Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers

Shortcuts

Proposed article mergers is a noticeboard for active discussions to merge articles. To begin a new merge discussion, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Merging. If a merge is unlikely to be contested, you can be bold and complete it without initiating a discussion. If your merge is later contested, another editor can revert and discuss it.

This page is for the mergers of articles. For splits and moves, see Proposed article splits and Moving a page. For mergers of non-article pages, see the Categories for discussion and Templates for discussion processes.

Articles proposed for merging

Shortcut

WP:MERGEREQWP:MERGEREQ

This list is updated automatically twice per day by Merge bot.

Jump to a random merge proposal from the backlog!

Jump to a random merge discussion!

June 2025

ENSAR ⟶ University of Poitiers (Discuss)

August 2025

Anuradhapura period ⟶ Anuradhapura kingdom (Discuss)

I propose merging Anuradhapura period into Anuradhapura kingdom. I think the content in the Anuradhapura period can easily be explained in the context of Anuradhapura kingdom, and a merge would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in Anuradhapura kingdom. NisansaDdS (talk) 12:27, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative would be to rename Anuradhapura period to History of the Anuradhapura kingdom and move most of the history content there, keeping a concise WP:SUMMARY at Anuradhapura kingdom. But barring that, a merge would be better than the status quo. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:23, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Both cover the same range. ScrubbedSoap (talk) 15:41, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Asset tokenization ⟷ Tokenized real-world asset (Discuss)

I propose merging Asset tokenization into Real-World Asset. Tokenization is the process used to create the asset, both are inherently related but the end product is more important than the process. Just my two cents. Itemirus (talk) 05:58, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it's true that they're both LLM-generated content, I'd rather scrap them both. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:26, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "thing" is tokenization rather than RWA as such, a lot of the refs are from unsuitable crypto related sources, I suppose because it is a fairly recent development as these things go. We should keep (and improve) one and I would keep this one and merge whatever of the other into it or even just a redirect for time being. Selfstudier (talk) 09:54, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Itemirus & Selfstudier: This merger is unopposed, either or both of you should be good to carry out a bold merge if you still support one. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 18:49, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Age of Bulgaria ⟶ First Bulgarian Empire (Discuss)

Shouldn't Golden Age of Bulgaria, regarding culture during Simeon I (889—927), be merged into this article?--Zoupan 06:37, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zoupan, is this still something you're interested in? No one has opposed after a few months, and you should be good to carry out a WP:BOLDMERGE. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:50, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zoupan Thebiguglyalien The articles should not be merged. The Golden Age of Bulgaria is an established term in historiography and there is enough information for a separate article. Yes, the article needs expansion but that is no reason for a merger. There are tens of thousands of articles that need expansion, yet that is no reason for merger/deletion. Best regards, --Gligan (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thebiguglyalien and Gligan, the term should simply be included in the culture section. It refers to the cultural prosperity during the reign of Simeon I. There is not enough information in this article for separation and tens of thousands of articles that need expansion is not a valid reason. --Zoupan 22:06, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thebiguglyalien and Zoupan I don't agree that there is not enough information in this article for separation is a valid reason. There are plenty of articles in Wikipedia, where there is not enough information with the reason being not the lack of information but the lack of time to have the information added to Wikipedia. As I said, there is enough information to render a separate article "Golden Age of Bulgaria". I will expand it, when I have the time and inspiration to do so. Best regards, --Gligan (talk) 08:39, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peak debt ⟶ Growth in a Time of Debt (Discuss)

List of openly LGBTQ sub-national leaders ⟶ List of openly LGBTQ heads of state and government (Discuss)

Thank you for your comment, Fionn Kivlehan-Hayes: A. I have removed the section on deputy LGBTQ+ heads of government. Such a section is out of place for an article titled List of openly LGBT ... heads of government, as those leaders are not the highest officials of their government.

Likewise, I have removed the sections on closeted/outed and subnational LGBTQ+ leaders. In particular, there is so much ambiguity over who would qualify for the latter section (e.g. Pete Buttigieg, who was a municipal chief executive, is a gay male subnational leader, but he would not fit in with the regional chief executives who were listed). AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 01:57, 1 March 2025 (UTC); edited 18:36, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with the decision removing list of LGBT leader of subnational government.

No ambiguity - The premise of "ambiguity" is misguided. There is a broadly-accepted understanding of subnational entities being the top-tier administrative division of sovereign states, known most commonly in the larger countries as "states" (e.g. India, USA, Germany), "provinces" (e.g. China, Indonesia), or "regions" (e.g. France). So, no @AndrewPeterT, there would not be much serious debate about whether Mayor Pete should be included (the answer is a clear "no").
Relevance/Significance - The size of population/economic influence of some of the subnational entities led by LGBT leaders are substantially bigger than the national leaders listed. Before France made this list with Gabriel Attal (who as PM was politically subservient to the President, and has no electoral mandate), Canada's Kathleen Wynne and Brazil's Eduardo Leite were elected to lead Ontario and Rio Grande do Sul, each with population larger than every countries on this list.

I submit that the list of subnational leaders should be restored (perhaps with a column indicating population estimates for the jurisdiction they led at the end of their tenure)

(I do not have a strong view on the list of deputy heads. Their significance, prominence, and permanence all vary greatly.) Milton Chan (talk) 14:32, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MiltonC: Thank you for your comment. I am starting a proposal to merge List of openly LGBTQ sub-national leaders into List of openly LGBTQ heads of state and government based on your rationale. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 18:36, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there still interest in this? There's been no activity for about four months now. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:06, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – subnational leaders are not heads of state. If we were to go with a merge, the destination page would need to be renamed to something like "List of openly LGBTQ government officials" Jcgaylor (talk) 02:20, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Tualatin Valley Highway ⟶ Oregon Route 8 (Discuss)

Tualatin Valley Highway ⟶ Oregon Route 47 (Discuss)

September 2025

Cardiopulmonary exercise test ⟶ Cardiac stress test (Discuss)

I really can't the the new article on Cardiopulmonary exercise test is warranted, given that the topic is already covered in Cardiac stress test#Cardiopulmonary exercise stress testing and on other parts of the page. There is heavy overlap. The only reason for the separation seems to be to the different nomenclature used by different authors, and that the Cardiopulmonary exercise test is necessarily more detailed (because it necessarily includes pulmonary tests). I had wondered whether Cardiopulmonary exercise test would be exclusively for physiological studies, but it is also framed in the context of clinical diagnosis (at least in part). So, I suggest merging to the other article. Klbrain (talk) 09:37, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with the close, given that the discussion was stale, but feel that the case is sufficiently important to start another discussion, even though this is on the same day as the close! I'll approach a relevant project for additional input to drive more discussion. Klbrain (talk)

Those are absolutely different tests, as I can see from the sources: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. But a review article can be written to describe all the tests, choosing between them and differences: [6], [7]. It's just a question of sources. D6194c-1cc (talk) 10:32, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to make it clear that the cardiopulmonary exercise test is a type (the most common type?) of cardiac stress test. But I'm not sure if merging is the correct response. Cardiopulmonary exercise test has a good level of detail and I wonder if a better solution would be to include a {{main}} hatnote in Cardiac stress test#Cardiopulmonary exercise stress testing.

I also note that the redirects Exercise test, Exercise Tolerance Test and Exercise stress test all lead to Cardiac stress test. If the two articles are not merged then Cardiopulmonary exercise test would seem a more reasonable target. Mgp28 (talk) 11:29, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, an exercise test is one *type* of cardiac stress test (the most commonly used type). For patients who are unable to do the exercise test (mobility issues, cardiopulmonary risk factors, etc.), there are other types of stress tests that can be done. For example a "chemical" stress test where the patient is given a vasodilator.

From an accuracy standpoint, the exercise stress/tolerance test should be a subsection in the main topic of cardiac stress test.

If merging is "controversial", one option might be to create this as a subtopic in the "main article" with a short summary and then a link to the "exercise test" page? BetsyRogers (talk) 19:57, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up: ... On the other hand, that might create more confusion. Either way, the excercise test is a *type* of cardiac stress test. BetsyRogers (talk) 20:01, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BetsyRogers, Mgp28, D6194c-1cc, Klbrain, and Tom (LT): The proposed merger was closed before this discussion opened. There is nothing to prevent someone from re-creating a new, formal, merge discussion, whether you support or oppose it. As original proposer I proposed it as a AFC reviewer seeing similarities. I was saddened that there were so few participants. I have pinged all who appear to be interested in the merge, either for or against. If I have missed anyone that is inadvertent. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 10:27, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I looked over this discussion & the article again, and I realized I wasn't considering the fact that the goal of the cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET) is very different from a cardiac stress test (with exercise). A cardiac stress test doesn't measure pulmonary function, while the cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET) does. I'm not an expert on CPET, but I do know it can also be used to distinguish between cardiac dysfunction and pulmonary dysfunction (or a combination of both).

So it's basically a cross-disciplinary test/topic. I don't think it should be moved to an article dedicated to cardiac testing. This would make it harder for people to find when they're looking for information on pulmonary testing.

I do think it needs some "see also" links pointing to broader topics. (E.g., there are separate articles for Pulmonary function testing and Cardiology diagnostic tests and procedures) BetsyRogers (talk) 22:52, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nominator's rationale. FaviFake (talk) 11:09, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2025 FIFA Club World Cup criticisms and storylines ⟶ 2025 FIFA Club World Cup (Discuss)

Ideal (order theory) ⟶ Filter (mathematics) (Discuss)

I propose merging Ideal (order theory) into this page, Filter (mathematics). As Sonarpulse said above, the two concepts are perfectly dual so the articles are redundant. Currently, each is missing some important information. For example, this article is missing content about prime filters that is dual to the explanations about prime ideals that exist on the article about ideals. Jean Abou Samra (talk) 13:49, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For comparison, an article like upper set is about both upper and lower sets. Jean Abou Samra (talk) 13:53, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Abou Samra, this has been open for a few months without objection, you should be good to carry out a WP:BOLDMERGE. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:12, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had already argued against this. Maybe it was another page? Anyway I'm not convinced; filters and ideals are generally used in different contexts. It's similar to how we don't merge open set and closed set. --Trovatore (talk) 23:47, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, cf Talk:Filter on a set#Merge proposal. Jean Abou Samra (talk) 23:50, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support – They do seem related and they're relatively short, no harm in merging. FaviFake (talk) 20:30, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They're used in different contexts; they're not ordinarily treated together in the literature. --Trovatore (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Could we pin down the difference more explicitly? In the case of open set and closed set, they are complements of each other, so their articles naturally have different focus. With ideals and filters, the symmetry is with respect to the direction of the order relation, which is often arbitrary (I am pretty certain I have seen at least one account of forcing which reverses the order relation between forcing conditions). Bbbbbbbbba (talk) 02:52, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't ever recall anyone talking about a "generic ideal" for a forcing poset. It is true that sometimes stronger conditions are treated as greater rather than (more usually) as lesser, but as far as I know you still talk about generic filters. --Trovatore (talk) 05:01, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have just checked Saharon Shelah's Proper and Improper Forcing. In Chapter I he defined "⁠

G

⁠ being generic" as the conjunction of (1) "⁠

G

⁠ is directed (i.e., every two members of ⁠

G

⁠ have an upper bound in ⁠

G

⁠) and downward closed (i.e., if ⁠

x<y\in G

⁠ then also ⁠

x\in G

⁠)" and (2') "⁠

G\cap {\mathcal {I}}\neq \emptyset

⁠ for every dense open subset ⁠

{\mathcal {I}}

⁠ of ⁠

P

⁠ which is in ⁠

V

⁠". Obviously condition (1) is the usual definition of an ideal, but he simply uses neither the word "ideal" nor "filter" in Chapter I. In later chapters he does refer to a "generic filter" but I cannot find his definition of "filter". I wonder if he is just defining "filter" as the usual ideal... Bbbbbbbbba (talk) 08:38, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I came across the AfD discussions for 4 articles about 4 books that are in a series. I don't understand why only four of the dozen or so articles have been nominated: it seems the other ones seem to have never been nominated.

This is the full series, in bold are the articles that have received consensus to merge to this page, in brackets are books that fall ouside the roman numbering system for the books (so the 2 "bonus" books):

The Princess Diaries (novel) (page for the 1st novel, not this article)
Princess in the Spotlight
Princess in Love
Princess in Waiting
(Project Princess)
Princess in Pink
Princess in Training
Party Princess
(Valentine Princess)
Princess Mia
Forever Princess
Royal Wedding

I don't think we should merge these 4 into The Princess Diaries and leave the rest as-is. Some of the ones that weren't nominated were even much shorter than the ones that were nominated. (example: Project Princess)

Since there is consensus to merge these 4, I think we should also merge the rest. (I don't know why they weren't also nominated for deletion.) FaviFake (talk) 13:37, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Note that I'm not asking whether we should merge all of these or not. Since there is consensus to merge 4, we only need to figure out what to do with the rest. These four are to be merged anyways. FaviFake (talk) 13:48, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: The list of the AfD discussions that led to consensus to merge can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=Dragonborn+assassin&namespace=4&tagfilter=&newOnly=1&start=&end=&limit=100 FaviFake (talk) 14:01, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you but.... one is a Keep. But as your link shows, some titles were taken to Afd so please go to AfD now.

STRONG PROCEDURAL OPPOSE- go to AFD for the other titles and please obtain the same consensus. Please consider withdrawing this as this is awkward. (And good luck with merging "MANY OTHER PAGES" (your wording, capitals included) into the page and make it a nice reading experience for the reader....) - E.UX 20:50, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Eva UX some titles were taken to Afd so please go to AfD now.
AfD isn't used for merger discussions. Merger discussions should be held at the proposed target, see WP:MERGE. Articles for Deletion is for deleting articles.

I do not wish to delete these pages, thus I will not go to AfD. I want to merge them, as I think their content should be preserved. I f you instead want to delete them, you can nominate them yourself.

Please feel free to change the wording of the template to a better one. FaviFake (talk) 14:40, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Well, I am taking part in this MERGE discussion and opposing strongly ALL those "additional" merging, then. Sources and reviews exist for each volume where AfDs have (unfortunately imv) been closed as Merge (see said AfdS) (and for the other ones), and if you merge plots and reception for each of them, it is going to be an incredibly cumbersome and confusing amount of prose, tables and lists. And even in the current state of all those pages (some being short) it is going to hinder expansion and improvement of the big article that will result of the merges. But hey.

Also, you cannot MERGE a page that is currently at Afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Princess Diaries, Volume VII: Party Princess. So this one should at least not be on your list above (at least yet) and it is not necessary to discuss again the other decided at AfD (at least not now, and especially as you are suggesting the same outcome that has been judged as being the consensus there). But maybe that much was clear and maybe you are not suggesting a merge for that page.

I will note that you give no reason for merging except that other similar pages have been taken to AfD and closed as Merge. You repeat that argument twice. Consistency? Sure, but if any of those pages remains a standalone article, what, then?

I am not contributing anymore to those pages nor to this discussion because, so please don't ping me. I am very sorry but I don't have time for this and this is following a path I don't agree with. I won't change the wording of your template, no, it's your call. And obviously, unless you were trying to be ironic, no, I don't want them deleted. Again, good luck. - E.UX 21:58, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and reviews exist for each volume where AfDs have (unfortunately imv) been closed as Merge

(emphasis supplied) Would you then prefer these outcomes were overruled by a consensus here?

I will note that you give no reason for merging except that other similar pages have been taken to AfD and closed as Merge.

Yes, that's precisely my argument. FaviFake (talk) 15:52, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A1 ("Would you then prefer these outcomes were overruled by a consensus here?"): No. Once an AfD has been closed, you generally cannot overturn the outcome anywhere unless you go to Wikipedia:Deletion review. Which I won't. But I consider, indeed that, sadly, Cunard's arguments there were ignored. A2 (Consistency argument): Very well. One of the pages (the one mentioned above) is retained as a standalone article and, again, cannot be merged (per AfD), unless, again, you want to take it to deletion review or wait six months at least (in general, the time judged appropriate). So that you will have one article with a page and the rest merged into a huge and cumbersome article. It is going to be a terrible experience for the reader with one article isolated with a page and others cluttering up the big one of for the series. But hey. Again, I will not participate in that discussion nor in the merge. I disagree with the said AfDs' outcome and will watch the result it will have or the material it will discard, with regret but without intervening or commenting anymore. I oppose the additional merge you suggest, for size and navigation reasons, and will not change my mind. (PS- I apologise but will not follow this conversation and will not reply anymore) Cheers, --- E.UX 21:09, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Once an AfD has been closed, you generally cannot overturn the outcome anywhere unless you go to Wikipedia:Deletion review.
The page you link prohibits doing this:

Deletion review should not be used:
because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment (a page may be renominated after a reasonable timeframe);

Please remember WP:CCC and WP:BUREAUCRACY. Saying that 12 articles can't be touched because some page somewhere says that you should wait 6 months after a KEEP afd, and just one of ~5 was a KEEP, doesn't really make sense. If you truly want them to ALL be kept, then you can propose it. FaviFake (talk) 15:00, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So that you will have one article with a page and the rest merged into a huge and cumbersome article.
Still sounds better than 5 of the articles being merged and 7 not being merged. Which is what will happen if we don't do anything. FaviFake (talk) 15:03, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Eva UX

Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Teahouse § How should an AfD be overridden?, discussion about whether this merge request is procedurally correct. FaviFake (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me that the AfD should have been performed as a bundle AfD. It makes no sense from a consistency standpoint to merge select members of the series and not others, given they all received relatively similar quantities of reliable significant coverage. Katzrockso (talk) 23:00, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to possibly tag @Iljhgtn @Cunard @4meter4 @Stifle @BD2412 in as editors who participated in several AfD discussions on these books to provide further instruction on how a merge may be conducted. Katzrockso (talk) 23:06, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. I wonder what critera, if any, was used to pick the ones to nominate. Would a new, bundled AfD help? FaviFake (talk) 05:16, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A new AFD is not appropriate. AFDs are for deleting. The consensus already reached needs to be followed. Stifle (talk) 07:48, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Stifle WP:CCC says: (emphasis supplied)

Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances. Editors who revert a change proposed by an edit should generally avoid terse explanations (such as "against consensus") which provide little guidance to the proposing editor [...]

Nobody in the AfDs ever mentioned the other pages, thus this is a "previously unconsidered circumstance" and current consensus can be overturned. FaviFake (talk) 10:07, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

I would oppose merging the rest at least, it would make this article far, far too long. It may be inconsistent but that's what we (wrongly) decided. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:32, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PARAKANYAA @Stifle wait I'm sorry but I'm wondering why everyone here is supporting the consensus from the AfDs, while at the same time saying they disagre with it? Of course the AfDs reached a wrong consensus because nobody in the discussions knew of these other pages! I bet that if all 12 or so volumes has been nominated separately, some would end up as merge, some as keep, and some as delete. Which would be an insane situation if actually followed! And this is precisely allowed by CCC! We can very easily override conensus reached without the participants knowing the actual situation!

I truly do not understand these arguments. FaviFake (talk) 15:18, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else wants to chime in? FaviFake (talk) 15:32, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Merge - The books are legitimately notable on their own. They have had substantial work done on them and it would be a ton of work to merge them properly. It would also make for an intolerable reading experience for users.

2603:8001:71F0:11D0:397F:F180:B82E:F4F7 (talk) 22:09, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The books are legitimately notable on their own.
There was consensus at AfD that they were not. Any reason why you think the consensus is wrong?

They have had substantial work done on them
... which would not be lost as a result of a merger.

it would be a ton of work to merge them properly.
That's a worry for the editor performing the merger. Merge discussions shouldn't be based on how much time it will take to perform the merger. Wikipedia is not working to a deadline.

It would also make for an intolerable reading experience for users
How so? What seems intolerable is having t browse 12 different, small pages just for such a straightforward book series.FaviFake (talk) 22:14, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was an (ill-informed) consensus that some of them weren't.

Yes, it would, because we cannot have this much plot summary on one article per MOS:PLOT. So it would have to go. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:34, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only one of the 6 or so was closed as KEEP. WP:CCC. FaviFake (talk) 13:14, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And none of the other articles were nominated. We cannot have this much plot on one article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:48, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 2025

Wayteka language ⟶ Chono language (Discuss)

I propose to merge the imaginary Wayteka language here. As-is, the Wayteka article consists of a "vocabulary" (falsified per source provided) and history of "discovery". I see little reason to have a fake vocabulary popularized in an encyclopedia. The fact of 1967 concoction by Llaras Samitier is documented in Wayteka article, but is very short. Samitier himself is apparently non-notable, so there are few, if any indelible marks left by the "language". We already have a sentence here about the fact, it can be slightly expanded during the merge. Викидим (talk) 22:21, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

oppose - do we have any evidence these are the same language? — kwami (talk) 22:32, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One of the languages simply does not exist, so no, they cannot be the same language. However, they are both named "Chono", this creates a confusion, and this confusion is documented in the RS. Yes, the RS put this fact into the context of the proper Chono language (cf. Campbell 2012, page 89). We therefore will not do any WP:OR by using a similar text in our Chono article. Викидим (talk) 22:39, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't conflate articles because the topics have the same name. To avoid confusion we use hat notes. — kwami (talk) 23:45, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Imaginary language that did not gain popularity beyond the author and is always discussed in conjunction with another language might be not notable on its own. RS clearly place the languages together, time after time. Yes, in the "do not confuse L2 with L1" context - but repeating this approach here neatly avoids the issue of notability of L2. We do use {{R to related topic}} in our redirects quite frequently. Here L2 and L1 are related IMHO, as linguists always mention L2 in the context of L1. Викидим (talk) 04:42, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

a mention of one in the other is fine. covering both in an ambiguous article is not. — kwami (talk) 23:48, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I have stated on another thread (Talk:Pauxi language#Pawixi), I am dropping out of these discussions altogether. There are many more editors involved in the WP:NPP, some of them will definitely handle the subject of obscure languages better. Sincerely, Викидим (talk) 00:17, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Couldn't find enough RS, most search results are just WP clones. FaviFake (talk) 16:25, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am fine with the Wayteka article not existing independently, but I split it out of the Chono article because they are two totally distinct entities, one of which is a real language, and the other fake, and should not be in one article. The data could go to some other relevant article, that is not Chono. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 02:43, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any alternative targets in mind? FaviFake (talk) 05:19, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FaviFakeNo. Anything related to spurious langauges could have a section, but that would not be optimal. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 22:08, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether it has an ISO code, it could have a line at Spurious languages and rd there. Probably no more than a line, but we could state whether the consensus is that it was a hoax. — kwami (talk) 03:00, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I was thinking earlier. A few sentences would suffice there, although the question of what to do with the remaining data remains. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 13:04, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Religious ground motive ⟶ Herman Dooyeweerd (Discuss)

Dynamic frequency scaling ⟷ Dynamic voltage scaling (Discuss)

Front of Hope 2021 ⟷ Hope Front (Peru) and Independent Moralizing Front (Discuss)

@Lorenq12 Please remember to follow WP:M1 when proposing pages be merged. Per WP:MERGEPROP, editors should first start a discussion and link to it from the notice, explaining why they think a merge is beneficial. Alternatively, the pages can be boldly merged by any editor at any time without discussion, if the merge is not controversial. I've fixed the tags for you and created this discussion. This was the nominator's rationale:

The 3 pages have coincidences and similarities over the years, they coincide with the edition from 1 year ago of the User Camilonava on the Spanish page to merge the Hope Front (Peru) with the Independent Moralizing Front and the Hope Front 2021 be 1 single page

FaviFake (talk) 18:33, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - There is a 8 year gap between FIM and FE, they are arguably different entities. --Soman (talk) 09:03, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian General Intelligence Branch 251 ⟶ General Intelligence Directorate (Syria) (Discuss)

Merge Syrian General Intelligence Branch 251 into its parent General Intelligence Directorate (Syria). Both articles are stubs, which is fine, but combining the two makes sense and makes the coverage more comprehensive. No reason to have apart. Longhornsg (talk) 02:10, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge , why not ? There are sources specifically about "Branch 251". There are sources about "General Intelligence Directorate (Syria)".

