Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers

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 The page is hopelessly out of date, inevitably inexhaustive and incomplete.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)

Merge Israeli incursions in Tulkarm into Israeli incursions in the West Bank during the Gaza war. The smaller Tulkarm-focused target page is WP:REDUNDANT, as the fuller target page covers the same material. The brief sections covering events prior to the October 7 attacks are a list of incidents already covered in Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2023, where they should be merged due to their WP:PROSELINE nature. There's no reason for yet another article covering the same content that lends itself to fragmented and incomplete coverage. No need to cover the same duplicative content from multiple redundant angles. Longhornsg (talk) 01:23, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Support per nom Evaporation123 (talk) 03:14, 29 November 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:Easternsahara_{review 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)

Merge Assassination of Hashem Safieddine into Hashem Safieddine. Much of the content is WP:REDUNDANT. It's been over a year. The event received routine news coverage befitting the assassination of the leader of a militant figure. He was then replaced and history went on. It didn't changed the course of the war or regional dynamics. Compare with the level and depth of coverage and analysis of the 2024 Hezbollah headquarters strike or the assassination of Qasem Soleimani. Hardly WP:LASTING effects and no need for a separate page. Longhornsg (talk) 22:19, 23 November 2025 (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)

Merge Bureau of Public Affairs and Bureau of International Information Programs into Bureau of Global Public Affairs. The former two orgs have been folded into target org. There sourcing on those pages are primary WP:NEWS and WP:PRESSRELEASEs. Longhornsg (talk) 04:09, 8 December 2025 (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

— Smjg (talk) 11:44, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

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)

There is no "LNA-controlled Libya article" so i think merging them is the best solution.

Related to #Infobox. If you compare it to other rival governments Government of Peace and Unity, Syrian Salvation Government, Syrian Interim Government & Government of National Stability all have normal country-based articles others have government articles. Braganza (talk) 18:05, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Oppose - WP:OTHERSTUFF Is not a valid argument for a merge. One article is about a government body, and the other one is about territory. FWIW, Zapatista Army of National Liberation and Zapatista territories are separate articles 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 10:28, 28 December 2025 (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 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo 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.

Panam2014 (talk) 04:40, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

You do realize that there was an internim governent? See: Supreme Revolutionary Committee JaxsonR (talk) 00:38, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

An article about a govt is not the same thing as an article about territorial control 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 03:35, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Support - We dont need two articles. The shorter Supreme Revolutionary Committee could also be merged into this. JaxsonR (talk) 00:35, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

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 agree as well. OboeBlanket (talk) 16:16, 16 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 Number 54129 ^{(wake up Fortuna)} 12:38, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I suspect various people are seeing the tag on top of pizza, a topic a lot of people care about, and this is about how many edits you'd expect for someone to be knowledgeable enough to participate in a merge discussion but not to know wiki-jargon or the standard types of votes. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:34, 15 March 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. TarnishedPath^talk 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)

Pinging @דברי.הימים, @PARAKANYAA and @Yue as editors involved in the merge discussion at Talk:Terrorism in Australia#Proposed merge of Far-right terrorism in Australia into Terrorism in Australia. TarnishedPath^talk 05:22, 21 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. TarnishedPath^talk 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: The Terrorism in Australia article is very long already. Adding the List of terrorist incidents in Australia will make it longer. Keep the list separate. Melbguy05 (talk) 15:54, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

The list of incidents is already mostly in Terrorism in Australia. TarnishedPath^talk 02:33, 2 February 2026 (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 I'd suggest moving some of the text to Early history of Warner Bros. Pictures instead. That article covers Warner Bros. as an independent studio, while Warner Bros. Pictures mostly covers the period when it was part of a larger media conglomerate. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 23:57, 29 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 per nomination. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 16:11, 6 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)
• TheFloridaTyper, Achmad Rachmani & Warpozio: Do any of you have thoughts on the alternate proposal of moving content to Early history of Warner Bros. Pictures? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:42, 11 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)

    Early history of Warner Bros. Pictures is really the early history of Warner Bros. Pictures Inc., and includes discussion of all of the film, television, and music activities up to 1966. Warner Bros. Pictures is film-specific and really covers the period starting in 1969. Yes, these article have weird overlaps, and I've been trying to fix that by finding and resolving the content forks.

    That being said, if you significantly expand this article, it may change my !vote, but keep in mind this discussion has been open for almost three months now. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 21:02, 13 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)

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

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)

  This isn't an event, though. Shohei Ohtani's 50–50 season is an event; this is a concept, and ultimately a WP:Stand alone list. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 11:28, 7 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)
• Support agree w/ isaacl. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 21:56, 18 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. Flip^andFlopped 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)

I propose merging Kapitan (rank) into Captain (armed forces). I believe Kapitan is just duplicate of the Captain army rank.

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.

PanZWarzywniaka (talk) 11:59, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I propose merging Wisconsin State College of Milwaukee here. The content is highly duplicative otherwise. Jahaza (talk) 03:58, 25 January 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.

