elements. These articles are very, very good and each discusses toxicity.

--Smokefoot (talk) 12:39, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

• Support we have massive redundancy here and in related articles on different categories of elements.Ldm1954 (talk) 12:49, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

The proposal omits the key aspect placed in the article: the proposed merge target is Heavy metal#Toxicity.

• Heavy metal detoxification Support easy win, maybe one or two sources.
• Metal toxicity Partial some of this content should be moved to individual elements.
• Toxic heavy metal I think we should consider moving this to Heavy metal toxicity and making Heavy metal#Toxicity a summary. A full merge will unbalance Heavy metal. I think among modern sources the topic "heavy metal toxicity" is notable, possibly more so than "heavy metal"-minus-toxicity. The noun should be "toxicity" because that is the focus of the sources.

Heavy metal + Heavy metal toxicity would meet your 2 article goal. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal by Johnjbarton. --Leyo 16:50, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

OK, getting ready to start. Notice that Heavy metal toxicity redirects to Toxic heavy metal. So, I will start with the easy one Heavy metal detoxification will redirect to Toxic heavy metal.--Smokefoot (talk) 18:55, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Merge with Finchley Central (game)? Seems like they're pretty much the same game and Finchley was the basis for Mornington. There are very few individual sources on Finchley Central and I think it could probably be relegated to a section on this article. WikiMacaroons^Cinnamon? 00:21, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Support – be bold and do it! JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 10:30, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose since Finchley Central is the original game (albeit lesser known). Both are notable, so it's better to leave both articles be. StAnselm (talk) 16:39, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Mixed-blood is just a synonym; says nothing different. --Altenmann >talk 01:46, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

• Support. The article is poorly cited and the term is often considered outdated and pejorative. Yuchitown (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Half-breed is just a synonym; says nothing different. --Altenmann >talk 01:46, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

• Support. This article is better cited but is definitely an outdated and pejorative term. Yuchitown (talk) 16:28, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello. I believe merging the content of Na'vi grammar into this article, and then moving this article to a new name, such as Na'vi grammar and language makes more sense. I don't believe Na'vi grammar alone is notable, as it relies heavily on primary sources from its creator. This article has WP:OR issues, so a general clean-up is in order as well. This is a WP:PAM and WP:RM proposal in one.

Pinging main contributors of both articles, which is permitted under WP:M1: @GhunwI', @Kwamikagami, @Thumperward.

I will apply the relevant banners to each article after posting this. Thanks! 11WB (talk) 00:44, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

No need for a new article name. If it's merged, it should just be merged into this article. — kwami (talk) 02:10, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Kwamikagami in keeping the current article name, for consistency. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 17:07, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Also, this article is what remained after moving the bulk of the text to Wikibooks. If someone started a new grammar article, I'm not sure that it would be notable enough to keep, per the earlier consensus to remove such details. — kwami (talk) 00:28, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Support merge with Naʼvi language as the target article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:03, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I propose merging SportsChannel Philadelphia into NBC Sports Philadelphia. The latter is simply a rebrand of the former, and both serve the exact same purpose - namely, broadcasting Philly sports. PRISM (TV channel) can probably stay as-is, as it broadcast movies in addition to Philly sports. JHD0919 (talk) 21:50, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• Support - For comparison, the pages for almost all other cities that had their own SportsChannel link to the present-day network, similar to what JHD0919 is proposing. Red0ctober22 (talk) 22:42, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose The references in this period are very plain about these not being the same channel. Basically, Comcast paid Rainbow to shut down PRISM and SC Philly. This is different from some of the other NBC Sports RSNs.^[1] Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 08:06, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose: Unlike the rest of the SportsChannel networks that changed hands and rebranded but still had some continuity on the local side, this was not a simple sale and rebrand. It does appear that in Philadelphia, SportsChannel outright closed to make room for a new channel that just happened to be centered around essentially the same core programming (Philly sports) as before, but with completely new business and behind-the-scenes operations. (This is most evident in that SportsChannel Philadelphia was carried on DirecTV–and that ended because DirecTV was reportedly not even offered Comcast SportsNet, which again was referred to explicitly as a "new channel" and not a rebrand of the old one.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:49, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

I would like to propose merging Packard Bell Corporation into Packard Bell, since, according to what Packard Bell itself has stated, it is still the same company founded in 1926. Paranoid25 (talk) 09:05, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to me that the company's promotional material is more reliable than the history of the two companies documented by the existing sources in the articles, which clearly state otherwise. Elestrophe (talk) 05:01, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to me that there are any sources on the page that clearly indicate that Packard Bell Corporation is different from Packard Bell, but maybe I'm wrong and you can point them out to me. Paranoid25 (talk) 08:48, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

See my source linked below. DigitalIceAge (talk) 03:15, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose The Packard Bell active from 1926–1968 and the current Packard Bell brand have nothing to do with each other beyond the name, according to the reliable sources cited in Packard Bell. They have no DNA in common. By Alagem's own admission, he bought out the trademark because it still had brand recognition among Silent Generation people in the mid-1980s who remember their old radios. DigitalIceAge (talk) 03:15, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose Both companies have their independent coverage, and should remain separate. ~2026-20962-73 (talk) 10:35, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. The trademark history seems to show different corporate owners WhaleFarm (talk) 20:26, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I propose merging List of people from Paignton into Paignton. List of people from Paignton is currently unsourced and it is not clear that it meets WP:NLIST. Mariamnei (talk) 14:24, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose: As I said at User_talk:Ianmacm#Paignton, this is largely a list of people born in Paignton but do not have strong links to the town, creating problems with WP:TRIVIA. It is also largely unsourced, for example Lauren Cuthbertson doesn't even say that she was born in Paignton, let alone source it. This type of list should be properly sourced before adding it. ArbieP seems to enjoy adding this type of random list to articles, but without bothering to provide sources that meet WP:V. I would remove it from this article if it was simply a heap of unsourced material.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:43, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

