Merge requests and logs
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Proposed article mergers is a noticeboard for active discussions to merge articles. To begin a new merge discussion, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Merging. If a merge is unlikely to be contested, you can be bold and complete it without initiating a discussion. If your merge is later contested, another editor can revert and discuss it.
Merge Calls for a ceasefire during the Gaza war into International reactions to the Gaza war. Unncessary WP:CFORK. The page is hopelessly out of date, inevitably inexhaustive and incomplete. Much of the content is redundant, it's not encyclopedic and WP:NOTNEWS to include every single instance of countries issuing press statments or some random actor giving their opinions on a hot-button world event. Calls for a ceasefire was one of many forms that the people around the world reacted to the Gaza war. To address pge length concerns, there needs to be a serious culling of what's really WP:DUE. Longhornsg (talk) 05:55, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Perhaps the culling should take place first, and then we can figure out a possible merge. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 04:23, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
@ThebiguglyalienCulled. A merge should also delete the incomplete section about Governments calling for a ceasefire. This is covered ad nauseum in articles about this war on-wiki. Longhornsg (talk) 01:17, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose a seperate timeline only for the West Bank makes sense due to its size and since it is removed from the Gaza strip User:Easternsaharareview this 17:03, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
The content, including operations in the West Bank, is already covered at the target page so neither article length or being outside the Gaza Strip is an issue. Longhornsg (talk) 02:45, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Support (including support for a WP:BLAR if there's nothing that needs to be moved). No need for a separate article with this much overlap. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:51, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose – This was the assassination of Hezbollah's Number 2 leader (actually, probably the de-facto leader) at the time, and it also took out several other high-ranking Hezbollah leaders. It's notable enough for its own article. The current state of the article is more due to a lack of effort than a lack of sources covering the subject. On that note, I would say that Wikipedia needs more articles on these kinds of military strikes and special operations (such as the one that took out ISIL's second leader, Abu Ibrahim al-Hashimi al-Qurashi), not less. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 11:04, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
Support per WP:PAGEDECIDE. This is a major aspect of Safieddine's biography, so the only justification for it to be separate would be if the article was so long the info wouldn't fit. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:03, 1 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose per above given the subject's notability and their role within Hezbollah. Skitash (talk) 19:18, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
I'd like to see a little discussion distinguishing the concepts of append, prepend, and concatenate. Specifically, I venture that concatenation is more symmetric in that it emphasizes neither the first nor the second argument in binary operations. In contrast, append means to take a second something and put it after a first something. Furthermore, prepend means to take a second something and put it before a first something.
concatenate(x, y) = x.append(y) = y.prepend(x)
Assuming that this is something that textbooks distinguish, what should we say in this article? —Quantling(talk|contribs) 22:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Is the article meant to be about the general concept of appending, or about specific functions/predicates called "append" that exist in various programming languages? It seems to be mostly describing the latter, though it goes on to talk about features in a random few languages that aren't named "append" at all. Furthermore, in my mind "append" is at least primarily a verb, but the lead sentence describes it as a noun (albeit marked up as code).
To me, "append y to x" means modify x to be the concatenation of x and y as was immediately before the operation. You can append to a file, meaning the same thing. On the other hand, "concatenate" implies simply joining the strings, arrays, lists or whatever together, and where you put or what you do with the result of the operation is on the back of this.
So by the names, I would probably expect
concatenate(x, y) to return x and y joined together and not modify either variable
x.append(y) to modify x, and possibly return the modified x as a convenience (this is what .NET StringBuilder.Append does, for instance, if this counts on the basis that StringBuilder is essentially a mutable string class)
y.prepend(x) to modify y, and possibly return the modified y as a convenience
I agree with your bullets. I think we should say something like this in the article. —Quantling(talk|contribs) 16:04, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
The article is a mess. It lacks a clear focus. From the history, I see that originally it was specifically about the Lisp append function. Subsequent edits have been a mishmash of:
Builtins in other languages called append that do the same thing.
Implementations of array/list concatenation in other languages.
Builtins to do the same in other languages that aren't called append at all.
Furthermore, the selection of languages covered is arbitrary. All the article is showing is how to do, in a small selection of languages, something for which there is a better-agreed-upon standard name: concatenation. I see that article purports to be about string concatenation specifically, but it isn't entirely - one section is about concatenation of audio snippets. In any case, there's no real reason to for it to be about concatenation of a single data type. That article should be generalised to cover concatenation of arrays and lists (of which strings are typically an example) generally, and relevant content from this article moved there. I'll propose a merge. — Smjg (talk) 21:04, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
Quantling & Smjg: any further thoughts on this? It's been listed as a pending merger proposal for a couple months. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:37, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
I see no reason to put effort into merging these pages, but if someone else wants to put in that effort, I see no reason to object. That is, I'm lazy but not stubborn. —Quantling(talk|contribs) 00:48, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
I propose merging 2017–18 Danish 1st Division (women) into Danish 1st Division (handball). No other season specific articles exist for the 1st Division, and I think the season's results would be better contextualized in a new results section on this the division's page. Uffda608 (talk) 11:41, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
Uffda608, this has gone unopposed for a couple months. If it's something you're still interested in, you can carry out a WP:BOLDMERGE. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:40, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
i am not proposing to merge Houthis with these like you imply with EZLN Braganza (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
I am aware of what the proposal is 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨Abo Yemen (𓃵) 09:59, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
Just commenting that the Houthis had controlled parts of Yemen prior to the civil war. Would their inclusion in this article be appropriate? Hsnkn (talk) 17:18, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose per Abo Yemen. And Houthi controlls Northern Yemen before SPC's formation.
Weak support Makes sense to go simpler on quasi-states. Artoria2e5🌉 03:28, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose - These two subjects seem distinct enough from each other to warrant separate articles, I don't think merging them would simplify them. The two articles don't seem entirely synonymous either, Houthis are the military/political group, Houthi-controlled Yemen is the territory the Houthis control, while the Supreme Political Council is the Houthi government/executive, can't imagine why they need to be merged purely because the same isn't done for Libya. BAABNRRBBORB1 (talk) 10:41, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Like i already said ti Abo Yemen, i am not saying that Houthis should be merged here. I am explicitly talking about the territory & the government. Braganza (talk) 14:16, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
Closer comment: can I clarify what precise merge is under discussion here? And will the editor answering my question be so kind as to follow the procedure outlined at WP:M2 so that we might get more discussion? Iseult Δx talk to me 07:14, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
I suggest that we merge pizzetta into pizza. Pizzetta is just a small pizza, and should be discussed in this article. --Macrakis (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
I agree with this FlameOutsideOfStaff (talk) 18:42, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
looks okay. id recommend it. Ayden11521 (talk) 16:32, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
Makes sense, there are plenty of other pizza variants in the Pizza article. Ukalik0 (talk) 15:30, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
Actually, upon further inspection, almost every single type of Pizza has its own article. I would actually not recommend this, as merging Pizzetta into Pizza would also require merging pretty much every other kind of Pizza mentioned in the article. Ukalik0 (talk) 15:36, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
Ukalik0, whether articles are kept separate is decided on a case-by-case basis. It's fine to merge some but not all if some would be better covered in the main article and others would be better covered separately. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 21:50, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
@Thebiguglyalien Sorry this has taken a bit. This is true, but pizzetta is in multiple lists in this article, of which all other entries are hyperlinked. Merging the article wouldn't make sense, as it's explained in detail in the article already, but has its own article just like every other pizza type. Ukalik0 (talk) 02:17, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
NOOOOOOO!!!!! Egannator9000 (talk) 02:16, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
I agree Sir Egannator ~2026-15395-36 (talk) 14:25, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
thanks Egannator9000 (talk) 14:26, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Disagreed. ~2026-14295-15 (talk) 01:58, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
Reminder that those taking a stance on the merger need to explain why the information is better conveyed as part of the pizza article or in a separate location. Simple assertions of yes or no are not going to be given as much weight when determining whether there's support to merge. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:54, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Ye i agree too cause its just a mini pizza so like why remove it from pizza article Ttekhopi257 (talk) 11:15, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
I haven't looked at the merits (yet), but I have noticed:
5 days old, with 24 edits
3 months old, with 13 edits
5 months old, with 14 edits
6 months old, with 85 edits
Is there a /r/pizzetta or something?! —Serial Number54129 (wake up Fortuna) 12:38, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
I don't think this is a question that can be answered with a simple yes or no. In principle, there is enough to say about ancient Prusa to fill a separate article, and the current content could easily serve as a start in that direction. On the other hand, it is true that the article is currently so short that it could well be integrated into the article on the modern city. Both options are feasible. DerMaxdorfer (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Very good point, let's see what the others have to say.
Comment: typically existing stand-alone articles about cities and towns from classical antiquity that differ in name from their modern counterparts are kept. Here the contents are currently brief and could well be fully merged into the modern city. However, because it could also get lost in that article, and may have considerable potential for expansion, perhaps it's best to keep a separate article focusing on its pre-Ottoman history, even if more of its current contents are included in "Bursa". P Aculeius (talk) 14:32, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
What does "get lost in that [Bursa] article" means? -MahmoudAbbasAlDilfti (talk) 23:29, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
I understand P Aculeius as follows: With a separate article, it is easier to find the relevant information if one wants to know something specifically on Prusa. DerMaxdorfer (talk) 00:19, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Maybe....
Probably I will remove the merge tag from the Prusa (Bithynia) article.
@Bosley John Bosley: I have reopened the discussion. We can probably start moving verifiable information from the "Prusa" article as a direction to expand the History section of Bursa, since the Roman rule period there is pretty short, in my opinion.
...the hot springs in Prusa that's dubbed as the "royal water".
...the construction of baths in Roman-ruled Bursa under the permit of Emperor Trajan, which falls into the line about "well governance under Roman Emperor" because this event is cited[1] as a reference to said line.
@DerMaxdorfer, P Aculeius, and Bosley John Bosley: According to this source (access via The Wikipedia Library), Bursa is enstablished by King Prusias I de novo, which means he built it from the ground. The source also indirectly states that Prusias ad Olympum (present-day Bursa) is different to Prusias ad Mare (what was once Cius and present-day Gemlik).
This led me to conclude that it might be quite an inaccuracy to put Cius as a part of the history of Bursa. It also made me reconsider that the article Prusa (Bithynia) is probably a much better representative for the Prusias ad Olympum stuff, since the mentioned ancient city is often mistaken (by me, mostly, and also the guy who added Cius in the Bursa history section) as Prusias ad Mare, aka Cius.
Sorry for the long update, what do you guys think?
That Prusa ad Olympum (Prusa, not Prusias!) and Cius/Kios (temporarily renamed Prusias ad Mare, not Prusa) were two different cities is undisputable. It might be seen as an additional reason not to merge the articles on ancient Prusa ad Olympum and Bursa. For me personally, it doesn't really change the situation that both solutions are possible. That Cius/Prusias ad Mare could be part of the history of Bursa, however, is completely wrong in my eyes.