Pietrus1 (talk) 02:50, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

SomeoneDreaming, you should be good to carry out a WP:BOLDMERGE if this is something you're still interested in. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:21, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

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)

Oppose (article creator) it meets WP:GNG and other such phenomena have similar articles, such as Bloop, The Hum, and Forest Grove Sound. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 22:59, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Bloop and The Hum are non-local phenomena. Forest Grove Sound, a one-time local incident, has an unresolved deletion discussion on its talk page from February 2025; if not deleted it should likely be merged with Forest Grove, Oregon as fails WP:SUSTAINED and succumbs to WP:SBST. The Longfellow, Minneapolis article could easily absorb the content from the Longfellow Boom without undue weight. Minnemeeples (talk) 23:19, 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 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)

Duncnbiscuit, this has been open for a couple months without objection. You should be good to carry out a WP:BOLDMERGE if you're still interested in this. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:42, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

Sorry - I missed this. Thanks for the tag.

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

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

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).

Thoughts? Guliolopez (talk) 22:22, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Guliolopez, this has gone without objection for a couple months, you should be good to go if this is something you're still interested in. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:36, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Thebiguglyalien. In honesty, I'd forgotten about this proposal. I'll complete the merge/redirect later this week. Guliolopez (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I propose to merge Chemical structure into this article. We could do the merge the other way too: merge Structural chemistry into Chemical structure. This job seems pretty obvious, but maybe I am missing something. --Smokefoot (talk) 21:16, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

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)

I think you are thinking about chemical structure diagrams. All real chemical structures are 3D. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:52, 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)

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)

Wikipedialuva, is this something you're still interested in? It's gone without opposition and you should be good to merge them. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:09, 15 March 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)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ukraine and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 07:09, 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)

Conscription crisis and desertion crisis are distinct enough to warrant separate articles, inline with WP:NOTMERGE and my response above which you have failed to engage with. Among other things in 2022 Ukrainian mobilization article they are treated as separate issues also, even before I added Main link. I think we need to call other editors who edited this ball of articles to participate. @ApoieRacional: @Cyrobyte: @AlexeyKhrulev: @Marcocapelle: @Hjoim: @Grumpylawnchair: @NikolaiVektovich: @Tobby72: @Poketape: @Smeagol 17: @Flemmish Nietzsche: @Ffaffff: @NHCLS: @Noble Attempt: @XTheBedrockX: @廣九直通車: @Cactinites: @Ymblanter: @Sagotreespirit: @Neyoshadow: @Chidgk1: @Rikieboy1: @Dauzlee: @Tony1: @Whoisjohngalt: @Jebiguess: @LucasBrown: @Teterev53: @Svartner: @WereSpielChequers: @Rodw: @Onel5969: F.Alexsandr (talk) 00:30, 17 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)

Support & rename to Ukrainian manpower crisis as per TurboSuperA+ ɴɪᴋᴏʟᴀɪᴠᴇᴋᴛᴏᴠɪᴄʜ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/ᴄᴏɴᴛʀɪʙ) 00:47, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

• I'd much rather not have the male-only "manpower". Tony (talk) 06:05, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

  Manpower is gender-neutral ("man" here means "human"). Smeagol 17 (talk) 09:00, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

  Nope. Tony (talk) 10:25, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

  Yep. https://www.etymonline.com/word/manpower Smeagol 17 (talk) 11:05, 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)

• Oppose. Tony (talk) 02:24, 21 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)

I propose merging History of waste management into Waste management. History of waste management is only slightly longer than this article's section and does not significantly expand upon the topic. Both the history section on this page and History of waste management only contain a few details that the other does not contain. SnappyDragonPennyroyal (talk) 05:03, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

SnappyDragonPennyroyal, is this something you're still interested in? It's gone without objection, so you should be good to carry out a merge. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:15, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I have taken a break from editing the article because I have been busy; I will merge the two when I have time. SnappyDragonPennyroyal (talk) 05:48, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I propose merging WVSSAC Super Six Football Championships into West Virginia High School Football State Championships and playoff history. While there is a wealth of information, most of it is redundant between the two. Waxdingo (talk) 03:05, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Waxdingo, no one has objected after a couple months. If you're still interested, you should be good to carry out the merge. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:17, 15 March 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)

The show itself says it's the same program: https://x.com/jc_cummins/status/2018524731193045364 ~2026-73989-7 (talk) 06:52, 3 February 2026 (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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

  The prose size of 2026 Iranian diaspora protests is currently 2418 words and the prose size of Global day of action for the Iranian people is currently 855 words per xtools. So that's about 2400 + 900 = 3300 (not 7000), which is nowhere near justifying a WP:LENGTH-based split. If you do word estimates with copy/pasting to a terminal and wc (Unix), make sure that you only include prose (not references, tables, infobox, see also, external links). Boud (talk) 15:19, 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. Super Ψ Dro 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)

• Support per nomination. Same subject plus it meets the criteria per WP:SIZERULE. Lf8u2 (talk) 00:42, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

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

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

  Merge:

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

  What do you think of the following phrasing and structure?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Winsorized mean ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And the creation of two new articles:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is a high level of overlap between this list and Connections of Jeffrey Epstein. I suggest they be merged (which may make the current rename proposal moot). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:34, 6 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.f^Talk 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. Reywas92^Talk 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)