There are an article about "United States National Library of Medicine" but there are one concerning "National Center for Biotechnology Information".

Concerning "Federal Bureau of Investigation". There are an article about "FBI Criminal, Cyber, Response, and Services Branch" (CCRSB).

"FBI Criminal Investigative Division" is a part of "CCRSB" and there are an article about it.

"FBI Critical Incident Response Group" is a part of "CCRSB" and there are an article about it.

I don't know if we should merge the article about "Branch 251" and "General Intelligence Directorate (Syria)".

I'm not particulary "for" or "against" a merge. Anatole-berthe (talk) 00:11, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, those other pages can be merged as well. Let's focus on the merits of this specific merge, per WP:NOPAGE. Longhornsg (talk) 03:21, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which others pages ? Can you be more specific , please ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 10:07, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying sure, if someone proposed merging the pairs you mentioned above. Longhornsg (talk) 03:18, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Calls for a ceasefire during the Gaza war ⟶ International reactions to the Gaza war (Discuss)

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)[reply]

Perhaps the culling should take place first, and then we can figure out a possible merge. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 04:23, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Israeli incursions in Tulkarm ⟶ Israeli incursions in the West Bank during the Gaza war (Discuss)

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)[reply]

Support per nom Evaporation123 (talk) 03:14, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Immigration and Passport Directorate ⟶ Ministry of Interior (Syria) (Discuss)

Late modern period ⟶ Modern era (Discuss)

I propose merging this article (Late modern period) into Modern era. Late modern period is a term not often used in reliable sources compared to terms like Early modern period and Modern era. Interstellarity (talk) 01:27, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts are towards The Silicone and Nuclea Period ~2025-39187-15 (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Late modern period" is a term regularly used in history. I'm opposed to the merger proposal. -The Hanged Man (talk) 22:06, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose, this has been gone over before. See my !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Late modern period (which closed as "Keep", mind) for why. SnowFire (talk) 15:37, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nepalese Armed Forces ⟶ Nepali Army (Discuss)

this article should be merged with Nepali Army. The army Air service is integral part of army. It is useless to have 2 articles for same thing, especially when important information is split between them. PN27 (talk) 09:51, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PN27 Support on the grounds stated above Nicknimh (talk) 20:58, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neurotherapy ⟶ Neuromodulation (medicine) (Discuss)

Pueyrredón (Line D Buenos Aires Underground) ⟷ Santa Fe–Carlos Jáuregui (Buenos Aires Underground) (Discuss)

Most Wikipedia pages for rapid transit station complexes involve articles for two or more stations being combined into one. For the Buenos Aires Underground, however, this is not the case, resulting in too many pages with duplicate station names. Because of this, I am proposing that the station pages for line D (Pueyrredón) and line H (Santa Fe) be merged. SerenityRune (talk) 00:31, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ayodhya firing incident ⟶ Ram Rath Yatra (Discuss)

I propose merging Ayodhya firing incident into Ram Rath Yatra. The Ayodhya firing incident article completely fails WP:LASTING, is filled with poor sourcing and original research, and is overall too minor and inconsequential an event to warrant its own Wikipedia article. — EarthDude (wanna talk?) 15:34, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging editors involved in previous discussions: @Sollyucko @Vanamonde93 — EarthDude (wanna talk?) 15:35, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For context, the previous merger has since been contested. — EarthDude (wanna talk?) 15:36, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I support, but only that material which is supported by high-quality sources. As you found, there were many bad sources and a lot of OR in the firing article. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: The subject is notable on its own. Additionally, there is no clear merge target, as the nominator's multiple attempts at merging the article here or there show. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 07:01, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How about we delete the OR and unreliable content first, so that way we can see what we're working with? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 04:43, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ranghad (term) ⟷ Ranghar (Discuss)

Student governments in the United States ⟶ Students' union and Student council (Discuss)

Quantum superabsorption ⟶ Superradiance (Discuss)

The short page Quantum superabsorption appears to be appropriate to add here as a short section. Courtesy ping of @Anton-Tokarev. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:32, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are fundamentally opposite effects, they should certainly mention each other and the superabsorption should show equations but, I'm not sure they should be merged since they are fundamentally different and would be used in different scientific discoveries. Superabsorption seems to be in the news due to new battery technology at the moment. 2603:8001:71F0:11D0:98FE:A0B1:8B18:F830 (talk) 21:22, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ldm1954, is this still something you're interested in? I'm looking through old merge proposals to see which ones are no longer applicable. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 04:53, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Thebiguglyalien why is this no longer applicable? FaviFake (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I'm checking, to see if there's anyone who supports it. If the original proposer wasn't interested any more, then there would have been zero people supporting a merger. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 21:48, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is still appropriate, to me it is too short to be that useful by itself. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:06, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. FaviFake (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bhori ⟶ Tola (unit) (Discuss)

November 2025

2025 ITF Fujairah Championships – Doubles ⟷ 2025 ITF Fujairah Championships (Discuss)

July Charter implementation order ⟶ 2026 Bangladeshi constitutional referendum (Discuss)

A seperate article for the implementation order is unnecessary, per WP:NOTABILITY. The referendum is the primary notable topic, therefore the July Charter implementation order can be merged here. Ahammed Saad (talk) 18:41, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Every act or law is independently notable. The referendum is part of this order, but the scope of the order is broader than the referendum itself. In fact, the referendum is only a small component of this order. Secondly, the referendum has not yet been held; it is still far from being implemented. On the other hand, the ordinance has already been passed.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 19:28, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it should be separated as it is an order which is enacted by the president. Marxsafe (talk) 19:49, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I support the merge given the lack of content on the implementation order article. This material can easily be summarized in the Background heading of the referendum. It frankly feels a little odd to have two articles about these extremely related topics. If they remain seperated we'll have July Charter, Order implementing July Charter, and Referendum on July Charter. One of these need to go and the lesser informative, and notable, order should be the one to merge. I also disagree that every act or law is notable enough to support its own article. Yeoutie (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. There is nothing about an act or order that inherently makes it independently notable. It would make more sense for all of the information to be covered in one place per WP:PAGEDECIDE. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:58, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. The July Charter implementation order can be covered in the Context section of this article. Raihanur (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support The order is probably not independently notable of the referendum (which I agree is the primary topic). Number 5 7 01:38, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
oppose the merge. Though the referendum will be occuring the same as the General election. But the referendum will be decided a lot of things and will bring a major changes of the constitution of Bangladesh. July Charter is a separate order. The referendum is maybe for protecting the July Charter but despite that it will also support the Constitution reform commission report. So I think it need be in a separate article. Stud.asif (talk) 02:17, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Cham law ⟶ Chams (Discuss)

Re-evaluation counseling ⟶ Co-counselling (Discuss)

JD & the Straight Shot ⟶ James Dolan (businessman) (Discuss)

Merge proposed: JD & the Straight Shot into James L. Dolan. There would be zero (or close enough to zero) articles about this band if it weren't (as its article quotes) the vanity project of the ex-Cablevision and ongoing New York Knicks CEO. That page itself has drawn vandalism based not on anything about the article subject, but on Dolan's record running the Knicks. It therefore ought to be merged here. ZenSwashbuckler 21:19, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zenswashbuckler, this has been open for over a month without objection, you should be good to carry out a WP:BOLDMERGE. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:06, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cavalier Stadium ⟶ Dorman High School (Discuss)

Industrial dye degradation ⟶ Dye (Discuss)

This article is almost certainly created as an unsupervised homework project. Such homework projects are generally weak - poor referencing and silly images. Not the student's fault, they were required to write this thing. Although the title is kinda dumb, the topic is real and a subset of dye#pollution or wastewater treatment. Although I am pretty negative, comments are very welcome.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:49, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be merged into wastewater treatment, since it describes how to treat waste water and should then have a section in dye. PeriodicEditor (talk) 05:19, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Smokefoot, this has been open for over a month without objection, you should be able to carry out a WP:BOLDMERGE. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:11, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently... John Cooper Clarke ⟶ John Cooper Clarke (Discuss)

Characters of Fire Emblem Fates ⟶ Fire Emblem Fates (Discuss)

VLF Destino and Karma Revero ⟶ Fisker Karma (Discuss)

Essentially, it's literally the same car. I cannot see why it needs 3 (2 awful) articles about the same car when it can be merged together. BuffaloTaro (talk) 22:38, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BuffaloTaro, if this is uncontroversial, then you can carry out a WP:BOLDMERGE. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 05:31, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion has been sitting here for over 2 months by now, and nobody seems to have contested it, so be bold and carry out the merge. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 17:10, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Asian relations with Northeast India ⟶ Foreign relations of India (Discuss)

This article Asian relations with Northeast India should not exist, Northeast India or any state can not have direct foreign relations under the law. It comes across as nuisance or coattail to hang some agenda. It must be merged with Foreign relations of India and speedy deleted.

~2025-31120-88 (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 03:02, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I agree. Jcgaylor (talk) 03:41, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support - It might create an issue in the future TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 15:27, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia Petrillo, Dorothy Zbornak, Rose Nylund and Blanche Devereaux ⟶ The Golden Girls (Discuss)

Ingersoll Houses ⟷ Walt Whitman Houses (Discuss)

Interstate 59 in Louisiana ⟶ Interstate 59 in Mississippi (Discuss)

Inuit languages ⟷ Inuktut (Discuss)

Background of the Iran–Israel war ⟶ Iran–Israel war (Discuss)

Merge Background of the Iran–Israel war into Iran–Israel war. The content is completely WP:REDUNDANT of what's already on Iran–Israel war. WP:PAGELENGTH is not a concern because, with the exception of a couple sentences that may or may not have accretive value, there's essentially no net new content that will be added. This specific war is over, so there will likely not be additional valuable coverage of the background that would justify having the need for a WP:SPINOFF page. Longhornsg (talk) 20:51, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support All these Wikipedia articles! I wasn't even aware that the background article existed. Lova Falk (talk) 08:05, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per proposer, it seems like someone extracted the background content to its own page for some reason. Smallangryplanet (talk) 09:52, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:SIZERULE at 11.5K words. This isn't an ongoing or enormous topic hence this isn't one of those exceptions where this guideline should be ignored. Contrary to the nom, it's not just a case of a few sentences, the current background in this article is 1,052 words, whereas the Background spin off is 2,492 words. We're talking of adding upto 1.5K additional words for an article that "probably should be divided or trimmed", not merged. If those 1,500 additional words are redundant then it's better to BLAR via AfD, not merged in order to produce a 13K unwieldy monster article; we have enough of these, we don't need more. For reference I made the split at the time due to the article being too big, trimming away in the process as part of this (hence the size difference). So if anything the background in this article, or other sections not well summarised, should be further trimmed so that the article is a more compact size and adheres better to WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. CNC (talk) 12:06, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
though the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material. We're talking going to 12k words, with much more culling still apt to do. Longhornsg (talk) 01:36, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes based on scope because there are many sub topics to summarise, like Gaza war which regularly struggles with this conundrum, or WWII for example. This isn't a higher level summary style article like those, there is only the Background article along with Reactions to the Iran–Israel war (that's around 5K words). It should be completely achievable summarising 1 parent and two children to <9K words as the scope is that of a small family. We're not discussing a large family of topics here per the scope, which is what the "sometimes justify" alludes to. Thus I'm proposing trimming (such as Reactions section), not adding here. CNC (talk) 12:56, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:SIZERULE JaxsonR (talk) 02:31, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nomination. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 10:43, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support selective merge or possibly even a WP:BLAR. A merge doesn't mean you have to copy and paste every word of the article wholesale. Regardless, this article probably doesn't need to exist. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:26, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Wikipedia:Article size Qhairun (talk) 13:58, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support per nom

Wikicommonsfan134 (talk) 10:54, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nomination KashanAbbas (talk) 13:15, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nothing inherently significant in this spinoff which isn't already covered here or at Iran–Israel relations. We already have had a slew of articles related to this war AfD'd (many resulting in an rd), I see no inherent difference here. And needn't allude to AfD when the merge processes can also resolve the issue at hand. There have been other problematic POVFORKs like the Economic impact of the Iran–Israel war, which I cleaned up recently (perhaps needs a merger/deletion as well), or other articles significantly POV slanted such as the Nuclear program of Iran i.e. ARBIPA already struggles with inherent problems as is better limit the scope of articles which further exacerbate them. Gotitbro (talk) 10:16, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Gotitbro Strong support and appreciation for your clean up initiative on pages related to this war. Longhornsg (talk) 03:15, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support per all above Globetrotter30 (talk) 16:40, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support given that, as others have said, there doesn't seem to be a point for this article to exist given the main topic article has most information in it already. Yeoutie (talk) 12:08, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Get Off This ⟶ Kerosene Hat (Discuss)

Homosexuality and religion ⟶ Religion and LGBTQ people (Discuss)

I propose merging Homosexuality and religion into Religion and LGBTQ people. The article specifically on homosexuality alone is WP:redundant to the one on LGBTQ people which encompasses sexual orientation (e.g. homosexuality) as well as gender identity and other queer topics. Merging any unique material from the homosexuality article into this LGBTQ one shouldn't cause any article-size issues. @Amethystloucks, Joiedevivre123321, and Grorp: Notifying users who had already chimed in about potentially merging them. Pastelitodepapa (talk) 04:05, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I did remark about one article possibly being a fork of the other. Good luck merging the two; seems like a big job. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 05:15, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a merge should probably take place. The first step might be to identify which content is duplicated and which is unique. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 16:51, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dodge EV ⟶ Lotus Europa S (Discuss)

Mazdaspeed3 ⟶ Mazda3 (Discuss)

As this was raised before above, there is nothing special about the car to have its own article unlike some, not from the quality of the article. BuffaloTaro (talk) 15:08, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. It is an important historical vehicle of the Mazda brand from when then attempted to create a performance division. Without the separation, it would merely be another simple trimline and not a substantial attempt at advancing the companies objectives at the time. ~2025-37411-22 (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. The mazdaspeed3 has so many differences from the other trim levels of the Mazda3 that it is often seen as a separate car completely. The mazdaspeed3 isn’t just a higher trim, it has a completely different drivetrain and other changes. Macintosh84 (talk) 02:28, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - just the top model of the Mazda 3. We really shouldn't believe in marketing speak. Mr.choppers | ✎ 02:44, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge – per Mr.choppers, there's nothing notable about this car. FaviFake (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

New York City Panel for Educational Policy ⟶ New York City Department of Education (Discuss)

Merge New York City Panel for Educational Policy into New York City Department of Education. Content about the panel is already covered in more context and detail on the main department page. No need for a separate article about the panel. Let's aim for more completeness and comprehensiveness. Longhornsg (talk) 20:59, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Longhornsg, you're currently the only editor who supports a merger and there's no opposition, so you should be good to carry out a WP:BOLDMERGE if you're still interested in this. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:04, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Niantic Spatial ⟶ Niantic, Inc. (Discuss)

I propose merging Niantic Spatial into Niantic, Inc.

Niantic Spatial was created from Scopely's purchase of their Niantic Games division for Pokemon Go, Pikmin Bloom, and Monster Hunter Now. Niantic Spatial is a "spun out" company within Niantic which serves as their own content hub along with Ingress and Peridot. The content that is on the article can be easily merged into the "Niantic, Inc." article. There's not enough history for the separate article to be noteworthy or standing on its own. – The Grid (talk) 22:03, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Niantic, Inc and Niantic Spatial are in fact two completely separate entities. Based on the LinkedIn page for Niantic, Inc (which would be run by the company themselves), a header now shows at the top stating "Niantic, Inc. was acquired by Scopely. To see what's new, visit Scopely." All Niantic, Inc social media accounts have not posted after the merger was finalized, whereas Niantic Spatial has continued to post. News sites had been the ones to first use the 'spun out from' phrasing when describing Spatial's place in the merger but based on this firsthand evidence I would say that Niantic, Inc is a wholly separate entity. This Forbes article also describes in detail the process that went into funding "its new company", when referring to Niantic Spatial.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/richardnieva/2025/05/21/niantic-scopely-pokemon-go/ DumeToJarrus (talk) 23:31, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, but I forgot to add that the "About" section of Niantic Spatial's LinkedIn page also explicitly states: "Niantic Spatial, Inc. is a completely separate company following Scopely’s acquisition of Niantic, Inc."

https://www.linkedin.com/company/nianticspatial/about/ DumeToJarrus (talk) 23:39, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Niantic Spatial should absolutely NOT be merged with Niantic Inc. cross referencing/linking on the other hand would be sufficient. They are independently registered and incorporated commercial bodies operating in completely different spheres. Niantic Spatial is centred around the implementation of AR into real world scenarios and is not controlled by Niantic Inc. Scopely simply bought the games from Niantic Inc with the exception of Ingress and Peridot, both of which serve as test beds for the technology that Niantic Spatial is nurturing. ~2025-33986-12 (talk) 23:39, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The current content in Niantic Spatial came from the Niantic, Inc. article. They are both operating as Niantic. I probably should have done this as a AfD after the AFC review did not look at the article content and sourcing. – The Grid (talk) 00:09, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Niantic Spatial and Niantic Inc are legally separate companies under different ownership. The former is a privately owned start-up focusing on AI/AR and Niantic Inc and its games are now owned by Scopely. EssexHero (talk) 16:09, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also worth noting the Peridot franchise wiki page that similarly makes it clear that Niantic Spatial is a separate entity:

Peridot (franchise) - Wikipedia

As the two companies are not merged - nor should their wiki pages. Dotkeeper (talk) 00:13, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can't source Wikipedia... what the hell is with the new accounts all of a sudden? This is suspicious. – The Grid (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I run a community-created Peridot-centered Discord server and was curiously poking through since I saw how sparse Niantic Spatial’s current wiki page was, and then saw this merger proposal. I’m not affiliated with Niantic Inc OR Spatial, nor am I affiliated with any of these other accounts. DumeToJarrus (talk) 11:08, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. There's considerable overlap here and a lot of it is just listing games already listed at the main Niantic article. I see no reason this should remain split at present. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:11, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Customary break

I had time to clean up Niantic Spatial and for a company that is 6 months old, their history is a lot of future projects and announcements. I don't think it's noteworthy for a separate page. It can be evaluated again at a later time. – The Grid (talk) 13:52, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Massive particle ⟶ Particle (Discuss)

Fake passport ⟶ Passport fraud (Discuss)

Beer Heights Light Railway ⟶ Pecorama (Discuss)

List of The Penderwicks characters ⟶ The Penderwicks (Discuss)

Peroxyacetyl nitrate ⟷ Peroxyacyl nitrates (Discuss)

I think we should reconsider a merger proposal. There is substantial evidence to do so, as the information appears to very identical and becomes needless to have two separate pages. If anyone can give me more information to challenge my perspective on this idea on why we shouldn't then that would be great. Otherwise, I feel it would be more beneficial to merge the pages. Tori4tner (talk) 02:58, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Denial management ⟶ Revenue cycle management (Discuss)

Assassination of Hashem Safieddine ⟶ Hashem Safieddine (Discuss)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Stagecoach East Scotland ⟷ Stagecoach West Scotland (Discuss)

I propose merging this article and Stagecoach West Scotland into a new article named Stagecoach South Scotland. It has just freshly come out that the management of the East and West Scotland companies is to be merged under the new South Scotland identity,[8], so I want to see whether there is appetite for such a move before someone out of the blue tries to rename the articles without consensus.

Looking at both articles, the 'Operations' and 'Fleet' sections of East and West Scotland could be brought over and simplified for the new company, however it is both articles' 'History' sections that may cast some doubt: East Scotland has origins in the original Stagecoach company of 1981, while West Scotland's longer, more unsourced section needs a good looking at.

Then, of course, there's the issue of the operating area being a large chunk of Scotland as opposed to, say, the operating area of Stagecoach South. We don't have an article for Stagecoach North Scotland, as the separate Aberdeenshire and Isle of Skye and Orkney Islands now operations operate under, so is there maybe a similar principle to follow here?