An in-depth account on the history of Prusa ad Olympum and the available ancient sources can be found in the second volume of Corsten's monograph (see Prusa (Bithynia)#Further reading), pp. 9-73. On Cius/Prusias ad Mare, Corsten has written a separate monograph: Die Inschriften von Kios. Bonn: Habelt, 1985, ISBN3-7749-2194-6, see especially the long introduction on the history of the city on pp. 1-72. DerMaxdorfer (talk) 14:15, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for the response and explanation. MahmoudAbbasAlDilfti (talk) 00:11, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
I propose merging List of terrorist incidents in Australia into Terrorism in Australia. There is significant overlap between the two articles, with the Terrorism in Australia page being half list anyway and the List of terrorist incidents in Australia is in very poor shape. TarnishedPathtalk 11:38, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose- The "Terrorism in Australia" article provides contextual information, history, legislation, and analysis of terrorism trends. The "List of terrorist incidents in Australia" provides a chronological, factual record of incidents. Keeping them separate allows readers to quickly access either detailed narrative or a factual list without one overwhelming the other. Wikipedia commonly separates narrative articles from lists of events, this separation is a standard editorial practice to improve clarity and navigability. Rockwizfan (talk) 09:58, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
Support — agree with proposer's argument that there is significant overlap between the two articles, and there is not an identified need for them to be separate. CommandAShepard (talk) 11:36, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
Well, ideally it would probable be a list and a different prose article that gives greater detail on the broader issue, not a list article and a slightly worse list article. IMO removing the list content from the main terrorism in Australia article would be a better choice. Status quo is bad, though. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:35, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
@PARAKANYAA So remove the main article's current list and replacing it with the one from the list article? CommandAShepard (talk) 05:39, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
I mean that would be the ideal but it might be more complicated in practice. Basically move the list content to one list article and then have a solely prose article evaluating the general phenomenon. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:43, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
Ideally that is a good idea; however, I can see reverts happening or a list creeping back into 'Terrorism in Australian'. That's why I proposed what I see as the more pragmatic solution. TarnishedPathtalk 07:05, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
Agreed @TarnishedPath. I wasn't suggesting keeping the list article; all of its content would be merged/superceded into the main article. CommandAShepard (talk) 07:30, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose: Both pages are already quite large. Large tables work better as stand-alone pages. There's no benefit from trying to combine the two. Late Night Coffee (talk) 10:58, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Merge or expand scope: "in Australia" isn't enough for a list page, there's only about 20 events on the list. Eıther merge it to the other page. Or alternately, expand the scope to a wider topic "List of terrorist incidents in Oceania" or "List of terrorist incidents involving Australia(ns)". Late Night Coffee (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
The Main title article defines its topic to be Theme music played during the opening credits of a film. There is too little material and too much overlap of information to justify separate articles. Most of the content of Main title could perhaps become a section within Theme music. jnestorius(talk) 17:18, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
Jnestorius, this has gone unopposed for a couple months. Is it something you're still interested in? If so, you should be good to carry out a WP:BOLDMERGE. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:25, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
I should get round to it in the next week or so. jnestorius(talk) 20:30, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
I think I would propose a merger of Warner Bros.-Seven Arts with Warner Bros. Pictures. Technically, the W7 era of WB is considered part of the studio's history and it’s not considered a separate company than the WB entity that existed until 2003 with the TWEC reorganization changing everything. VenezuelanSpongeBobFan2004 (talk) 01:18, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment: Agree with this idea, it is a more better decision. VenezuelanSpongeBobFan2004 (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose :I digress. Warner Bros. Seven Arts was a separate company created from the merger of Warner Bros. Pictures Inc. and Seven Arts Production. The company didn't just see the Warner Brothers film studio, but it also saw the numerous other Warner Bros divisions along with record labels. TheFloridaTyper (talk) 10:10, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment: But when Kinney National took over W7, it was rebranded to Warner Bros., Inc. which was considered the legal successor to the W7 entity from 69 to 2003. VenezuelanSpongeBobFan2004 (talk) 06:34, 1 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose it is a major but short stage between Warner Bros. and Warner Communications warpozio (talk) 13:46, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Support. This is a very short chapter of Warner Bros.' history (2 out of 103 years), and there's no evidence anything particularly notable happened during this period. It's best covered in Early history of Warner Bros. Pictures, since it's still part of the period when Warner Bros. wasn't part of a larger media conglomerate. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 22:51, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
Support due to short span of history. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
I still find it unnecessary to merge Warner Bros.-Seven Arts. Granted, the W7 page could benefit from several rounds of expansion (Which I'll carry out), but that doesn't mean it needs to be merged. The early history of WB implies narrative focus only towards the filming division of Warner Bros. Entertainment. Maintaining separate pages properly ensures each page can properly oversee the full scope of their specific topic. —TheFloridaTyper (talk) 10:21, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
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)
This is a very bare-bones page – with only 1 entry (and very low likelihood of growing anytime soon), this can easily be covered with a few extra sentences at 40–40 club, as Ohtani's achievement is already included there. (In all honesty, that page could also probably be merged to 30–30 club, but to keep the discussion focused, I am not proposing that for now.) RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:45, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Opose: This a very notable event, qualified for an article by Wikipedia:Notability (events). The formation of the club received large media attention.,,. There are many more citations if needed. Dafootballguy (talk) 00:28, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose, 30-30, 40-40, ...50-50 all exist. How would 50-50 merge with 40-40 (averaging out to 45-45?)? Randy Kryn (talk) 16:33, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Any members of the 50–50 club must by definition be in the 40–40 club. Therefore, the sole member of the former club is already included at the latter page, and I feel it would be preferable to add a few sentences there instead of keeping/repeating info on a separate page (per WP:PAGEDECIDE). RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:29, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
The achievement is so rare that it deserves this stand-alone article. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:44, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
I agree that given that there is only one player in this category that it can be covered adequately as a separate section within the 40–40 club article, with an appropriate redirect. This will make it easier for readers to see the others who have come closest to this achievement, thus placing it into context. Note not every topic that meets the standards for having an article must have an article; we can use editorial judgement to decide that the topic is best covered within the context of another article. isaacl (talk) 16:57, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Support merge. Isaacl already said most of what I was thinking, but I'll add that all of the coverage being about Ohtani instead of the concept of a 50–50 club also casts doubt on whether this needs a standalone article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:07, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Regardless of the article currently covering Ohtani solely the 50-50 club is important enough to warrant it's own article. This is certainly qualified under WP:Notability (events). Dafootballguy (talk) 21:45, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose per Dafootballguy above ESB5415 19:20, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Support, this is a de facto list article, and a list, by definition, needs more then just one entry -- indeed, WP:FLs require a minimum of four. (Any potential future expansion is purely speculative, and therefore not relevant.) At that point, the governing P&G for this is WP:TOOSPECIFIC, under which this falls, for me.
Merging this into 40–40 club is a far more appropriate method of delivering this, in my opinion – highlight the accomplishment there, with a specific paragraph explaining it. That article certainly hasn't grown beyond any kind of limit to justify spinning it out under WP:CFORK. Once we have more entries (be that in one, five, twenty seasons' time) then sure, revisit this as standalone.
But this is what we've done with the non-existant (and even more highly publicised & more heavily populated) 60 home run club and 70 home run club, both of which are simply treated as subsets of 50 home run club (itself a list article, and a featured one, only serving to reinforce that we should be judging this on these terms and with these P&Gs). Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 11:25, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
Support, per Buttons to Push Buttons etc, a club needs members. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:41, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
I propose merging 2025-2026 Alberta independentist crisis into Alberta separatism, possibly under the subsection "US Involvement". "Independentist crisis" and the use of a military conflict infobox seems to be sensational (no reliable sources are describing a "crisis"). With significant overlap and the fact that the "crisis" article is short, I believe the Alberta separatism article (along with American expansionism under Donald Trump § Alberta) would sufficiently cover the topic. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks♥) 16:53, 30 January 2026 (UTC) (edited 17:12, 30 January 2026 (UTC))
I would like to point out its laid out that way because the very contact between the separatists and the US officials IS the crisis. Outlets and people included in the article have called it a crisis, and Canadian officials, as stated in the article, reacted harshly, with the premier of British Columbia calling it "Treason".
The article does not focus onto Albertan independence persay, it focuses on this specific chapter of this controversial political topic. Its a diplomatic crisis between two sovreign nations that deserve a separate article. The infobox used is not incorrect or sensationalistic, its just used to show the dynamic of the crisis, which is what it showcases. VitoxxMass (talk) 17:06, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Diplomatic crisis? That's rather sensationalist. There's no reason that this molehill can't be part of the existing article. Nfitz (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Support no idea why this has its own article, should be a section in Alberta Separatism. Scuba 17:07, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose merge, support delete; some of the conclusions are OR or fringe. CoryGlee 17:18, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Where do you see fringe theories? I see an analysis subsection that cites reliable sources, but maybe I've missed something. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks♥) 17:56, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Use of the word "crisis" is a fringe theory. A handful of treacherous loons talking to the racist rapist is not a crisis. Nfitz (talk) 20:06, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose merge. I'm inclined to think the (so-called) crisis is notable, as it involves a claim of foreign interference. That other article is not really about Alberta separatism, but Canada–United States relations. (In fact, that article would make better sense for a merge target.) StAnselm (talk) 18:20, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose merge. Per StAnselm above, this has become quite a big event in the global media with large articles on it in most of the world's highest grade WP:RSPs (no need to list here). The element of foreign intervention has made it a much more material event that merits coverage. Obviusly, should have a section in the main Alberta Separatism article. Aszx5000 (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Support merge A subject can be notable but still not best served by having an independent article - see WP:NOPAGE. This should be a subsection of the Alberta separatism article. In addition, to call the recent meetings a “crisis” meriting its own article is also not NPOV; even if the merge proposal fails, that wildly biased title needs to be changed ASAP. FlipandFlopped㋡ 19:00, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Indeed the use of the word "crisis" is sensationalist. This must change, at a minimum. I'd support an AFD. Nfitz (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
We already are discussing a change of name, as i do agree with it. VitoxxMass (talk) 21:05, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Support merge this need more than 2 or 3 sentences in the existing article. A joke about the 11th province could create a "crisis" with the current regime in the USA. Nfitz (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Support deletion; the article seems to be giving this event far too much prose for its actual importance. Per WP:FORK#Caution: having a separate article on a controversial incident may give undue weight to that incident--and this, to me, seems like an open-and-shut case of that, given the page only showed up a few hours ago. As for what to do with the page, it's fair to say everything that should be covered on this page is already adequately covered, and thus the page can feasibly be deleted without a need for keeping its history for attribution. Departure– (talk) 20:36, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete - At the moment, the rest of Canada doesn't seem to be in anxiety mode. GoodDay (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
After talking with numerous wiki editors and seeing how the event unfolded in the following days, I, the creator of the article, would support merge. VitoxxMass (talk) 12:17, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Support merge - Clearly a notable development in the context of the overall movement, but not independently notable nor sufficiently prominent or separate to need its own article. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:46, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
Support merge - The new article would only be relevant if an actual referendum is held, otherwise its just another chapter of the same story. McCIrishman (talk) 10:06, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
Support merge per WP:NOPAGE, no reason to split off this one aspect when it can adequately fit within the main article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:24, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
I propose merging Baked Bean Museum of Excellence into Baked beans. I think the content in Baked Bean Museum of Excellence doesn't warrant its own article but has enough notability to get a cultural mention in this article, and merging them would not cause any article-size or weighting problems. Duncnbiscuit (talk) 06:20, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Weak oppose, as I see no good reason to merge it. The museum content would be undue on the broader Baked beans article, but does have 3 independent reliable sources to establish notability. What's not to love about the 4th most popular tourist attraction in Port Talbot? Klbrain (talk) 00:24, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose, museum looks like it meets WP:N, and merging ~300 words on a Welsh museum into a ~1500 article on the global history of baked beans would seem a bit heavy. Belbury (talk) 11:25, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
I propose merging Bega Dairy & Drinks into Bega Group. Much of the former article remains un-cited and the 'Dairy & Drinks' group no longer seems to be a seperate division of the company. A section outlining the history of behind the former Lion Dairy & Drinks until the acquisition could be easily included in this article without causing any article-size or weighting problems. TechnicalNewt (talk) 04:22, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
SupportIndustrialerror (talk) 10:57, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
While there is some overlap, the Kapitan article mainly focuses on the usage of the rank in the armed forces of former Warsaw Pact countries. This content could be easily incorporated into the destination article.
I propose merging Transitional shelter into Crisis accommodation. Transitional & Emergency Shelter seem to be the preferred American term for what in Australia is called Crisis accommodation and in the UK is called Temporary Accommodation. In Ireland, it's called Emergency Accommodation. I think the content in Transitional shelter can easily be explained in the context of this article, and merging them would not cause any article-size or weighting problems. Komonzia (talk) 03:03, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Komonzia, no one has objected after a month, you should be good to carry out a WP:BOLDMERGE if this is something you're still interested in. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:37, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Alright, I will look into it Soon™ 🔥Komonzia (message) 16:58, 3 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)
I propose merging Mongol National Organisation into Gopal Gurung. MNO has never won a seat to the parliament and I doesn't meet any notability criteria. PenGear (talk) 01:29, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose - MNO has been around for a long while, and the present article doesn't fully reflect that. MNO notable on its own, and merging with article of an individual politician is to no benefit neither for Wikipedia nor its readers. --Soman (talk) 13:10, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Are they notable just for longevity? They have had no parliamentarians or elected local councilors. I do not believe they are notable enough for their own article. PenGear (talk) 17:04, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Notability is determined based on the guidelines at WP:Notability, including WP:GNG. If it meets WP:GNG, then both longevity and whether they've ever been successful in an election are irrelevant. Largoplazo (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
They do have coverage, but all of it seems to be about them contesting elections or leadership changes. I would argue that similar to candidates not being notable for just contesting elections, political parties being successful should be a relevant criteria. If not, I am fine with the page as it is. PenGear (talk) 18:49, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
PenGear, is this something you're still interested in? It's going to need input from additional editors, otherwise it's likely to be closed as no consensus. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:03, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
The topic is unlikely to gain interest from other editors. The discussion can be closed. PenGear (talk) 01:40, 13 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:
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. PMID33315377.