Oppose per reasons previously listed by Gamaliel and Willthacheerleader18 Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 00:14, 11 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)

Oppose per Joe et al. TheSilksongPikmin (talk | contribs) 20:14, 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:SIZERULE Sahib-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#People Sahib-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)

Oppose The scope of the two articles is different. Connection doesn't necessarily mean being in the Epstein files and vice versa. Some1 (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose: per reasons listed by Some1 Logimite (talk) 20:38, 15 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)

@Bharnav2009, Footy2000, Hexatron93, Ecangola, and Asamboi: I propose to merge Delhi–Ghaziabad–Meerut Regional Rapid Transit System into Namo Bharat. It seems they duplicate each other. (Generated using markasduplicate.js.) --Bouzinac (talk) 13:08, 27 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)

The trainset has a separate article at Namo Bharat (trainset). Asamboi (talk) 06:43, 10 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 agree that it is possible, see 50Plus. I also believe the current list gives too much information, and a more simple table would be more appropriate (and could be included). It would probably meet WP:NLIST tho, with sources like https://www.parlement.com/lijsttrekkers-d66 and https://dnpprepo.ub.rug.nl/88699/8/Op%20oude%20kousenvoeten%20naar%20het%20centrum%20van%20de%20macht%2C%20Hubert%20Smeets.pdf Dajasj (talk) 09:45, 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)

Support merge per WP:NOPAGE. This is a critical aspect of the subject, and there's no reason to keep it split off in a separate location. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:07, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

The proposal is to merge Direct sum of groups into Direct product of groups. The article Direct sum of groups is describing the same construction as Direct product of groups. There is a difference in the case of infinite direct sums, but in the literature those are almost always in the setting of infinite direct sums of abelian groups (or vector spaces or modules), and those are amply described already at articles such as Direct sum and Direct sum of modules. See WP:CONTENTFORK. —Ebony Jackson (talk) 20:36, 27 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)

Ethics of uncertain sentience could be an alternate merge target. Arlo James Barnes 11:33, 26 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 Company article uses it instead of "AI veganism", and the Euronews refidea uses both. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 15:32, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Ive met more AI environmentalists than vegans. But I think AI boycott is a better title, even though it pulls out the reasoning they are boycotting. Because technophobes and antivaxxer conspiracy theorists also boycott, or at least try, for other reasons. ~2026-16796-28 (talk) 04:07, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Support a merge. Likely not enough available sources for an article. Some of the content removed by Grayfell could potentially be moved to Ethics of uncertain sentience as suggested by Arlo James Barnes, for the rest, perhaps the article Veganism or Ethics of artificial intelligence. Alenoach (talk) 00:50, 6 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. ISBN 1134811136. and F. L. Carsten (1982). The Rise of Fascism, Second Edition. University of California Press. p. 203.).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

Disagree. Agilent, HP Inc. and HPE are all named as successors to HP in a lawsuit by Stanford. Agilent has been described by others as the successor to HP."Indeed, some observers noted with past splits that some of the better parts of HP’s DNA have traveled with the test group. Parent company HP continues to struggle..." Ex-HP engineer Bob Steward wrote, "So I felt a great sadness at losing that association when we were spun off as Agilent. The new Agilent CEO, Ned Barnholt, tried to recreate that company culture and that old instrumentation spirit. At the time we felt that we were getting the best part of the HP products, and certainly the best culture because we could see the culture already being sacrificed at HP for the sake of the IBM-like computer business and the consumer marketplace of PCs and printers. We were the ones holding on to the values..." Ex-HP engineer Roy Verley wrote about HP spinning off Agilent, saying "The larger piece, essentially the computer business, would retain the HP name while the smaller piece, the original test and measurement business, would be spun off and renamed. For many long-time HP employees, this seemed backward. T&M was HP’s original business, the one most closely associated with the founders and the one most likely to carry on HP’s core values." This "backward" sentiment is expressed by many other authors. Binksternet (talk) 20:04, 9 February 2026 (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)

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)

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)

Unsure - I don't see an issue with having many pages for the different eras of HP or its spin-offs. Just look at News Corporation vs News Corp and 21st Century Fox vs Fox Corporation. Would merging HP Inc. with Hewlett-Packard create a WP:TOOBIG problem? Limmidy (talk) 20:44, 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.

Similarly, Kraft Foods Inc. in 2012 spun-off into two new companies: Kraft Foods and Mondelez International, so is the new Kraft Foods the original combined Kraft Foods Inc? Limmidy (talk) 18:47, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

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 just created a rough draft of what the two pages should look like, and as you can see, it's even shorter than other pages on Wikipedia. Obviously, this is a rough draft that needs some work, and I encourage you to correct any errors I may have made in the transcription (especially the verb tenses, changing from "was" to "is," etc.). Paranoid25 (talk) 19:23, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree with the merge. It seems a rational reason to me.--~2026-11625-93 (talk) 13:44, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Agree This situation can be viewed as the partition of a large brand, in which one portion of it — Hewlett-Packard — was separated and became Hewlett Packard Enterprise, while the remaining portion was renamed and succeeded by HP Inc. A merger would make things simpler and easier to understand, while also maintaining continuity, since the company is not defunct. Both entities still observe 2 July 1939 as their founding date.