Keen to hear what other users' take on the issue is. The more I think of the pros and cons, the more it seems like an increasingly complicated matter. Hullian111 (talk) 19:07, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hullian111, is this something you're still interested in? Since no one has expressed an opinion one way or the other, it's pretty much up to you. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 16:39, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm going to stick this one out awaiting further consensus. I'm still not very sure whether merging the two would be a good idea, since the merger concerns two operators with large operating areas and with very distinct and extensive company histories (i.e. Western Scottish/A1 Service (West Scotland) and Fife Scottish/Stagecoach of Perth (East Scotland)). How would merging those operator histories work for one South Scotland article?

So far, the only place I've seen the Stagecoach South Scotland name used since November, beyond Stagecoach's news releases, has been Buses magazine, which in the most recent issue has begun listing vehicle news under a South Scotland header. At this still early stage, is it even worth carrying out the merger?

There are a couple of other mergers and splits on the books for Stagecoach divisions in England and Wales, but I feel discussing those here would only complicate things. Hullian111 (talk) 12:41, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Subaru Impreza WRC and Subaru Impreza WRX STI ⟶ Subaru WRX (Discuss)

Is there a reason why those three article should each have their own article? One is an uprated version of the WRX and the other is a rally version of the WRX STi - like creating a separate article for the Porsche 911 GT3 RS and its racing versions.

The WRX STI article are vastly unsourced. There are no sources until midway through the section about the 2nd gen, which is a forum post, then nothing after that. The first reliable source is of the 3rd gen. The WRC article are overreliant on WP:PRIMARY - hence why I suggest merging the two into this. BuffaloTaro (talk) 22:05, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I feel like it would be best to have all of them in one place considering all 3 versions of the cars have little differences that the layperson wouldn't know right off the bat. Considering this and the aforementioned sourcing issues, I say we merge the articles. DubiousSauce (talk) 23:39, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DubiousSauce @BuffaloTaro Are any of you willing to perform the merge? FaviFake (talk) 14:09, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yu Xiaohui ⟶ Sun Li (writer, born 1949) (Discuss)

I propose merging Yu Xiaohui into Sun Li (writer, born 1949). Her only claim to notability is having received the Mao Dun Literature Prize for a book she co-wrote with her husband. Breaktheirbones (talk) 00:38, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish colonies in the Americas ⟶ Swedish overseas colonies (Discuss)

I propose merging Swedish colonies in the Americas here to Swedish overseas colonies. I already did a WP:BOLD merge but it was disputed so here are some justifications:

The former article is a subtopic of this one, and this article already contains almost all of its content. There is a small, partially unsourced section on later Swedish emigration, which is not included here yet. However, it is off-topic, as that content is not about colonies in the sense of territories owned by the state, and is better suited to Swedish diaspora.
The geographical focus on Americas does not seem very well justified: New Sweden and Swedish colony of Saint Barthélemy don't really have more in common than New Sweden and Swedish Gold Coast, which at least belong to the same era.
This article is also short enough to not need splitting. It is also not likely to expand much in future, as we only need summary-style sections for each colony. There could be more discussion about Swedish colonial motives and other general discussion, but that wouldn't be specific to Americas.

Jähmefyysikko (talk) 20:10, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support, I don't see a reason to have a seperate article for the American colonies if this article already describes them thoroughly. Gvssy (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Mainly because we have similar articles like:

Danish colonization of the Americas vs. Danish overseas colonies and

Dutch colonization of the Americas vs. Dutch colonial empire.

There should be a broader discussion about all this before any mergers. FrinkMan (talk) 21:30, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The comparison is worth considering. Dutch colonization is a much broader subject than Swedish colonization, and the main article Dutch colonial empire follows WP:SUMMARYSTYLE: the section § Dutch colonisation of the Americas effectively summarizes the separate article Dutch colonization of the Americas. But Dutch colonial empire also summarizes many other articles, which sets it apart from the Swedish case.

Denmark is more analogous to Sweden since neither had many colonies in the Americas. However, the Danish articles are complicated by a confusing structure. One would expect Danish colonization of the Americas to summarize two main topics: Danish colonization of Greenland and the Danish West Indies. Instead, Danish colonization of Greenland redirects to a section in Danish colonization of the Americas, which dominates the whole article. The {{main}} tags in that section imply that it would be a summary of Greenland and History of Greenland, which it is not. This is a confusing situation for the reader to navigate. I would suggest spinning off Danish colonization of Greenland to a standalone article, implement summary style, and then see whether Danish colonization of the Americas is really needed in addition to Danish overseas colonies. I'll post this suggestion to Talk:Danish colonization of the Americas also, that is perhaps a better place to discuss this. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 13:07, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support, both articles, Swedish overseas colonies and Swedish colonies in the Americas, are fairly short and duplicate information. The Dutch situation is different since they had far more overseas colonies than Sweden, whose were few and short-lived. Yuchitown (talk) 17:57, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wolff algorithm ⟶ Swendsen–Wang algorithm (Discuss)

Trashiyangtse ⟷ Trashiyangtse District (Discuss)

40 principles of invention ⟶ TRIZ (Discuss)

Sweden in Union with Norway ⟶ Union between Sweden and Norway (Discuss)

I propose merging Sweden in Union with Norway into Union between Sweden and Norway per WP:CFORK. The topic of the articles is the same, only the focus is slightly different. According to Talk:Sweden in Union with Norway, the former article is intended as a part of the History of Sweden series. However, this gap would be better addressed by creating articles similar to those found on the Swedish Wikipedia, sv:Sveriges historia 1809–1866 and sv:Sveriges historia 1866–1905, which frame the time periods by internal Swedish events rather than by the relationship with Norway in their titles. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 15:34, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Something has to be done about the strange article Sweden in Union with Norway. It was created in 2009 by a user who just removed content that he didn't want here (Union between Sweden and Norway) and dumped it in a new article. See: Talk:Sweden in Union with Norway#Best name and focus?

Another option is to redirect or delete Sweden in Union with Norway. FrinkMan (talk) 22:47, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting would also be ok. Sweden in Union with Norway only contains one source (from 1911, unconfortably close to the events), and that is already present in this article, so the merger would be mostly based on this article anyway. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 07:20, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It doesn’t serve any real purpose. TJ Kreen (talk) 02:56, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kiss This Thing Goodbye ⟶ Waking Hours (Discuss)

Headwater Diversion Plan (Jordan River) ⟶ War over Water (Jordan River) (Discuss)

Merge Headwater Diversion Plan (Jordan River) into War over Water (Jordan River). The never-enacted plan was one of several forrays in the war over water in the 20 years after the establishment of Israel in 1948. Inclusion of this plan in the broader context of the war over water make for more complete and comprehensive coverage of the topic in the article that already includes this temporal scope. Longhornsg (talk) 20:43, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

American White and American Creme Horse Registry ⟶ White Horse Ranch (Naper, Nebraska) (Discuss)

Zee Cine Award for Best Dialogue, Zee Cine Award for Best Story, Zee Cine Award for Best Screenplay, Zee Cine Award for Best Cinematography, Zee Cine Award for Best Editing and Zee Cine Award for Best Screenplay ⟶ Zee Cine Awards (Discuss)

I propose merging the contents of following pages into Zee Cine Awards:

These individual technical awards have been largely unsourced and do not appear notable enough in their own right to warrant individual pages. It would be better to merge the content of these articles into the main awards page. Skr15081997 (talk) 17:51, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support - In fact, I would merge all of the individual awards into the main Zee Cine Awards page which is currently a stub. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:56, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

December 2025

20 July 2024 Israeli attack on Yemen ⟷ 2024 Houthi drone attack on Israel (Discuss)

January 2015 Shebaa Farms incident ⟶ January 2015 Mazraat Amal incident (Discuss)

American Aborigines ⟷ Amerind (Discuss)

I propose merging Amerind and American Aborigines into American Indians. Both of these terms are near-synonyms for "American Indians", and I don't think Wikipedia should have three pages on the same topic. ~2025-42329-12 (talk) 13:05, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. These are all disambiguation pages for different terms. Why would you merge them into each other? I see making American Aborigines into a redirect to Indigenous peoples of the Americas since it's an obscure, obsolete term, but Amerind and American Indians have slightly different connotations from each other. Yuchitown (talk) 15:40, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't "Amerind" just an abridged version of "American Indian"? ~2025-42329-12 (talk) 13:16, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it is used in different contexts than "Amerind Indian." "American Indian" is also a legal term within the United States. Yuchitown (talk) 17:04, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen it used as a genetic component label in admixture studies when using "American Indian" might be inappropriate, i.e. in Latin American genetics Kotthu (talk) 11:00, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Yuchitown. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:03, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Memorandum of understanding between Argentina and Iran ⟶ AMIA bombing (Discuss)

Molathadu ⟶ Aranjanam (Discuss)

I propose merging Molathadu into Aranjanam. These are pretty much the same thing but in different languages, as Molathadu refers to the telugu version of an aranjanam I think. DerpyXplodio (talk) 05:00, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Ceuta (1182) and Battle of Silves (1182) ⟶ Battle of Cape Espichel (1180) (Discuss)

List of breast cancer patients by survival status ⟶ List of people with breast cancer (Discuss)

I'm proposing that List of people with breast cancer be merged with List of breast cancer patients by survival status. The two lists have identical scopes and even have nearly identical first sentences. Their only difference is that they are arranged differently, and per WP:DUP, they should be merged. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:42, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrik ⟶ Briq (Discuss)

Bureau of International Information Programs and Bureau of Public Affairs ⟶ Bureau of Global Public Affairs (Discuss)

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)[reply]

Bürgergeld reform ⟶ Bürgergeld (Discuss)

Captain Fantastic and the Brown Dirt Cowboy: 50th Anniversary Edition ⟶ Captain Fantastic and the Brown Dirt Cowboy (Discuss)

Geography of the British Indian Ocean Territory ⟶ Chagos Archipelago (Discuss)

I propose merging Geography of the British Indian Ocean Territory into Chagos Archipelago due to WP:OVERLAP. John Smith Ri (talk) 07:00, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This would make sense while the British Indian Ocean Territory exists, however if/when the territory is handed over to Mauritius the administrative situation may prompt a change in how this article is presented, and thus whether this article would itself need a Geography subarticle. CMD (talk) 09:13, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It's ok to send readers to Chagos Archipelago in the British Indian Ocean Territory entry, but the history of the Chagos Archipelago is complex and unique, involving numerous countries and governments and peoples. If the Chagos Archipelago entry were merged into the British Indian Ocean Territory's, I believe many of the nuances and important details of Chagos history and people would not be featured. ~2026-31493-0 (talk) 14:40, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Christian observance of Yom Kippur and Christian observance of Passover ⟶ Christian observances of Jewish holidays (Discuss)

The Christian observance of Passover article deals with one aspect (Passover) of the broader phenomenon described in this article; I propose merging them. The source page is relatively short and unlikely to be significantly expanded. Ploni^💬

Support. And I would add Christian observance of Yom Kippur to the pages to be merged as well for the same reason. Longhornsg (talk) 05:27, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I support merging this one as well. Ploni^💬 18:09, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The 25th Anniversary of Christina Aguilera (Spotify Anniversaries Live) ⟶ Christina Aguilera (album) (Discuss)

Why don't we merge this article to Christina Aguilera, since the EP is the 25th anniversary special edition of the album? Camilasdandelions (talk!) 13:52, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is a distinct release with its own set of references. Including it there would prevent the cover from being incorporated into the article, and most likely the lists in which it appeared as well. In other words, it has several particularities that would end up being minimized, since they would be subsumed within an article devoted to another album. Markus WikiEditor (talk) 16:34, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The question to be answered here is if WP:NALBUM is applicable. If this release is notable on its own, it can stay here. If not, it may either be merged or kept, depending on whether one of the WP:SPLIT criteria is applicable to Christina Aguilera.

Preserving the cover image is a non-criterion. If it is encyclopedic, it can be included, if not, not. Paradoctor (talk) 18:43, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leave as is, this is a standalone release with enough of is own information. WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG apply, it meets both. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 22:52, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree as per above. Maxwell Smart ¹²³³²¹ 03:47, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Maxwell Smart123321 Do you agree with "Merge" or "Leave as is"? Markus WikiEditor (talk) 22:35, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry, I meant above as in I was agreeing with you and Lil-unique1. Definitely Leave as is. Maxwell Smart ¹²³³²¹ 22:46, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it as it is --Cena332 (talk) 19:38, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ChromeOS Flex ⟶ ChromeOS (Discuss)

Square mil ⟶ Circular mil (Discuss)

Good clinical data management practice ⟶ Clinical data management (Discuss)

I propose merging Good clinical data management practice into Clinical data management. I think the content in 'Good clinical data management practice' is a sub topic of this article, as a standard alone article will not grow from being a stub and is not particularly notable, and merging them would not cause any article-size or weighting problems. Duncnbiscuit (talk) 10:17, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Colorimetry (chemical method) ⟶ Colorimetric analysis (Discuss)

Colorimetry (chemical method) should be merged here, as the two topics are essentially the same. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:57, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mdewman6, there's no objection to this after a month and you should be good to carry out a WP:BOLDMERGE if you still think a merger is appropriate. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:40, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bereavement leave ⟶ Compassionate leave (Discuss)

Append ⟶ Concatenation (Discuss)

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? — $Q$ uantling (talk | contribs) 22:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I agree with your bullets. I think we should say something like this in the article. —

Q

uantling (talk | contribs) 16:04, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Torato Umanuto, Exemption from military service in Israel, Protests against conscription of yeshiva students, Religious relations in Israel, Refusal to serve in the Israel Defense Forces and Status quo (Israel) ⟶ Conscription of yeshiva students (Discuss)

I propose merging Torato Umanuto and Protests against conscription of yeshiva students into Conscription of yeshiva students, adding sections of Exemption from military service in Israel, Refusal to serve in the Israel Defense Forces, Religious relations in Israel, and Status quo (Israel), and potentially renaming the new article "Haredi Draft". All of these pages touch on the same topic, which is contentious and has been a political landmine for over 20 years. However, these articles are poorly structured and are very out of date, and should be streamlined. TimeEngineer (talk) 13:54, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FergusArgyll, A455bcd9, Kazamzam, TheDoodbly, Fintor, Bohemian Baltimore, Uziel302, Chesdovi, Lihaas, Axinoo, Crotopaxi, TheCuriousGnome, SI09, Daviddwd, Deborahjay, IZAK, Narky Blert, Marokwitz, Ynhockey, Midrashah, Challahbai15, Yaakovaryeh, Miniapolis, and Stainedglasscurtain:Hey friends, you've all seemed to have an interest in this topic over the last decade. I'd love it if you could join the conversation! TimeEngineer (talk) 14:28, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. I suspect that the only edits I've made in this area, in which I have no expertise, have been to fix WP:INTDABLINK errors. I therefore have no opinion on this discussion. Narky Blert (talk) 14:54, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support the merge, but without removing too much information from the Talmudic Torato Umanuto article, since it provides important context on the topic. Axinoo (talk) 15:59, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Axinoo Thanks. I think that could be a section of the new article, or a stand-alone that focuses just on the Talmudic principles. Very open to splitting the task, if you're interested. TimeEngineer (talk) 16:20, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, you can create a draft and I'll help. Axinoo (talk) 16:26, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support: The comprehensive merge under such sections is a meaningful action. The page title I'd propose: IDF Conscription of Haredi yeshiva students (as distinct from religious Zionist yeshiva students who enlist via the Hesder arrangement). -- Deborahjay (talk) 16:01, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support: merge into Conscription of yeshiva students. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 12:23, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shipping container ⟶ Container (Discuss)

Cook Codec ⟷ RealAudio (Discuss)

Corner Shot Holdings ⟶ CornerShot (Discuss)

I'm really not sure that this company is notable for anything other than being the company that manufactures the CornerShot. It may also fail the WP:GNG due to too few sources coviering the company as opposed to its product. Thus, I suggest merging this page into that one. DeemDeem52 (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As an additional note, this page's content was also originally about the CornerShot before it was re-scoped to match its title as a stub. A merge was proposed in September 2010, but there was no discussion so it was closed as 'no consensus'. Pinging @Brynf wales and @111.68.99.197 relating to the article's history. DeemDeem52 (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Turnover-pulse hypothesis ⟶ Court jester hypothesis (Discuss)

I propose merging Turnover-pulse hypothesis into Court jester hypothesis. From my understanding, Turnover-pulse is a specific type of Court jester hypothesis; in Barnosky's 2001 paper (where he coins the term Court jester), he lists turnover-pulse as an example. MushroomSoup1 (talk) 10:56, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Having an article on a valid subcategory discussed independently is perfectly fine. Wikipedia splits off topics that can be discussed separately by design. — An anonymous username, not my real name 16:08, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

2017–18 Danish 1st Division (women) ⟶ Danish 1st Division (handball) (Discuss)

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)[reply]

Entente frugale ⟶ Lancaster House Treaties (Discuss)

Battle of Cegan Hill ⟶ Battles for Dushanbe (1922) (Discuss)

EB Games Australia ⟶ EB Games (Discuss)

There was previously a discussion on whether this article (EB Games Australia) should be merged into EB Games.

At the time of initial proposal, EB Games Australia was a complete mess, filled with promotional content and otherwise not needed details. I condensed the article down considerably in the middle of the discussion. However, the sole opposer did not engage again after these changes were made.

EB Games now comfortably has an Australian section in its Current operations section which is nearly 1:1 of what features in this article. A similar example is HMV, which comfortably has international sections listed, the same with Borders (retailer).

I believe that readers will benefit from seeing all of EB Games in one article, there does not seem to be any benefit having its contents across two pages. Icaldonta (talk) 19:44, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Doesn't make much sense to give an international branch of a company its own article, especially if it's not independently notable and can be adequately covered in the main page. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 10:05, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support If they're nearly identical then they should be merged. Samuel Wiki (talk) 07:20, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support: Identical companies should have a single article. It's not notable on its own outside of Australia, so it should be merged with the main article and the main article be expanded. from Piperium (chit-chat, i did that) at 13:51, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nominator. Should also note for the closer that user @Zxcvbnm: opposed merging in the previous discussion. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:02, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Episciences ⟷ Centre pour la communication scientifique directe (Discuss)

WK Kellogg Co ⟶ Ferrero SpA (Discuss)

Old Vanderburgh County Jail ⟶ Former Vanderburgh County Sheriff's Residence (Discuss)

I believe Old Vanderburgh County Jail should be merged into Former Vanderburgh County Sheriff's Residence.

As far as I can tell, only the sheriff's residence is listed on the NRHP (pg. 6 line 33).
The buildings are connected and they share the same history.
Sheriffs residence is a stub

benweenor (talk) 17:01, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gemara ⟷ Talmud (Discuss)

Herero uprising ⟶ Herero and Nama genocide (Discuss)

Goa expedition to Lourenço Marques ⟶ History of Maputo (Discuss)

History of the Jews in New York (state) ⟶ History of the Jews in New York City (Discuss)

Hornby Virtual Railway ⟶ Hornby Track Master (Discuss)

Houthi-controlled Yemen ⟷ Supreme Political Council (Discuss)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

i am not proposing to merge Houthis with these like you imply with EZLN Braganza (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of what the proposal is 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 09:59, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Oppose per Abo Yemen. And Houthi controlls Northern Yemen before SPC's formation.

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Weak support Makes sense to go simpler on quasi-states. Artoria 2e5 🌉 03:28, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Indian (film series) ⟶ Indian (1996 film) (Discuss)

Soueast S06 ⟶ Jetour Dashing (Discuss)

Same car, only different name! Same design, same spec! ~2025-40436-23 (talk) 10:54, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Soueast S07 ⟶ Jetour X70 (Discuss)

Same car only different name! Same engine, same design! ~2025-40516-69 (talk) 16:44, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of observances set by the Hebrew calendar ⟶ Jewish holidays (Discuss)

Etymology of Khuzestan ⟶ Khuzestan province (Discuss)

I propose merging Etymology of Khuzestan into Khuzestan province. I think the content in Etymology of Khuzestan can easily be explained in the context of this article, and, after the exclusion of some superfluous content merging them would not cause any article-size or weighting problems. There is no need for a full list of all sources that ever mention or discuss the name "Khuzestan", as there is in the Etymology of Khuzestan article; so that should not be merged. Revolution Saga (talk) 20:51, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. HistoryofIran (talk) 18:24, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Revolution Saga, is this something you're still interested in? If you are, you should be good to carry out an uncontroversial merge. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 17:21, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

List of colonial and departmental heads of Réunion ⟷ List of governors of La Réunion (Discuss)

Public affairs industry ⟶ Lobbying (Discuss)

Marriage in Myanmar ⟷ Weddings in Myanmar (Discuss)

Kellanova ⟶ Mars Inc. (Discuss)

Megorashim ⟷ Toshavim (Discuss)

Megorashim + Toshavim → Toshavim and Megorashim Toshavim and Megorashim are mutually constitutive and it makes more sense to address them in a single article. (I swear I've seen a policy somewhere about—for topics in a "thing" and "un-thing" situation—covering both in a single article. I can't find it, though.) We already have articles covering Sephardic Jews and North African Sephardim on the one hand and Maghrebi Jews, Berber Jews, and Musta'arabi Jews on the other, so it's unclear to me what benefit there is in of the current arrangement in two separate articles. I'm not aware of any sources that discuss one without the other. إيان (talk) 13:16, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mesosaur, Stereosternum and Brazilosaurus ⟶ Mesosaurus (Discuss)

Limited-run series ⟶ Miniseries (Discuss)

I propose merging Limited-run series into Miniseries. I think they are sufficiently similar not to warrant two separate pages. The two terms are commonly used interchangeably, and minor distinctions between the two formats can be detailed on one page instead of forcing readers to jump from one to the other, depending on the specific topic they are more closely interested in. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 12:40, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested in this discussion, I'll hold back on commenting until others chip in.Halbared (talk) 20:00, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

True true. It feels like 2 articles of the same one thing rn. Win090949 (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Connelly ⟶ The Morning Show (Minnesota Public Radio) (Discuss)

I propose merging Dale Connelly into The Morning Show (Minnesota Public Radio). While Dale Connelly was a long-time co-host and writer for The Morning Show on Minnesota Public Radio, the article does not currently meet the general notability guideline (WP:GNG) for a standalone biography. The subject’s notability appears to derive almost entirely from his role within a single notable program, rather than from significant independent coverage focused on him as a subject.