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. PMID33021782.
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. PMID33555193.
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. PMID22112240.
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. PMID33180474. {{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. PMID33226774.
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. PMID34323240.
Zi, Weiwei; Dean Toste, F. (2016). "Recent advances in enantioselective gold catalysis". Chemical Society Reviews. 45 (16): 4567–4589. doi:10.1039/C5CS00929D. PMID26890605.
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. PMID33315028.
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. PMID41363033.
Zheng, Zhitong; Wang, Zhixun; Wang, Youliang; Zhang, Liming (2016). "Au-Catalysed oxidative cyclisation". Chemical Society Reviews. 45 (16): 4448–4458. doi:10.1039/C5CS00887E. PMID26781300.
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. PMID33367365.
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. PMID26673389.
Asiri, Abdullah M.; Hashmi, A. Stephen K. (2016). "Gold-catalysed reactions of diynes". Chemical Society Reviews. 45 (16): 4471–4503. doi:10.1039/C6CS00023A. PMID27385433.
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. PMID25522173.
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. PMID22262401.
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)
Against: Wisconsin State College of Milwaukee is distinct from the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee. Although the former merged with the University of Wisconsin–Extension to create the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee, Wisconsin State College of Milwaukee maintains its own separate history. There is sourced content in Wisconsin State College of Milwaukee, such as information on alumni and student life or sports, that would not appropriately fit into History of the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee. Content like this is typical for university and college articles. Expanding these and other sections in the Wisconsin State College of Milwaukee is feasible, given the availability of sources, and allowable because Wikipedia does not have space limitations.
There is also a noticeable difference in article quality. Efforts are underway to secure additional sources and expand the content of the Wisconsin State College of Milwaukee; the article was under an "in use" tag when the merger discussion was originally posted. Some improvements have already been made. In contrast, the History of the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee continues to present challenges, particularly with unsourced material. The merger will address these issues, as content concerning the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee is largely unsourced. Given the overlap in content, it may be more effective to merge History of the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee into University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee#History, which provides similar information with stronger sourcing. Rublamb (talk) 00:18, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Jahaza, if this doesn't get any more input, it's likely to be closed as no consensus. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:06, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
I propose merging Obi-Wan Kenobi Street into Obi-Wan Kenobi. I would say that the only reason Obi-Wan Kenobi Street exists (and the only reason the WP page about it exists) is because the character is notable, so all the content on the very short Street page can fit comfortably into the Obi-Wan page. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 01:58, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose: It's a separate street with a separate history. I would mention the street in a "Legacy" section or similar, not merge them. TheTechie[she/they]|talk? 20:47, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
OrdinaryOtter, if this doesn't get additional input then it's likely to be closed as no consensus to merge. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:20, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
I propose merging List of Lebanese in Syrian jails into Lebanese detainees in Syria. Specifically, I suggest moving the "Responses" and "External links" sections to this article before deleting the rest. Creating a standalone article made sense when the list was much longer, but since the number of people on the list that can be cited to reliable sources is so short, I don't think a separate list makes sense. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 01:44, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
Support - this should definitely be done as the other article is very bare-bones.
I propose merging Longfellow Boom into Longfellow, Minneapolis. I think the content in Longfellow Boom can easily be explained in the context of this article with some trimming. The booms are only notable in the context of the community. Minnemeeples (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
Support merge per WP:NOPAGE. There's no reason for this one aspect of Longfellow to be separate from the Longfellow article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 04:41, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose. The concept is individually notable unto itself per WP:GNG which is enough of a policy reason for me. Personally speaking as a former resident of the area—this is more so my own stance and not a technical point—I can see a possibility where readers outside of our neighborhood may be interested in the Longfellow Boom itself as a mysterious occurrence while not at all being interested in Longfellow, Minneapolis. In that case, I support its existence as a standalone page of interest separate from the neighborhood. Phibeatrice (talk) 22:14, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
I propose merging Monthly income preferred stock into Preferred stock. I think the content in 'Monthly income preferred stock' can easily be explained in the context of this article, and merging them would not cause any article-size or weighting problems. Duncnbiscuit (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
I propose merging Secondary shares and Registered share into Share (finance). I think the content in the source articles can easily be explained in the context of this article, and merging them would not cause any article-size or weighting problems. Duncnbiscuit (talk) 20:20, 13 January 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)
I propose to redirect this title to the article on the parent company: Stillfront Group. I propose this because:
the references (almost all of which are the org's own website) do not establish independent notability,
almost none of the text is cited; And that which is referenced is supported only by non-independent blog posts (to the extent that, if this title was reduced to what could be reliably/independently supported, it would be incredibly SHORTTEXT that easily be covered WITHIN the Stillfront Group#Studios section)
it is unclear how three separate articles (one on this company's parent org, one on its flagship game (Imperia Online) and one covering the studio itself) can all be reasonably sustained. As each significantly OVERLAPs with the other.
WP:PRODUCT typically advises against having separate articles for a company and its products - unless each has received "sustained coverage in reliable independent secondary sources". Which clearly isn't the case here. (As, based on what we currently have, there is no evidence that the company has been the subject of ANY independent coverage....)
(and that's not even addressing the concern that this title has seemingly been created/expanded by COI editors with overtly promotional intent).
Support To me "structural chemistry" is that subfield of chemistry devoted to understanding and applying structure, while "chemical structure" is resulting understanding developed by that subfield. However considering the states of these articles, I would agree that merging content and having "chemical structure" redirect (with the {{R with possibilities}} apology) to a subsection of Structural chemistry would be satisfactory. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:00, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment To me, chemical structure focuses on drawing the 2D structure of a molecule, generally a small molecule, although proteins can be represented by amino acids and DNA/RNA by base-pair letters. The current Structural chemistry article would need a lot of work to add the various techniques used to ascertain 3D structure. Some of them were in the article before recently edited, although I see the LLM influence that led to its pairing down. I'm leaning oppose because I see the topics as separate enough, i.e. "Chemical structure" is primarily 2D and "Structural chemistry" is 3D. Nnev66 (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
@Ldm1954 and Johnjbarton: Comment to Nnev66. I hear you, there is a nuance (or more) difference in "chem speak" between the Chemical structure vs Structural chemistry. Here is the predicament: maintenance and quality. The main contributor to this article was someone doing homework (user:Huberyshen). Chemical structure gets about 5-10 edits per year. Many or most of these editors, well intentioned as they are, would not know the difference between chemical structure and structural chemistry The editors in the ProjectChemistry are few. To make matters worse, the number of inorganic chemists are fewer still. Ultimately the core content of structural chem is inorganic (and materials science): packing, iconic motifs, dimensionality, structure-property relationships (off the top of my head). One might say, "well what about organic structures?" At the risk of being dismissive, organic structural chemistry is chump change relatively speaking because organic is so dominated by molecular chemistry, electronic structure is simple, and intermolecular interactions are flimsy. I digress. So, it would be a lot easier to have one good article. Also, already the articles overlap. --Smokefoot (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
True, but I'm just sharing how I've heard the term used amongst chemists, and that's the reason I hesitate to merge the articles. The reason I labeled what I wrote as "Comment" rather than "Oppose" or "Weak oppose" was because I understand the term "chemical structure" can mean 2D or 3D. Nnev66 (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
Proposing that Hertzsprung gap be merged into subgiant, specifically the "Mass 1 to 8 M☉" section. The Hertzsprung gap article is basically a dictionary definition, that might fit better as part of a larger article as opposed to a standalone one. Wormsward (talk) 12:41, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
Support, but then I did make the suggestion in the first place, so I may be biased. Lithopsian (talk) 16:09, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
Thanks again for your help, lol Wormsward (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose (favouring expansion of current article) per WP:POTENTIAL. I've been thinking about this since proposing a WP:MERGEPROP over a WP:BOLD merger, and I think I lean towards keeping. Textbooks like KWW devote nontrivial page counts to the gap, and the current article -- while being little more than a dictionary definition -- has quite a bit it doesn't cover. I'll give improving the article a go over the next ~24 hours. MrSeabody (talk) 08:46, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Merge – It does seem too specific for a standalone article and fits nicely into the section proposed. FaviFake (talk) 12:29, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
Weakoppose. I feel that it should be kept separate as it describes an observed feature on the diagram (the map is not the territory), and it could be expanded with more history of science on the subject. But as is, it doesn't really stand on its own. If anywhere, Hertzsprung gap should be merged into a section on Hertzsprung–Russell diagram. Also, if merging into subgiant, I think it should rather merge into Subgiant#Subgiants in the H–R diagram (but I would in fact be more in favour of moving content from there onto Hertzsprung gap...) Slovborg (talk) 03:59, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment. I was also going to write up on the Jao gap & the outcome of this here discussion als decides where it will fit: on the red dwarf page, on the Hertzsprung–Russell diagram page, or as standalone. Slovborg (talk) 19:01, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
I propose merging RARRES1 into TIG1. TIG1 (Tazarotene-induced gene-1) and RARRES1 (Retinoic Acid Receptor Responder 1) are two different names for the exact same gene. Merging them would not cause any article-size or weighting problems. I propose TIG1 be the article going forward, as TIG1 is the well-known and more published term for the gene and is the oldest article (TIG1 was started on 30 April 2007, while RARRES1 was bot created on 21 January 2008). Wikipedialuva (talk) 09:21, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
If this does succeed, and TIG1 is chosen, RARRES3 will likely need to be moved to TIG3 for naming continuity purposes. TIG2/RARRES2 is already under the article "Chemerin", which is likely fine as-is. Wikipedialuva (talk) 09:29, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
The article Ukrainian desertion crisis should be merged into this one. The desertion crisis is part of and exacerbates the conscription crisis. Sources also treat them as part of the same issue, e.g. Desertions are a way to resist conscription, i.e. a deserter’s nightmare is the “conscription patrols”. TurboSuperA+[talk] 07:00, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose. While desertion and conscription criris can sometimes talk about different sides of the same coin, so to speak, they often are about distinct things. Its true desrtion crisis stems from conscription one, but conscription crisis primarily concerns the front end of the manpower pipeline. Its focus is on the state's inability to fairly, efficiently, and legally recruit, mobilize, and train sufficient numbers of personnel. Key topics include mobilization laws, draft evasion, corruption in recruitment centers, exemptions, and the societal/political debate over who should serve.
Desertion crisis concerns the back end of military service. It focuses mostly on the illegal departure of already mobilized and trained soldiers from their units. (Like the notorious and widely described case of 155th Brigade) Article mostly talks about soldiers leaving the front (AWOL), refusal to return from leave, struggles with morale/mental health, state efforts to apprehend deserters, and the legal framework/consequences for deserters. F.Alexsandr (talk) 16:30, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
That's all very well and good, but it is your personal opinion. Do you have any sources that agree with your assessment that the two issues are separate? TurboSuperA+[talk] 10:37, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
It is you who proposed a merge, and the burden of proof is on you. WP:NOTMERGE advises against merging when separate topics have enough substance to be "expanded into longer standalone (but cross-linked) articles"
All three articels you have linked are detailed reports on the desertion crisis, not the conscription crisis, and they actually reinforce the need for separate articles. Mentions of mobilization are included only as background or contributing factors. For example Al Jazeera articel talks about the scale, legal consequences, and personal stories of desertion; RFE sbout the business of smuggling draft dodgers and deserters across the border; The Guardian about the frontline fatigue, poor command, and psychological toll causing soldiers to desert. These sources show the topics are deeply related but substantively different. Merging them would conflate two complex subjects and go againt the guideline against creating broad, 'clunky' articles.