Niral Bhatt (talk) 11:40, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I propose merging the National Defense Area article into the Immigration detention in the second Trump administration article. Per the content in the article, the NDA designation did not exist before the second Trump administration, appears to have been created under a national security presidential memorandum issued by the administration, and designated facilities are used for immigration detention. Along with the overlapping scope, merging the articles would be consistent with the article size guideline or undue weight under the neutral point of view policy since the National Defense Area article is only 387 words and the Immigration detention in the second Trump administration article is 6,186 words (and a section in the latter article is being proposed for splitting into a separate new article). -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:45, 22 February 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)

I also oppose as I have recently been reminded that another article I contribute to is getting "too long." I think this topic is too important to let it be lumped in with another long article that might be pruned back due to its long content. This article is well sourced and as has been shown in the article the NDAs are growing over time. This is not likely to change. These sites will continue to gain notability and size. TexasBob85 (talk) 03:12, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I propose merging the Temporary Migrant Care Center article with the Immigration detention in the second Trump administration article. The article is only 786 words, it was only created in April 2025, and its Role in renditions from the United States section makes up 45% of its word count. As such, the articles have overlapping scopes, and the Immigration detention in the second Trump administration article is currently only 6,186 words (with a section in the latter article is being proposed for splitting into a separate new article), so merging the articles would still be consistent with the article size guideline. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:31, 23 February 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)

Oppose. Both CATEM and the renditions are notable on their own merits, regardless of how they fit into the policy of immigration detention in any of the involved countries during the second Trump administration, so I contest that there is a "large" overlap between the topics that you're alleging, and even if they did overlap, merging is still not indicated. See: merging should be avoided if the separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone, but cross-linked, articles. Consider that CATEM existed before the second Trump administration began and that CATEM and the choice to detain renditioned migrants there is fundamentally a matter of Costa Rican policy, not U.S. policy.

The appearance of the phrase "...in the second Trump administration" in the title of the article into which you're suggesting all these other pages be merged implies that its contents are about U.S., and specifically, the second Trump administration's, policies. Other countries can and do make their own policy, even if it is influenced by what the Trump administration does and says, and Wikipedia articles about the policies of non-U.S. countries should not be removed in favor of including the same information in an article about U.S. policy.

A more appropriate solution is to accept cross-linking and references between the two articles and to associate them by including them all together within a category, which was already done. Penguinsprite (talk) 00:29, 19 March 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. Zero^talk 07:15, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Support merge, this is an aspect of the main subject that does not need to be split off. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:37, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose I realize that the discussion has been closed already, but merge discussions tend to be pretty poorly publicized. Nevertheless, the base argument that the "series doesn't pass GNG" isn't really a requirement for series pages and never has been. MOS:VGSERIES only requires that there is sufficient information from each game to collate in a series page. Besides the three main games of the series, another thing that wasn't talked about is that there are multiple unique and probably notable portable tie-in versions, so the series has more depth than it seems at first glance. The "fancruft" argument is WP:SURMOUNTABLE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:34, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Apologies for claiming it was a bold merge however, I did not notice the discussion that went on previously. It was in fact not one. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:40, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

    @Zxcvbnm no probs. i still disagree with your argument, and while it might not have changed the outcome, it's one we should have considered. i probably should have made it a point that the trilogy is already part of the greater Spyro series, which obviously passes GNG (ngl i forgot to explicitly state that part). ThePoggingEditor (talk) 04:22, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

    I should also note that a lot of the reception specifically for Legend of Spyro games and the series is in print media since it's from the mid-late 2000s. For example, I found this reception discussing the series itself as a reboot of Spyro. Not massive, but it does have a sentence saying that Spyro is played out and this reboot might get fan interest back. These aren't about the series itself, but I did find some reviews of Nintendo DS incarnations that are different than the console versions. . If a thorough sweep of print sources were also mentioned in the nom I might feel more assuaged, but I worry that it may have been ignored, as sometimes happens. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:54, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

    I don't really find this very convincing, honestly. Reception for DS versions should be given separate articles or put on the individual games, as none of the games' articles are so large that the DS version can't be discussed there if it is not shown to be independently notable. A single sentence saying that this reboot "might" get fan interest back is also pretty weak. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:34, 18 March 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)

Irene Twoth, this has gone unopposed and you should be good to merge them if this is something you're still interested in. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:48, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

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)

Since Wire service already links to News agency it makes sense that List of wire services should be merged with List of news agencies. RoySmith (talk) 20:19, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal and the reasons above. The List of news agencies article needs to be updated, but everything there already corresponds with the List of wire services. TeddyBearInMind007 (talk) 01:57, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

RoySmith, if the wire services are mentioned in List of news agencies, is there anything to merge? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:55, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

If everything is already there, then I guess not. Just make it a redirect and call it a day. RoySmith (talk) 01:48, 17 March 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 conditions that 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)

I'm still a bit unsure about this so it may be worth seeing if you can get any input from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine Tristario (talk) 00:13, 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 agree JF1987 (talk) 18:53, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

  I agree. Thank NandanYardi (talk) 10:44, 6 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.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/10/26/trump-rumble-tech-pavlovski/ ~2026-11590-21 (talk) 13:30, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(ComfortJet could be added)

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

I propose merging Tangential speed with Speed.