  Support. I've now added (14) refs for the list. I hope you can both now accept the list (back) in the main article. ArbieP (talk) 16:34, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

I haven't had time to go through all of this yet, but the Sara Craven source does not mention Paignton at all. Likewise, the Lauren Cuthbertson source does not mention Paignton by name. Also, there are still concerns about WP:NLIST notability, because the sourcing (such as it is), does not discuss why the people are notably linked to Paignton. As NLIST says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources.", eg List of Nobel laureates easily satisfies this guideline. It is ok to have this type of material in a Category if it is reliably sourced, but Wikipedia articles are written in prose and do not include randomly compiled lists just for the sake of it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:41, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Let's have a look at the sourcing for this list:

• Patrick Brind: unsourced at his article
• John Frederick Perkins: unsourced at his article
• Frank Grenier: unsourced at his article
• Sara Craven: unsourced at her article
• John Gosling (The Kinks musician): this is sourced at his article
• Adrian Sanders: unsourced at his article
• Lauren Cuthbertson: unsourced at her article
• George Stabb: unsourced at his article
• Roy Kerslake: unsourced at his article
• Sue Barker: the sourcing at her article describes her as "a girl from Torquay" although she did go to school in Paignton
• Mark Loram: unsourced at his article
• Chris Read: unsourced at his article
• Steve Tully: unsourced at his article
• Matthew Hockley: unsourced at his article, although Soccerbase says that he was born in Paignton.
• Martin Horsell: unsourced at his article
• Connor Riley-Lowe: unsourced at his article, Soccerbase says that he was born in England

It is lazy to compile this type of list without making any effort to source it first. Just because another Wikipedia article says "X was born in Paignton" without sourcing it does not make it true.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:15, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

I propose merging Neferkare (Tanis) into Pami II. it seem most likely that they are the same person with there article mistakenly created twice given that both ruled Tanis at around the same time and Neferkare was the throne name of Pami II. PharaohCrab speak𓀁 works𓀨 14:09, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I recently moved Pandora (Avatar) to mainspace, and believe that article serves as a better location for the contents of this article, as the primary and really only location within Avatar. This article is significantly lacking in sources and has MOS:IN-U issues. Whilst I did create the Pandora article, if Wikipedia consensus means an edit history merge is necessary, then I am okay with that as well.

Courtesy pings, which are permitted under WP:M1, to this articles main contributors. @Jontesta and @Erik. 11WB (talk) 09:21, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: Pandora (Avatar) is not yet fully complete. I have several sections I am still working on in userspace, such as for reception (in much greater detail than what is currently present in this article).

11WB (talk) 09:25, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I support merging (or just redirecting) Fictional universe of Avatar, which I agree has too much in-universe content, to Pandora (Avatar), which is more appropriately fleshed out per WP:WAF. This article can be linked to on Pandora's talk page, if anything needs revisiting. The Pandora article looks good, and I look forward to seeing more details added. Having written up RDA (Avatar), I find it very likely that these books have other chapters more focused on Pandora. I recommend using WP:LIBRARY if you haven't already to try to get articles (or even book chapters) that way. Erik (talk | contrib) 16:03, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for this! Do you think a WP:HISTMERGE is necessary here? 11WB (talk) 16:28, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

No, I don't think it is. While there is some scoe overlap, there is not much content overlap, and what content is here is not worth keeping within the page history of Pandora (Avatar). It is good enough to just link to it to on the talk page after a merge/redirect. Erik (talk | contrib) 16:33, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Forget to mention this, but you may wish to bold your support for the benefit of the closer. 11WB (talk) 17:17, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

• Support Pandora is where most of the series takes place, so it's too much of an overlap. The Pandora article is much more detailed and well sourced. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:16, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that the content of New Zealand House of Representatives be merged into New Zealand Parliament. It's unusual for unicameral parliaments to have one page for the chamber and a separate one for the Parliament (i.e. Folketing, Althing, Seimas, Saeima, etc.), and I think it's redundant for both to still exist. The infoboxes are practically identical and there is some overlapping content as well. A lot of the content on each page that isn't duplicated across both articles is actually relevant to both articles, such as the HoR page talking about the eligibility criteria to be an MP or the Parliament page's #Term of Parliament section. I don't see any reason why combining the content of the two pages would be an issue, and there are multiple issues with the current situation. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 01:17, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose - as the article notes, parliament is not just the HoR, and it was not always unicameral. Seperate articles allow material to be properly seperated, and some of it would simply be out of place on the HoR article.--IdiotSavant (talk) 01:35, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, the Hellenic Parliament, the Folketing, and many more were also previously bicameral, but only one article exists in these instances, because the former lower house more or less became the sole chamber. Also, the article itself points out that "parliament" in New Zealand is often used to refer to solely the HoR (a potential argument that "Parliament" is the WP:COMMONNAME), and the only meaningful difference between the Parliament of New Zealand and the New Zealand House of Representatives is that the former also technically includes the monarch, but it also notes that the monarch doesn't participate in the legislative process in any way except for signing a bill into law, which makes the distinction very slight, and I don't see a reason why that couldn't theoretically be included on the HoR's page. Another point I've noticed is that both articles include a link to the same website as the "official website" for the body (parliament.nz). – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 01:54, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Are you two discussing a merger to New Zealand Parliament or a merger to New Zealand House of Representatives? Nurg (talk) 08:23, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