As for your question here is one more article that treats the issues as separate: Desertion and cosncription deal with different core problems: The conscription crisis is framed as a failure of state policy and civilian compliance while the desertion crisis is a failure of military conditions and unit cohesion (catastrophic casualty rates, lack of rotation, poor training) F.Alexsandr (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
Support merge of that article, there are not enough standalone references describing a ″Ukrainian desertion crisis″, it should be merged into this or other relevant articles where it can be covered in sections. It doesn't help that it appears to have been used as a WP:POVFORK. --TylerBurden (talk) 18:33, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
Support merge as proposer, and rename article to Ukraine's manpower crisis, as that is also supported by sources. @F.Alexsandr Would you agree that both "conscription crisis" and "desertion crisis" could be considered part of a "manpower crisis"? TurboSuperA+[talk] 20:47, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
I can't say that I'm confident enough to make a judgment either way. They are definitely distinct topics, but at the same time, it's also true that they are interlinked parts of a wider manpower crisis. NHCLS (talk) 05:39, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
It is the terminology sources use, e.g. TurboSuperA+[talk] 10:30, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
It works brilliantly: "Women provided the manpower in the domestic economy". Tony(talk) 04:49, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Yes it does. Smeagol 17 (talk) 06:08, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Support a merge of the two. The desertion and conscription crises are part of a wider manpower crisis, of which there is a considerable amount of scholarship written on. Jebiguess (talk) 01:30, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose - The question is really whether the Ukrainian desertion crisis is still notable, and clearly it is getting more so, rather than less, now that the Ukrainian government is providing official statistics on it, so it is gaining the attention of reliable news sources. The same is true of the conscription crisis. On the quite minor points above, desertion and draft dodging are very different things, the first usually punishable by imprisonment or death, the second often not even a serious crime. On his first day in office, 14 January, Mykhailo Fedorov, Ukraine's new Defense Minister, gave figures for both which had not been given before, some 200,000 AWOL and two million evading conscription. The scholarship mentioned by Jebiguess has almost nothing to say about desertion, as the sources have been so limited. So oppose, on WP:N. Moonraker (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Because of your gender related arguments above? TylerBurden (talk) 12:02, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment. The conscription and desertion are different, although related subjects. An alternative solution could be to rename the "desertion crisis" to Desertion from Ukrainian Armed forces. We do not have Desertion from Russian Armed forces, but this is a notable subject, such page could be created as well. My very best wishes (talk) 02:50, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
I propose merging Winged infusion set into Venipuncture. I think the content in Winged infusion set will not expand enough to ever be more than a stub article and can easily be explained in the context of this article, and merging them would not cause any article-size or weighting problems. Duncnbiscuit (talk) 22:34, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
There is a clear difference between The 7.30 Report and 7.30 so they should be kept separate. J Bar (talk) 04:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Is this really the case? The show is seen as an extension of 730 report. Surely they should be combined? 115.69.5.5 (talk) 01:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Considering that 7.30 is just a continuation of the former 7.30 Report, just under a different brand name, I think a merge is very appropriate. I have added the tag that was formerly on this page to propose a merge. I like the idea of a merge because it means that you don't have to unnecessarily navigate between two articles to get all of the information Wikipedia has on the program's history on these two very similar programs.
There has not been thorough discussion on the previous proposal's discussion because the participants were not explaining how these programs are substantially different. Qwerty123M (talk) 07:22, 3 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. Number57 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. Number57 03:04, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
Hello, I have a question. Could this article 2026 Pakistani airstrikes in Afghanistan be merged with the current war? I'm reviewing its analysis; it's up to February 22nd. Historycaliz (talk) 03:58, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
It can be merged if this article gives an appropriate amount of information about the airstrikes so a separate article, 2026 Pakistani airstrikes in Afghanistan, may be redundant if that article going into detail. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 04:54, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Support merge, the war is really heating up, so yes content can be amalgamated 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 05:06, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
I totally agree with this, I personally see it as part of the same conflict, and maybe it could be put under some sort of leadup section. ~2026-13111-39 (talk) 04:29, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Support only if the airstrike article has too little information the future. If information is too low, it deserves its own little section on this article. If information is good/relevant enough, then it may be enough to warrant its own article. KashanAbbas (talk) 06:56, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose merge because that's a separate incident prior to this conflict and fulfills the WP:NEVENT criteria. ~2026-11405-34 (talk) 14:35, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose. This is a seperate incident, before a war was declared. Instead, we can redirect readers to this article instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Missileboi (talk • contribs) 16:49, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Merge. The airstrikes are linked to the declaration of war itself. ~2026-13032-08 (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Merge It's part of the same war, even if war wasn't officially declared until after the airstrikes first occurred. Not really a WP:NEVENT because they overlap and involve direct causality. Also, the airstrikes article is short enough that any additional relevant information could be packed into the existing section dedicated to the event in the war article. Pluma (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose.
Oppose the merge because the airstrikes are clearly a separate, discrete event with strong independent coverage. Sources discuss the strikes themselves in detail, not just as a small part of the war, so they meet event notability on their own. Chronologically this happened before the wider conflict escalated, and is widely treated as a triggering/precipitating incident. Wikipedia usually keeps initiating incidents separate from the larger war articles.
Per summary style, the war page should only summarize and link to the airstrikes article. Merging would either bloat the war article or force removal of useful sourced detail.
Causality alone isn’t a reason to merge - many wars and the incidents that lead to them have separate but cross-linked articles, which is clearer for readers and keeps scope clean.
Support merge, you don't need two separate articles for this lol. Alexysun (talk) 00:48, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Support merge Both articles overlap on the same topic and there is not enough content to justify separate, duplicative pages. Reywas92Talk 06:46, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
@HistorycalizSupport, pretty much the same article PortugueseWikiMan (talk) 12:55, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Support because it's redundant to have both Logimite (talk) 23:21, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Support merge: per KashanAbbas, if airstrikes don't develop any further; perhaps as part of a lead-up or the background section. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 00:03, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Support merge as comments above. M.Billoo 00:10, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose as that is a sperate incident to the current fighting and is notable enough for its own article. GothicGolem29(Talk) 19:17, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Support merge as it's essentially the same event. GWA88 (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
I would support the merging of the two articles. ~2026-13803-90 (talk) 16:54, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Support merge ~2026-13803-90 (talk) 16:54, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Support merge as the war is considered to have started before the strikes took place. Dark Energy9 (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Support merge per above. --Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 04:46, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
Support merge, all part of the same topic and there are no size concerns to justify breaking it apart. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:10, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
Support – This page already covers everything mentioned in the other article, so maintaining a separate page is unnecessary.AlphaTangoIndia (talk) 14:32, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
Support as that is essentially the same incident to the current fighting and doesn't warrant its own separate article, unless the conflict page becomes too large. Yeoutie (talk) 23:03, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
Support The information in that article contains a relevant part of the conflict. Rager7 (talk) 05:49, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
The article global day of action for the Iranian people, which is about the 14 Feb 2026 Iranian diaspora protests, should be merged into 2026 Iranian diaspora protests, which is about the January 2026 Iranian diaspora protests. These are both Iranian diaspora protests in the context of the same overall sequence of events (protests in Iran, massacres, arrests, diaspora protests, US/IL plan to attack Iran). There's no justification for a WP:SPLIT, except to make a new section for the 14 Feb (and 15 Feb???) diaspora protests and do a bit of other tidying up editing to avoid duplication. Boud (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Merge (proposer) As per the proposal - these are essentially the same topic, at slightly different dates within the same overall pattern of events. Boud (talk) 17:41, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment I'm open to either, but one thing to note is that although the majority of the "global day of action" protests were held worldwide across the Iranian diaspora, the protests were also held in Iran per the “Within Iran" section, and therefore not only across the diaspora, so I'm on the fence if a merge to the diaspora protests article would be factually correct here. Also, the content might be too long for a merge, so a split might be best based on its current length and content.--Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 21:47, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
The "Within Iran" is just one sentence, which would remain in the history for recovering and adding to the main protests-in-Iran article if the info is still missing there. I don't think that should be controversial. Boud (talk) 15:19, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Agreed, but if the article is eventually merged, I think the "Within Iran" section should still be kept and not just deleted, even if it is outside the diaspora, since it pertains to the topic of the global day of action. However, I'm still slightly leaning towards the article split due to the above reasons.--Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 06:53, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose. The scope of the February 14 protests makes them notable in and of themselves. Also, as mentioned in the article, they took place within Iran as well, so it doesn't cleanly fit into the 2026 Iranian diaspora protests, and the protests that took place on that day need to be addressed in one place and not scattered. Furthermore, 2026 Iranian diaspora protests is currently over 5,700 words and rapidly expanding, and Global day of action for the Iranian people is currently over 1,300 words, making the total length approximately 7,000 word which is bordering on too long, and considering that 2026 Iranian diaspora protests is growing quickly, it would likely need to be split fairly soon in any case. Ibn Yagdhan (talk) 06:46, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
You are roughly correct (the XTools for both pages are showing slightly more than the numbers you mentioned, but its not substantial), I miscounted the words. However, my other two arguments still stand. Ibn Yagdhan (talk) 06:43, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Support per nom. SuperΨDro 00:43, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose. The extent of these protests is much larger and they took place inside Iran as well. MelikaShokoufandeh (talk) 14:47, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose per above.--Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 00:53, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Support per nom. Lova Falk (talk) 15:06, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Support per Boud's proposal. Ivegut (talk) 15:53, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Support per nom. VR(Please ping on reply) 16:05, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose per MelikaShokoufandeh. AghaJhonson (talk) 13:20, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Merge/Support: In my opinion, a single comprehensive article better illustrates the unified continuity of the 2026 protest movement. StarkReport (talk) 21:57, 4 March 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 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.
I propose merging benthic zone into benthos. There is clearly a deep content fork: the benthos are the organisms that inhabit the benthic zone and the benthic zone is... an ecological zone (i.e., a zone defined by the organisms that inhabit it). Kind of a chicken-egg situation. The merge could perhaps go the other way, but this article is the older of the two and it seems to have the more appropriate title. — An anonymous username,not my real name 00:37, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
Yes, there is some point to that. But it should be merged the other way round, benthos should be merged into benthic zone. Benthos means life in the benthic zone, in other words, it is a subset of things that happen in the benthic zone. There is a parallel with the article demersal zone, the zone imediately above the benthic zone, which includes sections describing life in this zone.
Also, saying the benthic zone is an "ecological zone" means it plays a part in the functioning of, or as habitat for organisms. That is not the same as saying it is a zone "defined by the organisms that inhabit it". The zone is more defined physically by its proximity to the seafloor.— Epipelagic (talk) 04:31, 5 February 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. ~UN6892tc 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:
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. ~UN6892tc 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. ~UN6892tc 01:40, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
I've completed the Toronto merge since neither of us were opposed to it. ~UN6892tc 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)
Comment: I think verifiable information about connections with Epstein should be moved to Connections of Jeffrey Epstein. What is the relevance of someone being mentioned in the Epstein files if they do not have a verifiable connection to Epstein? Anybar (talk) 18:52, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
How many people in this list do not have a verifiable connection to Epstein? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:02, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
We still haven't established inclusion criteria for the people in this article.
