Hosta

by | Mar 16, 2018 | Hosta

How Can We Help?
You are here:
< Back
Shortcuts

Mergers for discussion (MRfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article or collection of articles should be merged. Articles listed here are debated for at least seven days, after which the results are concluded proceeds based on Wikipedia community consensus. The pages are either kept, merged and/or redirected, or taken to AFD.

Prior to nominating an article for discussion, the proposed merger should be discussed on the appropriate talk pages, with the appropriate templates on the top of the article. For most two article mergers, this will be {{mergeto}} and {{mergefrom}}. If talk page discussion does not yield an editor consensus, then it may be brought to MRfD for wider input from the community. This process is not a necessary condition for mergers, nor is it a substitute for talk page consensus or bold mergers.

This page explains what you should consider before nominating, the steps for nominating single or multiple pages, and how to discuss an MRfD. It also links to the list of articles currently under consideration. When adding a new discussion, please add it at the top of the page.

Is this the right place?

If you want to nominate an article, please familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia deletion policy and guide to deletion to help determine if this is the correct process. If the article in question meets the criteria for stand-alone existence, then they will be kept. If they should be merged, then please see Help:Merging and moving pages to determine the correct course of action.

This process also is not a replacement for adding a {{merge}} template. The template should be used if a merge is being discussed on the article's talk page, or if a merge appears uncontroversial but you are unable to perform it. Mergers should always be discussed first on the article talk page, and if there is no response (or just no consensus) after a week or two, it can be listed here for more community input and better visibility.

Creating a discussion

New discussions can be created by adding the {{MRfD}} template to one of the articles to be discussed. Clicking the red "this article's entry" link will create a discussion page in the format of Wikipedia:Mergers for discussion/PAGENAME. Please use the same formating and section dividers as in previous discussions.

Once the discussion page has been created, add a template link to it on this page in the appropriate month category. Then add the template to any other articles in the proposed merge, and specify the discussion location with the |page parameter.

Common options in discussions

  • Merge: The article should be merged per guidance on this page (to come) and Help:Merging and moving pages.
  • Redirect: Generally, choosing a more specific option is better than "Redirect". Mergers will redirect the page to another article, with content merged as well. Use this option if you think that a merger is not appropriate at this time, but the content should be available for future mergers.
  • Keep: Keep page as a separate article, without merging.
  • Delete: Article should be deleted without redirection or merging. If there appears to be a consensus to delete here, the article will be taken to the more appropriate venue for further deletion discussion from a wider range of users.

Current discussions

April 2009

(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction (Devo song)

To be merged
Target

(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Reason

Same song, split off the main article. Seems to be a campaign by one editor, who (annoyingly) deletes all mention of the Devo version from the main article.[1] [2] [3] [4] Some discussion on Talk:(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction#Devo_cover. Devo version article is less than 3k.

For those unfamiliar with how songs performed by multiple artists are handled on Wikipedia, there's WP:SONG, and Baby, Please Don't Go for references. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Satisfaction (Residents cover), same reasons as above, minus the edit war—song stub best included on main article for that song. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SpongeBob.com

To be merged

SpongeBob.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Target

SpongeBob Squarepants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Reason

There is not sufficient information in the article to support a separate entry and none of it can be reliably referenced. - Mgm|(talk) 11:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect Website is newly created, and it can stay as a sub section of the Spongebob article until secondary sources demonstrate it is indeed notable. --NickPenguin(contribs) 05:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per above. Not notable enough for a spinout. ThemFromSpace 07:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect: Agree with above. Website it merely one of dozens of sub websites on Nick.com. The Flash {talk} 19:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kerokan

To be merged

Kerokan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Target

Gua Sha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Reason

Just a local name for the same practise. Make kerokan into a redirect. --Algernon Moncrieff (talk) 17:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect The target article already mentions this local name, and this content could easily be merged into the lede of Gua Sha. --NickPenguin(contribs) 20:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-stick pan