The suggestion was to merge into New Zealand Parliament, but i'm open to going either way, I just figured that NZP is a semanticly broader article name, so it makes more sense to merge the content into there. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 08:26, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Support - If the content is merged into the New Zealand Parliament page, I am fully on board with that. For all intents and purposes, the Parliament solely refers to the House, and there is little reason to separate the content to a page for a unicameral chamber that used to not be analogous for the Parliament as a whole. The Legislative Council has its own page, which should be more than enough to document the existence of this formerly bicameral legislature which stopped being so almost a whole lifetime ago. Vereted (talk) 23:44, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Support, as nominator, as Vereted said, there's already a page for the Legislative Council of New Zealand, and common usage of the term "New Zealand Parliament" refers to the House alone, not the combined entity of the unicameral chamber and the monarch. I think it's pretty clear this falls under either WP:DUPLICATE or WP:OVERLAP, as the scope of the two articles is almost identical, I don't understand the argument that because the chamber was previously bicameral that a separate article for the now-unicameral chamber should remain. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 11:43, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. GlowstoneUnknown is right about some content being duplicated in both articles and that this is problematic. This is especially evident with NZHR content in the infobox for New Zealand Parliament. Work needs to be done on this aspect. However, I don't accept the argument that because the parliament is currently unicameral the articles should be merged. It has been unicameral for 75 years and was bicameral for about 96 years. To merge on the basis of its current status seems like a type of recentism to me. Besides, reintroducing a 2nd house is a current topic of discussion, e.g. , . The scope of the two articles is not identical and they are not duplicates. They do have overlap, but there is a degree of overlap in many cases of a higher-level topic and a subsidiary topic. It is true that "Parliament" is used with several different meanings – these include the debating chamber, and the whole Parliament House – but I don't see that as a reason to necessarily merge. The articles are about constitutional matters, and I feel that the constitutional distinction is important enough for there to be two articles, regardless of (or as a corrective to) the ambiguity that often occurs in the popular press. I am open to changing my mind, but I am not persuaded by the arguments presented so far. Nurg (talk) 11:24, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose per Nurg. There's also enough content to keep them both separate. Furthermore, more tangentially, while Parliament is unicameral, Parliament does not solely comprise of the House of Representatives. It comprises of the House of Representatives and the Governor-General in Parliament. Carolina2k22 • (talk) 03:42, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

• Support There is substantial overlap between the articles and readers would be best served by a single article that covers everything. Currently a reader would have to read both pages with their duplication and divergence to actually understand the Parliament and House despite them being effectively identical topics; neither page can really stand on its own and they do not work as main/sub or superior/inferior articles to each other. A single article would still be able to describe the historical and constitutional aspects with the appropriate context without splitting up the content where some parts are redundant and some are different yet still relevant to both. Reywas92^Talk 17:44, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

  Nobody here disagrees that there is too much overlap. That needs to be tidied up. You seem to imply that it won’t be possible to remove the overlap and I wonder how you came to that conclusion? Schwede66 18:09, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

  • • I'm not sure what you mean. Sure the overlap could be removed so the articles have entirely different content, but what would be the point of that? Why require readers to read both pages to understand the topic? The topics themselves intrinsically overlap, so that would just result in two incomplete pages. Reywas92^Talk 04:27, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

      Two topics, hence we have two articles. That's standard, isn't it? Schwede66 09:02, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

I propose merging the content of PE into Pe. I don't see much of a reason for these two DAB pages to be split. GilaMonster536 (talk) 04:10, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

I propose redirecting penne alla vodka to this page, as the former is now completely redundant. That article was always 90% about the sauce anyway, and it actually previously had more information on vodka sauce than the vodka sauce article itself, but that's been remedied. There is really very little to say about penne alla vodka other than "penne is the most common pasta for vodka sauce." Anything else can be added to the penne alla vodka section of this article if need be. Having two articles that say the same thing is pointless, and it makes sense for the information on the sauce (like I said, the penne alla vodka article has always been about the sauce itself) to be in the sauce's article. There is no precedent I can see for separate articles. Most other sauce and pasta combinations I found were redirects (see list of pasta dishes) mostly to the sauce, sometimes to the pasta, though frequently in the case of spaghetti dishes there is an article on the combination, but in such instances the sauce redirects to that article; there are not two separate redundant articles, as is currently the case here. All relevant information about the sauce that was in the other article has already been transferred here, where it belongs. This is really just a proposal for a redirect.

If there is a strong preference for vodka sauce to redirect to penne alla vodka, as is done with articles like puttanesca and Spaghetti alla puttanesca, then I guess that could be an option, as long as we eliminate redundant articles, but this one just makes more sense. -R. fiend (talk) 14:53, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

• merge and redirect for reasons I stated above. -R. fiend (talk) 14:53, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

R. Fiend has twice restored the prematurely merged content to vodka sauce arguing that Adding relevant information to an article does not require a vote. But merging all of the information verbatim from one article into the other creates a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. This merge proposal is to decide, across both articles, whether or not we're going to do that. Belbury (talk) 09:07, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

