Wikipedia talk:Articles for merging

Comment

I like this proposal and think it could work. But I think what's really needed is something like a Wikiproject Mergers where editors can get together to tackle the huge backlog of articles that need merges done. -- œ ^™ 02:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Proposed mergers (current process) and Wikipedia:Mergers for discussion (previously failed).

I don't really see how this proposal is an improvement compared to WP:PM. Actually, I don't see any indication that the proposer is even aware of PM's existence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh didn't know about Wikipedia:Mergers for discussion. I haven't gone into both proposals in depth but it seems there's consensus against this. Which is too bad really, I think Wikipedia:Mergers for discussion was a much better solution to the rather ineffective Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. -- œ ^™ 12:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support this. Especially if there are articles which are only edited by people who either don't know the criteria for individual articles very well, are unwilling to discuss, or just don't care about policy. An AfD-like process would be a good way to get attention from people and obtain policy based consensus without disruptive people being able to stop the rules from being followed. NotARealWord (talk) 10:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page name might be a good new name for WP:Proposed mergers. We do need to emphasize the importance of mergers in Wikipedia as being equal to that of article deletion or requested moves. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 05:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Affect on AfD

I would be much more inclined to support this guideline if it was explicit that it doesn't change policy at AfD. In other words, I fear the argument will be made that merge is an illegitimate !vote at AfD. Shadowjams (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why merge can't still be used during Afd. I just added a section called "AfD merge" to resolve your concerns. Sebwite (talk) 23:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussing merging via RfC

Most merges require little or no discussion (bold and suggested merges), or can be discussed by an article's editors on its talk page. In the relatively rare cases when a merge needs broader discussion, the RfC process could be used, no?

I think that WP:PM and WP:RFC together fill the role for which this process was proposed. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that RfC should attract outside input, but my experience with article RfC has been disappointing. Interestingly enough, the merger dispute that got me interested in the merger process had a month-long RfC with minimal progress but was resolved rapidly at WP:Articles for deletion. Flatscan (talk) 04:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Time to close?

Its been a while since this proposal saw any attention. Is it time to close it? --Salix (talk): 22:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objections, but it would be courteous to notify its primary author, User:Sebwite. Flatscan (talk) 04:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]