The article relies heavily on unsourced or weakly sourced descriptions of fictional characters, recurring jokes, and in-program segments, many of which are marked [citation needed]. It does not provide substantial coverage from reliable, independent secondary sources such as profiles, feature articles, or critical analysis focused on Connelly himself. This content does not establish independent notability under WP:BIO.

Given his long association with The Morning Show, the information about Connelly would be more appropriately covered within the program’s article, where his contributions can be summarized in proper context. A merge and redirect would preserve content while aligning with Wikipedia’s standards for notability and article scope.

This nomination is not a comment on the subject’s importance to the program or his contributions to public radio, but rather on whether the current sourcing supports a standalone biographical article. Dode222 (talk) 18:32, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming a merge is carried out, what content would actually be merged? Biographical content, or content about projects unrelated to The Morning Show, won't fit in the target article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 04:24, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Lawson ⟶ Nashville Star (Discuss)

List of Modern NZIA Gold Medal Recipients ⟶ NZIA Gold Medal (Discuss)

The recently-created article List of Modern NZIA Gold Medal Recipients should be merged to this article. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 22:21, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reason? rfqii^talk! 19:20, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list of recipients, and a separate article purely as a list. It is clearly outlining a notable and encyclopaedic topic. rfqii^talk! 19:23, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The topics seem to be identical; i.e mostly a list of recipients. Therefore it makes sense to combine them into the same article. If the list were removed from this article to the new article, this article would become a stub. So I think merging the additional content from the new article onto the existing one would be best.

The history section of this article should also be expanded if possible to provide more context for the award and its importance. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 22:24, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support merging them. Wainuiomartian (talk) 21:27, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support the current article is not long enough that a split for the list is required (most of the content right now is just the list) Traumnovelle (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Even if they weren't duplicate content, lists don't need to be separated if they fit in the main article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 04:34, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Odakyu Group ⟶ Odakyu Electric Railway (Discuss)

I propose merging Odakyu Group into Odakyu Electric Railway. I think the content in Odakyu Group can easily be explained in the context of the Odakyu Electric Railway, and the current situation is confusing especially in the financials, and merging them would not cause any article-size or weighting problems. RickyCourtney (talk) 22:43, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose there's plenty of material to keep it two standa alone articles.MisawaSakura (talk) 13:22, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I think the two entities are distinct enough to warrant separate articles. Yes, Odakyu Group is in a somewhat sordid state right now, but normal editing would be a more effective solution to that. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 14:37, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MisawaSakura, @XtraJovial: Thanks for the discussion. To help clarify, could someone explain the distinction between Odakyu Group and Odakyu Electric Railway Co., Ltd.? From what I can see, the publicly traded company is Odakyu Electric Railway Co., Ltd., and its financial filings consolidate all the subsidiaries within the Odakyu Group. If you are advocating for keeping two separate articles, it would be helpful if someone could clearly define the boundaries between the two organizations—what belongs in Odakyu Group versus Odakyu Electric Railway—so readers aren’t confused by overlapping content. RickyCourtney (talk) 21:31, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you still need a reply, the following from ChatGPT (insert disclaimer) sounds correct to me:
Odakyu Electric Railway (小田急電鉄)
This is the railway company itself — the operator that runs the trains.

Operates the Odakyu Lines (e.g., Odawara Line, Enoshima Line, Tama Line)

Runs limited express Romancecar

It’s a single legal company (a railway operator)

In Japanese contexts this is often what’s meant when someone says “Odakyu” in a railway sense.
Odakyu Group (小田急グループ)
This is the whole corporate group of companies under the Odakyu umbrella. It includes:
Odakyu Electric Railway (core company)

Enoshima Electric Railway

Hakone Tozan Railway

Real estate / property development

Department stores and retail (e.g., Odakyu Department Store)

Hotels and resorts

Bus companies

Travel/tourism companies

Other subsidiaries and affiliates
So “Odakyu Group” is a business group, not just the train operator. Travelweb.au (talk) 11:13, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Azimo ⟶ Papaya Global (Discuss)

Leadership core ⟶ Paramount leader (Discuss)

Dell Magazines ⟶ Penny Publications (Discuss)

Almost all notable Penny Publications magazines from the Dell Magazines imprint have been sold to other publishers or discontinued, so there is no value in a separate article. -- ~2025-40929-18 (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would support the merger! Jjazz76 (talk) 05:11, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pizzetta ⟶ Pizza (Discuss)

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)[reply]

I agree with this FlameOutsideOfStaff (talk) 18:42, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

looks okay. id recommend it. Ayden11521 (talk) 16:32, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Production of Indian 2 ⟶ Indian 2 (Discuss)

Prusa (Bithynia) ⟷ Bursa (Discuss)

@DerMaxdorfer, Hasancelikbilek35, Trappist the monk, Tiny Particle, Carlossuarez46, Cote d'Azur, Gre regiment, DenghiùComm, Vikarna, and Puduḫepa: Do you guys agree if we merge the article "Prusa (Bithynia)" with the "Bursa" article? Considering that the History section of Bursa already covered a part of the city's history from the reign of King Prusias I to the Ottoman Conquest, which is the period when the city was considered to be named/called "Prusa" or "Prusias". Also, I don't think that the subject needed its own article, unlike Cius.

Another point, the article was expanded from a former name redirect. So, maybe you can consider changing it to the redirect of Bursa.

What do you think?

- MahmoudAbbasAlDilfti (talk) 05:23, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a question that can be answered with a simple yes or no. In principle, there is enough to say about ancient Prusa to fill a separate article, and the current content could easily serve as a start in that direction. On the other hand, it is true that the article is currently so short that it could well be integrated into the article on the modern city. Both options are feasible. DerMaxdorfer (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very good point, let's see what the others have to say.

- MahmoudAbbasAlDilfti (talk) 14:49, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: typically existing stand-alone articles about cities and towns from classical antiquity that differ in name from their modern counterparts are kept. Here the contents are currently brief and could well be fully merged into the modern city. However, because it could also get lost in that article, and may have considerable potential for expansion, perhaps it's best to keep a separate article focusing on its pre-Ottoman history, even if more of its current contents are included in "Bursa". P Aculeius (talk) 14:32, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What does "get lost in that [Bursa] article" means? -MahmoudAbbasAlDilfti (talk) 23:29, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand P Aculeius as follows: With a separate article, it is easier to find the relevant information if one wants to know something specifically on Prusa. DerMaxdorfer (talk) 00:19, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe....

Probably I will remove the merge tag from the Prusa (Bithynia) article.

- MahmoudAbbasAlDilfti (talk) 00:27, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MahmoudAbbasAlDilfti: I have copied over the interesting stuff so technically there should be no loss of information if we merge. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 09:23, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late response!

.

@Bosley John Bosley: I have reopened the discussion. We can probably start moving verifiable information from the "Prusa" article as a direction to expand the History section of Bursa, since the Roman rule period there is pretty short, in my opinion.

- MahmoudAbbasAlDilfti (talk) 04:45, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bosley John Bosley: Key informations that I integrated from the article Prusa (Bithynia) to Bursa is about:

...the hot springs in Prusa that's dubbed as the "royal water".

...the construction of baths in Roman-ruled Bursa under the permit of Emperor Trajan, which falls into the line about "well governance under Roman Emperor" because this event is cited^[1] as a reference to said line.

- MahmoudAbbasAlDilfti (talk) 03:57, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DerMaxdorfer, P Aculeius, and Bosley John Bosley: According to this source (access via The Wikipedia Library), Bursa is enstablished by King Prusias I de novo, which means he built it from the ground. The source also indirectly states that Prusias ad Olympum (present-day Bursa) is different to Prusias ad Mare (what was once Cius and present-day Gemlik).

‎

This led me to conclude that it might be quite an inaccuracy to put Cius as a part of the history of Bursa. It also made me reconsider that the article Prusa (Bithynia) is probably a much better representative for the Prusias ad Olympum stuff, since the mentioned ancient city is often mistaken (by me, mostly, and also the guy who added Cius in the Bursa history section) as Prusias ad Mare, aka Cius.

‎

Sorry for the long update, what do you guys think?

- MahmoudAbbasAlDilfti (talk) 04:48, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That Prusa ad Olympum (Prusa, not Prusias!) and Cius/Kios (temporarily renamed Prusias ad Mare, not Prusa) were two different cities is undisputable. It might be seen as an additional reason not to merge the articles on ancient Prusa ad Olympum and Bursa. For me personally, it doesn't really change the situation that both solutions are possible. That Cius/Prusias ad Mare could be part of the history of Bursa, however, is completely wrong in my eyes.

An in-depth account on the history of Prusa ad Olympum and the available ancient sources can be found in the second volume of Corsten's monograph (see Prusa (Bithynia)#Further reading), pp. 9-73. On Cius/Prusias ad Mare, Corsten has written a separate monograph: Die Inschriften von Kios. Bonn: Habelt, 1985, ISBN 3-7749-2194-6, see especially the long introduction on the history of the city on pp. 1-72. DerMaxdorfer (talk) 14:15, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response and explanation. MahmoudAbbasAlDilfti (talk) 00:11, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Pliny the Younger, Ep. 10.85.

Ri Chol ⟶ Ri Su-yong (Discuss)

Phoebe Hearst Elementary School (San Diego) ⟶ San Diego Unified School District (Discuss)

Media coverage of Bernie Sanders ⟶ Bernie Sanders (Discuss)

Scarface (Push It to the Limit) ⟶ Scarface (soundtrack) (Discuss)

Searchlight Pictures ⟷ Searchlight Television (Discuss)

Flubber (material) ⟶ Slime (homemade toy) (Discuss)

Statute for a European Company Regulation 2001 ⟶ Societas Europaea (Discuss)

Sonu Ke Titu Ki Sweety ⟷ Sakshi Malik (actress) (Discuss)

Downtown Train – Selections from the Storyteller Anthology ⟶ Storyteller – The Complete Anthology: 1964–1990 (Discuss)

I propose merging Downtown Train – Selections from the Storyteller Anthology into Storyteller – The Complete Anthology: 1964–1990. Downtown Train is essentially a cutdown version of Storyteller and although it seems to meet the notability criteria, its content is better explained in the context of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mika1h (talk • contribs) 16:49, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Elizabeth Fowler Hodges ⟶ Sylacauga (meteorite) (Discuss)

Community boards in New Zealand ⟶ Territorial authorities of New Zealand (Discuss)

I propose merging Community boards in New Zealand into Territorial authorities of New Zealand. Community boards aren't particularly notable in of themselves, and they're more of a-thing-territorial-authorities-can-do than independent local govt bodies themselves. Currently, the CB article is just a brief bit on their history, mentions some functions they have, and then a list; I think that can easily be added to this article. I would WP:BOLDLY do it but thought I would see if there were any objections. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 02:51, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the definition of the Local Government Act 2002 'territorial authority' means a city council or a district council named in Part 2 of Schedule 2 of that Act. Neither Community Boards, nor Regional Councils are territorial authorities. If the article is to include them, the name needs to be changed to the more generic 'Local authorities'. I think the article will be too long if it includes all local authorities. Johnragla (talk) 03:21, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
regional councils aren't included in this proposal. Community boards aren't territorial authorities, but they are created by territorial authorities. With what is currently on the community boards article, I don't think the article will be too long with that included. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 03:39, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Youth councils aren't territorial authorities but they are included there because they relate to the territorial authorities. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:14, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Johnragla just following up on this discussion, were you still against joining them? TheLoyalOrder (talk) 01:51, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see the point of merging articles which are well within the WP:SIZERULE and stand perfectly well alone. Community boards aren't territorial authorities, so it seems odd to include them under that heading. However, it's not that important, so if two of you think they should merge and no one else has an opinion, I won't object. Johnragla (talk) 16:39, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It so happens that I don’t see the point of this proposal. There is a lot that could be added to the article. Community Boards are specific entities that are unique enough to have their own article. Schwede 66 08:04, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I support merging community boards into this article. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:14, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any urgent point in merging the Community Boards article, but if it does get merged a more appropriate target would be Local government in New Zealand#Community boards. Daveosaurus (talk) 08:18, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

List of terrorist incidents in Australia ⟶ Terrorism in Australia (Discuss)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The list of incidents is already mostly in Terrorism in Australia. TarnishedPath^talk 02:33, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Main title ⟶ Theme music (Discuss)

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)[reply]

Timeline of chief ministers and prime ministers of England, Great Britain and the United Kingdom ⟶ Timeline of prime ministers of Great Britain and the United Kingdom (Discuss)

Tunguska event in fiction ⟶ Tunguska event (Discuss)

There was a KEEP/DELETE discussion on this page 17 years ago. Apparently, it has stuck until now. Without much of any additions, cleanup, etc., I have added the MERGE template to this page, and am proposing to merge this article with its parent page, to wit:

I’m proposing to merge the "Tunguska event in fiction" page into the main "Tunguska event" article. The "Tunguska event in fiction" article has not seen significant updates or expansion for over 17 years and seems unnecessary as a standalone page. There is no added value from keeping it separate, and the content about its influence in fiction can be integrated into the broader context of the Tunguska event itself. This will streamline the information and provide a more coherent narrative without losing the relevance of the topic.

Note that this merge proposal is not an indictment of the content itself, which is generally well sourced and appropriate for inclusion, but rather a recommendation that it would be better organized and maintained as a subsection of the parent article.

Under Wiki content organization guidelines, stand-alone articles should demonstrate sufficient scope, sourcing, and ongoing development to justify separation. Per WP:SPINOFF and WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, content that is limited in size or primarily contextual is often better handled as a subsection of the parent article rather than as an independent page.

WP:MERGE encourages consolidation where parallel articles cover closely related subject matter and separation does not materially improve readability or coverage. Given the minimal expansion of this article since the prior AFD discussion, its narrow scope, and its direct dependence on the notability of the Tunguska event itself, merging the material into a dedicated subsection of the main Tunguska event article would be consistent with Wiki guidance and editorial practice.

Please share your thoughts! Brhiba (talk) 17:02, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that there hasn't been much of any additions, cleanup, etc. since the 2007 AfD is incorrect. The article was rewritten from scratch as recently as April of this year (before, after). TompaDompa (talk) 18:16, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add for clarity that I oppose merging this. In my not-insubstantial experience, Topic X in fiction articles work much better than Topic X#In fiction sections in most cases, and I don't see any particular reason why this would be an exception (the main exception is when the stand-alone article would be little more than a stub with no hope for expansion). Often, the fiction-related content would be WP:UNDUE at the article for the broader topic. TompaDompa (talk) 15:17, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge. I was on the fence initially leaning toward merge but then I found 30 "in fiction" Wikipedia articles before I stopped counting, nearly all related to legitimate science, geography, etc., topics. The Tunguska event in fiction is worth keeping imo. There doesn't seem to be a category where all these "in fiction" articles can be listed, unless I missed it. 5Q5|^✉ 13:47, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vodafone Broadband UK ⟶ Vodafone UK (Discuss)

Warner Bros.-Seven Arts ⟶ Warner Bros. Pictures (Discuss)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Comment: Agree with this idea, it is a more better decision. VenezuelanSpongeBobFan2004 (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Oppose per nomination. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dahomean religion ⟶ West African Vodún (Discuss)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Merge - Same topic, different titles. Oramfe (talk) 08:15, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WGES-FM ⟶ WLFE (Discuss)

Arcadia (character) ⟶ List of X-Men enemies (Discuss)

I propose merging Arcadia (character) into List of X-Men enemies. Arcadia appeared 5 times, and has no secondary sources. The entry for the Damocles Foundation covers her character. Emcgonigle (talk) 16:44, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support This seems the best solution to me here. Daranios (talk) 19:56, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom and Daranios. Seems like the best option here. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 05:42, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Additional sources have been added to the article, it is no longer just sourced to the comics. BOZ (talk) 21:56, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Even if sourced, it's still non-notable. There's no coverage here that isn't just plot information. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:35, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Zabadani cease-fire agreement ⟶ Battle of Zabadani (2015) (Discuss)

Zamburak ⟷ Zamburak (Iran) (Discuss)

January 2026

50–50 club (baseball) ⟶ 40–40 club (Discuss)

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)[reply]

Tropical Storm Debbie (1965) ⟶ 1965 Atlantic hurricane season (Discuss)

Tennis exhibitions in 1988 ⟶ 1988 in tennis (Discuss)

Hurricane Ekeka ⟶ 1992 Pacific hurricane season (Discuss)

Hurricane Emilia (1994) ⟶ 1994 Pacific hurricane season (Discuss)

Hurricane Alma (1996), Hurricane Boris (1996), Tropical Storm Cristina (1996) and Hurricane Fausto (1996) ⟶ 1996 Pacific hurricane season (Discuss)

Hurricane Lester (1998) ⟶ 1998 Pacific hurricane season (Discuss)

Hurricane Gert (1999) ⟶ 1999 Atlantic hurricane season (Discuss)

Hurricane Carlotta (2000) ⟶ 2000 Pacific hurricane season (Discuss)

Tropical Storm Dean (2001) ⟶ 2001 Atlantic hurricane season (Discuss)

Tropical Storm Bertha (2002) ⟶ 2002 Atlantic hurricane season (Discuss)

Hurricane Jimena (2003) ⟶ 2003 Pacific hurricane season (Discuss)

Hurricane Otis (2005) ⟶ 2005 Pacific hurricane season (Discuss)

Tropical Storm Norman (2006) ⟶ 2006 Pacific hurricane season (Discuss)

Tropical Storm Julio (2008) and Tropical Depression Five-E (2008) ⟶ 2008 Pacific hurricane season (Discuss)

Tropical Storm Lowell (2008) is relatively short, but has long paragraphs, most of which can be cut down, and little sourcing. The part about it being post-tropical can also be put into a separate paragraph, which it is already, and its section in this article isn't looking very good. Tropical Storm Julio (2008) had minimal impacts which can easily be contained into the section, and ditto for Tropical Depression Five-E (2008) (the season article already has the impacts paragraph). Season article is the first of a few that aren't GA/FA and could be worked towards there and is 5k words. HurricaneZeta^C 18:07, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support Julio and 5-E. Oppose Lowell, as it had a lot of inland impacts. It's a classic situation of an EPAC storm having lots of remnant impacts. Looks like there was a death or two in Kansas, and another two in Illinois. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, I didn't realize that they specifically named Lowell as the cause. Withdrawn. HurricaneZeta^C 18:43, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support for 5-E and Julio. I may have found more information for both, but it still doesn't seem like enough to keep either article. Plus, the season article could benefit from it. Jpuxfrd (talk) 04:19, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support for both Julio and Five-E – Neither storm appears to have been all that impactful, and the two articles are quite thin. Merging them would indeed enhance the season article. Drdpw (talk) 21:23, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclone Tasha ⟶ 2010–2011 Queensland floods (Discuss)

Tropical Storm Dolly (2014) ⟶ 2014 Atlantic hurricane season (Discuss)

Hurricane Amanda ⟶ 2014 Pacific hurricane season (Discuss)

FBI raid of Fulton County, Georgia election office ⟶ 2020 United States presidential election in Georgia (Discuss)

Tropical Storm Danny (2021) ⟶ 2021 Atlantic hurricane season (Discuss)

2022 AFC Championship Game ⟷ 2022–23 NFL playoffs (Discuss)

2022 NFC Championship Game ⟷ :2022–23 NFL playoffs (Discuss)

2023 AFC Championship Game ⟷ 2023–24 NFL playoffs (Discuss)

2023 NFC Championship Game ⟷ :2023–24 NFL playoffs (Discuss)

2024 NFC Championship Game ⟷ :2024–25 NFL playoffs (Discuss)

Action Records ⟶ John Abbey (producer) (Discuss)

Power, People and the past a state journey's through Culture, History and Politics in Adamawa State ⟶ Adamawa State (Discuss)

Albanian–Yugoslav border war (1921) ⟷ Self-government of Mirdita (Discuss)

2025–2026 Alberta independentist crisis ⟶ Alberta separatism (Discuss)

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Support no idea why this has its own article, should be a section in Alberta Separatism. Scuba 17:07, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge, support delete; some of the conclusions are OR or fringe. CoryGlee 17:18, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.) St Anselm (talk) 18:20, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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^and Flopped ㋡ 19:00, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
We already are discussing a change of name, as i do agree with it. VitoxxMass (talk) 21:05, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Delete - At the moment, the rest of Canada doesn't seem to be in anxiety mode. GoodDay (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Alice Cleaver ⟶ Allison family (Discuss)

Tropical Storm Alma ⟷ Tropical Storm Arthur (2008) (Discuss)

Anayama Nobutomo ⟶ Anayama Nobutada (Discuss)

Anti-submarine rocket ⟶ Anti-submarine mortar (Discuss)

Funding of the Axis of Resistance ⟶ Axis of Resistance (Discuss)

Bachelor of Physical Education ⟷ Master of Physical Education (Discuss)

German baked apples ⟶ Baked apple (Discuss)

Adult bar and bat mitzvah ⟶ Bar and bat mitzvah (Discuss)

Bare machine computing ⟶ Bare machine (Discuss)

Bega Dairy & Drinks ⟶ Bega Group (Discuss)

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)[reply]

Bhotiya ⟶ Bhutia (Discuss)

Katherine Carper Sawyer ⟶ Brown v. Board of Education (Discuss)

This individual appears to be case of WP:BLP1E; I see no evidence that she is notable for anything other than her (very noteworthy!) testimony at age 10. I recommend this content be merged into the main article for Brown v. Board of Education. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think that's a great idea! This was my first article so I'm still getting up to speed with notability criteria etc. Appreciate the feedback! Chrisdd1999 (talk) 01:44, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the merge proposal. Yes, as Dclemens1971 says, her testimony was "very noteworthy", and certainly deserves a mention in the article about the case, but that one thing doesn't need a separate article. JBW (talk) 14:22, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophical Materialism ⟶ Gustavo Bueno (Discuss)

Business Intelligence Competency Center ⟶ Business intelligence (Discuss)