• Merge vodka sauce into penne alla vodka. The latter was the original article, it contains more reliably-sauced material, and a converse move would be WP:UNDUE. Most of this (the sauce) article is already covered in the penne article, and what isn't can be fitted into a small "Other uses" section or para—although most of that seems to be trivia such as using action man bowtie pasta or adding chili: WP:NOSHITSHERLOCK applies  :) —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:41, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
  • I'm curious as to why you think the sauce should be the redirect, when it's the sauce that is really the subject of the penne alla vodka article. Penne is hardly mentioned in it at all. The fact that the article came first is irrelevant, and the vodka sauce article is a more complete article that has all the information and sources of the penne article (or it would, if it didn't keep getting reverted for no reason). The sauce can be used on any type of pasta, is available in jars all over the world without any connection to penne. It would be like making carbonara a redirect to linguine carbonara. The sauce is the subject, and logically should be the title. -R. fiend (talk) 15:00, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately we must follow what reliable sauces not what our feelings tell us is irrelevant. Also please desist from swearing in edit summaries, I thank you. —Fortuna, imperatrix 15:31, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note I've protected this and the other article for a week from what appears to be a candidate for the lamest edit war. Valereee (talk) 15:15, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
• Merge vodka sauce into penne alla vodka, per Fortuna, the sauce article is mostly written in terms of the penne dish. The chili variant may be a significant spinoff (the NJ article says we’re not talking about the of 1960s pink sauce classic, penne alla vodka. Spicy vodka is a much newer iteration [...] Unlike classic vodka sauce, spicy vodka uses less heavy cream, relying on onion, garlic, tomato paste, butter and pasta water), but is still being presented in relation to penne alla vodka. It could get a subsection if there's more to be written about it. Belbury (talk) 20:16, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

In the last discussion about trying to delete Pantomath 20 years ago, some editors wanted to merge. That article's talk page also has an informal proposal from 2 years ago. I think it's worth trying formally - because "Pantomath" seems like a sort of resurrected ancient Greek term that certain writers have been trying to wedge in as a neologism. (^{Very opinionated:} they're trying to sound smart OR they think "lover of knowledge" doesn't accurately describe the subject's want/desire of knowledge strongly enough.) ^{Slightly less opinionated:} It has extremely light use in the English language and I don't think we should have articles about every made-up/zombie word/calque that makes it into a publication.

I propose merging Pantomath into Philomath. I think the content in Pantomath can easily be explained in the context of this article, and merging them would not cause any article-size or weighting problems. 🔥Komonzia (message) 17:05, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Komonzia, Support per nom. — Reywas92^Talk 17:32, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Since this article was (bizarrely) changed from being about the conflict as a whole to being about a "prelude" to the conflict, I'm not really sure what the point is in this existing as a standalone article any more. It seems like it's largely original research/synthesis of a lot of different topics, and that the information covered would best fit in 2026 Iran conflict, 2025–2026 Iran–United States negotiations, and 2026 United States military buildup in the Middle East. There are no sources discussing a "prelude" as a distinct topic. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 17:16, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

There's also discussion about reworking the background section in the main article. If it's merged there, it'll probably end up removed anyway. The final approach is likely going to be a few paragraphs of background total with links to other articles like the ones you linked. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:59, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Comment It was never about the war, it was about the about the wider conflict (negotiations & military buildup) Braganza (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Prelude to the Twelve-Day War was originally an article named Background to the Iran-Israel war, . When the article about the strikes (2026 Israeli-United States strikes on Iran) was renamed to 2026 Iran conflict, #Requested move 28 February 2026 noticed the crisis article should coexist as a subtopic instead (when it was the broad article). It may require WP:HISTMERGE now. It was closed in Talk:Twelve-Day War § Merge proposal as merge. Abesca (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I would oppose and rather suggest that we merge 2026 United States military buildup in the Middle East into this article. This would follow the path of Prelude to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 09:07, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

While every merge should be handled on a case-by-case basis, note that Prelude to the Twelve-Day War, the equivalent article for the previous conflict, has reached consensus to merge for similar reasons. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:49, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Weak oppose – while the reasons given for the merge do seem to be valid reasons to me; this is still going to be an oppose for one reason. The main article is already tagged as being too large (over 15,000 words). Therefore, it's still an oppose, even though a weak one. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 00:38, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Merging with the main article would only make it more difficult to navigate, and in my opinion would be counterproductive. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 00:40, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. The merged article is already impossibly long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lfstevens (talk • contribs) 17:35, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Recently created CE design category appears to be redundant with this page. Merge content here. Gjs238 (talk) 03:23, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

I propose merging William Rozier into Willy Rozier. It seem's to be the same persons . Ske (talk) 09:07, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose This looks like two different people. Willy Rozier is a French film director, born as William Xavier Rozier 1901 - 1983, active in French cinema. The subject of William Rozier doesn’t match that profile, they have different dates, different background, and different sources, so the name similarity on its own isn’t enough to justify a merge. however If someone has a reliable source explicitly saying they’re the same person, that should be attached to this discussion before moving forward with a merge.Happypenguins82 (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

This article was created under the title of Semystra (nymph), as an article separate from Semystra, which was meant to be about the location of her sanctuary on the Golden Horn, created in the mistaken belief that that location was a notable "town" or "city". From all the sources I've seen, it wasn't – Dionysius, the main primary source, only speaks of an altar located there, and that through the altar the nymph had given her name "to the place". There's nothing in the text that points to the existence of a city.