If we only include people with verifiable connections to Epstein, then this article becomes Connections of Jeffrey Epstein mentioned in the Epstein files . Anybar (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
I think "connections with Epstein" is clearly very different than "individuals mentioned in the Epstein files". -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
Nonetheless, "There is a high level of overlap between this list and Connections of Jeffrey Epstein."Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:56, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose merge. While there is some overlap, there's clear distinction and difference in scope. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 22:08, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
Merge per nominator's rationale. FaviFake (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose merge. Connections implies a closer tie than is warranted for some of the people on this list, raising BLP concerns. Gamaliel (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Not all mentions are connections. While there is some overlap, these are two different categories.-- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 04:07, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment. If we really want two pages, we need page for people, and another for connections. Otherwise it may end up being a copypasta project of other pages. Selbstporträt (talk) 16:47, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Merge This page both lists the names and provides context about the relationships, making Connections of Jeffrey Epstein essentially redundant. Keivan.fTalk 21:39, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
Merge There's significant overlap here and I don't think these are needed as separate articles. Any "connections" content that might not go well in the Files list would be short and can also be covered elsewhere I'm sure without needing a duplicative page. Reywas92Talk 15:06, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
Merge as I do not think the people simply mentioned in the Epstein files are actually a point of interest, rather people who met or were actively in conversation with Epstein. Which is covered under "Connections of Jeffrey Epstein". Limiting it to only specifically mentioned in the files also obfuscates this issue further. Vin Von Voom (talk) 17:32, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
I agree with you, Andy let's hope it happens,they should all be in one piece. ~2026-92754-2 (talk) 19:59, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
Question. Looks like a merge is getting consensus. I suppose the new name of the page will be Connections of Jeffrey Epstein? Selbstporträt (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
With six opposed and six in favor, I'd hardly say we're getting a consensus to do anything. Joe (talk) 09:19, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
Then I'd rather get onto building a real Connections page! Selbstporträt (talk) 21:45, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
An update: disruptive editing prevents me from contributing to that page for now. Selbstporträt (talk) 00:30, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Merge per nom. Horse.staple (talk) 03:02, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose, these really are two different categories of things; there's absolutely nothing wrong with having some overlap. Joe (talk) 09:16, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose, this article helps the public access all the information with less effort Stemova11 (talk) 15:46, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
That's undeniable; why do you think moving the information to the other page would hinder its accessibility to the public? FaviFake (talk) 15:48, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
Because a list is eaiser to read sense its less messy and more evenly ordered Stemova11 (talk) 17:15, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment As far as I can see, the only person in Connections of Jeffrey Epstein but not in List of people named in the Epstein files is John Casablancas, who is only in the former with a fairly weak connection. It seems to me that the all the most well cited connections of Epstein would also appear in the Epstein files, therefore I'd mildly support redirecting connections into list (but not the other way round) and dropping that one weakly cited connection. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 08:41, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
Just a note, the Connections page has been updated and now has other people who aren't included in the List page, as well as other types of connections. Joe (talk) 13:32, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
Here are examples of connections or loci that can't fit in our list:
Edge.org: an organization mainly funded by Epstein;
Pritzker award: Epstein has been connected to it, along lots of architects;
Barbara Guggenheim: only named in subpoenas and in a list of names;
The Lolita Express: almost a character at this point;
The New York mansion: has its own page, with historicity;
Anybody involved in whatever happened before 1996;
Epstein's estate: a legal entity all by itself connecting Epstein to people and resources beyond his grave
To get the page where it would be useful to the reader, we'll need a few months. Selbstporträt (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
The items listed above that are not about people don't belong on either of the pages proposed for merging—we have an article about Epstein for them; those about individual people belong in a combined page, or none. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:03, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
By that logic, the NYAA would belong to Epstein's main page, whereas Guggenheim would belong to the Connections page. Since Guggenheim is connected to Epstein through the NYAA, that makes little sense.
A connection refers to a relationship, not a person. Selbstporträt (talk) 00:49, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Merge - "List of people named in the Epstein files" is a much more comprehensive version of "Connections of Jeffrey Epstein". Guz13 (talk) 01:44, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Tisn't - Connections of Jeffrey Epstein contains persons and institutions that aren't included in List of people named in the Epstein files. Some of the persons might not be included in the Epstein files at all. Joe (talk) 17:47, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose per reasons previously listed by Gamaliel et al. Roc1233 (Talk | Edits) 23:38, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose - per reasons listed by users Willthacheerleader18, Joe, and Gamaliel. Yodabyte (talk) 02:56, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
merge fs the important info overlaps Formerlygopackgo009 (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose - apples and oranges. Bearian (talk) 20:55, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose per Bearian and WP:SIZERULESahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 17:36, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
There is a separate, ongoing, discussion on subdividing this article, which would address the SIZERULE issue.
SIZERULE Says nothing that supports duplicating content across two or more articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:45, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Yeah I just voted on that one. I think that if the article is merged, then the set index (which this article will become) can be merged with connections of Jeffrey Epstein under Connections of Jeffrey Epstein#People but that is premature, there has not been connection to split yet. So my vote is Oppose, if split then merge under Connections of Jeffrey Epstein#PeopleSahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 17:57, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose. How exactly are going to merge them? We could place the current version of the list into section "People" of this page. But this is not an improvement. This page is much better written, and it does look like a regular page, rather than a list. Another possible way would be moving the content of section "People" on this page into the list. This could be way to go. Overall, I think we need to keep a regular page (that one) and the list separately - as we usually do. My very best wishes (talk) 20:48, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
Both pages are large and very notable, so I don’t see how a merge would be conducted. 🔮🛷 starmanatee 🛷🔮 (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
I propose merging Cosette (given name) into Cosette. The name is not a popular name in English or French and everyone with the name is named for the character. Gazingo (talk) 15:40, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
It's not a complete duplicate: the Delhi-Meerut line is only one of many proposed/under construction for the Namo Bharat network. So while content should be rationalized, the two articles should remain separate. Asamboi (talk) 15:10, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
@Bouzinac im sorry but they must not be merged, rather must be updated, Namo Bharat is the rrts trainset, the system, whereas this page discusses the first rrts project of the country, more corridors to follow, hence more articles to follow AaritJain (talk) 20:11, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
I propose merging Leader of the Democrats 66 into this page. A simple list of the leader of a party isn't notable enough by itself and could very easily be added as a new section on this page. Vəssel[talk to mə] 09:34, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
I'm not sure those sources establish notability for a list - a government website listing past leaders of a country is not really independent coverage of the list as a single collection, as WP:NLIST requires Vəssel[talk to mə] 11:48, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
It is not a government website Dajasj (talk) 06:47, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
There's a new article on AI veganism which primarily discusses ethical issue, although I'm not sure that the article itself is support by the references it uses (there is some inappropriate synthesis and use of unreliable sources such as blogs). So, perhaps a selective merge to the broader topic? Klbrain (talk) 19:36, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
The articles in The Guardian and The Conversation, as well as some in the Times of India, explicitly describe AI vegans or AI veganism. Such articles may increase, and even articles that don't use that terminology may still describe the same topic. I would prefer to try to improve the new article. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 21:54, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
If you know of sources which describe the same topic without using this term, it would make sense to rename and expand that article. Since most of the sources at that article did not discuss 'veganism', I have removed them as blatant WP:OR. The two sources left aren't really substantial enough to support an entire article. Grayfell (talk) 22:01, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
"AI abstinence" may be a synonymous term. (Not to be confused with "AI abstention", which is a behavior of AIs.) A Fast Companyarticle uses it instead of "AI veganism", and the Euronews refidea uses both. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 15:32, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
WP:TIMESOFINDIA notes possible paid content, but I don't see any reason to expect it in this case. I added two refideas. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
Support merge, any of the proposed target articles are acceptable. This doesn't need to be separate unless the "veganism" analogy gets widespread coverage and study. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:21, 8 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. ISBN1134811136. 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):
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). Impru20talk 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)
The article appears to be the result of a homework assignment. The refs are overly specialized and sort of optimistic about the real impact of the summarized work. The title is flawed because these sensors detect ions, not molecules. Possibly the article should be completely resplaced with some sort of host-guest molecular sensor theme. Smokefoot (talk) 17:28, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
So I preliminarily suggest that the contents of this article be incorporated into Fluorescent tag. Most of the article is about fluorescent complexes. I further wonder if the article itself be converted to a redirect to host-guest complex. --Smokefoot (talk) 19:45, 14 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)
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)
I propose merging Fort Amherstburg into Fort Malden. Most of the info in the Fort Amherstburg article appears in the Fort Malden article. The Fort Malden article is more detailed and had copious inline citations. Griffin's Sword (talk) 20:29, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
Support, assuming my understanding is correct that they're the same site. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:29, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
I propose merging Giedroyć into House of Giedroyć. The focus of the articles is identical in content.+JMJ+ (talk) 23:35, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
I propose merging unless there is a clear distinction made that Giedroyć becomes an article solely about the name itself, separate (even if connected) to the House of Giedroyć article - but that requires complete rewriting. +JMJ+ (talk) 23:40, 22 February 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 Lithuaniashould 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)
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)
That aside, are Aché language, Kaiwá language, Pai Tavytera language, and Xeta language considered by a reliable source to be distinct enough and the Guarani dialects similar enough to warrant such a split? (I may go digging and answer my own question later, but I think it is the primary question we should be asking here) ~ oklopfer (💬) 06:18, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
Oklopfer, just saw your comment now. Mostly Ctrl C Ctrl V’ing something I wrote on Wiktionary last year. Hope it helps a bit, I’m currently in a hurry
Guarani Linguistics in the 21st Century. There, Estigarribia is more technical in stating the following: “Guarani languages, a subgroup of the Tupi–Guarani language family comprising Paraguayan Guarani, Kaiwá, Nhandeva, Xetá, Chiriguano, Isosó, Tapieté, and Guayakí. Mbyá Guarani is not mentioned by Rodrigues and Cabral, but it can be classified as a member of the Tupi–Guarani subgroup that includes Kaiwá, Nhandeva, and Chiriguano” (p. 1).
Dietrich divides the Guarani languages into two groups and also mentions one or another additional language (pp. 11–12).
In any case, I am almost certain the two articles are redundant with each other Yacàwotçã (talk) 14:28, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
@Yacàwotçã per WP:M4 you are free to close and perform the merge if you want (I'll throw in my support vote as well) ~ oklopfer (💬) 22:26, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Can we look at reopening the merge proposal of HP Inc. where the content of that article is merged into Hewlett-Packard and then moved to HP Inc. in order to preserve long history etc? We have had multiple merge proposal and comments from users in support and opposing, but no consensus was reached, but wondering if we can reopen this? I found an article on Reuters that says "Hewlett-Packard, which will be renamed HP and comprise the computers and printers business, will continue to trade under its current ticker symbol." Pinging BrandonXLF and Chiffonr, Steven (Editor) (talk) 21:39, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
By "long history" do you mean "edit history" or "corporate history"? If the latter, maybe merge Agilent and Keysight and Hewlett Packard Enterprise back in while you're at it; there really isn't any company that "is" Hewlett-Packard any more. Guy Harris (talk) 22:08, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
The three-way split is correct. The late, lamented Hewlett-Packard should not have its incredible history folded into any subsequent company page. Hewlett-Packard died somewhere between the Agilent spinoff of 1999, the suicidal Compaq merge of 2002, and the final death throes split in 2015. HP Inc can't hold a candle to the old company. It does not deserve stewardship of the old history. Binksternet (talk) 23:37, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
It doesn't matter how others describe it, what matters is how it actually is, as reported by official company sources and government websites. Paranoid25 (talk) 12:58, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
Haha! Nice one. This is an encyclopedia based on WP:SECONDARY sources. Your suggested sources are primary, which are interesting to the narrative but not defining to the topic. Binksternet (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
Yes, but in any case you cited sources that speak of people's opinions, not facts. And in any case the government sources are secondary. Paranoid25 (talk) 17:57, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
The PC and HPC home products business remained in the hands of HP Inc. after the spin-off, a business it has been running since the 1980s. It's normal for the company's business to have changed since its founding in 1939. Any company operating in the technology sector adapts to the times. Agilent was born in 1999, so if you were to create a Wikipedia page for each historical period of HP based on its business and its spin-offs, you'd end up with at least four separate pages (one for the 1939-1980s period, one for the 1980s-1999 period, one for the post-Agilent spin-off period 1999-2015, and one for the post-HPE spin-off period 2015-present), and honestly, that doesn't seem very sensible to me.