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,

• Hewitt, P.G. (2007). Conceptual Physics. Pearson Education. ISBN 978-81-317-1553-6. Retrieved 2023-07-20.

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.

Nwparris (talk) 15:54, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

@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)

Comment: WikiProject Physics has been notified of this discussion. – LuniZunie_(talk) 16:14, 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.

Ldm1954 (talk) 16:56, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

• Would it make sense instead to merge this into Circular motion?--Srleffler (talk) 18:30, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
• 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)

MarcusAbacus, this has gone unopposed and you should be good to carry out a merge. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:04, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I have changed my perception since then, I think articles such as Team Liquid PH or even Cloud9 League of Legends definitely warrant their separate articles. This one I am not sure despite having enough sources, so I will think this through. MarcusAbacus (talk) 01:14, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I propose merging Frances Tiafoe career statistics into Frances Tiafoe. It is not clear why the statistics need their own article. Mariamnei (talk) 13:01, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Support per nom. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 13:54, 26 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)

Oppose: There are many such pages: Category:Tennis career statistics Gjs238 (talk) 02:59, 28 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)

Support. A summary of cultural impact is useful as part of the book's article. If someone wants to make a list of every time the work is mentioned in another work, they can do so at https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/ReferencedBy/ToKillAMockingbird per WP:ALTERNATE. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:25, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Both Tokaj (Slovakia) and "Tokaj wine region" speak about Slovak: Vinohradnícka oblasť Tokaj. --Altenmann >talk 21:56, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

• Merge – The scope of the articles is the same. C679 09:25, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
• Merge-Per nom. Fcstmani (talk) 06:27, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

this would make it in line with

• List of urban areas in Norway by population
• List of urban areas in Denmark by population
• List of urban areas in Sweden by population

which all redirect to the main article or a section of it. Logoshimpo (talk) 00:38, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Support. No reason to scatter related information across multiple pages. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 07:08, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Comment: It has been suggested that List of urban areas in Finland by population be merged into this article. FaviFake (talk) 15:28, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

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

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

Solution 1, Merge Upiór to Vampire

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

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

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

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

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

Vampires are entirely in folklore already

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Lewismaster you should be good to perform the merge, let me know if you need any help! ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 10:51, 18 March 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)

Being involved doesn't necessarily make the close bad per WP:MERGECLOSE ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 13:07, 11 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)

PK-WIKI, I don't see how that affects notability, let alone that it demonstrates this can't be covered as part of the overall playoffs article. At a minimum, it would at least help if you could demonstrate that sources cover it in a historically significant perspective beyond "it happened". Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:44, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

For the same reason the annual Super Bowl is given its own article rather than folded into the overall playoffs article. These conference championship games receive ongoing significant coverage (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc.) and represent the top accomplishments of every team, one tier below the Super Bowl. Conference champion banners in the stadium. Trophy on display. Ongoing significant coverage of the historical achievement. Two of the top ~5 national TV broadcasts each year, with 50 million+ Americans from across the country watching it at the same time. PK-WIKI (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Merge per WP:PAGEDECIDE and WP:MERGEREASON I think readers are better served by a merged article. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 13:04, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

It is rather weird to have this system splitted in two articles, so why don't merge them together and have information centralized in only one article as an advantage? 21 Andromedae (talk) 11:05, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I also think both articles should be merged together. But i still doubt both the stars are related to each other Abdullah1099 (talk) 07:19, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Why you doubt both the stars (star systems, i presume) are related to each other? 21 Andromedae (talk) 13:01, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, It's look like both are part of same system with different names. I think that can be one reason for my doubt. Abdullah1099 (talk) 13:05, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I think @21.Andromedae, we should take view of @Lithopsian the creator of the page before closing and merging. Abdullah1099 (talk) 12:05, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm happy to follow the consensus. There is certainly an element of confusion with the current situation, but a single larger article needs to be very clear about the nomenclature. I think maybe I've added most of the necessary explanation at Acrux, so might be a fairly easy merge. Note that not all "gravitationally bound" star systems are described in single articles, most notably perhaps Mizar and Alcor (star), plus Mizar and Alcor for good measure. Should I add Sirius B that just got de-merged after being previously merged, and Proxima Centauri? Lithopsian (talk) 14:37, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I think yeah Mizar and Alcor type works can be done but it will better for HR 4729 to be with Acrux rather than a separate article. For Sirius B it is similar to Mira B and Mira system type article rather than Acrux. Proxima Centauri is good of it's own there is not needed to merge it but yeah, the infobox can be updated to add it based on data. Abdullah1099 (talk) 14:56, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

@21.Andromedae, I think the discussion should be closed as there is a concensus on merger Abdullah1099 (talk) 10:36, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