I intend to merge the two articles, which mostly share the same content anyway. Since the "nymph" article is factually the primary one, this will involve some moving around. The "nymph" article needs to move to plain Semystra, while the old placename article must be moved away from there to make place, e.g. to Semystra (location), but then that should be merged-and-redirected back to the plain title. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:11, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

If there isn't going to be a separate article about the place, wouldn't it be simpler just to copy the text from here to the undisambiguated title, combine anything that's redundant, and make this a redirect? There's no need to use the move tool at all; just indicate in the edit summaries for each article that you're merging them. That will preserve the article histories and ensure proper attribution of the contents. P Aculeius (talk) 05:58, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Hmm, I was thinking of keeping the edit history of the better-developed article together, but maybe you're right; it's not that much history anyway, and the main contributors are the same for both articles anyway. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:35, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

I think we should merge Dixmier trace into Singular trace. The Dixmier trace is a type of singular trace, and the Dixmier trace page is very short so shouldn't make the singular trace article too long. There is a lot of overlap between the two pages, I think it makes sense to have the Dixmier trace construction in the Singular trace page and redirect Dixmier trace to Singular trace. Exosystem (talk) 05:46, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be merged with Slovak Republic (1939–1945), since the both cover the same thing? – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 20:12, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree that these articles should be merged because they cover the exact same historical entity and time period. Having two separate pages creates unnecessary redundancy and splits valuable information across different locations. The "Slovak Republic (1939–1945)" article is the more appropriate primary title as it identifies the specific political state that existed during the war. Dasomm (talk) 10:13, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, merge to Slovak Republic (1939–1945). ThecentreCZ (talk) 04:02, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, it'd be redundant to have 2 pages that cover the same thing although you'd have to trim it down a bit if the article size is too big. KreamoNoBrainos/Kreamy/Fat Man (talk) 18:13, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

It seems that the Socialist Party will be rebranding to Solidarity – The Socialist Alternative. Obviously, the renaming of the article will depend on reliable non-self sources to mention this change (though the non-self thing is a slightly silly rule).

At the same time, it seems that the website for their front organisation Solidarity's website solidarity.ie has been redirected to the socialistparty.ie website, which has now changed its domain name to solidarity.ie. This suggests that the Solidarity brand is also being wound up as well in favour of this new Socialist Party rebrand. Of course, that would still all be subject to reliable sources.

No matter what happens, though, I suggest we merge Solidarity (Ireland) with this page, as AAA / Solidarity were nothing more than electoral labels for the Socialist Party. There's no real need in keeping it separate, especially when technically they were not registered as political parties but part of an alliance that is registered as a political party. Much of that page can be inserted, integrated, and combined with the text on this page. Lough Swilly (talk) 02:56, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Our article on Solidarity (Ireland) states that the Socialist Party "held discussions in August 2015 with the People Before Profit about forming a new political grouping. On 17 September 2015, the two parties announced that they had formally registered as a single political party for electoral purposes." Not quite the same thing as being an electoral label for the Socialist Party alone. We should probably keep the two separate for now. And if that is the case, and we decide a rename for this article is necessary (as of now, I'm not convinced it is, unless the party itself is renaming rather than 'rebranding' in its external media) we can't have two articles with the same name, or names close enough to be confused, so we'd need to distinguish them by date, e.g. Solidarity (Ireland, founded 2014) and Solidarity – The Socialist Alternative (Ireland, founded 2026) or something similar. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:08, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Support merging Socialist Party (Ireland) into Solidarity (Ireland) - Even before this name change/rebrand, I've considered proposing a merge of the two entities as one is inseparable from the other. If the Socialist party is going to simply call itself Solidarity now, it's going to get very confusing, and a merge is the simplest way to cut through that. We don't have to complicate things with dates in the article title; Simply merge this article into Solidarity (Ireland) and note the alternatives names in the body and infobox of the merged article. CeltBrowne (talk) 09:33, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

The existing Solidarity (Ireland) article is discussing a different entity: one formed as a joint grouping with People Before Profit. We absolutely need to differentiate between this and the new 'rebranding' of the SP. They aren't the same thing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:17, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Support - It does seem evident, based on their own website's statement, that the Socialist Party name/brand is being retired, and that the party itself will be known as "Solidarity - The Socialist Alternative", or Solidarity as shorthand, from now on, with the new URL reinforcing this. ^[2] Culloty82 (talk) 13:47, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• Support - a section in the body of the article can explain the subtle nuances between front organisation, electoral pacts, rebrands, etc. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:49, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
• Support A single article for Solidarity and Socialist Party makes sense, it's the best way to fully explain to a reader how the brands and organisations have overlapped without a content fork or duplication. I would support Solidarity (Ireland) as the target. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 18:53, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

• Support merger. Having two different articles for what is effectively the same political party is overly confusing.

Spudman1 (talk) 02:06, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Support - We probably don't need independent sources for this, as I would argue it's a suitable WP:ABOUTSELF situation given we're not establishing notability of the subject but simply their name.

To @AndyTheGrump's concern. I think you're possibly mistaken here as the electoral alliance with PBP is already a different article yet again (People Before Profit–Solidarity), because it wouldn't be a Trotskyist political organisation if it didn't have 50 layers of obfuscation would it... Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:25, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Ah, well, that makes it easier! Lough Swilly (talk) 18:56, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

In light of the newly named species and considering the current length of the article (more than 13,000 words), I propose to split off the "Discovery and naming" section of the Spinosaurus article to the new article "Taxonomy of Spinosaurus". As previously discussed in WT:PALEO for the Taxonomy of Allosaurus last year, articles with over 8,000-9,000 words can be divided according to Wikipedia:Article size, and the "Discovery and naming" section and its subsections contain more than 6,000 words in total (close to half of the entire article), so I believe it does warrant a split off.