Considering that the company gained its greatest fame with its PC, printer, etc. business, since the 80s/90s, when it was called HPC, and now it keeps it as HP Inc., I think it's best to merge these two pages. Paranoid25 (talk) 10:35, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
HP's "greatest fame" is likely the the HP Way from the 1950s through the 1990s. Many other products from the 1960s and 1970s have been listed among HP's "greatest" achievements. There's the 1964 spectrum analyzer, the 1967 microwave vector network analyzer, the HP-35 handheld calculator, and the 1977 GHz synthesized generator.Binksternet (talk) 15:02, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Yet the company's record turnover dates back to 2011.[4] In any case, the issue remains that you can't have 4 separate pages for each historical period of HP. Paranoid25 (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Agree per nom. ~2026-11157-15 (talk) 17:23, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
In fact, I'm also against those pages being separate. In any case, I'm not very well informed about the two you mentioned, so I'll avoid putting too much stock in them. Paranoid25 (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Limmidy is saying that separate HP pages are okay. No need to merge. Just to be clear. Binksternet (talk) 23:29, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Binksternet is correct - I'm leaning more towards oppose merge. To expand on my example with Fox, 21st Century Fox appears to be the legal successor of News Corporation, yet News Corp is the second incarnation of the company, created on the same day. So is merging still a good idea here? As for HP, even though Hewlett-Packard made it clear in a press release from 2014 that it would be separating into two new companies, and then later backtracking a bit by saying "HP will be renamed to HP Inc." in a 2015 press release, I still think the current clear-cut separation between the two is adequate. In my opinion, I see Hewlett-Packard as the original company (pre-separation) that "birthed" HP Inc., HPE and its other spin-offs. Limmidy (talk) 01:29, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
The point is that you've applied your reasoning to all HP eras from 1939 to the present. That is, following your reasoning, there should also be a page for HP spanning from 1999 (the date of the spin-off into Agilent) to the present. It doesn't make much sense to me.
To support my point, I'd add that after the spin-off and name change, HP has kept its logo (until last year), its website, its registered office, its social media profiles, and its stock exchange ticker symbol unchanged. Paranoid25 (talk) 08:58, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
...And lost its reputation for solid business dealing. The media don't agree that HP is the same after all the splits. And the media define the topic. Binksternet (talk) 14:24, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
And what does reputation have to do with it? Paranoid25 (talk) 15:04, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
My main reasoning is that HP Inc. is a new incarnation (or a spin-off) of the original company, but the larger Hewlett-Packard remained intact following its spin-off of Agilent, like any typical corporate spin-off. Binksternet is right again, the media and secondary sources define the topic, although I did try using a primary source for you with the 2014 press release.
So should we distinguish between "minor" and "major" spinoffs? I'm sorry, but I just don't understand your logic (no offense intended, I'm here to argue). I think Wikipedia should be as easy to understand as possible, and creating multiple pages for the same entity only for different historical periods makes it difficult to read (in fact, it took me a while to understand the Fox/News case you mentioned). I reiterate that it would have made sense if HP had been completely remodeled after the spinoff, but in this case was simply spun off the enterprise division, while everything else (logo, HQ, social media profiles, website, ISIN, stock ticker, etc.) remained unchanged. Paranoid25 (talk) 20:01, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
It is more difficult for the reader if we combine the different business entities. It is much less confusing to write separate pages about separate business groups. Binksternet (talk) 01:56, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
Let me ignore whatever HP has going on for a second: a combined article would probably be WP:TOOLONG. The 2015 corporate split of Hewlett-Packard and its subsequent renaming to HP Inc. seems like an adequate time to split the article. I haven't heard of any strong rationale to merge. Looks like Binksternet is right again! WP:NOTMERGE and WP:SPINOUT should apply. Limmidy (talk) 10:16, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
I don't think it would be a very long page, considering that some sections of the two pages are practically identical, and once joined the length would be almost the same (maybe a little more). Paranoid25 (talk) 10:38, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
I propose merging Portugal Golden Visa into Immigrant investor programs because the topic fits the broader article and there is substantial overlap. The target article already mentions Portugal; this merge would consolidate the detailed, sourced information in one place and reduce duplication.
Proposed structure:
Expand/replace the existing Portugal coverage with a dedicated subsection under "In operation" (e.g., "Portugal (Golden Visa)").
Integrate key material from Portugal Golden Visa (history, eligibility changes, major policy changes, and notable issues such as processing backlogs/lawsuits) with reliable sources.
Outcome:
Turn Portugal Golden Visa into a redirect to the relevant Portugal subsection (to preserve incoming links and attribution).
Support per nom, good rationale and proposed structure. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 08:57, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Update (merge completed): The content from Portugal Golden Visa has now been merged into the Portugal section of this article, and the former page has been converted into a redirect to Immigrant investor programs#Portugal. —Lojmze (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose - Do we have a source that the NDAs are used for immigration detention? (not that Immigration detention in the second Trump administration is only about detention) The NDAs also seem to be part of the administration's effort to use the military domestically.[1] This should be expanded but not necessarily be merged solely on word count. Seamlessly (talk) 08:00, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
The very first sentence, that has eight references and occupies the entire lead section, says "National Defense Areas (NDAs) are military installations designated by the second Trump administration at the Mexico–United States border which are operated by the US Department of Defense, where troops can search and detain." -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 15:45, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose - CATEM is not just about the Trump administration, it is also about the Costa Rican government and migration in Costa Rica. There is some overlap with the proposal but likely not enough to merge. Also, the creation date may be after there is greater attention in the US (such as Zero Units which was only created in December 2025 after the 2025 Washington, D.C., National Guard shooting). Seamlessly (talk) 08:02, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Would you oppose the merging of the Role in renditions from the United States section into the Immigration detention in the second Trump administration article as well? -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 15:58, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
I propose merging Inspector-general of police into Inspector general. The latter article already includes sections addressing police use of the title, and the remaining material can be included there without creating article size or other issues. Ckfasdf (talk) 00:33, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
The article Moshava remnants in Kfar Malal is about the history of this place and the overlap is obvious. It is unnecessary and irregular to have a separate article for the history of small locations. Consequently, I propose to merge Moshava remnants in Kfar Malal into Kfar Malal. Zerotalk 07:15, 21 February 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)
I have saw @லடாக்மாநிலம்'s attempt to merge List of current Indian governors onto this article and did agree with the inherit idea, the execution was more improper. I want to merge this article because of the fact that:
Lack of references were used with only one being utilised (the content may possibly be WP:OR)
Not notable enough to "stand up" for itself (be an independent article)
so I think that it would make sense to merge if possible.
Per WP:OVERLAP, I propose merging Meghalaya Nationalist Congress Party into Meghalaya Democratic Alliance (2003–2008). I think the content in Meghalaya Nationalist Congress Party can easily be explained in the context of this article, and merging them would not cause any article-size or weighting problems. The content in this article is almost identically covered already, and only a single sentence would need to be added to complete the merge. 4meter4 (talk) 15:48, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
StrataFlash appears to be an old Intel brand name for MLC NOR flash. As such, the content could be merged into this article, perhaps even reduced to a couple sentences, as they appear to be no longer using the name. Irene Twoth (talk) 23:15, 6 February 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 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)
I propose merging Risk-adjusted net present value into Net present value. I think the content in Risk-adjusted net present value can easily be explained in the context of this article, and merging them would not cause any article-size or weighting problems. Duncnbiscuit (talk) 10:50, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
I propose merging non-epileptic seizure into Psychogenic non-epileptic seizure (this page). Medically, there is no such thing as a "physiological non-epileptic seizure," and NES and PNES are synonymous. There is not a single source in the entire section about "physiological non-epileptic events" in the NES article, and rest of it is just a less substantial restatement of this article. Most of the "physiological non-epileptic seizures" the NES page refers to are differential diagnoses for seizures (narcolepsy, tics, etc), not seizures themselves. They would better fit as a differential diagnosis subsection of this page, as is currently the case on the (epileptic) seizure page. RhodiumH (talk) 21:33, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
This source discusses "Nonepileptic Episodic Events" besides PNES Tristario (talk) 23:24, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
As they explain in their introduction, they do so because one of their focuses is on distinguishing "nonepileptic episodic events" from epileptic seizures, which means other differential diagnoses like convulsive syncope or narcolepsy are relevant. However, they never call any of those "non-epileptic seizures," and they acknowledge that the term generally refers exclusively to PNES: "It is important to note that the term nonepileptic episodic events is also often used interchangeably with nonepileptic seizures or psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (PNES), so caution should be taken to use precise terminology." RhodiumH (talk) 01:16, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
and they acknowledge that the term generally refers exclusively to PNES They do not appear to be saying that in that sentence that you quote (they include an "or" in that sentence).
However I've just had a look on pubmed and it appears "Non-Epileptic Seizures" almost always refers to PNES. There are various references to "non-epileptic events" so perhaps the name of the other article should be renamed to that.
On another note I think a more appropriate name for this article would be "Functional seizures" as that term seems more common since 2020 than PNES since 2020 (and there isn't a consensus the cause is psychogenic) Tristario (talk) 02:44, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
Non-epileptic events is just another term for non-epileptic seizures, which is in turn another term for psychogenic non-epileptic seizures. No need for multiple articles on the same thing.
PNES is currently the official name of the condition per the DSM-5, so the article name should probably remain unless there's an official update. (I don't know why it's singular though --- the name is psychogenic non-epileptic seizures, plural.) ~2026-12508-46 (talk) 22:50, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
No, sources which discuss non-epileptic events, such as this one, or this one, discuss a variety of non-epileptic events besides PNES. Have you done a search of available appropriate sources to see what they say about the term?
Also, I just checked, and PNES isn't the official name according to the latest version of the DSM-5 (DSM-5-TR). It has it under the heading "Functional Neurological Symptom Disorder (Conversion Disorder)" (and also lists various of the different terms that can be used to describe the seizures or attacks, but doesn't give preference to PNES) Tristario (talk) 23:53, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
Are you reading those sources in their entirety, or just judging their contents based on their abstracts? Both make clear in their bodies that they use PNEE/NEEE to refer to differential diagnoses for epilepsy at large, including PNES and other differential diagnoses like syncope.
"Nonepileptic episodic events of physiologic origin may include both neurologic and non-neurologic conditionsthat could be mistaken for epileptic seizures."
"Conditions that could be mistaken for" means "differential diagnoses." The standard on Wikipedia, and what is currently used on the seizure page, is to include a section on differential diagnoses within the page itself. I propose aligning the PNES page with sitewide standard by merging this page into a section of the PNES page listing its differential diagnoses, which, as your second link discusses, includes syncope, tics, migraine, sleep disorders, and others. That section could mention that these differential diagnoses are sometimes referred to as non-epileptic events during the diagnostic process, but, as you mentioned, NES almost always refers to PNES in a clinical setting.
As for FND, that is a different condition with its own page. PNES can be a symptom of FND, but not all FND involves PNES, and it wouldn't be appropriate to merge those pages. RhodiumH (talk) 18:06, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Okay, so you acknowledge that the sources discuss non-PNES non-epileptic events then?
There are three questions to consider now, I think. 1. Does the page "non-epileptic seizure" meet wikipedia's notability guideline? 2. Is it better treated as its own page? 3. If it shouldn't be its own page, what is the appropriate page to merge it into?
For the notability question, per Wikipedia:GNG it has significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources, so it is notable. For 3, if it is merged what's the right, page, it seems merging into the differential diagnosis section of Epilepsy or Seizure would make a lot more sense than this page, as this page is not about non-epileptic events that aren't PNES.
For whether Non-epileptic events should have its own page, I recommend reading the guidance at WP:PAGEDECIDE, and then taking appropriate action based on that. If that page is merged, I don't think this is the right page to be merged into, so I don't think this talk page is the right place for discussion of that. Tristario (talk) 22:16, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Okay after some further thinking in my view we should have a page titled "Paroxysmal non-epileptic events" or "Non-epileptic events". Various reliable sources discuss it as a topic in its own right, so I think it's notable and worthy of its own page. It is, essentially, a page about a type of presentation, and there are various pages like that, such as Chest pain, Fatigue, Heartburn (there is also a separate page for GERD), etc.
I agree that the term "Non-epileptic seizures" should redirect to PNES, however the name of the other page should be changed first, and then the term "Non-epileptic seizures" can be redirected to PNES. Tristario (talk) 00:11, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
PNES include functional (neurologists use more often and so also epileptologists from ILAE )or dissociative seizures( ICH 11 , psychiatrists use more), under broader term FND (functional neurological disorders). This is the current consensus and therefore use of the terms in different subspecialities.