I'd wait at least a week (that is, until March 20) to close the discussion. 21 Andromedae (talk) 15:02, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, No problem it's fine Abdullah1099 (talk) 15:07, 18 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)

Why are there two articles for App Store: One for Mac OS and the other for iPad and iOS? Myrealnamm (talk) 14:05, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Should they be combined? Myrealnamm (talk) 14:51, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I support a merge of Mac App Store into App Store (Apple). Currently, Apple's App Store website presents macOS as one of the App Store's six supported platforms (iPhone, iPad, Mac, Vision, Watch, TV). Based on this, I believe it would make more sense to cover the entire App Store and its support for all six platforms in one article, than to have an article that covers five of the App Store's platforms and a separate article for the sixth platform.​ — Newslinger talk 09:03, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I do agree, they are pretty much the same XX Jms Xx (talk) 11:03, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Support a merge. EvanTech10 (talk) 03:07, 16 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.

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

I propose merging Bird scarer into this article, Bird control. Bird scarers are devices that are used for bird control, and there will necessarily be a great deal of redundancy between the two. DuckWrangler97 (talk) 16:06, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

Support merge per WP:NOPAGE, both can reasonably be covered in one place. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:52, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I suggest merging Districts of the Gambia and Local government areas of the Gambia into this article, the two mentioned articles don't have much content on them to stand up for itself as an independent article if I have to say myself. GuesanLoyalist (talk) 01:24, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

• Support. Bearian (talk) 02:17, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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)

Hello! I have just finished merging content from Order of the Phoenix (fictional organisation) into this page following a discussion and approval.

I would like us to now consider whether to merge the content from List of Hogwarts staff into this page in a similar fashion. The Hogwarts staff page is even more similar to this page than the Order page was, in that it's simply a list of characters. In my view, some supporting characters are described in far more detail on the Hogwarts staff page than is appropriate (see Quirinus Quirrell for an example). My belief is that every character who doesn't have their own page can fit comfortably on this page.

For the sake of transparency, in 2024 I performed the proposed merge with my old account (Wafflewombat) without going through the proper channels of discussion. My overly bold merge was reverted here.

Please offer your thoughts! OrdinaryOtter (talk) 04:59, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I support the merge. It's just a sublist with a dubious stand-alone notability - only two sources cited mention "Hogwarts" in their headings. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:03, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Since some of these Harry Potter pages get very little traffic, I'm pinging some editors who've been involved in discussions about merging Harry Potter pages in the past (some have supported, some have opposed, some have been neutral). Pinging Kelob2678, Daranios, Rtkat3, Pokelego999, Shooterwalker, Svartner, Klbrain, LoЯd ۞pεth OrdinaryOtter (talk) 08:24, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

@OrdinaryOtter: Thanks for performing the merge from Order of the Phoenix (fictional organisation)! Basically I am fine either way and have no specific objection to a merge of Hogwarts staff here. But what has been lost in the merge from Order of the Phoenix (fictional organisation) is a quick overview of the Order itself as well as a list of members at a glance. I advocate for having something like this, as I had suggested in the Oder's deletion discussion. I am not sure how to best implement that, but I think it would be something of interest to the readers. Daranios (talk) 11:36, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. Here's my plan: after this discussion is complete (whatever the outcome), I'm going to create a discussion about Fictional universe of Harry Potter. There are multiple pages that could possibly be merged into it, including Hogwarts, Magical objects in Harry Potter, Magical creatures in Harry Potter and Places in Harry Potter. These pages are mountains of unsourced content, fan cruft, and original research. Wikipedia may be better served if we form just one "Fictional universe" page, slim it down to the content and categories of content that are actually notable, and get it ready to be a well-sourced article grounded in real-world notability. There would definitely be a home for a section about the Order on such a page. Or, we can decide to put an Order section somewhere else. Stay tuned! OrdinaryOtter (talk) 18:00, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

I propose merging Father Hesburgh and Father Joyce and Word of Life (mural) into Hesburgh Library. The former is a statue between the reflecting pool and the entrance, while the latter is a feature of the building. Swanyay (talk) 02:09, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose - I think these are independently notable and make nice standalone articles. The statue especially has nothing to do with the building. I'd prefer to see the entries kept and expanded further. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:29, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose, if only on grounds of length. Johnbod (talk) 04:42, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose - Hesburgh was one of the most notable and influential university presidents in the history of higher education in the U.S. The library and other physical improvements are important to ND, but his impact worldwide was considerably greater than nearly any other university president in the U.S. then or now. The Wiki article is a pretty good summary - Theodore Hesburgh.
• Oppose for all of the reasons above, notability all around (you want to merge Touchdown Jesus? Aghast and perpetually potentially perplexed.). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:54, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

• Phytoextraction process is closely related to hyperaccumulator, it's how they work (supposedly).
• Phytoextraction process and hyperaccumulators are homework projects written by and imposed upon undergraduates.
• The articles are thin and have weak referencing. There is no technology and little serious scientific interest in these themes.
• It is probably better for readers and definitely better for editors if we maintain one article vs two weak ones.
• Phytomining could also be merged into this article since phytomining, another aspirational but uneconomic concept, relies on hyperaccumulators.
• Metallophyte, yet another topic of homework, assignment, describes plant "that can tolerate high levels of heavy metals such as lead." Some definitional hair-splitting going on.