If anyone agrees with this proposal, are there any opinions for how the new article will be structured and how the current section should be trimmed? I especially want to ask Augustios Paleo who recently worked most on this section, as I'm not entirely knowledgeable on the "Discovery and naming" section's content. In case there is a disagreement, are there any alternatives that could be suggested? Thank you. Junsik1223 (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

In my opinion, if the new article "Taxonomy of Spinosaurus" were to be created, it can expand probably more on Spinosaurus maroccanus and other indeterminate materials in proper paragraphs rather than bullet points. Some sections of the Sigilmassasaurus article can be incorporated to that new article as well; I'm not entirely sure if the "consensus" is that both Sigilmassasaurus and Spinosaurus are synonymous, so I'm not suggesting a merge. I also think Spinosaurus mirabilis does not need to be merged, since that article will most likely be expanded further in the future, but I'd also like to see if there are any alternative ideas for that. Junsik1223 (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I generally agree with this but I don't think it's good to say "it will be expanded in the future so it should stay in its own page" since that's something that can be said about any fossil species. I feel like the new species could be merged until that new information is actually published rather than relying on hypothetical papers. SeismicShrimp (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I see, maybe I can take your stance as well until new information comes of this species. Also I think it would be fair to tag @SlvrHwk who created the article for Spinosaurus mirabilis. Junsik1223 (talk) 23:20, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

• Sounds like a good idea, better than having two separate species articles and a genus article. FunkMonk (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. We can merge the species articles into the Spinosaurus page and create a Taxonomy of Spinosaurus page. This would also tackle the existing problem of the bloated specimens section, which is too detailed for the average reader but could benefit from being in a Taxonomy article. AFH (talk) 22:46, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

• Comment(s): I certainly see the value in a "Taxonomy of Spinosaurus" page, but it should not be used as the primary home for content on S. mirabilis. (I also don't think a dedicated S. aegyptiacus page is necessary.) As it stands, and understandably so, the Spinosaurus (genus) page primarily covers the type species. I don't currently see a way to adequately discuss S. mirabilis in sufficient depth at the genus page without making it seem disjointed and overcrowded. A separate page to discuss the various aspects (discovery/geological/anatomical context) of the new species seems appropriate. There's definitely enough to say just about S. mirabilis to fill a reasonably-sized page, just based on the single new paper (incorporating paleoecology, environment, anatomy, etc...). And to be clear, I think Spinosaurus is a special exception, given its popularity and the sheer volume of published work on it. Most other "second species" (or third, fourth, etc.) of non-avian dinosaur genera can be sufficiently addressed on their genus page without special accommodations. -SlvrHwk (talk) 06:07, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

It seems very arbitrary to have an article for one species when the genus has two. Also, there is so little info about this new species that it could easily be covered in a trimmed genus article and a taxonomy article. A species article would just duplicate info found there for no useful reason. FunkMonk (talk) 13:03, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I think an S. aegyptiacus article is essentially impossible due to how many disagreements there are about what even represents that species. The species level and genus level info are impossible to pull apart from one another. In regards to only giving one species a separate article, I don't think it's necessarily a bad format. I've proposed something similar in the past for Tyrannosaurus mcraeensis (though we'll see how necessary that seems after a Taxonomy article happens). When these famous genera get a second species, I think it's just hard to incorporate. There's so much written about the main species that any coequal focus on the new species feels like undue weight, and the minor species is just lost in all the info (V. osmolskae suffers from this too). So you can split off the new species to just avoid the problem entirely. The reason you don't then also split the famous species is that it would split the information people are looking for (that about the type species) between two articles. People typing in "Tyrannosaurus" really mean "T. rex" but we're putting them on a page that's giving a less detailed overview about both species. So I think no species articles is negotiable, and one for the less notable species is negotiable, but not splitting info on the "main topic" (S. aegyptiacus) between two articles in a way that would confuse lay readers. For what it's worth in this case I am negotiable to seeing someone show me that S. mirabilis would fit in a trimmed down article if we dump a lot of existing Spinosaurus info into a Taxonomy article... but until that work happens I think it needs to stay separate. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 16:11, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Why is it a problem that the more published on species has more weight in the genus article? Seems pretty normal. In any case, splitting the new species doesn't solve anything, as essentially all the same info would still need to be present in the genus article in summarised form. And when so little is published on the new species, it will be basically the same info in the genus article as in the species article. So again, little to gain, just more articles to update and keep track of. FunkMonk (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

It's not a problem for the genus article itself per se, but if someone comes to it looking for information on S. mirabilis they're going to have a harder time than if it just has its own article they can navigate to. It's so lost in all the info on S. aegyptiacus that the reader is inconvenienced. If it were me I'd jsut ctrl+f it, but a less internet literate reader or app user may go away unable to effectively learn about S. mirabilis. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 21:41, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

But again, most of the S. mirabilis info has to be at the genus article as well in any case. Splitting off an article doesn't mean all the info is removed from the parent article, only that it should be summarised shorter there. But with a species known from so little and with so little published on it, there is very little to cut down, and you will essentially just end up with two articles with the same info. And I don't buy that info is "lost" in an article, that's what tables of content are for, and that a sub-taxon with little published on it simply has less to say about it isn't unusual. FunkMonk (talk) 14:44, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

While I don't have a strong opinion whether we should merge S. mirabilis to "Taxonomy of Spinosaurus" (given that the article is later created), in case the majority opinion favors the merge approach, I think one solution I can suggest is adapting the structure of the current Quetzalcoatlus article for the main article and the Taxonomy article (regarding multiple species coverage, to be specific). That article has relevant coverage of both species in various sections since early 2025, despite the second species Q. lawsoni having been named in December 2021.