Non epileptic seizures is much broader term including PNES and other movement or episodic disorders related to circulatory causes or sleep related disorders and others(physiological or pathological), which may not need Antiseizure treatment but a different approach to diagnosis and treatment. These entities are not Epileptic seizures because they do not have any abnormal electrical discharges from the brain cells. Nearly 20-30% presentations to clinicians are of this nature and often confused as Epileptic seizures and wrongly treated with not much response.
I feel the article on Non epileptic seizures should remain as such and contains PNES as a section and is broader than that topic so cannot be merged to it.
A separate article on PNES exists which contains the more recently accepted terms like functional or dissociative seizures and should be linked to this article from all other places wherever it may exist. Again PNES ( which may resemble epileptic seizures)also links to FND under which it is an important subsection and integral part besides other functional disorders which may present differently from epileptic seizures. NandanYardi (talk) 10:09, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
I agree. I think the page for PNES should be retitled to functional/dissociative seizures since this is what the ILAE has proposed to be the new term for this condition. I think it makes sense to have separate page called non-epileptic events (currently called non-epileptic seizures) where the differential diagnosis for seizure-like events that are not epileptic can be reviewed. JF1987 (talk) 15:37, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose the merge as per the same reasons as before. Non epileptic seizures are a group of conditions. PNES is one single condiction within that group. Why try to confuse things. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:03, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
I propose merging Chris Pavlovski into Rumble (company). Pavlovski's notability is within the context of Rumble, and merging them would not cause any article-size or weighting problems. There is also overlap and not all information needs to be brought over. SafewayKat (talk) 06:05, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
His notability is beyond just Rumble. In fact, he's the guy behind building and making Trump's Truth Social.
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)
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)
Tangential speed is equivalent to speed. Tangential velocity is equivalent to velocity. By the Frenet equations, a curve's unit tangent vector is in exactly the same direction as the velocity, hence the tangent velocity is exactly equivalent to the velocity. Hence, the magnitude of the tangent velocity, that is, the tangent speed, is equivalent to the magnitude of the velocity, that is, the speed. Hence, the tangent speed is equivalent to the speed.
The page on tangential speed only provides an example of speed for rotational motion along with a snippet about tangential acceleration. I will do all the work and already attempted a merger, but now require consensus.
Originally, the pages had been together, however they were split, most likely due to the presence of the term in the book,
However, seeing as I cannot find the term on either page 131 or 132 as suggested in the references, and seeing as no other serious physics text references such a term as either "tangential speed" or "tangential velocity", I maintain that the existence of the page is erroneous.
@LuniZunie, Magnosaturno, and Fgnievinski: Notifying relevant contributors to the articles. Nwparris (talk) 16:04, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm going to take a step back from this just because I helped set it up (or at least direct you on how), I will notify wikiprojects in a bit. – LuniZunie(talk) 16:07, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose. There is nothing wrong with having tangential speed as a separate article. The page speed covers some other aspects. The merge proposal here may also not the place for this.
Comment both speed and tangential speed could do with some cleanup and better sourcing. IMO that should be a much higher priority than any merge.
Merge per Nom: See comments below. -- Otr500 (talk) 16:32, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment:(s) Some editors dislike merging for what seems to me to be no real reason. I am in a different camp. When Wikipedia was fledgling, it needed articles, articles, articles. Now that it is established, it makes sense to combine stub or start articles that would benefit. Both of these articles have different authors. This article is a C-class with 5431 B (962 words of "readable prose"). In the "Tangential speed" subsection, it states, "This section is an excerpt from Tangential speed." The "Excerpt" is what looks to be an exact copy. We might consider this plagiarism. Tangential speed is a start-class with 4151 B (707 words) of "readable prose". There may not be anything wrong with having separate articles, but why not make improvements when we can?
Destination: Almost four years ago, I reassessed Circular motion to C-class. The entire article is full of technical content and graphs, which are mostly unsourced. For some reason, I didn't tag the article, which I will now, but it only has two sources and four "External links, that hopefully are misplaced "General references". The article likely involves one or more violations, which may be plagiarism, very likely close paraphrasing, if not copyright violations. For these reasons, I think everyone should consider not merging anything there. Tangential speed has one reference, as two instances of the same source count as one for notability, and apparently one misplaced "General reference". That the page might be erroneous is one term; however, it might not survive AFD without a major WP:HEY. An AFD might result in a merge anyway as ATD. Merging here, with one trimmed, would still be lacking adequate sourcing per the requirements, but would be an improvement over separate articles, which are two levels below horrible. -- Otr500 (talk) 16:32, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
You seem to be mixing up a bunch of things that are not related. I'm not going to dig through that mess, but I will point out that the "tangential speed" section looks like an exact copy because it is generated with Template:Excerpt, which is designed for this purpose. That's not plagiarism.
The current quality of an article is not a large factor in whether it should be deleted or merged. See Wikipedia:There is no deadline. The thing to think about in deciding whether to delete or merge Wikipedia articles is whether it makes sense to have an independent article about the topic, or whether it makes sense to cover the topic as part of some other article. Either way, we can work on the quality of the content separately from the decision about where that content should be located. There's no rush.--Srleffler (talk) 18:01, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Team Falcons PH should be merged into Team Falcons. It’s just a regional division of the overall organization, similar to CLG.EU in League of Legends. MarcusAbacus (talk) 10:12, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose the creator looks like they forgot to move the stats properly. We usually create the statistics page to stop the main bio from getting cluttered and long, and it now needs to be trimmed. That has now been fixed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
I propose merging To Kill a Mockingbird in popular culture into To Kill a Mockingbird. Most of the list in To Kill a Mockingbird in popular culture is unsourced and does not merit inclusion per MOS:TRIVIA. I think moving the two lead paragraphs back to To Kill a Mockingbird and eliminating the list would allow the popular culture context to be explained without causing weighting issues. ElToAn123 (talk) 04:47, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
Support merge The ...in popular culture article is short and, as the nominator points out, almost entirely unsourced. Its lead is a strong (and sourced) summary that would fit well in the main article without adding too much to the length (although a bit of the first para can be trimmed as just repeating what's already in the main article), and the fancruft lists of trivial mentions aren't useful. Schazjmd(talk) 14:16, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
@Schazjmd I accidentally started deleting the pop culture examples that I felt were fancruft. I meant to undo my deletions when I added the merge template. Please see the previous version with the original-length article. ElToAn123 (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
@ElToAn123, it doesn't change my support for the proposal. I've restored those accidental deletions though, and kept the merge template. Schazjmd(talk) 15:57, 22 February 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)
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?
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 alreadyVampire 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. Vampirealready 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)
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)
I feel this game should be merged into the 2024–25 NFL playoffs page, due to how the game doesn’t really carry that much notability (as raised by the above two topics).
In addition, other NFL playoff game pages that were considered to not be notable have been recently merged. Astronaut74539 (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose - The game is intrinsically notable as the trophy-granting championship of the American Football Conference. The game/championship will continue to have ongoing WP:GNG-level coverage, despite the team not winning the Super Bowl. PK-WIKI (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Multiple AFC and NFC championship game pages created under the pretense of “it’s the conference title game, it decides who makes Super Bowl” have been recently merged. 2022 (both AFC and NFC) and 2023 (both AFC and NFC) were. In addition, the NFC page for 2024 was just merged as well. Astronaut74539 (talk) 20:08, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Those are bad merges, especially since the closing editor was involved in the voting. PK-WIKI (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
In more unclear, controversial cases, the determination that a consensus to merge has or has not been achieved should be made by an editor who is neutral and not directly involved in the merge proposal or the discussion.PK-WIKI (talk) 17:46, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
My point was that you can't call them bad merges now way after the fact. It might have been fair to ask the closer to reconsider the close because of their involvement when they closed the discussion, but bringing it up again here in a different discussion is just re-litigating things imo. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 18:35, 11 March 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)
I propose merging Slasher (tool) into Billhook. The slasher article is only three sentences long, and it seems like the only difference is that a slasher has a longer handle. Wimwamble (talk) 20:13, 11 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.
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)
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)
I propose merging Bully Beef into Corned Beef. I think the content in SOURCEPAGE can easily be explained in the context of this article, and merging them would not cause any article-size or weighting problems.
Specifically, a lot of the length of this article is used up in pretty redundant headings (I don't think the current regional/country breakdown on this page is very good), plus a fair few bits on this page are talking about canned corned beef.
Meanwhile the 'bully beef' page:
Firstly, it's an odd name for the page as discussed on it's talk page by other people, nobody really calls it that. 'Bully beef' is a niche bit of historical military slang which isn't present in the civilian population, so "corned beef" or "canned corned beef" is a better name for that page.
Secondly, the product being talked about is not very different. It's often in the UK now not sold in a can but rather just sliced and packaged like any other lunch meat, and it's only real difference to the corned beef talked about here is that it has been minced.
Thirdly, some of the text on the Bully Beef page is kinda nonsense, the whole talk about "iconic" rectangular cans which are pretty similar in appearance to say, the rectangular can of spam, and the patent which we talk so much about was denied because of prior art (so clearly somewhere/something else was already using a similar can!) We could probably condense that whole chunk to a shorter mention that it began to appear in rectangular tin cans around WW1/Boer. Likewise we don't need to talk about key-open cans so much, because that is discussed on the page Can opener#Twist-key_can-opener, and is an innovation applied to a number of canned food products. I reckon that page will probably shrink to about 2/3s of 3/4s of it's current length.
So referencing WP:MERGEREASON, there is significant overlap between these two pages (2), the text of the two pages is not tremendously long (3), and the article on bully beef needs you to understand what corned beef is, as "bully beef" is just a minced and canned form of corned beef (5). Thus my position would be to Merge the pages. ~2026-86916-9 (talk) 22:43, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
I propose merging Counting house into Count room. I think the content in Counting house can easily be explained in the history section of this article, and merging them would not cause any article-size or weighting problems. Sarangem (talk) 12:19, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Hello:) I am proposing merging the article The Internet Takeover into Dan and Phil (radio show). The article on The Internet Takeover is pretty bare bones (and that's being generous). Seeing as it's the successor to Dan and Phil and has the same main presenters, I think it would fit fine as a section in the Dan and Phil article. While it is technically a different show, there are examples of different shows presented by the same people being included in one article. For example, the article for The Sonny & Cher Comedy Hour also a contains sections on its successor shows, Cher and The Sonny and Cher Show (N.B. the latter show does not have its own dedicated page, despite not being the exact same show as The Sonny & Cher Comedy Hour). I think something similar could be achieved by merging The Internet Takeover into the Dan and Phil article, and the content is short enough it wouldn't make the article too lengthy. Please discuss your thoughts below! Yeahirlydk (talk) 03:15, 10 March 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)
I propose merging Syed Habibul Hassan into H. H. Hamid. This is the same individual, with a slightly different variation of this name. Tagging @Davidindia: here who created the duplicate page. Jkaharper (talk) 10:21, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Sure, I tried different other names to check if there was an article on the Olympian but missed this. Please go ahead. Thanks a lot! Davidindia (talk) 10:28, 8 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 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)
I propose merging Maria Mine material ropeway into Maria Mine. The prose size of the articles is 305 and 374 words respectively, and the topics are similar enough that they should be merged. Mariamnei (talk) 08:07, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Please don't. Its two seperate things. Both articles will be extended soon. Input Zoom (talk) 12:37, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep: The topics are dissimilar enough to justify separate articles, particularly since these Polish categories and articles are undergoing quite a bit of expansion. Gjs238 (talk) 22:16, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
I propose merging Attacks on Iranian schools during the 2026 war into 2026 Minab school airstrike. I think the content in this page essentially duplicates or is less complete than the content in the dedicated page, and would not cause any article-size or weighting problems. This page as written does not contain information about the other two school strikes, which, if DUE, would have their own dedicated pages and perhaps a category. Smallangryplanet (talk) 17:46, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
@SmallangryplanetComment I agree as the content stands. However, 2026 Iran War quotes the Iranian Red Crescent Society as saying a total of 65 schools were hit. If WP:RS can be found giving thier names, even a list thereof wouldn't be a stub or undue. Llew Mawr (talk) 18:05, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Agreed, in that case I'd retract my merge proposal and suggest changing to a list instead. Smallangryplanet (talk) 18:07, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose, for now. There are two other attacks on schools mentioned, so, either cleaning up of any duplicate info is in order, or not - merge would result in somewhat misleading information reduction. At most, I would support merge into article on targeting civilian structures, if such exist.--౪ Santa ౪99° 18:37, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Weak oppose - This specific attack seems notable enough that it should be it's own article.IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:07, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
I agree, that's why I submitted this merge proposal. (The "Attacks on..." page at the time of making the proposal doesn't have content about anything else.) Smallangryplanet (talk) 20:01, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Oh, I see. I misunderstood. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Support - also, the way the article is written makes it seem like it was written using an LLM. Section titles are written in sentence case and there is a lack of wikilinks beyond the lead. The tone is also quite unencyclopedic as well. OrbitalVoid49 (talk) 20:54, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Support merge/deletion of Attacks on Iranian schools during the 2026 war albeit it should be recreated if more info on other school attacks becomes available in WP:RS as the protection schools have in the laws of war makes it a potentially notable topic. Llew Mawr (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
This is better suited for AfD, if as noted there is nothing significant to merge from that article here. We can make a mention of the other schools in the Background section perhaps but that needn't be subjected to a merge discussion. Gotitbro (talk) 04:39, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Support - Keep it focused. Carrite (talk) 04:50, 13 March 2026 (UTC) — Actually, I see now this is LLM content, so it should be deleted out with no merger. Carrite (talk) 17:32, 13 March 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. WikiMacaroonsCinnamon? 00:21, 6 March 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.