I propose merging Business Intelligence Competency Center into Business intelligence. 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. Duncnbiscuit (talk) 06:46, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Cardinal numeral ⟷ Ordinal numeral (Discuss)

Cephalotaxus wilsoniana ⟶ Cephalotaxus harringtonii var. wilsoniana (Discuss)

Change impact analysis ⟶ Change control (Discuss)

City Montessori School, Aliganj Branch, City Montessori School, Chowk Branch, City Montessori School, Indira Nagar Branch, City Montessori School, Station Road Branch, City Montessori School, Gomti Nagar Branch, City Montessori School, Kanpur Road Branch and City Montessori School, RDSO Branch ⟶ City Montessori School (Discuss)

Supreme commander-in-chief ⟶ Commander-in-chief (Discuss)

Moved from Talk:Supreme commander-in-chief § Merge proposal

I propose merging Supreme commander-in-chief into Commander-in-chief. Both of these ultimately deal with the highest command authority of a military, but "Supreme Commander-in-Chief" ~~just seems to be~~ is a translation ~~from Russian~~ of the corresponding Russian article. Which also means the interlanguage links have to be correctly aligned to follow the meaning, rather than the cognate titles. (~~or another language of the Former Soviet Union~~ - in the FSU, the customary title is for the highest commander is "Supreme Commander-in-Chief", rather than the plain versions "Commander-in-Chief" favored in English-speaking countries or "Supreme Commander" favored in Continental Europe). Glide08 (talk) 13:07, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I added merge tags. Support per WP:OVERLAP Kowal2701 (talk) 18:39, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of Paraisópolis and luxury building in Morumbi ⟶ Condomínio Penthouse (Discuss)

After the article was accepted by AfC, I realized that there is already a similar article Photo of Paraisópolis and luxury building in Morumbi. The question is: which is more important, the building or the photograph? Both are symbols of inequality in Brazil, but we were able to find more comprehensive sources on the building. Guilherme Burn (talk) 18:08, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Friendslop ⟶ Cooperative video game (Discuss)

Transitional shelter ⟶ Crisis accommodation (Discuss)

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)[reply]

Cristabotys pastrinalis ⟶ Cristabotys (Discuss)

Transvestism ⟶ Cross-dressing (Discuss)

Decadence ⟷ Decadent movement (Discuss)

ICE List ⟶ Department of Homeland Security employee data leak (Discuss)

Per the withdrawn AfD: Proposing merge to Department of Homeland Security employee data leak as unnecessary stub that was created half an hour earlier per WP:OVERLAP. This was previously PROD so opening the discussion. CNC (talk) 14:07, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, both are stubs covering mostly the same content. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 15:47, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Merge one is an event, one is a wiki. While the two are related, they are distinct. Victor Grigas (talk) 16:43, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We merge disparate articles quite often, though. The most common example I can think of is corporations and products, which is partially ordained by a section in the MOS. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 18:30, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sources mention them together and both are limited in scope, so a merge is merited. ← Metallurgist (talk) 19:24, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge without prejudice: Right now the two are really closely entangled and the leak's notability relies on that of ICE List. If notability changes(ie, the leak becomes more significant/widely covered), we can split it back to its own article.–DMartin (talk) 06:14, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the venn diagram is pretty much a circle. Even the other article might be mergeable into something broader about exposures of ICE employees. ← Metallurgist (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge. This website launched in July 2025, and there has been a number of news coverage of it and its founder (Dominick Skinner) before the 2026 leak: [9][10][11][12][13]. V. S. Video (talk) 05:31, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge—if anything, a reverse merge of Department of Homeland Security employee data leak into a subsection of ICE List would be preferable, as coverage of the list predates the leak event. — Tha†emoover†here (talk) 16:00, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Do not merge for the time being while events develop. The leak still has not been published by ICE List, which was started several months before the leak was passed on to them by an anonymous third party. Consider merging later based on how things play out, e.g. if one article's subject becomes the defining feature of the other. --TheMiddleWest (talk) 17:47, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Do not merge. ICE List is not currently known to be directly related to the leak itself. Furthermore, current events involve ICE List as a distinct entity and this is shown by the sources in this article. Rob T Firefly (talk) 15:49, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

do not merge, i concur with reasoning in the 4 replies above – likely that the website would meet notability without considering the data leak, and they don't appear to be directly linked anyways. Blaithnaid (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Plop: The Hairless Elbonian ⟶ Dilbert (Discuss)

Dust bunny ⟶ Dust (Discuss)

Emergency notification system ⟶ Emergency communication system (Discuss)

List of Episcopal bishops of the United States ⟶ List of bishops of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America (Discuss)

I propose merging List of Episcopal bishops of the United States into List of bishops of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America. I think the content in List of Episcopal bishops of the United States can compliment this article, and merging them would not cause any article-size or weighting problems. I understand that one is a list of current bishops and the other one demonstrates the historic succession (including current bishops), but it can appear confusing as the article titles are very similar. Folklorin (talk) 00:20, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with whatever way, as long as we keep the nice color-coded map. Bearian (talk) 03:34, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I see is that when you're looking to see which bishop currently heads a diocese, you now have to read through the list from #971 to #1173 in order to find him/her as opposed to looking at List of Episcopal bishops of the United States..Roberto221 (talk) 09:27, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Y.D.McGinty (talk) 12:32, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Given the different character of the two lists, I think they need to be maintained as separate lists. The two articles could be retitled to make their different natures clear. If the idea is to put both lists in the same article, while keeping them separate, that could work. But I'm not sure that is an advantage. Y.D.McGinty (talk) 12:35, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Here's how it's done with the Catholic Bishops:

Renaming the List of bishops of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America to Historical list of bishops of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America works better. It serves the same functionality

Roberto221 (talk) 19:51, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of something similar to List of bishops in the Church of England with structure being:

List of current bishops
Bishop Elects
Historical list of bishops

But I admit it would probably make the article tricky to navigate and like the renaming proposal that makes the differences clear. Folklorin (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. They serve two separate functions, but instead of renaming List of Episcopal bishops of the United States, I would advocate for instead merging that with Ecclesiastical provinces and dioceses of the Episcopal Church because you already have the table and color-coded map, you would just need a new column or two on the table to say who the current bishop(s) are and you get all the quick facts you need. Rpryor03 (talk) 18:15, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if merging it with Ecclesiastical provinces and dioceses of the Episcopal Church will make it complicated, making it into Ecclesiastical provinces, dioceses and bishops of the Episcopal Church, making it more difficult for people looking for current bishops. Maybe a solution could be to create individual pages for each bishop and then link them similar to List of Church of England dioceses. Folklorin (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your replies! It seems the options are:

Merge – Merge List of Episcopal bishops of the United States with List of bishops of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America while keeping the sections separate and maintaining the map feature.
Don't Merge – Keep articles as is but rename this article to Historical list of bishops of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America and cross-link them
Merge Other – Merge List of Episcopal bishops of the United States with Ecclesiastical provinces and dioceses of the Episcopal Church to utilise the existing section with maps on the Ecclesiastical provinces article.

@Bearian, Roberto221, Y.D.McGinty, and Rpryor03: could you please indicate what option you would prefer, so we can reach consensus. Folklorin (talk) 22:43, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1, 3, and 2, in that order. Bearian (talk) 01:11, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Option 2 Roberto221 (talk) 02:33, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventure of the Seven Clocks ⟶ The Exploits of Sherlock Holmes (Discuss)

Faculty of Dentistry, University of Malaya ⟷ University of Malaya (Discuss)

I propose merging Faculty of Dentistry, University of Malaya into University of Malaya. I think the content in Faculty of Dentistry can easily be explained in the context of this article, and merging them would not cause any article-size or weighting problems. Rangasyd (talk) 05:08, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Jfire, Sophisticatedevening, Bearcat, Didyara, GuardianH, and Hongqilim: Notifying contributors to the articles. Rangasyd (talk) 05:17, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support Mccapra (talk) 06:33, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I suggest merging Department of Chinese Studies, University of Malaya too. Didyara (talk) 03:38, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support doesn't appear to have standalone notability. Zzz plant (talk) 02:26, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fano militia factions ⟶ Fano (militia) (Discuss)

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)[reply]

Support merger, no size reasons for the same topic to have two separate articles. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:50, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosed fees ⟶ Fee (Discuss)

I propose merging Disclosed fees into Fee. 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. Duncnbiscuit (talk) 08:22, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of the Arab Federation ⟷ Flag of the Arab Revolt (Discuss)

Qualifying floating charge ⟶ Floating charge (Discuss)

I propose merging Qualifying floating charge into Floating charge. I think the content in 'Qualifying floating charge' can easily be explained in the context of this article, and merging them would not cause any article-size or weighting problems. Duncnbiscuit (talk) 06:10, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

European Union's scientific cooperation with third countries ⟶ Foreign relations of the European Union (Discuss)

Fouta towel ⟷ Peshtemal (Discuss)

The Religion War ⟶ God's Debris (Discuss)

Summation of Grandi's series ⟶ Grandi's series (Discuss)

The Great British Bake Off: An Extra Slice ⟶ The Great British Bake Off (Discuss)

Do we really need a separate article for Extra Slice, surely it can have a separate section in the main show article? MSalmon (talk) 17:43, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mongol National Organisation ⟶ Gopal Gurung (Discuss)

I propose merging Mongol National Organisation into Gopal Gurung. MNO has never won a seat to the parliament and I doesn't meet any notability criteria. PenGear (talk) 01:29, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - MNO has been around for a long while, and the present article doesn't fully reflect that. MNO notable on its own, and merging with article of an individual politician is to no benefit neither for Wikipedia nor its readers. --Soman (talk) 13:10, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Are they notable just for longevity? They have had no parliamentarians or elected local councilors. I do not believe they are notable enough for their own article. PenGear (talk) 17:04, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is determined based on the guidelines at WP:Notability, including WP:GNG. If it meets WP:GNG, then both longevity and whether they've ever been successful in an election are irrelevant. Largoplazo (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They do have coverage, but all of it seems to be about them contesting elections or leadership changes. I would argue that similar to candidates not being notable for just contesting elections, political parties being successful should be a relevant criteria. If not, I am fine with the page as it is. PenGear (talk) 18:49, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Craft production ⟶ Handicraft (Discuss)

Aramaic square script ⟶ Hebrew alphabet (Discuss)

This seems to be a fork of Ktav Ashuri, which is the same thing - the Aramaic square script. And we have already Aramaic alphabet. Andre🚐 22:20, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a fork. Aramaic square script preceded Ktav Ashuri. It is existed prior to its adoption, use and naming as such by Jewish scribes and it continued to be used by non-Jews too, both during and afterward. If you want to insist they are the same topic, Ktav Ashuri should be merged into this article, because it is the sub-phenomenon. Tiamut (talk) 07:54, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article was created unilaterally by you, in the last month, about a topic that I think already is covered, given that we have Aramaic alphabet, Hebrew alphabet, Ktav Ashuri, Imperial Aramaic, Syriac alphabet, Mandaic alphabet, Western neo-Aramaic . What is the purpose of the Aramaic square script article? It feels like a bunch of stuff thrown together. I think it should be merged but I don't know to where yet.Andre🚐 08:03, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I created it because it was missing. Ktav Ashuri is used to describe the use of the Aramaic square script to write in Hebrew, not to write in Aramaic. There is a difference between scripts and languages. The articles we already had did not describe Aramaic square script adequately, and there was nowhere to link to when I was writing about its use for writing non-Hebrew languages, so I boldly created a well sourced article explaining its genesis and constituents. This is not something bad by the way. Tiamut (talk) 08:12, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to creating a new article if one is misssing, but what is the Aramaic square script being used for that isn't related to Hebrew or Jewish Aramaic manuscripts? I genuinely do not know what else it is used for? I can agree it must have been used for something else but the current article is entirely about Jewish related usage? Andre🚐 08:15, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Its not solely about Jewish related usage, but even if that was true, there is a distinction, even when being used by Jewish scribes, between its use to write in Aramaic (in which case it is Aramaic square script) and its use to write in Hebrew (in which case it is Ktav ashuri). Tiamut (talk) 08:27, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ehh, no, on the latter point. I don't believe that's true. Aramaic and Hebrew are written with the same square script, which is known alternately as Aramaic square/block script, the Assyrian script (ktav ashuri), or the Tiberian (with vowels). Do you have a source for that? Andre🚐 08:36, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ktav Ashuri is a descendent of the Aramaic square script used to write Hebrew.Tiamut (talk) 08:40, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't really mean that it's Aramaic square script when you use to it to write Aramaic, and Hebrew script when you write Hebrew. As you can see later on in that source when it talks about the Dead Sea Scrolls, it's the same script that survives. Which is to say that yeah, the Hebrew alphabet evolved from the Aramaic square script, but all the instances you discuss in the article are the Hebrew alphabet. It doesn't become a different script when they are writing Aramaic in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Andre🚐 08:46, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Side note: This article was created unilaterally by you was a strange thing to say. Every article is created unilaterally. You called it out like an accusation. Largoplazo (talk) 14:00, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the idea that the other article should be merged into this one and not vice-versa. It doesn't make much sense to treat the new article by one person created today, as the non-fork article. Andre🚐 18:19, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) You can see they look the same, but you will never see a reloable source call the square script used to write the Aramaic language scrolls Ktav Ashuri, because that would be a misnomer. Tiamut (talk) 08:49, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be clear, the source you just linked does. And it calls it the Jewish square script. It says all the scrolls were written in the Jewish square script. Andre🚐 08:50, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. Read carefully. When referring to the Dead Sea scrolls it says "square script" in general, because they include Aramaic language inscriptions that are written in Aramaic square script. Tiamut (talk) 08:54, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No. Read that whole section. It is talking about the Jewish square script when it refers to the scrolls. Andre🚐 08:55, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. As just before that it is talking about the Jewish square script being a descendant of the Aramaic. In any case, I am going to add texts that are written in Aramaic square too soon. Like those on incantation bowls, discussed here: "Spellings with aleph instead of 'ayin, or without 'ayin, are a salient graphic feature of certain magic bowl texts. The Aramaic square script texts often employ 'ayin for the long vowels /I/ or /ë/ as mater lectionis, even before yod, although the 'ayin is not etymological, e.g. אקעז "storm, wind" (CBS 16018: 17 = AIT 19 [SLBA]), יקעז "storms" (Moussaieff 107: אקיז)7 (AMB B13: 3) < Akkadian zïqu corresponding Syriac spelling conventions in the bowl texts (Müller-Kessler 2005b: 227; 2006b: 266); אפשיע (MSF B23: 4) (KBA), sp' (MSF B26: 2) (KS) < אפשיא* "spell" < Akkadian (w)asäpu. One can hardly call it "parasitic 'ayin", as does Juusola (1999: 37-8) following Naveh and Shaked (1985: 162), when its function is of a purely orthographic nature." Tiamut (talk) 09:20, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is More on puzzling words and spellings in Aramaic incantation bowls and related texts which discusses the Aramaic square script used on magic bowls. Tiamut (talk) 09:25, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And to be clear, these are not Jewish texts, nor is this a Jewish script. The bowls are Mandaic and written using Aramaic square script. Tiamut (talk) 09:28, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, all the Mandaic bowls I've seen use the Mandaic script, which is something also Aramaic-based but looks different. There are some incantation bowls that are Jewish and use the Jewish Aramaic script and some that are Mandaic that use the Mandaic script. It's not clear from that source if the bowls that are square script are described. Can you quote that? Andre🚐 09:34, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"The cult of Delibat and her Aramaic background can be traced back to her rise as a deity in the late Achaeminid and Hellenistic periods according to the cuneiform sources, where her name occurs in the onomasticon from Uruk.162 Later she merged with the Iranian deity Anâhîd.163 Her Akkadian epithet ezzetu "awe-inspiring" - only the Urukain Istar carries it - is in Aramaic "zyzf\ which became the Arabian al-'Uzzä, "the Venus-star",164 the Arabic elative form of 'zyzt'.'zyzt'.She features in many Mandaic magical texts as goddess of love, lyb't m'rty'm'rty'swpr' wrg'g' "Libat, mistress of beauty and desire" (DC 46 226: 7)165 and square script bowl texts as well, ךימשיבותבילדאתזיזעירמיזראתמחר "and in the name of the awe-inspiring Delibat, lady of the mysteries..." Tiamut (talk) 09:48, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are several other explicit reference to Aramaic square script in that text besides the one I also provided above. Now if you don't mind, I would like to spend some time actually working on the article, rather than justifying its existence. Tiamut (talk) 09:48, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I really do not see where in the source it says that. I think the sources sometimes render something in the square script, i.e. using Hebrew letters, for ease of understanding, but I don't see where in Kessler it says that there are Mandaic bowls inscribed in square script or supports what you just added to the article. Andre🚐 10:00, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to access the article? Where does it say they are written in another script? Tiamut (talk) 10:04, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not at all specify what script the bowls are in, that I can tell. [10:05, 4 January 2026 (UTC)]

A couple of times it contrasts Mandaic, Syriac, and Aramaic script. That may be what you are referring to. Please see p.2 which refers to the Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic and then in footnote 8 it distinguishes those 3. Mandaic is different from Aramaic script. See for example this source which talks about one of the bowls and it is clearly a Yahwistic bowl. Andre🚐 10:12, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the differences between Mandaic script (which only emerged later by the way) and Aramaic square. You seem to be conflating scripts and languages, and Mandaeans used Aramaic, like many others, to write their language before developing their own unique alphabet. From another source: "Despite the prevailing controversy among scholars concerning the religious background of magic text formulas in various Aramaic scripts and dialects, certain bowl texts show undoubtable Jewish contents and lore, although not all Aramaic square-script bowl texts contain Jewish themes." The whole point of this discussion is to clarify that there is a need for an article on Aramaic square script, as it is an actual script that pre-existed Ktav Ashuri and was used by others to write their own languages. Most of them later discarded it for more cursive forms, whereas it later became the basis for modern Hebrew. But it still existed outside of a Hebrew context, and that is why this article should exist. Tiamut (talk) 10:28, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I understand now. Yes, Kessler analyzes the text of several square script bowls which she says have a Mandaic character (she doesn't say they are in the Mandaic language but that they have a Mandaic "vorlage") but Aramaic script, either due to invoking the deity Delibat or some linguistic features. Those aren't necessarily Jewish. However, the article as it stands, still has problems as the bulk of the text is indeed about Jewish stuff, including the scrolls, and the image from the Kennicott Bible. In the original caption you wrote that those are 2 different scripts, when that is plainly not the case. I'm not sure there is enough to write about the bowls that doesn't belong at another article and so I still think a merge is in order. I don't think either one of us is conflating languages and scripts, but I think most of the article as it stands now is actually about the Hebrew alphabet and that is confusing. Also, Kessler is talking about the Late Antique, 3rd-7th century CE, and it definitely doesn't predate the Ktav Ashuri. Andre🚐 10:56, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure you do understand? Because I did not write there are two different scripts in the caption for the Kenicott Bible but rather that one is in Hebrew (the language) and the other in Aramaic (the language). Both use a square script, practically identical, because the Hebrew alphabet switched to using Aramaic square script and dubbed its use of that script "Jewish" or "Assyrian" (i.r. Ktav Ashuri. I am against merging this article (obviously, as I would not have created it if there was no need for it). Tiamut (talk) 11:42, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Check the article history. You wrote a caption, "Page from a Hebrew Bible with Onkelos (Aramaic translation), Hebrew square script on the left, Aramaic square script on the right" that implies two scripts. They aren't practically identical, they are literally identical. Andre🚐 18:23, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

When I checked it, there was no mention of scripts, because you deleted that, as you have elsewhere in the article. And by the way, the scripts can look identical but still be distinguished because of which language they are being used to write. Take a look at Paleo-Hebrew for example and tell me how it differs from the Phoenician alphabet. Tiamut (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that you need a source that says it is different. Sources distinguish Phoenician and Paleo-Hebrew. It is not clear that Aramaic square script is something that does not substantially WP:OVERLAP with the existing material. There's a reason why this article was never created before. Andre🚐 19:04, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I posted at Talk:Hebrew alphabet and Talk:Aramaic alphabet. Not trying to fragment the discussion, but this notification is required per WP:MERGING and according to that, the discussion should take place at the merge target, so it should continue there. Andre🚐 23:29, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Good morning Andre. I notice you have made several changes to the article here. One of these was erasing the quote by Albright about the lack of systematic study, citing its age. Could you provide which systematic studies have been done since then? Tiamut (talk) 08:06, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fitzmeyer, Beyer, see [14] or Gzella [15], let's start with those. or Cross[16]. I mean think about it th Dead Sea Scrolls were barely discovered when Albright said that. Now we have [17] Andre🚐 08:22, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I see we have a serious terminological problem actually that is well covered here. Perhaps this article should actually be moved to Aramaic cursive. Tiamut (talk) 08:49, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That would follow Dušek[18] but I think the Vanderhooft thing you just linked is critical of that. But, I think if you used all those sources in a balanced way and explain how the historiography evolved over time it would make a great article. A lot has happened since the 60s... BTW, Yardeni appears to be another good source. Andre🚐 09:03, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Actually in that chapter Vanderhooft seems to be on board with Aramaic cursive (also used by Tov among others in addition to Dusek), and critical of Yardeni and Cross' approach to ethnicizing the script. He does not dispute that is it out if it that the square script used for Hebrew was born, but criticizes the use of "proto-Jewish" or "Jewish" (Yardeni and Cross) to describe those early forms, as he sees their use even by Jews at that time as part of a broader imperial framework. The only thing I need to work out more is the relationship to Aramaic monumental (previously lapidary) (nevermind, it is just a sub-type of Aramaic cursive written on stone per Dusek in this work) Will review more literature and then determine the appropriate new heading and scope. Tiamut (talk) 09:47, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