To be merged

Non-stick pan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Target

Teflon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Reason

There seems to be considerable overlap between the two subjects. Is it necessary to create an article for every kitchen utensil in the universe? --DFS454 (talk) 17:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Covering the use on pans in the teflon article would cause considerably less duplication than covering teflon in the article about the pans. - Mgm|(talk) 10:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's actually more to say on non-stick pans that is not related to Teflon. In particular, I can find sources that discuss their uses as cooking utensils, and when it is best not to use them. There's a case to be made that content based upon such sources, which is about choosing what cooking utensil to use for a given task and why, doesn't really belong in an article on Teflon, and really does belong in a separate article about that cooking utensil. Uncle G (talk) 17:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was originally thinking merge, especially after removing the copy-paste bits from other sites, which just left a somewhat dubious history of Teflon. After looking at Uncle G's changes though and finding some RS describing possible health risks specific to cooking pans, I'd now agree that non-stick pans are a viable topic by themself. The article certainly needs a bit of work, but it's a specific search term that someone may be coming here to learn about. So bold up whichever of decline, oppose, keep&improve is correct here. :) Franamax (talk) 23:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Misleading. Other non-stick brands such as this one market their non-PTFE (thus non-Teflon) materials. Comment: page should be renamed to Non-stick cookware to be more general. – Shootbamboo (talk) 22:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

March 2009

The following is an archived discussion of the proposed merge of the articles below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the articles' talk pages). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was bold redirect. There doesn't seem to be any sourced content about the singer that isn't found in articles directly about Stabilo. --NickPenguin(contribs) 13:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Dryfhout

To be merged

Jesse Dryfhout (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Target

Stabilo (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Reason

The article does not contain enough material to support a separate entry. - Mgm|(talk) 10:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect In this case there is no content to be merged that is not already in the Stabilo article, and I see no google results indicating the singer is notable independent of the band. --NickPenguin(contribs) 15:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the articles' talk pages). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of the proposed merge of the articles below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the articles' talk pages). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge. I have merged some content from two available articles into Master of Reality#Release and reception, and I'm waiting to hear back about Solitude to see if I can merge content from that article too. Discussing articles here that involved AfDs should probably be avoided, just so nobody gets all huffy puffy about stuff, y'know? --NickPenguin(contribs) 18:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black Sabbath song stubs

:(View merge discussion)

To be merged
Killing Yourself to Live (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (AfD)
After Forever (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Solitude (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Merge target
Master of Reality

Nominated on the grounds that one good album article beats 8 song stubs, and maintenance (such as sourcing, much needed) will be easier. As the nominator I volunteer to perform this merge, as was done for Black Sabbath, Vol 4 and Nursery Cryme (AfD). A restore of the deleted Lord of This World article would also be helpful for such a merge, even if only so I can confirm it has no salvageable information. I think Master of Reality, at 9,855 bytes, could benefit from this treatment. Looking at the song stubs, a liberal {{Cn}}-tagging might be needed. / edg ☺ ☭ 03:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge, as the individual songs don't appear to be notable enough for their own articles. –Drilnoth (T • C) 13:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - should we be using this new procedure to compete with articles currently up at AFD? Maybe yes, maybe no? But, keeping that in consideration,
  • Merge anything mentioned above which does not result in a keep after the AFD. ALL. BOZ (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It looks like Black Kite deleted all of the songs in that AFD, then created redirects in their place, so since everything was not a Keep, I change my response to Merge all, after an edit history restore for GDFL purposes. BOZ (talk) 19:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was wondering that about the AFD thing also, but its worth a shot. If the article(s) are deleted there, we can search for a good trial candidate or three to test out which are not at AFD. –Drilnoth (T • C) 02:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • BOZ: I'm restating to see if I understand. You're saying:
      1. If Keep in the AfD, then Merge.
      2. If Delete in the AfD, then discard (do not recover to consider for potential merge)
        I'm guessing you are trying to avoid conflict with the AfD in progress. Is this correct? / edg ☺ ☭ 14:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Incorrect. If Keep in the AFD, then Keep. If anything other than Keep, then Merge. BOZ (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge if result of debate !=delete Enigmamsg 20:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • {{#ifeq:{{{AFD|}}}|Delete|Delete|Merge}}? –Drilnoth (T • C) 20:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That would be another way of saying it, yes. :) Enigmamsg 20:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, the result of the debate was delete, ergo... BOZ (talk) 03:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, a few good articles are better than many poor ones, in this case. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the redirects, nothing else left... --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 06:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edit histories can be restored for a merge - I've seen it done many times. :) BOZ (talk) 15:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. –Drilnoth (T • C) 16:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment so, if we have a consensus, what's next? :) BOZ (talk) 15:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In this case it looks like there are two problems. The first is that since the song articles have been deleted, an administrator must be involved with the process to either undelete or userfy the information so it can be merged. Then, someone actually has to sit down and complete the merge. I have no problem with the second part, I like merges, merges are fun. But I'd still need someone to dump the content into somewhere to make it accessable, then I think this one can be closed as "complete". --NickPenguin(contribs) 03:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A word of caution: restoring and merging these articles after the delete outcome may be considered editing against consensus. Edgarde suggested merge somewhere in the middle of the AfD, but only J04n mentioned merge also. I think that NickPenguin's going to the WP:Proposed mergers backlog will produce less sensitive test cases. Flatscan (talk) 05:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll get in touch with the deleting admin. And I wouldn't let my opinions of unrelated matters stand in the way of your willingness to help. --NickPenguin(contribs) 14:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I were an admin, this would be the exact sort of thing I'd want to help with. :) You know, if that ever were to happen. ;) BOZ (talk) 16:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the articles' talk pages). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of the proposed merge of the articles below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the articles' talk pages). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Being MRFD was failed, this was speedy closed by me. The Junk Police (reports|works) 00:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chimarrão and Mate