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)
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.
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)
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
I propose merging Pornography in Austria into Pornography Act (Austria), per WP:REDUNDANT. I think there is little doubt that both topics are notable and in theory could each have their own article. However, the PiA article is a stub (~400 prose words; two one-paragraph sections) and has been a stub since 2020, whereas the PA (Austria) article is > 10x: (~5,700 prose words; 15 sections).
There is something odd and atypical here that may affect how we proceed with a merge if there is consensus in favor. Normally, one might merge a stub child article into a longer parent when there simply isn't enough to say about the child topic. The oddity here is that the situation is entirely reversed: the child article Pornography Act (Austria) is over 10x the size of the stub parent Pornography in Austria. Further, there is almost nothing in the stub not already contained in the longer article, despite the broader topic defined by its title. This is because the stub article, while in principle being about everything related to pornography in Austria, in fact contains nothing other than a very brief treatment of the legal history of pornography in Austria going back to 1715 and mentioning the Pornography Act, which is precisely same thing that Pornography Act (Austria) covers, except the latter covers it in ten times more detail.
It should be the other way round with PiA much the longer and broader article, but it hasn't turned out that way. The overlap is nearly total, and it isn't even clear if there is anything to merge. Ideally, someone would expand PiA to properly cover the topic, but that hasn't happened in six years. Given where we are now, these two articles should be merged into one, which probably means just redirecting PiA to Pornography Act (Austria), at least for the time being. If and when someone wants to create a proper parent article, they merely have to take over the redirect and expand it. But we shouldn't have two articles covering exactly the same ground for this long. Pornography in Austria should be merged into Pornography Act (Austria) for this reason. Mathglot (talk) 04:22, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Support: I am already in the process to clean up redundancies in the Pornography in articles, and this is one step into the right direction. The Other Karma (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Shouldn't PAA be merged into PiA? It sounds logical that most people would search for "in Austria" and not the act itself. Drew McNish (talk) 10:39, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Likely they would, and the redirect will take PiA searchers straight to PAA. The problem with merging PAA into PiA (the more "typical" direction, i.e. child into parent) is that the content won't match the title; that's a WP:AT policy violation. Mathglot (talk) 18:26, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
I don't know much about the content. The issue I have is that it is still under PAA. It would be unusual for an article on an act to contain the main content of a topic. Drew McNish (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Hi, Drew. Yes, it would be *very* unusual for an article on an act to contain the main content of a topic, and I would vote a big, honking, gigantic, 'oppose' if that were the proposal here. But it is not. I think you got tripped up by the admittedly unusual circumstances; they are described in the proposal. Please read the article content (it is only two paragraphs long) and the description of why this merge is the right outcome.
Or think about it this way. Having two articles at Wikipedia about the same topic is forbidden at Wikipedia. What is PAA about? It is about the 1950 law, along with a bit of history going back to 1715 explaining the prior history leading up to it, and the impact and changing interpretations since 1950. What is PiA about? It is about the 1950 law, along with a bit of history going back to 1715 explaining the prior history leading up to it, and the 1994 amendment to the act. The stub doesn't cover the ground defined by its title, it overlaps almost totally with the other article which is ten times as long. WP:REDUNDANTFORK forbids having both of these articles on the same topic at the same time. If someone expanded the stub to match its title, then we would be done and no merge needed; but that hasn't happened in six years, so we are where we are. Mathglot (talk) 20:53, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
I do get your point. I don't even know if the stub has any unique content that is worth merging. If it was so simple I would say make the article a redirect and I have no problem with that. The problem is with what is left which is an article on an act but it also contains general info. I have not checked as it's quite long but my point is that info not directly related to the act should not be contained in it. It is not standard and it is not the naming scheme of other articles of this type.
It solves a temporary problem and, now there may not even be any content for the PiA article, it would leave the PAA article as the only area on expansion. This would need to be dealt with as the article expands, if it does, leading to the opposite situation we have now. Drew McNish (talk) 21:49, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
I just checked again and the act contains a lot of info it shouldn't. First of all the correct format would be "Pornography Act of 1950 (Austria)" or similar and for the article to then only deal with the specific act. If there's an article that contains information about the act it would normally be an excerpt and then refer to the article on the act. I fail to see how events leading as far back as 1715 can be said to relate directly to the act, except perhaps as a cursory reading.
Secondly the article is basically wall text that floats between concepts rather than ordering and separating it logically. I'm sorry to say but I think the article is a mess and requires a lot more work after any merge in any case and perhaps even worthy of WP:TNT. A merge is more like a plaster on a grenade wound. Drew McNish (talk) 22:13, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Drew, thanks; couldn't agree with you more–on both comments, and pretty much all the points you raised. The more you look, the more stuff you find. This merge thing is only the tip of the iceberg. You nailed it with "walls of text"; this is not only a problem in PAA, and on its Talk page, but has plagued the whole topic area. See for example here (and its accompanying TP) for not only walls, but veritable ramparts of text. It was even more problematic before–see e.g. this edit trying to keep the walls from becoming skyscrapers. Otoh there are TP sections (walls in themselves) trying to build them up higher again. I realize you only landed here to help opine on a merge, for which I am very grateful, but there is an iceberg that needs attention, and if you wanted to have a look and get involved, we could sure use some fresh ideas and feedback there. Either way, much obliged for your carefully thought out and detailed comments here. Mathglot (talk) 10:07, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
And to this point in particular: "info not directly related to the act should not be contained in it"–absolutely; 110%. This merge thing is only one piece of the puzzle; there are many other pieces, and you quickly spotted a few. They all need attention. Mathglot (talk) 10:23, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
While I am fine with the merge I am not fine with TNTing the article, the only section that is not directly related to the PornA is the "First known efforts to combat obscenity" section. Everything else under that is related to the PornA, eg the PornA is built upon the § 516, if you look into the Gov Bill. But the "First known efforts to combat obscenity" is so short that one might just keep it, as there is no policy mandating a maximum article length. I am fine with more sub-sections. But dont know how to create more, I already created one for every major theme. There should be enough that an reader gets useful Information efficiatly. The Other Karma (talk) 11:21, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
TNT doesn't mean to throw anything away as the history still exists. TNT means to start new with new paragraphs and a new format. It's always debatable what is directly related but as I see it an article on an act should only explain the act. If there is a history it should only be cursory with the history contained elsewhere and then linking to the act for a more detailed explanation. That is just logical for me. Drew McNish (talk) 13:52, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Thanks. Let me be clear, I am not opposing a merge in its current form. I just think it will mask the issue. I'll take a look and see what can be done about the article but due to its length it may take weeks. Once that is done and one can more clearly see what info it contains we can revisit what may fit in which articles. Drew McNish (talk) 13:46, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
I totally get the "masking the issue" point. To me, the redirect issue is about which is the less bad outcome: i.e., if we *just* do the redirect and all get hit by a bus, then we are left with one big article containing stuff it shouldn't, plus a gap topic with no article, a very suboptimal situation that might be missed by new editors passing by for the first time. If we *don't* redirect, then we have two articles on the same topic. My judgment was that the former situation is less bad, because the latter is a policy violation, and the former is a WP:NODEADLINE problem of filling the gap topic with an article, and rejiggering the long article to have the proper, relevant, on-topic content, neither being policy-level issues. But I see why someone might choose differently. Also, I am going to avoid jaywalking in front of buses, and if we all do the same, then the risk of implementing the redirect now is less. That's how I see it. Mathglot (talk) 18:53, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
I can also understand the problem Drew mentioned to a certain extent, and I would like to note at this point that I would prefer the content not to be deleted, as it took a lot of effort to write it, which does not mean that it has to be included in its entirety in this article. However, I don't think it makes sense to spread everything across 50 articles, as then you can no longer see the whole picture. I would like to note that the current structure did not come out of nowhere, but is based on the sources and the Boys Love article structure. The Other Karma (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Depends what topic you are talking about. If it's about the 1950 Austrian law, then it should be in one article, this one. If we are talking about pornography more generally, e.g., in Austria, Japan, and four dozen other countries, then it should be spread across 50 articles, and summarized in the parent. As it turns out, there already seem to be about 50 such articles (although that link may inadvertently omit some valid titles) and they are the proper places to discuss it with respect to each country. But we are getting more and more o/t, and we should be discussing the merge proposal. Mathglot (talk) 00:16, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
I just refered to this article. The Other Karma (talk) 19:43, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
I get what you are saying. My only concern is that temporary (partial) fixes tend to become permanent. Also I've seen that when redirects happen some think it is a final decision and "fix" on a matter and not due to temporary circumstances and will resist undoing it, so as long as that doesn't happen I'm fine with the redirect for now.
I think I should also say that just because there isn't enough interest in a topic isn't a reason to settle for the non-optimal "easiest" solution as there are other ways to deal with that. Drew McNish (talk) 09:46, 11 March 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)
I'm proposing to merge List of games by Supermassive Games into this article. It's pros are a reworded version of the intro and history section of this article, the list of games itself does not seem substantive enough to have its own article. Having said that, there is some missing context in this article that I believe is notable to bring over here, the texts should be carefully merged, as well as a number of sources. YannickFran (talk) 20:24, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
oppose, I think its more a case of "nobodies bothered to expand it" rather than "there arent any sources to expand with". I think all the territorial authorities should have seperate articles from the districts they are the authority for TheLoyalOrder (talk) 18:17, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Nah. City councils are notable. This needs to be expanded and secondary sources need to be added. A merge is inappropriate. Schwede66 05:50, 11 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)
Mergevodka 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)
If a merge discussion has been closed with consensus to merge, you can optionally list it here to attract editors interested in carrying out the merge. Any editor can then perform these merges by following the merging instructions.
To list a closed merge proposal, place this at the bottom of this section:
*'''Merge'''[[Source page]] into [[Destination page]]. {{Discussing|talk=Talk:Destination page#Section name}}~~~~
, pronounced "x bar", equals
), and the population mean is denoted with the Greek letter mu (
, pronounced /'mjuː/).
", "
", "Formula", "Optimization problem"] (with content from Average § Pythagorean means; Mean §§ Pythagorean means, Generalized means, Mean of angles and cyclical quantities, and Fréchet mean)
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)
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)
Agree I agree with the merger. HP Inc. is simply the new name assumed by Hewlett-Packard Company after the split of the enterprise branch into Hewlett-Packard Enterprise Company.[1][2][3] Paranoid25 (talk) 20:16, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Not sure. See my comment in § Is HP still technically Hewlett-Packard? (Not to be confused with Hewlett-Packard Enterprise). HP Inc. is the legal successor to Hewlett-Packard, but it contains none of the businesses that HP entered between 1939 and the early 1980s - those were spun off as other companies such as Agilent and Hewlett Packard Enterprise. Guy Harris (talk) 11:50, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
_-_Google_Art_Project_-_edited.jpg)