On that note, yes, but note that Vanderhooft accepts Cross and Yardeni's timeline that Aramaic cursive evolved gradually into the Hasmonean era book hand, by 3rd c. BCE, and he says that Aramaic's in Judah in 6th c. BCE. Andre🚐 09:56, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I see several sources referring to the script of the Dead Sea Scrolls as "Aramaic cursive" though too. Tiamut (talk) 10:15, 5 January 2026 (UTC) See here for example. Tiamut (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This short handbook has a good overview of some of the challenges in defining and dating the emergence of the square script. And a good list of sources to pursue further. Tiamut (talk) 11:58, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Still, I am not sure that a move to Aramaic cursive is a good idea because it is quite a large topic. Have added a new source and info here, which identifies one of the early examples of Aramaic square script. Tiamut (talk) 12:22, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So, the Elephantine papyri and ostraca, some are indeed Aramaic cursive from the 5th century, and there are some in the Cairo Geniza as well. It's Aramaic cursive any time they are writing casually and not calligraphically. The monumental or lapidary is for carving into rocks. Aramaic cursive though is still basically a subtopic of Aramaic and Hebrew alphabets. It is just what you call it when they are scrawling on a parchment instead of chiselling into blocks or writing fancy important decrees and important books. The sort of italic looking handwriting versus the classic blocky blocks. Andre🚐 21:41, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Akopian defines Aramaic square script as Aramaic cursive whose letters fit into squares, calling Elephantine Papyri texts as example of that. Tiamut (talk) 08:52, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - which page? Aramaic square script can be cursive but isn't always. Monumental isn't. And the print in the Kennicott Bible is square script but not cursive. Andre🚐 19:23, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

p. 73 for the square fitting into squares definition. You are right, its not always cursive. There is a lot more great and detailed information in that book. You can use find in page to search terms, or check the index under 'square' for more. Tiamut (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree it's a good source. Andre🚐 22:32, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think "Aramaic square script" could totally be a page, but there's absolutely nothing on this page currently that justifies its existence. It needs massive improvement if it wants to continue to exist. GordonGlottal (talk) 02:53, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO better to merge what is worth merging to Hebrew alphabet, Aramaic alphabet, History of the Hebrew alphabet, or another location, improve the section, and split out if it gets too long. This was split out as a content fork and it is too entangled with the parent topic. An article on a script could be cool, but this one isn't really about a script. Andre🚐 03:10, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) The article is written from scratch. There was no splitting off of material from anywhere. I did include a paragraph from Ktav Ashuri on its development but removed it because of your concerns of overlap. There will be more added on the specifics of the script itself soon. You can't discuss a script though without also discussing a bit of wider linguistic and historical context. Tiamut (talk) 15:41, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What I also fail to understand is why there is no problem with maintaining Ktav Ashuri as a separate article? According to this short definition by Christa Muller-Kessler, it just means "Assyrian script":

Square script: (ketāḇ merubbā) is the term for the style of script in which Jewish Hebrew and Aramaic texts are written. It developed from the Aramaic square script style (in the Babylonian Talmud ketāḇ aššūrī, i.e. Assyrian script), which according to the Babylonian Talmud (Aboda Zara 10a) was brought from Babylonian captivity to Palestine by Jews in the post-Exilic period, whereas the Samaritan style developed from the palaeo-Hebraic script. The earliest documents extant in square script are fragments of the Biblical books Ex and 1 Sam from Qumran (2nd cent. BC), the Nash papyrus and later mosaic, burial and ossuary inscriptions (1st-2nd cents. AD). In the broadest sense two other contemporary kinds of writing in Palestine could also be described as square script, the Samaritan and the Christian-Palestinian-Aramaic. The latter arose out of the Syriac Estrangelā. Both scripts were apparently adjusted in imitation of the Aramaic square script.

It also violates our article naming policies, as its not the common English name. Tiamut (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We can propose a merge for that when this one is over. Andre🚐 20:55, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

Moved from Talk:Hebrew alphabet § Aramaic square script

FaviFake (talk) 14:37, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion at Talk:Aramaic square script. This should be merged here or to Ktav Ashuri. Andre🚐 09:26, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Aramaic square script is the ancestor script for the modern Hebrew alphabet. But it was/is used to write other languages besides Hebrew. It can't be covered in Hebrew alphabet, nor can it be covered in Ktav Ashuri which is a derivation of it. Tiamut (talk) 11:47, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The only other language that we have a source for it being used for is Aramaic. Andre🚐 18:20, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better to keep the discussion at the discussion rather than pursuing a stealth parallel one here. Largoplazo (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is where the formal merge discussion is supposed to go if the proposal is to merge it here. Refer to the merging instructions. This is also the most-watched and trafficked page so it's hardly stealth. I linked the other discussion as it is relevant. I also added a note to Talk:Aramaic alphabet since possibly some of this belongs there. Andre🚐 23:20, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We should have a section on parent languages and have one of those blue link things leading to it (obviously) ~2026-92314 (talk) 14:22, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that the Aramaic Square script being merged solely into Hebrew is just not tenable

The original article confuses the Aramaic Alphabet of the Achaemenid period with the later Aramaic version of the Hebrew Alphabet used for Judeo-Aramaic so I instead propose to split the contents of that article and have some parts join the Hebrew Alphabet article and others the Aramaic Alphabet article. Theopedias (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

When you say the original article, do you mean this version? Tiamut (talk) 17:48, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

yes that page Theopedias (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is this definition incorrect? Tiamut (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fine but at the same time Ktav Ashuri literaly just refers to the Hebrew Alphabet/Abjad and was named that way because later jews thought it Originated in Assyria and while that is partially correct the Hebrew Alphabet is a descendant of the Aramaic Alphabet used by Assyria and Iran it misses context and the fact that the scripts are different especially as the Imperial Aramic Abjad was not square had different letter shapes from later Hebrew.

Imperial Aramaic (c. 700---c. 300 Bce) 𐡀 𐡁 𐡂 𐡃

Hebrew (c. 200 Bce--present) ם מ ל נפ (evolved script from Aramic with the letters more square Theopedias (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are practically zero examples of a block like script of that kind in 200 BCE though. And the definition of "square" given by Akopian is that the letters could fit into square shapes, not that they were blocky per se. They could be a form of cursive, as two of the examples pictured in the article are. There seems to be much confusion within the field of paleography over how to categorize and what typologies to use for charting the development of the square script(s). See here & Longacre's brief cited in the article. This confusion is certainly reflected in my original article. In that sense, I have at least been faithful to the sources. Tiamut (talk) 21:05, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. "Assyrian script" or "script of Assyria" to describe Aramaic (and only later adopted to describe the square script) seems to have entered Hebrew from Egyptian sources like the Demotic Chronicle via the Greek, at least according to this paper. Tiamut (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2026 (UTC) And this is missing from the existing article on Ktav Ashuri, which should probably be mentioned in this discussion as well. Tiamut (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

yes You are right and we should mention Orientalia

NOVA SERIES, Vol. 62, No. 2 (1993), pp. 80-82 (3 pages) and try to integrate your findings into the Hebre Script article.

Some scholars even say the Phoenician, Aramaic and Hebrew scripts are all one semitic abjad and in 2004/05 there was a lot of opposition to the creation of Phoenician Unicode so the separation of what counts as Imperial Aramaic or Hebrew is always going to be fuzzy. Theopedias (talk) 10:20, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, its one Abjad (properly Canaanite) that was used by all of them to write their different languages/dialects. And this Aramaic=>Hebrew square script is one alphabet too. There is no exclusively Hebrew alphabet. They switched from using the Canaanite to the Aramaic. Tiamut (talk) 13:32, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Heterogeneous gold catalysis ⟷ Organogold chemistry#Gold catalysis (Discuss)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]

Micropædia, Macropædia and Propædia ⟶ History of the Encyclopædia Britannica (Discuss)

Assyrian Jews ⟶ History of the Jews in Kurdistan (Discuss)

I propose merging Assyrian Jews into History of the Jews in Kurdistan. This article is predicated on the belief that Kurdish Jews should be better known as Assyrian Jews; see End of Story? Remnants of Kurdistan’s Jews in the 21st Century (2025): 'The Jews of Kurdistan also shared many cultural practices with neighbours. This included similarities with both Kurdish or Christian groups, especially the Assyrians with whom they shared the Aramaic language, though spoken in different dialects. This shared language connection therefore justifies referring to them as both “Assyrian Jews” and “Kurdish Jews”'. There is no distinction between "Kurdish Jews" and "Assyrian Jews". "Assyrian Jews" has 28 results in Google Scholar. "Kurdish Jews" has 1,450 results. Mugsalot (talk) 22:47, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In the same way that Chaldeans refers to the Assyrian people page, I can understand merging Assyrian Jews and Kurdish Jews.

However I'm unsure if this is neutral and fear it could participate in the erasure of the Assyrian ethnic identity. There is currently a lot of gaps of knowledge circulating the real ethnic connection between Assyrians and other groups (Jews from Kurdistan, Caucasian Jews, Arameans, etc), and currently some wikipedia pages serve as notable sources of information regarding this topic.

Also just reading the talk page on the History of the Jews in Kurdistan, it is clear that there is long-standing asymmetrical conflict, assyrian erasure propaganda, and I am unsure if this new article will serve as neutral.

Overall, I think the merge is a good idea, I don't think there is sufficient information on this article to separate the two, and I believe this should be done respecting the term Assyrian Jews, it is certainly not less accurate than Kurdish Jews which is currently on there, as the few academic papers that directly tackle this issue acknowledge.

BrooklynWilkes (talk) 02:25, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@BrooklynWilkes: you can edit the article History of the Jews in Kurdistan to note that Kurdish Jews are also known as Assyrian Jews.

Wisconsin State College of Milwaukee ⟶ History of the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee (Discuss)

I propose merging Wisconsin State College of Milwaukee here. The content is highly duplicative otherwise. Jahaza (talk) 03:58, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hominy ⟷ Mote (food) (Discuss)

Draft:Hornsby High School ⟶ Hornsby High School (Discuss)

Friedrich Krupp Germaniawerft ⟶ Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft (Discuss)

Icehouse: The Martian Chess Set ⟶ Icehouse pieces (Discuss)

The article on Icehouse: The Martian Chess Set describes this board game as "a set of playing pieces that can be utilized in abstract strategy games". These "playing pieces" in question are Icehouse pieces. According to the article for Icehouse pieces, which mentions Icehouse: The Martian Chess Set, this board game came with Martian Chess, Zendo, Homeworlds, and IceTowers, all of which are mentioned in this article itself, and half of which have their own articles. The article for Icehouse: The Martian Chess Set, however, does not mention these games at all, in fact, it doesn't even mention that the "playing pieces" are Icehouse pieces. Also, considering that the article for Icehouse: The Martian Chess Set is largely a stub, and only mentions two sources, I propose merging it into the article for Icehouse pieces. Romeo v. Juliet (talk) 04:11, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mild intellectual disability ⟶ Intellectual disability (Discuss)

Intelligence field ⟶ Intelligence (information) (Discuss)

I propose merging Intelligence field into Intelligence (information). There is no reason to have these as two separate pages. I think there is actually perhaps a network of similar pages that could perhaps be merged, per the comment by @Closed Limelike Curves:. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 21:12, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Might not be a bad idea, in the present, because these are all fine as-is, but could be a beefier single piece if all of the information was collected. It could split out later again as sections get big enough over time. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 00:42, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

HARD DISAGREE They are two COMPLETELY different things.

If you give me two weeks to beef-up this article, I will make it better. Guylaen (talk) 05:42, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article really is just a stub right now. I was hoping anyone else might have added to it by this point. Guylaen (talk) 05:43, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Fall semester starts tomorrow and I'm working on my MA. But I swear I am still working on this – I have started with expanding Intelligence field, and next I will expand Intelligence (information).

It might take me longer than two weeks, but please do not consider merging or deleting until I have finished the expansions. Guylaen (talk) 02:54, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have expanded the Intelligence field somewhat (still needs history section).

Now, I will get to work on Intelligence (information) so that the distinction can be made clearer. Guylaen (talk) 16:56, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Closed Limelike Curves Do you understand where I am going with this? Because epistemology makes me very bored, the kind of autism bored where I can feel my blood rushing through my arms, but I also want to make sure that these pages don't get merged. Guylaen (talk) 11:17, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think I get it, no worries :)

In the future, can you use draftspace or subarticles (e.g. Draft:Intelligence (information)) for changes like this that leave the article in an incomplete state? – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but there was a reason I made it a stub. I wanted other people to contribute, but no one did. Guylaen (talk) 09:49, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of diplomatic relations of the Republic of China ⟶ International recognition of Taiwan (Discuss)

Interstate 27 ⟷ U.S. Route 87 in Texas (Discuss)

Interstate 180 (Wyoming) ⟷ U.S. Route 85 in Wyoming (Discuss)

Holocaust survivors and descendants supporting Palestine ⟶ Jewish pro-Palestinian activism (Discuss)

I think Holocaust survivors and descendants supporting Palestine should be merged here per WP:OVERLAP. Most of the content could probably be copied over. Kowal2701 (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The two articles may seem to "overlap" in only one thing: both concern people of the Jewish faith being pro-Palestine, The content of the 2 is not duplicated even a bit and don't overlap in any other area. The Holocaust survivors and descendants supporting Palestine article focuses on a specific and historically very significant group, with views formed by the genocide they or their families survived. This merits a standalone article per WP:SNG, its well notable by the wide coverage it's gotten, per WP:SIGCOV. This article, Jewish pro-Palestinian activism, can summarize the info and link to the detailed article about the Holocaust survivors, but merging them would dilute the unique weight of the survivors' voices.

Rap no Davinci (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support although deletion of the merge candidate may be preferred, primarily because it seems to have been LLM-generated and has many content policy violations. See analysis at Talk:Holocaust survivors and descendants supporting Palestine § WP:V and WP:OR issues, likely LLM-generated content NicheSports (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support - yeah. not really enough for a standalone article, and there is substantial overlap. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 18:08, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It would be actually helpful if you can explain/give an example of the "substantial overlap"!! Rap no Davinci (talk) 11:34, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose yeah, no, read the article some more and thought about it some more. seems there is material in the other article that pertains more to the experience of Holocaust survivors and their beliefs wrt to Palestinian experience.

Original vote was just skimming through on the 19th. the current article seems good enough to stand on its own. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 05:56, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support - This is a content fork and a WP:COATRACK. Moreover, there is no particular reason that Holocaust survivors have a greater or different authority on the subject than other Jewish people — for example, descendants of victims of the Hebron Massacre, descendants of the victims of Farhud, or descendants of the Kishinev pogrom, or descendants of Jewish combatants in WW2. The article makes no case at all for why Holocaust descendants are distinct in their approach to the question, and of course is designed to exclude the voice of Holocaust descendants who do not “support Palestine”, or whose support of Palestine is not unlimited, or whose support was modified by the experience of terrorism, or those who support a state but do not support the annihilation of Israel. (About 50% of the article as currently written appears to be LLM generated.) MarkBernstein (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – WP:OVERLAP alone is not a sufficient reason to merge. Holocaust survivors and descendants supporting Palestine is an independently notable subset of a broader phenomenon, treated by RS as distinct because their views are framed through the moral and historical legacy of the Holocaust. That is why it has received substantive and sustained coverage, more than sufficient to satisfy WP:SIGCOV. Alongside sources already cited on the page, there are many others I have listed at the end of my reply.

It is also not a CFORK or COATRACK, and the editor who claims it is is primarily making a normative judgment as to the content rather than scope. If there are sourcing, neutrality, or LLM-related problems, those should be addressed through cleanup and improvement, not by merging away a notable topic. Moreover, claims of OR and bad sourcing lack merit as I have detailed. Per WP:MERGE, fixing deficiencies is preferable when the subject itself is valid. A summary linking to the main page is appropriate here.

Additional RS on this that reports on and analyzes it as a distinct subject, which I've found with only a quick search:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/apr/25/we-have-lost-our-humanity-holocaust-survivors-call-for-end-to-war-in-gaza

https://newrepublic.com/article/198202/israel-gaza-genocide-never-again-happening-again

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/15/gaza-propaganda-machines

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2024/01/30/1227849885/a-holocaust-survivor-identifies-with-the-pain-of-both-sides-in-the-israel-hamas-

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0glc5vx

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2023-11-17/generational-trauma-gaza-children-holocaust-survivor

https://metro.co.uk/2025/10/14/i-survived-holocaust-fear-children-gaza-will-scarred-life-24420456/

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20231129-holocaust-survivor-dr-gabor-mate-calls-for-land-return-to-palestine/

https://www.businessinsider.com/israel-pro-palestinian-arrests-descendants-holocaust-gaza-ceasefire-schumer-brooklyn-2023-10

https://www.commondreams.org/news/holocaust-survivors-gaza-genocide

https://www.libdemvoice.org/jewish-opinions-on-palestine-vary-considerably-as-the-daughter-of-a-holocaust-survivor-my-own-view-explained-76781.html

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/jewish-activists-warn-government-crackdown-protest-wake-synagogue-attack-will-stoke

Chaitin (2008), Bridging the impossible? Confronting barriers to dialogue between Israelis and Germans and Israelis and Palestinians. International Journal of Peace Studies(Vol. 13, Issue 2)

Levanon (2021), Under a Constant Shadow: The Israeli–Palestinian Conflict and the Traumatic Memory of the Holocaust. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology

Fellegi and Pali (2025), Breaking the Silence: Reflections on the Restorative Justice Movement’s Role during an Unfolding Genocide. The International Journal of Restorative Justice.

Bachleitner (2024), Trauma in world politics: Memory dynamics between different victim groups. Journal of Peace Research

There is also voluminous RS from prominent Holocaust survivors and descendants who are pro-Palestinian themselves who explicitly invoke this. To name but one, the scholar Sara Roy:

https://ciaotest.cc.columbia.edu/olj/jps/vol32-125ros01.html

https://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2018/march/yes-they-are-refugees

https://www.palestinechronicle.com/sara-roy-a-jewish-plea/

https://www.tikkun.org/denying-palestinians-their-humanity-a-response-to-elie-wiesel-by-sara-roy/

Once more, this warrants it own page as it clearly satisfies WP:SIGCOV. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 07:55, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This list is poor evidence for multiple reasons, but let's start with the easiest one - lots of these sources are just not reliable:

Metro per WP:METRO
Middle East Monitor per WP:MEMO
Business Insider per WP:BUSINESSINSIDER
Palestine Chronicle - see this RSN discussion. Not to mention that the content is clearly an opinion piece.
Lib dem voice / Tikkun - blogs/op-eds written on websites of activist groups or political parties are obviously not RS.
London Review of Books - the source you linked is marked as a blog, see WP:RSOPINION.
The New Republic - an open letter to one's mother is also probably more of an opinion piece than straight news. Probably.
Guardian - second link is to letters to the editor, these are not RS.

Leaving aside reliability, the rest that I've looked into don't come close to doing what you say they do: reporting that analyzes it as a distinct subject. Some are passing mentions of the fact that someone is or is descended from a holocaust survivor. Others spotlight an individual person, which is not the same as analysis of a phenomenon. If you take a series of individual cases in RS and infer a phenomenon, that's plain WP:SYNTH.

Middle East Eye - another Qatari-owned outlet, but who cares about that today - this content just references that one of its sources is a descendent of holocaust survivors, there's nothing analysing the phenomenon of a group of holocaust survivors/their descendents engaged in pro-Palestinian activism.
NPR - a holocaust survivor has empathy for both Israelis and Palestinians. Lovely read, but I don't know what you think this source is supporting.
BBC - similar to NPR. A holocaust survivor has empathy and would like peace. No obvious connection to what you've written.

@Raskolnikov.Rev, given that two people have already cited your post as demonstrating something, would you please add quotes from the sources that are reliable to show that they are actually showing what you claim they are? Samuelshraga (talk) 07:36, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have this quaint notion that a page about Holocaust survivors and their descendants supporting Palestine can't include Wiki-compliant sourcing that clearly attributes their own stated views in pieces they authored. I don't know where you got this from, but it has nothing to do with policy. WP:RSOPINION explicitly permits the use of opinion pieces to source an author's views, provided those views are clearly attributed and not used for statements of fact: "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. For example, an inline qualifier might say "[Author XYZ] says....". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the readers that they are reading an opinion (see also § Editorial and opinion commentary, above)."

This is reinforced by other core policies, including WP:NEWSOPED, which says opinion pieces are reliable sources for the author's own views: ""Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." WP:V more generally makes clear that the standard is whether material can be verified as having been published, and WP:RS explicitly notes that biased or opinionated sources remain usable with attribution.

As regards the sources, WP:METRO is indeed GUNREL, but the Holocaust survivor Agnes Kory also gave her testimony in MEE, and I see now that it is already included on the page with attribution.

WP:MEMO can be used with attribution to the outlet and Gabor Maté, whom it is quoting. Given your familiarity with this CTOP, you must know who Gabor Maté is, so I'm not sure why you're acting like this is some outrageous thing to cite. Here are some more relevant sources for Maté:

https://www.thenation.com/article/society/gabor-mate-v-interview/

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/what-is-happening-in-gaza-is-an-injury-to-our-collective-conscience-we-must-be/article_a7f914c7-febe-4175-b343-28a19f50c3f9.html

https://www.straight.com/news/692046/gabor-mate-never-again-does-not-justify-gaza-slaughter#

https://www.aljazeera.com/podcasts/2025/1/17/gabor-mate-gaza-zionism-and-the-exploitation-of-jewish-trauma

WP:BUSINESSINSIDER is a report on a protest at Schumer's home by among others descendants of Holocaust survivors. It doesn't make any controversial factual claims, and the same event was covered by ABC: https://abc7ny.com/post/palestine-nyc-protest-times-square/13908073/. Also RSN notes issues with LLM-generated content published by Insider, which that article does not fall under, and its author used to write for the NYT and other outlets so can reasonably be considered reputable.

I don't know why you linked to WP:MEMO and WP:BUSINESSINSIDER as if it undermines the usability of these sources with attribution.

Palestine Chronicle/Tikkun/London Review of Books are venues where Sara Roy published her own views. Roy is a respected Harvard scholar, a Holocaust survivor, and widely regarded as the leading academic authority on Gaza's economy, with multiple books published by reputable academic presses. When her views are clearly attributed to her, their inclusion is clearly permissible.