--Smokefoot (talk) 11:51, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

• Phytoextraction process is closely related to hyperaccumulator, it's how they work (supposedly).
• Phytoextraction process and hyperaccumulators are homework projects written by and imposed upon undergraduates.
• The articles are thin and have weak referencing. There is no technology and little serious scientific interest in these themes.
• It is probably better for readers and definitely better for editors if we maintain one article vs two weak ones.
• Phytomining could also be merged into this article since phytomining, another aspirational but uneconomic concept, relies on hyperaccumulators.
• Metallophyte, yet another topic of homework, assignment, describes plant "that can tolerate high levels of heavy metals such as lead." Some definitional hair-splitting going on.

--Smokefoot (talk) 11:51, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

• Phytoextraction process is closely related to hyperaccumulator, it's how they work (supposedly).
• Phytoextraction process and hyperaccumulators are homework projects written by and imposed upon undergraduates.
• The articles are thin and have weak referencing. There is no technology and little serious scientific interest in these themes.
• It is probably better for readers and definitely better for editors if we maintain one article vs two weak ones.
• Phytomining could also be merged into this article since phytomining, another aspirational but uneconomic concept, relies on hyperaccumulators.
• Metallophyte, yet another topic of homework, assignment, describes plant "that can tolerate high levels of heavy metals such as lead." Some definitional hair-splitting going on.

--Smokefoot (talk) 11:51, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

North Korea–South Korea relations → Korean conflict

---

After reviewing the content for both articles, it seems that one is a WP:CFORK of the other, with many details overlapping, not to mention that the topic covered is nearly identical. A similar example to bring up would be Cross-strait relations between China and Taiwan. Both China-Taiwan relations and Cross-strait conflict redirect to the same page.

I recommend Korean conflict as the title for the merged article. On Google Trends, Korean conflict seems to be somewhat (but not significantly) more popular than North Korea–South Korea relations in normal conditions. Pageviews tells more extreme story and it seems that the article North Korea–South Korea relations is practically dead in terms of visits when compared to Korean conflict a similar story. However, I am not sure about using "conflict" to describe general relations; I am only going off what the analytics say.

Edited to correct Pageviews link. Wasting time is still my passion (talk) 13:07, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose there's enough scope that doesn't 100% overlap imo. grapesurgeon (talk) 14:32, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

@Wasting time is still my passion, you seem to have misspelled the article title in your pageviews search. A corrected link shows that the pages were about equal in terms of views in recent months. I'd like to raise a different point: Both pages are reasonably large. The "relations" article is 6114 words, while the "conflict" article is 5256 words. If a merge is performed, we must be careful to trim overlapping text and prevent the size increasing drastically in contravention of WP:SIZERULE. There does seem to be a lot of overlap, though, so a merge may be warranted. Toadspike [Talk] 14:43, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice; I felt very confused when I saw the analytics. In that case, I will not advocate for either article being the title, and I would rather lean into using "relations" over "conflict" for the title.

As for WP:SIZERULE, it is still my understanding that both articles are largely WP:RFORK, so a merger would not result in an article with, say, 10,000+ words. Wasting time is still my passion (talk) 22:46, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. These two articles do not cover the same topic. North Korea is also in conflict with the USA. This article is centred on military conflict while the North Korea–South Korea relations article covers diplomacy, cultural exchanges etc. This article was created to amalgamate text from a range of different articles. See above. I think it would be a retrograde step to merge.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:15, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

North Korea–South Korea relations also contains content discussing the US. Korean conflict includes many details about diplomacy as well. After reading both articles, it seems that there is hardly anything that is covered in only one article but not the other.

On 30 June, Kim and Moon met again in the DMZ, joined by US President Donald Trump who initiated the meeting. The three held a meeting at the Inter-Korean House of Freedom. Meanwhile, North Korea conducted a series of short–range missile tests, and the US and South Korea took part in joint military drills in August. On 16 August 2019, North Korea's ruling party made a statement criticizing the South for participating in the drills and for buying US military hardware, calling it a "grave provocation" and saying there would be no more negotiation. Wasting time is still my passion (talk) 00:22, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I think there is considerable differences between the articles, particularly in the middle of both article. Any repetition can be removed by editing.Jack Upland (talk) 00:57, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. If any merging should happen, the conflict should be merged into the relations, because the conflict is part of the relations and not the other way around. However, merging these articles would probably result in one too big article, so merging is not a good idea. Lova Falk (talk) 11:48, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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)

