Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Merge

Hi :) I'm going over the open task list and I noticed that on some occasions pepople would merge articles into an article they think would be a better source rather than the one that was agreed upon on AFD or different discussions, is that ok? Happypenguins82 (talk) 01:37, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Generally not but it is WP:BOLD. Sometimes the editor who does the merge is the first to review the material in detail. It is not unusual, for instance, for opinions in discussions to be overly based on the just the titles. ~Kvng (talk) 14:37, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation :)

The reason i'm askink is because it throws the bot off and adds the article to the backlog, into a contradiction with the decisions. So my new question is can i go into the closed discussions and correct the name of the designated article to reconcile the open task table? Providing the article matches the topic and its not a mistake in the first place... Happypenguins82 (talk) 15:22, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Not a good idea to edit closed discussions. Going back and adding a note might be acceptable but I suspect that won't make the bot happy. What specifically makes the bot happy? ~Kvng (talk) 23:25, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Well maybe its something worth considering and creating a special maintenance tag that would ease the bots mind somehow, im still new here and arent familiar with the process of how to suggest new procedures and developing them. Happypenguins82 (talk) 13:02, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps. I've left a note for the bot operator at User_talk:Merge_bot#Closing_retargeted_merges. ~Kvng (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, I think itll be very productive and would allow us to reduce the backlog and accomplish all the open tasks. Happypenguins82 (talk) 19:50, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

I might have identified the wrong bot. If we're talking about the tables in the "Bot-reported errors for manual correction" section, it looks like that is generated by User:AnomieBOT not User:Merge bot. ~Kvng (talk) 14:15, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

You have indeed identified the wrong bot! FaviFake (talk) 11:24, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi :)

im going over the open tasks' and i noticed that in some cases articles were merged not according to consensus in some cases, maybe even got the wrong place in the actual debate in the final notice template, is it ok to change the destination in the closed notices? like in this case for example:

Anna Williams (Tekken) (e t h l)

Tekken (e t h l)

The Anna Williams article should be merged in to "Characters of the Tekken series" instead of the "Tekken" which is an article about the series. can i change the name in the AFD template conclusion, this will reconcile the DELETED open task in this case and in many others. Happypenguins82 (talk) 17:12, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect § Adding optional parameters to {{R from merge}}. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:16, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi,

I see we have new templates and new merge guidelines, which is wonderful. only one question remains, when I finish a merge and publish the new template designed for the talk page, it seems to lack potency and the clarity that the previous tag had, it's not so clear now that the content was merged due to a certain consensus, and feels more vague here is an example Talk:Onaka_(grape), am i missing something? I would really appreciate all the help and future explanations. Happypenguins82 (talk) 22:21, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

I went back to double and triple check myself so I found a different tag, but still... it lacks visibility, I replaced the former "copied" notice for this new "merge" notice, also added some info to it (even though it wasn't required). here is the former template I deleted, which seems weaker in my humble opinion {{Copied}} Happypenguins82 (talk) 22:48, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

For now I would suggest still using {{merged to}}. {{afd-merged-from}} doesn't currently have a {{afd-merged-to}} partner. But I think this is good reason for us to introduce one. ~ oklopfer (💬) 23:09, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Perfect! It's exactly what I needed, I'll bookmark these. thanks a million :) Happypenguins82 (talk) 23:34, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Under the "guidelines" section, there are three reasons given for merging, and it seems bare or insufficient notability, listed in the Merging information page, should be included. It would likely not be controversial as #1 instead of #4. -- Otr500 (talk) 14:25, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

There are five reasons given on the Merging information page and three here. Shouldn't we make the two lists consistent? I assume the merging information page is more authoritative than what we have here. ~Kvng (talk) 15:55, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done FaviFake (talk) 12:14, 7 June 2026 (UTC)