While I do think more opinions are needed, at the very least all the current participants seem to agree that splitting part of the article regarding its taxonomy/species is warranted (with most agreeing that the Taxonomy article split has its value), though how that will be done seems to be where the disagreement occurs. Junsik1223 (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

It will probably come as no surprise to anyone here that I am strongly in favor of keeping S. mirabilis as a separate article. As it currently stands, Spinosaurus has over 9,000 words of prose, making it long enough that it is recommended to trim or split the article per WP:SIZERULE, so it's clearly inappropriate to merge anything into the article in its current state. I would also be in favor of creating a separate article for S. aegyptiacus. LittleLazyLass does have a fair point that it might be difficult to disentangle S. aegyptiacus from the genus as a whole due to the dispute over what material properly belongs in the species, so I'm less committed to the idea of a S. aegyptiacus article being necessary, although as FunkMonk pointed out, it would be inconsistent to have a separate article for one species but not the other and I think having a separate article would allow some of the nitty-gritty details specific to S. aegyptiacus to be trimmed from the genus article to get it down to a more manageable length. I am opposed to creating a "Taxonomy of Spinosaurus" article; I think having separate articles for S. mirabilis and S. aegyptiacus is vastly preferable as a way to split the article. All of the objections to creating separate species articles also apply to splitting the taxonomy section off into its own article, and surely the taxonomy of Spinosaurus is less WP:NOTABLE as a topic in its own right than the valid, distinct species S. aegyptiacus and S. mirabilis. Ornithopsis (talk) 16:27, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Truth be told, I'm more concerned with how to deal with the excessive information regarding many of the North African spinosaurid specimens that have significant controversy in terms of which truly represents Spinosaurus. That is more of the reason why I suggested creating a Taxonomy article, rather than just to make a primary home for the Spinosaurus mirabilis content, and probably the reason why other participants who oppose the merge approach seems to be fine with creating the Taxonomy article given that it's written fairly (as you can see I don't strongly agree or disagree with whether merging the S. mirabilis article approach is the best option). I see your point in that we can't merge anything more significant into this article, but regardless of whether the majority consensus favors the merging S. mirabilis approach or not, I believe this this issue might be much easier to solve than what we might think; splitting off this section and incorporating many of the background information from the Classification section would reduce the word count significantly, since the first two paragraphs (especially the second) on the Classification section are mostly about the outer systematics (i.e. family Spinosauridae) rather than Spinosaurus itself and the phylogeny section can be reduced in addition to this (which would mean that the Classification section also needs an overhaul, which can be done if the Taxonomy article is appropriately written in my opinion). Junsik1223 (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Retooling the classification section to be more about Spinosaurus proper should not be an issue, especially with the volume of content published post-2014. I think the broader family-level content should be reduced heavily, and have made a start by removing the 'Evolution' section in its entirety, this was a 1:1 copy of said section on Spinosauridae. The Morrison Man (talk) 23:38, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

As the person who wrote the Specimens section on the article, I believe that a Taxonomy section is beneficial as it will be able to properly cover both schools of thought on Spinosaurus (that being there are 2/2+ species of North African spinosaurid or that there is just S. aegyptiacus). AFH (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I only see a Spinosaurus genus article and a Taxonomy article as being useful. There's no need for S. mirabilis to have its own article in my opinion, it can be reasonably covered in the genus article and have taxonomy info in the taxonomy. Additionally, a Taxonomy of Spinosaurus article could also incorporate bloated information present on the Oxalaia and Sigilmassasaurus pages. AFH (talk) 14:39, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree with incorporating information present on Oxalaia and Sigilmassasaurus pages. Now as you and LittleLazyLass pointed out, there seems to be a significant controversy in terms of what specific North African specimens truly represent Spinosaurus. I can see multiple subsections that highlight this aspect. So if the Taxonomy article does get created, do you think we could assemble some subsections of the Discovery and naming section into more coherent sections of that new article? Taxonomy of Allosaurus article seems to be a good basis to reference in terms of structure, so I'd suggest following it would be appropriate. Junsik1223 (talk) 22:54, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

The section "Specimens" in this article could probably do with being entirely removed and pasted into a Taxonomy of Spinosaurus page instead. There would be more than enough content there to be able to form a coherent narrative what remains we have and the discussions surrounding the referrals, plus a discussion of species/genera referred to Spinosaurus (aegyptiacus) semi-regularly, with the most prominent there probably being S. maroccanus, Sigilmassasaurus and Oxalaia. The Morrison Man (talk) 22:02, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that sorting the specimens into sections, similar to what I did on the current page, would be beneficial for the taxonomy article. I have them sorted by how they were classified in recent literature on them, for example MSNM rostrum is Spinosaurinae indet based on Smyth et al (2020). However, as mentioned elsewhere on this page, there are many different ideas on how many spinosaurids are present in North Africa. I think that the current Discovery and naming section should include the current history section + S. mirabilis, while the specimens and synonyms sections should be put in the Taxonomy article. AFH (talk) 16:44, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

In my opinion, this page should be kept separate from the main Spinosaurus article, as the main page is so long and it is quite difficult to find specific information. Furthermore, this new discovery deserves its own page due to its anatomical and geological context. -Historianengineer (talk) 14:52, 19 March 2026 (UTC)-

Reiterating what I said above: "I'm more concerned with how to deal with the excessive information regarding many of the North African spinosaurid specimens that have significant controversy in terms of which truly represents Spinosaurus. That is more of the reason why I suggested creating a Taxonomy article, rather than just to make a primary home for the Spinosaurus mirabilis content, and probably the reason why other participants who oppose the merge approach seems to be fine with creating the Taxonomy article given that it's written fairly (as you can see I don't strongly agree or disagree with whether merging the S. mirabilis article approach is the best option)." Junsik1223 (talk) 13:17, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I am also inclined to favor keeping the species' page separate. The main article is, as has been noted, already very long and crowded, the page for S. mirabilis seems perfectly substantial in its own right, and people looking for information on mirabilis would likely struggle to find what they're looking for in either the currently existing genus article or in a broad-sweep taxonomy page, given how complex the topic is in this case. A general taxonomy article might be also useful, but I favor keeping the other species in its own page. -Theriocephalus (talk) 06:30, 20 March 2026 (UTC)-