Support merge, the ropeway is a sub-topic of the mine and there's no size reason why the information needs to be divided across two different pages. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:02, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I propose merging City of Milton Keynes into Milton Keynes. The content is largely duplicated and it's not standard to have different articles for the local authority and city (e.g. there is no City of Birmingham article separate to Birmingham). It doesn't really matter that Milton Keynes contains a few separate towns within the authority area- after all Birmingham also contains separate towns like Sutton Coldfield. The current layout of having two articles is needlessly cumbersome, forcing readers to go to a different article for information on the economy and demographics. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 20:42, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose simply because the argument presented here is unconvincing: it is in fact very normal to have separate articles for a local government district and the settlement that it's named after. Leeds, Lancaster, Stafford, Horsham, Lewes, Swindon, Eastleigh, Winchester, Bedford, Darlington, Southend-on-Sea, Bromsgrove, Hartlepool, Stockton on Tees, Dudley, to name a few. When we don't split is for places where the area of the settlement and the area of the district are generally considered to be the same, which you seem to accept is not the case here. Joe D (t) 21:13, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
• Strong oppose.
  • The Borough (formally "City of") is substantially larger than the eponymous urban area.
  • The comparison with Sutton Coldfield is not useful since SC is part of the Birmingham urban area, like Camden Town in London.
  • City of Carlisle, City of Lancaster and maybe City of York are more obvious comparators
  • Milton Keynes has no defined boundaries. It keeps the peace to have Newport Pagnell and Woburn Sands (which are in the Milton Keynes urban area (as defined by the OS and ONS) declared to be in the City of MK.
  • The Milton Keynes article is already rather big, we really do not want to make it any bigger to satisfy some misplaced idea of "tidiness".
  • City of MK is that part of Buckinghamshire that is designated as the 'patch' of the unitary authority, Milton Keynes City Council
  • Legally, city status was awarded to the borough council, not the urban area.
  • Giving each of these aspects its own article makes it far easier to write clearly and unambiguously.

It is not broken, it doesn't need fixing. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

It is broken when it's not clear what the article is even about at the moment! The article starts with "Milton Keynes is a city" but then has a footnote explaining that the article isn't about the city under its legally-defined borders. It's also clearly not about the Milton Keynes urban area because that is a separate article and also contains Aspley Guise in Bedfordshire. It can't be about the ONS's Milton Keynes Amalgamated Built Up Area because that excludes a lot of the city's parkland which is reported on in this article.

The cited area in the infobox sources the original New Town act of 1967- but doesn't that exclude later developments not part of that act that are clearly part of the city now?

Ultimately the article as it is currently written is a complete mess and it's nearly impossible to work out how it is defining "Milton Keynes", which seems like a clear WP:OR violation. No reason not to just use the definition which basically every source uses- the official boundaries of the city of Milton Keynes! If Milton Keynes succeeds in its city of culture bid, the designation will apply to the actual City of Milton Keynes's boundaries, not some nebulous undefined definition of "Milton Keynes" invented by editors to exclude some areas of it, etc. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 21:38, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Comment Following on to this I notice that footnote has a definition for the topic of this article: "the contiguous urban segment of the City of Milton Keynes local authority area", but that is against WP:OR- it would mean that the topic of the article includes Woburn Sands and excludes both Aspley Guise and Sherington. This is not a definition used or reported on by any WP:RS- it is invented by Wikipedia.

I didn't even notice that at first; I think the fact that the topic of the article is seemly defined by a definition invented by Wikipedia makes it even more important to carry out a merger and change the scope of the article. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 21:56, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

If you want to propose changes to this article, then start another discussion topic. This topic is about your merge proposal. Lat that snowball melt before you throw another one. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:28, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose Long standing consensus is that the Milton Keynes district and the urban area are distinct and worthy of seperate articles. There are many examples of similar city/urban area article splits which have already been given. Eopsid (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose per above, plenty of articles have both, don't see the rationale as compelling enough for a merge. Birmingham's urban area and the conjoining town covers virtually the entire borough so had to use the borough border, so can't exactly be compared to here. DankJae 00:30, 19 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. WikiMacaroons^Cinnamon? 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support - For comparison, the pages for almost all other cities that had their own SportsChannel link to the present-day network, similar to what JHD0919 is proposing. Red0ctober22 (talk) 22:42, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I propose merging Elite Eight into this page (NCAA Division I men's basketball tournament). The Elite Eight page does not really provide any meaningful information aside from noting "underdog" teams that made it to the round. Additionally, we have a page for the Elite Eight, but not the Sweet Sixteen, so it doesn't make sense to me to have one but not the other. Red0ctober22 (talk) 23:21, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Support - Most of the article seems to talk about the lowest seeds to ever made the Elite Eight, which is redundant because it's perfectly covered on the upsets page. The information otherwise is so short, that it could be very well added to the NCAA Division I men's basketball tournament page. ~ Sandy14156 (Talk ✉️) 01:01, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Strong Support - I often disagree on points of redundancy, but Elite Eight is actually a redundant page in this case. The Voivodeship King (talk) 09:15, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

[]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 Valid navigational list, as most of their games are individually notable. No different from everything else at Category:Video game lists by company. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:17, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose As the creator of the list, I still feel as I did in 2024 when I made it, that the games have enough notoriety on their own and that the table was starting to get long enough that a split was fine to do. The list went through FLC soon after creation and no big concerns with its existence were brought up then, which I think would have happened if there were any major concerns. -- ZooBlazer 20:41, 18 March 2026 (UTC)