The same applies to the Lib Dem Voice, The New Republic, and The Guardian sources when they publish clearly attributed opinion pieces by Holocaust survivors or their descendants expressing their own views.

And no, it is not SYNTH to cite what is explicitly stated in sources about Holocaust survivors and their descendants supporting Palestinian rights. By that strange logic everything on Wikipedia is WP:SYNTH because editors have utilized their basic analytical skills to make the connection that sources about X are indeed about X, and hence can be cited for X.

Your personal views about MEE are not relevant, take it to RSN if you have a problem with it, per your own advice. It is a widely cited source on Wiki, it is not GUNREL, and it is one of the many that explicitly refers to Holocaust survivors and their descendants supporting Palestinian rights, as do the NPR and BBC pieces, where Holocaust survivors express support for Palestinian rights. Your personal views about them not being relevant is itself not relevant: it is RS content that directly pertains to the topic of the article, and hence is suitable for inclusion per WP:RS and WP:V.

At this point, the objections being raised are not grounded in policy, but in increasingly strained interpretive arguments that attempt to exclude plainly attributable, policy-compliant sources. That is not how Wikipedia content decisions are made, and threatening to AfD on the basis of this if the RM doesn't go you way is neither constructive nor appropriate. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 03:43, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You've massively moved the goalposts here. You started off by saying Additional RS on this that reports on and analyzes it as a distinct subject. Now you're making out that I'm saying that these sources can't possibly be used for attributed statements of opinion of the people who wrote them. Erm, no - I'm saying they can't be used for the purpose you explicitly set for them.

The issue here is not whether individual statements by notable people can be attributed using opinion or primary sources. The issue is whether those sources are reliable to define a group or phenomenon (rather than an editor-constructed aggregation). Absent secondary sources that define the scope and boundaries of “Holocaust survivors and descendants supporting Palestine” as a subject, the article relies on synthesis regardless of attribution. Samuelshraga (talk) 08:39, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: per Rap no Davinci and Raskolnikov.Rev and also because there is not necessarily a 100% overlap between these two articles. The identity of "Holocaust survivors" (and descendants) is not set in stone, per our own article: "In some cases, non-Jews who also experienced collective persecution under the Nazi regime are considered Holocaust survivors as well. The definition has evolved over time." There has been debate over this on that article (and presumably others) and is out of scope for this one, but I think there's enough of a distinction that these should be two separate articles. Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:10, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As Raskolnikov.Rev has shown, Holocaust survivors and descendants are a notable group in themselves. There is no overlap in the text of the articles as Jewish_pro-Palestinian_activism is a broad overview and is organised by country, with none of the people in Holocaust survivors and descendants being mentioned in the other article. The survivors article is about their specific moral philosophy. The two articles have a different focus and should be kept separate. Dualpendel (talk) 14:50, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that all Holocaust survivors and descendants share a specific moral philosophy? What sort of moral philosophy might that be? MarkBernstein (talk) 15:38, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Surely they just mean the Holocaust survivors and descendants featured in the article share a particular etc etc, no? Which is exactly why the article is useful: there is a group of people who share a particular moral philosophy and they tie it to the horrors they or their family members survived. Smallangryplanet (talk) 16:27, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
... and the vast majority of them don't support Palestine, so whatever moral philosophy there is, it isn't determinative Kowal2701 (talk) 17:29, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
the vast majority of them don't support Palestine

Is there RS showing this or is it just a gut feeling? I haven't seen any reporting on how most Holocaust survivors and descendants feel about the matter, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, of course. Smallangryplanet (talk) 21:37, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Gut feeling. It's an interesting topic, but needs to be done with a sources-first approach. Holocaust survivors and the Gaza war might be good but I can only find [19], there're more sources on descendants but they're generally on trauma studies [20] [21] [22] Kowal2701 (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are three sets:
Holocaust survivors and their descendents (millions of people).

Holocaust survivors and their descendents who support Palestinians. Support Palestinians drawn very broadly according to Raskolnikov's post above, where any Israeli who says they want peace with Palestinians is included (see BBC source).

Holocaust survivors and their descendents who take a fairly fundamental opposition to, if not Israel as a state, all of Israel's activities and stance vis-a-vis the Palestinians and convey that opposition through the locus of the historical experience of the Holocaust.

2 is the declared scope of the article. 3 is the actual content of the article. There's a major misalignment here. Samuelshraga (talk) 18:53, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds to me like if 2 is the case, the article is even broader than I thought, with a much wider scope beyond Jewish pro-Palestinian activism, surely? Smallangryplanet (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think if independent, reliable secondary sources exist that described or defined the scope of the phenomenon, we could make that judgement, but so far none have been raised and I haven't found any. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:12, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The sources we have explicitly link these individuals' status as Holocaust survivors or descendants to their activism and moral reasoning in support of Palestine. That sourcing establishes the scope. We are not defining a category ourselves, but summarising how RS itself describe it, and requiring a single meta-source to define the phenomenon isn't a policy requirement. Scope follows the plain meaning of the title as supported by reliable sources, not an abstract...ontology? We reflect what sources document, not hypothetical populations or inferred representativeness (per WP:V and WP:NOR). You haven't shown an edge-case where there might be some issues (which in any case can be resolved through the routine editing process), let alone this supposedly major alignment issue that makes the article fatally flawed. Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and delete instead, and I'll be taking this to AfD if this discussion doesn't end in merge. I thought I would support, because the set "descendents of holocaust survivors" probably includes a majority of Jews worldwide at this point, but because the page is such a travesty, most of this content - I can't call it information - shouldn't be copied over. There are already talk page discussions there about unreliable sources used, claims that fail verification, original research and POV issues. The fact that the source page probably shouldn't exist is no reason to preserve the terrible content that has been placed on it. Samuelshraga (talk) 09:43, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
~~oh god. the main author of that article has a logged warning [1] for misuse of LLMs in the PIA topic area. not really sure whats happening on that page, but might be a mess.~~ User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 16:40, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yep see WP:AE#Rap no Davinci Kowal2701 (talk) 17:28, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluethricecreamman, the AE case resulted in no action, and the claims being made here about the sourcing not matching the content are inaccurate, as I have shown on the talk page. Samuel is citing the mere existence of the talk page discussions as evidence of egregious policy violations, when only one was about content and sourcing (which, again, misconstrued it), and all the others are editors saying the page should not exist because it is somehow "antisemitic". Samuel, kowal and others who are objecting to this content appear to be of the belief that we cannot cite Holocaust survivors and their descendants expressing support for Palestinian rights themselves or in secondary RS because it's intrinsically SYNTH and/or plays into "antisemitic tropes". This undermines core Wikipedia policy and excludes Wiki-compliant content from inclusion anywhere on the encyclopedia, which is apparently Samuel's preferred outcome given his threat to AfD and also opposition to its inclusion here.

Even if you have issues with some of the phrasing of the original editor, which can easily be resolved through the routine consensus-editing process, this is not an appropriate reaction to it in my view. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 03:48, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
sigh, i should have read the AE. there was no logged warning yet, and seems admins think it was a misunderstanding.
apologies, striked through my original text, will do better in the future. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 05:52, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not a threat to AfD - I'm not asking anyone to modify their behaviour, I'm just stating what I'll do. Also, I oppose a wholesale merge, but I think material could be moved here on a case by case basis, with the WP:ONUS being on whoever adds something to show the sourcing for WP:Verifiability and WP:Due weight purposes. Samuelshraga (talk) 15:38, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I thought I would be a 'support', but after reading Samuelshraga's comment, I'll have to read the whole thing with a clear head. Posting to remind myself to do so, as I am a little absent-minded spirit. Halbared (talk) 23:37, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I held off !voting for a few days as I thought I might be persuaded otherwise but I still don’t see significant secondary coverage of the topic of the survivor/descendent article. All its current sources are either primary sources with the opinions of survivor/descendents, profiles of such individuals (mostly in obscure outlets), or reports of fairly non-noteworthy interventions. The subject as a whole does not seem to have attracted any focused discussion. There’s non academic article about it. No other tertiary source seems to have an entry on it. The fact that in theory there might a non-Jewish survivor/descendant who could fit into the article doesn’t seem a good enough reason to preserve it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:53, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per u:BobFromBrockley. Deleting is also an option, as long as the content remains available for editors to re-use it elsewhere. Alaexis_¿question? 09:18, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, if anyone wants to close this and start an AfD, imo that'd be welcome. It'd be more productive since AfDs can result in merges, while merge discussions can't result in deletion. Also AfDs get more participation and typically last a week, while merge discussions flounder for months. Discussion here can be used to compile the rationale Kowal2701 (talk) 17:13, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think asking at Wikipedia:Closure requests#Merge proposals would be appropriate. Samuelshraga (talk) 20:24, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, done Kowal2701 (talk) 20:31, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support per BobFromBrockley and Alaexis Michael Boutboul (talk) 13:47, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

2026 Paipa Piper PA-31 crash ⟶ Yeison Jiménez (Discuss)

I propose merging 2026 Paipa Piper PA-31 crash into Yeison Jiménez. Light aircraft crashes are rarely notable per se (see WP:EVENTCRIT #4) and from an aviation point of view there is nothing significant about the crash. The only significant aspect of the crash is the death of Jiménez, and thus a standalone article about the crash is not needed. One or two additional sentences in the Death section of Jiménez's article would be sufficient. Rosbif73 (talk) 10:10, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying contributors to the crash article: @Bloxzge 025, Grffffff, Jkaharper, JaxsonR, GWA88, Dreameditsbrooklyn, Abductive, WikiCleanerMan, Protoeus, Zaptain United, and Mungo Kitsch: Rosbif73 (talk) 10:20, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, because the crash also made part of his story since that is when he died. ~2026-24890-2 (talk) 15:21, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I agree with the rationale given by the OP. 11WB (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Cbl62 (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crashes involving Wikinotable people as a rule have articles. WP:NTEMP cuts both ways - we don't have to wait to 'establish notability' if notability is already established, which it appears to be.

This is similar to this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2025_Aquidauana_Cessna_175_crash Zaptain United (talk) 20:27, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Relton66 (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We kept Harmony Jets Flight 185, 2025 Aquidauana Cessna 175 crash, the 2025 North Carolina Cessna Citation II crash and many others due to the one notable person being on board. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Relton66 (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the merge. The death of a notable person commonly results in a standalone article. There are clear precedents for this, such as the articles on the 1999 South Dakota Learjet 35 crash (carrying golfer Payne Stewart) and the 2001 Marsh Harbour Cessna 402 crash (carrying singer Aaliyah and her entourage). The crash near Paipa, due to significant media coverage and involving a notable public figure, meets the notability threshold for a separate article, just like the cited examples. Shiningr3ds (talk) 05:06, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There are also plenty of cases where crashes are covered solely in the notable person's bio – but in any case WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument for or against deletion or merging. In this particular instance there is almost nothing to say about the crash itself, sources are purely news reporting with no analysis, and nothing indicates that this is anything other than a run-of-the-mill general aviation accident. It seems highly unlikely that there will be any WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE about the crash (rather than about Jiménez) beyond the initial news cycle or that the crash will have any WP:LASTING effects. Furthermore, regardless of the crash's notability (or lack thereof), the merge would be appropriate per WP:PAGEDECIDE. In the unlikely event that we do see in-depth sustained coverage, or if something unusual comes to light in the investigation, then of course the article could be re-created. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:42, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a policy. My point with the examples was to illustrate editorial consistency in treating fatal aviation accidents involving notable figures as distinct events.

The core issue is notability. This crash is not a "run-of-the-mill" accident due to its immediate and profound cultural impact in Colombia: the death of a top national artist, the declaration of official mourning, and coverage at the presidential level. This meets the threshold of "significant coverage" and "lasting effects" in the cultural domain. Shiningr3ds (talk) 11:53, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In this instance, the crash is totally run-of-the-mill from an aviation point of view. The only significant factor involved is the death of a notable person.

The cultural impact and the other factors you mention are indeed probably sufficient to establish notability, but they apply much more strongly to Jiménez than to the crash per se. This is where WP:PAGEDECIDE comes into play: even if we accept that the crash can be considered as a notable event, it is preferable to cover it in Jiménez's bio rather than in a standalone article. Rosbif73 (talk) 12:53, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Examining WP:PAGEDECIDE, which you are referring to, I find that the proposed merge contradicts several of its key principles, which states decisions must be based on "specific considerations about how to make the topic understandable" and not on personal preference.

1. Standalone page best serves reader understanding. PAGEDECIDE states: "Often, understanding is best achieved by presenting the topic on a dedicated standalone page." This is exactly such a case. A reader seeking information on aviation safety in Colombia, Piper PA-31 accidents, or fatal crashes of public figures would not logically look in a musician's biography. Merging the information buries it in an unrelated context, harming findability and understanding. A dedicated page serves a distinct informational purpose and audience.

2. The rule explicitly warns against mergers due to "space availability". The text says: "the amount of content and details should not be limited by concerns about space availability." Arguing to merge a notable event into a biography simply because it's "preferable" risks being exactly that.

3. The "needed context" argument works against the merge. The rule asks: "Does other information provide needed context?" Here, the biography provides almost no needed context for the aviation accident. The context for the crash is the history of the aircraft, weather and investigation procedures — not the artist's musical career.

4. "What sourcing is available now?" supports a standalone stub with a future. The rule advises that a short page with potential for expansion "is better expanded than merged." This is a textbook example: sourcing is currently news-based, but the official investigation by Aerocivil guarantees future, in-depth WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Merging now would be premature and would require a later, more difficult spin-off. Shiningr3ds (talk) 13:58, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Let me repeat: the crash is totally run-of-the-mill from an aviation point of view. If Jiménez had not been on board, the crash would not have been notable at all and the article would in all likelihood have been deleted (judging by precedent from similar light aircraft accidents). Your putative reader seeking information on aviation safety in Colombia, Piper PA-31 accidents would quite rightly have found nothing in Wikipedia about this crash, because there's nothing encyclopedic about it from an aviation point of view. Once we exclude that non-encylopedic aviation-related information, all that's left are a few details about the music-related context which would be best covered in his bio.

As to the official investigation, that is not in any way a guarantee of future in-depth coverage. An official report will almost certainly be published, sure, and news outlets will no doubt pick up on that, but (again based on precedent from similar light aircraft accidents) it is highly unlikely that coverage of the official report will extend beyond a very short news cycle, or that the news coverage will contain in-depth analysis. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:32, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My position remains that a standalone article is the correct outcome per WP:PAGEDECIDE, precisely because of the unique confluence of factors you describe.

Your correct observation—that the crash is notable precisely and only because Yeison Jiménez was on board—defines a unique encyclopedic topic: "The fatal aviation accident that resulted in the death of notable person X." The "music-related context" is not incidental; it is the central, defining context of the accident itself. The purpose of a standalone article is to document this specific circumstance in full, which is a different scope from documenting the person's life and career. WP:PAGEDECIDE favors the format that best serves the reader's understanding of this specific context. A reader seeking to understand how, when, and where Yeison Jiménez died will not be best served by a brief section in a biography focused on his life and career. They will expect a detailed account of the flight, the investigation, and the official findings. A standalone article is the only format that can properly structure this information with appropriate weight, using standard aviation-accident sections.

The official investigation guarantees a minimum of encyclopedic content. Regardless of the news cycle, the final report will be an authoritative, primary source documenting the cause. This fulfills WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE by definition. A standalone article is the natural and organized place to archive this finding.

Your hypothetical scenario ("if Jiménez had not been on board...") is irrelevant. He was on board. This fact transformed an ordinary aviation incident into a nationally significant event, warranting a unique encyclopedic entry. The purpose of Wikipedia is to document what did happen, not what could have happened.

You evaluate the crash as an aviation event. I (and the sources) treat it as a notable incident involving a public figure. Per WP:PAGEDECIDE, the best way to cover such an incident is a dedicated page. To make this clear and address the «run-of-the-mill aviation» point, I formally propose renaming the article such as "Death of Yeison Jiménez". Shiningr3ds (talk) 18:05, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, my rationale above was based on the premise that, given the article title, we were considering this as an aviation event. I entirely agree that it is in fact primarily a notable incident involving a public figure, and would support your rename proposal if there is consensus to retain a dedicated article. However, there is very little to say about his death (particularly if we set aside the aviation-related details which you agree are not enyclopedic), and a dedicated Death of Yeison Jiménez article would no doubt remain a permanent stub; a single-paragraph "Death" section in his main bio article would be largely sufficient, in line with WP:PAGEDECIDE's reasoning that at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic and WP:PERMASTUB's note that [f]or some permastubs, the best course of action might be merging them into larger articles. Rosbif73 (talk) 10:54, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for agreeing to the rename. I must correct one point: I never stated that the aviation details are "not encyclopedic." I stated they were secondary to the event's notability, but the official investigation report will be a primary encyclopedic source. I must note, WP:PERMASTUB is an essay, not policy. It cannot override WP:PAGEDECIDE or notability guidelines. Thiis article is the opposite of a "permanent stub." It documents a major event with guaranteed WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE (the official report). Its counterparts in other language editions are actively expanded, proving its growth potential. Declaring it a "permastub" now is a WP:CRYSTALBALL — predicting the future without evidence.

You have conceded the event is notable and agreed to a rename. Therefore, the rational path forward is to rename the article to "Death of Yeison Jiménez" and allow editors (myself included) to develop it with the available and forthcoming sources. Shiningr3ds (talk) 12:33, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We'll have to agree to differ here. I would support the rename if there is consensus to retain a dedicated article, but I still believe the best path forward is to merge to Yeison Jiménez § Death. Rosbif73 (talk) 12:39, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

.Agreed. To small of a crash to have an entire Wikipedia page In my opinion Just MRT (talk) 13:46, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose. I'm here because my opinion was solicited after an edit I made on the article in question. It looks like a decent, well-sourced, and thorough article in itself. Start class, possibly even C class. One recent precedent I think of is the 2020 Calabasas helicopter crash, which killed Kobe Bryant, his daughter Gianna, John Altobelli, and six others. The crash involved one person, Kobe, who was already Wiki-notable, and latter two listed individuals had Wiki articles created for them the day of or day after the crash.

Even more recently was last month's 2025 North Carolina Cessna Citation II crash, which killed Greg Biffle. I believe Biffle was the only person on board who has a Wikipedia article, yet the existence of his airplane crash's article never seemed to be up for discussion. I think this crash's article and coverage would have great reference points for the coverage of the Colombia crash that happened this month.

If there is expanded notable coverage unique to the crash, then I'd support keeping the article. But with their being only one Wiki-notable person killed in the crash, I can see why a merging redirect would be warranted. But given the coverage it already has, there is a good case to keep the crash article. I'm not super-qualified to opine here, since I only know of Jiménez because of this crash. But if the information is full enough and verifiable enough, then I wouldn't think it necessary to take the crash article down. I was going to vote "neutral", but instead decided on "weak oppose". I think it is an article worth keeping, especially if there are details on the crash article that would be unfit or not as germane to the Yeison Jiménez article. Mungo Kitsch (talk)

Oppose Enough coverage for a stand alone available. An AfD would be better to discuss this in detail. ~2026-40301-8 (talk) 09:36, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:NOPAGE. It makes no sense to split this single topic across two articles. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 04:34, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The principle of WP:PAGEDECIDE (WP:NOPAGE, if that's more convenient for you), which you cite, does not mandate a merge per se; it guides us to choose the format that best serves reader understanding. As detailed in my earlier comments (1, 2), a standalone article under a title like "Death of Yeison Jiménez" or "Yeison Jiménez plane crash" is the format that best satisfies PAGEDECIDE's criteria for this specific notable incident. Shiningr3ds (talk) 04:55, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Temple–Baraitser syndrome and Zimmermann–Laband syndrome ⟶ KCNH1-related disorders (Discuss)

Robert F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories ⟶ Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy (Discuss)

Obi-Wan Kenobi Street ⟶ Obi-Wan Kenobi (Discuss)

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)[reply]

KWFO-FM ⟶ KWFI-FM (Discuss)

KWFO-FM has been tagged as having an active merge proposal into KWFI-FM, but there isn't currently an active proposal so I'm starting a discussion here. Milonica, is there a rationale for merging these? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 04:39, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

List of Lebanese in Syrian jails ⟶ Lebanese detainees in Syria (Discuss)

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)[reply]

Support - this should definitely be done as the other article is very bare-bones.

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

Legends Global ⟷ Legends Hospitality (Discuss)

List of Lensman planets ⟶ Lensman series (Discuss)

Shopping list ⟶ List (Discuss)

List of cities in the Philippines ⟶ List of cities and municipalities in the Philippines (Discuss)

List of historic companies in Omaha ⟶ List of companies based in Omaha (Discuss)

List of counties in Delaware ⟶ Delaware (Discuss)

List of Gentoo Linux derivatives ⟶ List of Linux distributions (Discuss)

I think the List of Gentoo Linux derivatives article should be merged to this one per WP:OVERLAP. The content could be copied over to the "Gentoo-based" section. Isi96 (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oriel Wind Farm ⟶ List of wind farms in the Republic of Ireland (Discuss)

Hi. I propose to merge/redirect this title to List of wind farms in the Republic of Ireland#Proposed. As an alternative to deletion. I propose this because there is no indication that the subject of this title (a title with promotional form/intent that was created [by a now banned contributor] barely a week after the titular company was formed) has any lasting or independent notability. The original titular subject (the company formed to promote a windfarm development) doesn't meet WP:NORG. And the current subject (the proposed windfarm development that doesn't appear to have advanced beyond planning phase in approaching 20 years) doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV. This title, frankly, likely shouldn't have been created in the first place. And that hasn't really changed in the 19 years since... Guliolopez (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bump. It's been about a week since my note above. Unless there are other thoughts in the coming days I am, as suggested by WP:MERGECLOSE, gonna close the discussion and move ahead with the merge. Guliolopez (talk) 10:42, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Llanrhydd#St Meugan's Church ⟶ St Meugan's Church, Llanrhydd (Discuss)

I propose merging the section about St Meugan's Church in the article about Llanrhydd and St Meugan's Church, Llanrhydd into the latter article. They cover the same topic, but partly different aspects of it. The information will be best kept in the subject-specific article. I do not expect any problems regarding article size. --Schlosser67 (talk) 21:07, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why this needs a merge proposal? Both articles are still being kept? Although Llanrhydd may be in disputed notability territory.