Reiterating what I said above: "I'm more concerned with how to deal with the excessive information regarding many of the North African spinosaurid specimens that have significant controversy in terms of which truly represents Spinosaurus. That is more of the reason why I suggested creating a Taxonomy article, rather than just to make a primary home for the Spinosaurus mirabilis content, and probably the reason why other participants who oppose the merge approach seems to be fine with creating the Taxonomy article given that it's written fairly (as you can see I don't strongly agree or disagree with whether merging the S. mirabilis article approach is the best option)." It's good to know that at least you think a general taxonomy article can be useful. Junsik1223 (talk) 13:18, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

If the most significant concern is that there is excessive information on specimens of Spinosaurus, it seems to me that a more appropriate page to spin off would be "Specimens of Spinosaurus", as has been done for Tyrannosaurus and Archaeopteryx. I don't think the taxonomy of Spinosaurus is convoluted enough to warrant a page in its own right, and in fact it's probably a less taxonomically complicated genus than either Tyrannosaurus or Archaeopteryx, neither of which have a separate taxonomy page. Ornithopsis (talk) 15:13, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

I have thought of that option, but A Cynical Idealist did brought up their opinion in last year's WT:PALEO discussion about creating a "Specimens of" article which makes me feel conflicted about it (reiterating what A Cynical Idealist stated there): ""Specimens of" articles are better off avoided except in extremely specific cases where individual specimens have cultural or scientific relevance independently of their anatomical descriptions. Also the specimen list articles which do exist are focused primarily on the specimens themselves, rather than detailed discussions of the taxonomic controversies they imply." Junsik1223 (talk) 00:22, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I propose merging Non-Habitual Resident into Taxation in Portugal because the topic is a specific tax regime within the broader Portuguese tax system and fits naturally within the scope of the target article.

The current article duplicates content that could be more appropriately integrated into a dedicated subsection (e.g., "Non-Habitual Resident (NHR)") within the broader taxation framework.

Proposed structure:

• Create a subsection (e.g., "Special tax regimes")
• Integrate key material:

 - history and introduction of the regime
 - eligibility criteria
 - tax benefits and exemptions
 - policy changes and reforms
 - criticisms and economic impact

Outcome:

• Convert Non-Habitual Resident into a redirect to the relevant subsection in Taxation in Portugal.

Ma fraise (talk) 17:39, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

We have several articles on very similar topics. They are often written by undergraduate students as required by their (nonparticipating) teachers. These articles are not very strong and their subjects overlap heavily. So the proposal is to convert 3-4 articles into 1 maybe 2 stronger articles that better serve our readership. Even the definition and utility of the term "heavy metal" is dubious or at least debated as discussed at length in that article. Here are the articles up for merging:

• Toxic heavy metal 43000 bytes
• Metal toxicity 29000 bytes
• Heavy metals#Toxicity, perhaps 10,000 bytes

*Heavy metal detoxification

• Heavy metal toxicity redirects to Toxic heavy metal

Also very relevant, Wikipedia has articles on each metal within the Project:Elements. These articles are very, very good and each discusses toxicity.

--Smokefoot (talk) 12:39, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

• Support we have massive redundancy here and in related articles on different categories of elements.Ldm1954 (talk) 12:49, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

The proposal omits the key aspect placed in the article: the proposed merge target is Heavy metal#Toxicity.

• Heavy metal detoxification Support easy win, maybe one or two sources.
• Metal toxicity Partial some of this content should be moved to individual elements.
• Toxic heavy metal I think we should consider moving this to Heavy metal toxicity and making Heavy metal#Toxicity a summary. A full merge will unbalance Heavy metal. I think among modern sources the topic "heavy metal toxicity" is notable, possibly more so than "heavy metal"-minus-toxicity. The noun should be "toxicity" because that is the focus of the sources.

Heavy metal + Heavy metal toxicity would meet your 2 article goal. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal by Johnjbarton. --Leyo 16:50, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

OK, getting ready to start. Notice that Heavy metal toxicity redirects to Toxic heavy metal. So, I will start with the easy one Heavy metal detoxification will redirect to Toxic heavy metal.--Smokefoot (talk) 18:55, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Let's try this again. I propose merging the following articles:

• Penn Foster High School

• Penn Foster Career School

• Penn Foster College

into a single article at Penn Foster, which subsections for each area.

The reason and supporting explanations for this request is: 1) WP:CONTENTFORK - Three articles overwhelmingly duplicate the history and background of the organization. The only difference is program type. This seems like an unnecessary content split. 2) WP:SUMMARYSTYLE - The material is better suited to a single, comprehensive article with summary sections for each school. 3) WP:DISAMBIGUATION - Reliable sources treat "Pen Foster" as a single entity rather than three independent institutions.

It's also worth noting that the institution dates back to the 1890s and only split into three "schools" in the early 2000s. For most of its history, it operated as a single institution, and it's still collectively known as Penn Foster, not as three fully separate entities.

A draft of the proposed merged article is available at Draft:Penn Foster. This draft can serve as the structure for the merged page, including but not limited to:

• History of the institution

• Programs and offerings

• Reception and controversies

Proposed outcome:

• Merge content into Penn Foster

• Redirect the three existing articles

• Revisit whether a disambiguation page is still needed

DegreeDriven (talk) 20:33, 17 April 2026 (UTC)