:(View merge discussion)

To be merged
Chimarrão (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mate (beverage) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Merge target
To be discussed

Nominated after having left unresolved on Wikipedia:Proposed mergers for over two years. The drinks are very similar, being made from the same ingredients. The name differences seems to come from two different languages, but appear to refer to the same basic drink. --NickPenguin(contribs) 04:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Chimarrão becoming a redirect to Mate (beverage). Only English WP has two articles about this, other languages mostly have only Mate, with an explanation that in some countries it's called Chimarrão. --Algernon Moncrieff (talk) 11:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the articles' talk pages). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of the proposed merge of the articles below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the articles' talk pages). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Talk page discussion revealed that while all nebula are interstellar clouds, not all interstellar clouds are nebula, and thus a merge would be incorrect. --NickPenguin(contribs) 15:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interstellar cloud and Nebula

:(View merge discussion)

To be merged
Interstellar cloud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nebula (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Merge target
To be discussed

The two articles seem to discuss the same basic phenomenon, although this merge may be difficult since some but not necessarily all interstellar clouds are nebula. --NickPenguin(contribs) 04:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the articles' talk pages). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of the proposed merge of the articles below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the articles' talk pages). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was don't merge. Although there seems to be a little bit of talk page support for this merge, with the discovery of another article List of German Imperial Navy ships, it seems to me that due to length constraints, these articles should be kept divided by time periods. --NickPenguin(contribs) 13:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of German Federal Navy ships and List of German Navy ships

:(View merge discussion)

To be merged
List of German Federal Navy ships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of German Navy ships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Merge target
List of German Navy ships

These two articles don't necessarily duplicate content so much as they duplicate topic. Although Germany was not unified between the end of WW2 and the fall of the Berlin wall, it is up for debate as to whether it makes sense to have distinctive articles for navy vessels from these two different time periods. --NickPenguin(contribs) 04:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the articles' talk pages). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of the proposed merge of the articles below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the articles' talk pages). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no concensus After reviewing talk page discussion, there was no concensus that the Union Flag and the Flag of the United Kingdom were the same thing. While one overlaps the other, since they are not identical they should be kept as separate articles. --NickPenguin(contribs) 13:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Union Flag and Flag of the United Kingdom

:(View merge discussion)

To be merged
Union Flag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Flag of the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Merge target
To be discussed

There is some controversy about whether these two articles should be kept seperate, but they are essentially dealing with the same topic. Although the Union flag may be more general than the Flag of the United Kingdom, they seem to be one and the same. --NickPenguin(contribs) 04:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the articles' talk pages). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of the proposed merge of the articles below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the articles' talk pages). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge and redirect John Cura into Tele-snaps. Appropriate content from the John Cura article should be retrieved from the article history and merged into the History section of Tele-snaps. --NickPenguin(contribs) 15:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Cura and Tele-snaps

:(View merge discussion)

To be merged
John Cura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tele-snaps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Merge target
To be discussed

John Cura seems to have been famous only for his invention of the Tele-snap, which raises the question is he should be covered with his own article, or if he is only significant within the context of the topic of Tele-snaps. --NickPenguin(contribs) 04:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the articles' talk pages). No further edits should be made to this page.

See also

Categories
Table of Contents