Makes sense to move/copy the more specific information to the specific subject in question. Although better to keep a WP:SUMMARY section at Llanrhydd? Dank Jae 21:39, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support this is about the church, I've added content to the village for the former parish. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:06, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Longfellow Boom ⟶ Longfellow, Minneapolis (Discuss)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Madison County, Mississippi Territory ⟶ Madison County, Alabama (Discuss)

Maimon ben Joseph ⟶ Maimonides (Discuss)

MainActor ⟶ MainConcept (Discuss)

Naming and Design Rules and Business metadata ⟶ Metadata (Discuss)

I propose merging Naming and Design Rulesand Business metadata into Metadata. 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) 00:51, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support per norm. RobotBlanket (talk) 00:08, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Middlebury Panthers women's ice hockey ⟶ Middlebury Panthers (Discuss)

Åland convention ⟶ Demilitarisation of Åland (Discuss)

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Moved as an uncontested request with minimal participation. If there is any objection within a reasonable time frame, please ask me to reopen the discussion; if I am not available, please ask at the technical requests page. (closed by non-admin page mover) HundredVisionsAndRevisions (talk) 17:42, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Military of Åland → Demilitarisation of Åland – No sources discuss the "military of Åland", while "demilitarisation of Åland" is a widely discussed (e.g. [23][24][25][26]), and is already the central topic of the article. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 09:26, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I also propose merging Åland convention here if the article is renamed. The two conventions discussed on that page are the formal treaties about the demilitarisation and can be discussed here very naturally. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 09:39, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Moonshine, New Zealand ⟶ Moonshine Valley, New Zealand (Discuss)

Sita Kund, Motihari ⟶ Motihari (Discuss)

Mugisha Muhanga Margaret ⟶ Margaret Annet Muhanga Mugisa (Discuss)

Schwan Super Rink ⟶ National Sports Center (Discuss)

Natpe Thunai (soundtrack) ⟶ Natpe Thunai (Discuss)

Quasi-experiment ⟶ Natural experiment (Discuss)

Davuilevu ⟶ Nausori (Discuss)

Nooksack Valley ⟶ Nooksack River (Discuss)

Ries impact ⟶ Nördlinger Ries (Discuss)

October 2025 Aleppo clashes, December 2025 Aleppo clashes and January 2026 Aleppo clashes ⟶ Northern Syria clashes (Discuss)

I re-propose merging October 2025 Aleppo clashes, December 2025 Aleppo clashes, and January 2026 Aleppo clashes into one unified article, Northern Syria clashes, per consistency with Western Syria clashes (name only). As @Ecrusized pointed out, all three articles have too little information to have their own separate articles. WP:UNDUE doesn't apply here; the merged article won't be too long. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 20:49, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support merging all 3 articles into one. Ecrusized (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support same clashes. Panam2014 (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support all these clashes (especially those in October and December) are small pages, and it would be good to put them together. Farcazo (talk) 22:57, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support Please make sure to add credible sources to the articles in that case and diversify from the outlandish claims SOHR makes compared to the reality on the ground. Daseyn (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Why would the article be called the northern syria clashes if the main campaign of the violence was in aleppo? Onegreatjoke (talk) 04:33, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Onegreatjoke I chose that name because Aleppo is geographically located in northern Syria. The proposed title is also consistent with Western Syria clashes. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 11:36, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support This makes sense since Aleppo is in Northern Syria, but it would have been better if it were called Aleppo clashes (2025–2026) because all three clashes take place entirely in Aleppo. Kajmer05 (talk) 12:09, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Kajmer05 The disabig is unnecessary, maybe Aleppo clashes would be more suitable (I'll stick to Northern Syria clashes for now) Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 12:12, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Aleppo clashes could have been better. For now, I won't say anything other than Support. Kajmer05 (talk) 12:25, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
~~:::Aleppo clashes might be a more appropriate title for the article, as other users have suggested. Kajmer05 (talk) 22:45, 20 January 2026 (UTC)~~[reply]
Support for Aleppo clashes (2025–2026)/Oppose for Northern Syria clashes Since all three clashes mentioned took place in Aleppo, and given that the first two clashes occurred in 2025 and the last one ended in 2026, the Aleppo clashes (2025–2026) would be a more appropriate title. Kajmer05 (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't know about the merger, but the name would be very wide for three things that happened in one city because other clashes happened in northern areas outside of Aleppo city (Eastern countryside of Aleppo governorate) and are still happening now in and around Deir Hafir and a big military operation is reportedly about to start. So the name should either be appropriately clarifying it's just about the city, or those clashes should be in the article as well. I personally think the clashes in the city should be alone and not mixed with other clashes in the north.

- RamiPat (talk) 12:16, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Against this merger as "Northern Syria clashes" makes no sense, considering fighting was mostly contained in the city of Aleppo. The argument that it's consistent with Western Syria clashes doesn't hold water, considering the fighting and there occurred across multiple governorates. Would support Aleppo clashes. Sisuvia (talk) 00:42, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - even if this merge would succeed and that consensus would be reached, there is a possibility that it may be moved to Aleppo clashes rather than Northern Syria clashes, as the argument to move it there instead might be greater for consensus to move it there instead. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 01:12, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - like others i think it should stay "Aleppo" and the fighting clearly focus on the city, 2nd i think the phases should still be shown in the date paramteter of the infobox if we merge them Braganza (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

in general neutral Braganza (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is also another article 2026 northeastern Syria offensive. Perhaps merge this one as well. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:32, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the idea of merging the northeastern offensive and the aleppo clashes since those are two very different events. The Aleppo clashes have too much separate history to be merged into that article. I still support merging the Aleppo clashes into one article however.Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:01, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've laid off the modified request due to the two additional articles merging. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 19:49, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – I agree that the proposed merge would be inappropriate and would massively expand the scope of any one existing article. I also agree with the "aleppo clashes" article idea Jcgaylor (talk) 22:36, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the proposed merge would be inappropriate and would massively expand the scope of any one existing article. I also agree with the "aleppo clashes" article idea I'm confused. Are you supporting a merge to Aleppo clashes or do you oppose the merge altogether, even with the Aleppo clashes name? Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 01:21, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose the proposed merge–merging the three articles into one titled "Northern Syrian clashes". I agree with the idea of merging the three articles into one article titled "Aleppo clashes". Jcgaylor (talk) 01:40, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your clarification. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 01:41, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support @Jcgaylor's proposition. Something like "Aleppo clashes (2025–2026)" would be appropriate. Hsnkn (talk) 01:53, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per @Jcgaylor’s idea, “Aleppo clashes (2025–2026)” would be better, since the government successfully conquered SDF territory. HurricaneEdgar 02:39, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:PAGEDECIDE. I'm fine with whatever title. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:23, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014 Bering Sea cyclone ⟷ Typhoon Nuri (2014) (Discuss)

Safety statement ⟶ Occupational safety and health (Discuss)

Hi. I propose to redirect this title to Occupational_safety_and_health#Ireland and to add a short note (explaining what a "safety statement" is) to that article/section. I propose this, frankly, as an alternative to deletion. As there is nothing to indicate that this single type of document (statutory or not) has independent notability. A very short note within another title would seem more than sufficient to cover this topic. Guliolopez (talk) 19:36, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bump. Unless there are any other thoughts, I will go ahead with the proposed merge/redirect in the coming days. Guliolopez (talk) 03:30, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget to tag both pages with the merge discussion; I've now tagged the Occupational safety and health page with this proposal, so perhaps that will generate more expert eyes! Klbrain (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Moltbook ⟶ OpenClaw (Discuss)

Oppose - Moltbook was designed to be client-neutral, and some people have it working with ChatGPT Agent Mode. Also, it looks like Moltbook might end up getting more mainstream press than OpenClaw; time will tell. Amientan (talk) 18:23, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Looking at the three reliable sources on Moltbook, the sources do not indicate that these are the same topic. They indicate independent notability.Czarking0 (talk) 19:50, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Moltbook should not be merged into openclaw. SpyC0der77Alt (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - My review left me feeling Moltbook wasn't just limited to OpenClaw and had the potential to be platform agnostic.BcRIPster (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Nom looks like Twinkle ate my nom text. The notability comes from the agents using the site, and the name tracks that. Agree: lots of news sources. Widefox; talk 02:04, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the article is few days old, give it few weeks to be able to better judge if it should have a standalone article or be merged with the mother company. Rap no Davinci (talk) 14:04, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The article is "self-sustainable", i guess. I believe this can last for more than just a quick news cycle. SeldomSeldom — Preceding undated comment added 04:49, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support. They're essentially the same subject and is unlikely to last a news cycle. Stifle (talk) 09:44, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Marićevića jaruga ⟶ Orašac (Aranđelovac) (Discuss)

Commentary on Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid ⟶ Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid (Discuss)

Papaoutai (2025 cover) ⟶ Papaoutai (Discuss)

National Peace Council (Ghana) ⟶ Peace Council (Ghana) (Discuss)

Arlin R. Horton Sports Center ⟶ Pensacola Christian College (Discuss)

Greater Pittston ⟶ Pittston, Pennsylvania (Discuss)

I propose merging Greater Pittston into Pittston, Pennsylvania. "Greater Pittston" is not really used at all in media or considered a "region" at all, and the article does not provide any reliable sources using this term. Pittston is part of the greater Wyoming Valley, which is well-known as a region of Pennsylvania. Red0ctober22 (talk) 21:15, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: It is a sub-region within the Wyoming Valley. There are prominent groups and organizations (Chamber of Commerce) in the area with the title "Greater Pittston". I don't know how much of the "Greater Pittston" article (pictures and wording), which has been around for decades on Wikipedia, will be shifted into the "Pittston" article. How much will be left out?

The sub-region is very culturally linked together.

"The article does not provide any reliable sources using this term [Greater Pittston]". If sources were provided, would that provide enough weight to keep the article?

My suggestion is to change the Greater Pittston's article label from "region" to "sub-region" (instead of a merger). ~2026-66516-8 (talk) 15:31, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a good suggestion to change to a sub-region. And yes, if we find reliable sources referring to Greater Pittston, that would really affirm the article as being sufficient. The main need right now is for improved citations.

My issue is, certainly areas like Greater Scranton or Greater Wilkes-Barre are more notable than Greater Pittston, so I'm really just trying to understand why those areas don't have their own pages and this one does. It could just be because no one has gotten to creating it yet, which is perfectly fine. Red0ctober22 (talk) 00:56, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You make an excellent point regarding Greater Scranton and Greater Wilkes-Barre. It may be that no one got around to creating those pages just yet.

I have added just shy of a dozen sources mentioning "Greater Pittston".

I have also classified it as a sub-region within the Wyoming Valley.

I am looking forward to your feedback. ~2026-66516-8 (talk) 23:41, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Commodity plastics ⟶ Plastic (Discuss)

Merge Commodity plastics into plastic. Reasoning: Commodity plastics are the most important plastics, at least judging from volume and impact on aspects of society. So that material should be central to plastic.--Smokefoot (talk) 00:52, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Monthly income preferred stock ⟶ Preferred stock (Discuss)

I propose merging Monthly income preferred stock into Preferred stock. I think the content in 'Monthly income preferred stock' can easily be explained in the context of this article, and merging them would not cause any article-size or weighting problems. Duncnbiscuit (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Grounded in the Stars ⟶ Thomas J Price (Discuss)

Project 1204 ⟷ Shmel-class patrol boat (Discuss)

Effects of climate change on mental health ⟶ Psychological impact of climate change (Discuss)

Flour kurabiye ⟶ Qurabiya (Discuss)

Sam Raimi's unrealized projects ⟶ Sam Raimi (Discuss)

Sam Raimi's unrealized projects has been tagged as being subject of a merge proposal, but no proposal has been made so I'm opening one here. I'm inclined to support a merger, but it would need to be more concise than a list of subheadings. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 04:54, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the template on this page from {{merge to}} to {{merge from}} because I'm pretty sure we want to keep this page. :-) — Chrisahn (talk) 05:35, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a strong opinion, but I don't think a merger would be useful. I had a quick look at Sam Raimi's unrealized projects. Looks well-sourced and well-written. I don't see an obvious way to make it more concise. Sam Raimi's unrealized projects is longer than Sam Raimi, merging them would bloat the latter. — Chrisahn (talk) 05:44, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Trollface 2006ALT: You proposed the merge. What are your thoughts? — Chrisahn (talk) 05:47, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that grouping them together would make it easier to find since it talks about his main projects; it could be in topic format. i think Trollface 2006ALT (talk) 14:58, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Registered share ⟷ Secondary shares (Discuss)

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)[reply]

Ecclesiastical titles and styles ⟶ List of religious titles and styles (Discuss)

Sadbhavna Express (via Faizabad) ⟷ Sadbhavna Express (Discuss)

Sadbhavna Express (via Sagauli) ⟶ Sadbhavna Express (Discuss)

St. Aloysius Industrial Training Institute ⟷ St. Aloysius, Mangaluru (Discuss)

St. Karen's Montessori School ⟶ St. Karen's High School, Patna (Discuss)

Dan Hernandez ⟶ Benji Samit (Discuss)

Samsung Galaxy A02s ⟶ Samsung Galaxy A02 (Discuss)

Sigemund the Wælsing ⟶ Sigmund (Discuss)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sikkim Manipal University, Ghana Learning Centre, Accra ⟶ Sikkim Manipal University (Discuss)

Skancke ⟷ Skanke (noble family) (Discuss)

Sky Broadband ⟶ Sky UK (Discuss)

List of Star Detective Precure! episodes ⟶ Star Detective Precure! (Discuss)

Imperia Online JSC ⟶ Stillfront Group (Discuss)

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)[reply]

Barrel organ ⟶ Street organ (Discuss)

Chemical structure ⟶ Structural chemistry (Discuss)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

I think you are thinking about chemical structure diagrams. All real chemical structures are 3D. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hertzsprung gap ⟶ Subgiant (Discuss)

Proposing that Hertzsprung gap be merged into subgiant, specifically the "Mass 1 to 8 M☉" section. The Hertzsprung gap article is basically a dictionary definition, that might fit better as part of a larger article as opposed to a standalone one. Wormsward (talk) 12:41, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support, but then I did make the suggestion in the first place, so I may be biased. Lithopsian (talk) 16:09, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for your help, lol Wormsward (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (favouring expansion of current article) per WP:POTENTIAL. I've been thinking about this since proposing a WP:MERGEPROP over a WP:BOLD merger, and I think I lean towards keeping. Textbooks like KWW devote nontrivial page counts to the gap, and the current article -- while being little more than a dictionary definition -- has quite a bit it doesn't cover. I'll give improving the article a go over the next ~24 hours. MrSeabody (talk) 08:46, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Shamishi ⟶ Tamriyeh (Discuss)

TFI Anseo ⟶ TFI Local Link (Discuss)

The subject of this article appears to be a PRODUCT or service of the organisation that operates it. And, even ignoring the somewhat promotional tone, how it works content and list of prices from our website stuff that appears to be out of project scope, I don't see how a standalone title here is warranted. All of the sources here are the operating org's own website and, if we scale back the text to what independent sources can support, we have barely a few lines that could easily be covered WP:WITHIN a section of the article on the operating/parent org. If this product/service has notability independent of TFI Local Link, then how does it? And where are the sources which discuss this TFI Local Link product/service as an entity in its own right? How is independent notability demonstrated? Guliolopez (talk) 20:17, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for setting out your concerns in detail. Feel free to change the wording if it seems too promotional, as that was not my intent, though I do not believe it is.

As for merging, my view is that TFI Anseo is not simply a branded product of TFI Local Link, but a distinct, unique service operating under the TFI umbrella and delivered by multiple (three as of now) Local Link operators. It is not tied to a single operating organisation in the way WP:PRODUCT generally envisages. Local Link Kerry, Local Link Mayo and Local Link Clare-Limerick are all independent Companies Limited by Guarantee (CLG).

I accept independent sourcing is currently weak here, but the vast majority of the available coverage is institutional in nature, coming from public transport bodies and of course TFI themselves rather than from third parties, It is very likely more coverage will become available through 2026 as the service expands. This is not justification to merge the article.

If, after making necessary changes, consensus is that the content is better covered within TFI Local Link, I'm open to a merge. My main concern is ensuring the subject is accurately represented as a scheme rather than reduced to a brief operational note. TFI Anseo is a new, unique system. It has expanded (and most definetely will in the future), and if so, it could happen that it would take up a disproporationate amount of space on the TFI Local Link article and discussion might be brought up to seperate the two topics again.

Riversting (talk) 13:33, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your note @Riversting:. In terms of:

"TFI Anseo is a 'scheme' across multiple orgs rather than a 'service' of one org". In honesty, and while WP:NPRODUCT does typically relate to the latter, the core principle (the spirit) of the notability of individual services would still seem to apply. In that, unless the service (or "scheme" or "system" or whatever) is covered in sources which deal with it independent of the org(s) that operate it, it perhaps doesn't have independent notability.
"Local Link Kerry, Local Link Mayo and Local Link Clare-Limerick are all independent Companies Limited by Guarantee (CLG)". And yet they are all dealt with, together, under the TFI Local Link article. In a manner which, in all honesty, seems perfectly reasonable. As each smaller/local company likely doesn't have notability independent of the "brand" or service. Any more than individual Super Valu branches (each with separate owners/operators) have independent notability. Or the fact that 'Dunnes Stores (Cork) Limited' is, technically, a separate entity from 'Dunnes Stores (Limerick) Limited' or 'Dunnes Stores (Galway) Limited' would justify the existence of separate articles for each. Or a separate article for the Dunnes Stores loyalty scheme or other programs operated across each.
"The lack of non-independent sources is not justification to merge the article". Yes. Flatly. It is. A lack of independent sources is often, in fact, taken as justification for deletion of the article. All of the sources (even the 'transport.ec.europa.eu' source which is an acknowledged reprint of the original press release) are non-independent. I'd actually proposed the merge as an alternative to the AfD process. But happy to seek broader consensus via AfD if needed.
"Very likely more coverage will become available through 2026 as the service expands". Notability is determined by the independent coverage that exists now. Not what coverage might (or might not) potentially exist in the future.
"If the existing TFI Anseo text is merged into TFI Local Link, it will be disproportionate". I disagree. The existing TFI Anseo text is ~240 words in length. ~80 words of which already appear on the TFI Local Link article. An extra ~160 words or so is not excessive.
"If the existing TFI Anseo text is expanded in the future, that will be a problem". If it becomes a problem, then it can be split later.

Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 16:03, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RARRES1 ⟶ TIG1 (Discuss)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ukrainian desertion crisis ⟶ Ukrainian conscription crisis (Discuss)

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. [27][28][29] Desertions are a way to resist conscription, i.e. a deserter’s nightmare is the “conscription patrols”[30]. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 07:00, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ukraine and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 07:09, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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: [31] 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) [32] F.Alexsandr (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Support merge as proposer, and rename article to Ukraine's manpower crisis, as that is also supported by sources.[33] [34] [35] [36] [37] @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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

I'd much rather not have the male-only "manpower". Tony (talk) 06:05, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Manpower is gender-neutral ("man" here means "human"). Smeagol 17 (talk) 09:00, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Tony (talk) 10:25, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. https://www.etymonline.com/word/manpower Smeagol 17 (talk) 11:05, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is the terminology sources use, e.g. [38] [39] TurboSuperA+_[talk] 10:30, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It works brilliantly: "Women provided the manpower in the domestic economy". Tony (talk) 04:49, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does. Smeagol 17 (talk) 06:08, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Oppose. Tony (talk) 02:24, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Because of your gender related arguments above? TylerBurden (talk) 12:02, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Venality ⟶ Venal office (Discuss)

History of videotelephony ⟶ Videotelephony (Discuss)

History of waste management ⟶ Waste management (Discuss)

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)[reply]

Johannesburg Emergency Water Supply ⟶ Water supply and sanitation in South Africa (Discuss)

Draft:Chilled watermelon ⟶ Watermelon (Discuss)

Another editor created a draft, Draft:Chilled watermelon, which is a way to prepare a watermelon for eating. The draft lacks sources, but if you can find some, the topic could be merged into Watermelon rathe than becoming a separate article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:56, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WVSSAC Super Six Football Championships ⟶ West Virginia High School Football State Championships and playoff history (Discuss)

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)[reply]

Iotyrris ⟶ Xenuroturris (Discuss)

I propose to merge Iotyrris here as it is a synonym (since 2024). The details are in Iotyrris#Taxonomy. Викидим (talk) 01:19, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. I've never before seen an article that acknowledges in detail that the topic is a synonym of another taxon. Usually synonymic articles are accidents. Merge per WP:NSPECIES.

I guess the articles like Iotyrris devoizei should all be moved, too? Cremastra (talk · contribs) 15:44, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume so, but I am no expert. I have started this thread precisely to consult other editors before embarking on a major restructuring that would be hard to undo. After all, this is just one article telling us so. Then, these species are so obscure that another detailed study is unlikely to come. Викидим (talk) 19:19, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Then, these species are so obscure that another detailed study is unlikely to come. Sadly, this applies to a great many of our articles on invertebrates. Too many scientists researching monkeys and nuthatches and not enough looking at crickets and slugs. I guess it has to do with grant funding as well. I wouldn't know, because I'm not in academia. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 21:04, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Articles currently being merged

Archives

2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025

If a merge discussion has been closed with consensus to merge, you can optionally list it here to attract editors interested in carrying out the merge. Any editor can then perform these merges by following the merging instructions.

To list a closed merge proposal, place this at the bottom of this section:

* '''Merge''' [[Source page]] into [[Destination page]]. {{Discussing|talk=Talk:Destination page#Section name}} ~~~~

Jump to a random article from the active mergers backlog!

Merge a random article!

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies Volunteer response team Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	AI Cleanup Bad image list Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion Deletion review
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards

Articles proposed for merging

June 2025

August 2025

September 2025

Arbitrary break

October 2025

November 2025

Customary break

December 2025

January 2026

Arbitrary break

Articles currently being merged

See also